A review of Samuel M Frost´s "Misplaced Hope".
This is a book defending hyper-preterism or full
preterism, or at least one particular version of it. It's one of the most
peculiar Christian heresies (or “heresies”) I encountered. The book was
promoted by a group preaching something they called “Transmillennialism-TM”.
Can you trade mark a heresy? Apparently, Samuel Frost no longer believes in
hyper-preterism, having “converted” to partial preterism (often just called
preterism without any qualifier).
According to partial preterism, most Biblical prophecies about the Second Coming were fulfilled in AD 70, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple. Jesus “returned” invisibly to judge the recalcitrant Jewish people and establish his New Covenant, the real “millennium”. However, partial preterists nevertheless believe that Jesus will return visibly at some point still in our future. By contrast, hyper-preterists apparently believe that *all* prophecies about future events recorded in the Bible are in our past. All were fulfilled in AD 70. Thus, hyper-preterists don't believe in the Second Coming of Christ at all (I say this with the reservation that there are probably more than two clear cut factions in this milieu).
Preterism does have certain advantages. It certainly does sound as if Jesus predicts his return shortly after the fall of the Temple. He famously said that some of his disciples would still be alive when the Son of Man would come in his glory. Paul believed the apocalypse to be imminent, and the Second Epistle of Peter implies that such expectations were common among the first generations of Christian believers. Skeptics often point to these failed prophecies as evidence for the Bible not being a divinely inspired document. Preterism offers a handy solution: the prophecies really were fulfilled, but not in the manner expected by today's apocalyptic preachers. However, at least for Protestant fundamentalists, preterism also has a distinct disadvantage. It requires heavy allegorizing of what the Bible actually seems to be saying. This problem is compounded in hyper-preterism.
Samuel Frost does indeed go very far in allegorizing the message of the New Testament. The Second Coming and the millennium are turned into spiritual events (although the Day of Judgment does have an obvious physical aspect in the destruction of Jerusalem). So is the resurrection. Christians are “resurrected” by the Spirit through baptism and a godly life. Likewise, the New Covenant and the Church are forms of “resurrection”. Frost places heavy emphasis on Biblical passages implying that the kingdom of God grows gradually, that non-believers are spiritually dead, that Jesus was somehow resurrected as the Church, etc. He has a peculiar view of the resurrection of the body. On the hand, Jesus was raised with a normal physical body (like Lazarus?) with scares and wounds from the crucifixion. This is based on John's description of Jesus meeting Doubting Thomas, but the other gospels contain passages incompatible with this scenario. On the other hand, all other believers will be resurrected in spirit-form after their physical deaths. Frost does call it a “bodily” resurrection, but he describes the resurrection-bodies as ethereal and invisible, making it difficult to see in what sense they differ from spirits (who also have a “body” in the sense of having a finite extension in space-time).
I was somewhat surprised by how “heretical” this book was, at least from a traditional Christian (and Protestant) perspective. The author rejects the creeds adopted by the ecumenical Church councils, creeds accepted by most Protestants. He also rejects the Apostolic Fathers, despite their nearness in time to the apostles. Conversely, he accepts Origen, the “Platonist” or “Gnosticizing” Church Father regarded as a heretic, or at least as very problematic, by most mainline Christians. I get the impression that he somehow regards the Alexandrine school of allegorical exegesis as apostolic or near-apostolic. Most sensationally, Frost affirmatively quotes a passage from the Second Epistle of Clement which is really a quote from the Gospel of Thomas, without recognizing the source! The Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal and often regarded as Gnostic. An evangelical heresy-hunter would have a field day with this material.
Personally, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the New Testament contains hidden messages (including mysterious references to Pythagorean geometry), but the apocalyptic message is too strong and too frankly literal to be explained away. Nor is it likely that all NT texts were written before AD 70, or that the Apostolic Fathers had no connection at all to what went before. Finally, I must also say that “Misplaced Hope” is an extremely tedious and boring read, but I suppose that may be a misplaced criticism of a theological tract!
In the end, I will only give this book two stars.
According to partial preterism, most Biblical prophecies about the Second Coming were fulfilled in AD 70, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple. Jesus “returned” invisibly to judge the recalcitrant Jewish people and establish his New Covenant, the real “millennium”. However, partial preterists nevertheless believe that Jesus will return visibly at some point still in our future. By contrast, hyper-preterists apparently believe that *all* prophecies about future events recorded in the Bible are in our past. All were fulfilled in AD 70. Thus, hyper-preterists don't believe in the Second Coming of Christ at all (I say this with the reservation that there are probably more than two clear cut factions in this milieu).
Preterism does have certain advantages. It certainly does sound as if Jesus predicts his return shortly after the fall of the Temple. He famously said that some of his disciples would still be alive when the Son of Man would come in his glory. Paul believed the apocalypse to be imminent, and the Second Epistle of Peter implies that such expectations were common among the first generations of Christian believers. Skeptics often point to these failed prophecies as evidence for the Bible not being a divinely inspired document. Preterism offers a handy solution: the prophecies really were fulfilled, but not in the manner expected by today's apocalyptic preachers. However, at least for Protestant fundamentalists, preterism also has a distinct disadvantage. It requires heavy allegorizing of what the Bible actually seems to be saying. This problem is compounded in hyper-preterism.
Samuel Frost does indeed go very far in allegorizing the message of the New Testament. The Second Coming and the millennium are turned into spiritual events (although the Day of Judgment does have an obvious physical aspect in the destruction of Jerusalem). So is the resurrection. Christians are “resurrected” by the Spirit through baptism and a godly life. Likewise, the New Covenant and the Church are forms of “resurrection”. Frost places heavy emphasis on Biblical passages implying that the kingdom of God grows gradually, that non-believers are spiritually dead, that Jesus was somehow resurrected as the Church, etc. He has a peculiar view of the resurrection of the body. On the hand, Jesus was raised with a normal physical body (like Lazarus?) with scares and wounds from the crucifixion. This is based on John's description of Jesus meeting Doubting Thomas, but the other gospels contain passages incompatible with this scenario. On the other hand, all other believers will be resurrected in spirit-form after their physical deaths. Frost does call it a “bodily” resurrection, but he describes the resurrection-bodies as ethereal and invisible, making it difficult to see in what sense they differ from spirits (who also have a “body” in the sense of having a finite extension in space-time).
I was somewhat surprised by how “heretical” this book was, at least from a traditional Christian (and Protestant) perspective. The author rejects the creeds adopted by the ecumenical Church councils, creeds accepted by most Protestants. He also rejects the Apostolic Fathers, despite their nearness in time to the apostles. Conversely, he accepts Origen, the “Platonist” or “Gnosticizing” Church Father regarded as a heretic, or at least as very problematic, by most mainline Christians. I get the impression that he somehow regards the Alexandrine school of allegorical exegesis as apostolic or near-apostolic. Most sensationally, Frost affirmatively quotes a passage from the Second Epistle of Clement which is really a quote from the Gospel of Thomas, without recognizing the source! The Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal and often regarded as Gnostic. An evangelical heresy-hunter would have a field day with this material.
Personally, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the New Testament contains hidden messages (including mysterious references to Pythagorean geometry), but the apocalyptic message is too strong and too frankly literal to be explained away. Nor is it likely that all NT texts were written before AD 70, or that the Apostolic Fathers had no connection at all to what went before. Finally, I must also say that “Misplaced Hope” is an extremely tedious and boring read, but I suppose that may be a misplaced criticism of a theological tract!
In the end, I will only give this book two stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment