John Humphrey Noyes and Hyper-Preterism by Keith A. Mathison The position which we think the evidence already presented abundantly sustains, is, that as Christ predicted, so the primitive church expected, his second coming within the lifetime of their own generation. —John Humphrey Noyes1 Throughout the following pages the author is under the deepest obligations to Dr. Stuart Russell’s “The Parousia.” He also owes much to “The Berean” by John Humphrey Noyes, and to the works of Henry Dunn, the author of “The Destiny of the Human Race.” —Ernest Hampden-Cook2 Introduction In February, 2004, a book that I edited, entitled When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, was published.3 For those unfamiliar with the debate, hyper-preterism is a doctrine that has been gaining some ground in certain circles. While differing among themselves on numerous details, proponents of this doctrine are united in teaching the most basic thesis of hyper-preterism, namely that the Second Coming of Christ and the events associated with it (e.g. the general resurrection and the final judgment) occurred during the first century.4 In my Introduction to When Shall These Things Be?, I briefly discussed several topics, including the origins of the doctrine. I mentioned that the origins of the doctrine of hyper-preterism are somewhat difficult to trace because there have been men throughout church history who have argued that one New Testament prophecy or another 1 From the “Hand-book of the Oneida Community,” p. 39. The document has been scanned and placed online at the Syracuse University Library website. The original page numbers are included in the scanned document. See http://libwww.syr.edu/digital/collections/h/Hand-bookOfTheOneidaCommunity/ 2 From the “Preface to the First Edition” of The Christ Has Come. Ernest Hampden-Cook was another nineteenth century proponent of hyper-preterism whose works are still influential among hyper-preterists today. 3 Keith A. Mathison, ed. When Shall These Things Be? (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2004). 4 There are differences among hyper-preterists regarding how such things as the general resurrection was fulfilled, and whether there is any ongoing fulfillment in any sense, but since these differences are part of the problem addressed in this paper, they will be discussed in more detail below. was fulfilled in the first century.5 These men, however, believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was still future. I noted that systematic and total preterism is difficult to find any earlier than the nineteenth century.6 I then stated, “Although the view may have been held at an earlier date by some obscure individual or group, one of the first open proponents of hyper-preterism was John Humphrey Noyes (1811–86), the founder of the Oneida Community.”7 After briefly describing Noyes’ conclusions concerning the doctrine of the Second Coming, I mentioned a few other nineteenth century writers such as James Stuart Russell, Ernest Hampden-Cook, and Milton Terry whose works have been influential in the hyper-preterist movement.8 Not long after the publication of When Shall These Things Be?, I was contacted by Jason Bradfield, an associate of the hyper-preterist author Samuel Frost at the Preterist Theological Institute.9 He indicated to me that he believed my labeling of John Humphrey Noyes as a hyper-preterist was inaccurate and possibly slanderous. He posted comments along the same lines on a popular preterist website. After quoting the passage from my Introduction and explaining some of his objections, he writes: What Mathison does here just three pages into the book is absolutely disgusting and twisted and, I believe, a deliberate attempt to prejudice the reader into thinking “you better watch these hyper-preterists - one of their first proponents swapped wives.”10 In a second email to me, Mr. Bradfield also included a quote written by Noyes that he included in order to demonstrate that Noyes cannot accurately be categorized as an early proponent of hyper-preterism.11 A section of this quote has been posted alongside the comments I made in my Introduction on at least one very popular preterist website.12 These are serious charges. If Mr. Bradfield is correct, then at best, I would be guilty of being less than careful with the sources I used in the writing of my Introduction 5 Mathison, When Shall These Things Be?, xv. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Noyes was also notorious for advocating, among other things, perfectionism and a doctrine he referred to as “complex marriage,” in which every man was said to be married to every woman and every woman to every man. 8 Ibid., xvi. 9 In a personal email dated April 15, 2004. 10 Posted on The Planet Preterist website. Registration is required to read the materials on this particular site. 11 Personal email also dated April 15, 2004. The quotation by Noyes will be discussed in detail below. 