|
|
|
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic || ECF/AECF || Fonts |
Endtimes Chart |
|
"Full Preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all Preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all Full Preterism as Hyper Preterism is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). Beginning in 2006, it was recognized that the "spiritual resurrection past" view is toxic and cancerous, and also that it has been explicitly prosecuted since at least the days of Paul. This theology of resurrection with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age) has never been according to the teachings found in Christianity throughout its entire history leading up to 1845, when the earliest known Full Preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, the premises between them are undeniably and fundamentally different. On AD70 dispensational line: According to full preterism, AD70 was the end of the old age ('this age') and the start of the 'age to come'. The world which followed AD70 was fundamentally changed, according to the power and glory of the coming of Christ at the fall of Jerusalem. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. This is contrary to John's recording of Jesus seeing that 'all things had been fulfilled' and "It is finished" at the cross (Jn. 19) - not 40 years later.. / http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/ |
|
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.: DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
|
A Response to Fred Zaspel And 'Already But Not Yet' Theology By Ward Fenley Fred G. Zaspel wrote: I would also add that a "now and not yet" has not been given due consideration in the discussion -- a NT hermeneutic which gives full
weight to both sides of this issue. The above statement was made in a discussion of eschatology on the Sound of Grace emailing list. Because the myth of already but not yet has had such enormous popularity, I will not go into detail about what it is. Let us just say that in summary it is the belief that Christ came to bring salvation of one kind at His first coming; and He will bring salvation of another kind at His second coming-i.e. He did what was necessary to save our souls at His first coming, and at His second coming He will do what is necessary to save our physical bodies. I am sure we all can confess that the "already but not yet" idea has never set completely without wonder in all of our minds. Certainly dispensationalism is out because their hermeneutic is basically "Not yet" period. They deny that Jesus is King now, and they deny His present rule. The question we must ask is, why are they wrong? They say all biblical prophecy concerning a time when Israel would dwell safely is yet unfulfilled. Yet most of those who deny dispensationalism would argue that we already have the kingdom but the physical aspect of the kingdom is not here yet. I think that a valid question must be asked: where in the Old Testament does it ever say that when the kingdom comes it would be divided into an already but not yet? A good example of this would be Zechariah: Zechariah 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. Most who believe that the kingdom is now would say that this refers to the blood of Jesus Christ. That fountain is now open for sin and uncleanness. This is the truth. The dispensationalist, however, must jettison this glorious and fulfilled promise into a yet future physical kingdom. Then there are those who would even go so far as to say that Zechariah along with the rest of the prophets had a "telescopic" of prophecy: i.e. they saw to mountains from afar that seemed very close together from that distance. Then as the time drew closer, it became more evident that the mountains were actually far apart. In other words, there was the mountain of Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and sending the Holy Spirit, and there was the distant mountain of the physical kingdom. I must reject that but admit that I once believed the same. However, the Bible is very clear, especially with passages like the above, to tell us that the prophets had no such telescopic view. In fact, it is very clear that the prophets viewed one future kingdom that would be consummated when the time of Messiah would come. The present text is a perfect example of this. Consider this rather long yet clear context: Zechariah 12 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. {2} Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. {3} And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. {4} In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness. {5} And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God. {6} In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. {7} The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. {8} In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. {9} And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. {10} And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. {11} In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. {12} And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; {13} The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; {14} All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. Zechariah 13:1-3 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. {2} And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. {3} And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. Notice the repeated phrase, "in that day." Certainly Zechariah was convinced that all the elements in this passage would take place during this messianic or restoration time frame. When one compares the prophetic texts with the Abrahamic covenant, it becomes evident that the gentiles coming to faith is a fulfillment of these prophecies. They simply cannot be separated from the Abrahamic covenant. Compare such passages as Jeremiah 31 and Isaiah 60. In our present context, however, we clearly see judgment taking place in Zechariah 12. These elements include: judgment upon Israel, salvation, the house of David as God, destruction of all nations that come against Israel, the outpouring of the spirit of grace and supplications, the scattering of national Israel, a fountain for sin and uncleanness, idols cut off out of the land, cessation of prophets and unclean spirits, and judgment upon false prophets. We must consider what hermeneutic we are using when we try to say that salvation, a fountain for sin and uncleanness, cessation of prophets etc. have come, but deny the other elements, especially in light of the fact that the phrase, "in that day" is used so frequently. (by the way, a great word study or phrase study is examining the phrases "in that day" and "at that time" in reference to prophetic messianic contexts). If we make huge separations and interject 2000 year gaps between some of these elements, we then impose a hermeneutic that destroys not only the implication of this passage but other passages as well, e.g. Joel 2 and 3. Jesus understood Himself to be not only the fulfillment of Abraham's desire:
but also the desire of the prophets:
Even the angel's prophecy to Mary confirms this:
With even greater emphasis Mary declares the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies in that holy thing which would be born of her:
This last phrase is reiterated by Zecharias after being filled with the Holy Spirit:
Paul testifies the same:
Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." Paul identified the work of Messiah as a "short work":
So, it is clear that the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies were realized and totally accomplished in the first century. Nowhere in the Old Testament prophecies was there ever an indication that there would be two, far- removed phases of one kingdom. It is no wonder that those who call themselves Jews today look at Christianity with such contempt. At least those professing Jews recognize that the Old Testament is very clear: the time of Messiah is the time to bring in the fulness of the everlasting kingdom, a time that Paul regarded as a "short work in righteousness." Now, the problem is that there are passages in the New Testament that teach that something was still to come after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. So therefore, does that automatically give us the right to impose a telescopic hermeneutic upon Old Testament Scriptures just because we have difficulty figuring out how Paul could say we are in the kingdom, and yet have not received the kingdom? Is it possible that the "already-but-not-yet" hermeneutic is a presupposition based upon another literalizing hermeneutic, and so going a false foundation upon another false foundation? Are we even open to another view that harmonizes the various passages that scholars and creeds have interpreted as two totally different kingdoms and resurrections? Though I will be brief, here is a short explanation of what I believe should be identified as an "already-and-becoming." First, I would like to clarify that I am a staunch believer in the five points of the doctrines of grace, by the grace of God. I am also a strong supralapsarian. However, preterism is certainly unacceptable to the "orthodox" Christian church. But there are several questions that I feel need to be addressed to the typical reformed view of the passing of the Old Covenant. One of these questions confronts a serious error among many reformers: this error has to do with the timing of the passing of the Old Covenant. Most reformers when asked when the Old Covenant past away will respond, "at the cross." Recently, we have been discussing Matthew 5: 17:
I also am a firm believer in New Covenant theology. Yet if I maintain that Christ has not fulfilled all Old Testament prophecy, I simply cannot affirm that the law has been fulfilled as well. If I affirm that heaven and earth are referring to the literal globe and universe, then I certainly cannot affirm that the law has passed. Jesus said, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." To say that this was merely referring to be ceremonial aspects of the law or just the moral aspects of the law is absurd. This passage is so clearly saying that not one jot or tittle would pass until heaven and earth passed away. The question is, when did it pass away? As we already mentioned, most reformers believe the Old Covenant passed away at the cross. This view, however, is irreconcilable with several passages that clearly teach that the Old Covenant had not passed away at the cross. The first of these is found in 2 Corinthians 3:11:
The whole context of 2 Corinthians 3 is the contrast between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Verse 11 is right in the middle of that contrast and is in an of itself a clear contrast between the two covenants. The verb "is passing away" escapes the commentaries of most reformed writers. Paul was teaching in no uncertain terms that the Old Covenant, or ministration of death was in the process of passing away. Paul did not say the Old Covenant passed away at the cross. He said that it was in the process of passing away. Hebrews 8:13 supports this exact same idea:
In the first sentence, the writer of Hebrews is explaining the thought of the prophet. I.e. but prophet's analysis of the New Covenant meant that the Old Covenant would be made obsolete. Then the writer of Hebrews explains what was actually taking place at the time of the writing of his epistle. Notice again the use of the present tense to describe the actual passing away of the Old Covenant in the first century. The writer says that the Old Covenant was in the process of decaying and waxing old. Even more incredible is the fact that the writer was clearly teaching that even though it was still in the process of passing away, it was ready to vanish away. Ready cannot be dismissed as a mere time statement of God that is incomprehensible to man. This statement is so vitally important especially when considering other passages that speak of an imminent event for the first-century church:
Even John Owen recognized the implication of these verses: “It is not such a day, such a motive, as is always common to all, but only unto those who are in some measure in the same circumstances with them....Wherefore this day was no other but that fearful and tremendous day, a season for the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, city, and nation of the Jews, which our Saviour had forewarned His disciples of, and which they had in continual expectation”--Commentary on Hebrews Another passage that teaches the Old Covenant was in the process of passing away is again found in Hebrews:
Here the writer is declaring that God was taking away (present tense) the Old Covenant so that He would establish the New Covenant. This implies at least two things: 1) the first covenant was not completely taken away at the writing of the book of Hebrews, which most scholars agree was written sometime between AD 66 and AD 70. 2) It also implies that the second covenant was not yet completely established. This is imperative to our understanding of the fullness of the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant there was no access into the physical holy of holies, let alone the heavenly holy of holies. Those in the first century after Pentecost were in the process of being changed into the fullness of the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant no man was able to answer the tabernacle and certainly not the holiest of holies:
During the first-century transformation, believers only had the Spirit as a guarantee of their inheritance. This, however, did not mean that they were already translated into the heavenly temple. They just were not within the holiest of holies until the first temple was destroyed:
They were being brought into the holiest of holies:
The different tenses of the verb "entering" are very important. Notice that the present tense is used in verse 19 to describe the status of those first-century believers. Literally the verse is saying, "which is entering within the veil." Verse 20 says that Christ already entered ( past tense ) within the veil, but as the Old Covenant was in the process of vanishing away, the first-century believers were being brought into the holy place. Another example of the present-tense usage for the word entering is found in Hebrews 4:
Again, the writer of Hebrews says that they which had believe were in the process of entering into that rest. The question we must ask at this point is, have believers now completely entered that rest or holy place:
If we truly believe that the physical temple at Jerusalem has been destroyed, we must believe that all true believers are at last within the holy place. The verse specifically says that the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest. Since the destruction of the temple that way has been manifested. First-century believers were eagerly anticipating this entrance into the holiest of holies:
The problem many have in identifying the establishment of the New Covenant is when they say that it was fully established at the cross, and that the Old Covenant was completely done away at the cross. This doctrine ignores the clear Scriptures set forth in 2 Corinthians 3 and the entire book of Hebrews. We must remember that Jesus spoke of "this age" and "the age to come." Paul and the writer of Hebrews both taught that first-century believers were in the end of the age:
This end was exactly that to which Peter was referring:
The apostle John was referring to nothing different when he said:
These statements of imminence are irrefutable. James believed the end, or coming of Christ was imminent as well:
Sadly, most have completely disassociated the consummation of the Old Covenant and the return of Jesus Christ. This is precisely why there has been so much confusion over the law and its relevance to the Christian today. Jesus was utterly clear:
To prove that the heaven and earth are referring to the Old Covenant, all one must do is examine two passages:
The context of this passage is manifestly emphasizing the contrast between the two covenants. However, because the Old Covenant was in the process of vanishing away, the writer of Hebrews could say would certainty that the old heavens and old earth were in the process of being shaken (present tense vs 27), and that the New Covenant kingdom was in the process of being received (present tense vs. 28). Just a final note: in case you are wondering how we can conclude that the old heaven and earth refer to the Old Covenant, here are some passages:
Most interpreters believe that 2 Peter 3 is referring to the dissolution of the physical elements. Even John Owen recognized that this could not be the case: http://www.eschatology.com/owen2peter.html Beyond this, the word elements never is used to refer to anything but the elements of the law:
The word world here is clearly referring to be Jewish system:
In each of these passages elements is inextricably related to the law. Based upon an analysis of the words heaven and earth it must be included that 2 Peter 3 is referring to dissolution of the Jewish system, which is precisely why Peter admonished the first-century believers to look eagerly for the coming day of God. The same consummation of the New Covenant kingdom is that which is addressed in Revelation 21:
This is referring to the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. Under the New Covenant there is no division between Jew and Gentile. "Sea" refers many times to the Gentiles. Here is just one example:
The whole context of Isaiah 60 speaks of the Gentiles coming to the salvation that had come to the Jews. Ephesians is very clear on this:
Also in Revelation:
Compare:
Compare:
Compare:
Compare:
Compare:
Compare:
Compare:
From the context which speaks of access into the holiest of holies:
Fred Zaspel wrote: One more item. Jesus said in Mat.24:26, "If they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out, or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it." In verse 27 He explains why -- because when He comes it will be so evident no one will miss it. Ironically, it does seem to me that the preterist is taking the very position Jesus warns against. "Really, He did come! Yes He did!" All the while Jesus tells us to relax -- when He comes, you'll know it. [To which I respond]: He did come and I do know it:
The apostle John and the first-century church were not disappointed or mistaken. This is all for now. I hope you were edified. For the kingdom and glory of Christ,
|
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |