Home The PreteristSite Home Page Preterist StudyAn index of material for the study of orthodox preterism Contra-Hymenæan Materials to refute the NeoHymenæan (hyper-preterist) heresy Resurrection Materials to understand the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection Millennial Materials to refute chiliasm and study post- and a- millennial views Contra-Dispy Materials to refute diSpENSATIONALISM Misc.Misc. resources including a listing of helpful websites Author IndexA listing of all the authors, with their works, that are indexed on this site Information Some information on the site The Preterist PodcastThe Companion podcast to this site hosted by Dee Dee Mt. 24 Commentary "It's Not the End of the World!" Dee Dee's cyber-commentary on Matthew 24 The Preterist Blog Blog on various issues including eschatology TheologyWeb

Is the Resurrection History?
by Glenn Peoples

Plain Text/Printer friendly Version

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. - 2 Timothy 4:15-18, New International Version

Unless you have spent some time reading about theology or having theological discussions, you have probably never heard of "full preterism" or "hyper preterism," and you have almost certainly not heard of "neo-hymenæanism." These labels all refer to the same thing, namely a particular view of biblical prophecy which, while admittedly only held by a tiny minority of New Testament interpreters, has seen a surge in interest in recent years. The label "neo-Hymenæanism" was coined because full or hyper preterism is said to repeat the error of Hymenaeus, a man whom the Apostle Paul denounces twice for his false teaching (1 Timothy 1:20 and 2 Timothy 2:17), in particular for his false teaching about the resurrection of the dead. Naturally, since full preterists consider their theology to be biblical, they object to the comparison. Is it fair? Do Paul's comments in 2 Timothy 4 shed any light on the timing or nature of the resurrection, and do they contain anything that should cause us to evaluate full preterism one way or the other favourably or otherwise? I will answer each of these questions in the affirmative.

The first thing to establish is what full preterism is. One way of doing this is to describe a couple of contrasting views of biblical prophecy so that we have something with which to compare full preterism, and then to describe full preterism itself. Two views that lend themselves nicely to contrasting comparisons are what I would call the main contenders in contemporary Christian views of prophecy, namely futurism and preterism (not to be confused with hyper or full preterism). In futurism, a very large proportion of biblical prophecy, and in particular nearly all New Testament prophecy is still said to have its fulfilment in the future. If we wanted to be pedantic we might call this "partial futurism," since not every biblical prophecy is seen as referring to future events. The prophecies concerning Jesus' coming into this world have been fulfilled, as have those dealing with his sacrificial death and resurrection, as well as the coming of the Holy Spirit. No view of prophecy that I am aware of places the fulfilment of literally all biblical prophecy in the future. But in futurism, many predicted events such as the "great tribulation," the character referred to as the "beast," the appearance of a figure referred to as the "Antichrist," the establishment of God's kingdom, as well as the visible return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, are all said to be events that will take place in the future. In contrast to all of this, preterism is the view that the majority of biblical prophecy and New Testament prophecy in particular has already been fulfilled. Just as futurism does not place the fulfilment of all prophecy in the future, so preterism does not place the fulfilment of all prophecy in the past. But the great tribulation, the establishment of God's kingdom, the historical appearance of the man referred to figuratively as the beast, all these things, according to preterism, were fulfilled in the first century. Just as futurism is really a kind of "partial futurism," so preterism is really a kind of "partial preterism," because in keeping with orthodox Christian beliefs, it still sees a future visible return of Christ and a bodily resurrection of the dead predicted in Scripture.

The label "partial preterism" is a fairly recent one. That is because there is a newcomer to the debate over biblical prophecy, namely full preterism. Historic or orthodox preterists have adopted the term "partial" so as not to be confused with full preterists. But it does not take much investigation to see that the two positions are radically different, just as anyone who advocated "full futurism," placing the fulfilment of literally all biblical prophecy in the future would clearly be advocating something poles apart from futurism as we know it. In full preterism, every single prophecy in the entire Bible has already been fulfilled in history, ending in the first century. This includes not only the great tribulation and the coming of the beast and the Antichrist, but also the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead and the last judgement. Of particular interest here is the fact that full preterism teaches that the biblical prophecies about the resurrection of the dead do not refer to a future event, but rather to something in the past. This is the reason that full preterism is called "neo-Hymenænism," since, on the surface at least, it appears that this is precisely what was wrong with Hymenæaeus' view of the resurrection, and it had the disastrous consequence of "destroying the faith of some."

This particular argument against full preterism is very easily summarised:

1. The thing that was wrong with Hymenaeus' theology is that he taught the resurrection of the dead was in the past
2. Therefore any view which teaches that the resurrection of the dead is in the past is wrong
3. Full Preterism teaches that the resurrection of the dead is in the past
4. Therefore Full preterism is wrong

An initial defence

I consider the argument 1) - 4) above to be sound, that is, I consider each premise to be true, and that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. However, there is one fairly obvious response that a full preterist might offer. The full preterist might, understandably, take issue with premises 1) and 2), transforming the argument as follows:

5. The thing that was wrong with Hymenæaeus' theology is that he taught that the resurrection of the dead was in the past when in fact it was not.
6. Therefore any view which teaches that the resurrection of the dead is in the past when in fact it is not in the past is wrong.
7. Full preterism teaches that the resurrection of the dead is in the past
8. Therefore full preterism is wrong if the resurrection is not in the past.

As it turns out, orthodox Christians and full preterists agree with 5) - 8). However, it yields no conclusions about the truth or falsehood of full preterism. It would only work as an argument against full preterism if we know in advance the proposition: "The resurrection is not in the past." Given this addition, the argument would, in my view, be perfectly sound, and it would rightly conclude that full preterism is false, but obviously it would not persuade a full preterist who believes that the resurrection is in fact in the past.

What does this show us? For one thing, it shows us that the verses we are looking at do not state clearly that the resurrection is not in our past. We all agree that at some point after Paul wrote this, the resurrection will in the past, namely, when it finally occurs. But we cannot stop there. There is another crucial thing to observe about this passage, and what it tells us about the doctrine of resurrection, and about full preterism in particular.

A View that Destroys Faith in the Future

An important question is why Hymenæaeus' teaching on the resurrection would destroy anybody's faith. What is so unsettling about the view that the resurrection is in the past? Paul does not qualify Hymenæaeus' teaching of the resurrection in any way other than to say that it has already happened. When referring to the event, Paul simply calls it "the resurrection." Paul never calls into question Hymenæaeus' view of the nature of the resurrection even though he may have disagreed with it), only the timing. By not explaining what he means by "the resurrection" here in 2 Timothy, Paul leaves Timothy and the wider audience to assume that this event is the event spoken of elsewhere in Scripture and in Paul's letters. Put differently, Paul is saying, "You know this event that we all believe in, called the resurrection? Well, this guy Hymenæaeus believes that it has already happened." Since the two positions in contention here are the full preterist view of the resurrection and the orthodox view of the resurrection, let's consider this text in two possible scenarios. Firstly, let us consider the possibility that Paul considered the resurrection to be an ethereal, immaterial, invisible event (as in full preterism), and then let us consider the possibility that Paul considered the resurrection to be a tangible, physical once-for-all event (as in the orthodox view).

If Hymenæaeus taught that "the resurrection" was in the past, and if Paul considered "the resurrection" to be an immaterial, invisible resurrection of all the deceased saints of past ages, and that we will take part in it when we ourselves eventually die, then it is not clear at all why Hymenæaeus' teaching would "destroy the faith" of some. If Paul's disagreement with Hymenæaeus was simply one of timing, then Hymenæaeus' teaching was simply mistaken. But this should have been of no major concern to believers, since they would have known that they will still take part in this invisible, incorporeal resurrection when it does eventually occur (in AD 70 according to the full preterists) or at the time of their own death, and there would be no real harm done. In other words, if Paul held to a full preterist view of the resurrection, then there is no clear reason why he would say that believing in a past resurrection should destroy anyone's faith. After all, full preterists today believe in a past resurrection, and yet they do not lose hope or believe that I should have no hope, since they believe that they will join with the resurrected saints when they die.

However, let us consider the orthodox position on the resurrection, to see if this makes any better sense of Paul's extreme condemnation of Hymenæaeus' teaching and its impact on believers. If Hymenæaeus taught some of Paul's audience that "the resurrection" was in the past, and, as orthodoxy maintains, the resurrection of the dead is a physical, bodily once-for-all event, then it becomes immediately clear why it is so disastrous to say that the resurrection is in the past. If the resurrection is this kind of event, and it is in the past, then you and I and every other believer alive today has missed out on the resurrection of the dead! If we came to believe this, then it is not hard to see how our faith, our hope in God, might be destroyed.

The argument against full preterism must now be re-written as follows:

1. If believing in a past resurrection would destroy our faith, then the resurrection cannot simply be the invisible, incorporeal ascent of dead believers into heaven, an experience that we too will take part in when we die (since this would destroy nobody's faith).
2. According to the Apostle Paul, believing in a past resurrection would destroy our faith.
3. Therefore, if Paul is correct, the resurrection cannot simply be the invisible, incorporeal ascent of dead believers into heaven, an experience that we too will take part in when we die.
4. Full preterism asserts that the resurrection is the invisible, incorporeal ascent of dead believers into heaven in or round AD 70, an experience that we too will take part in when we die.
5. Therefore, if Paul is correct, full preterism is false.

It is important to note that at this point, it actually makes no difference what view of the nature of the resurrection Hymenæaeus held. Paul's point is that believers, on being told that the resurrection is in the past, based on what they know the resurrection entail, would lose hope. In all likelihood, Hymenæaeus himself did not believe that the resurrection would be physical. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, he would surely be incredulous to the idea that the physical visible resurrection had occurred and nobody had noticed. Secondly, in pagan and heretical theories it was simply more common to deny rather than to affirm the doctrines of Christianity that embraced the physical world, such as the incarnation (2 John 1:7) or the resurrection (Acts 17:32). But regardless of what Hymenæaeus himself believed about the resurrection, because of what Paul and the early church believed about the resurrection (namely, that it is to be a physical event), the assertion that the resurrection is in the past is to destroy the faith that we have now. If the resurrection is in the past, and we're still here talking about it, then we're in big trouble, says Paul. This only makes sense of the resurrection is physical rather than an immaterial, invisible event.

Conclusion

And so the initial defence of full preterism against this argument from Scripture just will not do. Full preterists cannot save their position from defeat by saying that Hymenæaeus was wrong because the resurrection was not past, but now it is past, and so they are correct. The response fails because of the very reason Paul says Hymenæaeus' view was so disastrous. If the resurrection is in the past, then our faith is undermined. Why? Because we're still here. The resurrection can't happen unnoticed.

Hymenæaeus said the resurrection was in the past. This, if true, means that the dead have risen without us, and we have been excluded. Full preterists also say that the resurrection is in the past. Whether they like it or not, their claim falls on the same sword as Hymenæaeus. The term may be distasteful to them, but full preterism really is neo-Hymenæanhymenaenism.