The Hyperpreterist Who Missed What Was Relevant to the 1st Century Audience!
Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 28-12-2009
Tagged Under : Alan Bondar, Paul's posts
In an article entitled “Will Jesus Ever Return Again” hyperpreterist Alan Bondar argues, based upon what he perceives as a principle of audience relevance that those passages in the New Testament which address the return of Jesus Christ were meant to be interpreted by the 1st Century audience as occurring within their life-time.
THE AUDIENCE RELEVANCE PRINCIPLE
The writers of the New Testament addressed their letters to contemporary audiences in their day. On the flip side, the recipients of the letters would have understood that those letters were addressed to them. This is known as the audience relevance principle. Consider a modern day example of this principle. When missionaries write personal support letters to different churches, we all inherently recognize that those letters are only useful for the purpose of raising financial support while the missionaries who wrote those letters are still alive. On the flip side, those letters only have financial relevance for the churches that received them while the missionaries who wrote them are alive. This goes to show that the use of pronouns like “we” and “you” are understood to be referring to the writers and direct recipients of those letters. http://fullpreterism.com/alanbondar/will-jesus-ever-come-again/#comments
Beyond this quote the hyperpreterist lists several texts although none of them address the return of Jesus Christ as in his 2nd Advent or appearance. This is followed up by a quote from another hyperpreterist who writes,
Although you know I agree with your commitment to “audience relevance”, it appears that people who don’t employ common sense regarding the usage of “we” and “you”, do so for 4 reasons:
1. Reverence of the Scriptures – Unlike any other book, or in this case a missionary support letter, the Bible is transcendent, living and active.
2. Personally applicable – The Bible is personalized (and to a degree rightly so) and given a place of preeminence, whereby we make direct applications to our lives. In other words, God’s speaks through the Scripture and in so doing lights our path. There is a danger though in taking this to the extreme.
3. Multiple fulfillments – Since we see the repeating pattern of type vs. anti-type, many think it’s logical to assume this process repeats ad infinitum. God is eternally “near” and always ready to the judge the living and the dead.
4. Timelessness and other-worldly – The Bible takes on a kind of ethereal “God’s ways are not our ways” feel. Logic and sound communication are casualties of this view.
Evidently it never dawned on either the Alan or Chuck who added in his 2 cents that one of the striking features that directly contradicts their claim is the utter lack of supporting documentation that the 1st Century Christians understood Scripture as they suggest it is to be understood. N.T. Wright, a church historian who understands many of the New Testament passages are related to the events of AD70 and the destruction of 2nd Temple Judaism writes concerning what the evidence supports.
The church expected certain events to happen within a generation, and happen they did, though there must have been moments between AD30 and AD70 when some wondered if they would, and in consequence took up the Jewish language of delay. Jerusalem fell; the good news of Jesus, and the kingdom of Israel’s god was announced in Rome, as well as in Jerusalem and Athens. But there is no sign of dismay, in any literature that has come down to us from the periord after AD70, at the fact that Jesus himself had still not returned. Clement looks forward to the return of Jesus himself without any comment on timing. Ignatius is worried about many things but not that. Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century is as emphatic as anyone that the event will happen. (The New Testament and the People of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg 463)
Clearly the 1st Century Christians believed those passaes that were relevant to them weren’t about the return of Jesus Christ else there would have been some record of dismay when their expectations were not met. Indeed according to Eusebius the immediate family of Jesus Christ still anticipated his future return,
The grand nephews of the Lord Himself when summoned before the emperor Domitian who just happened to reign from AD81 to AD86 and asked them about His kingdom told him, “that it was not a temporal nor earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would appear at the end of the world, when coming in glory he would judge the quick and the dead, and give to every one according to their works.” (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Frederick Cruse, Baker, pg 103
But how is it that the hyperpreterist has confused what the 1st Century Christians understood. N.T. Wright again supplies the answer to that by pointing out the New Testament set the expectation “…since that ultimate future is not a disembodied bliss but a renewal of the whole created order, in which evil will be judged and defeated, that renewal, that judgment, and his return will belong closely with one another” (The New Testament and the People of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg 462)
The reason the grand-nephews of Jesus Christ were still anticipating his future return is that they understood the future would not be some disembodied bliss as the Gnostics held but the restoration to that which was lost. They didn’t understand the teachings of their aunts and uncles to portray a protoGnostic view of reality. They realized the New Testament taught the ultimate victory would be the renewal of the entire created order as N.T. Wright so aptly frames it up. This is the New Testament message that was of relevance to the 1st Century audience and it is the same message that is of relevance to Christians today, 2000 years later. Odd the hyperpreterist missed that.
If these so called grand nephews were still anticipating His future return is it no doubt because they failed to realize that no brother of Christ was naturally born of His seed in the first place. Nor were the children of the apostles whom they fathered of their natural seed. So that term itself already calls into question their understanding of how one becomes a child of God - by faith. What surprise is it that such carnal understanding was focused only on earthly things? The nature of man has not changed much who still thinks peace on earth is about peace between men.
Robin
None of the NT writers expressed “dismay” about a supposed “delay” of the Parousia because all of the inspired writings were completed prior to AD 70, therefore, the ‘nearness of expectation’ was evident throughout the NT. The paradigm of the restoration of the “entire created order” is an unproved presupposition that NT Wright and others impose on the NT based upon THEIR understanding of the eternal purpose of God and not necessarily what the expectation of the early church was.
Can it be denied that there was an “at hand” (I Pet. 4:7) expectation of the Parousia in the same sense as that of the “at hand” nature of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 3:2), and that the things predicted would “shortly come to pass” because the time was “at hand” (Rev. 1:1-3)?
The problem has never been a ‘defective’ material creation, but rather a ‘defective’ spiritual creation (man). The planet was never in need of salvation or redemption, only humanity who was created in the “image” and “likeness” of God fell into sin and was in need of restoration. The ground was cursed for man’s sake, and when man is restored, the curse on the ground is removed, not the ground itself.
Is it not possible that people have somehow missed the point relative to the redemptive plan of God?
Hi Larry!
How do you know all of the NT was written prior to AD70?
Phil
Larry,
Thank you for weighing in, your input is always appreciated however, N.T. Wright’s point wasn’t regarding the authors of the N.T. but the evidence that comes from the post apostolic period. Dr. Wright is pointing out that if the expectation of the early church was that the 2nd Advent or appearance was tied to the events of AD70 there is no evidence to suggest there was any dismay that he did not return. Indeed what the evidence supports is that none of the early church understood the text the way the hyperpreterists does in necessarily linking the judgment of 2nd Temple Judaism with the 2nd Advent. Additionally, although Dr. Wright didn’t make this argument the phenomenal growth of the church post AD70 would support the idea that the events were not necessarily linked. Up until AD70 Christianity was represented by a very small percentage of the population of the then known world, yet in less that 200 years it grew to become the worldview held by the majority. How, if the expectation of the church was that the 2nd Advent would coincide with the events of AD70, do you explain this phenomenal growth when the 2nd appearance didn’t happen? Based on the post-apostolic literature the church held the future expectation of the return of Jesus Christ, yet according to the hyperpreterist paradigm the church missed what really occurred. Why then did Christianity grow to become the majority view of the then known world?
Regarding the word “parousia”, I think what can be understood about that word is that it doesn’t mean “return”, but presence as opposed to absence. It cannot be denied, as N.T. Wright points out that there was an imminent expectation of an impending judgment upon 2nd Temple Judaism. What this judgment signaled was that the King was present in the Kingdom ruling and bringing judgment against those that opposed Him, yet the term does not mean the return of the King. N.T. Wright’s point is that this understanding fits the facts much more satisfactorily than the hyperpreterist paradigm. Indeed it goes hand in hand with what the immediate family of the Lord told Emperor Domitian. His Kingdom was a reality although not visible to the naked eye. The events of AD70 bore witness to the reality of the Kingdom and ruling authority. However, one day He would return to hold the wicked accountable. This is the point, the early church didn’t miss the point of the redemptive plan of God, they just understood it to encompass all aspects of God’s good creation. This is born out in their writings. IOW, those passages which address the impending demise of 2nd Temple Judaism are not necessarily linked to those passages which address the future return of King Jesus the resurrection of the dead and the restoration of creation to what it was and more. Understanding the N.T. text in this light enables one to be faithful to the analogy of faith of Scripture while recognizing those passages which clearly indicate the impending judgment of 2nd Temple Judaism as related to AD70.
MG2,
Actually to be a nephew that necessarily means they aren’t of the seed of Jesus Christ Their daddy would have been the brother of Jesus Christ. Therefore the “seed” that would have spawned the grand-nephews would have ultimately come from Joseph and Mary or at least one of the parents, not Jesus himself. I believe the story goes they were sons of Judas who was according to the Bible a brother of Christ by blood.
I will leave you to argue with the inspired text that Jesus Christ had no blood kin.
did my response to Phil get erased?
I never saw anything.
I didn’t see anything either.
I guess you never saw mine either. Funny that.
Alan, I deleted your prior comment not Paul. This blog is not the place to preach the hyperpreterist “gospel.” The “rule” is that this is a blog for the orthodox. From that rule, limited exceptions are given for some hyperpreterist participation. Those who respect the fact that if they are posting here, it is as a guest under an exception.
No, Alan I didn’t see what you posted. However clearly what you did post violated Dee Dee’s policies. Dee Dee graciously allows me to post here and so I wouldn’t want to do anything that violated her wishes. Nevertheless, if you think you have a reasoned argument that substantiates the hyperpreterist view as legitimate then allow me to suggest you take it over to CARM.org. CARM has established a preterist page which I frequent.
However, if you do take your argument over there please make it succinct. Often I find it the case where hyperpreterists will string along several independent scriptural references employing proof text to support their argument. This is a laborious process to dissect because it is my experience hyperpreterists don’t employ grammatico-historical principles of interpretation therefore each and every proof text offered must be examined and shown that it isn’t supporting the concept the hyperpreterist claims. By the time this is done the audience usually loses interest and the main thesis of the argument gets lost. Therefore if you think you have 1 or 2 texts which when read in context support your argument I would be more than happy to engage in discussion.
Frankly, I believe it would be refreshing to witness a hyperpreterist actually arguing their position based on the time honored rules for Biblical interpretation. It is my position that if the hyperpreterist follows the rules of grammatico-historical scriptural interpretation you can’t support your claims. The “CBV” branch of the heresy can’t, while employing the grammatico-historical process validate their redefinition of the resurrection of the dead from 1 Corinthians 15. This passage simply blows your entire game out of the water. Heck, Dave Green had to concede here at preteristblog the hyperpreterist redefinition is based purely on inference, this despite the clear teaching of Scripture to the contrary. Sam Frost in an effort to make a case has to employ the neo-orthodox Bultmann whose sole purpose was to remove the supernatural from the Bible.
Come Alan, let us reason together. If you think you can argue the proto-Gnostic view of the resurrection of the dead from 1 Corinthians 15 I would certainly have the time to engage. You would be the 1st to prove “His” body is “our” body, although it is “His” church.
The direct link to preterist section is here:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?70-Preterism
The new site is a little tricky to navigate as it seems the links under “religious movement” is empty…anyway, FWIW.
That link is to the new boards…even though they are leaving the old boards open - it might get a little confusing.
Reader, I need to advise you that Alan Bondar through CARM.org has brought to my attention that he believes he included 3 passages which directly discuss the 2nd Advent. However, 2 of the 3 are questionable meaning that of the 10 passages mentioned in the article 1 does indeed discuss the 2nd Advent. However, I pointed out to Alan that his proof text of that passage doesn’t support his premise becasue that passages,
14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim 6:14 when read in context includes the following,
15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, which is a disclaimer indicating the Apostle Paul didn’t know when the “proper” time would be. Alan has read into the text his paradigm despite the immediate context.
I apologize to the reader for the oversite, however, the premise of the OP still stands. A premise btw, Alan has yet to address.
here is the link where Alan points out my mistake.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?2053-The-Hyperpreterist-Who-Missed-What-Was-Relevant-to-the-First-Century-Audience!