The Devil is in the Details by Dorothy Anderson

Editors Note: Dorothy Anderson returned to the heresy of Full/Hyper Preterism in 2010.

 

I thought I would touch on another issue that is unresolved in hyper-preterism. What do they do with that pesky ole devil?

 

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

This is fulfilled based on their eschatology. The question is – who or what is/was Satan? Is he still active today? How do they define him/it?

 

Ask the hyper-preterists and you’ll again get a lot of varied answers and don’t be surprised to see more questions than answers. That’s a technique that serves to deflect the issue on the table.

 

My position today is this: If they want to lay claim to the start of the next reformation, they must have a prepared response here. Luther wasn’t negligent in that area. Since their position requires a defeat of Satan, inquiring minds want to know. Who or what is/was Satan that proves this scripture is fulfilled?

 

I think you’ll find the devil is in the details and no, I don’t need to debate this issue. I want to see a somewhat unified agreement. What’s all these years of study produced?

 

I think the readers here will find the answers to this question quite illuminating.

 

Now’s your chance HP’s! Show the world what all this scholarship has produced.

 

 

For further reading please consider the following links;

 

http://www.preterist.org/preteristQA.asp#question25

 

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/2004_simmons_red-dragon.html

 

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/2001_mcpherson_satan-exist.html

 

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Devil is in the Details by Dorothy Anderson

  1. Nice article, Dorothy. I think all the Hyper-Pret confusion arises from failure to understand Satan’s work in this age. As “prince of this world,” his business is to prevent the re-institution of the kingdom which was lost by the First Adam, but which is to be restored by the second Adam. Thus Satan occupies the whole time between the forfeit of Adam’s dominion and its re-acquisition by Christ. Read Psalm 8, which gives the whole “kingdom concept” in a nutshell.

    But the failure to understand really arises from unbelief in the supernatural. Denial of Satan’s operation is really a rationalistic reaction against the superstition of the Middle Ages. In the 18th century rationalists began to discount the supernatural elements of the Bible, bringing them into accordance with human reason–with purely natural phenonema. That’s what Hyper-Preterism essentially is: an attempt to find a “purely logical explanation” for the doctrines of the second advent, resurrection, etc. This is why it appeals so much to the “intellectual” people, whereas it hs little hold on Christendom in general.

    We have to remember, Hyper-Preterism is really a by-product of German rationalism. Doubt is the antecedent, and not the consequent, of its particular views. Hyper-Prets don’t outwardly ‘deny’ the miracles of the Old Testament, because they’ve already conveniently relegated them to a past dispensation. Their treatment of the miraculous elements of the N.T. is what gives them away. Denial of Satan’s activity is just one minor example of the latent rationalism of Hyper-Preterism.

    Brian

  2. Well we know what hyper-futurist think of the devil.They see him behind every bush and outside every church door lingering and waiting to pounce on poor Christians.

    If Satan hasn’t been “crushed” then Christ hasn’t defeated death and is not the King of this world.

    Romans 16:20 (NKJV) And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

    The KJV uses the word “bruise” instead of “crush.” The Greek word used here is suntribo, it means: “to crush completely, i.e. to shatter”.

    When is it that Satan is to be crushed completely? It’s at the end of the Old Covenant, when the Lord returned in judgement on Israel. Paul said here to the Roman Christians that it would happen “shortly”. The Greek word translated “shortly”‘ is tachos. According to Arndt and Gingich Lexicon, tachos is used in the LXX and certain non-canonical writings to mean: “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste.” Paul uses this same word in:

    Philippians 2:19 (NKJV) But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

    Paul says that he hopes to send Timothy “shortly.” How soon is “shortly”? If you look at verse 23 he tells us:

    Philippians 2:23 (NKJV) Therefore I hope to send him at once, as soon as I see how it goes with me.

    Some will try and say “mellow” doesn’t mean soon.But an honest study without preconceived ideals will show that Philippians 2:23 proves it does.

    Bill

  3. Hi Brian,

    Yes, intellectualism is the draw and I totally agree, they do dismiss the miraculous elements. I fell into that trap. It seemed that everything had to have a rational explanation.

    I’m praying that posts like this will make them realize that while they all may agree on their eschatology, their view leaves them in total utter chaos in so many areas.

  4. Dorothy,

    Many thanks for the important posts pointing out the errors of hyper preterism. I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say thanks for the courage and effort it takes to stand in the line of fire for the sake of your convictions. I can tell that your love for those lost in error is the main motivation. This is your most powerful testimony of all.

    Regarding the question about Romans 16, the answer (as usual) is to be found in the immediate context. It is a very bad game to pull verses out of their surrounding context to force them into supporting whatever hobby-horse doctrines one wishes to see in them. In nearly all of the countless presentations of “time texts” given, it is noticeable that the immediate context (which is usually impending persecution and martyrdom) is completely ignored.

    And so, in the vein that Jesus called Peter Satan (adversary), Paul is here pointing out the heretics in the Roman church and encouraging the faithful to be on the offensive against error:

    17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

    Paul tells the brethren that they should:

    1) Mark those who cause divisions by fair speeches
    2) Mark those who cause offences contrary to sound doctrine
    3) Avoid those who do such

    Trusting in their obedience to this admonition (as they had previously obeyed), Paul assured them that the heretics who deceive the simple and cause divisions in the church would be dealt with by God soon enough… by His exposing them, at the very least.

    This is truly a timely bit of scripture. Those who love sound doctrine today would likewise do well to obey Paul in this matter. The Holy Spirit is using lovers of sound doctrine to expose such heretics today, and whatever little authority and power they have amassed will shortly be crushed completely.

    blessings to you, and to all lovers of mercy and truth!
    todd

  5. I fully agree with Todd that the time texts must be referred to immediate context. Bill’s post is just another example of Hyper-Preterist chicanery. Even he would agree that the “soon” crushing of Satan was proclaimed in A.D. 58. But soon doesnt mean “already happened.” True, the kingdom drew ‘near’ to Israel during the 40-year period of probation. But because the essential condition of national repentance was not met (Acts 3: 19-21; Matt. 23: 39; Hosea 5: 15), the temple was destroyed and the second coming put off to a future time.

    There is an analogy to the “repentance-then-parousia” concept in the work of individual salvation. Peter says, “Repent, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2: 28). That is, repent and the Holy Spirit will come to you. The corporate message to Israel is, “Repent, and Christ will return from heaven” (Acts 3: 19-21). The whole purpose of the tribulation is to bring about the travail (birth pains) that will issue in the new birth of the nation (see Isa. 66: 7-8). While there may have been plenty of birth pains in A.D. 70, there was no national repentance, and so there was no second coming. With the destruction of the temple, the Jewish DISPENSATION (not age) ended, and the church dispensation became fixed in its present form.
    Consequently the ‘soon’ crushing of Satan never materialized but still awaits fulfillment. In a sense it is still “soon,” for we never know when the Lord will return.

    If Satan was “crushed” in A.D. 70, there is no evidence of his defeat, for the moral state of the world has been exactly the same ever since. To say that Satan was crushed in A.D. 70 is to plead for a subjective fulfillment of Christ’s redemptive promises, which marginzalizes the realities of Christian salvation in the lives of believers. Paul was waiting for something objective and verifiable when he cried, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Romans 7: 24).

    Brian

  6. Hello Everyone…..

    I dont know about all this hyper stuff. I just know I believe what the scriptures say. Soon means soon and shortly mean shortly on so on. I can not connect all the dots and don’t even try to do that. I do believe there are some errors when it comes to the resurrection and to me it even sounds a bit like JW teachings.

    I also always had disagreements when it came to dropping out of Church, Which by the way I never have done. I believe we should have fellowship with other Church members even if we may disagree with them on end times matters.

