Then look up and lift up "your heads" for "your" redemption draweth near

Like always first things first the word redemption in Luke 21:28. The word in the webster"s 2 new college dicitornary is #5 is salvation from sin through Christ sacrifice. Huh! here I go trying to explain that Luke was writing under the influence of the holy ghost we do believe that right. Next for Luke to say that "there" not "ours" redemption draweth "near" not "far" is something you have to think about not me. Then to enforce it Jesus gives them a parable from verse 29 to 31 an example to know when it will be at hand when you remember the parable. Verse 31 says when "ye" who see these things come to pass ye that the "kingdom of God" "is" nigh at hand! I believe in the words of Jesus, many believe in the words of there pastor's there word's can't be the same as Jesus on these verses. Then to make things even more understood Jesus says that there "redemption" will happen in that generation "not" race for word generation this makes me say wow. But anyway back to the inspired word says about verse 32. Verily in the English means in truth also with confidence "assuredly." I say unto you who! this generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. But what is the state of these people today is well you know Jesus didn't mean that. Today we like to take out the words nigh,at hand,all,and put some fulfilled in it, not at and, and not nigh. So they attack the words of Jesus for what ever reason in there own heads about "his" words no way around it people. The point is why tell them not you, or us 2oooyrs later to lift up your heads for your redemption draweth nigh if he didn't so-called didn't mean it.

Like aways when you hear people try to explain away the words of Jesus you say to yourself were did they get this from reading these verses plainly. Luke 21:28 doesn't talk about I believe
he came in judgement ad70. It says there redemption draweth near people which is salvation then ad70. Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and unto them who! that look for him shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Also lets look at Romans,13:11 for now "our" their's salvation nearer than when we believed. Do not think for one moment that the them is you and us today taking away the context of luke 21:28. Also lets look in 1 Corinthians 1,7:8, also Philippians 3:20 the philippians were looking for the saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. There are to many verses to write with Luke 21:28to32. My focus is the "redemption draweth near." The problem is with what i hear in our days. Near doesn't mean Far in Jesus words back then because it doesn't mean it now in our times. How can your salvation be near today and there's wasn't think about for a moment. Your salvation has to be far right not near. Also like to point out verse 31 so like wise ye, when ye aka "them" see these things come to pass, know ye that the "kingdom of God is nigh at hand! So what do we have in these 5 verse Jesus telling them all these things were at hand, nigh,in there generation,verily,till "all" be fulfilled. What do have today a misplace gospel from who is the question to ask your self. Don't worry salvation is for you today because of Hebrews,9:28 and He came and fulfilled all of the words he said He would "not some" thank God for that people. So you can look up and say thank you Jesus for keeping your words. BTW Proverbs 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick but when the "disire cometh" and it did for them it is a tree of life. 2 Peter 3:8 it was for the insurance of those who he was talking to then present tense not 2000yrs later and beyond.

The puzzle doesn't fit people,you must look for something else!!!

"Did the Transfiguration Fulfill Matthew 16:28?"
Copyright © 2004 by Michael A. Fenemore - Revised: 2004 Jul 24

Speaking to a "crowd…along with his disciples" (Mark 8:34, NIV throughout), Jesus said:

27…the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:27-28)

For those Christians who don't believe that Jesus has already come in his kingdom, taking this prediction at face value presents a problem because those who were "standing" there have all died. Many believe the transfiguration account immediately following Matt. 16 provides an adequate solution (Matt. 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36). This article presents a test of that interpretation.

The following is a synopsis of the transfiguration as recounted in Matt. 17:1-9:

1. Jesus takes three disciples up a high mountain;
2. Jesus is transfigured (his face shines and his clothes appear white);
3. Moses and Elijah appear;
4. A bright cloud envelopes the disciples;
5. A voice says, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!";
6. Moses and Elijah disappear;
7. Jesus says, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

What should the disciples have expected to see?

1. "the Son of Man coming in his Father's glory"
2. "angels"
3. Each person being rewarded for what he has done (the judgment)
4. "his kingdom"

At the transfiguration, the Son of Man was there and he was changed to a certain glorified state (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29). However, strictly speaking, he was not "coming" -- he was already there. Where would he have been coming from? There were no angels present, nor was there any sign of a judgment taking place. In fact, very little in the account could be reasonably related to "his kingdom." If Jesus was thinking of the coming transfiguration event when he made his prediction in Matt. 16:27-28, we must wonder why he painted a picture of his coming in glory in verse 27, listing dramatic details, and then in verse 28, predicted a preview of that event which he knew would lack the very key elements he had just described? What was the point of verse 27? It would be as though Jesus had said this:

1. Here's what it's going to look like when I come in my kingdom;
2. Some standing here will live to see it;
3. When they do, it won't look anything like the way I just said it will look.

Who could ever believe such a ridiculous scenario? Yet that's exactly what the popular explanation for Matt. 16:28 amounts to and millions of Christians have accepted it without question. What else might one have expected to see in connection with "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom?"

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thess. 4:16-17)

During the transfiguration, the Lord did not "come down from heaven." There was a command that came out of the cloud, but not necessarily a "loud" command (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34-35). There was no trumpet sound, nor any sign of the dead rising or the rapture. The disciples were enveloped by a cloud, but they were not "caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." There was much more missing from the transfiguration:

...See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones… (Jude 14b-15a); The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 11:15)

There was no sign of the "thousands upon thousands of his holy ones" and the voice in the cloud said nothing about "the kingdom of the world" becoming "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." Also, only Moses and Elijah were present with Jesus, but they are never mentioned as having an especially prominent position when Jesus was to return in his kingdom, so we must wonder why the vision includes only them. What is the transfiguration all about? Why are just Moses and Elijah present? To answer these questions, it is necessary to begin at Mount Sinai:

When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." (Exod. 20:18-19)

From that day, God spoke to the Israelites through Moses, and the people said, "we will listen." However, Moses would not live forever and was not even allowed to enter the promised land. Before his life was over, he warned the Israelites about the danger of taking up the ways of the heathen nations they would encounter (Deut. 18:9-14) and then specified how he would be replaced:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. (v. 15)

After Moses died, this prediction met an immediate fulfillment in Joshua:

Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses. (Deut. 34:9)

Moses and the Prophets spoke for God under the Old Covenant. It's difficult to imagine a more prestigious calling. Israel was to "listen" to them. The Law came through Moses, and for hundreds of years God spoke to his people through prophets. The high regard for "Moses and the Prophets" as the two great authorities in the history of Israel continued right down to the time of Jesus. The New Testament contains numerous references to "Moses and the Prophets" or "the Law and the Prophets." Moses and the Law were synonymous.
Elijah was arguably Israel's greatest prophet after Moses (Deut. 34:10-11), having raised the dead (I Kgs. 17:17-24), and his name was associated with the arrival of the Messiah (Mal. 4:5-6). At the transfiguration, we see Jesus standing with Moses, who is representing the Law, and with Elijah, who is representing the Prophets. The voice from the cloud says "Listen to him!" (Matt. 17:5b). Then, Moses and Elijah disappear leaving only Jesus. The transfiguration appears to have been a demonstration showing that Jesus was the successor to Moses and the Prophets. This is how the author of Hebrews understood Christ's role:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (Heb. 1:1-2)

The command "Listen to him!" clearly links Christ to Israel's prophets and the original prediction made by Moses.
Conclusion: The transfiguration appears to be quite unrelated to Christ's prediction in Matt. 16:28 since there is very little evidence to support interpreting the event as a preview of Christ's coming in judgment at the end of the age. The two events have practically nothing in common. The "coming" in verse 28 is inextricably linked to verse 27. It cannot be separated from the image of thousands of angels being present at the resurrection and judgment. The details of the transfiguration stand out as remarkably unlike descriptions of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" found in Matt. 16:27 and elsewhere in the New Testament. However, the transfiguration option appears to be the only choice for those who are looking for a future return of Christ.

Objection: You have stated that Joshua fulfilled Moses' prediction in Deut. 18:15, but in Acts 3:22-24, Peter says that's a prophecy about Jesus:

For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.' "Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days." (Acts 3:22-24)

When Moses said, "God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers," it's doubtful he was thinking about Jesus. If Moses was thinking ahead to Christ, it would have gone right over the people's heads. For Moses, the issue was providing a successor after his 40 years of leadership and the people would have understood it that way. Moses said, "You must listen to him." This was clearly fulfilled by Joshua: "So the Israelites listened to him." Of course, God could have inspired Moses to speak words that would later be reinterpreted by Peter. In Acts 3, Peter connects Jesus to Moses' prediction and the prophets that followed. In effect, every prophet would be another fulfillment with Christ being the last and greatest prophet. It's interesting to note that Peter said only "the prophets from Samuel on…foretold these days." That would mean Moses didn't foretell them and was not referring to Christ specifically.

Objection: In 2 Pet. 1:16-18, Peter refers to the transfiguration as the "coming of our Lord." The word "coming" in the Greek is Parousia. Isn't that referring to the second coming?

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

The "coming of our Lord" in this passage is carelessly assumed to be referring to the second coming as experienced through the transfiguration. If that's what Peter intended, it is by no means clear. It should be remembered that the word Parousia does not refer to the second coming exclusively in the New Testament. For instance, "the coming of the lawless one" in 2 Thess. 2:9 is also a Parousia. In other places, Parousia is translated "presence" or "arrived" and does not refer to Jesus at all. So Peter's use of Parousia here does not necessarily relate to the second coming, nor does it even necessarily refer to the transfiguration considering his wording. His reference to Christ's "coming" here is somewhat ambiguous. It's possible that he is actually referring to Christ's first coming and then using the transfiguration miracle to buttress his testimony regarding Christ's divinity. After his salutation in verses 1-2, Peter begins his message:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Pet. 1:3-4)

Peter reminds his audience that Christ's "divine power" is available to help them deal with "the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." Next, he encourages them to keep the faith and reminds them of their eternal reward (v. 10-11). Then, in verses 16-18, he endeavors to further establish Christ's credibility by recalling the miraculous transfiguration event. The subject is not the second coming. The first two chapters of 2 Peter are about avoiding sin and replacing it with "wholesome thinking" (3:1). In all of this, Peter never states or implies in the least that the transfiguration was intended to be a preview of the second coming. The problem is that people see the word "coming" in verse 16 and assume it must be referring to the second coming. Then they carelessly apply that interpretation to the transfiguration reference in verses 17 and 18. But even if the word "coming" does refer to the transfiguration, that event was still only a coming (a presence), not necessarily a preview of the coming, i.e. the second coming.

The issue boils down to this: When Jesus predicted that some would still be alive to witness "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," was he referring to the transfiguration? There is nothing in 2 Pet. 1:16-18 to support that interpretation. Peter offers no hint whatsoever to indicate the transfiguration was intended to be a vision of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" as specified in Matt. 16:27-28. Evidence throughout the New Testament exposes that interpretation as being suspect to the point of being unbelievable since most of the key features are completely absent. Ultimately, those who prefer the fulfilled view of Bible prophecy can believe whatever they want to on this. The outcome of their eschatological system is not affected. It's only those still waiting for the second coming of Christ who have no alternative but to adopt this highly questionable interpretation for lack of anything more substantial.


Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademarks Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?

Please fill in all fields marked with a *
Article
Did the Transfiguration Fulfill Matthew 16:28
Name*

Email Address*
Comments*

Once Again, Please read the WHOLE Bible please!!!

By Tim King

_________________________________________________________

It's not just Larry it's for all the people who contiued to "try" to use this out of context. Maybe this will help after mine beneath it. But only if you choose to escape the traditions that you have been taught about this verse. For love of God try to escape the traditions of "MEN" A belief system has to be backed by spiritual truth and the Bible, not what you want it to say!

To: Larry Hall, Sword of the Spirit Apologetics

Re: Does Acts 1:11 Affirm a Bodily Coming?

Dear Larry:
I think dealing with Acts 1:11 is needful at this time. You cite this verse in support of your comment: “Orthodoxy teaches that, with certainty, the Second Advent will be future, literal, and personal. Christ will appear in the same physical, bodily way that He departed from the mount called Olivet!” (Emphasis yours).

Actually, a host of futurists quote this verse to support their contention that Christ’s coming will be visible and bodily. I will not dispute that this passage teaches a future coming of Christ; but, then, I see this as happening from the standpoint of the apostles forty days after Christ’s resurrection. The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 was still in their future.
Let me also say that Preterists will not argue that the coming of Christ was literal. In every episode in the Old Testament where God “came” in judgment, it was a literal appearing to pour out His wrath. When God came upon Jerusalem in 586 B.C., it was a literal destruction of that city. So we believe about Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 – it was a literal coming literally destroying the literal temple and the literal city.

Here is the passage in its context:
“And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.’”

I would like to offer a some commentary on this passage in order to assert that this verse cannot be used to verify a bodily, visible coming of Christ.
First, I would like to look at the passage in its context. Note that there is not one word in this passage describing the body of Christ, physical or otherwise. That this passage teaches Christ’s second coming as “bodily” is drawn only from inference and reading into the text.

However, if we wish to find a clue as to what the men in white meant by “in just the same way,” shouldn’t we look at the context of the passage? After all, isn’t it just good hermeneutics to gain your interpretation of a passage by looking at the context?
This passage plainly tells us — without having to read anything into the text — two specific things about Jesus’ ascension. The first is that “a cloud received Him” and the second is that it was “out of their sight.”

Let’s deal with the first – that a cloud received Him and that He was to return in the same way. It is clear that the New Testament teaches that Jesus’ coming was to involve clouds (Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27). Wanting to interpret Scriptures by the Scriptures (as you rightly insist “that Scripture MUST interpret Scripture”), let us look at some Old Testament passages that would help us to understand the New.

Exodus 16:10 – It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud.
Exodus 19:9 – The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
Exodus 34:5 – The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.
Leviticus 16:2 – The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.”
Numbers 11:25 – Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him....

Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to have “come,” He “descended,” “came down,” and “appeared.” This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference to His own second coming. Question: was the “body” of Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations of Yahweh “bodily and physical?” The answer is obvious.

Psalm 18:912 – He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew; and He sped upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness of waters, and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, hailstones and coals of fire.
Psalm 97:23 – Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round about.
Psalm 104:3 – He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind...
Isaiah 19:1 – The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
Daniel 7:13 – I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.

Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end or pass away (see Daniel 7:14). Preterist believe the latter.

Joel 2:12 – Blow a trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, so there is a great and mighty people; there has never been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to the years of many generations.

