The Hymanaean Heresy

by William Bell

September 04, 2006 11:14 AM EST

The doctrine of Hymanaeus and Philetus is by Paul called profane and idle
babblings, --empty chatter that leads to more ungodliness. Their doctrine involved
eschatology, the study of last things. Thus, eschatology is linked to godly behavior.
When the message is skewed as that of Hymanaeus and Philetus, it leads to the
opposite, ungodliness.

The error of these two men is not readily apparent to the average reader. Why? It is
because most approach the scriptures with a futuristic eschatological view. In other
words, most believe that the events of the “last days,” are presently unfolding in
our lifetime. Therefore to encounter a passage which condemns a teaching that
says the resurrection, hence last days events are past, is to them, transparently
false.

The cause of the misapplication of the teaching of Hymanaeus and Philetus is a

failure to appreciate the temporal reference, the historical setting and the
immediate and remote contexts of the text. Let’s briefly consider them in order.

First, the nature of the error is not that the resurrection was past. Paul’s concern
with their doctrine was that they were saying the resurrection was past already. The
temporal or chronological point of reference is the first century, during the ministry
of the apostles. They taught that the resurrection was “at hand” near and about to
come, (Acts 17:30, 31; Romans 13:11, 12, 1 Peter 4:5). Thus, the Hymanaean
heresy contradicted the message of the apostles. For the resurrection could not be
“at hand” or imminent if it was in fact past already.

A similar teaching had occurred some 14 to 18 years earlier in Thessalonica. Many

in the church had stopped working because they believed that the day of Christ, i.e.
second coming of the Lord had arrived and was already present. That time was A.D.
50, 51, (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

Paul responded by telling them that the day of the Lord had not yet come. He also
gave them two unmistakably clear signs that would leave them without doubt as to
its arrival. One, there would come “the apostasy” or “falling away first” of many in
the church. Secondly, the man of sin would be revealed.” Thus, they had two events
to experience before they could conclude that Christ had come. As before, the
apostles continued to teach that the coming of the Lord was “at hand.”

Secondly, both the Hymanaean teaching and that of the misguided Thessalonians
indicate the nature of the resurrection and parousia of Christ. It is clear that neither
of them affirmed a physical, bodily return of Christ or the biological resurrection of
dead bodies from the grave. The fact that they were affirming a past resurrection
and were drawing away believers is strong evidence that the resurrection they
affirmed was not of a material nature. It would have been next to impossible to
persuade people that the general resurrection, if biological, had taken place since
biological existence continued on earth along with physical death.

What is significant is that in neither case does Paul or any of the apostles express
dissatisfaction with the nature of the resurrection/parousia affirmed. In fact, they
confirm by their response that the resurrection and parousia was spiritual, and not
materialistic in nature.

Paul had to give the Thessalonian church physical outward signs to reveal what they
could not otherwise know. They already had proof that they could not know whether
Jesus had come. Thus, some outward visible sign was necessary, (which is always
the case in revealing spiritual events); hence the apostasy and the revealing of the
man of sin.

Once those events had occurred, then the Lord’s return would be at hand and ready
to occur. That event being tied to Jerusalem’s fall in A.D. 70 was another physical
outward sign given by Christ himself. (Matthew 24:64; Luke 21:20-22)

Therefore, until such events had occurred, the Hymanaean heresy was manifestly
false, though it had the appearance of truth being affirmed as a spiritual event.

Thirdly, to argue that the resurrection was past already, as we have seen above
separates this doctrine from that of the apostles. More particularly, it severs
resurrection from the atoning work of Christ. Jesus was raised as the firstfruits. But
now is Christ risen from the dead and has become the firstfruits of them that slept,
(1 Corinthians 15:20). This means that he was the beginning of the resurrection.
Moreover, it meant that the last days' resurrection had begun in him. “For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive, (15: 22)

However, the resurrection which Paul affirmed in Christ would consummate at the
time called “the end,” which time equates with the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
See Matthew 24:14, 34. The end is the fall of the Jewish temple at the end of the
age in 70 A.D. Paul and his readers saw the end of the age coming in their day, (1
Corinthians 10:11).

Since the doctrine of Hymanaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection was
complete before the end of the age, therefore before the temple was destroyed,
they were giving the Jews of the first century a false hope in the continuation of the
temple ministry, the law and the sacrificial system of the old covenant priesthood.
This would lead, not only to the overthrow of the faith of Christians but to the
destruction of many unbelieving Jews who would not recognize that God would
destroy the temple, (Acts 6:14).

Such denial of Jesus’ parousia and the overthrow of the temple in 70 A.D. opened
the door for false messianic hopes of deliverance by the Jews, (well documented in
the first century in biblical and non-biblical sources) causing hundreds of thousands
of Jews to perish in the siege. (See Josephus, Wars of the Jews).This delusion
continues to this day among evangelicals, Zionists and Jews in support of modern
day Israel, who deny the scriptures and foolishly look for another Jesus to save them
from their colossal error by setting up camp in a land for which they now have no
covenantal right to claim.

Therefore, to argue for a resurrection already past, circumvents the work of Christ
as the firstfruits, and attributes the resurrection to some power and authority
outside of him. (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:14). Early on in the ministry of the
apostles, they got into big trouble with the government and powers that be of
Judaism, (the priests and the Sanhedrin council) because they preached in Jesus,
the resurrection “out from among the dead.” (Acts 4:1, 2) For this, they were
apprehended and jailed.

Fourthly, Christ’s Parousia is the expression of his priesthood, totally set apart from
the Law, hence Old Covenant Judaism and the Levitical priestly system. He, is a
priest after the order of Melchizedek, (Hebrews 6:20; 7:17, 21), and is of the tribe of
Judah, (7:14) of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. The point
of which is, if the Levitical priesthood is re-established, Christ could not be a priest
on earth, i.e. in Jerusalem, as in biblical times, (Hebrews 8: 4). Thus a monkey
wrench is thrown into the spokes of the warped wheel of Zionism and the Left-
Behind Premillennial theories.

Without the Levitical priesthood, there is no binding authoritative old covenant,

(Hebrews 7:11, 12; 8:13). Without the covenant, there are no land rights and
without land rights there is no nation of Israel sanctioned by the Scriptures.

The Hymanaean heresy served the same purpose of supporting a Christ-less Israel,
sowing the original seeds of Zionism and a pro-national Israel movement which
leaves God and Christ out of the plan. This was the cancerous heresy that Paul
warned the church against.

Finally, an event once future is not always future. Paul clearly censored the timing of
the Hymanaean heresy with his remark that it was past already. That means they,
like the Thessalonians taught the parousia/resurrection occurred too early. However,
when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, the parousia occurred, hence now it is a past event.

Thus to argue for a future parousia and resurrection of Christ is to reverse the error
of Hymanaeus and Philetus by saying that it has not yet come to pass. In both
cases, it is an error in time, the former, too early, the present one, too late. To be in
harmony with Christ and the apostles, we must affirm the event as occurring within
the first century, within that generation at Jerusalem’s fall, not 10 or 20 years
before, and not 20 centuries later.

William Bell, Jr., is a speaker on Covenant Eschatology and the author of the book,
The Re-Examination, a study of the last days, the coming of Christ. Visit his website
at http://http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com