From Grumbling to Thankfulness

Are you a good person? No, really - do you think you are a good person? Every now and again I fall into the trap of believing that I am a good person, or at least that I'm not THAT bad. I mean, come on, compared to THAT guy over there, I look pretty good. Someone might ask: "Alright, smarty pants. How do you define 'good'?" That's the question, isn't it? Does being a good person mean: good compared to others? Or is there some inherent quality that makes someone good?

Questions; questions that need answering.

Isn't it true that one of humanity's greatest faults is our tendency to have a higher view of ourselves than we ought to? I was recently talking with a non-Christian friend about the story of Job and how impressed I was at his attitude towards God in the face of such destruction. Through no fault of his own, the Devil ruined every aspect of Job's life, by taking his family, his wealth, his health ... everything. But through it all, not once did Job curse God. On the contrary, his response is too incredible to not quote: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21, NASB). My friend responded: "I don't think I would or could respond like that." And you know what? I think it is the natural response of humanity to not respond like Job. We wouldn't ... and we couldn't respond like him.

The world tells us that we are the product of random evolutionary processes, being descended from animals. They conclude from this that we are basically good, or at least morally neutral. The idea of being evil is right out of the question. It is easy to understand how they can conclude that God would be unjust in His dealings with Job. After all, what did Job do to deserve this? 

That question, and that line of reasoning, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of a proper view of God and man. There is no other explanation for it. I say this not to point fingers or to judge - in fact, I have pity on my friends who have this perspective.

I've entered the book of Numbers in my Bible study (a book with an unfortunately uninteresting title). What amazes me is how the Israelites continue to grumble and complain against the Lord over and over again. Think with me for a moment. The true and the living God remembered His promise to Abraham and delivered this tribal group from bondage to the Egyptians after 400 years. This deliverance wasn't done nonchalantly, either. Yahweh came to Egypt with miracles not seen before nor since! After ruining Egypt, the Egyptians were begging Moses to take his people out from among them. He then parted the Red Sea to deliver the Israelites from Pharaoh's desire for vengeance! Again, no small event!

God Almighty has delivered His people from bondage and promised to make them into a great nation, because of the promises He made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He appeared as a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night to direct them as they traveled. Then the Lord gives them commands to live by, and Moses meets with the Lord on Mount Sinai to receive these new commands. While Moses was away, the people abandoned the Lord with incredible speed and wicked creativity. They came to Aaron (Moses' brother) and asked him to create an idol for them to worship. Aaron agrees, and gathers their gold and makes them a golden calf. Here is the later interaction between Moses and Aaron:

"21 Then Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do to you, that you have brought such great sin upon them?” 22 Aaron said, “Do not let the anger of my lord burn; you know the people yourself, that they are prone to evil. 23 For they said to me, ‘Make a god for us who will go before us; for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him. ’ 24 I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold, let them tear it off. ’ So they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.”" (NASB).

A couple things stood out to me while reading this. First, Aaron's ready acknowledgement that the people are "prone to evil." What a perfect description of humanity in its present fallen state! We are conceived as sinful creatures, sin every day, and invent new ways of doing evil. Second, Aaron's laughable explanation for how this golden idol came into being: "[They gave me the gold], and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf." Uh huh. This honestly reminds me of Adam's reply to God in the garden: "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate" (Genesis 3:12, NASB). In both accounts, excuses are made all in an attempt to pass off responsibility. They aren't taking their sin seriously.

Reading through Exodus and Numbers are instructive examples of what not to do. Israel rebels and complains ---> and God, being just, must punish sin ---> atonement is made ---> and God has mercy on the people. Over and over and over again. Korah's rebellion is an example that comes to mind. Korah, Dathan and Abiram, along with 250 leaders of the congregation gathered against Moses. These "men of renown" were jealous of Moses' position and threatened he and his brother, Aaron. By the Lord's power, the earth opened up and swallowed Korah alive, along with his household and possessions. Fire consumed the other 250 leaders.

The people nearby were naturally scared and ran for their lives. That doesn't surprise me. What does is the behavior of the entire congregation on the following day: "But on the next day all the congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron, saying, "You are the ones who have caused the death of the Lord's people."" (Numbers, 16:41, NASB). The Lord's wrath was demonstrated in the form of a plague until Moses made atonement for them.

Now, you would think that in light of the many miracles and deliverances of the Lord, the people wouldn't behave like this. They regularly saw his sheer power, and knew what He required of them, but they continued to rebel against His commandments. Even when they saw Korah's household get swallowed whole, and other leaders burned alive with fire, they had the audacity to complain the very next day. I mean, holy cow! (No pun intended). But if we know our Bibles, we know that even if you or I were in the same situation, apart from the grace of God, we would behave in the exact same way.

I find it easy to sit back and chuckle at the foolishness of those Israelites, haughtily thinking to myself that if I saw the regular power of Yahweh that I would offer better obedience. And I would be wrong. In and of ourselves, we utterly lack the ability to do what is pleasing to God, even when His power is clearly seen.

Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus ... the rich man was in a place of torment, but begged Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his family so that they will repent. Here is Abraham's response: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31, NASB). How could this possibly be? It seems logical to believe that a dead man coming back to life, and then warning you to repent, would have an affect! But this is not the case. Man cannot repent by his own power (John 6:44); but rather, this must be granted (2 Timothy 2:25).

There is some obvious application from the Israelites' repeated failures. We should take to heart the commands of God, and believe that He really does care about how we live. Our lives should be a passionate reflection of the Lord's holiness. When we don't understand why God has brought a set of circumstances upon us, we should be careful not to complain against Him - even privately in our hearts! Instead of being a bunch of complainers, we should radiate with thankfulness for what God has done for us. The Israelites had much to be thankful for: out of all the nations, they alone, were chosen to be in a special covenant relationship with the true and the living God. They were promised a bountiful land to inherit, and also were given a sacrificial system to point them towards the coming Messiah.

How much more thankful ought we to be since Christ has already come! God the Son emptied Himself by taking on human flesh, to glorify Himself by delivering His elect people from sin! Above all people, we have the most reason to be overflowing with joy and thanksgiving. This will aid our witness for the gospel, but also will be pleasing to our God. I will close with these beautiful words from the Apostle Paul:

"14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; 15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. 17 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all. 18 You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me." (Philippians 2:14-18, NASB).

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

The Holiness Code

When most people are deciding on a book of the Bible to study, Leviticus rarely makes the top of anyone's list. In fact, the Old Testament as a whole is considered by many Christians to be irrelevant to Christian life. Oh sure, there are some interesting stories, useful as illustrations for Sunday School: Moses and the burning bush, or David and Goliath. But that's where its usefulness ends - we have the New Testament now; a new and better covenant. After all, didn't Jesus come to fulfill the Old Covenant Law?

I must admit that I'm guilty of thinking like this for a long long time. But why is this incorrect? For starters, the Apostle Paul had this to say about Scripture: 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB).

Have you ever considered that at the time Paul wrote this, he was primarily speaking about the Old Testament Scriptures? I absolutely agree that this envelopes both testaments of Scripture - "All Scripture" - but it is primarily the Old Testament that Paul has in mind. What was it that Timothy should continue to learn (vs. 14) from? From which "sacred writings" (vs. 15) was the Apostle referring to? Answer: the Old Testament Scriptures!

Or how about another passage where the Sadducees try to trap Jesus with this ridiculous example: a train of brothers who die, one after the other, each marrying the first brother's wife. The Pharisees then asked the Lord whose wife she will be in the resurrection? Jesus' response is stunning:

"But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:29-31, NASB).

The Lord's criticism focuses on the Pharisees' lack of understanding of the Scriptures, and hence, the power of God! He goes on to say one of the most amazing things I've ever read in the New Testament: "have you not read what was spoken to you by God?" Christ equates the reading of Scripture ... reading the Old Testament Scriptures ... to that of God speaking to them! What's more, He held them accountable to what was written in the Scriptures!

There is so much that could be said about this passage, but I will have to limit myself for the sake of remaining on topic. What is so often taken for granted is the high view of Scripture held by our Lord! He believes it contains the very words of God, and is the sufficient standard by which we are to live our lives.