Nahum 1:3 – The LORD is slow to anger and great in power and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

Zephaniah 1:1415 – Near is the great day of the LORD, near and coming very quickly; listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness...

Note also that many of the references to Yahweh coming in or with the clouds have to do with His bringing judgment upon His enemies and those who rebelled against His covenant. Again, there was no physical, bodily coming of Yahweh at these times.
The contention of the Preterist is that Jesus taught that He was going to come “in the glory of His Father” (Matthew 16:27), meaning that His coming was to be in the exact same manner as His Father's was in the Old Testament. This is language that the people of His generation would understand. It is the language that the high priest understood when he charged Jesus with blasphemy (Matthew 26:64-65). They understood that Jesus was identifying Himself with Yahweh Himself and claiming all the glory of deity!

Larry, the contention of the Preterist is that Christ’s coming with or on the clouds was not to be seen as “bodily and physical,” but as Jesus’ claims identifying Himself with Yahweh of the Old Testament. It confirmed His claims to being the divine Messiah. In my opinion, this is actually the capstone of the Preterist view, that the language of Jesus in describing His second coming was a bold, undeniable claim to deity. Does this put us outside of orthodoxy?

Second, let me just briefly note that the context of Acts 1:9-11 has Jesus being taken up “out of their sight” (literally in the Greek, “away from their eyes”). What more can I say on this? If you apply a literal interpretation of the Scriptures (which you insist upon), then it means, according to the men in white, that Jesus will return invisibly “out of their sight.”

Perhaps you could explain why these two plainly and contextually stated things — “a cloud received Him” and “out of their sight” — could not be the grammatical antecedents explaining the phrase “in just the same ways as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Now I would like to make some broader observations about this text and compare it to other passages on the coming of Christ, especially those that futurists use for Christ’s future coming. We must note the history of the event as described in Acts 1:9-11.

Notice the witnesses to Christ’s ascension from the Mount of Olives — it was the apostles. You futurists insist that the coming of Christ must be “in just the same way” as the apostles witnessed Him leaves in this passage. You press so hard on the bodily/physical aspects (which aren’t there), that you leave open a whole truckload of questions.

For instance, you insist that at His second coming “every eye shall see Him.” But in Acts 1:9-11, every eye did not see Him, only the eyes of the apostles did! How then can you say that the second coming of Christ must be “in just the same way” as His ascension from the Mount of Olives?
Further, most futurists believe that the second coming of Christ is described in Revelation 19:11-16. With that in mind, here are a few other questions:
Jesus did not ascend on a white horse from the Mount of Olives in Acts 1:9-11. How can His second coming be on a white horse if it is supposed to be “in just the same way”?
Did Jesus ascend with “His eyes a flame of fire, and on His head many diadems?” If not, how can you say He will return “in just the same way”?
Jesus did not ascend with the armies of heaven following Him on white horses. How can you say that His second coming will be “in just the same way”?
Did Jesus ascend with a sharp sword in His mouth and the name “King of kings and Lord of lords” written on His robe? If not, how can you say He will return “in just the same way”?
In conclusion, Acts 1:11 cannot be used to dogmatically justify the belief that Jesus’ return will be “bodily and physical.” In fact, it is better used to build the case that His coming will be “in the clouds” (in association with the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13) and “out of sight” (invisible) which the Preterists believe.

In all, Larry, I am insisting that you cannot use this passage as the whip to drive the Preterists into the desert of apostasy. You come across as one more interested in assaulting honest seekers of God’s word with traditional doctrines than in bringing light to legitimate discussion.

More later.

Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?
Please fill in all fields marked with a *
	Article	Does It Affirm A Bodily Coming
	Name*
	Email Address*
	Comments*

Futurists Playbook

By DTG aka love me or hate me
It's always the same with Futurist it's about us today; Acts 1:11 a
popular verse used by ultra literalist attempting to refute Covenant
Eschatology's claim that scripture proves Christ came back in AD 70,

1. The problem with getting Ultra-Literal.

Let's begin with, who were the angels speaking to in Acts 1:11 when they
said "Ye men of Galilee" Question: If the angels were speaking to the
men of Galilee. Ultra-literalist accuses Covenant Eschatologist of using
bad exegesis? Covenant Eschatology believes the angels were speaking to
the men standing before them telling them (the men before them) that He
Christ will return in the clouds in a like manner, to them. The angel is
not talking to you men of the Bronx or you men of Ohio or you men of the
first Church of the risen Lord. I pled with the Ultra-literalist to
explain how 2000 years and counting will the "Men of Galilee" that saw
Christ taken up into a cloud, see Christ coming in like manner?

2. The Coming in the Clouds.

Again the pled to the ultra literalist is this, can you please find
anywhere in the Old Testament where God showed "Himself "literally and
not veiled in the clouds?

3. Next up is Revelation 1:7.

But before I get into Vs. 1:7 we need to read Revelation 1:1, The
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his
servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and
signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: taken literally,
"must shortly come to pass" does not mean 2000 years later people. Verse
1:8 turns right around and says "which is which was and which is "to
come" again there is no 2000 year delay sorry! Oh" let me not forget
verse 1:3 for the times are at hand, I can't find an explanation in the
futurist play book for these verses. Back to Revelation 1:7 A typical
Futurist play book tactic is to isolate verse 7 from the others. The
uninspired Futurist say, Will Jesus (God) really didn't mean what He
said in those other verses, Let's look at Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
because of him. Even so, Amen.

Acts 1:9 and when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was
taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. Christ is
received up in a cloud, as the Clouds covered YAWH in the Old testament
the clouds cover the now glorified Christ, In Mark 8:38 Christ says
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this
adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be
ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

How did Christ's father come in the Old Testament?

Just as YAWH came to Israel so would Christ come "in like manner" in the
Glory of his father, this parallels the Old Testament visitation of YAWH
to Israel, veiled in a cloud.

They" also which "pierced him lines up with Matthew 25:63,64,
Question, who pierced Christ?
How can they that pierced Christ 2000 years ago see Christ coming today
in the clouds?

The generation that Christ was speaking to did see Him come in AD70 on
the clouds in the glory of his father. The bible teaches Christ must
have come if he is the Christ. Futurist must prove he didn't and that
Jesus is the Christ and not just say it didn't happen because "I" didn't
see it.

If you start out wrong you end up wrong!!!!!

This is for all the confused people please take note by DTG
How Heaven and Earth Passed Away! By Don K. Preston
Question: Has heaven and earth passed away? Ridiculous you say? Let us ask another question: Do you believe the Old Covenant has been done away? I dare say you will say it has. Few believers in Jesus would deny he has established his New Covenant. IF YOU BELIEVE THE OLD COVENANT HAS PASSED AWAY THEN YOU MUST BELIEVE "HEAVEN AND EARTH" HAVE PASSED AWAY! Please read the words of Jesus: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled". [Matthew 5:17-18] This little tract will attempt to answer a few questions about these verses. First, what did Jesus say had to happen before the law could pass away? Second, does the Bible tell us when these requirements would be met? Let us answer the first question. Until Heaven and Earth Pass Did you notice that Jesus said heaven and earth had to pass away before the law could pass?!? Yes, he really did say it; please, get your Bible right now and read it for yourself! It has been my experience that a LOT OF PEOPLE have never seen those words before! A relative of mine read the verse five times before admitting it actually says this! Has the heaven and earth passed away? Well, obviously, physical heaven and earth haven't been destroyed. But read the text again will you? Jesus DID say until heaven and earth pass away the Old Law could not pass. Our choices here are limited. If we understand the "heaven and earth" as literal, physical heaven and earth then this means the Old Law is still in effect. Simply put the argument would go like this: If heaven and earth had to pass before the Old Law could pass; and if heaven and earth refers to literal, physical heaven and earth, then, since literal, physical heaven and earth still exist, [have not passed], it must be true that the Old Law has not passed. A person could say the Law here is the Law of Jesus; but this will not work because Jesus had not yet died to confirm his New Covenant. He was living under the Old Law at the time also. The Jews standing there were not concerned with the passing of Jesus' law. They did not believe he even had one! They were concerned with the Old Law! Finally, if this is speaking about the passing of Christ's law it contradicts the verses in the New Testament that teach Jesus' word will never pass away, Matthew 24:35. On the other hand, if we understand the "heaven and earth" as figurative language referring not to physical creation, but to something else, it is possible that this "heaven and earth" could pass away, allowing for the passing of the Law. Let us explore the definition of the heaven and earth momentarily. Defining Heaven and Earth Sadly many Bible students are unfamiliar with the apocalyptic, and figurative language of the Bible. So many people like to say "The Bible says what it means and means what it says". They seem to be saying there is no such thing as figurative or spiritual language. This is sad because a LOT of the Bible is symbolic language. The term heaven and earth is a good example. [We are not saying the term heaven and earth never refers to material creation; we ARE saying this term is very often used figuratively]. Remember, Jesus was a Jew. As such he was raised hearing the Old Testament prophets taught in the synagogues. These prophets utilized spiritual language. As the prophet of and to Israel, Matthew 15, Jesus was not only familiar with the language of the prophets, he used the same language. How did the prophets use the term heaven and earth? The prophet Isaiah predicted the passing of heaven and earth in chapter 24. He said the earth would be utterly broken down, clean dissolved, and completely removed, vs. 19. Now this sounds like the destruction of material creation but closer examination reveals it to be speaking of the destruction of Israel's Covenant World under the imagery of "heaven and earth". Note verse 5 gives the reason for the destruction--"they have broken the everlasting covenant". What covenant was that? It was the Mosaic Covenant! God was going to destroy "heaven and earth" because Israel had broken her covenant with Jehovah! Are we to believe that one day the universe will be destroyed because Israel broke her covenant? A dilemma is created for the literal interpretation of the text when we come to verse 22. In these verses God is depicted as dwelling gloriously in Mount Zion, that is, in Jerusalem, after the destruction of heaven and earth. Reader, if the earth has been destroyed how could literal Mount Zion still exist? We believe the best explanation is to see Isaiah predicting the destruction of Israel's COVENANT heaven and earth because she had violated the Mosaic Covenant with Jehovah. As a result God's righteousness would remain in a New Zion--in a new COVENANT heaven and earth. Another example of "heaven and earth" being referent to the Covenant World of Israel and not literal creation is Isaiah 51:16."I have put my word in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of my hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are my people'". [NASV] [Unfortunately, the New International Version incorrectly translates this verse. Check several translations.] What is the point? Notice that God is speaking to Israel. He says he gave them his law, the Mosaic Covenant, the same law Jesus is speaking about in Matthew 5:17-18, to establish heaven and lay the foundation of the earth! Clearly Jehovah is not saying he gave the Mosaic Covenant to Israel to create literal heaven and earth! Material creation existed long before Israel was ever given the Mosaic Covenant. The meaning of the verse is that Jehovah gave his covenant with Israel to CREATE THEIR WORLD--A COVENANT WORLD WITH JEHOVAH God created Israel's "heaven and earth" by giving them his Covenant. Now if he destroyed THAT Old Covenant heaven and earth and gave a NEW COVENANT, would he not thereby be creating a NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH? This is precisely the thought in the NEW COVENANT SCRIPTURES! Old Israel's covenant was about to pass away, II Corinthians 3:10ff; Hebrews 8:13; 12:25ff. The New Covenant of Christ was being given, Ephesians 3:3ff; Hebrews 2:1ff. Since the giving of Covenant created "heaven and earth" the New Heaven and Earth of Christ would not be completed until the New Covenant was completely revealed. It therefore follows that if the New Heavens and Earth of Christ has not arrived then CHRIST'S NEW COVENANT HAS NOT YET BEEN FULLY REVEALED! If Christ's New Covenant has been fully revealed then the NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH HAS FULLY COME! Consider this carefully in light of II Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22, passages written as the process of revealing the NEW COVENANT was yet incomplete. In Isaiah 51:5-6 God predicted the "heaven and earth" would vanish. This is the same "heaven and earth" he had established at Sinai. This is not a prediction of the passing of literal heaven and earth--it is a prediction of the passing of the Old World of Israel so that the New Covenant World of Messiah would be established. We believe this heaven and earth that Isaiah said would perish is the same heaven and earth Jesus said must pass before the Old Law would pass. Isaiah 65-66 also predicted the passing of "heaven and earth" but as with the other prophecies noted above it does not refer to the passing of physical creation. In chapter 65 God predicted that Israel would fill the measure of her sin, vs. 7; he would destroy them, vs. 8-15; create a new people with a new name, vs. 15-16; create a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem, vs. 17-19. The creation of the new heavens and earth would follow the destruction of the Jews after they had filled the measure of their sins and been destroyed at the coming of the Lord in fire with his angels, Isaiah 66:15ff. The new creation of Isaiah 66 is depicted as a time of evangelism and Jew and Gentile being brought together under the banner of God, vss 19ff. Now Isaiah 65 said the new creation would come when Israel had filled the measure of her sin and was destroyed. Do we have any clue as to when this was to happen? In Matthew 23:31-39 Jesus said Israel would fill up the measure of her sins IN HIS GENERATION! In chapter 24 he predicted the passing of Israel's heaven and earth at his coming, vs. 29-36. Now notice: 1.] Isaiah said Israel's old heaven and earth would not be destroyed until Israel had filled her sin 2.] The new heaven and earth would not come until Israel's old heaven and earth was destroyed; 3.] Jesus said Israel would fill up the measure of her sin and be destroyed at his coming in his generation; 4.] Therefore Israel's "heaven and earth" was destroyed at Jesus' coming against Israel, when the measure of her sin was full, in that generation. In Matthew 24 Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This Temple was the very center of the Jewish world. This is where the sacrifices for sin were offered by the genealogically confirmed Levitical priests. For Jesus to predict the utter desolation of this temple was the same as saying their world was about to come crashing down around their ears! In graphic detail Jesus chronicled the events to occur before that disaster and the signs indicating its imminence, vss. 14-15. In highly apocalyptic, [symbolic] language he described the fall itself: "The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heaven shall be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky with power and great glory". In verses 32-33 Jesus said that by heeding the signs they could know his coming was at hand. In verse 34 he assured them that generation would not pass away before all those things happened. In verse 35 Jesus reassured them that what he had said was true. He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away". This verse is Jesus' way of contrasting the Old World of Israel that was to perish, and his New World that would remain. That Old World would surely perish as he had just said--but his World will never pass! In verse 36 Jesus gave a final warning about knowing the time of those events. Although he informed them how to know when the event was imminent and reassured them that it would definitely happen in that generation, he tells them they cannot know the precise day and hour. They must therefore be watchful, verse 42ff. Can you see the relationship of Jesus' prediction of the passing of the "heaven and earth" in Matthew 24 with his statement in chapter 5:17-18? In chapter 24 he said their world, symbolized by the temple and city, was to pass away; and he expressed it in the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth. In chapter 5 he had already said the "heaven and earth" had to pass before the Law could pass. We shall see below the perfect correspondence with this idea and Jesus' statement that all of the Old Covenant had to be fulfilled for the Law to pass.
Hebrews 12:25-28 is another text that speaks of the passing of the Old Covenant World under the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth. The writer alludes to the giving of the Law at Sinai, [remember Isaiah 51], as the shaking of earth. He says God promised to shake not only earth, but heaven also. This shaking signified removing them; therefore God was promising to remove heaven and earth. Why? So that something that could not be removed would remain. Now notice: in verse 28 he says they were at that time receiving, [they had not already completely received it], a kingdom "that cannot be shaken". Reader, if they were receiving an unshakable kingdom this of necessity means the "heaven and earth" was being removed! [Remember Jesus' words in Matthew 24:35 about the "heaven and earth" passing but his word not passing? Jesus' world then is unshakable. Hebrews is discussing the shaking of one world and receiving of another unshakable kingdom. See the comparison?] Patently, physical heaven and earth was not being removed; but Hebrews was written just a few years before the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple. Further, the Gospel had been preached for some time declaring the superiority of Christ and the imminent demise of the Old World. The Old World of Israel was on the verge of destruction; the New World was being delivered. Thus, we have another example of the Bible speaking of the passing of heaven and earth when it means the passing of the Old World of Israel. Space forbids full discussion of II Peter 3 and Revelation as further examples of scriptures speaking of the passing of heaven and earth when the meaning was the passing of the Old World of Israel. Suffice it to say both Peter and John say the heaven and earth that was to perish was the same heaven and earth the Old Covenant had predicted to perish. See II Peter 3:1-2 and Revelation 22:6. The significance of this fact will become apparent below. What have we seen then? We have seen that both the Old and New Covenant predicted the passing of "heaven and earth" when physical heaven and earth was not the subject. The World of Israel was the subject. We believe this is precisely what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 5:17-18 when he said "until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law". He was saying that until Israel's "WORLD," symbolized by the city and temple, was destroyed, the law would not pass away. Until All Is Fulfilled Not only did Jesus say the Law would not pass until heaven and earth passed, he said the Law could not pass until it was all fulfilled. It has been the unfortunate practice of many to essentially ignore the first "until" in Matthew 5:17-18. The Sabbatarians are most observant of the first one, insisting that since [physical] heaven and earth still stand the Law still stands. This would be fine except there are two "untils" in these verses and they are of equal force. Jesus said when all the Law was fulfilled the Law would pass--and the Bible is very emphatic in telling us when all the Law would be fulfilled. In Daniel 9:24-27 Daniel was told that 70 weeks had been determined on his people and city, i.e. Jerusalem. By the end of this prophetic time period God promised that six things would be accomplished. Daniel was told that by the end of that period God would "seal up vision and prophecy". In my book "Seal Up Vision and Prophecy" I demonstrate the wide agreement among Hebrew scholars that "seal up vision and prophecy" means the complete fulfillment of all prophecy. Daniel's prophecy then tells of the time when all prophecy would be fulfilled. When would this be? The end of Daniel's vision was the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 AD. See verse 27 and compare it with Matthew 24:15ff where Jesus said the Abomination of Desolation and his coming would occur in his generation. The last book in the Bible confirms that all prophecy was to be fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem. This book is the story of the fall of the great city, Babylon. Many differing interpretations have been offered to identify this city and yet the most obvious interpretation of all has been ignored. Revelation specifically identifies Babylon--it is the great city "where our Lord was crucified", 11:8. Reader, Jesus was not crucified in Rome; he was not crucified "in" the Roman Catholic church, he was not crucified "in" apostate Christianity. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem! Our point is this, John predicted the fall of Babylon, the city where our Lord was crucified. He expressed this under the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth. He said all this was to "shortly take place". See the correlation with Daniel 9, Matthew 5 and Matthew 24? Such beautiful harmony is no accident! Finally, we have Jesus' own words as to when all prophecy was to be fulfilled. In Luke 21:22 our Lord spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and said "These be the days of vengeance in which all things that are written must be fulfilled". In verse 32 he emphatically said "this generation will not pass away until all things take place". Verse 33 contains Jesus' statement that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will by no means pass away". Luke 21 thus contains the identical elements of Matthew 5:17-18; the passing of heaven and earth, and the fulfillment of all prophecy emphatically placed within the context of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD! Are you willing to accept Christ's inspired word? Note the perfect correlation of Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Revelation and Luke 21. They all tell of the time when all prophecy would be fulfilled; they all identify that time as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD! In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said the Old Law would not pass away until all of it was fulfilled; Jesus said all that was written would be fulfilled when Jerusalem fell in his generation; therefore the Law did not pass until Jerusalem fell in Jesus' generation!
Now, Jesus said "until heaven and earth pass" the law would not pass. He also said "until all be fulfilled" the law would not pass. We have seen that the passing of the Old World of Israel in the destruction of her city and temple in 70 AD is spoken of as the passing of heaven and earth. We have also seen that Jesus said that was when all things that were written would be fulfilled. Since Israel's heaven and earth would pass when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and since all things would be fulfilled when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, we conclude that is the time when the Old Law would completely pass. Yes, But...Objections Considered
There are basically four objections to what we have just studied. First, it is objected that the end of the world did not happen and Jesus did not come in the fall of Jerusalem. Second, it is said that the Law could not pass at the destruction of Jerusalem because the Bible says it was nailed to the Cross of Jesus at his death. Third, and a corollary to number two, it is insisted the Bible teaches that all the Old Law was fulfilled at the Cross. Finally, many insist there is a difference between the "Law" that had to be fulfilled and the Prophets. Let us begin with the first objection.
Did Christ Come In 70 AD? To some this may seem a ridiculous question--to serious Bible students this is not a debatable point. The Bible is quite emphatic that Jesus was to return in that first century generation before all of his disciples died. Jesus so stated in Matthew 16:27-28. In chapter 24:29-34 it speaks of him coming in power, with angels and great glory to gather the saints. In verse 34 he said "Verily I say to you, this generation will not pass, until all these things be fulfilled". Please note Jesus said "Verily I say to you", Matthew 16:28; 24:34. This word "verily" means "Truly" and is the strongest assertion of the validity and solemnity of what is said. James said "The coming of the Lord is at hand" and "the judge stands right at the door," James 5:7-9. He told his readers to be patient "until the coming of the Lord". Peter said "the end of all things is at hand," and asserted Christ was "ready to judge the living and the dead," when he wrote, I Peter 4:5,7. The Hebrew writer said "In a very little while, he that will come will come and will not tarry," 10:37. In Revelation God's Son said "Behold, I come quickly" several times, see chapter 22. Some one will object that Jesus did not come back because time continues. This objection overlooks the very thing we have sought to establish earlier--the prophets did not predict the end of time, they predicted the passing of the "heaven and earth" of Old Testament Israel! The end of time is not a Biblical subject! Reader, Jesus said he was coming back in the generation that was living when he spoke. Are you willing to accept the word of the Lord of heaven or your own preconceived ideas about the end of the world? Just what does the authority of the Scriptures mean to you? What does INSPIRATION mean? The "Already-But Not Yet" of the Passing of the Law The second objection cited above says the Law could not have passed at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD because Paul says the Law was nailed to the cross of Jesus when he was crucified, Colossians 2:14f. Please read that text; sounds impressive does it not? But there is more to the picture than most want to admit! There is in scripture something the scholars call the "already but not yet". Simply put, the writers of the Bible often spoke of certain things as PRESENT REALITIES in certain texts while in other passages they spoke of the same things as COMING IN THE NEAR FUTURE! In other words, they said they had them [the blessings], but they did NOT [fully] have them yet! This is true of the passing of the Old Law! In Ephesians 2 Paul taught about the passing of the Law and that the cross was the power of that passing. It is equally clear from Paul's other writings that he believed the full passing of the Law was future to him! In II Corinthians 3 the apostle discusses the passing of the Law written and engraven in stones, the Old Covenant. In verse 11 he says "If what is passing away [that is the Old Law, DKP] was glorious, what remains is much more glorious". [NKJV] The reader will please notice the PRESENT TENSE of the verse! Reader, this passage was written over 20 years after the Cross, yet Paul said the Old Law was passing, not had passed, away! To drive this home even more see the next verse--but before that see Romans 8:24-"hope that is seen is no hope". Something realized is no longer anticipated-no longer the object of hope! Remember this as we go back to II Corinthians 3. In verse 12 Paul says "Seeing then that we have such hope". What hope was that? Please go there right now and see for yourself that it was the passing away of the Old Law! Paul, TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS ON THE CROSS, called the passing of the Old Law a HOPE! The passing of the Law was for Paul "already but not yet"! Without controversy the Cross was the power of the passing. Some have called it the beginning of the end. But as we have seen, ALL the Law had to be fulfilled before the Law could pass, and ALL of the Old Law was not fulfilled at the Cross. All Fulfilled At the Cross?
The third objection says in effect that on the Cross Jesus fulfilled ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE PASSING OF THE OLD LAW, i. e. his sacrifice, and therefore the Law could pass when his passion was completed. The verse offered as proof for this position is Luke 24:44- "These are the words I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me". These words are construed by those who insist the Law fully passed at the Cross to mean that Jesus was saying his death was the fulfillment of all things necessary for the passing of the Law!
One thing that should immediately strike the reader is the fact that Jesus is not even speaking of the passing of the law and the prerequisites for that. He IS speaking of the necessity of the fulfillment of the law to be sure--but in contrast to those who appeal to this text he is not saying "now here is all that is necessary for the Old Covenant to pass away; I must suffer". In Matthew 5 Jesus IS speaking of the prerequisites for the passing of the Law, and he says it must ALL be fulfilled. In Luke 24 Jesus was saying that his passion was one of the constituent elements of the Law that had to be fulfilled NOT THE ONLY THING IN THE LAW THAT HAD TO BE FULFILLED! Does Jesus limit "the fulfillment of all things" in Luke to his passion? Hardly! Go back to verse 27. Jesus taught his disciples: "And beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself". Notice the reference to all the scriptures. Now read verse 26- "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things AND TO ENTER HIS GLORY?" [emphasis mine] Reader, in expounding the scriptures and the need for him to fulfill all things JESUS DID NOT STOP AT THE CROSS, HE SPOKE OF THE GLORY TO FOLLOW THE CROSS! Even those who believe the Law ended at Calvary do not believe Jesus entered his glory at the Cross; they place that at Pentecost. Now since Jesus was expounding on the need to fulfill all things written in the Law and Prophets, and since he did not stop at the Cross but spoke of the glory to follow, it must be true that the fulfillment of all things written in the Law and Prophets had to include Christ's entrance into the "glorious things" and this was sometime after the Cross! These thoughts are corroborated in Acts 3:18ff. In verse 18 Peter says Jesus fulfilled all things written concerning his suffering. But notice verses 21 and following. Peter tells them Christ would remain in heaven until all things foretold by the prophets i.e. the restoration of all things, were fulfilled. Reader, the restoration of all things is equivalent to the consummation of the glory of the Messiah. It means the Messiah is fully established in his kingdom! Thus, Peter, in speaking of the restoration of all things was speaking of the fulfillment of the rest of the Old Covenant scriptures--and this fulfillment was directly related to the glory of Messiah! When we examine Luke 24 and see that Jesus said it was necessary for him to suffer and enter his glory we can see it involves more than just the cross, the ascension and Pentecost. It involves the full establishment of the Kingdom of Messiah!
In addition, in Luke 24:44-47 Jesus said that not only must he suffer and enter his glory, but that "remission and repentance of sins should be preached in all nations beginning at Jerusalem". THE FULFILLMENT OF ALL THINGS INCLUDED WORLD EVANGELISM; PATENTLY THIS DID NOT HAPPEN AT THE CROSS OR PENTECOST!
And consider: to say that all that was necessary to abrogate the Old Law was the Passion is to directly reverse Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18! Jesus said NONE of the law would pass until ALL WAS FULFILLED. But the view that the Law passed at the Cross makes Jesus to say ALL the Law would pass when SOME of it was fulfilled! Specifically, this objection has Jesus saying that ALL THE LAW WOULD PASS WHEN ONE PREDICTION, THAT OF HIS PASSION, WAS FULFILLED! But Jesus said all the Law and prophets had to be fulfilled; not just one specific prediction! Reader, when an interpretation completely reverses Christ's words there is
something wrong! Jesus not only said he had to suffer, he said he had to enter his glory; he said the gospel had to preached in all the world. Fulfillment of all things positively entailed more than the cross, thus the Law could not pass at the Cross since Jesus said all of it had to be fulfilled before any of it could pass. Finally, if you say the law passed at the cross then "heaven and earth" passed at the cross! Yet Hebrews 12, which positively is speaking about the passing of the Old Law under the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth, was written after the Cross and that passing was still future! Further, it does not explain how all of the law was not fulfilled at cross, in light of Luke 21:22. These are serious objections to the view that the Law fully passed at the Cross. LAW VERSUS PROPHETS? Many try to negate the force of Matthew 5:17-18 by saying what Jesus really meant was that he would fulfill all the legal and moral mandates of the Old Law and the Old Law would then pass; but he did not really mean all PROPHECIES had to be fulfilled. Thus, in this interpretation there is a distinction between the Law and the Prophets.
This interpretation flatly contradicts Luke 24:44! In that text Jesus said "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me". Reader, you cannot delineate between "the law" and the "prophets" in Matthew 5 and then appeal to Luke 24 to prove Jesus fulfilled just "the law" in his passion! Luke 24 speaks about the law, the prophets, and the Psalms and Jesus said all things had to be fulfilled! If Jesus was saying he had to fulfill the things written about his death, and if all he had to fulfill was "the Law" as distinct from the prophets, then patently, THE LAW OF MOSES PREDICTED THAT DEATH!Reader, the Law had a predictive element to it; it was far more than legal mandates and moral legislation. See Colossians 2:16f In that passage Paul told the Colossians not to be judged in regard to meat and drink, feast days, and Sabbaths. These were all part of the legislation of the Old Law. But notice, in verse 17 Paul says they all foreshadowed Christ--they were "shadows of things to come". [Please note those things were still viewed as coming! They had not fully arrived yet!] Jesus said "the law" was predictive in nature. In Matthew 11:13 our Lord said "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John". Did you catch that? Jesus said the LAW and the prophets PROPHESIED! How then can one delineate between the prophets and "the law"? Simply put, he cannot Biblically do so! In addition, in Hebrews 10:1-4 the writer says the Law was a shadow of good things to come, [once again those things were viewed as not yet fully come]. Our point is that one cannot delineate between the Law and the Prophets for the Law itself was prophetic! Jesus had to fulfill all the prophetic scriptures whether couched in types, symbols, visions, or oracles. Further, THE PROPHETS ARE VERY CLEARLY CALLED "THE LAW"! In I Corinthians 14:21-22 Paul quotes from Isaiah 28 and specifically calls it "the law". A quick check of Romans 3:10ff will reveal that Paul quotes from the Psalms, Jeremiah, Proverbs and Isaiah and calls all of them "the Law", vs. 19. In addition, as noted above, THE LAW PROPHESIED, Matthew 11:13. Now since the prophets are called "the law", and since "the law" PROPHESIED one cannot delineate between the law and prophets in Matthew 5.
Our point is that the term "the Law" was the abbreviated way of referring to the entire Old Covenant. When Jesus said "one jot or one tittle will in no wise pass from the Law until all be fulfilled" he was using the form of speech prevalent in his time. He did not need to say "Law and Prophets" or "Law, Prophets and Psalms" each and every time! When Jesus said he did not "come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill" he was saying he came to fulfill all the Law and prophets. He was using a form of ellipsis. When he said he did not come to destroy the Law and Prophets but to fulfill he did not have to say "all the Law and Prophets" again; it was understood that was what he meant. This being true it is patent that Jesus did not say JUST THE LAW, TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE PROPHETS, HAD TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE THE OLD SYSTEM COULD PASS. He in fact, did say ALL THE PROPHETS HAD TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE THE OLD LAW COULD PASS! What we see then is that when one attempts to have Jesus say all he had to do was fulfill the legal and moral mandates of the law before the Law could pass he imposes a non-scriptural distinction upon the term "the Law". Second, he ignores the elliptical language of Matthew 5:18; and ignores the fact that the Old Law itself, even the legislative edicts, were prophetic in nature. Jesus did indeed have to fulfill ALL THE LAW AND PROPHETS BEFORE THE OLD LAW COULD PASS! Fulfilling the Promises and Purpose of the Law I would like to ask you a question: If a law or covenant has been abrogated, are any of its penalties or promises applicable anymore? Yes, or No? Will you please get a pencil and circle the one you believe is correct? Now common sense says that if a law is no longer in effect then its penalties or promises are voided. Well, consider this in light of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18. If the Old Covenant was abrogated at the Cross does this not mean that all Old Covenant promises and penalties were either fulfilled or abrogated at that time? If not, why not? Now lets see what this means. Paul emphatically says his eschatology is taken directly from the Old Covenant, Acts 24:14ff; Acts 26:21ff. Specifically, he tells us that the promise of the resurrection was an Old Covenant promise made by and to Moses and all the prophets. But Paul was speaking about this promise SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE CROSS WHERE, WE ARE TOLD, THE OLD COVENANT WAS TAKEN AWAY. But if the Old Covenant was taken away at the Cross how could Paul, years afterward, still be preaching Old Covenant promises?!? You see, if the law was nullified at the Cross, THEN ALL OF IT WAS NULLIFIED! Remember, Jesus said NONE would pass until ALL was fulfilled. If ALL was not fulfilled then NONE of it passed! The Old Covenant stands or falls as a WHOLE! The Old Covenant had several constituent prophetic elements and it was essential they all be fulfilled before the Old Covenant could pass and the New Covenant World be fully established. The Old Covenant predicted the salvation of the remnant of Israel, Isaiah 2-4; the gathering of the Gentiles, Isaiah 49:6ff; the giving of a New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:29ff; the filling up of the measure of Israel's sin leading to their destruction, Isaiah 65:7ff; the coming of the Lord in judgment of the nations, Isaiah 66, Joel 3:1; Zechariah 14; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Joel 2:28ff; the passing of the "heaven and earth" of Israel, Isaiah 24, 65, 66; and much more. IF THE OLD COVENANT WAS ABROGATED AT THE CROSS HOW COULD ANY OF THESE PROPHECIES BE VALID AFTER THE CROSS? Quite simply, they could not; yet the New Testament writers repeatedly refer to these prophecies AFTER PENTECOST and anticipate their fulfillment! THIS UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES THE OLD COVENANT WAS NOT ABROGATED AT THE CROSS This is also demonstrated in another way. In Acts 13:40f Paul preached to the Jews at Antioch. They rejected the gospel and Paul warned them "Behold ye despisers and wonder and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work, which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto him". What is the significance of Paul's words? They are taken from Habakkuk 1:5. PAUL, IN ACTS 13, YEARS AFTER THE OLD COVENANT WAS SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN AWAY, WAS THREATENING ISRAEL WITH OLD COVENANT WRATH! National destruction for violating the Covenant was part and parcel of the Law delivered to Israel, Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28-30. BUT IF THAT COVENANT WAS ABROGATED AT THE CROSS HOW COULD PAUL STILL BE THREATENING ISRAEL WITH COVENANT WRATH? Patently, he could not!
Note our argument: Major Premise: No promise or penalty of a covenant is applicable if that covenant has been abrogated. Minor Premise: But Paul applied Old Covenant penalties to Israel, Acts 13.Conclusion: Therefore the Old Covenant penalties were still applicable. Note another argument: Major Premise: No promise or penalty of a Covenant is applicable if that Covenant has been abrogated. Minor Premise: The promises of the coming of the Lord, judgment of the nations, and the resurrection are Old Covenant promises, Isa. 66; Dan. 12; Joel 3:1f, etc.
Minor Premise: The Old Covenant was abrogated at the Cross- traditional view of the Old Covenant. Conclusion: Therefore the promises of the coming of the Lord, the judgment of the nations, and the resurrection, being Old Covenant promises, were abrogated at the Cross!
IF THERE IS A SINGLE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY THAT IS UNFULFILLED THEN THE OLD COVENANT STILL STANDS; IF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS TRULY ABROGATED THEN THE ESCHATOLOGICAL PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT MUST BE FULFILLED OR NULLIFIED! Reader, the view that the Old Law passed at the Cross strips the New Testament scriptures of all eschatology and demands that every promise of "last things" was fulfilled at the Cross and then God started over on Pentecost with a totally new set of "last things" promises! This is patently false; the New Testament writers constantly affirm that they are simply reiterating the Old Covenant promises, II Peter 3:1, 13; Revelation 10:6ff!
The truth is that the Old Covenant promises of the coming of the Lord, judgment and resurrection had to be fulfilled before the New Covenant World of Jesus could be perfected. Those promises of "the end" as seen above, do not deal with the end of time but with the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel and the full establishment of the New Covenant World of Christ. The Old Law could not pass until it had accomplished its purpose--this is established in Galatians 3:23-25. Paul here says those under the law were "under guard", "kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed". He says the Law was given to serve as a "tutor" [NKJV] to bring them to Christ. He then concludes by saying "after faith is come we are no longer under a tutor". It is clear that "the faith" Paul has in mind is not the subjective faith of individuals but the objective system of faith we call the Gospel System. The Law was to continue until "The Faith" came. Reader, did "The Faith" come at the cross? Patently not; although the cross is where the New Covenant of "The Faith" was confirmed by the death of Jesus the Testament maker, Galatians 3:15. The Old Covenant predicted the coming of a New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:29ff. Did the Old Covenant pass away before that predicted New Covenant was delivered? If so the Old Covenant passed away before it had fulfilled its purpose in bringing Israel to a New Covenant! In Hebrews 8:8-13 the writer recalls God's promise given in Jeremiah and then says "In that he says 'a new covenant' he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away". The Hebrew writer was living in the days in which the New Covenant was being delivered. As he writes he recalls God's promise to give the New Covenant and says the Old was ready to vanish away! Reader, the Old had not yet been fulfilled! It had not yet fulfilled its function because the promised New Covenant was not yet fully delivered. But the writer says the Old was "ready to vanish". "Ready to vanish" does not mean it had already vanished! It is clear then that the Old Law was in a time of transition. The New Covenant had to be fully given before the full purpose of the Old was completed and Paul very clearly says the Law was to last until "The Faith" was delivered. Would anyone assert the New Covenant was fully delivered at the cross? At Pentecost? Surely not. Therefore until the Law had fulfilled its purpose in bringing the Jews to the New Covenant it did not pass away. Summary and Conclusion What have we seen in this little tract? We have seen that heaven and earth had to pass away before the Old Law could pass away! We have defined "heaven and earth" as the Old Covenant world of Old Israel. We have seen that instead of predicting the destruction of physical heaven and earth the Bible predicted the passing of Old Israel's world in order for God to create the New World of his Son-the Kingdom of God-the church of the living God. We have seen that the Bible very clearly tells when ALL prophecy was to be fulfilled--when heaven and earth would pass--in 70 AD with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the very heart and core of Israel's world. We have examined several objections and found them to be based upon false suppositions. We have seen that if the Old Covenant has been abrogated then ALL OF ITS PROPHECIES INCLUDING THE PREDICTIONS OF THE "END" MUST BE FULFILLED OR ABROGATED. IF THOSE PROPHECIES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED THEN THE OLD COVENANT STILL STANDS! We have seen that the Old Law could not pass until it had fulfilled its purpose and that purpose included deliverance to the New Covenant--that was not fulfilled until all the New Covenant was revealed and confirmed. That simply did not happen at the Cross or Pentecost The ideas presented in this tract are representative of what is called Covenant Eschatology. This is the view that God has kept his promises in fulfilling all prophecy by the time of the passing of Old Israel in 70 AD. The fall of Jerusalem was far more than the passing of the capital of Judaism--it was a spiritually cosmic event! It was the time of the coming of Jesus, Matthew 24:29-34; the judgment, Matthew 16:27-28. It was at that time that the salvation in Christ was fully revealed, Colossians 3:1ff. It is because of what happened then, as the consummation of the work started on the Cross, Hebrews 9:26-28, that you and I can have confidence in the Word of God and the God of the Word. Christ did come in judgment of the Old World in 70 AD and fully establish the unending New Covenant Heaven and Earth. This is when all things foretold by the prophets was fulfilled and that is how heaven and earth passed away!

Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?

Please fill in all fields marked with a *
Article
How Heaven and Earth Passed Away!
Name*

Email Address*
Comments*

Romans 3:3,4 mightes be justified in thy sayings and mightest overcome when thou are judged!!

c:\Websites\foutz237\quodlibet.net\cgi-bin\axs\ax.cgi - working okay - no logging command received - use ?debugme query string for more info.
Quodlibet Journal: Volume 2 Number 2, Spring 2000 http://www.Quodlibet.net
Preterism and the Question of Heresy© Reverend Randall Otto, PhD
In a recent article in Quodlibet Online Journal, I concurred with R. C. Sproul's thesis that Jesus was a preterist. Sproul suggests in his book The Last Days According to Jesus (1998) that, while Jesus believed the parousia of which he spoke in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in the Jewish war of 66-70 A.D., there remains another parousia yet future which is described by Paul. However, the question for partial preterists like Sproul remains: "if the eschatological scenario and parousia Jesus predicted in the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in AD 70, where did the apostles get the notion of another, yet future, coming? Are we back to the old liberal portrayal of Paul as the real founder of Christianity, and the perennial pitting of Jesus over against Paul (and the rest of the apostles)?" [1] I concluded that article by contending, "If 'the last days according to Jesus' were fulfilled in the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, then the Church must be reformed and always reforming according to the Word of its Lord so that its eschatology fits Jesus' teaching." [2]
Full preterism views the parousia singly spoken of in the NT as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in the Jewish war of 66-70 A.D. This eschatological viewpoint has been rapidly spreading throughout Reformed Christianity. A contributor to the Reformed Reconstructionist Chalcedon Report (September, 1997) said, "It is my understanding that this heresy is spreading like weeks [sic, weeds] in Reformed churches." [3] This quote not only describes the rapid spread of preterism; it also denounces preterism as heresy. The charge of heresy has become more prominent as preterism has gained adherents. At least one conservative Reformed denomination has even officially condemned preterism as heresy. On March 13, 1997, the Western Classis of the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) approved an "Action to Condemn Hyper-Preterism as Heresy," an overture which the Synod of the RCUS adopted at its annual meeting in May, 1997. In addition, a May 1, 1999 "Committee Paper Investigating Full Preterism" by the Heartland Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) describes its "key heretical teachings." A website, "The Things Which Are To Come: Defending Our Hope For The Future" (http://members.truepath.com/tocome/) has been established expressly to counter the preterist "challenge to biblical orthodoxy" and contains articles (included with additional critiques in "The Preterist Archive") that speak of preterism with reference to Hymenaeus who, with Philetus, is said to "have wandered away from the truth" by contending that "the resurrection has already taken place" (2 Tim. 2:17-18).
Heresy is a serious charge, for if it be true, preterists are outside of Christ and in peril of eternal condemnation. Is heresy a justifiable charge against preterists? This article will examine the nature of heresy and the validity of the primary charges issued against preterism, particularly as enumerated in the ecclesiastical documents cited above. While there is precedent in church history for charging preterists with heresy on the basis of their view of the resurrection body, the charge would also hold against many other Christian theologians who are not preterists and widely considered orthodox. Preterism is not a monolithic movement, so that variations advocated by some preterists may perhaps fall outside the acceptable norms for faith. However, the preterist movement in general cannot be justifiably categorized as heretical, but instead as fundamentally orthodox. [4] Moreover, if Jesus was a preterist, then a church that is truly reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God must reform its understanding of eschatology to agree with the teachings of its Lord and admit the validity of preterism.
The Question of Heresy
Heresy is a rather difficult concept to define. The Greek word hairesis derives from harein, which means in the active voice "to take, win, seize," and in the middle voice "to select, choose." In classical literature, it is used to indicate the taking of a town in battle or the choice of a magistrate, for example. From this there develops in Hellenism the predominant objective use of the term to denote "doctrine" and especially a "school" of thought. Certain schools of thought are associated with a particular, or even a peculiar, doctrine which sets them distinctively apart from others. The use of the word to denote a school, or sect, is the one generally found in the NT, where the word is used of the "sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and the "sect of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5), "the strictest sect" of the Jewish religion (Acts 26:5). The early church was referred to by this word, as "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5), as "the Way, which they call a sect" (Acts 24:14), and "this sect" everywhere spoken against (Acts 28:22). In fact, according to the standard Greek lexicon, the uses of the word for the Christian church "incline toward" the subsequent development of the word denoting a sect holding unacceptable views, i.e., a "heretical sect." [5] As a school of thought with particular doctrines not acceptable to the larger Jewish body, the church was initially viewed as a heresy. Clearly, the characterization of heresy hinges on who or what is considered authoritative. For the early church, the Lord Jesus and his designated apostles were authoritative, with the result that a charge of heresy by Jewish leaders meant little.
According to H. Schlier, the invocation of hairesis by the church "does not owe its meaning to the development of an orthodoxy. The basis of the Christian concept of hairesis is to be found in the new situation created by the introduction of the Christian ekklesia." [6] This is because hairesis "cannot accept" ekklesia and ekklesia "excludes" hairesis. While factions may be a demonstration of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), factions also have positive value; "there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine" (1 Cor. 11:19). Historically, it is clear that the church has come to a greater refinement of its own doctrine through wrestling with divergent opinions. It is only when "false teachers . . . secretly bring in destructive opinions," whereby "they even deny the Master who bought them" and bring "swift destruction on themselves" (2 Pet. 2:1), that the heresy threatens the foundation of the church and must be excised. "After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions (hairetikon anthropon, Tit. 3:10).
While Schlier may be technically and chronologically correct in contending that heresy was defined ecclesiologically rather than doxologically, there having been as yet no conciliar determinations of what constituted correct doctrine, it is nonetheless clear that there existed early in the church basic formulations of doctrine which served as standard confessions of faith, such as the hymns and baptismal formulas found in the NT (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3-7; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16). [7] For the present discussion it should be noted that none of these confessions contains any statement of the resurrection of the flesh or a physical second advent of Christ. These traditional doctrines are instead based on subsequent biblical interpretation and, with all human endeavors, are "subject to limitation by man's finiteness and sinfulness." [8] Assertions by critics of preterism of "what is universally defined in the New Testament as a resurrection of the flesh" and that, "in eternity, to have affirmed the physical second Advent will be essential," [9] presume divine infallibility for their potentially fallible interpretations. There is no unequivocal biblical assertion for either statement and both are variously attested in subsequent statements of faith. In the ante-Nicene church fathers reference is made to a "rule of faith" (regulae fidei). Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Trallians, ch 9 [ANF 1:70]) sets forth circa 107 the essence of the faith:
Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) Jesus Christ [the Son of God], who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who was truly born [both of God and of the Virgin . . . truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin . . .], ate and drank [truly], truly suffered persecution under Pontius Pilate, was truly [and not in appearance] crucified and died . . . who was also truly raised from the dead [and rose after three days], his Father raising him up . . . [and after having spent forty days with the Apostles, was received up to the Father, and sits on his right hand, waiting till his enemies are put under his feet]. [10]
Writing about 180, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, enlarges upon Ignatius' rule with statements which presage the Apostles' Creed (Against Heresies bk 1, ch 10, sec 1 [ANF 1:330-332]). Notable for the present discussion are his statements on "the resurrection of the dead, and the bodily assumption [ensarkon) into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father, to comprehend all things under one head, and to raise up all flesh of all mankind." [11] While there is no temporal element attached to the appearing, there is a stronger emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh. In the Latin recension (Against Heresies bk 3, ch 4, secs 1-2), Irenaeus' use of venturus, the future active participle of the Latin venir, "to come," linguistically denotes nothing more than the time after the principal verb, so that "shall come in glory," while surely understood by Irenaeus to mean a future coming, does not require the speaker as the point of time reference, but simply denotes an occurrence following Christ's suffering and rising again. The same may be said of subsequent uses of venturus by Tertullian and subsequent Latin writers.
At the beginning of the third century Tertullian introduced the phrase "resurrection of the flesh" (De Virginibus Velandis, ch 1), [12] though this does not appear in all his statements (not in Against Praxeus, e.g.). The statement of Lucian of Antioch around 300, says nothing concerning the resurrection of the dead (or flesh), but simply speaks of the representative nature of Christ's resurrection ("he rose for us") and accents his coming again (palin) in judgment. With the received form of the Apostles' Creed, "the resurrection of the flesh" (carnis resurrectionem) becomes more normative, in accord with its earlier as well as subsequent versions as a Roman baptismal symbol (c. 341). Notwithstanding, Schaff translates carnis with "body," leaving "flesh" in brackets, with a note that, while "older English translations of the Creed had the literal rendering flesh (caro, sarx), by which the ancient Church protested against spiritualistic conceptions of the Gnostics," this may be misunderstood in a grossly materialistic sense, while the resurrection of the body is unobjectionable; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 50." [13] "Resurrection of the body" remains the standard English translation of this statement in the Apostles' Creed.
The original Nicene symbol of 325 speaks more simply yet of Christ "raised the third day" and "coming to judge the living and dead," with no reference whatsoever to individual resurrection. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which is what is regularly referred to as the Nicene Creed, speaks in the same simplicity, with the addition of the expected "resurrection of the dead" (resurrectionem mortuorum). Sandlin's confident assertion that "all orthodox Christians in all sectors of the church echo Tertullian" in insisting on the "restoration of the flesh" cannot be sustained. [14] Contrary to his virulent assertions, a materialistic resurrection and a physical second advent are not even mentioned, let alone "a prime tenet [of] Nicene orthodoxy." [15]
In the early church fathers, then, hairesis became a technical term for a view hostile to the church. Initially, it is viewed as any adherence to a philosophy that does not accord with the established teachings of the church as maintained by the bishop (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, ch 6 [ANF 1:52]). It involves mixing Jesus Christ with "their own poisonous teachings," such as the denial of his virgin birth, his passion on the cross, his resurrection, his divinity, or his distinction from the Father and Spirit in the one God (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, ch 6 [ANF 1:68]). Any corruption of Christian teaching due to either Greek or Judaizing influences must be repudiated (Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, ch 6 [ANF 1:82-83]).
Beginning with Ignatius, the first century bishop of Antioch, and continuing on in the other early church apologists, pagan philosophy is viewed as the origin of heresy. Heresy denotes a sect hostile to Christianity because of "an inner relationship between heretics and the secular philosophical schools or Jewish sects," particularly Gnosticism. [16] "Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy," says Tertullian (Prescription Against Heretics, ch 7 [ANF 3:246]). Hippolytus (Refutation of all Heresies, introduction [ANF 5:9]) believes heretical doctrines "derived their origin from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy, and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers." In similar fashion, the accusation of heresy against preterists is sometimes made on the basis of a supposed "low view of the body," being "the old error of Platonism." [17]
It must be noted, however, that the attempt to condemn a view by association with a particular philosophy has occasionally fallen prey to arbitrariness, as, for example, in the case of Hippolytus' assertion that Marcion obtained his system from Empedocles. [18] Furthermore, while Hippolytus and other apologists condemned certain views because of their purported derivation from Plato or Aristotle, outstanding theologians within church history have oft depended heavily on these philosophers, Augustine on Plato and Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle, to cite but two obvious examples. Moreover, when it is recognized that a standard modern criticism of early theology is that the fathers themselves depended too much on Greek lines of thought, it seems evident that derivation from pagan philosophy is a two-edged sword that cuts against orthodoxy as well as heresy and may depend largely on the one wielding the sword. [19] Indeed, it has even been suggested that the very idea of orthodoxy evinces a Greek mind set, with "Greece the source of the true damnosa hereditas." [20] It must suffice to say that, where philosophy serves as an aid (but not a presupposition) to understanding and systematizing theology in a way coherent with Scripture, it is to be admitted. Those theologians who claim to eschew philosophy are sometimes the ones most shaped by it, as perhaps most notably in the case of Karl Barth. Heresy has also been defined on the basis of its etymology as a choice against the rule of faith. A heretic is condemned for false doctrines, Tertullian says, "because he has himself chosen that for which he is condemned," having made a "choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy" (Prescription Against Heretics, ch 6 [ANF 3:245-246]). Heresy is thus a private opinion contrary to received knowledge and based on ambiguous passages in Scripture. Irenaeus, for example, mocks the Gnostic attempt to posit a god above the Creator by reference to "ambiguous passages of Scripture. . . . For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest and consistent, and clear" (Against Heresies, bk 2, ch 10, sec 2 (ANF 1:370]). Tertullian appears exasperated in arguing against the heretics of his day because of their propensity to use ambiguous texts:
They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because of their ambiguity. Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied by the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy (Prescription Against Heretics ch 1 [ANF 3:251]).
Because "a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain," Tertullian would "oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures" (Ibid., ch 15 [ANF 3:250-51]). "Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures," Tertullian says, but rather to "the true Christian rule and faith," since "there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions" (Ibid., 19 [ANF 3:251-252]). Christ delivered the faith to the apostles, who deposited it in the churches, with the result that all opinion which has no such divine origin and apostolic tradition is ipso facto false. [21] Truth is thus distinguished from falsehood not only by reference to apostolic authority and tradition, by but chronology, for there is "the priority of truth, and the comparative lateness of falsehood" (Ibid., ch 31 [ANF 3:258]).
This tack continues to be employed by those who denounce preterism, despite the preterist appeal not to ambiguous passages but rather to clear time references indicating the coming (parousia) of Christ within his generation. Rather than reconvene this exegetical discussion, however, Sandlin acerbically asks:
You criticize the Hymenaeans' confessional critics for insufficient exegesis. Whose exegesis would you prefer? I could proffer exegesis of orthodox Christians for the last 1800 years. It is not a question of a void of exegesis but of pitting a peculiarly modern and heterodox exegesis against the exegesis of the last 1800 years. Mark it down: every assault on Christian orthodoxy (like Hymenaenism) by an appeal to a supposedly unconditioned modern exegesis does not pit the Bible against the creeds, but a warped, modern understanding of the Bible against an understanding of the Bible over the last 1800 on a points [sic] critical to the Faith." [22]
Lateness of doctrinal formulation, however, has never satisfied to settle biblical debate. Both the Reconstructionists' postmillennialism and the dispensational premillennialism against which they also inveigh are modern eschatologies, the former in its modern form owing much to Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) and the latter to J. N. Darby (1800-1882). On the other hand, the prevalent chiliasm of the early church fathers has not rendered it more credible. It is fundamental to the Reformed approach "not [to] despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. . . . And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received opinions, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time" (2nd Helvetic Confession, ch 2). Rather, assent depends on "the judgments of men which are drawn from the Word of God."
The idea of an accepted interpretation of Scripture, which constitutes the tradition of faith, was memorably formulated by Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century. "On account of the number and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in such a way that is directed by the rule of the Catholic church. Now in the Catholic church itself the greatest care is taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all people." [23] This consensus fidelium, "the consensus of the faithful," became a highly influential way of interpreting the Bible as well as an essential antidote to heresy, though the aforementioned early statements of faith show aspects of apparently acceptable diversity, particularly concerning the nature of the resurrection body. This "fencing of Scripture" with a rule of faith embodied in a particular tradition, coupled with the authoritarianism exemplified in Tertullian, eventuated in the Roman Catholic Church's rife condemnation of peoples who questioned its authority and held ideas which fell outside accepted norms, particularly during the Inquisition. In the twelfth century, Peter Waldo and his followers, called Waldensians, were condemned simply for making the Scriptures available in the common tongue and preaching the gospel apart from papal authorization. The Beguines, groups of women in twelfth-century France who lived together for the purposes of economic self-sufficiency and a religious vocation, dedicated to chastity and charity, were condemned simply for existing without men, making them suspect to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The followers of Francis of Assisi were condemned for embracing voluntary, absolute poverty. Each of these groups were condemned largely for socio-political reasons, not doctrinal ones.