12 The Preterist Archive website. and at worst I would be guilty of deliberate falsehood. If he is wrong, then he would be guilty of maligning my name. Because of the seriousness of the charges, I went back and carefully re-examined the sources I used in writing the Introduction. I informed Mr. Bradfield that if I discovered that my comments about Noyes were in error, I would publicly recant. I informed him that if I believed my comments to be correct, I would write a public response to his charges. The question, then, is simply this: Is it accurate to classify John Humphrey Noyes as an early proponent of hyper-preterism? After re-examining the evidence, I believe that the answer is yes, and I will seek to defend that answer in what follows. I will begin by examining the evidence from the writings of Noyes himself as well as the evidence from the comments of several other authors and scholars. I will then examine the counter- evidence provided by Mr. Bradfield and explain why it does not support his charges. The Evidence John Humphrey Noyes The hyper-preterist doctrine of John Humphrey Noyes is abundantly evident throughout his writings. I provided only one quote by him in my brief Introduction to When Shall These Things Be? That indicates what he taught on the subject, but there are many. Noyes himself wrote: I first advanced into actual heresy in the early part of the summer of 1833 while still a student at New Haven Seminary. In the course of my Bible studies my attention was arrested by Christ’s expression in John 21:22: “If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee.” This seemed to imply that Jesus expected his disciple John to live until his second coming, and the disciples so construed it. The church on the contrary taught that Christ’s second coming was still far in the future. I had long been in the belief that the Bible was not a book of inexplicable riddles, and I determined to solve this mystery. Accordingly, I read the New Testament ten times with an eye on the question as to the time of Christ’s second coming, and my heart struggling in prayer for full access to the truth.13 What was Noyes’ conclusion? He continues: 13 George Wallingford Noyes, ed. The Religious Experience of John Humphrey Noyes (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1923), 69. The entirety of chapter 8 of this volume is devoted to Noyes’ doctrine of the Second Coming. The entire book is available online at http://libwww.syr.edu/digital/collections/r/ReligiousExperienceOfJohnHumphreyNoyes/ I soon perceived that every allusion to the second coming in which there was a clue as to its time pointed in the same direction; and when my investigation was ended, my mind was clear: I no longer conjectured, I knew that the time appointed for the second coming of Christ was within one generation from the time of his personal ministry.14 Noyes described his conclusion as “actual heresy,” but as George Wallingford Noyes observes, “It is indeed unthinkable, that Noyes with his fiery zeal and independence of mind should for long continue within the rock-bound limits of the traditional creeds.”15 The Hand-Book of the Oneida Community contains portions of a brief biography of Noyes and a description of the community that was compiled by a “special correspondent” of the New York Tribune for its May 1, 1867 issue.16 The Hand-Book also contains two articles by Noyes – one on the doctrine of regeneration and the other on the doctrine of the Second Coming.17 The article on the Second Coming is a detailed argument for the hyper-preterist view. This doctrine was key to Noyes’ thinking. As the correspondent from the New York Tribune noted, one of the two cornerstones of doctrine for Noyes and the Oneida Community was the idea that “the Second Coming of Christ, and the founding of his heavenly kingdom, took place 1800 years ago.”18 The basic outline of Noyes’ article on the Second Coming of Christ will be familiar to anyone who has read much hyper-preterist literature. He commences his argument with the following statement: The glorious event which thus animated the faith of primitive believers, as marking the period of the perfection of their faith, and their entrance upon the possession of the fullness of the gift of God’s grace, though seemingly nigh at hand at that time, is at this day generally thrown forward, in the faith of the churches, into the shadows of a distant and indefinite futurity. Our object in the present article, is to call the attention of those who love the word of God more than creeds, to the testimony of that word concerning the time of the second coming of the Son of man.19 14 Ibid. It is worth noting that George Noyes refers readers to J.S. Russell’s book The Parousia for a fuller treatment of the preterist view expounded by John Humphrey Noyes (See The Religious Experience of John Humphrey Noyes, p. 78). 15 Ibid., 69. 16 Hand-Book of the Oneida Community with a Sketch of its Founder and an Outline of its Constitution and Doctrines (Wallingford, Conn: Office of the Circular, Wallingford Community, 1867). This book is available online at http://libwww.syr.edu/digital/collections/h/Hand-bookOfTheOneidaCommunity/ 17 The article on the Second Coming is found on pages 31–53 of the Hand-Book. 18 Hand-Book of the Oneida Community, 22. 19 Ibid., 32. Like other hyper-preterist authors, Noyes begins by framing the debate as a debate between Scripture and the creeds. The first section of Noyes’ article is entitled “Definition of the Second Coming.” It is in this section that Mr. Bradfield finds evidence that Noyes cannot be classified as a hyper-preterist. According to Noyes, the judgment of mankind is “divided into two acts, occupying two periods of time, separated from each other by an interval of more than a thousand years.”20 Noyes adds: With this explanation, we shall be understood when we say, that in speaking of the second coming of Christ we refer to the first and not to the final judgment. It is not our object in this article to discuss the subject of the second or final judgment.21 As we will observe below, this kind of thinking was not unusual even in the writings of acknowledged hyper-preterist authors of the nineteenth century such as James Stuart Russell and Ernest Hampden-Cook. In short, Noyes believed that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70 and that at that time there was a primary resurrection and judgment. According to Noyes, however, there is also a future aspect of the resurrection and judgment, but Noyes is much less clear about its timing and nature. In one document, for example, he seems to imply that the arrival of the second aspect of the resurrection and judgment “will be established here not in a formal, dramatic way, but by a process like that which brings the seasonal spring.”22 The central point of his teaching, however, is clear: the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70. The second section of Noyes’ article is titled “Christ’s Designation of the Time of His Second Coming.” He begins, like many hyper-preterists, with a discussion of Matthew 24. He examines the Olivet Discourse and concludes that Christ said that his Second Coming would definitely occur within the first century. He then asks, “Does he [Christ] mean what he says?”23 Noyes adds several detailed arguments from the subsequent context of Matthew 24, and then concludes this section with the following statement: 20 Ibid., 32. 21 Ibid., 34. 22 Noyes, George Wallingford, ed. John Humphrey Noyes: The Putney Community (New York, 1931), 236. 23 Hand-Book of the Oneida Community, 34. We may sum up and concentrate the testimony we have examined in this section, thus: Christ designated the time of his second coming in six different ways. 1. He placed it immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem. 2. He instructed his disciples to expect it when they should see the fearful signs that should precede and accompany the destruction of Jerusalem, as they would look for summer after the budding of the fig-tree. 3. He most solemnly declared it would take place before the generation contemporary with himself would pass away. 4. He assured his disciples that it would happen before their ministry to the Jews would be finished. 5. He said there were some standing with him who should live till the event. 6. He plainly intimated that John should tarry till his coming.24 Granting potential differences over certain details, this is a common hyper-preterist approach to the general message of Matthew 24. The third section of Noyes’ article on the Second Coming is titled, “The Expectations of the Primitive Church.” In this section, Noyes sets forth the same basic argument that has been presented by every hyper-preterist author from the nineteenth century onward. After citing several passages from the New Testament, Noyes writes, Such language as this is perfectly natural on the supposition that they understood Christ’s predictions as setting the period of the second coming nigh at hand; and perfectly unnatural on any other supposition, as is proved by the fact that such language at the present day, when the churches generally believe the second coming to be afar off, is altogether obsolete; except among those whose theory, like that of Miller, places the second advent very near the present time. Men do not wait and look for a far distant event. Such language implies that the event expected is supposed to be impending.25 Noyes argues the same concerning those passages that deal with the resurrection, and then concludes: We will not further multiply citations showing the expectations of primitive believers, but refer the reader, if he needs further evidence on the subject, to an examination of the whole New Testament. The position which we think the evidence already presented abundantly sustains, is, that as Christ predicted, so the primitive church expected, his second coming within the lifetime of their own generation.26 24 Ibid., 37. 25 Ibid., 37–38. 26 Ibid., 39. In the fourth section of his article, entitled “The Fulfillment of the Signs Predicted,” Noyes argues that several signs had to be fulfilled before Christ’s Second Coming in A.D. 70. He then argues that all of them were fulfilled. It is not generally supposed that those tokens-especially the appearance of antichrist, and the universal publication of the gospel-did actually come to pass in that age; so that it is the more necessary that we should present our proof in relation to them. We find proof in the New Testament, that antichrist was revealed, and that the gospel was published to all nations, before the destruction of Jerusalem.27 He then provides a chart comparing the predicted signs with their fulfillment prior to A.D. 70.28 The fifth section of Noyes’ paper is entitled, “The Nature of the Second Coming.” After pointing out that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the prophesied coming of Elijah, Noyes writes: It would not therefore be a strange thing, if it should be found that the second coming was an event very different from the conceptions of it, whether popular or learned, which men have gained by private interpretations of prophecy. -- Christ may have come at the time appointed, though the scribes “knew him not.” Taking the caution of past examples, we will not assume that he did not come, because popular anticipations were not fulfilled; but rather that those anticipations were false, and wholly unworthy to be placed in the balance against the credit of those plain predictions which, as we have seen, appointed the time. At the outset of our inquiry concerning the nature of the second coming, we are bound to take for granted that it was an event which, though it may not have been recognized by external historians, was not inconsistent with the true history of the external events which followed the destruction of Jerusalem. This assumption leads us at once to the general conclusion, that the second coming was an event in the spiritual, and not in the natural world.29 Assuming that some critics would object to this understanding of the Second Coming on the basis of texts such as Rev. 1:7: “Every eye shall see him,” Noyes presents an argument that is common in the writings of many hyper-preterists. He argues that “the meaning of the apostle must be, ‘every spiritual eye shall see him.’”30 27 Ibid., 41. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., 44. 30 Ibid., 45. In this section, Noyes also presents a view of Christ’s resurrection body and resurrection appearances that is very similar to the view of the hyper-preterist author Randall Otto. See Otto, Coming in the Clouds: An Evangelical Case for the Invisibility of Christ at His Second Coming (New York: University Press of America, 1994). For a good critique of Otto’s view, see Vern Crisler, “The The final section of Noyes’ article is titled, “Practical Bearings of the Preceding Views.” In this section, Noyes describes the impact of his hyper-preterist view on other issues. He argues, for example, that the hyper-preterist understanding of the Second Coming will modify our views toward our duties and our hopes. Now if we believe that the second coming of Christ is yet future, in our minds the last enemy is not destroyed – death is yet an unconquered antagonist of the Son of God. But if we believe the second coming is past, we see Jesus a perfect conqueror, with death under his feet; and our faith and hope, according to the grace given us, lay hold on his perfect victory. This last example may be taken as a specimen of a general revolution of mind, producing great enlargement of hope, which will take place in any one who intelligently exchanges the common views of the second coming, for those which we have presented. The progress of God’s general war with Satan, is not to be measured by the progress of that war in individuals. Victories may have been won, which we as individuals have not entered into. A spiritual and vigorous believer will look for encouragement and strength more to the general victories that are already won in Christ, than to any particular victories that are won in himself. Hence, when he finds that the second coming of Christ, with all its train of promised triumphs, instead of being yet far in the future, is eighteen hundred years in the past, he will lift up his head with joyful hope, and gird himself for the battle that is yet before him as an individual, with the exulting faith of one who is fighting on the distant wing of an army which has already routed the enemy at the center.31 According to Noyes, the hyper-preterist understanding of the Second Coming also helps us understand better the relationship between the present church and the primitive church. He explains, “…believing the second coming past, we see that church advanced eighteen hundred years beyond the resurrection and the judgment.”32 He adds, “Paul’s gospel was that which Christ preached before him, and one main item of its tidings was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand; this generation shall see the second coming of the Son of man, in the power and glory of eternal judgment.”33 In language reminiscent of many modern hyper-preterists, Noyes expresses his opinion of the church’s reaction to his doctrine of the Second Coming. As he puts it: “The protectors of the orthodoxy of the church will surely spend their strength for nought, in their labors to repel and quench heresies on the subject of the second coming, Eschatological A Priori of the New Testament: A Critique of Hyper-Preterism,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 15 (1998): 225–56. 31 Hand-Book of the Oneida Community, 48–49. 32 Ibid., 50. 33 Ibid. so long as they shrink from a manly and thorough investigation of that subject, and a bold confession of the truth to which such an investigation leads.”34 Noyes believed the hyper-preterist doctrine of the Second Coming was clearly the teaching of the Bible. In an 1840 letter he wrote, “[If] an angel from heaven, bearing the seal of ten thousand miracles, should establish a religion, which should fail to recognize the truth which blazes on the whole front of the New Testament, that Jesus Christ came the second time at the destruction of Jerusalem, I would call him an imposter.”35 In terms of today’s debate, it appears to be beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that John Humphrey Noyes was an early proponent of the basic hyper-preterist thesis. Ernest Hampden-Cook In my Introduction to When Shall These Things Be?, I mentioned in addition to John Humphrey Noyes, the names of two other nineteenth century hyper-preterist authors: James Stuart Russell and Ernest Hampden-Cook. James Stuart Russell was the author of The Parousia, while Hampden-Cook was the author of The Christ Has Come.36 These two men are readily acknowledged by modern hyper-preterists and others as early proponents of the hyper-preterist thesis. Their books have been highly influential among modern hyper-preterist authors and are regularly cited in their works. We already noted above that George Wallingford Noyes, the editor of The Religious Experience of John Humphrey Noyes, refers his readers to James Stuart Russell’s The Parousia for a fuller treatment of the preterist view. Evidently he considered Russell to be teaching essentially the same eschatological view that John H. Noyes taught.37 Even more telling is the link between the views of Ernest Hampden-Cook and John Humphrey Noyes. In the Preface to the first edition of The Christ Has Come, which is a classic presentation of the hyper-preterist view, Hampden-Cook makes the following statement, 34 Ibid., 51. 35 Cited in Michael Barkun, “John Humphrey Noyes and Millennialism,” Syracuse University Library Associates Courier 28 (Fall 1993), 11-22. This article is also available online at http://libwww.syr.edu/digital/collections/c/Courier/01.htm 36 Russell’s The Parousia was first published anonymously in 1878. A second edition was published under his name in 1887. The first edition of Hampden-Cook’s The Christ Has Come was published in 1891, the second in 1895, and the third in 1904. 37 See The Religious Experience of John Humphrey Noyes, p. 78. The belief that the second coming of the Son of man is still future cannot be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of the New Testament as a divinely- inspired message and record. The error is none the less in error because for centuries it has remained undetected. The truth which must sooner or later supersede it formed part of the most ancient, faith of the Christian church. The most ancient faith of the Christian church associated together the destruction of Jerusalem, the winding up of the Jewish dispensation, and a personal return of Christ to the earth, as events which were certain to happen at one and the same time. Jesus and His apostles believed and taught that the Second Advent would take place in the lifetime of some who had been His earthly contemporaries. Confident that the founders of Christianity were neither deceived nor mistaken we joyfully accept on their authority the fact that the Christ has already come the second time. He then makes the following acknowledgement. Throughout the following pages the author is under the deepest obligations to Dr. Stuart Russell’s “The Parousia.” He also owes much to “The Berean” by John Humphrey Noyes, and to the works of Henry Dunn, the author of “The Destiny of the Human Race.”38 Hampden-Cook clearly indicates here that the views he presents in his book The Christ Has Come, were especially influenced by J.S. Russell, John Humphrey Noyes, and Henry Dunn. He also lists Noyes in his bibliography as one who teaches the view that the Second Coming is a past event. This is significant because it means that not only was John Humphrey Noyes an early proponent of hyper-preterism, but that his hyper-preterist doctrine also influenced the eschatological writings of another hyper-preterist author (Hampden-Cook) whose book continues to influence hyper-preterist authors to this day. Modern hyper-preterists do not seem to have any difficulty acknowledging Russell or Hampden-Cook as early proponents of hyper-preterism. The fact of the matter is that Noyes was another early proponent of hyper-preterism, and an influential one at that. The Counter-Evidence Noyes’ Doctrine of the Final Judgment As mentioned above, Mr. Bradfield has argued that Noyes cannot accurately be categorized as a hyper-preterist. He cites a lengthy quote from the Hand-Book of the 38 Emphasis mine. See the online edition at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1891_cook_christ- come/cook_tchc_00.html#1