I recently finished reading through Leviticus, and was confronted with many things that were a bit ... uncomfortable for someone in our modern, Western culture. God describes the multitude of ways in which He expects to be worshiped, down to the very details of how animals are to be slaughtered and offered as a sacrifice, and what to do with the various parts. Honestly, I find some sections rather grotesque for someone who hasn't grown up on a farm. But reading through this marvelous book of Scripture, you get the sense that Yahweh cares deeply about how He is worshiped, and how His creatures are to live. The true and the living God not only prescribes life for society, but also for individuals by giving universal moral standards.

As you might have cleverly guessed from the title, I spent a lot of time studying the Holiness Code found in Leviticus 18-20. What a rich and beautiful text this is!  It is overflowing with moral clarity, and speaks to issues that all human beings intimately know to be true. I believe that only the God-breathed Scriptures could provide such insight! This section discusses things like: incest, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, child sacrifice, and mediums and spiritists.  Admittedly, these are not pleasant topics to dwell on, but oh-so important in describing our humanity and what is required of us.

Now, I consider it both a blessing and a curse that when I am reading or listening to someone, I am analyzing what is being said from both sides of an issue. When I read the Holiness Code, in the back of my mind I can hear what the unbeliever might say to try to disprove the Bible. Someone might argue: "What you're saying sounds good and moral, but you aren't being consistent, are you? If you were, you would believe that Leviticus 19:19 is equally applicable for today! And since no one believes wearing mixed fabrics is immoral, how can you honestly say the other listed behaviors are immoral?" Here is the verse just mentioned:

"19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." (NASB)

This isn't new to me; it's an argument I've heard before. But responding to this, and doing so in a God-honoring way that treats the Scripture with accuracy, proved to be a challenge this week. I thought about it. And I thought about it some more. I re-read this section, and discussed it with some friends. How might we respond to this objection? How would you respond to this objection?

I would start by pointing out that the Bible should be taken as a whole, and not cut up into little, isolated chunks. As Christians, we believe all 66 books in the Bible have the same divinely inspired source: the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they have a consistent message. Right away, the Biblically literate believer knows that some commands given to the nation of Israel were abrogated (set aside) due to their fulfillment in Christ, namely, the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant Law.

"Aha! So God's moral laws change! And so does God..." our unbelieving objector might say. The problem with this perspective is that it doesn't allow God the freedom to give certain moral requirements for a specific amount of time, and for a specific purpose. This is precisely why we believe the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law existed: to differentiate the Jews from among the nations, and to function as a shadowy picture of the things to come. Contrary to what the Dispensationalists believe, the Law was not given to provide a works-based salvation, if only they kept God's commandments (as if that were even possible). Rather, they were to point them towards the necessity of a perfect Savior, which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Digging into the text a little bit, both chapters 18 and 20 have statements that make these texts universal. For example:

"‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people." (Leviticus 18:24-29, NASB).

Chapter 20 has another statement similar to this.

The moral requirements discussed throughout chapter 18 are seen to be universal because the Lord is holding the nations accountable for what He is proclaiming here. Even before Leviticus was written, they were guilty of breaking these commands, and it is because of these sins that they would be cast out from the land Israel was to inherit. This means these universal moral requirements were in effect prior to the Pentateuch being written! Is it fair that they be held accountable for a revelation they did not possess in writing? The Apostle Paul taught that God's moral laws are written on the hearts of every man and woman (Romans 2:12-16).

Now let's look at chapter 19, this chapter that is sandwiched by two chapters containing so many universal commands. Why is it placed in-between these two chapters? It seems so ... out of place. Wouldn't it have been better to organize it after all of the universally required laws? That's when it hit me: I was falling into the trap of anachronism by forcing a modern, Western organizational standard onto the text that was completely foreign to the Jewish mindset of the day. What do I mean? I mean that the concept of organizing and categorizing topics, in an encyclopedic format, is a rather modern idea. What's more, to the Jews, all of these laws were moral for them: whether it was about homosexuality, or mixing different kinds of seeds in your field! To stray from God's universal or ceremonial requirements was sinful to them.

But ... but why are they strung together? The short answer is: I don't know, but I believe the Holy Spirit of God has a reason for it. What is clear to me is that there is a strong distinction between the moral laws that all people everywhere are held accountable to, and the ceremonial laws meant to distinguish the Jews and point them towards the then coming Messiah. Surely, when the psalmist wrote, "O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day" (Psalm 119:97, NASB), he understood the clear difference between commands such as honoring your father and mother, and wearing various fabrics. Even considering the additional comments he makes about loving the law later in Psalm 119, he directly mentions moral requirements (vss. 113, 163, 165).

Why did I spend my week agonizing over this section of Scripture? Why do I care about an unbeliever's objection to the inspired Scriptures? I care for two reasons. The first is that I want to have a proper understanding of what God has to say to me. Because if I have a view of Scripture, equal to that of Christ's, then I must believe that both Old and New Testaments exist so that I may be fully equipped to live my Christian life. The second, is so that I can offer a clear defense of my faith when the unbeliever raises questions like what we see above. Real people have asked (and are asking) these questions. I have been asked about this before, and I believe it is only a matter of time until I hear them again.

Given the conversation in our culture, how long do you think it will be until you are asked about the Holiness Code? Wouldn't it be better to have a prepared answer that clearly explains what you believe, and why? The godly model of the Apostles indicates that we ought to be prepared. Peter lays it out clearly for us when he wrote:

"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (1 Peter 3:15, NASB).

Amen to that! May the Lord grant to His people the desire to prepare to be faithful witnesses of the one and only way of salvation.

Welcome to the Party Pal!

Where to begin ... where to begin ... ah, yes! We shall start with some excuses for why there has been a void on my blog as of late. Some valid, others less valid. But I leave it to my readership to decide which is which.

Life, man. Life has been good. Life has been busy. Two year-olds have an enormous amount of potential energy bursting at the seams. Yet, for all their energy, they also can be extraordinarily expressive, which is certainly true of my Molly Jane. She will say something like, "Daddy! You're here! I'm so glad you're here and that we can be together, Daddy! I miss you today while you're at work!" The cuteness reigns supreme. She is almost three years old, and Emily and I find ourselves asking where the time went?

Did you hear that we're going to have a son?! Yes, Connolly (spelling to be confirmed by my wife later, to be sure) Kevin Ryan. The Ryan name was already well preserved through my younger bro's, but it does make me happy to know that the clan will spread throughout the earth now also directly from me. The line shall be preserved: Death before dishonour! So October will be a month long remembered. It has seen the birth of one Ryan, and will soon see the birth of another.

"Here's where the fun begins" -- Anakin Skywalker

At the tail end of 2013, I was intrigued by astronomy and bought and worked through an astronomy 101 textbook by Alex Filippenko. As a result, I became more and more interested not just in astronomy but also physics. I decided that I would like to have a workable understanding of Super String Theory, which means that I must also have a grasp on Special and General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. It wasn't long before I realized that to meaningfully comprehend these areas I would need to adopt some advanced mathematics. Since January, I have worked through three math textbooks, covering basic arithmetic (hey, I had to start somewhere), geometry, trigonometry, number theory, statistics, and algebra. Next on my plate will be pre-calculus, and then calculus.

During all of this, I have read some books on physics for laymen: Beyond Einstein by Michio Kaku and The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. It seems to be the story of my life that the list of books I want to read increases in length at a never-ending rate. There are at least 5 more books on physics for lay-people that I hope to get to by the end of 2015. Also, thanks to Audible (seriously, thank goodness for Audible!), I've listened to multiple 24-part lectures by university professors on most of these topics. The more I learn the more I WANT to learn more. For example, who knew that the Standard Model of particle physics went substantially deeper than protons, neutrons, and electrons? I didn't, until recently. Kind of crazy actually. And of course, if String Theory proves to be true, even these fundamental point-like particles are actually made up of even more subatomic objects: strings. But time will tell.

A friend of mine, who is not a Christian, recently asked me why I was so interested in studying this subject since I believe God is ultimately responsible for it all? I told him that it is a demonstration of the creative power of the God that I worship, that such an all-powerful God could imagine and then design a universe such as ours! So mysterious, so complex, so incredibly breathtaking! It proclaims the majesty of His glory everywhere you look! He went on to ask why I was spending so much time studying the work of physicists who believe in things contrary to Christianity? I answered that just because I take issue with their worldview, and therefore, many of their conclusions, this does not mean that I cannot learn from what they get right.

Many, many, many, many, many more topics have been on my mind lately, each of which deserve their own blog article. The LGBT movement, the President, SCOTUS decisions, Michael Brown's new book that just arrived (!!!), and to a much lesser degree: video games.

Scott and I recently discussed our renewed plans to begin a YouTube channel: combined videos, and individual videos. More to come on that shortly! Stay tuned! Thank you for reading, and my apologies for not posting more regularly for a quarter of an entire year. Epic mcfailsauce.

Until we meet again, at last,
Rusty

Behold, I am coming quickly

Defining our Terms

When approaching the subject of "Hyper-Preterism" it is essential to clarify our terms. There is an important distinction that needs to be made between Partial-Preterism and Hyper-Preterism. Partial-Preterism falls within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy, while Hyper-Preterism is heterodox (outside of Orthodoxy) and therefore a damnable heresy that true Christians cannot believe.

What Exactly is Hyper-Preterism?

Hyper-Preterism, also called "Full-Preterism," "Pantelism," and the "Hymenaen Heresy," is a combination of heresies that ultimately rejects key elements of the Christian faith that are essential to salvation. In a nut shell, Hyper-Preterism believes that all Biblical prophecy has been 100% fulfilled and completed. This means that the final return of Christ, final resurrection, final Day of Judgment, and the new heavens and new earth have already happened. When did this happen? They will argue in 70 AD, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the judgment upon the Jews.

Redefining Terms

You might be thinking to yourself: "Wait a minute, I look around me and see a Universe still under the curse of the Fall. I still get sick, and I will die some day ... I hope this isn't my resurrected body. How can the Hyper-Preterist honestly tell me all prophecy has already happened???" You would not be alone in thinking this. So how do they explain themselves? They argue that each of these 4 eschatalogical truths were utterly spiritualized and not physical events: (1) The final coming of Christ was the spiritual coming of judgment on the Jews in AD 70. (2) The resurrection of the dead was a spiritual resurrection. (3) The final judgment and (4) new heavens and earth happened in the past, and were also spiritual events.

A Combination of Heresies

The proto-Gnostics and the Gnostics of the first few centuries AD are the most comparable group to Hyper-Preterism. The Gnostics believed that the physical realm was evil, and that the spiritual was good. When the proto-Gnostic groups attempted to blend with Christianity, the result was to spiritualize certain Christian beliefs. For example, if Jesus was good, then he couldn't have a physical body since the physical realm is evil. Therefore, he was a spirit and did not have a physical body. Additionally, the Gnostics believed that man's spirit longed to be set free from the prison of the physical Universe.

It is worth noting that Hyper-Preterists detest being compared with the Gnostics, nevertheless, the similarities are striking. It is true that they don't agree with everything the Gnostics believed, however, they have strong Gnostic tendencies about their beliefs. For instance, that the final resurrection is solely spiritual, and that some believe Christ doesn't have his physical body now, while a minority believe Christ never physically rose from the dead to begin with but only spiritually arose.

Damnable Heresy?

Is it, perhaps, too harsh to say that this is a damnable heresy? I don't think so. At least part of this heresy is not new, and Paul addressed one aspect of it in 2 Timothy 2:14-19. Hymenaeus and Philetus were caught up in "worldly and empty chatter" whose talk "will spread like gangrene." What were they saying that was so terrible? They had "gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place." Clearly this was not acceptable for practicing Christians to continue on believing. The clever Hyper-Preterist will respond: "Well ... Hymenaeus and Philetus believed in a damnable heresy because they were wrong about the timing of the resurrection, as this was prior to 70 AD. We just happen to have gotten it right, therefore, we don't believe in a damnable heresy." They make my point for me: that getting the timing wrong for the final resurrection of the dead is a damnable heresy.

To make this even more clear, if you continue on in the immediate context, Paul declares:

"The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2 Timothy 2:24-26, NASB).

By claiming the resurrection had already taken place they were denying the faith. Paul's instruction to Timothy was to correct them in hopes that God might "grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth."

The author of Hebrews speaks about the second coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:28. He will come "a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." This coming is not in reference to sin, but will be at the consummation of the ages. I would also point out that Christians are eagerly awaiting for the return of Christ. This will usher in the resurrection of the dead, the new heavens and new earth, and the final Day of Judgment. Earlier in his letter, the author also makes mention of the "elementary teaching" about Christ in which he refers to "the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment" (Hebrews 6:2). Subjects about the resurrection and the final judgment are of the most basic elements of the Christian faith, and to deny them is to step outside of Orthodoxy.

Spiritualizing Everything

How could the resurrection have happened in AD 70? Nobody saw dead corpses being regenerated across the globe. Integral to Hyper-Preterism is the belief that the resurrection of the dead is a spiritual resurrection. This is quite disturbing considering that for this to be true a complete redefinition of the term "resurrection" is required. "Resurrection" simply means: that which is dead coming to life again; to be regenerated. Examples include when Lazarus was resurrected from the grave, which was not a spiritual occurrence: "The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth" (John 11:44, NASB). When Jesus died on the cross, many saints were raised from their tombs and were wandering through Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)!

But the single most important example is this: Jesus rose from the grave, and this was a physical resurrection. Why is this so important? Paul explains for us in 1 Corinthians 15:

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:12-19, NASB). 

There is a direct parallel between the nature of Christ's resurrection and that of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore the nature of one will be the nature of the other. Paul asks the question: If Christ was raised from the dead, how are some saying that there is no resurrection of the dead? Or asked in a way more relevant to the Hyper-Preterist: if Christ rose physically, how can you say that the resurrection of the dead is spiritual? The importance of this cannot be overstated, and I think Paul expressed the significance of this when he said: "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Our Lord made reference to the nature of the resurrection very plainly:  

"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29, NASB). 

I ask the Hyper-Preterist: what are in the tombs that will be resurrected? We know it can't have reference to the souls of men because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), as Paul stated prior to 70 AD. The only alternative could be the dead bodies buried in the tombs, which makes sense since this would incorporate the normative meaning of "resurrection."

Here is another example of the comparison between Christ's resurrection and our own ... 

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself" (Philippians 3:20-21, NASB). 

How Much of the Human Being Did Christ Come to Save?

A key question to ask the Hyper-Preterist is: since the resurrection was spiritual and happened in AD 70, what exactly did the resurrection accomplish? Obviously, from their perspective, the resurrection of the dead was a spiritual event. But my question is specific: what spiritual benefits did this spiritual resurrection produce? Because prior to when they allege that the resurrection took place, the New Testament describes believers as having been "raised up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6). Earlier in the same letter, Paul describes Christians as having been blessed "with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). Prior to AD 70, believers were raised up with Christ, seated in the heavenly places positionally, and were given every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. I'm missing what an alleged spiritual resurrection in the first century actually accomplished. 

This raises an important point: Christ came to save the whole man, body and soul. This stands in stark contrast to the Hyper-Preterist who believes that Christ will ultimately only save the spiritual aspect of human beings. They believe that no redemption was intended to ultimately restore man's physical nature. Once more I point out: this is Gnostic.

The Apostle Paul takes the time to address the resurrection in his letter to the Romans: 

"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. ... The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:11, 16-17, NASB).

I am compelled to point out that the comparison between Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the dead is plainly made in this section of Scripture. Christ was raised from the dead, and He will also give life to ... what? He will give life to "your mortal bodies." This is the context of the glorification He goes on to discuss in verse 17.

Time Proof-Texts

I made a decision when writing this outline to postpone addressing Hyper-Preterism's most common argument: the so-called "time-texts." They will argue that there are dozens upon dozens of verses that indicate that all of these eschatalogical things would happen "soon" and "quickly." For example, Christ said that He is coming quickly three different times in Revelation 22. The Hyper-Preterist would argue: "Jesus said that he was coming quickly, therefore it doesn't make sense for the Lord to have taken 2000 years for Him to reappear." As if the 2000 year life-span of the church is beyond what could have been the intention of the Lord. I ask in turn to the Hyper-Preterist: is Christ coming within 40 years a quick return? It really boils down to context, and the authorial intent.

I would add that the entire hermeneutic of the Hyper-Preterist tends to be greatly flawed. What do I mean? They claim to interpret the so-called "time-texts" in a literal way: soon means soon, quickly means quickly, and so on. The problem with this hermeneutic is that it falls short with numerous Scriptural examples. Consider this Messianic Psalm:

"“I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You." (Psalm 2:7, NASB)

If we are going to interpret the time aspect "today" in the most literal way possible, was the ultimate fulfillment of this the day this was written? Of course not, this was ultimately referring to Christ, as Luke (Acts 13:33) and Hebrews (Hebrews 1:5) recognizes. Another example is a prophecy of the Messiah:

"For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come,
and will not delay." (Hebrews 10:37, NASB)

If "a very little while" and "will not delay" was interpreted using the Hyper-Preterist hermeneutic, how could they possibly make sense of it? The author of Hebrews is citing from Habakkuk, which was written hundreds and hundreds of years before Christ! And yet, the Holy Spirit has no problem using language like this for events far in the future. I would suggest to you that with prophetic literature in the Bible, we cannot put unrealistic and unBiblical restraints upon the text that the authors themselves never would have intended for us to have. 

The Olivet Discourse

You will want to become familiar with the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, and its parallel passages, Luke 21 and Mark 13. Central to their whole argument is Matthew 24:34, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (NASB). Like much of their interpretive hermeneutic, they interpret this text in an absolutist way so that, for them, "all these things" becomes the fulfillment of all prophecy, fulfilled within the generation that heard these words. As a partial-preterist myself, I believe that part of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the first century AD, namely, the coming of Christ in the form of judgment upon the Jewish nation, destroying the temple and Jerusalem. But I do not see the requirement to include all of Matthew 24 and a good deal of Matthew 25 to be included in "all these things." In fact, considering the nature of the final prophetic events, I am forced to believe that they cannot have happened in the past.

The other prominent error made routinely by Hyper-Preterists is the assumption that the same language always refers to the same event. For example, "a coming" of the Lord in Judgment must be "the final coming" of Christ because of the same or similar terminology. The big problem with this kind of interpretation is that they attempt to make connections between unrelated texts to try to prove their arguments. I believe AD 70 was  *a*  coming of Judgment, but this was not  *the*  final day of judgment because AD 70 doesn't fit the bill for the nature of this event. Matthew 25:32 says that "All the nations will be gathered before Him," and also in Revelation 20:11-12, "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds." Are we expected to believe that this took place in AD 70? We can answer with certainty that it did not happen because all the nations were not gathered before the throne.

The New Heavens and New Earth

The new heavens and new earth did not come about in the first century. How do we know this? Because Peter describes this event for us:

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:3-7, NASB).

If the former judgment of Noah's day was with water, and this is being compared to the final judgment, why would the final judgment be something other than a physical event? In other words, was it actual water or spiritual water that Noah escaped from? Similarly, is it actual fire or spiritual fire that will destroy the Universe at the final judgment? Peter goes on in his explanation about the final destruction of the Universe:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:10-13, NASB).

We see then that the heavens and the earth will be destroyed with fire and will pass away with a roar. Even the elements will be destroyed, and the earth will be burned up. Twice we are told this will be the result of intense heat. Is all this a spiritual event? You would have to turn the passage on its head to interpret it that way. God destroyed the world through the flood; and He will again destroy the world with intense heat, melting the building blocks of the Universe!

Bodily Return of Christ

Our Lord provided overwhelming evidence that He continued to have a physical body after His resurrection (John 20:26-29). When the appointed time came for Christ to ascend into Heaven, He did so physically. The angels that suddenly appeared to the disciples declared: "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" (Acts 1:11, NASB). Hyper-Preterists try to make a connection between the angelic statement of how Christ was received by a cloud, with Jesus' statement at his trial that He would come on the clouds of heaven: "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven" (Matthew 26:64, NASB). This brings me back to an earlier point: simply because Christ was received by a "cloud" at His ascension, and "coming on the clouds" are mentioned in Matthew 26 ... this does not mean there is a necessary connection between these two statements.

If we are going to believe the angelic declaration that Christ's return will be a bodily return, then 70 AD was not what the angel was talking about. The destruction of Jerusalem was important for many reasons: (1) God expressed His displeasure with the Jewish people for rejecting the Messiah. (2) It helped the newly established churches to understand that the temple played no part in the New Covenant. (3) And it was the fulfillment of prophecy in Scripture ... but not the fulfillment of all prophecy.

How Should Christians Respond?

Our foremost concern as Christians should be to defend the truth, and to protect the flock against false teachers. Hyper-Preterists are similar to recent converts to Calvinism in that they want the whole world to know about their new-found beliefs. I have personally seen these folks (Hyper-Preterists) deceive Christians, including church elders, so that they might continue on a facade long enough to spread their heresies.

The Apostle Paul used enormously strong language towards a position considerably more accurate than Hyper-Preterism, but shared at least one similarity: saying the resurrection had already taken place. He called the message of Hymenaeus and Philetus gangrene (2 Timothy 2). And what do you do when your foot gets gangrene? You cut it off.

The initial concern should be to stop the spread of this damnable heresy, which means they cannot be allowed to further discuss the issue with Christians in the church. If they agree to this, I believe we ought to correct and rebuke with gentleness. I find it enlightening that Paul offered relevant thoughts about how to approach men like this within the immediate context of those who share the same heresy:

"But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels ... with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,  unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also." (2 Timothy 2:23-3:9, Bold Mine, NASB)

If Hyper-Preterists are members of a church, I believe that the Biblical approach to correction and church discipline ought to be followed to the letter. However, if a visitor or other non-member is "upsett[ing] the faith of some," (2 Timothy 2:18) then they should quickly be contained, addressed, corrected, and if they refuse correction ... removed from the congregation.

Paul said elsewhere in Scripture:

"This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:8-11, NASB). 

The Apostle offers a contrast between how we can identify what is good and who has believed God, with those who engage in foolishness and are unwilling to accept Biblical warnings. We must have a proper understanding of what is good and true in order that we can identify falsehood and rebuke it in a correct way.

When first encountering someone espousing the damning heresies of Hyper-Preterism, I would urge you to warn the one bringing the false message. If they refuse the warning, bring another brother to also correct him. If they continue on in their ungodly heresies, bring it to the elders of your church. Do not delay in this. This is the Biblical mandate found in Matthew 18.

Hyper-Preterism is not just another eschatalogical perspective. There are many things one can believe about the last days: one can be a Dispensational Pre-Millenialist, or an A-Millenialist, or a Post-Millenialist, or even a Historic Pre-Millenialist! What each of these positions have in common are the essential doctrines all being future and physical events.

Hyper-Preterism, as a movement started and failed prior to 70 AD. The movement started again in the late 1800's and failed. A slight resurgence started again recently more than 10 years ago and failed. It is a movement devoid of hope, because Christ has already come. What do they have to hope for other than death so that their souls may be free from their bodies - bodies which will never be redeemed or glorified?

The glorious and future return of Christ is described by the New Testament as the "hope" for the Christian: "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13, NASB). We long for that glorious day because it will usher in eternity where we will enter into the presence of our Lord. It is a day in which the fallen Universe is utterly destroyed, and a new one is put in its place - one that is filled with righteousness and fully reverses the effects of the Fall of Adam. We will also have resurrected and glorified bodies - bodies that cannot and will not ever sin against the God whom we love and worship! The Final Day of Judgment will also be the day where every wrong is righted, where justice is ultimately done. We will be with the saints for all eternity, and we will be with the triune Lord that has delivered us from the consequences of sin, the lifestyle of sin, and has redeemed the whole man: body and soul.

In the midst of dealing with the damning heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, Paul said these great words:

"Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands..." 

There was no doubt in his mind that the kingdom of God will never be overthrown, not even by heresies such as this. For the Lord of Heaven and Earth is ruling from His throne. May we be faithful witnesses as we continue to battle against the forces of darkness, and the heresies employed by the Devil, always defending the gospel of truth in a world that desperately needs the light of salvation.