Hyperpreterists do not believe in "the resurrection."

Oh I know, they say they do. But they don't. They say that the believe that there is an event that they call the resurrection, when us humans as immaterial spiritual beings leave our mortal bodies at death and go on to live forever in heaven, but that doesn't cut it.

Just imagine if I claimed to have the yeti chained up in my back yard. When asked for proof, I show you a miniature poodle chained up in my back yard and say "Her name is fluffy. And when I say "yeti," I mean a miniature poodle named fluffy."

You would think that I had just abused language, right? And you'd be right. And likewise, hyperpreterists abuse language.

But wait a second - there is more than one orthodox way to think of the resurrection. Some believe that their immortal soul will slip away at death, and be (re)incarnated in a brand new physical body at the resurrection. Some share a similar view, but say that it will be the same body re-constituted somehow. Still others deny the immortality of the soul, and believe that the dead are now sleeping in the dust of the earth unconscious, and they will "awake," as it were (i.e. soul sleep).

Am I saying that one of these orthodox believers can say to the others "Well you define resurrection differently from me (after all, I DEFINE resurrection according to my particular description of the resurrection), therefore ONLY those who hols my view can say that they believe in the resurrection, and the rest of you don't believe in it at all."

Not at all. While I think we need minimal definitions of words, so we can't just call anything the resurrection, I do say that our definition should only be minimal, so that we actually allow for the possibility of debating the nature of the resurrection among those who believe in it.

Like this:

res-cont.jpg

I actually think this is the way we normally use language in everyday English. But sometimes ordinary rules of language are forgotten in theological debates.

So in normal, honest language, hyperpreterists do not believe in the resurrection.


















(PS, this explains why annihilationists do believe in hell as well, but that's another story.)

This has not really turned out to be the hotbed of activity I might have hoped for....

Hey Jack,

I believe that hyperpreterists are heretical because they deny a future consummation. But I’ve wondered about whether their view is heretical (or at least whether it needs to be) in virture of denying the bodily resurrection.

You concede that the belief that our souls will be reincarnated in a brand new physical body is orthodox. That’s not my view, but I agree that it is an orthodox view. Given that it is, couldn’t hyperpreterists affirm that when we die, we inherit a new physical body? Perhaps none of them hold that, and that view would have some weird consequences (one would have to believe that there is another physical realm that we all go to when we die that will forever remain alongside this one). But if the “reincarnation view” (for lack of a better name) is not a denial of the resurrection, then it seems to me that neither would this view be.

If none of them do hold this view, then I grant the point that hyperpreterists do deny the bodily resurrection. Nevertheless, it’s not clear to me that they have to in virture of their hyperpreterism alone, and I think that’s interesting. But, it’s only interesting in an academic sense. They already deny the future, bodily return of Christ and his final victory over sin and death. That makes them heretics enough.

Hi.

Happy Independence Day, may we find it.

There isn't really anything to complain about observation.

Of course the hyperpreterists aren't supposed to come to this area anyhow. They would possibly be the ones to object.

I think that the misunderstanding of resurrection is the main reason why people get into and stay in the hyperpreterist viewpoint. So we can all help by a better understanding of resurrection.

Anyhow, again there was no problem with the idea you have presented.

Originally posted by Kenny

Hey Jack,

I believe that hyperpreterists are heretical because they deny a future consummation. But I’ve wondered about whether their view is heretical (or at least whether it needs to be) in virture of denying the bodily resurrection.

The resurrection of Christ (and the future resurrection of believers, enabled by Christ's resurrection) is one of the cornerstones of Christian belief. Denying the general resurrection is certainly worthy of making one a heretic.

Why? Because the general resurrection is not only enabled byr Christ's, it is also modeled after it. If the general resurrection is non-bodily, then Christ's resurrection is also non-bodily. Christ can't triumph over death by remaining dead... even if we are to say that he was given a special place of honor in heaven as a reward, that's no big deal. Elijah, a mere created being, had been given that honor as well. So have some of the martyrs. This means that hyperpreterism is, among other things, the denial that Christ has triumphed over death.

It does seem that some of the problems in Christianity have occurred recently due to the lack of study and emphasis on resurrection. I noticed that resurrection doesn't seem to be a topic well discussed or well preached on, except for the resurrection of Jesus.

So, beyond just agreeing to a minimalist definition we should also study the topic of resurrectiton.

I agree HS. Hyperpreterists' denial of the future, general bodily resurrection of believers is sufficient to make them heretics. What I’m wondering though, is whether they can have a non-heretical view of the metaphysics of bodily resurrection (putting aside their heretical timing views for the moment).

As I said, my interest here is mostly an academic one. But it is not entirely academic. I think we should, for the sake of honesty and credibility, strive to be accurate about what the views of others commit them to, even when their views are heretical ones.

Originally posted by Kenny

I agree HS. Hyperpreterists' denial of the future bodily resurrection of believers is sufficient to make them heretics. What I’m wondering though, is whether they can have a non-heretical view of the metaphysics of bodily resurrection (putting aside their heretical timing views for the moment).

As I said, my interest here is mostly an academic one. But it is not entirely academic. I think we should, for the sake of honesty and credibility, strive to be accurate about what the views of others commit them to, even when their views are heretical ones.

Well, actually, I was attempting to address the metaphysical aspect that hyperpreterists reject. Their rejection of the bodily resurrection puts them at odds with all the biblical authors, their Jewish (often Pharisaical) backgrounds, and they get into all kinds of problems where the resurrection of Christ is concerned. Paul condemned some Corinthians for thinking that Christ hadn't been raised at all (1 Cor 15:12-16) based on their misunderstanding of the metaphysics of the general resurrection* -- how are hyperpreterists any different in principle?

And actually, if by academic, you mean an interest that has little to do with practical matters, I disagree. Knowledge about the resurrection is very practical. Without the bodily resurrection of Christ, our faith is useless and we are dead in our sins (1 Cor 15:17), again, because Christ's resurrection enables us to be disciples.

*Occasionally scholars have thought that the Corinthians understood the resurrection of Christ to be non-bodily. However, that's probably not what the Corinthians were arguing. Some of the Corinthians seem to have been denying that the resurrection was logically possible, on the grounds that dead people don't come back to life (obvious fact). Paul's response is that God does the raising; that nothing is impossible with God; that the Holy Spirit is the active principle who will transform our bodies, allowing them to live forever after they have been raised; and that if Christ has not been raised, the hope of all Christians and especially of the martyrs is dashed.

HS,

I think we both might be misreading each other (and I think it’s mostly my fault – honestly, since sometimes people just say that to be polite). I’m a bit tired at the moment and am neither reading nor writing very well it seems.

I agree that denial of the bodily resurrection of believers is heretical.

What I’m wondering is whether the hyperpreterist’s views commit them to a denial of the bodily resurrection, given that the view that Jack described and that I labeled the “reincarnation view” is not heretical. If it is not a denial of the bodily resurrection to maintain that we get a new physical body at the general resurrection, then it seems to me it is not a denial of the bodily resurrection to maintain that we get a new physical body at death. And hyperpreterists could, in principle at least, hold that view (I’m not sure that any of them actually do, but they could and still be hyperpreterists).

I agree that discussions of the metaphysics of the resurrection aren’t purely academic, btw. But discussions about whether hyperpreterism commits its adherents to denial of the bodily resurrection is somewhat on the purely academic side, since even if it doesn’t, their position is already clearly on the side of heresy anyway.

Originally posted by Kenny

HS,

I think we both might be misreading each other (and I think it’s mostly my fault – honestly, since sometimes people just say that to be polite). I’m a bit tired at the moment and am neither reading nor writing very well it seems.

No, I think it's mostly my fault (really).

I agree that denial of the bodily resurrection of believers is heretical.

What I’m wondering is whether the hyperpreterist’s views commit them to a denial of the bodily resurrection, given that the view that Jack described and that I labeled the “reincarnation view” is not heretical. If it is not a denial of the bodily resurrection to maintain that we get a new physical body at the general resurrection, then it seems to me it is not a denial of the bodily resurrection to maintain that we get a new physical body at death. And hyperpreterists could, in principle at least, hold that view (I’m not sure that any of them actually do, but they could and still be hyperpreterists).

I agree that discussions of the metaphysics of the resurrection aren’t purely academic, btw. But discussions about whether hyperpreterism commits its adherents to denial of the bodily resurrection is somewhat on the purely academic side, since even if it doesn’t, their position is already clearly on the side of heresy anyway.

Ok, I think I understand your position. But I'm not aware of any hyperpreterists who believe that, since they use resurrection language to denote a non-bodily experience in the present. If a few of them did believe in a future bodily resurrection, then they would have to envision some kind of double resurrection, which would be strange.

And this is off topic, but can I ask what personality type you are, Kenny?

Originally posted by Kenny

Hey Jack,

I believe that hyperpreterists are heretical because they deny a future consummation. But I’ve wondered about whether their view is heretical (or at least whether it needs to be) in virture of denying the bodily resurrection.

You concede that the belief that our souls will be reincarnated in a brand new physical body is orthodox. That’s not my view, but I agree that it is an orthodox view. Given that it is, couldn’t hyperpreterists affirm that when we die, we inherit a new physical body?

A person could affirm that this happens immediately at death, yes, but hyperpreterists do not. They deny the very physical nature of the resurrection altogether. I think a second heresy is that they say the resurrection is in the past as well, so there would still be that hurdle to get over.

I think that view of resurrection, although held by many orthodox Christians, has some very odd consequences as well, but not heretical ones.

Perhaps none of them hold that, and that view would have some weird consequences (one would have to believe that there is another physical realm that we all go to when we die that will forever remain alongside this one). But if the “reincarnation view” (for lack of a better name) is not a denial of the resurrection, then it seems to me that neither would this view be.

It wouldn't be a denial of resurrection, no. But hyperpreterism is committed to the view that the resurrection is not physical. They hold that the dead are raised from earth as non physical beings.

If none of them do hold this view, then I grant the point that hyperpreterists do deny the bodily resurrection. Nevertheless, it’s not clear to me that they have to in virture of their hyperpreterism alone, and I think that’s interesting. But, it’s only interesting in an academic sense. They already deny the future, bodily return of Christ and his final victory over sin and death. That makes them heretics enough.

Indeed, that second point is easily bad enough.

Originally posted by historic salve

Ok, I think I understand your position. But I'm not aware of any hyperpreterists who believe that, since they use resurrection language to denote a non-bodily experience in the present.

Okay. But I’m still wondering if there is anything in their position on prophecy itself that commits them to that view. If not, then while it is true that all current hyperpreterists do deny the bodily resurrection, denial of the bodily resurrection is not an implication of the hyperpreterist position in and of itself. But perhaps something deeply embedded in their exegetical system does so commit them. I don’t know. The only things I know about hyperpreterists are things I learned either from TWEB or from Dee Dee’s podcasts.

And this is off topic, but can I ask what personality type you are, Kenny?

Last I tested I came out as INFP (only borderline P, almost J). May I ask why you ask?

Originally posted by Dr. Jack Bauer

A person could affirm that this happens immediately at death, yes, but hyperpreterists do not. They deny the very physical nature of the resurrection altogether.

I’m wondering if things just work out that way or if the hyperpreterist view of prophecy itself commits them to that view.

But hyperpreterism is committed to the view that the resurrection is not physical. They hold that the dead are raised from earth as non physical beings.

Sometimes I wonder what that means. I’ve heard that some of them claim that we are raised up as “spirit bodies.” But (like many others who have pointed out this problem) I find the phrase ‘spirit body’ unintelligible – like ‘square circle’ (I understand well-enough what Paul means by ‘spiritual body’, but there he doesn’t mean ‘spirit body’)

But suppose that some of the hypers just mean by this a body that has many of the qualities of a physical body but which is not made out of the same kind of matter as the matter of our universe. I’ve heard some orthodox Christians suggest that our resurrected bodies will be made out of a different kind of matter as well, and I don’t think their view is heretical (though I myself disagree with it). If any hypers were to hold that we’ll have ‘spirit bodies’ in the sense of our having physical-like bodies made up of a different kind of matter (though they may be reluctant to word things this way) then I think they would have an orthodox view of bodily resurrection (at least as far as the metaphysics of bodily resurrection is concerned). But, again, I don’t know if any of them do hold that view (although one hyperpreterist that I spoke to once seemed to suggest something like this – although he was a bit mentally and emotionally unstable, so I wouldn’t take him as a representative sample)

Indeed, that second point is easily bad enough.

Yep.

I recently heard it said that in relation to resurrection, the bible uses terms like "resurrection from the dead" (which of course the individual says means spiritual deadness) but never does the bible say resurrection pertains to physical life. I thought it was an interesting statement that I have not yet had the opportunity to explore. Also it is a challenge for me because when I hear someone say "The bible never says (fill in the blank)" it makes me want to go and see if they are right. Anyone have any thoughts on that notion? Scripture references? What clear scriptural evidence do we have that the physical body (in the same form it is now) will be resurrected back to life?

Originally posted by Kenny

Okay. But I’m still wondering if there is anything in their position on prophecy itself that commits them to that view. If not, then while it is true that all current hyperpreterists do deny the bodily resurrection, denial of the bodily resurrection is not an implication of the hyperpreterist position in and of itself. But perhaps something deeply embedded in their exegetical system does so commit them. I don’t know. The only things I know about hyperpreterists are things I learned either from TWEB or from Dee Dee’s podcasts.

Well, I think their position does more or less commit them to denying the bodily resurrection, but it would be interesting if one of them voiced the option that you mentioned.

Last I tested I came out as INFP (only borderline P, almost J). May I ask why you ask?

Because I'm an INTP, and you seem like an INTP since you weigh all the options when you post. INFP is close...