In the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe's insistence that the sole criterion of Christian doctrine is Scripture, his translation of the NT into the common English tongue in 1382, and his attack on the papacy and transubstantiation as unbiblical, resulted in his condemnation at the London Blackfriars Council in 1382 and forced retirement from teaching. The Lollards, lay preachers who continued to proclaim his ideas throughout England, were condemned by the statute De Haeretico Comburendo ("On the Burning of Heretics") forced through Parliament in 1401, which made the proclamation of Lollard ideas a capital offense.
The Bohemian reformer John Huss propagated Wycliffe's views. Huss and those who followed him, called Hussites, were charged as heretics, though they saw themselves as devoutly orthodox Christians. Huss was executed in 1415 for promoting the lay reading of the Bible in the common language, believing lay people had the ability to interpret the scriptures for themselves. He had also condemned the immorality of the priesthood and had wanted to raise clerical ethical standards in order to address the financial abuses and sexual immorality which continued to plague the church. He had supported giving all Christians full communion at a time when only priests were allowed to receive the cup. He had opposed the papal selling of indulgences. This all stemmed from his insistence that the Bible took precedence over Church leaders and councils. Though he questioned the Church's authority, he stated at his trial that he would obey the Church completely if it could prove his statements erroneous. This statement condemned him in itself because he trusted his own ability to reason rather than the Church's authority. [24]
Although Huss was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake, he was a champion of reform and prefigured the Reformation. It is hardly unexpected, then, that a century later Martin Luther was perceived as an adherent of Hussite heresy. At the Leipzig disputation in 1519, Luther was asked by Johannes Eck about Huss and, while Luther did not go as far in stating his agreement with Huss at that point as he would later, he did acknowledge the "most christian" nature of the Hussite faith, despite its departure from Christian unity. [25] Less than a year later, the pope demanded that Luther recant and his books be burned, the papal bull Exsurge domine specifying forty-one heresies in his writings. A similar kind of bull is issued by Reconstructionists against preterists today, evidenced in West's injunction that, "if a church unwittingly carries Hymenaen books," they "should be torched or removed immediately." [26] How different is this kind of bull from the open-mindedness of C. H. Spurgeon, who said of The Parousia written by preterist J. Stuart Russell, it "has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all." [27]
The arrogant authoritarianism of the pope did not dissuade Luther, for on December 10, 1520, he threw the bull into a fire outside the Elster gate in Wittenburg with the words, "Because you have destroyed God's truth, may the Lord destroy you today in this fire." [28] On January 3, 1521, the pope issued the bull of excommunication Decet romanum pontificem, declaring Luther a heretic outside the law and subject to death. Luther was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms where, on the evening of April 18, 1521, he made his famous stand:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me. Amen. [29]
Many other allusions could be made to Catholic charges of heresy, such as the silencing of Galileo following his trial for heresy in 1633, with a tentative conclusion being that, save for the great christological and trinitarian formulations of the ecumenical councils, the concept of heresy has generally been in the eye of the beholder, particularly the tyrannical Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, and often has shown itself in an authoritarian recalcitrance against biblical faith. [30] Catholic retrenchment following the Reformation, summarized in the slogan semper eadem ("always the same"), became a key element in the polemic against Protestantism. In the eyes of the Catholic Church up till Vatican II, Protestants in toto had departed from the purported unity of teaching throughout the ages and thus "had forfeited their right to be considered orthodox"; as "an innovation," it was "heterodox for that very reason." [31] That, of course, has never affected Protestants unduly, since Reformation confessional statements regularly reprise the sola scriptura principle and consider all conciliar formulations to stand under that unique divine authority.
While Reformation confessions continue to repudiate ancient trinitarian and christological heresies, such as "the damnable and pestilent heresies of Arius, Marcion, Eutyches, Nestorius, and such others as did either deny the eternity of his [Christ's] Godhead, or the truth of his humanity, or confounded them, or else divided them" (Scots Confession, ch 6), conciliar pronouncements are placed under the absolute authority of Holy Scripture. "The reason why the general councils met was not to make any permanent law which God had not made before, nor yet to form new articles for our belief, nor to give the Word of God authority; much less to make that to be his Word, or even the true interpretation of it, which was not expressed previously by his holy will in his Word; but the reason for councils, at least of those that deserve the name, was partly to refute heresies, and to give public confession of their faith to the generations following" (Scots Confession, ch 20).
In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. . . . Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. [32]
Critics of preterism, oft beginning their condemnation with allusion to the creeds, [33] would thus do well to rethink their commitment to Reformation principles. Sola scriptura meant that everything believed must have a sufficient basis in Scripture alone. While "the idea of a 'traditional interpretation of Scripture' . . . was perfectly acceptable to the magisterial reformers," their stipulation was "that this traditional interpretation could be justified" on the basis of Scripture. [34] This is what Luther's "stand" made clear: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason," "I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God." [35]
The Reformers did not, as critics of preterism imply, approach their faith and work with a facile repristination of catholic orthodoxy. When they upheld the Apostles' Creed as the core of Christian belief, for example, they did so by way of some reinterpretations of traditional dogma, as is particularly evident in their divergent teachings on the "descent into hell," for which there were given at least three distinct meanings, and their views of "the holy catholic Church," for which Luther even substituted "Christian" for "catholic." [36] If it is insisted that each article of the creeds is essential to salvation, what is to be made of the Eastern Church's failure to include "the descent into hell" and "communion of saints" in its versions of the Apostles' Creed, or its failure to hold to the filioque added by the West to the Nicene Creed?
Whose version of these creeds and whose interpretation of their respective statements (including also the difference in them on the resurrection of the body or of the dead) must be held in order to be saved? If a creed is a universally recognized statement of faith, it seems clear there must be some latitude for difference of interpretation as to what certain statements mean and, in some cases (e.g., the descent into hell), whether they are even to be included. Preterists maintain that this also holds true for the eschatological aspects of the creeds. Inasmuch as heresy has primarily to do with a denial of the principle that God has provided redemption in Christ, [37] it may be maintained that preterism stands fully within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy as seeing that redemption fully accomplished by Christ.
Are Preterists Guilty of Hymenaeus' Heresy?
Probably the most common characterization of full-preterism is an association with Hymenaeus, one of two spoken of in 1 Tim 1:20 for having "made shipwreck of their faith," and so "delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." In 2 Tim. 2:17-18, Hymenaeus and Philetus, are condemned for having "swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already" and "upsetting the faith of some." The Christian Reconstructionist camp has been particularly vociferous in castigating preterism as "Hymenaeanism." [38] If Hymenaeus and Philetus believed "the resurrection is past" and preterists believe the parousia occurred in A.D. 70 with the coterminous resurrection of the dead, there might appear to be sufficient similarity to validate the characterization of preterists among those spoken of in the NT who believe "the resurrection is past." Some preterists have responded to this by noting that Hymenaeus and Philetus were speaking of something as "past" which was still future, namely the decisive events surrounding A.D. 70 and were therefore rightly condemned for leading others astray, whereas preterists are arguing that the parousia and resurrection viewed as having occurred in A.D. 70 are only "past" from a standpoint after that date, the completion of the biblical canon, and the completion of redemption in the release of the church/kingdom/temple of Christ from the cultic encumbrances associated with the temple in Jerusalem. True as this is, such a response fails to understand the basis of the condemnation of Hymenaeus and Philetus as proto-Gnostics. Thus, a closer examination of the biblical historical milieu will make it clear that such a characterization or association of preterists with Hymenaeus is based on a superficial reading of the text and is, if anything, an indictment of the interpretive methodology utilized in such criticism.
There can be little doubt that Hymenaeus and Philetus were part of the Christian community who had embraced proto-Gnostic tendencies and were therefore removed from the community for fear that they would wrongly influence the church. Gnosticism was a widely varied movement, but its essential features included: (1) a radical cosmic dualism that rejects this world and sees the body as a prison from which the soul longs to escape; (2) a distinction between an unknown transcendent true God and the creator Demiurge usually identified with the OT God; (3) belief that the human race is essentially divine, a spark of heavenly light imprisoned in a material body; (4) a myth, often of a premundane fall, accounting for present human suffering; and (5) the saving knowledge (gnosis) by which deliverance is accomplished in the release of the enlightened to their heavenly origin. [39] Gnostic anthropology, which contrasted the Christian view of humanity as a psychosomatic union with a dualism involving a pre-existent spark of divine light imprisoned in evil flesh, correspondingly entails, as Bultmann notes, "a contrast in eschatology" wherein the true divine self, nurtured by gnosis and the sacraments, is released at death from the bodily prison to journey through the angelic aeons back to the Light. This stands in stark contrast to the Christian conception of the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment. Finally, "these differences entail a contrast in christology, since Gnosticism cannot acknowledge the real humanity of Jesus. Apparent humanity to a pre-existent heavenly being is only a disguise; if it does not insist upon declaring Jesus' flesh and blood to be only seemingly a body, it has to make a distinction between the Redeemer and the historical person Jesus and assert some such thing as that the former was only transiently united with the latter (in the baptism) and left him before the passion." [40]
It has been noted by commentators that there are points of contact with Paul in some of the Gnostic tenets. According to Paul, the entrance into the Christian life in baptism is a dying and rising again with Christ (Col. 2:12; 3:1-3), with the result "that you have been set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18, 22) which leads to death. While this was only a portion of Paul's teaching, it was congenial to those whose basic mind set was contoured by Greek dualism to think of the body as evil and undeserving of a resurrection.
Hymenaeus, Philetus, and their companions, then, we may suppose, were teaching a form of Christianity which was essentially Greek rather than Jewish in its eschatology, which accepted only half of Paul's doctrine, rejecting belief in a general resurrection and insisting that the only valid meaning which the word 'resurrection' could have would relate to the baptismal experience when the Christian mystically emerged from the waters of regeneration, having been buried with Christ and raised to newness of life. This supernatural endowment with the Spirit meant that the Christian had already achieved victory over death. [41]
Irenaeus appears to have such a heresy in mind in speaking of Menander, who declared that "the primary Power" was upon him, making him "a saviour, for the deliverance of men," that "the world was made by angels," and that, "by means of that magic which he teaches, knowledge to this effect, that one may overcome those very angels that made the world; for his disciples obtain the resurrection by being baptized into him, and can die no more, but remain in the possession of immortal youth" (Against Heresies, bk 1, ch 23, sec 5 [ANF 1:348]). This idea is apparently also attested in the late second-century apocryphal book The Acts of Paul (and Thecla, 3:11), where Demas and Hermogenes say, "we shall teach thee concerning the resurrection which he says is to come, that it has already taken place in the children whom we have, and that we are risen again in that we have come to know the true God." [42] Finally, there are also clear attestations of the Hymenaean heresy in the Gnostic books unearthed since World War II at Nag Hammadi. The Treatise on Resurrection (late second-century) advises, "do not think in part, O Rheginos, nor live in conformity with this flesh for the sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters, and already you have the resurrection" (I, 4, 49, 10-15). [43] The Exegesis on the Soul (c. 200 A.D.) aligns regeneration with baptism, when the soul "received the divine nature from the Father for her rejuvenation, so that she might be restored to the place where originally she had been. This is the resurrection that is from the dead" (II, 6, 134, 5-15). [44] Finally, The Gospel of Philip (mid third-century) appears to link the resurrection not simply with baptism, but with chrism, a special anointing with light: "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, 'Baptism is a great thing,' because if people receive it they will live. . . . However, it is from the olive tree that we get the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection" (II, 3, 73, 1-20). [45] As Berkouwer says, "The heresy referred to in 2 Timothy 2:18 should be understood as a form of spiritualism, which believed that the transition from death to life and to the resurrection from the dead had already been completed through regeneration," [46] particularly by way of association with baptism.
It should already be clear that there is no convergence between preterism and this Gnosticism. To my knowledge, preterists all believe in the goodness of God's original creation (including the body), in the unity of God as revealed in Scripture, in the fall of humanity in Adam, and the need for Jesus Christ, God incarnate in hypostatic union, to redeem sinners by his substitutionary atoning death upon the cross. Moreover, preterists in general uphold the resurrection of Christ and of humanity in a transformed body, their primary divergence with traditionalists being over the nature of the resurrection body. This is well brought out by Ed Stevens who, in responding to the characterization of preterists as embracing the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus, asks how this early church could have surmised that the resurrection had already taken place, if it held to the resurrection as the resuscitation of the dead body? Paul could easily have undercut such a supposition by appeal to bodies still in their tombs, but "Paul doesn't challenge their concept of the nature of the resurrection, but rather their timing of it." [47]
Are Preterists Guilty of Heresy on the Nature of the Resurrection Body?
There is little disputing the fact that most of the early church fathers held to the resurrection of the very flesh in which one died. As early as 140, the pseudonymous 2 Clement 9:1-4 insists that "this flesh" will be raised. [48] This is also seen in Irenaeus and Tertullian, as was mentioned above, both emphasizing the intermediate descent into hades of believers. It would also seem to have been made an ultimatum in the Athanasian Creed, which asserts that at the coming of Christ "all men shall rise again with their bodies," a statement which, with all the others (including the descent into hell), constitutes "the Catholic Faith: which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he can not be saved." [49]
Adumbrations of an alternative position not requiring the reassembling of all prior fleshly components may perhaps be seen in Justin Martyr already in the early second century. In his First Apology (ch 19 [ANF 1:169]), he notes, "if we were not in the body," it would appear incredible "that from a small drop of human seed bones and sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such as we see. . . . But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God's appointed time rise again and put on incorruption." While Kelly cites this as an example of the reassembling of all components, it may be more in keeping with subsequent thinking, now perhaps even predominant, which sees the resurrection not as the reassembling of all previous components in the same flesh, but as a transformation of the material body based on the slightest continuity with the previous body. [50]
Since my previous article "Jesus the Preterist" dealt at some length with the problems associated with the reassembling of the material corpse, these will not be restated here. What bears repeating, however, is that recourse to divine omnipotence as a resolution of these problems is a sacrificium intellectum and ultimately fideistic, for by making demands of faith which cannot be rationally explained or defended any religious claim can stand beyond analysis and yet be required by some magisterium. Contrariwise, Christian theology has always insisted on the reasonableness of faith, on the importance and indeed necessity of rationally defensible demonstrations of what is to be believed. [51] Christianity's philosophical, theological, and apologetic aims at systematic coherence require more in terms of rational explanation than mere recourse to divine omnipotence and a God of the gaps (deus ex machina). Moreover, inasmuch as there are two books of revelation, one in creation and the other in Scripture, which must be coherently explained, any procedure which neglects consensual scientific understanding in dogmatic insistence upon a particular view of the resurrection body, for instance, hardly merits serious attention, let alone a claim to authority.
For example, one of the questions which seems particularly problematic for the material continuity notion is the stage of human being that is to be resurrected and preserved for all eternity. Will it be the stage of the body at death with all its wrinkles and decay, or the stage after a terribly disfiguring accident? Generally some more pristine point of life is the stage that is purported to be preserved, but when is that? How will those who have had no such state be resurrected, like the aborted fetus? These are not trivial matters. Tertullian responded by saying, "any loss sustained by our bodies is an accident to them, but their entirety is their natural property. In this condition we are born. Even if we become injured in the womb, this is loss suffered by what is already a human being. Natural condition is prior to injury. As life is bestowed by God, so is it restored by Him" (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch 57 [ANF 3:589-90]). Contemporary understanding of genetic disorders, however, would seem to militate against the easy notion that all disorder is "injury" to some naturally good condition--some disorders are congenital, transmitted from the parents and present from the moment of conception in the DNA. Tertullian's response also does not cohere with his own insistence on material continuity, for the resurrection of Christ would indicate that the resurrected have the very same bodies they had at the moment of death and that, however enhanced, those bodies will retain the disfiguring characteristics received prior to death, as in the case of Jesus' pierced hands, feet, and side which he showed to the disciples (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 25-27). [52] Thus, questions raised against the reassembling of the material corpse must be answered more satisfactorily than they have been if this view is to be insisted upon, as it is so acerbically by the Reconstructionists, for example.
The third-century theologian Origen recognized the inadequacy of appeal to divine omnipotence in the ridicule it received from his protagonist, Celsus: "what kind of body is that which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its original nature, and to that self-same first condition out of which it fell into dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they betake themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz., that all things are possible to God" (Against Celsus bk 5, ch 14 [ANF 4:549]).
In his effort to defend the resurrection of the body in a more rationally satisfying way, Origen suggested the existence of a form of the body which underlay all the various changes throughout life and gives to the individual his personal identity:
Because each body is held together by [virtue of] a nature that assimilates into itself from without certain things for nourishment and, corresponding to the things added, excretes other things . . ., the material substratum is never the same. For this reason, river is not a bad name for the body since, strictly speaking, the initial substratum in our bodies is perhaps not the same for even two days.
Yet the real Paul or Peter, so to speak, is always the same -- [and] not merely in [the] soul, whose substance neither flows through us nor has anything ever added [to it]--even if the nature of the body is in a state of flux, because the form [eidos] characterizing the body is same, just as the features constituting the corporeal quality of Peter and Paul remain the same. According to this quality, not only scars from childhood remain on the bodies but also certain other peculiarities, [like] skin blemishes and similar things. [53]
Origen here accepts the concept of the body as flux, expressed in his day in the Galenic version of humoral theory. He maintains that the body's constantly changing mass of matter cannot rise, since it is not even the same from day to day. He sees identity as preserved in the corporeal form (eidos), not in the material body. Bynum says, "This eidos is a combination of Platonic form, or plan, with Stoic seminal reason (an internal principle of growth or development). A pattern that organizes the flux of matter and yet has its own inherent capacity for growth, it is (although I introduce the modern analogy with extreme hesitation), a bit like a genetic code." [54]
Origen's task having been "the twofold one of expounding the truth against (a) the crude literalism which pictured the body as being reconstituted, with all its physical functions, at the last day, and (b) the perverse spiritualism of the Gnostics and Manichees, who proposed to exclude the body from salvation,"it is in Kelly's judgment "from this point of view the resurrection becomes comprehensible:"
The bodies with which the saints will rise will be strictly identical with the bodies they bore on earth, since they will have the same 'form', or eidos. On the other hand, the qualities of their material substrata will be different, for instead of being fleshly qualities appropriate to terrestrial existence, they will be spiritual ones suitable for the kingdom of heaven. The soul 'needs a better garment for the purer, ethereal and celestial regions'; and the famous Pauline text, 1 Cor. 15, 42-4, shows that this transformation is possible without the identity being impaired. [55]
"Origen thus solved the problem of identity more successfully than any other thinker of Christian antiquity." [56]
Theology subsequent to Origen tended along two lines, either in reaffirmation of the traditional dogma of the reassembling of the material body, defended chiefly by appeal to divine omnipotence, or in response to Origen, both negatively or positively. Positively, "Origen's heady sense of the potency and dynamism of body remained enormously attractive, particularly to Eastern theologians, over the next 150 years." [57] Among "those constructive thinkers who strove, some of them along cautiously Origenistic lines but omitting what was most characteristic of Origen's teaching, to understand the mystery at a deeper level than the crude popular faith allowed," as Kelly puts it, were Gregory of Nyssa (albeit inconsistently), Evagrius, Aphrahat, and Cyril of Jerusalem. [58]
Negatively, those who opposed Origen did so largely on the basis of the critique delivered by Methodius of Olympus, who died circa 311. Methodius argued that Origen's eidos had to do only with the resurrection of a bodily form, not the body as such. He viewed Origen's "form" as analogous to a mold, external to the body, which must inevitably perish with its fleshly contents, thus requiring a material reassembling in the resurrection. Methodius's argument against Origen was based, however, on a misinterpretation of Origen's eidos as external, and his own insistence "that both material continuity and complete bodily integrity are necessary for resurrection" led him to a view of identity that denied the reality of change and process. "Thus Methodius takes identity to lie in material continuity, aware that he does so by simply denying empirical evidence of organic change," [59] even going so far as to deny that digestion occurs! Whatever the deficiencies of Methodius' argumentation, his view of material reconstitution, buttressed further by the latter Jerome and Augustine, appears to have prevailed. In 553, at the fifth ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople, fifteen anathemas were issued against Origen, the tenth of which states: "If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema." The eleventh anathema further states: "If anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial psysis [sic], and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit (nous): let him be anathema." [60]
On the basis of the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople, there is, therefore, clear historical precedent for condemning the preterist view of the resurrection body and apparently any other than a material reconstitution. Notwithstanding, it seems equally clear that any such condemnation would disingenuously disinherit many who have been considered stalwarts of biblical faith and orthodoxy, for it is evident that at least by the mid-nineteenth century an Origenist view of the resurrection body, with identity based on an organizing principle and not material continuity, came to have as much plausibility or more than the ancient insistence on material reconstitution. In what Stephen Davis calls "the modern view," a person can be given a whole new body at the resurrection and still be the same person who died. While similarity is generally stressed, this may be maintained through the pattern God remembers as he "gives [to each] a body just as he wished" (1 Cor 15:38). Although this is not the traditional view, "it does seem at least a possible answer to standard anti-resurrection arguments that ask how a body dead for, say, a thousand years can possibly be reconstituted" [61] and certainly seems to satisfy the issues involved better than those who argue so vigorously for material continuity.
In his Systematic Theology (1871-1873), Charles Hodge allows the validity of several possible theories of identity, saying the Bible teaches no specific doctrine. Thus, (1) there may be a complete restoration of all bodily substance in the resurrection body, so that as many hairs as have been shaved off, or nails cut, shall return into that substance from which they grew (Augustine), a view which, if true, must be submitted to despite its manifold difficulties in the confidence of God's omnipotence; or the new resurrection body may be formed out of even a ten thousandth portion of the particles of the earthly body; (2) the soul may inform the body which, if this be true, "we should not stop to inquire or to care how many particles of the one enter into the composition of the other"; (3) there may be "an identity independent of sameness of substance," so that "our future bodies, therefore, may be the same as those we now have, although not a particle that was in the one should be in the other." [62] A. A. Hodge, rightly believing "all truth is one, and of God, and necessarily consistent, whether revealed by means of the phenomena of nature or of the words of inspiration," viewed the scientific knowledge of that day as proving "that neither the identity of the body of the same man from youth to age, nor the identity of our present with our resurrection bodies consist in sameness of particles." [63]
James Orr maintained that the doctrine of the resurrection does not involve any such belief in the reassembling of decayed material particles.
The solution lies, I think, in a right conception of what it is which constitutes identity. Wherein, let us ask, does the identity even of our present bodies consist? Not, certainly, in the mere identity of the particles of matter of which our bodies are composed, for this is continually changing, is in constant process of flux. The principle of identity lies rather in that which holds the particles together, which vitally organises ond [sic] constructs them, which impresses on them their form and shape, and maintains them in unity with the soul to serve as its instrument and medium of expression. It lies, if we may so say, in the organic, constructive principle, which in its own nature is spiritual and immaterial, and adheres to the side of the soul. At death, the body perishes. It is resolved into its elements; but this vital, immaterial principle endures, prepared, when God wills, to give form to a new and grander, because more spiritual, corporeity. [64]
After quotation of 1 Cor. 15:36-38 and allusion to Origen, Orr thus considers it clear, "first, that identity consists only in a very minute degree, if at all-and then only accidentally-in identity of material particles; and, second, that the real bond lies in the active, vital principle which connects the two bodies" of soul and body. [65]
Similarly, in his Systematic Theology A. H. Strong said, "the Scripture not only does not compel us to hold, but it distinctly denies, that all the particles which exist in the body at death are present in the resurrection-body. . . . So long as the physical connection is maintained, it is not necessary to suppose that even a germ or particle that belonged to the old body exists in the new." [66] In his estimation, "Bodily identity does not consist in absolute sameness of particles during the whole history of the body, but in the organizing force, which, even in the flux and displacement of physical particles, makes the old the basis of the new, and binds both together in the unity of a single consciousness." [67]
Again, no less a stalwart of Reformed orthodoxy than Louis Berkhof seems to prefer the concept of a pattern:
We are told that even now every particle in our bodies changes every seven years, but through it all the body retains its identity. There will be a certain physical connection between the old body and the new, but the nature of this connection is not revealed. Some theologians speak of a remaining germ from which the new body develops; others say that the organizing principle of the body remains. Origen had something of that kind in mind; so did Kuyper and Milligan. If we bear all this in mind, the old objection against the doctrine of the resurrection, namely, that it is impossible that a body could be raised up, consisting of the same particles that constituted it at death, since these particles pass into other forms of existence and perhaps into hundreds of other bodies, loses its force completely. [68]
These testimonies from widely recognized conservative and evangelical theologians over the past two centuries as to the legitimacy and even preferability of an Origenist view of identity would seem to emasculate the significance of the sixth century anathemas against Origen on this point as they are applied against preterists.
Modern science has abandoned any notion of permanence in the world as a whole. Although Einstein's relativity theory did nothing to undermine the heritage of scientific determinism, the dawn of the twentieth century heralded its end with the formulation of quantum mechanics through the work of Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, and others. Quantum theory "predicted no specific observable events, but rather a number or range of possible results along with formulae for predicting statistically the chances of obtaining each possible result in any given instance." [69] Probability, not permanence, has become the new paradigm for understanding the physical universe, which includes the present and future conditions of the human body. Any theological statement on creation's past, present, or future that wants to be taken seriously (and not dismissed as fideistic) must interact with contemporary scientific analysis in the common attempt to understand the other book of divine revelation, what Francis Bacon called "the book of Nature." [70] Those who have so interacted have a common understanding of the resurrection body as transformed, based on an organizing principle. This is surely the reason why the Origenist concept has gained ground in the last two centuries and why appeal to the church fathers is simply not sufficient. Acknowledging that there are "very few atoms left from among those that were there a few years ago," physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne says, "The real me is the immensely complicated 'pattern' in which these ever-changing atoms are organized. It seems to me to be an intelligible and coherent hope that God will remember the pattern that is me and recreate it in a new environment of his choosing, by his great act of final resurrection." [71]
While some conservatives insist on repristinating the traditionalist view of the reassembling of the material components, they do so against trends in scientific as well as biblical understanding and reveal a motivation not based so much on truth, understanding and validation as on pugnacity, invective, and demagoguery. As to the question of the resurrection body and the "tension between physical and spiritual approaches," a more evenhanded statement by a renowned evangelical asserts, "the debate is widely regarded as speculative and pointless." [72] Although preterists cannot so easily dismiss the issue, since an Origenist concept is pivotal to their view that the resurrection indeed began with the parousia in A.D. 70, there is ample biblical attestation for their view among theologians and biblical scholars not aligned with their general eschatology to repudiate any purported heresy. [73] Indeed, the view advocated by preterists that the resurrection occurs at death has received confessional validation: "The Dutch catechism of 1966 says: 'Life after death, therefore, is something like the raising of the new body. This resurrection body is not the same as the molecules and atoms that have entered the earth. We awake-or are woken-as new human beings.' The 'New Book of Belief' (Das Neue Glaubensbuch) of 1973 puts it more precisely: 'The individual resurrection from the dead takes place with, and at, death.'" [74] As long as some aspect of identity with the person laid in the grave is admitted, therefore, no preterist may justifiably be charged with denying the resurrection of the body.
Are Preterists Guilty of Heresy on the Final Judgment of Humanity?
It was during the Tannaitic period, commencing with the Christian era and culminating in the death of Patriarch Judah in the early third century, that the body of traditional Jewish law (Mishnah) was redacted and promulgated under his authority. [75] The messianic expectation of this period was threefold, consisting of this world (olam hazzeh), the days of the messiah, and the future world (olam habba). This traditional Jewish perspective was altered, however, by the apocalypticism stemming from the latter second century B.C. This led to some fluidity in Jewish eschatological hopes for the occurrence of the resurrection. The books of Daniel and Enoch seem to place the resurrection at the beginning of the messianic kingdom, while the apocalypses of Baruch (30:1-4) and 4 Ezra (7:26-33) place it at the end and conceive it as the event which serves as a transition from the days of the messiah to the future world (olam habba). The question posed in 4 Ezra 6:7, "what will be the dividing of the times? Or when will the end of the first age and the beginning of the age that follows?" was commonly asked. This is also evinced in the disciples' question to Jesus at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:3; Mark 13:3-4; Luke 21:7), which Sproul rightly admits was fulfilled in Christ's parousia at the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which culminated the messianic age and ushered in the kingdom/church in all its fulness. This coming is to bring judgment upon the generation that crucified Jesus, as Jesus himself predicts: "so that upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matt 23:35-36), a summary of all the innocent blood of God's faithful shed from the beginning of the OT canon to its conclusion, 2 Chronicles (wherein Zechariah, son of Jehoida, is murdered in 24:20-22) being the last book in the Hebrew Bible.
Thus, a collective judgment is being imposed on Jesus' generation in the destruction of Jerusalem, in addition to a declaration on those that preceded, as is attested in Jesus' comparisons of the severity of judgment of previous peoples with that of the generation on which he will come (Matt 11:16-24 [comparison to Sodom, destroyed in Gen 19:24-25, early second millennium B.C.]; 12:39-42 [comparison to Nineveh, to whom Jonah preached, spared in eighth or seventh century B.C., and Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10:1, from tenth century B.C.). Particularly interesting are the last two statements in Matthew concerning the people of Nineveh and the Queen of the South (Sheba), both of whom are said to "rise at the judgment with [meta, "in the company of, alongside") this generation and condemn it." This emphasis on the gathering of ancient peoples in judgment culminates in the gathering of the nations before Christ at his parousia: "when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (Matt 25:31-32). Again, if the Olivet Discourse has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and that is the time "when the Son of Man comes in his glory," then it follows ineluctably that Christ's judging of the nations occurred then, as well.
H. J. Schoeps observes that Paul's eschatology is also founded on this idea of that he was living at a turning point, "the fulfillment of the ages" (1 Cor 10:11), save that he saw in the resurrection of Jesus the commencement of the eschaton.
In this transitional epoch in which Paul and his churches are living-we are now accustomed to call these decades of his activity the 'apostolic age'-the olam hazzeh and the olam habba are already intermingled, thus indicating that the Messianic age of salvation has dawned. This mingling of the two ages constitutes the distinctive eschatological standpoint of Pauline theology. Thus it becomes clear that Paul could only link up with that form of eschatology which transferred the resurrection of the dead to the end of the Messianic age (cf. Baruch ch. 20-30; 40:3; IV Ezra 7:26-44). The Messianic age itself, the age of the apostle, then becomes an interim stage, a transition to the olam habba. [76]
While this interim period of the messianic age was placed at four hundred years in 4 Ezra 7:28 and Apocalypse of Baruch 29-30, "older traditions concerning the days of the Messiah fix a very short interval for the interim period, namely, forty years (R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus; Bar. In Sanh. 99a; R. Aqiba: Midr. The. On Ps. 90:15; Tanch. Eqeb 7b, Pes. Rabb. 4a)." [77] Similarly, the Qumran materials indicate such a period, as, for instance, the Damascus Document: "from the day of the gathering in of the unique teacher, until the destruction of all the men of war who turned back with the man of lies, there shall be about forty years" (CD xx, 14-15), and a Commentary on Ps 37:10: "I will stare at his place and he will no longer be there. Its interpretation concerns all the evil at the end of the forty years, for they shall be devoured and upon the earth no wicked person will be found" (4QPsalms Pesher [4Q17, ii, 6-8]). [78] While space does not allow further attention to the exegetical and systematic development of Pauline eschatology, the aforementioned texts, coupled with the eschatological thrust of the Olivet Discourse on which Pauline thought here must be based, provide sufficient attestation for Schoeps' assertion that "Paul probably held the widespread notion that the interim stage of the Messianic kingdom would be only of short duration" and that, like Aqiba and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, "he will have reckoned with forty years at most." [79] Thus Paul's insistence on the imminence of Christ's coming judgment on unbelievers and deliverance of his people (1 Thess 1:10; 5:1-9; 2 Thess 1:4-10, e.g.), an idea echoed by the other NT writers (Rom 13:11-12; 2 Tim 4:8; Heb 10:23-39; Jas 5:8-9, e.g.). The NT accent on the imminency of God's judgment on the disobedient and his deliverance in Christ of his elect compels the exegetical conclusion that the judgment commenced with the destruction of Jerusalem after the forty year messianic reign and henceforth continues upon all who die: "just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Heb 9:27; cf. also 2 Cor 5:1-10, where Paul is viewed by some interpreters as hoping for "the heavenly body at death," with the judgment of Christ apparently immediately thereafter [80]). Clearly, Jesus, Paul, and the apostles all viewed the judgment as imminent. The issue is simply whether they were mistaken in this expectation.
Preterists thus affirm that, following upon his coming in glory in the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ exercises judgment after death upon all. While they generally regard the Great White Throne Judgment depicted in Rev 20:11-15 as the same depicted in Matt 25:31-46,81 they maintain that all will be judged at death when they are resurrected.
Conclusion
"Orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines are those that honor God rightly," whereas "heresy" refers to the false doctrine of those who "have abandoned the faith" and move others to do the same. [82] If heresy has to do with a denial of the principle that God has provided redemption in Christ, as McGrath says, it is hard to understand how preterism can be viewed as a heresy, for it affirms "the orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines" in all points as expressed in the great creeds and confessions while endeavoring to "honor God rightly" by insisting that the consummation of God's redemptive purpose in Christ's parousia has not been frustrated or postponed, but rather accomplished according to the clear chronology set forth in the NT. Preterists believe this evidence is so compelling that they are willing to suffer the accusations and condemnations of others in their effort to affirm the words of the apostle Paul: "let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge'" (Rom 3:4). They invite others seriously interested in investigating these matters to do so from within the great tradition for the furtherance of the reformation, recognizing the need of the church to be "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God."
Endnotes
[1] "Jesus the Preterist: A Review of R. C. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus," Quidlobet On-Line Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy 1:6 (September, 1999), http://www.quodlibet.net/otto-sproul.shtml.
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97sep/s16.htm. This critique, together with other views of preterism favorable or critical, can be found in what can be called the clearinghouse of information on the subject, "The Preterist Archive" (http://preteristarchive.com/).
[4] In his "Introduction to Preterism" (http://preteristarchive.com/Preterism/fp-dennis_01.html), Todd D. Dennis, a proponent of preterism, makes the unfortunate statement, "Preterist theology is unorthodox." Though he takes orthodox to mean "generally accepted, conventional," the word derives from the Greek orthos, "correct," and doxa, "opinion," and has to do with what is correct, not merely conventional, though the two are typically conjoined, as, e.g., "conforming to the usual beliefs or established doctrines, especially in religion; proper, correct, or conventional; as, orthodox ideas, opposed to heterodox" (Webster's 20th Century Dictionary). Such misstatement is too common among preterists, which feeds the frenzy against them. Surely if, as Dennis says, preterism is "a Biblical theology," then it must not be characterized or caricatured as unorthodox or heterodox.
[5] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979]) s.v., "hairesis" (a, b [23-24]). The corresponding term in rabbinic Judaism, min, first denoted "trends and parties within Judaism," but soon came to be applied to those groups which separated from rabbinic Judaism. "At the end of the 2nd century the term acquired a new meaning, being applied not so much to the members of a sect within Judaism as to the adherents of other faiths, and esp. Christians and Gnostics" (H. Schlier, "hairesis," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [ed. Gerhard Kittel; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964] 1:182).
[6] H. Schlier, "hairesis," TDNT, 1:182-183. So Harold O. J. Brown who, after describing the church as an ark, says: "Heresy not merely undermines one's intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine, but threatens to sink the ark, and thus to make salvation impossible for everyone, not merely for the individual heretic" (Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984] 2).
[7] Philip Schaff notes all of what he calls "Scripture confessions" in The Creeds of Christendom (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990 rep.) 2:3-8; so also John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches (rev. ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1973) 12-16.
[8] Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 11; cf. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:4-9
[9] Jim West, "The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of 'Dispensable Eschatology'," (http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97/jul/s09.htm) and Andrew Sandlin, "Hymenaeus Resurrected," http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_preterist.html, respectively.
[10] This translation is taken from Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:11-12, where the Greek text is included, the brackets signifying the longer Greek recension.
[11] Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:13-14.
[12] Ibid., 2:17.
[13] Ibid., 2:46n.
[14] Sandlin, "Hymenaeus Resurrected," http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_preterist.html.
[15] Sandlin, "Against Hymenaeanism: The Charity of Intolerance," http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_Hymenaen.html. Moreover, "the corporeal aspect" of Christ's resurrection is not even mentioned "in Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology" (http://www.chalcedon.edu/article_hy_Hibbard.html). See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 57-65.
[16] Schlier, "hairesis," TDNT, 1:183.
[17] West, "The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism."
[18] E. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948) 67; although the attempt has been made since the early apologists to find the source of Marcion's dualism in Iranian speculation, Jewish cosmology, Gnosticism, and philosophers as diverse as Plato, Empedocles, and Epicurus, R. Joseph Hoffmann says that the effort to find "philosophical analogues for marcionite doctrines is characterized by contradiction and inconsistency" (Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984] 11). There is little doubt that Marcion's views were largely derived from his peculiar reading of the Pauline epistles; cf. also Randall E. Otto, "The Problem with Marcion: A Second-Century Heresy Continues to Infect the Church", Theology Matters 4 (1998):1-8.
[19] "The eleventh and twelfth centuries saw a growing conviction that philosophy could be an invaluable asset to Christian theology," in demonstration of the reasonableness of faith and in systematizing doctrine. By about 1270, Aristotle was established as "the Philosopher," whose ideas furnished the presuppositions for theology, particularly through the influence of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. "This development came to be viewed with concern by some later medieval writers, such as Hugolino of Orvieto. A number of central Christian insights seems to have been lost, as a result of a growing reliance upon the ideas and methods of a pagan philosopher," in particular the nature of justification (Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought [Oxford: Blackwell, 1998] 119).
[20] Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (1895; rep. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995) xiv, 137-138.
[21] The appeal to apostolic tradition as the precedent for true faith is also found in Tertullian's contemporary, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata ch 17 [ANF 2:554-555]).
[22] Sandlin, "Against Hymenaeanism."
[23] McGrath, Historical Theology, 44.
[24] http://topaz.kenyon.edu/projects/margin/heresy.htm is a good on-line source for material on medieval heresies, including the Beguines, the Cathars, the Hussites, the Joachimites, the Lollards, and the Waldensians. Brown's Heresies is probably still the unsurpassed compilation.
[25] J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (1846; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976 rep) 173.
[26] West, "Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism," 10.
[27] J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's Second Coming (1887; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 rep.) back cover.
[28] I have on the wall of my study a copy of an 1834 print by H. Schile, based on an original by H. Brückner, entitled "Das Leben Martin Luther's und die Helden der Reformation!," the central focus of which is a portrayal of Luther defiantly casting this bull into the fire, surrounded by banners featuring the words of his famous "battle hymn," "Eine feste Burg ist unsere Gott!" and "Das Wort Gottes bleibt in Ewigkeit. Amen."
[29] Cited from Lewis W. Spitz, The Renaissance and Reformation Movements (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971) 2:329.
[30] Thus, the closest Brown comes to giving his "definition of heresy" is the practical significance "involved in the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ" (Heresies, 2-3).
[31] McGrath, History of Theology, 173.
[32] Schaff, Creeds, 1:7.
[33] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., "A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism," (http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97/jul/s09/htm), for example, begins by saying, "First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside of 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."
[34] McGrath, Historical Theology, 182.
[35] The radicality of Luther's thrust is seen in his reevaluation of the basis of authority itself, relegating four books of the NT (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) to a subordinate status because they did not "put forth Christ" (treibet Christum). Though the other Reformers did not follow Luther here, they did all relegate the apocryphal books to a non-canonical, as opposed to a deuterocanonical, status, striking against its recognized status of over twelve centuries
[36] On the various interpretations of "the descent into hell," see Randall E. Otto, "Descendit in inferna: A Reformed Review of a Creedal Conundrum," Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990):143-150 where, because of the dubious intention behind its insertion and "the fact that no consensus has been or apparently can be reached on its meaning," the recommendation is made to omit it from liturgical use; cited with approval by Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 594. For the Reformers' reinterpretation of the nature of the communion of the saints and holy catholic church, see, e.g., McGrath, Historical Theology, 200-207.
[37] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997)175-176.
[38] E.g., the series "Articles by Andrew Sandlin concerning the Hymenææn Heresy" at http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy.html. Also, Jim West, "The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism." The condemnation by the RCUS also uses this terminology.
[39] Robert McL. Wilson, "Gnosticism," The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 255-256.
[40] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951) 1:168.
[41] Fred D. Gealy, "II Timothy," Interpreter's Bible (ed. George A. Buttrick; New York: Abingdon, 1955) 11:491; so also A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (New Century Commentary; ed. Matthew Black; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982) 136; A. J. B. Higgins, "The Pastoral Epistles," Peake's Commentary on the Bible (ed. Matthew Black; Nashville: Nelson, 1962) 1005, et al.
[42] Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2:356-357. In the Letter of the Corinthians to Paul 2:11-15, a question is raised about two men named Simon and Cleobius who say "that God is not almighty, and that there is no resurrection of the flesh, and that the creation of man is not God's (work), and that the Lord is not come in the flesh, nor was he born of Mary, and that the world is not of God, but of the angels." The Letter of Paul to the Corinthians 3:33 follows with assurance that "you also who have been cast upon the body and bones and Spirit of the Lord shall rise up on that day with your flesh whole."
[43] James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977) 53. In his Introduction, 4-5, Robinson specifically mentions the texts here cited as standing in line with the persons and views mentioned in 2 Tim. 2:16-18.
[44] Ibid., 185.
[45] Ibid., 140-141, 144.
[46] G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972)184.
[47] Stevens, Stevens [sic] Response to Gentry (Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publications, 1997) 34-35.
[48] The additional citations found in J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978) 463, from The Epistle of Barnabas, ch 21 and 1 Clement 24:6 do not yield the evidence he cites for "rising again in the self-same flesh."
[49] Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:69-70. This creed is generally acknowledged to be later than Athanasius on the basis of the doctrinal formulations; J. N. D. Kelly dates it sometime after 428. The creed was never officially recognized by the Eastern Church, and its condemnatory language has been a source of controversy. See "Athanasian Creed," The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed.; ed by F. L. Cross, E. A. Livingstone; New York: Oxford University Press, 1983)100-101.
[50] Origen makes much of the seed analogy in Against Celsus, bk 5, chs 18-19 (ANF 4:550-551). After asserting that "the resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the Churches," is "more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer," he states, "neither we, then, nor the holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a higher condition, 'shall those who were long dead arise form the earth and live again'," as Celsus supposed. Origen then refers to Paul's seed analogy in 1 Cor. 15:15:42-44.
[51] See, e.g., Diogenes Allen, The Reasonableness of Faith (Washington: Corpus, 1968) and his chapter by the same name in Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: The Full Wealth of Conviction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989) 128-148.
[52] In his Sentences, Peter Lombard used Eph 4:13 to contend that each would rise with "the stature he had (or would have had) in youth," i.e., about the age of thirty, since that is when Christ died! (C. W. Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200-1336 [New York: Columbia University Press, 1995] 122).
[53] Origen, Fragment on Psalm 1:5, in Methodius, De resurrectione, bk 1, chaps 22-23, cited in Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 64.
[54] Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 66.
[55] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 471.
[56] Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 66.
[57] Ibid., 68.
[58] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 475-479; Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 71-86.
[59] Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 71.
[60] "The Anathemas Against Origen," II. Constantinople. A.D. 553," Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:319. While Origen may have taught the resurrection body was spherical, "there is no explicit mention of this notion in any of Origen's known writings" (McGrath, Christian Theology, 559).
[61] Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993) 113.
[62] Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981 rep.) 3:775-780.
[63] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1875) 442-444.
[64] James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World as Centering in the Incarnation: Being the First Series of Kerr Lectures [1891] (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907) 331-332.
[65] Ibid., 332.
[66] Augustus. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1907)1019.
[67] Ibid., 1020.
[68] Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1941)723.
[69] Mark W. Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 27.
[70] The lack of engagement with consensual science on matters related to cosmology is abundantly evident in the "Committee Paper Investigating Full Preterism" of Heartland Presbytery (PCA), which claims preterism has a "defective view of Adam and Eve's pre-fall bodies" and of cosmology in general for its contention that death and decay in the physical realm do not derive from Adam's fall. The issues here devolve into a PCA requirement for a young earth, since Adam's fall is required as the basis of all death. This not only stands against their own conservative Reformed tradition as expressed in Warfield and Machen, both of whom believed in an old earth and the "day-age" theory (cf. David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987]), it also stands obscurantly against the entire current of contemporary science, which can be well harmonized with the old-earth view (cf., e.g., Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes are Not Telling You About Genesis [Paramount, CA: Schroeder, 1992]).
[71] John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, & Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1997) 92-93.
[72] McGrath, Christian Theology, 560.
[73] E.g., Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament, Including a Response to Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 74-88.
[74] Cited by Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 103.
[75] The standard work on Judaism in this period remains the three volume work by George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).
[76] Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 99.
[77] Ibid., 100.
[78] Citations are from Florentino G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994) 46, 203, respectively. Schoeps also says the idea is portrayed in "the final war against the sons of darkness," presumably the War Scroll, but I have not been able to verify that citation.
[79] Schoeps, Paul, 101.
[80] C. S. C. Williams, Peake's Commentary, 970; cf. also Harris, From Grave to Glory, 205-214.
[81] Thus, e.g., Russell, The Parousia, 523-525.
[82] Brown, Heresies, 1.
Rev. Randall Otto is Pastor of Deerfield Presbyterian Church, Deerfield, NJ 08313, with a Ph.D. in Historical and Theological Studies from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.
ISSN:1526- 6575
© 1998 - 2005 Scott David Foutz and Quodlibet Journal Terms and Use
Chicago-North Shore Therapy sarudama.com sarudama.com/movies