Hymeneaus and Philetus

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
Was reading over at Pantelism about the Resurrection. I still don't understand why these two guys were really wrong in what they were preaching. Did they maybe have an inkling that is was a past event? Also, I don't understand why Moses was not able to enter into the prom island. I was just talking with a friend today about that. Why didn't God extend Grace to Moses?
Thanks,
Nancy

[Infinite Grace]

Nancy, I fixed your original post and deleted the second, for confusion's sake. Hope you don't mind.

Anyway, the main reason these guys were wrong was that they were teaching prior to AD70. IOW, prior to the resurrection. This posed a problem.

The old covenant was still standing. To teach that the resurrection had occurred was heresy because it made the old covenant a valid way to "enter the Promised Land." The consummation of the kingdom in the Parousia was as much about destroying the "old covenant" as it was about fully establishing the new. This meant that H&P were Judaizers, most likely, and not fully trusting in Christ for salvation. They trusted in their place in the old covenant, the earthly Jerusalem. But it was the HEAVENLY Jerusalem that was their mother.

If the resurrection was physical, as so many, including preterists, are teaching, then all Paul would have had to say about H&P was "hey look at the graves, they are all still full...there hasn't been a resurrection yet." But instead he argued from a redemption standpoint. Positional, not physical.

Re: Moses. That too was symbolic. Moses represented The Law, Joshua Grace. Moses dying showed that no one could enter the New Covenant (the Promised Land) via the Law, only by Grace, Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus.

[Barry]

Hey Nancy.
They were what Paul called "the dogs" (Phil. 3:1-3). They were Judaizers claiming that the fullness of the resurrection had already taken place so that they could claim that the temple and the law and ordinances of the old system (also called the rudiments or element of the world) would not:
1) Pass away
2) Were for the Gentiles then and forever.

They were law pushers. Law pimps.
1 and 2 Tim. and Titus is full of Paul having to deal with these law pushers. Just read 1 Tim chapter 1 for example.

They were not just mistaken about the timing of the resurrection but misleading about the law. That is the real point behind the scene.
The point being that if the coming of Christ had already taken place and of course the resurrection, and the temple was still standing, then this would prove their alleged point that God never intended to cause the law to pass away. That was their motivation in all probability.
Barry

[Barry]

Oh yea,
I think that it is more likely that they were in a sense converts of the Judaizers. If that makes any real difference in the end. LOL
Barry

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Ed for fixing my post. I am so brain dead still on this computer! Thanks Barry also for the reply. So were there lots of Judaizers around at that time? Were they related to the Gnostic's? I am probably really getting you confused now.
Its just I had this long talk with my friend today about Moses and not getting into the promise land. That makes me sad really. But I am such a sap about everything.
So just how many crummy people were walking around when Jesus was anyway. You have the Pharisees and saudasies(don't know how to spell that either) and judaizers and my gosh what else?
And if the Resurrection was a spiritual thing, which I can see the more I study
why the heck wasn't that made more clear so we could understand better. No wonder so many missed it, and still do. They are and were looking for a physical resurrection.
And the Jewish people today. (which I have read, don't know if its true or not, that their isn't a true Jewish race today) what are they waiting for.
I am just confused today:confused:
Nancy

[Barry]

Hi Nancy,
you said,
"were there lots of Judaizers around at that time? Were they related to the Gnostic's?"
Not related to the Gnostics. The Gnostics came latter after AD 70, after all the scriptures were written. Apparently, the Gnostics were never directly a topic of scripture. From Romans to Revelation the topic that can be linked directly to the Judaizers is maybe to take a wild guess 30%. If you count indirectly it is far more.
The Judaizers followed Paul or right behind Paul. Where ever Paul set things up they would come behind and "bewitch". Most of Galatians is about the Judaizers; "If you accept circumcision Christ is on no benefit to you".

The Judaizers were used by God to spread the law among the Gentile believers. The "virgin bride" needed to be tempted. This is instrumental in the reason why revelation was written to Gentile churches even though its primary focus is about the down fall of Babylon the great city (Jerusalem). "Those who say they are Jews but are not but do lie"
It was a complicated plan that God had developed to manifest for all time the truth of his love and grace. But IMHO essential to history and to the continued benefit to human kind as we look back in retrospect.

The Judaizers played a very important role in the whole matter. In fact when Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord... shall inherit the kingdom of God (going off memory here, too lazy to look it up LOL), he was referring to the coming Judaizers. In this way Jesus was prophesizing their substantial involvement.
Barry

[davo]

Hi Nancy, looks like folk here have given quite a few good clarifying answers re those two Judiazers -- so I needn't add to theirs :)


Why didn't God extend Grace to Moses?

That is always a tough one hey :( . I'm with you, I kind of think, hmm that sucked. But the truth is, I suppose all was done according to God's redemptive purpose. Certainly it is a good picture of how there was to be no inheritance of the promises of God according to the old pattern i.e., the law. Not only that -- it shows how the law led up to the promise, but was not the substance of the promises itself. So in one sense they [Moses] followed a predetermined preordained law, whereas the promise was explored and conquered by faith, which gives it an element of free will.

I'm sure if before Moses, one like Abraham could acknowledge and "see from afar" that what lay ahead was still a little out of his reach, then like Abraham Moses probably did the same -- and rejoiced at God's wondrous grace. :clap2:

[Infinite Grace]

Nancy, if I were you I wouldn't feel too sorry for Moses. He gets some pretty good press right here:

Hebrews 11:

23 By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after his birth, because they saw that the child was beautiful; and they were not afraid of the king's edict. F79 24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered abuse suffered for the Christ F80 to be greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking ahead to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, unafraid of the king's anger; for he persevered as though F81 he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel. F82 29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as if it were dry land, but when the Egyptians attempted to do so they were drowned.

You see, our futurist and exclusivist thinking makes us say "hey poor Moses, he didn't get in the Promised Land..." The reality is, when we really start fully understanding God's plan, we see that Moses DID see the Promised Land. The REAL PL that Jesus brought them ALL into.

Moses was part of God's plan, but he wasn't God's plan. Jesus was.

One more point about the Judaizers. In, I think, Thessalonians, Paul speaks of the fact that the falling away must come before the resurrection/parousia. That "falling away" was the Judaizers, who had fallen from grace, returning to the law - this was the point of Hebrews 6 where Paul speaks of those who had tasted the heavenly gift being unable to repent again.

Oh, and the resurrection: Jews largely would have gotten it. Hebrews understood that "soul" meant "the whole person" not some fragmented Greek view (which is where we get the tri-partite idea of personhood - body, soul, spirit). The Jews knew that resurrection meant something other than a physical rising from the dead, as God spoke of each return to the Land of the Israelites in the OT as a resurrection. That's why when Jesus spoke of the resurrection, they understood him. However, much of Pharisaism and Sadducceism (there's those "isms" again) had adopted not biblical ideas, but Babylonian ideas and beliefs. Most cultures, like the Egyptians, saw the afterlife as a wild party, where we got our bodies back and experienced all these great sensual delights (like eating a Dairy Queen sundae - that's what I am looking forward to in heaven :biglaugha: ). No, Hebraic thought was that resurrection was POSITIONAL (where we are in relation to God) rather than PHYSICAL (where we are in relation to our body).

Hope all this helps.

[backtothefuture]

Thanks everyone,
Especially taking the time to answer my questions. You all make it all make sense. I won't feel bad for Moses today.:D
What about the Jewish people today? Do they still follow the law then. How many of them go once a year to the temple to have there sins taken away. And how many animals get sacrificed in the mean time? I know that really doesn't happen. I don't think anyway.
I just want to figure how everything works together and some days I get so frustrated. Why can't I just pick up the Bible and see things the way you all are from the get go?
I mean, at least Hymeneaus and the other guy, must have at least been thinking of a spiritual resurrection right? Other wise they wouldn't have been around? So that must have been a thought going around at that time. So why isn't it a big topic today?
AGHHHHHHHH
Thanks
Nancy

[Paige]

I mean, at least Hymeneaus and the other guy, must have at least been thinking of a spiritual resurrection right? Other wise they wouldn't have been around? So that must have been a thought going around at that time. So why isn't it a big topic today?

I hope I don't add more confusion. Here is one of my thoughts...In mainstream christianity today, a doctrine has evolved that sin is a biological problem. The "T" in TULIP lends credence to this thought (IMO). It is believed that all babies born today are "separated" from God because they share in Adam's DNA. Hence, just to be human is to be sinful and separated from God. So, that being the case, the cross becomes a temporary "fix" so we can be related to God until the permanet "fix" comes, at which time we get a "new, glorified body". When you believe the problem is essentially biological, then you need a biological fix. That is why the "spiritual" seems to just get swept under the rug today. Does that help at all?

Paige

[backtothefuture]

Yes,
That did make sense to me. I have never been able to figure out why I am covered with so much sin, just because Adam was.:confused: I have spent most of my life wailing before God, telling him how sorry I am for being I just supposed a terrible sinful person.
I came to my own personal decision, which I know holds no Merritt.. that if there was truly an anti-Christ in this day and age, it would be the church. How is that for bad theology!!
I went for a walk this afternoon and I just felt so good, talking and singing to God and knowing that I am loved. It took so many years and a butt load of bad theology to get here, but I'm here.:clap2:
Blessings,
Nancy

[Infinite Grace]

Yes,

if there was truly an anti-Christ in this day and age, it would be the church. How is that for bad theology!!
Nancy

Actually that is one of the closest statements of the truth I have seen in a long time.

The antichrist of the first century was the Jew who denied that Messiah had come in the flesh. They denied the work of Jesus in fulfilling the Law. This is what made them antichrist.

In the same way, today's church largely believes that Jesus truly didn't accomplish what he came to accomplish. They await the "permanent fix" as I think Paige put it. They still look for the devil as one who battles with them, rather than understanding the scripture that says that Jesus "destroy(ed) the works of the evil one..." The church has largely become the enemy (or satan) of GRACE.

I know we'll all take heat for this one, but maybe it will encourage some of our lurkers to sign in and let us know what they think.

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Ed,
For at least not thinking I am a nut case for what I said. I have felt this way for a long time. My personal opinion. I came to this conclusion before I ever understood what it was I was thinking.
I would walk endless walks and say to myself, We are no better off now in the way we think about Jesus and what he did than the first century Jews. I just didn't know how to put it together and still am trying. I kept saying to myself, the kingdom of heaven is within you. But I again, couldn't figure out what I was trying to think or say. The more I read here and study, the light bulb goes off and for me, that is such a good thing. The 100 pound stone I use to ware around my neck has been lifted. Praise oh Praise oh Praise!!
Nancy