Recovery Room — Installment #4: Critiquing the Critics
Filed Under (Roderick's Posts, hyperpreterism) by Roderick_E on 23-03-2008
Tagged Under : recovery room
It is time to turn our attention toward the critics of hyperpreterism. Our first question is, should every critique of hyperpreterism be lauded as a good thing simply because it is being critical of what we consider an error? This concept of being happy with all critiques of hyperpreterism is perhaps based on the old axiom; “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. We do not agree with this sentiment because often, the critiques are the very “enablers” of hyperpreterism. For instance, Thomas Ice is the general editor of an anti-hyperpreterist book called “The End Times Controversy” – the book’s authors are mainly from a dispensationalist background. Dispensationalism is as much an error as hyperpreterism & is probably the very thing that has caused so many people to over react & embrace hyperpreterism. Therefore, joining with one error to refute another error is ultimately self-defeating & hypocritical.
Another approach to refuting hyperpreterism is to simply rely on what I call the initial shock factor. The initial shock factor works simply by stating the basic premises of hyperpreterism & waiting for people to respond in shock; “They believe what?? That’s crazy!” Sometimes the refutation goes no further. Such a course of refutation will only embolden hyperpreterists to claim they & they alone are making an “exegetical” case whereas they will claim their critics are merely using “fear” & shock.
The most honest attempt at refuting hyperpreterism comes from a verse-by-verse (completely exegetical) interaction with the premises of hyperpreterism. The only problem with this approach is that hyperpreterism so redefines accepted theological terms that trying to interact with hyperpreterism exegetically is like trying to interact with Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witness theology who also claim to quote from the Bible but also have redefined theological terms and ignore historical Christian interpretation.
There are some points where those attempting to refute hyperpreterism need to do a better job so that there is no confusion & no cracks to let hyperpreterism continue to seep in. Here are a few points where I think historic Christianity can do a better job at refuting & preventing hyperpreterism & other yet to be born heresies.
HOW TO BETTER REFUTE HYPERPRETERISM
- Explain the difference between Sola Scriptura & Solo Scriptura.
- Do not advocate a “type” of coming of Jesus in AD70.
- Explain something better than the “already-not-yet” premise.
- Do not arbitrarily split chapters/verses where no indication to do so is given.
- Explain that the time-texts speak not of Jesus’ return to earth but His coming into His Kingdom.
- Clearly, boldly refute the error of dispensationalism. (name names if needed)
- Explain that “creed” simply means “belief” thus all Christians have a “creed”
POINT #1
I have said this over & over many places but the root of all heresies, be it Arianism or hyperpreterism or some yet to be born heresy – all seem to have one thing in common – each claims it is simply interpreting only the Bible. Yet, also each of these heresies have done so by ignoring historic Christian interpretation & striking out completely disconnected from historic Christianity. We need to do a better job at explaining what Sola Scriptura really means. It does not mean private interpretation or a “just me & Jesus” approach. It means Scripture is the ultimate source of truth but that even Scripture must be considered in light of that God has led the Church throughout all of history & thus the historic Christian interpretation takes precedent over our private interpretations.
POINT #2
When historic Christians advocate Jesus “kind of” came back in AD70 but only in judgment they fall into the trap of hyperpreterism which will immediately ask how the historic Christian can advocate three comings of Christ. Whereas if the historic Christian understands that many of the New Testament texts speaking of Jesus’ “coming” do NOT speak of His coming BACK TO EARTH, but rather of His coming INTO HIS KINGDOM before the Father…before the Ancient of Days (compare Dan 7:13 with Mt 26:64). The judgment seen in the N.T. upon the Jews as the judgment exacted not by the Son but rather by the Father – it is the judgment spoken of in the Landowner/vinedressers parable in Mt 21:33-46. Jesus didn’t “come back in judgment” in AD70 but indeed the Landowner did exact judgment on the vinedressers for their many years of killing the prophets & ultimately their attempt to kill the heir so that these violent men attempted to take the kingdom by violence (Mt 11:12) but instead the kingdom was handed over to those who bear the fruit of it. THAT is what was going on in AD70, NOT some earthly return of Jesus.
POINT #3
There are some historic Christians that when they attempt to refute hyperpreterism, they speak of the “now-not-yet” or the “already-not-yet” concept. This is a duality concept that purports that N.T. prophecy was being fulfilled in the first-century AND is yet to be fulfilled. At first, hyperpreterism would seem to easily counter this claim but think about John 11:1-44 – this is the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. I don’t think even a hyperpreterist would deny that this was a physical bringing back to life of Lazarus. But what I want to point out is the exchange Jesus had with one of Lazarus’ sisters:
| Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” |
What is this distinction Jesus is making here? We know that hyperpreterism claims that the Resurrection was in AD70 & was merely the “Resurrection of Israel” but what is it Jesus is saying here…waaaaay before AD70? This is what I mean by hyperpreterism often sees a word or term & thinks it means the same thing every place it is used. Rather, Jesus seems to be endorsing the “already-not-yet” concept. Martha thinks the Resurrection only pertains to the “last day” but Jesus makes the point that those who believe on Him even now (before AD70) have life & never die. The irony is, that this entire object lesson is framed around an obvious PHYSICAL resurrection of Lazarus. Three TYPES of resurrection encapsulated in these verses & hyperpreterism has the nerve to claim historic Christianity’s concept of rebirth/resurrection at the moment of belief AND a specifically appointed day of resurrection is contradictory?
POINT #4
The Bible does indeed often utilize just segments of an entire context & relate it to a specific fulfillment. You can see this all over the place in relation to Jesus when seeing O.T. texts referenced. Perhaps the one of most famous is Isaiah 7: 10-19 wherein is contained the sentence:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14)
This verse is often given as a prophecy of Jesus’ miraculous virgin birth but if you look at the larger context of Isaiah 7, you will note that even if we accept this sentence as relating to Jesus, many other parts of the context are not carried over as relating to Jesus. Plus, we must realize that this prophecy is indeed a “dual” prophecy since the events of Isa 7 were specifically about events of that time AND used as a prophecy of the future.
Where hyperpreterists complain the most though is in Mt 24 where I have seen several historic Christians claim that verses 1-35 all speak of the events in the first-century but that starting at verse 36 the context changes & speaks of things yet future to us. The historic Christian is going to need to do a better job at explaining these verses even if the splitting of these verses is accurate, it often is not explained clearly & sounds weak.
POINT #5
Where hyperpreterism tries to build its strongest case is the so-called time-texts. These are texts in the N.T. that seem to speak of Jesus’ soon/shortly/at hand/about to be/within this generation return TO EARTH. What happens is that the dispensationalists will use these same verses to claim Jesus is soon/shortly/at hand/about to be/within this generation return any moment now whereas the historic Christians (sometimes specifically labeled “partial-preterists”) will agree with the hyperpreterists that the time-texts are confined to the first-century & therein the partial-preterists often insert that Jesus “came in judgment”. Again, this premise allows the hyperpreterist to badger the “partial-preterists” with the mantra of inconsistency. The hyperpreterists will further point out that “even the creeds do not speak of three comings of Jesus” & will claim that so even the partial-preterists are “unorthodox”. The pitfall comes in by the historic Christian’s assertion that the judgment was by Jesus – rather & again, the judgment was not by the Son, but by the hand of the Father in vengeance against the vinedressers attempting to kill the heir/Son & take the inheritance by force. (see point #2) The time-texts can be properly seen as first-century if we also understand that they do not relate to Jesus’ return to earth but only to His taking the throne at the right-hand of the Father. Indeed that was soon/shortly/at hand/about to be/within this generation & did happen just as Jesus had declared.
POINT #6
Any extended interaction with hyperpreterists will reveal most of them are former dispensationalists. It will also reveal their wounds. They seem to be over-reacting to dispensationalism’s horrid hermeneutic. Most hyperpreterists have very little background in solid Reformed or historic Christianity. Thus if we really want to stop the bleeding, we need to find the source & I believe that source is dispensationalism. We need to tie off that rupture as much as possible so that less & less people are apt to over-react when they figure out that the dispensationalism that they had embraced for so many years is bogus.
POINT #7
So many Christians, especially modern Evangelicals, Protestants, & even those embracing postmodernistic views are so conditioned to despise “tradition” & “creeds” that hyperpreterism has taken it open itself to assault “creedalism” whenever possible. To the on-looker it may appear that hyperpreterism is then the champion of “scripture alone” whereas historic Christianity is merely “churchianity”. This is appealing to many. But the problem is that many people do not understand that the word creed (from credo) simply means “belief”. Unless the anti-creeds people are claiming they don’t actually believe anything, then it is silly for them to reject the concept of creed. Yet, they will counter by saying they have “No creed but Christ” & the “Scripture alone”. These platitudinous statements are nonsensical because of course even these folks believe & don’t believe certain things and those things are their “creed”. What we historic Christians are asking is how these “no creed” folks have the gall to think they alone, disconnected from all of historic Christianity can decide what “creed” they hold & what creed they don’t. This really is the height of arrogance on their part. And saying they have no creed when they clearly MUST have a creed is just further reason to suspect they are either dishonest or very, very confused.
CONCLUSION
With that I leave you with an excellent link to a list of authors who have attempted to refute hyperpreterism. As you read their various books & articles, see if you can spot the things I speak about in this article. Perhaps even write them & help them better refute hyperpreterism from all angles. The more people are safe-guarded & rescued from this growing heresy of hyperpreterism the better.
See this great list compiled by Dee Dee, who attempt to refute the error of hyperpreterism
http://www.preteristsite.com/contrahym.html
Hi Rod,
Again, some great points! I’ve posted this whole series to my blog. Although I don’t agree with everything said, I feel you’ve done more to bring out the historicity factor than anyone else. I’ve been leaning toward more historic conformity ever since I left F.P., and it’s come to the point now where I won’t even discuss doctrine with anyone on a “Bible alone” basis. I’ve already expended too much energy chasing people around and around in circles, and it’s never gone anywhere. I wonder why??? It’s taken awhile, but I’ve come to learn that anyone can prove anything out of the Bible. Although I’ll always be an evangelical, at this point in my Christian walk I have to realize that I am not really in entire agreement w/ certain evangleical principles. I tend to identify with the historic Anglican balance of “Reason, Tradition, and the Word of God.” This puts me midway between the ancient church and that of the Reformation. But, every man must stand at his own post. Fact is, if we had followed the methods of the Nicene fathers, we never would have gotten into this dilemma. Preterism taught me, more than anything else, what happens when we disconnect ourselves from the historic witness of Christianity. Yet it is just one manifestation of an ever-present problem. At any rate, I appreciate what you, Dee Dee, and others have done in standing against the extremes. Nobody who’s been seriously keeping track of what’s been going on this last year can deny that Hyper Preterism is a dying movement. Like all heresies, it will dwindle away of its own accord, however the seeds of it may remain indefinitely. Of course, the drawback of H.P. (and all Gnostic/ subjective systems) is that it takes so long to explain to people. most Christians don’t have the time to sit and listen to these people for hours and hours and hours.. etc. It is only, as I’ve said, the “seekers” who are baited by these views. But as long as we have sound orthodox principles, there should be no need for seeking a new system. You’re right that Dispensationalism is a problem, but I don’t tend to rate it as high a danger as yourself. But I agree that the answer to an extreme is not an opposite extreme. When these extremes begin to catch fire the only solution is to go back and find how the doctrines have always been understood by the church. Once again, I attribute 90% of today’s heresies to the principles of “private judgment.” Obviously, there is always a certain amount of private judgment allowable, even necessary, but it is equally wrong to exalt our own judgment to levels of popish infallibility– as John Dryden once remarked. But enough rambling. Once again, I enjoyed the articles! If any more material comes along in the future, please let me know and I’ll pin it up to my blog.
Peace and Health,
Brian
A hearty amen to that list.
It’s high time orthodox folks stop saying things like “Jesus returned (in judgment) in 70 A.D.” and connect the Olivet Discourse to the Daniel prophecies where the “coming” is one to HEAVEN, and it’s also high time we stop relying on vague “transition texts” as a main argument against Hymenaenism (not that they are, for sure, incorrect, but it certainly shouldn’t be our main argument.)
Roderick,
I have to disagree with your statement below:
“Jesus didn’t “come back in judgment” in AD70 but indeed the Landowner did exact judgment on the vinedressers for their many years of killing the prophets & ultimately their attempt to kill the heir so that these violent men attempted to take the kingdom by violence (Mt 11:12) but instead the kingdom was handed over to those who bear the fruit of it. THAT is what was going on in AD70, NOT some earthly return of Jesus.”
You probably don’t want to hear this, but I think you are overlooking some things. For example consider the parable of the minas. It shows Jesus coming to destroy the citizens who did not want him to rule over them (i.e. the Jews)
“Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to him who has ten minas.’ (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given: and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’” Luke 19:11-27
Jesus comes at AD 70 and destroys the subjects that rejected Him and fully sets up His kingdom. I could add other Scriputres. For example Rev. 19:11-21 shows Jesus coming to earth at AD 70 to defeat the beast. Or do you think Rev. 19:11-21 is still future?
Duncan
Duncan, glad to see you here. The parable of the minas is also NOT about a Second Coming of Jesus. First, your supposing that Lk 19:11-27 speaks of Jesus’ Second Coming fails to see that if Jesus was talking about going away into a far country as in His ascension then the analogy would break down because Jesus most certainly DIDN’T leave the Jews to “do his business til He comes”. The only way Lk 19:11-27 could work for a Second Coming text is if you have those who were supposed to be “doing his business” being Christians but then you would lose the element of the Jerusalem destruction….since it would be pointless for Jesus to destroy a Jewish city over unfaithful Christians.
However, if we tie together the Landowner parable AND Lk 19:11-27 we see God having set up the Jews, who were supposed to be advancing the kingdom…even to the Gentiles (tending the “garden”). As a matter of fact it was BEFORE AD70 when the Jews would not have “this man ruling over them” & even attempted to kill Him forever — this man being Jesus even BEFORE His crucifixion. So, the “coming” here can only be equated with Jesus’ earthly ministry & the destruction of Jerusalem at that time. It does not require Jesus coming a second time at the AD70 event. Jesus DIDN’T attempt to “rule over them” after AD70, they were simply wiped out.
Roderick
I think the parable answers your point of disagreement. There are two groups of people: the nobleman’s servants and the citizens who didn’t want him to ruler over him. The citizens immediately sent a delegation to protest his receiving a kingdom, they did not wait for him to come back to protest. When he came back he rewarded his servants and destroyed those who did not want him to rule over him. Notice Jesus was saying the kingdom would not appear immediately (v. 11) but when he returned. Seems pretty clear to me.
What about the coming of Jesus to defeat the beast in Revelation 19:11-21. Do you say that is also not a coming or do you say it didn’t happen AD 70?
Duncan
D’ooh! I wish there was an edit button. Just is case it is not clear, I meant to say “the citizens who did not want him to rule over them”
Duncan
Some good points, Duncan, but I still think there are strong arguments for the king being God and not specifically Jesus.
The Jews in Luke 19, you are correct, think the kingdom is going to appear at once. His parable is a warning to the Jews, presumably those who wanted to inaugurate it by war, etc., telling them that those who do not follow God’s plan would be judged, cast out of the kingdom. On these points I think we would agree.
However, N.T. Wright suggests that the servants are actually the Jews who were given the task back in ancient Israel to fulfill God’s plans, to bless the nations, to be a light unto the Gentiles, etc. However, their constant failures prevented this. Now that Jesus has come to be “true Israel” and be the true light unto the Gentiles, the Jews who do not join up with Jesus’ plan for the kingdom will face God’s judgment (Wright calls this “Yahweh returning to Zion” in the sense of his presence in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, in a very new sense…I have to look into that a little more.)
In this paradigm, the unfaithful servants are, again, the Jews, perhaps more specifically the Pharisees and leaders…anyone entrusted specifically with Israel’s task. The faithful Jews who followed God’s plan through jesus would be the loyal servants. The protesting citizens were ALL disloyal Jews who refused the kingdom. The king is God, whose rule is enacted through Jesus.
Not that, if such a view were wrong, it would mean death for orthodox preterism and vindication for hyper-preterism. But I think this is probably a preferable way to look at it in light of the vineyard parable and such.
Dave,
Again it seems pretty clear to me. The nobleman who left is the nobleman who returns. Jesus (who is God in the flesh) left and received a kingdom at AD 30 (Dan. 7:13-14 is the ascension cf. Matt. 28:18). At AD 70 He would return and share His reign with His servants (cf. Rev. 2:25-27; 3:21-22).
Duncan
Duncan,
I’m still with you…it just gets busy around here during the week. I will work with Revelation 19:11-21 sometime this week. As for the apparent contrast between the Landowner/vinedressers parable & the Minas/Talents parable — we must (as I’m sure you agree) not pit one against the other, thus undermining the entire validity of Scripture but rather we need to reconcile them. We need to see if the totality of the message supports a view over another.
Dave brought some good points forward. It is NOT about the Son having vengence, but the Father. The Jews were the ones that had been tending the garden, & were trying to take the kingdom by force — hence those who wanted not for “this man to rule over them” (Mat 11:12). Again, one parable enlightens the other & in one we clearly see it was NOT the Son/Heir taking vengence but rather the Father. The Minas parable is not as clear as to who is doing the judging, thus let us be informed by the clearer account.
Let’s get into it more soon,
–Roderick
Ok sorry for the bit of delay there Duncan. About Rev 19:11-21 (see this link for online reference: Rev 19:11-21)
As you may know, I was slated to be part of a “full preterist” response book to Keith Mathison’s book “When Shall These Things Be”. I have obviously since resigned from that project. But while in the midst of that project, I was writing a chapter by chapter commentary on the book of Revelation. At the time I had made it through chapter 12 before I could go no further due to my increasing conflict with hyperpreterism. I now want to go back through the Olivet Discourse synoptics & chapter by chapter through Revelation from the historical Christian perspective — BEFORE the advent of dispensationalism.
So for now, verse 19 seems to reveal something to consider:
“And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.”
What does hyperpreterism claim happened in AD70? Did Jesus defeat the “the kings of the earth & their armies”? Is not this often depicted as the Romans yet the Romans were not defeated at all? Next, I noticed your interaction on PP with a few folks over preterist-universalism. Do you not see that one of their arguments for no more condemnation is that if you see Rev 19 as past for all time, then no one is any longer “judged”. I am beginning more & more to see something very serious. I think I will need to soon apologize to preterist-universalists for the time I spent trying to say they were falsely representing the “full preterist” view. I am now convinced that the only consistent “full preterist” view that logically & rationally develops the premise & conclusion is preterist-universalism.
For those who try to say there is yet judgment for people after AD70 are ALSO using a sort of “now-not-yet” framework. If the “full preterists” will not allow that framework for historic Christian interpretation, then they cannot use it either.
So, anyhow the short of it is, I want to go back through Revelation chapter by chapter. I’d love to some day do a book where I could clearly categorize verses as (a) past, (b) future, (c) inaugurated/indefinite, (d) dualistic, (e) undeterminate.
One thing is for sure, if you read back through the blog discussion you are having on PP, you will see one fellow even admitted that “as a preterist” you have to already be willing to re-define theological terms. This is one of the big problems I have with hyperpreterism — it re-defines everything from Genesis to Revelation, & in that it becomes less & less Christian & something altogether “new”. It is no wonder so many of them willingly embrace the postmodern motto: “a new kind of Christian”.
We’ll talk more.
P.S. email me if you want rodericke @ s b cglobal. net (remove spaces — added to avoid spambots)
Roderick
Roderick,
You wrote:
So for now, verse 19 seems to reveal something to consider:
“And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.”
What does hyperpreterism claim happened in AD70? Did Jesus defeat the “the kings of the earth & their armies”? Is not this often depicted as the Romans yet the Romans were not defeated at all?
Yes, there is something to consider here, but putting the coming of Jesus off into the future does not work. The beast was about to come (Rev. 17:8 NASB) hence the coming of Jesus (when He defeats the beast Rev. 19:19-20) was about to happen. Some of my thoughts on the problem you raise can be found here [link deleted until an alternative link to a less liberal site is provided]
Duncan
i have for years believed that the romans weren’t the only army God used to judge israel in 70ad. there was also the locust army of joel and revelation that is the nations (1471 fig: flight of locusts) of zech 12:9, 14:2-3. maybe i’m wrong on this, don’t know, but it does seem to answer some questions. on another note i have never heard what you were you referring to about jesus coming referring to his going to the ancient of days. i thank you for that and will look into it.