    Above and beyond all it is love that matters. Without love we have nothing. I can disagree with you and love you.

  7. Hi Kenny,

    I do remember you from the RPList if I recall. Welcome.

    Let me say this about the time statements. I was in the Church of Christ when words like “mello” were under discussion. These men were not Greek scholars, just ordinary men trying to dissect Greek. Looking back today, I can see how the Church of Christ led this charge on the timestatements.

    Now there is some backtracking being done by others to see what happened. It goes a long way to explaining why the Church has not misunderstood the time statements as the HP’s profess. Lexicons do not agree in translations, etc.

    I happen to prefer the understanding that in some cases “mello” has more to do with a “divine decree” – it’s a given it will happen because God is faithful and true, then “when” it would happen. We have examples in Ruth of such in Esther 8:8 and in the accounts of Cyrus.

    Tackus has more to do with the manner something will happen rather than time.

    Neither you nor I are Greek scholars and this is just one area that has made me step back. Placing the resurrection in the wrong time can be fatal and there is still no uniform answer to that one. They are still squabbling about it.

    I also work in typology and there are problems there. I don’t profess to have all the answers Kenny, but I do have very serious issues with HP beyond time statements. When I see it married to every “whore” of a doctrine in order to propagate, then I can not view this as a move of God. Some of us spent exhaustive time and effort to prevent those unions, but the so called “leaders” are still successful at turning a blind eye. I will add Ed Stevens as an exception to that statement.

    Please pardon my bluntness, but imho HP is a faith destroying belief.

    You see, when the HP leaders eventually show up to respond, they know they will be called to account for ignoring the requests for purity. I’ve done it publicly and privately…

    Here is a reminder to these men posted publicy 6-3-2007:

    So my question to the leaders of preterism: “When history is written, and it will be written, will your children and grandchildren see men who were faithful and obedient to God’s word or will they see the bones of those who transgressed the commandments of God?”

  8. Great – we have a Preterist Idealist agreeing with a Premillennialist. And, then we have Dorothy who said that the history of the Church believes that “most NT prophecy” was fulfilled in A.D. 70. We have another opponent on here who is a postmillennialist! If you guys don’t see the problem here, then, well, not much I can do. Love ya anyways.

    Sam Frost
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  9. Hi Sam,

    Why don’t you answer the question? In fact, why doesn’t anyone?

    Bill has tried to use a time statement, but that’s a little shy of proof of who satan is or was.

    Why don’t you tell us? You’ve made a statement of fact in your position, so I want to see some proof.

    Our positions have absolutely nothing to do with the question. IF your position is correct, then you should have a well reasoned response here imho.

  10. Dorothy said “Please pardon my bluntness, but imho HP is a faith destroying belief.”

    Prof that some people just can’t handle the truth.

    Oh yea of little faith Dorothy!

    Another Dorothy gem “Placing the resurrection in the wrong time can be fatal and there is still no uniform answer to that one. They are still squabbling about it.

    Well Dorothy,placing the second coming in the wrong time has been fatal to hyper-futurist that have made 2,000 yrs worth of false claims.Pre mill,Post mill,Mid trib,Post trib,Amill, I’m sure i have left a few out and I’m sure they’ll come up with a few new ones before long.You name it and the hyper-futurist have a view.Good for Steven King and other science fiction writers and the atheist love to use this fact against Christians.Yeah Dorothy you hyper-futurist have a great history of not squabbling.

    Still waiting for that exegesis Dorothy 🙂

    Bill

  11. Bill,

    *sigh*….you want to debate eschatology and that I can fully understand, but you don’t seem to be grasp that until you can define the resurrection and satan, no matter how well developed your theory of eschatology is, it’s just a theory.

    I’m not required to defend my position against a theory. I think that’s where the Church has missed the boat when dealing with hyper-preterism. I missed it until I started this series. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to debate Preston, or to allow you to spread your theory in a Church environment, in on-line Christian groups, etc. until you have done your homework.

    I have come to believe that debates with Preston have given those inside HP a false sense of legitimacy. I think it’s time to yank that rug out from under all of you and send you back to the drawing board.

    You know Bill, I’ve seen a very well developed theory from the annhilationist camp, but there are a few passages they can’t conquer. I have refused to discuss the issue with them until they can account for those passages. Guess what? They went away and I haven’t seen them in years.

    I fully believe that IF or WHEN the HP groups can come forth with a well developed scriptural resurrection position, a clear position showing who or what satan is thus validating his/its defeat, a clear position on the role of the Church today, then you might just have something that bears review.

    Unfortunately, your so called leaders know they are deficient in these areas now, but instead of focusing on those things that will help move you in that direction, they prefer to focus their arguments on trivial matters that will add not one inch to your stature.

    Is anything I’m saying here make any sense to you Bill? Are you grasping this at all?

    Now the “fatal statement” has been addressed from within HP by those who have some honesty with the texts so if you have a problem my statement, then you can return to your camp and address that issue there. I just happen to agree with them.

  12. Ok Dorothy, you have now crossed the line with the hyperpreterists. You are calling them hyper & saying their “leaders” are being evasive & that their teachings are destructive. They cannot allow you to leave the reservation & start talking about the inner-workings of the movement. You must be silenced. Prepare for an all-out attack on you.

  13. In Romans 16, we have, as EVERY preterist, full or not, who has written a major work on the subject, agrees, number one, that this is a “time text.” It was something that was “soon” to take place. Satan’s head was “soon” to be “crushed.”

    2. This is, as several Evangelical commentaries note, a direct allusion to Genesis 3.15, only there, “the satan” is called “the serpent” (John, in his Revelation, ties both “the ancient serpent” and “the devil” together. Paul essentially does the same thing.

    3. I believe that “the satan/serpent” was created by God, was an angelic being, enforced the Sin of Adam, and was also an “angel of death.” He was an enforcer of God’s wrath (or, as so many Reformed say, satan could only go as far as God let him – see Job; also I Chron. 21.1 compared to 2 Sam 24.1).

    4. “Demons” are also called “fallen angels” (how they fell is open to interpretation within the “history of the church” so that’s not a preterist problem, per se). We can see some of this in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 11, where we see “principalities and powers” in struggle).

    So far, Dorothy, you should not have any real problems with what I have outlined. It’s pretty standard seminary stuff. No allegories here. No “spiritualizing” the devil. He was a real angelic being with a purpose ordained of God. He was a liar from the beginning. It what he was created to do (Gen. 3.1).

    Any problems so far?

    Sam

  14. Hi Todd,

    Thanks so much for the support and the kind words but most of all thank you for forgiving me my transgressions against you. Those here may not realize that you are the curator of the Preterist Archive and that you were the first to renounce hyper-preterism publicly. I would say you have been quite instrumental in slowing their growth. I do hope everyone will check out your site because it has a wealth of information.

    I know the attacks on you were relentless for what – almost 2 years? That took a lot of courage and fortitude and I must say you have certainly paved the way and set an example for others of us.

    I know you have witnessed my calls for sound doctrine..so you know that my main thrust has always been for the health and welfare of the Church and I’m not easily intimidated or silenced there. I also don’t happen to buy into a system that diminishes the work of the Holy Spirit and imho the foundation of HP is built on that. Looking back, I just cringe. Now I know the purpose behind those scriptures sitting beside my computer that kept pricking my conscience. I was just not at peace in those areas.

    Hey, maybe when some of the dust settles, we can all sit down and throw our escatological cards on the table for discussion. Hey Brian – I’ll trade you a rapture for two dispensations. :))

  15. Dorothy says “you want to debate eschatology”

    No Dorothy i asked a simple question.Please show me what verse or verses you have done an exegesis on that have change you eschatology.It’s very simple.If you haven’t done any,then fine.Just say so.

    Dorothy says ” There is absolutely no reason for anyone to debate Preston, or to allow you to spread your theory in a Church environment, in on-line Christian groups, etc. until you have done your homework”

    Well Dorothy we’re still waiting for your HOMEWORK. Not your theories,but real exegetical work.By the way, why are you here if you don’t think Paul should let us here? Aren’t you being hypocritical? Or are you just here to add insults and strawman arguments?

    Dorothy says” I think it’s time to yank that rug out from under all of you and send you back to the drawing board”

    The drawing board is called dong the exegetical work and submitting it to the public for evaluation.You don’t just get to say something is heretical and not show the work you did.

    Dorothy says” I’ve seen a very well developed theory from the annhilationist camp, but there are a few passages they can’t conquer. I have refused to discuss the issue with them until they can account for those passages. Guess what? They went away and I haven’t seen them in years”

    I’m not Annihilationislist so i don’t really care..I’m sure i can find more hyper-futurist that have that view them preterist.This is not how you debate a view Dorothy,it’s calleda Logical Fallacy.

    Dorothy says” I fully believe that IF or WHEN the HP groups can come forth with a well developed scriptural resurrection position, a clear position showing who or what satan is thus validating his/its defeat, a clear position on the role of the Church today, then you might just have something that bears review”.

    Well Dorothy you show me yours and i will show you mine.

    Dorothy says”Unfortunately, your so called leaders know they are deficient in these areas now, but instead of focusing on those things that will help move you in that direction, they prefer to focus their arguments on trivial matters that will add not one inch to your stature”

    If you mean by leaders men that have studied for years and had the courage to write books and articles for peer review here is a list for you that have been written on the Resurrection.

    William Bell “The Re-Examination” http://allthingsfulfilled.com/

    Don K. Preston “70 Weeks are Determine for The Resurrection” http://eschatology.org/

    Samuel M. Frost “Exegetical Essays On The Resurrection Of The Dead” http://thereignofchrist.com/

    Dorothy says” Is anything I’m saying here make any sense to you Bill? Are you grasping this at all”?

    Sure Dorothy you have left preterism, can’t show the work you did or what verses you have decided different on and will now just make personal attacks and strawman arguments.I think it’s the pattern of all the ex-preterist.

    Dorothy says” Now the “fatal statement” has been addressed from within HP by those who have some honesty with the texts so if you have a problem my statement, then you can return to your camp and address that issue there. I just happen to agree with them”.

    Now here is where you lost me…”honesty with text” just doesn’t seem to go together with you,sorry.

    Bill

    Phil: Hi Bill. You talk about doing homework and I’m all for that. One of the things that bother me (there are many) about “all was fufilled in AD70” is Acts 1:8-11. How have you arrived at this conclusion that Jesus did indeed return on or about AD70?

  16. Phil,
    I just have to say how surprised I am to see Roderick posting here.I mean if he doesn’t want to engage us ,why does he kept coming back here.Don’t get me wrong,i enjoy a good laugh.Anyhow.Happy New Year Phil.

    Here is Rod on the carm formhttp://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4044543#post4044543

    “I would really rather not hear from the many hyperpreterists that frequent this forum. I’m here to have discussions with Christians. If a hyperpreterist comments, I will indicate they are a hyperpreterist & then I encourage all other respondents to ignore the hyperpreterist comments”

    Roderick had earlier tried to get the moderators to ban peterist.So much for honesty.

    Bill

    Phil: Happy New Year Bill! Roderick is free to post here as you are. This is a discussion site and he knows I’m allowing you and others to comment. I know he doesn’t like that but I don’t really care what he likes. My hope was and is you guys can put aside your past conflicts and test the Scriptures together like reasonable adults…..that isn’t too much to ask now is it?

  17. Hi Sam,

    Problems – well yes. Roll that out into the preterist community and see what response it gets. lol I’ve seen the answers but where have you been?

    I’ll try to find some time tonight to pull some of them forth. Basic seminary…not hardly. roflol

  18. Hi Bill,

    Good try….

    I am working on my scriptural rebuttal. I’m estimating about 6 months before it’s all down on paper and out for your comments. I can tell you Rev 10 & 20 are issues.

    As consistant as you profess to be in the time statements, Rev 20 is one area where you throw out your consistancy.

    Now the fact that Brian McLaren has joined the ranks just goes to show how undeveloped your system really is and how well developed the universalist side is. Have you ever looked at the HP Universalist position? Now that’s a well developed system and much more consistant that yours, but unfortunately, it’s not true either.

    I saw an article that Brian Simmons wrote that really hits home here. Why don’t you check it out?

    http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/what-hyper-preterists-dont-want-you-to-know/

    Ya see, what you miss in typology is that the enemies of Jesus were destroyed. The corresponding typology would be when the Churches enemies are finally destroyed. You see, the Church does go on forever – but there is a time when all those who attack her, are removed. That’s the missing part….

  19. Hey Phil,
    I will try and put aside the past conflicts and “test the Scriptures together like reasonable adults”.It’s great advice and thanks for the reminder.

    You asked “about “all was fulfilled in AD70″ is Acts 1:8-11. ”

    And that’s a great question and one of the first people new to preterism ask.

    He Came In Like Manner A Study of Acts 1:11
    By William H. Bell, Jr.

    To some, several passages have been more difficult to interpret within the A.D. 70
    framework of time than others. One such passage is Acts 1:9-11. “Now when He had spoken
    these things, while they watched, he was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
    And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by
    them in white apparel, who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven?
    This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw
    Him go into Heaven.”

    Briefly, we want to study three major points in this passage. (1) the cloud coming, (2) the
    same Jesus, and (3) in like manner. Our purpose is to honor the very words of Christ while also
    showing the inconsistency and contradictions in the literalistic, futuristic/ammillennial view of
    this text. Acts 1:9-11 fits perfectly within the A.D. 70 framework for Christ’s return.
    First, the Old Covenant usage of the cloud coming of God symbolized divine presence in
    judgment. “The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud, and will come
    into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its
    midst. (Isaiah 19:1).

    Quite clearly, this is a spiritual, yet actual coming of the Lord. God was coming on a
    cloud to judge Egypt but he was not coming in a physically visible body or cloud. See Psalms
    18:8ff; 97:2; 104:3; Joel 2:1, 2; Nahum 1:2ff; Zephaniah 1:14,15.
    Secondly, Christ’s coming in A.D. 70 is neither upon a physical cloud nor in a physical
    body. It too was a spiritual coming, yet real, and actual. “Then the sign of the Son of man will
    appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of
    Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30).

    Most all Bible students agree that Christ’s coming in this text was literal, (actual) but not
    physical, and that it occurred before that first century generation passed, (Matthew 24:34). They
    must also agree that this was the SAME Jesus who was crucified and who ascended in the cloud
    per the Acts 1:11 passage. These things being true, then we must agree that we can have a
    spiritual, actual and real coming of the SAME Jesus, in a cloud, without either that coming or
    cloud being physical. Of no lesser importance is the fact that this non-physical coming was seen
    by all the tribes of Israel. It is time that we open the “eyes of our understanding,” (Ephesians
    1:18). In fact, Paul exhorted the Ephesians to use their eyes of understanding in order to “know
    what the hope of their calling was all about. “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened;
    that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the richer of the glory of His
    inheritance in the saints.” (Ephesians 1:18) In so doing, we will begin to see more than what is
    visible to the physical eye!

    Third, does one have to retain the same bodily form to be the same person? This is what
    is argued for a fleshly, physically, visible return of Christ. However, such would make the Bible
    a multitude of contradictions. In the beginning, Jesus existed spiritually with God as the Word.
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was
    in the beginning with God,” (John 1:1-2). In the KJV, verse 2 reads, “The Same” meaning “this
    one,” i.e., Christ. Verse 14 tells us, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”
    Therefore, when Jesus changed from his pre-earthly spiritual form to his incarnate fleshly form,
    he was yet the same Jesus.

    If then, upon his ascension, he changed from the incarnate fleshly form back to his
    former spiritual state as the Word, (Revelation 19:13), he would also yet be the same Jesus. This
    is why what we said under point two above is correct. It clearly shows that Jesus does not have
    to be physical to be the same Jesus. “Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the
    flesh, Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no
    longer, “2 Corinthians 5:16).

    This fact can also be observed for with men. When the rich man and Lazarus died and
    entered Hades, they were not in the physical body, ye they were the same persons in a different
    form or state, (Luke 16:19-23). They were recognizable and had the ability to communicate.
    They could experience pain or pleasure depending on whether or not they were saved and had
    memory of life and experiences on earth. They could also recognize and converse with each
    other, were cognizant of their own personalities, yet were in some manner restricted in mobility
    to pass from one state to the other.

    Fourth, “in like manner” is an adverbial phrase which does not modify or describes the
    noun Jesus as in appearance. “In like manner” modifies the verb phrase “shall so come.”
    Therefore, it is an abuse of the laws of grammar to use “in like manner” to refer to the
    appearance of Christ. Grammatically and contextually speaking, it only refers to his ascending
    in a cloud. Hence, a return in like manner means that he would return in a cloud. And, to repeat,
    there is no mandate for a physical cloud at the return of Christ.

    Fifth, in further support of the above, to make the phrase “in like manner” refer to the
    bodily appearance of Christ would make the Bible contradict, and the inspired writers liars. John
    was present when Jesus ascended. He along with the other apostles saw the bodily appearance of
    Christ when he ascended back to heaven. However, some thirty plus years later he writes,
    “Beloved, now we are the children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but
    we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, (1 John
    3:2). Since John was present at the ascension and had both saw and handled Jesus in bodily form
    (1:1-2), how could he a few verses later say that it had not yet been revealed? Further, if Jesus’
    bodily form at the ascension was physically visible was not John and all the apostles already like
    him?

    Sixth, if one tries to skirt around this issue by saying, “Yes but we are speaking of a
    glorified, immortal spiritual body,” then does it not follow that for “in like manner” to refer to
    the appearance, Jesus would already have to be in that glorified, immortal spiritual body at the
    ascension? And, either way one slices the cake, the apostles would already have seen it, and
    Jesus would have to return in the same body. That, my friends, is a dilemma which forces John
    into inspired falsehood! Such cannot be.

    Seventh, the phrase “in like manner” (hon tropon) means “…a manner, way, fashion…as,
    even as, like as…”Thayer’s Lexicon, p.631. This phrase is used to express something in
    identical form, action or results. Peter so uses it to refer to the identical process in which both
    the Jew and Gentile would be saved, i.e., by the gospel, (Acts 15:11). Another example shows a
    similarity yet not one of exacting identity. “Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do
    these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith:” (2 –
    Timothy 3:8). These men are generally believed to be those who by their magic withstood
    Moses in the palace of Pharaoh, (Exodus 7:11, 12). When Paul said “in like manner” (hon
    tropon) some resisted Timothy’s preaching as Egyptian magicians resisted Moses and Aaron, it
    is clear that they were not performing magic as were the former.

    Therefore, “in like manner” refers to the rejection of God’s spokesman, Timothy as in the
    case of Moses. It does not demand a literalistic identical display of magic and wizardry.
    Eighth, and in view of all the above, this seems to be the more consistent application of
    this term, “in like manner” in Acts 1:11. It neither demands a physical cloud or body of Jesus. It
    also eliminates making the apostles see Jesus’ body, yet later deny it.

    Ninth, to press the point of being identical from the phrase “in like manner” would be a
    scriptural disaster. For example, the ascension was private, to a group of eleven men, locally
    confined to Mount Olivet near the city of Jerusalem, (Acts 1:12. To literally be “in like manner”
    would demand a private, locally confined return of Christ to the same eleven men. (See J. Stuart
    Russell’s, The Parousia). This would place the coming within their lifetime, in that first century
    generation. To do so contradicts the future, physical-visible bodily return of Christ.
    Tenth, the background of Acts 1:11 where Christ comes in glory, is Daniel 7:13 where
    One like the Son of Man, comes on the clouds of heaven. This text forms the backdrop of both
    Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 both of which mention Christ’s return in the clouds. The time
    frame for the fulfillment of this prophecy is clearly during the days of the 10-horned beast of
    Daniel (7:22-24). It is no mistake that the ten-horned beast mentioned by Daniel appears in
    Revelation 13:1-2, the chapter which precedes the cloud coming of the “One like the Son of
    Man” (Revelation 14:14) the exact wording of Daniel 7:13! Hence, the coming of the Son of
    man in the clouds of Acts 1:11 is fulfilled in the days of the Roman empire, the 4th beast of
    Daniel.

    Further proof is the fact that the harlot, Mystery Babylon sits upon this 10-horned beast.
    Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem, for she is drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of
    the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6, 18:20, 24). She would experience the vengeance of God
    for murdering the saints and the prophets, the identical charge Jesus made against Jerusalem,
    Matthew 23:33-37. This judgment is undeniably that which happens before the first century
    generation passes away and demonstrates that the term “this generation” means the same and
    applies equally to both, Matthew 23:36 & 24:34. Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome in the first
    century (A.D.70) Luke 21:20-22 thus fulfilling Matthew 24:30 and Daniel 7:13. This forcefully
    meets all the demands of Acts 1:11.

    Finally, Acts 1:11 must be governed by the time statements which are applicable to all
    “coming again” passages. It was promised for that first century generation, (Matthew 16:27-28;
    24:3, 27, 30, 34). It was near or at hand, (Romans 13:11,12; Philippians 4:5; James 5:8; 1 Peter
    4:7; Revelation 1:3; 22:6,10,12). It was the SAME Jesus who was crucified and who also
    ascended, who was coming in the clouds, (Revelation 1:7), in like manner, yet not seen
    physically, but spiritually discerned, in complete harmony with the word of God.

    Phil i hope you don’t mind me posting the whole article but with something so serious i didn’t want to take a chance on misquoting.Feel free to ask any questions on the article,i have done some checking on the Greek words and definitions he gave and they seem to be correct.If anyone has more information please share it.I’m always more then open to being corrected if so warranted.

    I will only entertain question and comments directed in a Christian manner.All logical fallacies will be ignored.

    Bill

    Phil: Thanks Bill. I’m slammed at work today. I promise you I’ll have some more thoughts later on in the day….

  20. Phil,

    I’m sorry to see you’re opening the floodgates to these guys. Obviously, it’s your right to let the Hyper-Preterists have a fair hearing, but by letting this slime come into your blog, you’ll have a hard time cleaning up when the day is done.

    This is from one who has dealt extensively with these folks and their chicanery. As the old saying goes, you give ’em an inch, they’ll take a mile.

    Phil: Thanks for your concern. If you’ve noticed this site has dealt with all types of “chicanery” and you know something? Regardless of what happens the Gospel always wins….the Holy Spirit ALWAYS has His way. My readers know this. I know this and if you stick around you will come to know this as well..

    Brian

  21. Phil,

    I’d love to see the Gospel win against these guys. But in many cases, we’re dealing with self-willed people who resist the Holy Spirit. While many Hyper-Preterists have been converted away from their errors, such is the exception rather than the rule.

    Brian

Comments are closed.