BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. 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.
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'. 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. 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.
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 (HyP) 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). The HyP
theology of resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity 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, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
"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 (HyP) 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). The HyP theology of resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity 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, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
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 Better Resurrection
Compiled by Michael Krall
"In Hebrews 11, the hall of faith, we read in verse 35 that women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that the might obtain a better resurrection." What is the better resurrection? Is it merely a resurrection of the same kind these women received of their dead except that in this better resurrection it is a body that sees death no more?
The traditional futurist view embraces that idea. They say that since these dead, probably a reference to 1Kings 17:22, saw death again, a better resurrection would be one that is of the same nature, the resuscitation of the physical body. But is that in fact what we have here and in the rest of Scripture? As we read on in this 11th chapter of Hebrews we read in verse 39 and these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not THE PROMISE: God having provided better things FOR US, that they without US should not be made perfect.
What we see here is that the better resurrection is directly connected with the promise of which the Old Testament saints would not receive without the US the writer speaks of. If one reads the Scriptures without any preconceived notions and takes the recipients of the epistles into account it will shed much more light on many verses than previously thought. Lets look at what the promise was and see if the Lord is pleased to give us more light in doing so.
In Acts Paul has stated a number of times why we was "called into question." It was for the hope of Israel and the resurrection of the dead as stated in chapter 23:6 as well as 24:21. In both instances he says that is was for the ?resurrection of the dead? that he was called into question. In chapter 26 he is a little more specific. There in verse 6 and following he says "And now I stand and am judged for the HOPE OF THE PROMISE made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes instantly serving God night and day, hope to come. Which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be and incredible thing with you, that God should raise the dead?"
There are a few things to note in these verses. First the promise which was a hope for national Israel, was the resurrection of the dead. This verse should be compared to the verse in Hebrews 11 we quoted and these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not THE PROMISE: God having provided better things FOR US, that they without US should not be made perfect. The promise was the better resurrection.
The first thing that should come into our minds when thinking of the promise these Old Testament saints waited for was Christ and His resurrection. There must be a connection between what Christ has provided at the cross and the receiving of the promise. In Romans 15:8-9 we read "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy?.." Jesus WAS a minister of the circumcision and so if he has not fulfilled the hope of Israel then there is still a promise made to the fathers that is incomplete. If that is the case the gospel in its full proclamation could not come to the Gentiles as Paul says in that verse. The Gentiles can only glorify God for his mercy if indeed he has confirmed every promise made to the fathers. Most would agree forgetting Acts 26:6-8 where Paul says that the resurrection of the dead was the promise.
The second thing to note in Acts 26:6-8 are the words "hope to come." In the Greek the word 'hope" is a present tense verb and the word translated 'to come' is an aorist infinitive. This is action that is ongoing with the hope of attaining unto the promise. What is interesting about these words is that Paul uses the same word translated 'to come' in Philippians 3 where he talks about how he 'might ATTAIN (there is the word) unto the resurrection of the dead.' Just as these OT saints were seeking to obtain the resurrection of the dead so was Paul.
But is this resurrection of the dead merely the bringing back together the dead corpse to life never to die physically again? Does anyone think that Paul was writing of seeking to attain to a bodily resurrection in Philippians 3" If so then he must have had some part of his phyisical body glorified since verse 16 he makes such a statement. There he says that some have attained to it in some degree 'whereunto we have attained let us so walk.' We hope to show that Scripture will not support that and for those that do believe that must embrace soul sleep for all of the faithful that have left this life.
How can we prove such a statement? That brings us to the third thing in relation to Acts 26:6-8 that we must note. In verse 8 Paul says 'Why should it be thought an incredible thing with you that God should raise the dead.' Note that he did not say 'that God should raise the physical body.' Now at first this seems like splitting hairs but one can search the Scripture through and will not find the term 'resurrection of the body' anywhere in the whole of Holy Writ.
Does it really matter? It does when one sees the connection between the promise Paul says the twelve tribes instantly serving God were hoping to come. Paul said these words after the cross so wouldn't these twelve tribes have received some part of that promise in the resurrection of Christ? If they were to die is it not the belief of most in Christendom that at death the soul goes to be with Christ awaiting the resurrection of the body? Well if the hope of Israel is the promise of the resurrection would not then those that have already died not have received the promise as the writer to Hebrews stated in 11:39? How could that be that they died not receiving the promise? Are they not with Christ? Are they not looking upon the face of Christ? 'Yes!' some will exclaim. But then if they are seeing Christ and he is the focal point of the 'hope of Israel' they how can they hope for what they see "for what a man seeth, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, then with patience wait for it."
Some will say that the hope not seen at death only Christ is seen. But isn't that separating Christ from the very zenith of the promise in the Old Testament. If Christ is not connected to the hope of Israel then we have separated the fulfillment of the hope from the cross as well as deferred it to a point when the age which Christ died to establish is ended. This forces one that holds to the hope being a future resurrection of the body to believe that all true believers are not yet in Christ's presence but are in a state of soul sleep. If not they what are they yet hoping for? How is their state then going to be different in relation to Christ?
One of the main arguments thrown against those that hold to a fulfilled eschatology is that it takes away one's hope. How can that be if one believes they go immediately to be with Christ at death? Even if that presence of Christ is not in the glorified body it is nonetheless a seeing of him face to face so how is hope deferred beyond death?
But it was for those that died in the Lord prior to the consummation of the Old Covenant at the fall of Jerusalem. It was then that Christ returned a second time without sin unto salvation to bring the salvation that was ready to be revealed in that day, 1Peter 1:5. This salvation was for the end of their faith the "salvation of their souls" vs.9. We read in verse 11 of 1Peter 1 that the Old Testament prophets were searching "what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the GLORY THAT SHOULD FOLLOW."
It is commonly believed that this glory that should follow was the resurrection but we don't think it stops there. The context is the salvation ready to be revealed vs.5, the salvation of their souls vs.9 and the grace that is to be brought to them at the revelation of Jesus Christ vs.13. So the very context is not the resurrection of Christ standing apart from the second coming when he fulfilled the resurrection of the dead out of the place of the dead so that it can be said at that time 'blessed are the dead that die in the Lord FROM HENCEFORTH' Rev. 14:13. There is no long a time of waiting for the work to be complete but the dead at that time did attain to the resurrection and Christ at that time confirmed the promises made to the fathers.
Jesus spoke of this in John 11. There we read a very know verse that Jesus spoke at the tomb of Lazuras.' I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.'
When reading this most believe the first part is talking about physical resurrection and the second part is talking about one never seeing spiritual death. But is there a biblical warrant to change the type of death spoken of in the same verse? First of all if the death the believer never sees is physical death we have a problem because Christians have been dying for 2000 years. If spiritual death is meant there and physical death is meant in the first part 'he that believeth in me though he WERE DEAD' also raises a problem. Besides being contextually forced since it is clear the death to the one alive is not physical another problem arises. The word believeth is present tense so one must believe a physical dead person is still living by faith not sight. That again proposes a problem to the one that says that one that dies in the faith go immediately with Christ. But if we say the 'though he were dead' means spiritual death then we also have a problem for this would then support the notion that a spiritually dead man is capable of believing on Christ and then upon that act will be given spiritual life.
What do we do with this verse then? We have a dilemma that needs to be rectified and we believe there is only one solution. The believers that are dead are those that have gone the way of all flesh but the death spoken of is the sin death that held the soul in sheol or hades, called paradise or Abraham's Bosom, and that because they are Christ's at the appointed time they will be brought to the resurrection of the dead and be brought into the immediate presence of God at the consummation of the Old Covenant.
The second half of that verse is consistent with that because those that die under the New Covenant never see the death that the Old Testament saints had to experience waiting for this resurrection.
A belief that there is a future resurrection of the physical body because physical death is the result of the fall must say that this physical death finally brings about the victory over sin and death as per 1Cor 15:54. This assumes that to die and rise "in the likeness" of Christ's death and resurrection as per Romans 6:5, and our Lord's words in John 11:26 falls short of that death and resurrection to deliver one from the dominion of sin and death. Those that say this say there is more to come in terms of physical death and resurrection even though Christ said he that lives and believeth in me shall NEVER DIE.
But, if the believer, in addition to dying and rising with Christ in Romans 6, and the promise of never dying (also stated in John 8:51) must die again because of sin and be raised again from sin it follows that death and resurrection with Christ in Romans 6 falls short of being in the likeness of His death and resurrection and Jesus then would have had to mean something else when he said we would never die. It is clear that Paul in Romans 6 says the believer's deliverance from the dominion of sin and death is because , ?Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him" (v.9). If the same holds true for the believer, which is what Paul meant when he said , "in the likeness of his death ... in the likeness of his resurrection:' it follows that the believer, as Christ, is raised from the dead to die no more, death having no more dominion over him" (vv.5,9). This is the force of our Lord's words in John 11. Therefore, the need for more death and more resurrection in order for death to be "swallowed up in victory" (I Cor. 15:54), is contrary to our Lord's words as well as Paul's in Romans 6. The better resurrection that was "preached through Jesus:' and is in the likeness of his death is adequate for victory of death so much so that Christ can say we will never see death. Why would we think it should take more than that?
What they are doing is saying that the New Covenant is unable to fulfill the hope of Israel so Christ has to come to put an end to it in order to fulfill the rest of Scripture. Keep in mind this one thing and that is that salvation is NOT complete till Christ returns. It is not the physical body that is spoken of as being saved at his return but the soul (1Peter 1:9) as we stated before. So if he has not returned then no Christian can say they are saved they can only say that they have a hope of salvation. We are told that there is one hope and hope that is seen is not a hope for we don't hope for what we see. But that eternal life is a hope Titus 1:2; salvation is a hope 1Thes 5:8; justification by faith is a hope Gal 5:5; the second coming is a hope Titus 2:13 as well as the resurrection of the dead. So if he is yet to return at the end of the age of everlasting covenant instead of the end of the old covenant then these hopes are not fulfilled and we are not in possession of eternal life, do not have righteousness by faith nor do we have salvation. That is what we are left with if Christ has not returned and he is then an absent king and the New Covenant is still a time of unfulfillment.
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996