Acts 1:9-10: A challenge to preterist theology

[Apologia]

1. I doubt you'll get a reply from any hyper-preterists here since they'd not be allowed to be members of the board.

But wait, why would it take a "hyper" preterist to respond to his questions? With as many people on here who call Preterism heresy, I assume they have thoroughly studied the position, and should be able to easily provide the Preterist view point on such a passage, as well as a refutation of it, right?

 

[Apologia]

A hyper preterist, or full preterist teaches that all prophecy has been fulfilled and denies a future bodily resurrection and a bodily second coming of Christ or a new heavens and new earth. I am a partial preterist in the respect that I believe that Mat 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were mostly fulfilled in 70AD. However I do not believe that 70AD was the second coming. A full preterist is a heretic.

Most partial Preterists I know believe the New Heaven and Earth are already here, so that is not a distinction of Preterism, but partial Preterism too.

We are told in Isaiah what the New Heavens and New Earth are, they are the Gentiles being accepted into God's people. The removal of the Old Heavens and Earth is the removal of the old system, the Temple, the reliance of the people/nation status, and bringing in a new people/covenant, the New Heaven's and Earth.

So, a good summation of Preterism, is they deny a future bodily resurrection and a future bodily return of Christ. People often say they deny the resurrection and the second coming, but that is not accurate...they just believe those things already happened.

 

[Apologia]

Semantically, "generation" not only refers to a period of time in which contemporaries live, but also to a race of people sharing the same characteristics. Thus it is used in Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15. This leads good commentators to the conclusion that it refers to the people of the Jews. I think they are not looking at the language according to its prophetic nature, which requires that words of this kind be understood according to their moral overtones. The word "generation" is used pejoratively in the ministry of Jesus in relation to the wicked and adulterous generation. "This generation" does not pertain to a chronological or geographic group, but to a morally depraved people.

I would have to disagree with this understanding. This is the same thing the dispensationalist try to argue. Jesus is there standing talking to literal, breathing people, and tell them their generation shall not pass. They would have never understood it to be a race, as is evident from the teachings of immenence later by Peter, Paul and others. Plus, Jesus clears us his point even further in versus such as Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 where he says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

So the expectation, from Jesus own words, were that whatever it was that was to happen, it would be soon, before some of them died (and no, the transfiguration won't qualify to fulfill these verses). He told his people they would see it, and he warned them of the signs and issues. He was telling them how it would take place and what to expect.

We have to remember the context and the audience relevance on such issues. So whatever it was that was to happen, we already know the when, we just have to make our understanding of the how fit with the when.

 

[Apologia]

Well, logically, preterist means "past." It doesn't mean "all" is past.

I don't say I'm a preterist in my eschatological standing. It's a hermeneutic, not an eschatology.

Well, not sure if this is really worth arguing over, so this is all I will say further...I know what you are saying, and I know how you feel, but I am just saying it is honestly and logically to use the terms like this.

It does mean "past." Past is past, not partially past, but past. You can't say my hermeneutic for "last things" is Preterist, without meaning you believe the full eschaton is past...not just partially past and some partially future, you are saying it is past, plain and simple.

And you are right, it is a hermeneutic, not a position. But therefore, you can't say your hermeneutic is Preterist when it comes to interpreting prophecy, you would have to say you interpret many things preteristically (is that a legitimate word...lol), and many things futuristically. Making you not a Preterist interpreter by definition, but a Partial-Preterist interpreter. At least it seems clearly that way to me.

Today, it is often used to refer to a position more than to a hermeneutic, so it is hard for anyone to say "When it comes to bible prophecy interpretation, I am a Preterist" without an immediate question from someone...."Full or partial?"

 

[Apologia]

So the Jewish Christian, who knew the Scriptures, understood "coming on the clouds" to mean judgment (especially on Jerusalem) through invasion of Gentile nations. The 70 AD invasion of the Romans on Jerusalem fits that language very well. Most orthodox preterists look at all the events over that 70-year period from Christ's birth to His coming in judgment in 70 AD as all part of Christ's first coming. During that 70-year period Jesus Christ established His church, finished the writing of scriptures, and then destroyed all the old covenant symbols, including the temple, and opened the kingdom to all the nations of the earth.

Hmmm, I don't know, maybe I have missed something, but I have not really ever heard partial Preterists refer to it all as first coming. The fact that Jesus told his people he was going away and would return in their life time kind of breaks up the idea of all the first coming, doesn't it. It does seem confusing, and seems like we have a second coming in judgment, and a future third coming for the partial Preterist expectation.

The church was predominantly Jewish before 70 AD. Immediately after 70 AD it became mostly Gentile. This fits the "gathering His elect from the four winds" language. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was key to opening the gospel to all the Gentile nations. But that event had to await the completion of scripture, because the temple priests were given the duty to preserve and protect the scriptures from false prophets. Their job ended in 70 AD because prophecy also ceased, the word of God had become complete.

I mainly agree with this, it was the destruction of the Old Heaven and Earth system that would allow the coming of the New Heaven and Earth system (per Isaiah 64-65), but that would also follow that the last days, the final hour, the time of the end, and the end of the ages spoken of prior to AD 70 were referring to the end of the Jewish age, right?

 

[Apologia]

Bookslover,

Jesus said that His "cloud coming" would take place within the Apostle's generation (Matthew 24:30-34). He also made it very clear that the owner of the vineyard would "come" in judgment of the Pharisees (Matthew 21:40-45). In fact, it would happen before the Apostles had "have gone through all the towns of Israel" (Matthew 10:23), while some of his hearers were still alive (Matthew 16:28). Was meaneth this?

At this time in my understanding, I would say this means exactly what you are implying it means. Jesus spoke plainly about the end of the temple system, the end of the age as defined in all of the OT places like Deut. 34, Daniel 12, Isaiah, etc., and he said ALL the things he mentioned would occur during that generation alive when he spoke, before they went throughout all of the cities, before some of them died, etc.

Again, whatever it was he was saying was to happen, if it did not happen before those breathing people before him had died, then he was lying to them. That is the way I see it at this time in my study.

I have another "interesting" set of passages for discussion, but first, I need to make sure it has not already been discussed on this board (since I am new and haven't browsed all of the discussions, and second, I need to start a new thread...this one has went down way to many rabbit holes from the initial comment.

 

[puritan lad]

In actuality, when a Christian hears the word "preterist", they assume partial. Full preterism is clearly heterodox to the Christian faith, and full preterists disprove their own eschatology everytime they get married (Matthew 22:30).

 

[Apologia]

In actuality, when a Christian hears the word "preterist", they assume partial. Full preterism is clearly heterodox to the Christian faith, and full preterists disprove their own eschatology everytime they get married (Matthew 22:30).

Well, as I already stated, I disagree. I have rarely ever said Preterist and not have some one ask for a qualifier.

And the fact that you would make a comment such as you have on Matthew 22:30, shows your lack of study and understanding of the issue. A quick Google search on the topic found me this (at http://www.newjerusalemcommunity.net/?c=54&a=1405) , which may help you in this area. I only breeze over it, but knowing the author, and from what I saw, it seems to be adequate:

Why are People Still Given in Marriage?
Here is an analysis of Luke 20. I hope this will answer the question of why people are still given in marriage today.
Ward Fenley

In Luke 20 we read: Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, {28} Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. {29} There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. {30} And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. {31} And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. {32} Last of all the woman died also. {33} Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. {34} And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: {35} But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Luke 20:27-35

Whatever the Sadducees believed regarding the nature of the resurrection, it was obviously VERY close to, if not, a physical resurrection (i.e. whose WIFE shall SHE be etc.)

In Matthew Jesus answers them FIRST with this statement: Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

This tells us something: Their view of resurrection was ENTIRELY erroneous. It is not a matter of them having the right view at all. Jesus answered them with the correct view. Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

There is no marriage. As we have seen, the transformation was transforming the first century believers from OC death and glory into NC life and glory (2 Corinthians 3:18; Hebrews 8:13; 9:6-12). But because they had already been given the Spirit, it could be said of them:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is neither MALE NOR FEMALE, for they are all ONE IN Christ. This corresponds perfectly with Christ's statement that there is no marriage in the kingdom of heaven. We are all one in Christ and there is neither male nor female. His kingdom has nothing to do with this world, for His kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the fact that there is still marriage in this physical life does not negate the fact that there is NOT marriage in the kingdom anymore than the fact that there are males and females in this physical life does not negate the fact that there are NOT males or females in the kingdom.

Also, remember that they are like the angels. The angels are spirits and in Christ we are spirits just like Christ was raised a life-giving Spirit. Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit.

Luke says: Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

Luke 20:34

There are TWO primary worlds or ages according to the Bible. Jesus decribed them as "this age" and "the age to come" or "the age about to come."

Full preterists usually define the OC age as the "this age" of which Jesus spoke and the "age to come" as the New Covenant age. A question we must consider is, have we obtained that New Covenant age?

Now, if those who affirm that physical death accomplishes the resurrection addressed in Luke 20 then, because they marry and are given in marriage, do they consider themselves children of the Old Covenant age?

Furthermore, if they consider themselves SONS of THAT age, how is it from the passage that they conclude they have that age but have not obtained the resurrection?

The passage also says: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

What passages come to mind here? John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

Will we ever see death? John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Will we ever die? There was only ONE death to be swallowed up in victory, therefore Christ had to be referring to this death. Keep in mind that this is the exact same situation in John 11. Christ was addressing a woman who had an errant view of the resurrection. Christ corrected her by saying "I AM the resurrection and the life." Just like Christ is the Bread, Water, Light, Life, Way, Truth, so also He IS the resurrection. This brings us to an important point.

Consider this verse: Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

What was this hope? Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

So then, the hope of Israel was the resurrection. What does the Bible say the hope of Israel is? Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters. Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of
glory:

Since the HOPE of Israel is the Lord, and since the hope of Israel was the resurrection, and since Christ IS the resurrection, then if we are IN Christ then we have partaken of the exact same resurrection blessings of Israel. After all, in the resurrection (In Christ) they are neither married nor given in marriage (male nor female), for they are all one in Christ: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Why were they already one? Because they were already given the Spirit at Pentecost, by which they were being transformed into Christ NC IMAGE and GLORY. They were being raised a spiritual body IN Christ. Therefore they could already be identified as one in Christ through this transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

The passage in Luke then reads: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Notice that IN the resurrection or IN Christ they are the children of God: Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Through the transforming work of the Spirit, Paul and the first century believers were already firstfruits of this same glorious resurrection of the OC body of death into the NC body of life IN Christ Jesus. They were the children of God. The whole purpose of the AD 70 event was to make MANIFEST the children of God (Romans 8:18-23). Christ was clear: IN the resurrection (IN Christ) they were the children of God:

Galatians 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. {27} For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. {28} There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. {29} And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Heirs of what promise? The promise for which Abraham looked. Abraham died in faith WITHOUT the promise of the better resurrection. He could not be made perfect (resurrected) without the firstfruits of the first century:

Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The difference between those living in the first century and those OT believers who had died is this-Jesus said: John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (OT believers), yet shall he live: {26} And whosoever liveth (NT believers) and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Notice it is through FAITH IN Christ. Paul said: Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. {29} And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul also seems to make this distinction between OT believers and first century believers, but nevertheless says they will all be manifested as the children of God. This would be the complete redemption of the OC body of death/law into the NC body of life or Christ:

Romans 8:18-23 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. {19} For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. {20} For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, {21} Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. {22} For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. {23} And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our (plural) body (singular).

The completion of the NC would result in the fullness of life for the first century believers who were being transformed (children of God) and the resurrection of OT believers into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Christ goes on to say in Luke: Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. {38} For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Luke 20:37-38

There is a grave misinterpretation of the verse by some in saying that under the OT, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were "living." However, we must remember that the whole context begins with: "In the resurrection." Therefore when it says God is not a God of the dead but of the living, it is speaking of that time "in the resurrrection." The context is clear. In other words, in the resurrection:

1) They are as the angels
2) They are not married nor given in marriage
3) They are sons of the age to come
4) They cannot die anymore
5) God is the God of the living

It would be foolish to say he was the God of the living (the resurrection) during the time of Abraham. This would FORCE a difference in definitions of resurrection and "living." There is no such difference, neither does the passage even hint at such a difference.

Finally Christ says, "In the resurrection…all LIVE UNTO HIM."

Consider these passages: Romans 6:9-11,13 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. {10} For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he LIVETH UNTO GOD. {11} Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but ALIVE UNTO GOD through Jesus Christ our Lord. {12} Let not sin therefore reign in your (plural) mortal body (singular-OC body of death), that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.{13} Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves UNTO GOD, as those that are ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, and your members as instruments of righteousness UNTO GOD.

It is incredible that Paul says RECKON or UNDERSTAND yourselves to be alive from the dead JUST LIKE Christ is alive from the dead. Because they had already been given the downpayment of the Spirit, they could already be dubbed as ALIVE from the dead since they were in fact being changed from their DYING mortal body of death (OC body of death) into the glorious image and body of Christ. Therefore they, LIKE Christ were to reckon themselves as ALIVE UNTO GOD. What did Christ say? Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for ("in the resurrection") all live unto him.

Paul confirms this: Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live UNTO GOD.

At the destruction of Jerusalem Christ came to indwell His people and the fullness of their (OT believers and first century believers) were blessed with the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of resurrection life in Christ Jesus, their Glory and their Resurrection.

 

[puritan lad]

I agree with your view of the First Resurrection. This is not what the Pharisees were referring to in Matthew 22. They were referring to the physical resurrection, which takes place on the last day, which the Bible plainly teaches over and over again. As I pointed out an another post, 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teaches a bodily resurrection, of which Christ Himself is the first fruits. Was His resurrection bodily or Spiritual?

 

[unlearnedlearner]

Jeff,

Do you hold to the chapters 32 and 33 of the WCF?

Edit: I guess, if you are hyper about your preterism, then this needs to be qualified: Do you hold these as written and intended by the frames of the WCF? For example, no sleight of hand with "I agree, but disagree with the timing" sort of tricks.

Thanks,

UL

 

[Theoretical]

Jeff,

Do you hold to the chapters 32 and 33 of the WCF?

Edit: I guess, if you are hyper about your preterism, then this needs to be qualified: Do you hold these as written and intended by the frames of the WCF? For example, no sleight of hand with "I agree, but disagree with the timing" sort of tricks.

Thanks,

UL

 

[Apologia]

I agree with your view of the First Resurrection. This is not what the Pharisees were referring to in Matthew 22. They were referring to the physical resurrection, which takes place on the last day, which the Bible plainly teaches over and over again. As I pointed out an another post, 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teaches a bodily resurrection, of which Christ Himself is the first fruits. Was His resurrection bodily or Spiritual?

I think you misunderstood...that was not MY view, that was just an article I found that answered your objection.

 

[Apologia]

This is sad, I can't even play devil's advocate and make a comment, without guilt and error being ascribed to me, and this is not just happening on this thread.

Jeepers, how can anyone have any kind of descent conversation, if at the first sign of presenting "the other side" the swords come out? is it only acceptable to discuss issues from one side of the topic? is this just a board of preaching to the choir, or does anyone care about learning the issues and controversies?

Follow the conversation...he said the Preterist view was self-contradictory...I said he obviously didn't understand their view, and I presnted him with an article on THEIR view on the subject. And immediately, it became my view, and a barrage of questions.

How about everyone take a deep breath, read the posts twice, grasp what is being said...BEFORE wielding the sword at me?

 

[unlearnedlearner]

So, Jeff, to the question at hand, do you hold to the WCF 32 & 33? No swords, but a simple question? Despite your claim to others brandishing their swords, how do you get that from my question? I once heard some good advice: "How about taking a deep breath, reading the post twice, grasp what is being said, or asked, before wielding your sword?"

Thanks for the answer in advance.

This is sad, I can't even play devil's advocate and make a comment, without guilt and error being ascribed to me, and this is not just happening on this thread.

Jeepers, how can anyone have any kind of descent conversation, if at the first sign of presenting "the other side" the swords come out? is it only acceptable to discuss issues from one side of the topic? is this just a board of preaching to the choir, or does anyone care about learning the issues and controversies?

Follow the conversation...he said the Preterist view was self-contradictory...I said he obviously didn't understand their view, and I presnted him with an article on THEIR view on the subject. And immediately, it became my view, and a barrage of questions.

How about everyone take a deep breath, read the posts twice, grasp what is being said...BEFORE wielding the sword at me?

 

[Theoretical]

This is sad, I can't even play devil's advocate and make a comment, without guilt and error being ascribed to me, and this is not just happening on this thread.

Jeepers, how can anyone have any kind of descent conversation, if at the first sign of presenting "the other side" the swords come out? is it only acceptable to discuss issues from one side of the topic? is this just a board of preaching to the choir, or does anyone care about learning the issues and controversies?

Follow the conversation...he said the Preterist view was self-contradictory...I said he obviously didn't understand their view, and I presnted him with an article on THEIR view on the subject. And immediately, it became my view, and a barrage of questions.

How about everyone take a deep breath, read the posts twice, grasp what is being said...BEFORE wielding the sword at me?

Jeff, this statement is what concerns us.

Most partial Preterists I know believe the New Heaven and Earth are already here, so that is not a distinction of Preterism, but partial Preterism too.

We are told in Isaiah what the New Heavens and New Earth are, they are the Gentiles being accepted into God's people. The removal of the Old Heavens and Earth is the removal of the old system, the Temple, the reliance of the people/nation status, and bringing in a new people/covenant, the New Heaven's and Earth.

So, a good summation of Preterism, is they deny a future bodily resurrection and a future bodily return of Christ. People often say they deny the resurrection and the second coming, but that is not accurate...they just believe those things already happened.

I have never heard of partial preterists saying we are in the New Heavens and New Earth - that that view is precisely the demarcation line separating partial and full Preterism, from everything I've heard. That, I'd say, is what led to the concerns of unlearnedlearner and I.

 

[Theoretical]

Also, another question. Would you consider full preterism, including that one view you posted from another article, to be heresy?

 

[KMK]

Thank you for cutting to the chase Theoretical and unlearnedlearner. I see this situation as support for the arguments in my previous post.

 

[KMK]

I am working on a 'position paper' for my church on this subject. I argue against the hyper-preterist by arguing for the necessity of a future universal judgment. I am looking for constructive criticism on the 12 page paper if anyone has some extra time to read it. These hyper-preterists have nothing else to do but look for errors so I want to make it as air-tight as possible.

 

[Theoretical]

Thank you for cutting to the chase Theoretical and unlearnedlearner. I see this situation as support for the arguments in my previous post.

 

[unlearnedlearner]

Scott,

Briefly, there are partial preteristst that believe the New Heavens and New Earth have arrived in their inception like the resurrection. Bahnsen argues for this in his lectures on post-millennialism, making a distinction between John and Isaiah's vision due to the nature of the fulfillment – Isaiah still has death, “serpent” crawling, etc., but John has no death and the serpent is in the lake of fire. One arguing for the consummation of the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 21 & Romans 8) is dabbling with great error, but the idea that the New Heaven and New Earth has broken in/arrived, then there are no problems on the surface. Gentry also argues a similar case, although making Rev 21-22 a present reality, for the New Heavens and New Earth.

Ward's paper, however, is so full of errors and heresy that I cannot believe Jeff would post it. His heresy is blatant throughout but two quotes should stop anyone with the Spirit of Christ in their tracks: “His kingdom has NOTHING to do with this world, for His kingdom is not of this world” & “in Christ we are spirits just like Christ was raised a life-giving Spirit. Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit.” This is completely insane and has nothing to do with the historical faith. His response will be his anachronistic understanding of sola scriptura, which sets the framework for his anachronistic interpretation of the Scriptures, but these two lines alone should cause anyone reading this paper to immediately stop in their shoes.

Lets take a quick look at Ward's paper and the passage. Side note: the Sadducees come to Jesus, much like Satan did, with their crass sola scriptura, seeking to catch him in error. In both instances, their ability to quote Scripture, especially in a concordance like fashion ,is not a sign of knowing the Scriptures or the power of God, but their ability to misconstrue the Scriptures. Claims to sola scriptura should not be mistaken for understanding the Scriptures, which includes the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Look at these words:

“Whatever the Sadducees believed regarding the nature of the resurrection, it was obviously VERY close to, if not, a physical resurrection (i.e. whose WIFE shall SHE be etc.) In Matthew Jesus answers them FIRST with this statement: Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. This tells us something: Their view of resurrection was ENTIRELY erroneous. It is not a matter of them having the right view at all. Jesus answered them with the correct view. Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”

First, the Sadducees rejected that the Torah taught the resurrection & were seeking to catch Jesus in an error, so they proposed a strawman, thinking they found something in the law and the prophets to go against the teachings of the Pharisees & Jesus. Their question & framing of the discussion, like the hyper-preterists, is faulty from the word “go”. Jesus' response, as we shall see, is not an issue of their view being “ENTIRELY erroneous”, but rather their understanding of the Scriptures, the law and prophets, is “ENTIRELY erroneous”.

“There is neither MALE NOR FEMALE, for they are all ONE IN Christ. This corresponds perfectly with Christ's statement that there is no marriage in the kingdom of heaven. We are all one in Christ and there is neither male nor female. His kingdom has nothing to do with this world, for His kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the fact that there is still marriage in this physical life does not negate the fact that there is NOT marriage in the kingdom anymore than the fact that there are males and females in this physical life does not negate the fact that there are NOT males or females in the kingdom.”

I think every sentence of this paragraph is “graced” with errors. First, this is an absolutely terrible exposition of this Scripture. To take Jesus' words here and try to make the context the same as Paul's is just plain bad and a terrible concordance exposition at that. Ward makes this error throughout this paper. Second, marriage is tied into the first creation ("this age"), as is the male/female distinction, each equally bear the image of God, so distinction between the two genders is not predicated on the Old Covenant (Ward's interpretation of "this age"), but creation. Galatians needs to be seen in light of all of Paul's teachings regarding women as well, which is beyond this response and this passage, but it clearly reveals distinctions. Ward will have to make his old covenant [this age] begin at creation to try and make this work, making Adam and Eve already under death, i.e., having nothing to do with “resurrection” life. Third, these ideas regarding the physical life and the Kingdom would have no truck with 1st century thought. Fourth, his argument is mere assertion of a dichotomy that he has never established. Scripturally, it makes sense that there would be no marriage in the consummation, because the goal and ends of marriage is complete. There is no need for pro-creation, as the “cultural mandate” is complete. Also, look at Ward's inconsistency on the use of "world" and "age". He tells us that Christ's kingdom is not of this "world", which he later points out is the old covenant age, and then he seems to roll right into an understanding of "world" as "physical life". So, given Ward's use of "world" here and later you would think that he could grasp different usages & contexts of words. Finally, go ahead and have homo sex, multiple wives, or fornicate at will, because the Christ's kingdom has "NOTHING" to do with the physical world. Welcome to gnosticism & bad literalism.

“Also, remember that they are like the angels. The angels are spirits and <b>in Christ we are spirits</b> just like Christ was raised a life-giving Spirit. Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit.”

The bold is simply heresy. How anyone can buy into this teaching is beyond me. Does he really think he is a spirit? This is gnosticism, folks.

“Luke says: Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. Luke 20:34 There are TWO primary worlds or ages according to the Bible. Jesus decribed them as "this age" and "the age to come" or "the age about to come. Full preterists usually define the OC age as the "this age" of which Jesus spoke and the "age to come" as the New Covenant age. A question we must consider is, have we obtained that New Covenant age?”

Why are people of the Old Covenant given in marriage given the hyper-prets paradigm? Marriage is a creation ordinance and not an old covenant ordinance. He seeks to make the kingdom have no bearing on the physical, so he can make a false antithesis in the Scriptures, including the denial of our resurrection and, essentially, Jesus'. There is no basis in this paradigm for Christ's bodily resurrection, aside from, at best, apologetic purposes, but with the assumption this body was later shed, dissolved, or, even worse, returned to dust.

“Now, if those who affirm that physical death accomplishes the resurrection addressed in Luke 20 then, because they marry and are given in marriage, do they consider themselves children of the Old Covenant age?”

This is just crazy. One, who "affirms that PHYSICAL DEATH accomplishes the resurrection addressed in Luke 20?” Seriously, who affirms that physical death accomplishes resurrection? Two, I consider myself as participating in the New Heavens and the New Earth and the resurrection, although not their consummation, which will be complete at the resurrection of the body and the dissolving of marriage not the body.

“Furthermore, if they consider themselves SONS of THAT age, how is it from the passage that they conclude they have that age but have not obtained the resurrection?”

Already and not yet, Ward. And, the same way that Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob participate.

“The passage also says: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. What passages come to mind here? John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.”

What passage comes to mind? Is he being serious? Is he just playing word association? Who does exegesis like this? I nixed the rest of his John discussion, because the whole “with respect to what” needs to be asked when addressing/discussing “death” and “resurrection”. Context determines the understanding and not our word association.

“Will we ever die? There was only ONE death to be swallowed up in victory, therefore Christ had to be referring to this death. Keep in mind that this is the exact same situation in John 11. Christ was addressing a woman who had an errant view of the resurrection. Christ corrected her by saying "I AM the resurrection and the life." Just like Christ is the Bread, Water, Light, Life, Way, Truth, so also He IS the resurrection. This brings us to an important point.”

Again, here is an error. Yes, there is only “one death” to be swallowed up, but his understanding is completely shallow. There are many facets to this one death – legal, physical, spiritual, and second. Again, his exegesis is shallow and his dilemma is false. So, yes, Jesus is the resurrection!

“Consider this verse: Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. What was this hope? Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”

More bad concordance and word association. Look what he does with it in the next paragraph:

So then, the hope of Israel was the resurrection. What does the Bible say the hope of Israel is? Jeremiah 17:13...Col 1.

“Since the HOPE of Israel is the Lord, and since the hope of Israel was the resurrection, and since Christ IS the resurrection, then if we are IN Christ then we have partaken of the exact same resurrection blessings of Israel.[/b>]After all, in the resurrection (In Christ) they are neither married nor given in marriage (male nor female), for they are all one in Christ: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”

His understanding of “hope” might be more shallow than his understanding of death, so his opening sentence is one giant non sequitur. This is unbelievably bad.

“Heirs of what promise? The promise for which Abraham looked. Abraham died in faith WITHOUT the promise of the better resurrection.”

What does “WITHOUT” mean? This is against Hebrews: “[Abraham didn't receive promises, although] having seen them [the promises] and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” He conveniently leaves out: “He considered that God was able even to raise [Isaac] from the dead...” Did he believe that God was able to raise him out of the Old Covenant? This would be an extremely silly interpretation given the fact that he was going to kill him physically.

“The difference between those living in the first century and those OT believers who had died is this-Jesus said: John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (OT believers), yet shall he live: {26} And whosoever liveth (NT believers) and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

That is just crazy. How do you even argue with someone that sees the “dead” here as OT believers? This has nothing to do with this, given the context. Please read his interpretation people, because it is horrendous. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life: the Old Testament believer that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall the old testament believer live (NT believer?): and whosoever liveth (NT believers) and believeth in me shall never die (Old Testament believer). Believest thou this?” O.k., I threw in an extra parenthesis, but just seeking to demonstrate how crazy his interpretation is. This is crazy stuff

“Christ goes on to say in Luke: Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. {38} For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Luke 20:37-38

There is a grave misinterpretation of the verse by some in saying that under the OT, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were "living." However, we must remember that the whole context begins with: "In the resurrection." Therefore when it says God is not a God of the dead but of the living, it is speaking of that time "in the resurrrection." The context is clear.”

To think he has the audacity to being this paragraph with “there is a grave misinterpretation”, because have you ever seen a more grave misinterpretation than what he provides here? I like that he finally wants to appeal to something like a “context”, but he completely misses it & the words, which he doesn't even quote at the beginning of his treatment. Jesus is not talking about “that time 'in the resurrection.'” He is referring back to Moses and the burning bush, so, ironically, Jesus is using a preterist hermeneutic at this point and he is too hyper to miss it. Jesus says, “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead (Old Covenant believer?), but of the living (New Testament believer?), for all live to him.” No, he is not talking about the time of the resurrection, but “life” has always been there for the believer and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, although they were dead, which the Sadducees thought was the end all be all. Again, the context corrects the Sadducees understanding of the Scriptures & their denial of the resurrection. If the Lord is the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, then he is the God of living, i.e. there God, although they are dead. Matthew brings this out more: “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 the living.” Namely, for God to be the God of Abraham...they (Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob) have to be living and they were. So, contra Sadducees understanding of the Torah that it did not teach a resurrection Jesus is affirming that it does.

“In other words, in the resurrection:

1) They are as the angels
2) They are not married nor given in marriage
3) They are sons of the age to come
4) They cannot die anymore
5) God is the God of the living

It would be foolish to say he was the God of the living (the resurrection) during the time of Abraham. This would FORCE a difference in definitions of resurrection and "living." There is no such difference, neither does the passage even hint at such a difference.”

What? It would force you away from your hyper-preterist interpretation, but it would not effect the orthodox believer. Yes, the Scripture is clear that there is a difference.

His treatment of Romans 6 is more horrendous exegesis, as well as his “give life to your mortal bodies” as being the Old Covenant. One more thing, as he adds words, changing the meaning, “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for [“in the resurrection”] all live unto him.” That's not what the Bible says.

So, briefly, what is this passage teaching? 1. That the Sadducees do not know the Scriptures or the power of God in their denial of the resurrection. They thought the Torah didn't teach the resurrection, but Jesus says it teaches it contrary to their understanding. God is and was the God of the living. 2. Angels don't marry and are not given in marriage. The reference isn't an ontological statement (physical vs spiritual), but statement regarding marriage and man not dying, being equal or like the angels. 3. I can affirm the other three points Ward outlines above. Herein Jesus teaches that the Torah, contrary to the Sadducees, teaches the resurrection and that the God they claimed to follow was the God of the living, hence a resurrection. The Sadducees wouldn't squabble with describing the “Exodus” as a “resurrection”, but they denied the resurrection of the body, which is the context of the discussion. The hyper-preterists are in tune with the Sadducees, denying the Law & the Prophets, despite their claim to the Scriptures.

The doctrine of the resurrection is taught from the Fall to the Consummation. Make no mistake, the hyper-preterists are heretics, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. If the dead are not raised then not even Christ has been raised. Jesus died and was raised physically. This doesn't negate a more rich and multi-faceted understanding of "death" and "resurrection", but denying the physical is to deny the faith. The hyper-prets deny the faith.