When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism [Paperback]

Keith A. Mathison (Editor)

Product Details

• Paperback: 376 pages
• Publisher: P & R Publishing (February 20, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0875525520
• ISBN-13: 978-0875525525
• Product Dimensions: 0.8 x 6.1 x 8.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (59 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,201,706 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

39 of 45 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars A Mixed Bag, really March 25, 2005

By Taylor Adams

Format:Paperback

I was a hyper-preterist. Then I read this book. I read it in order to refute it. I could not. I can attest to the accuracy of the contributor's statements regarding hyper-preterism, and I'm thankful I was pulled from the clutches of it before I had sunk deeper.

This book constitutes the first detailed and in-depth response to the movement known as "full preterism" but better called "hyper preterism." Naturally, because it is the first, it will stumble in some areas. But there are also positives.

By far the best contributions are the chapters by Gentry ("The Historical Problem with Hyper-Preterism"), Hill ("Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem's Fall"), Wilson ("Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority"), and Stimple ("Hyper-Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body"). They are the best because they are tightly reasoned and exegetically based (I don't know if I've seen more scripture quoted in a book before. They can constitute a third or half of a page on occasion).

The remaining chapters are certainly ok, but not spectacular. That said, there is one chapter that completely stands out as being the worst contribution to this book, but also the worst explanation of the prophetic time texts I have read to date. It is Pratt's chapter ("Hyper-Preterism and Unfolding Biblical Eschatology"). The entire chapter's argument can be presented as follows: "Biblical prophesy and prediction do not need to be fulfilled in the manner, or the timing, made by the initial prophesy." Thus, his best defense becomes the worst offense. No, his best defense is to have no offense at all. Pratt's argument seems to go like this: "when confronted with a dissenting opinion to orthodoxy, we ought to exterminate everyone on earth...."

The entire premise of his poorly-argued and naive exegesis is that, if we can establish that prophesies don't need to be fulfilled in the manner in which they were prophesied, we can simply disregard the "soon" time-texts cited by the hyper-preterists because even though they were prophesied to occur at a certain time, Jesus decided not to fulfill it at that time without informing anyone. (How is this different from simply claiming Jesus was in error, as many liberals do? Either way, intentionally or accidentally, Jesus still didn't return when He SAID He would.)

Yes, this idea might stop hyper-preterism dead in its tracks, but it also stops every other eschatology as well. Were we to follow this suggestion to its logical conclusion, we would not be able to even claim a FUTURE return of Christ, since, if Jesus can alter the fulfillment of a prophesy (turning it, then, into nothing more than a guess or a hope) he can certainly decide not to fulfill a given prophesy at all! Every eschatological system collapses into a pile of rubble. Prophesy, by its very definition, must come to pass exactly as stated (unless God explicitely states he's going to alter it, as He does in the OT) or it is not a prophesy.

Overall, the book has a schizophenic feel to it, since its contributors are of all eschatological systems, including amillenialism, premillenialism, postmillenialism, and orthodox preterist postmillenialism. Some contributors attack beliefs that are orthodox preteristic in nature and not restricted to hyper-preterists (such as Nero's being the Beast of Revelation and Revelation being written before A.D. 70), including legitimate orthodox beliefs under the blanket of hyper-preterism (without addressing the evidence amassed by orthodox preterists to defend these things). Such is Hill who (p. 63) categorically denies the pre-A.D. 70 date for the completion of Revelation, without presenting evidence, nor acknowledging that his fellow contributor, Ken Gentry, was the man who first proposed and defended the early date for Revelation (in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell"). Neither does Hill explain why Gentry is wrong in his theological, exegetical, and historical analyses. He simply states an opinion.

Had the contributors been a little more closely tied eschatologically, these contradictions would have been avoided. Also, they might have avoided criticing orthodox preterism in the process of refuting hyper-preterism (when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, I suppose). Still, they attempt to also refute ideas put forward by fellow orthodox preterist Gary DeMar (while never making mention of his significant contribution to orthodox preterist postmillenialism). Further, where are DeMar, Sandlin, North, and other's contributions to this book? Their insights would have proved enlightening as well.

Taken as a whole, though, the majority of the book is worth reading and constititutes a good first book on the problems with hyper-preterism. No doubt more will follow. Read more ›

17 of 20 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Bravo! Reformed Scholars Defend Orthodox Christianity! May 3, 2004

By Darren Edgington

Format:Paperback

It is certain that wolves wear sheep's clothing. This attire is not for beauty, but deception unto destruction. This new book lifts the fleece and allows the reader to see that the hyper-preterism position beneath is wolf-like. This unorthodox twist on eschatology denies essential tenets of the Christian faith. Those who hold such positions are not friends of the Good Shepherd, and certainly have no love for His sheep. This book reveals the wolf and protects the sheep. In this regard, it accords with the ministry of the Savior.

The view critiqued in this book holds that there is no bodily resurrection and no future literal second coming of Jesus Christ. Yet, adherants to the nonsensical views of hyper-preterism desire to wear the tag "Orthodox Christian". Those who deny the essential tenets of the faith once for all delivered to the saints are neither orthodox nor Christian. This book reveals wolves for what they are - wolves.

Dr. Gentry begins by giving more than ample evidence that the historic position of the church is well-stated and clear. To deny the weight or his thorough documentation is to demonstrate an unwillingness to see the evidence. Hyper-preterism is a novelty. Any movement that desires to isolate itself from the universal confessions of the faith should be seen as suspect. Gentry clearly shows that this infantile position is not historically represented within orthodoxy.

Dr. Hill's chapter is also well-documented and convincing. He does an excellent job of evaluating extra-Biblical material in the years immediately following the age of the apostles. The view of the hyper-preterists is not in this writing. Thus, as Dr.... Hill states, it either was not taught, or the apostles were unable to pass on the body of doctrinal truth that Jesus entrusted unto them. Dr. Hill shows that the hyper-preterism position states that the age of fulfillment came in AD 70, yet no writers can show that this occurred in the early church record. This is a devastating critique. The only way to avoid its impact is to make the opinions of isolated individualism the determining factor of exegetical soundness - a rather tenuous position.

Dr. Pratt also does a marvelous job of showing that prophetic fulfillment is not always easy to discern due to intervening historical contingencies. His handling of the seventy year prophecy in Jeremiah's writing displays a masterful holistic approach to interpreting the text. Dr. Pratt reveals that it is not simple to determine the outworking of the time texts of Scripture. Often there are intervening circumstances that are not clear. His chapter shows that one premise of hyper-preterism (that the time texts of the New Testament are clear and easily discernable) is not as stable as one might imagine.

Dr. Mathison also reveals the many ways respected scholarship handles the time texts of the Scriptures. His thorough discussion leaves one humbled by the various acceptable views, yet confident that orthodox Christianity has never waffled on the bodily resurrection or the literal second coming of the physically raised and glorified Christ. His handling of Acts 1 shows the fallacies of any view that denies Jesus' return would be like unto His departure. Dr. Mathison shows that hyper-preterism is outside the range of possibilities within responsible Biblical exegesis.

Dr. Kistemaker shows that the hyper-preterist position on the early date for the writing of the Revelation is on shaky ground. The hyper-preterism position stands or falls on the absoluteness of the assertion that this book must be written before AD 70. Dr. Kistemaker amply demonstrates that such a position cannot irrefutably be held. He exegetes a number of crucial passages, showing that an alternative methodology does justice to the book's intent.

Rev. Wilson artfully defends the creedal formulation "Sola Scriptura" and shows the contradictory character of the hyper-preterists who claim to believe in this creedal statement. His writing is winsome, rational, and convincing. A discerning reader will perceive the cogency of his arguments. It is clearly contradictory for hyper-preterists to deny creedalism then affirm Sola Scriptura. It is also clearly contradictory for hyper-preterists to affirm the canon of Scripture but deny that there is any authority in Christ's church to recognize and define such things.

Dr. Strimple's wonderful defense of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection is worth the price of the book. Dr. Strimple shows the nonsensical character of any view that would deviate from the clear hope of the Christian, bodily resurrection and the glorification of believers and the earth. This article shows the silliness of the verbal gymnastics the hyper-preterists perform to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible. At the end of the article, it is demonstrated that the term "heresy" is rightly ascribed to the teaching of the hyper-preterists.

In isolation, each article may only be partially convincing, dependent upon the subject matter handled therein. The cumulative effect, however, is substantial and weighty. Each individual article shows yet another area of weakness in the hyper-preterist position. The big picture the whole reveals is that hyper-preterism is a belief system that is outside of orthodox Christianity.

Hyper-preterism has been weighed in the balances, and has been found wanting. This book will be an asset to rescue sheep that might come under the deceptive sway of this movement. Bravo! Hats off to this distinguished group of scholars who have loved the church enough to warn the flock of this danger! Read more ›

17 of 20 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars DEFENDING HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY April 12, 2004

By A Customer

Format:Paperback

Finally a nationally noted publisher has engaged the debate against a new Internet-based theological movement. In "When Shall These Things Be" we find a book by several noted evangelical and Reformed scholars who throw a spotlight on the growing Hyperpreterist movement. I am thankful that Keith Mathison of R. C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries has assembled this important book for us.

As strange as it seems, Hyperpreterism is a delusive movement that claims to be evangelical. Yet at the same time it charges that Christianity has been absolutely wrong for 2000 years on several foundational doctrines. Only recently have a random assortment of Internet-based theologues associated with this heretical movement discovered that the Christian church has mistakenly believed in the future second coming of Christ to resurrect all men and effect the day of judgment. Not so, says this militant movement. Actually (they say) Christ returned in A.D. 70, never to return again! The only resurrection we can expect is when we are converted. At that moment we are spiritually resurrected (never to be physically resurrected).

Although Christians have long debated detailed chronologies associated with the Lord's glorious Second Advent (premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillennialism), never have we seen such a strange view as this new innovation. Christ has already returned, and his church did not even know it! A few (not all!) of the contributors to Mathison's book are orthodox preterists who believe that some NT prophecies focus on A.D. 70 (for example, Matt. 24), while allowing that many others prophesy the future Second Coming.

Please do not simply shrug your shoulders and write off this new movement as silly.... They mean business: hundreds of them are infiltrating local churches to try to encourage followers. The best offense is a good defense, and Mathison has given us good ammunition for a defense of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Don't trade your future inheritance for a "pot of message." The stew pot of Hyperpreterism has the wrong message. Read more ›