|
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which
the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church
of God, which He purchased with his own blood. I know that
after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not
sparing the flock. . . . Therefore, be on the alert. . . (Acts
20:28-29, 31) Though this impassioned warning was given to
the elders at Ephesus almost two thousand years ago, it applies
with equal force to elders all over the world today. God has
established elders as watchmen to instruct and care for the
flock. Overseers are to nourish God's sheep on a diet of sound
doctrine, and they are to refute the wolves who introduce
heresy and seek to lead the flock astray (Tit. 1:9). It is
in keeping with this latter duty, a duty of protection, that
the elders of Christ Church are compelled to warn the flock
about the heresy of Neo-Hymenaeanism. Admittedly this appellation
is quite a mouthful, but it has been chosen carefully. It
represents a new form (hence "Neo-") of an old heresy--a
radical reinterpretation of the bodily resurrection advanced
by a man named Hymenaeus. Paul likened the error of Hymenaeus
to gangrene or cancer (2 Tim 2:16-18) and, in order to root
it out, delivered Hymenaeus over to Satan so that he might
be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20). Since the modern
form exhibits such striking similarity to Hymenaeus' teaching,
we call the current version of this heresy Neo-Hymenaeanism
. But it is also known by other names such as pantelism, hyper-preterism,
full or exhaustive preterism, etc.
In its most basic form, Neo-Hymenaeanism asserts that every
NT reference to Christ's "coming" (Greek--parousia)
and to the end of "the age" (aeon) refers to the
destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 along with other contemporaneous
events. Consequently, advocates of this view hold that there
will be no future, final coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To support this doctrine, Neo-Hymenaeanism reinterprets both
the resurrection of the body and the final judgment. They
do this in various ways. The "resurrection" refers
either to some type of spiritual resurrection of Christ's
body, the Church, in AD 70, or to a replacement "resurrection"
body which believers receive at death. But in either case,
our physical bodies return to dust after death, never to rise
again. Neo-Hymenaeanists must also reinterpret the final judgment.
Judgment is either a representative judgment of all men in
the particular judgment of Israel in AD 70 or an individual
and personal judgment, taking place once and for all for each
individual at death. There is no final, collective judgment
of all men. Confused? This is not surprising. Neo-Hymenaeanism
as a system fails to cohere, and in an effort to clean up
the mess, advocates adopt different approaches, none of which
prove adequate.
The astute reader will discern the extent to which Neo-Hymenaeanism
distorts the Christian view of the future (eschatology). For,
while a difference of opinion remains among orthodox Christians
on the manner and timing of Christ's future coming, they have
always agreed on certain eschatological minimums. All believe
in the future and final coming of Christ, the bodily resurrection
of the wicked and the righteous at the end of the world, and
the future and final judgment of all men at the last day.
Neo-Hymenaeanism attacks these very eschatological issues
to which Christians have always given their unanimous consent.
In attacking such central doctrines, it is no wonder that
other important doctrines are also overturned.
The problems of Neo-Hymenaeanism begin with an erroneous approach
to Scriptural interpretation. Within the bounds of orthodoxy
it is permissible to apply many or even most of the references
to Christ's "coming" and to the end of "the
age" to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (e.g.,
Mt 24; Lk 20, etc). This old and honorable method of interpretation
has historically been called preterism. Neo-Hymenaeanism,
however, goes further and asserts that all references to Christ's
"coming" and to the end of "the age" refer
to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It argues that in
order to be consistent each occurrence of these words (parousia
and aeon) must be applied to the same event. However, similarity
of language does not necessitate an identity of referent.
An example of this can be seen in John 5:24-29. Verses 24-25
speak of those who are spiritually dead and enter life. But
in verse 28 Jesus begins to address the physically dead that
will hear Christ's voice while in the grave, and be resurrected
for the final judgment. Here, in the context of just a few
verses, Jesus uses the same word (death) to refer to both
the state of being unregenerate, and the state of being physically
dead. Let's try a thought experiment. Let's assume that the
Neo-Hymenaeists are correct, and that every occurrence of
the words "coming" and "end of the age"
refers to the exact same event in AD 70. Such an experiment
yields frightening consequences. Following this method of
interpretation, marriage must be abolished (Lk 20:35), the
Lord's Supper terminated (1 Cor 11:26), Jesus' reign at the
right hand of the Father ended (1 Cor 15:23ff), and Jesus'
presence with his people revoked (Mt 28:20). Going even further,
Neo-Hymenaeanism must maintain the preposterous notion that
death has been completely conquered, since Paul correlates
the "coming" of Christ with the eradication of death
(1 Cor 15:26). These absurd implications are enough to give
most students of the Scriptures a severe case of hermeneutical
indigestion. Yet the Neo-Hymenaeists proceed undeterred.
Above we have seen examples of the faulty and overly rigid exegetical
grid of Neo-Hymenaeanism. Moreover, we have stated that the
heresy denies the future, final coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
to raise all men simultaneously from the dead for judgment.
Desperate to maintain this position, Neo-Hymenaeanism is willing
to pit itself against the Christian view of history, the historic
confession of the Church, and, most significantly, the teaching
of Scripture.
First, Neo-Hymenaeanism's denial of the future, final coming
of our Lord destroys the Christian view of history. The Christian
view of history stands in stark contrast to that of all other
worldviews. History, according to Christianity, is linear with
a beginning and an end, creation and judgment. Neo-Hymenaeanism
removes the end point and makes history eternal, robbing it
of its meaning and entailing the perpetuity of sin and rebellion.
However, Romans 8:18ff specifically tells us that creation was
subjected to futility after the Fall and was still awaiting,
in Paul's day, its release. Paul likened the earth in its futile
state to a woman in childbirth, groaning under contractions.
To be consistent, Neo-Hymenaeanism must maintain that in AD
70 the baby was born and the earth is no longer subjected to
futility. If this were true, however, then why do we continue
to see natural disasters, cursed ground, famine, and pestilence?
Futility is all around us; the earth groans for redemption to
this day. Neo-Hymenaeanism supplies no solution to this agony
since it rejects the final, future coming of Christ to set all
things aright.
Second, Neo-Hymenaeanism must spurn the historic, and uniform,
confession of the Church. From her earliest history, the Church
has incorporated the future, final coming of Christ, the concurrent
bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the last
judgment among the creeds or public confessions of the faith.
The Nicene Creed declares that Jesus "shall come again,
with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead" and professes
faith in "the resurrection of the dead." The Athanasian
Creed, expanding and clarifying this confession, declares that:
- [Jesus] ascended into heaven; He sitteth
on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence
He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose
coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall
give an account of their own works. And they that have done
good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have
done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith,
which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
Neo-Hymenaeanism rejects the creeds
at this point and asserts that the unanimous testimony of
the Church has been completely erroneous. But how could this
be given our Lord's promises to protect and instruct His Church
(Mt 16:18; Jn 14:26; 17:17; 1 Tim 3:15)? Granted, the church
builds and refines its understanding of the Word of God. But
this building and refining occurs on top of a doctrinal foundation
that has been laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20).
Neo-Hymenaeists, we maintain, are taking a jack -hammer to
this very foundation by asserting that key premises upon which
the gospel rests are erroneous. If they are right, then central
doctrines of the faith have been completely misconstrued by
believers for thousands of years. Even disciples like Polycarp
who were discipled by the apostles themselves and would surely
have heard of the resurrection, had it occurred, were taken
in. Forgive us if we remain skeptical.
Third, Neo-Hymenaeanism must circumvent the perspicacious
teaching of the Scriptures. Throughout the Old Testament there
are days of judgment declared for various nations such as
Edom (Is 34:6,8), Babylon (Is 13:6,9), Lebanon (Is 2:12),
Egypt (Ezek 30:2ff), and even the people of Israel and Judah
themselves (Is 10:3; Amos 5:18ff; Zeph 1:7). It was another
of these days of judgment that fell on the Jews in AD 70.
Having spurned their Messiah, they fell under God's just wrath.
However, this judgment was no more the historical culmination
of God's vengeance on all nations than was the judgment of
Assyria or Edom. It was a historical judgment declaring God's
sovereign control of history and his determination to glorify
His name by severing off an unfruitful branch (Mt 21:33ff;
Jn 15:6; Rom 11:17ff). The Scriptures go on to teach that,
while the judgment on Israel in AD 70 was not the culmination
of judgment, there will come a day, the "last day,"
when God will judge the world and angelic beings through Jesus
Christ our Lord (Mt 10:15; 11:24; 12:36, 41f; Acts 17:31;
1 Cor 6:2,3; Jude 6). This will be the culmination of God's
historical judgments and will bring an end to history as we
know it.
This final judgment will be preceded by the bodily resurrection
of both the righteous and the wicked. This is evident in two
respects. First, Jesus frequently correlates the "last
day" with the resurrection of His people. For instance,
in John 6:44 Jesus declares, "No one can come to Me unless
the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up
on the last day." Later, in verse 54, He likewise says,
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal
life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (See
also Jn. 6:39-40; 11:24). Second, Jesus counsels us, "And
do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill
the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell" (Mt. 10:28). Jesus is clearly
intending to inform his listeners that men can only trouble
them so far. Men, he says, can merely destroy your body; they
cannot destroy your soul. However, there is One, namely God,
who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. This verse
is problematic for the Neo-Hymenaeists who interpret the resurrection
as merely spiritual. If they are right, then those who suffer
in hell have no physical bodies. But Jesus linked the body
and soul after death-the soul as well as the body shall be
cast into hell. Clearly Jesus envisioned a time, prior to
judgment, when the body and soul would be reunited. This time
is known elsewhere as the resurrection of the dead (Jn 5:28f;
Acts 17:31; 23:6; 24:15).
Therefore, despite the clear teaching of Scripture, the unanimous
testimony of the Church, and the devastating consequences
of its position, Neo-Hymenaeanism denies the future coming
of Christ to raise all men from the dead and judge them for
their works in the body.
The heretical nature of Neo-Hymenaeanism
becomes even clearer as one evaluates its denial of the physical
nature of the resurrection body. Scripture repeatedly links
the resurrection of Christ with our resurrection (Rom 8:11;
1 Cor 6:14; 15:20ff, 42-49; Phil 3:21). But if our resurrection
body is merely spiritual, and our resurrection bodies are
patterned after Christ's, then consistency would entail a
denial of Christ's physical resurrection. Not only is such
an assertion patently denied by Scripture (see Lk 24:39; Jn
20:27), it undermines the Gospel itself (1 Cor 15:16,17).
For now, most Neo-Hymenaeists shrink from denying Christ's
physical resurrection. However, if God does not grant them
repentance, one day the weight of the premises will snap their
resistance and the logic will drive them to a bodiless Christ,
a Savior not found in Scripture.
As we have seen from our discussion above, Neo-Hymenaeanism
is both erroneous and heretical. While it invokes the principle
of semper reformata, claiming that it is attempting to refine
the Church's understanding of the coming of our Lord, it actually
repudiates and rejects this very teaching, one which Paul
labels "our hope" (Acts 23:6). Neo-Hymenaeanism
stands with all other deviations from orthodox Christianity
as an attempt to cloak its heresy within orthodox terminology
while its true nature is destructive of the faith. Consequently,
its adherents are in grievous danger of damning their own
souls. May God in His mercy grant them understanding to see
and to turn from their error and may His people "avoid
worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
and . . . spread like gangrene" (2 Tim 2:16f).
|
