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 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 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:

What was Noyes’ conclusion? He continues:

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:

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:

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:

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,

Noyes argues the same concerning those passages that deal with the resurrection, and then concludes:

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.

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:

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

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, 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.

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,

He then makes the following acknowledgement.

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.

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 Oneida Community as evidence. Because of its significance, this quote is provided here in full.

He explains further, "My point is simply that if John Noyes believed in a future and final judgment, then he’s partial. 2 out of 3 does not equal all."41

According to Mr. Bradfield, it would be more accurate to classify John Humphrey Noyes as a "partial-preterist" since he believed that the Second Coming in A.D. 70 inaugurated the millennium and since he believed that there remained a future aspect of the resurrection and judgment to be fulfilled. According to Mr. Bradfield, no one who believes this can be classified as a true hyper-preterist. There are several problems, however, with Mr. Bradfield’s argument.

In the first place, no "partial-preterist" believes what Noyes believed; namely, that what is commonly referred to in theology as the "Second Coming of Christ" occurred in A.D. 70. 42 Nor do any "partial-preterists" believe that the resurrection or final judgment occurred in A.D. 70. Hyper-preterists of all varieties could read Noyes’ works on the Second Coming, and despite the fact that they might have differences with certain exegetical details, they could generally affirm the overall arguments that he makes. This is why Ernest Hampden-Cook was so appreciative of the works of Noyes. No futurist and no "partial-preterist" could read and affirm the basic argument that Noyes makes. Noyes affirms the most basic doctrine of hyper-preterism; namely, that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70.

It must also be pointed out that Noyes’ version of hyper-preterism was not that unusual when compared to the versions of hyper-preterism espoused by other acknowledged nineteenth century hyper-preterist authors. James Stuart Russell, for example, taught that the events described in Revelation 20:7–10 had yet to be fulfilled.

Russell explains:

Russell adds, "This we believe to be the sole instance in the whole book of an excursion into distant futurity; and we are disposed to regard the whole parenthesis as relating to matters still future and unfulfilled."44 Yet, in spite of this, Russell is widely recognized as one of the early proponents of hyper-preterism.

Ernest Hampden-Cook taught a version of hyper-preterism very similar to that of Noyes. Hampden-Cook taught that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70, and like Noyes, he taught that the "Millennium" was inaugurated in A.D. 70. In the Preface to the Second Edition of The Christ Has Come, he explains:

According to Hampden-Cook, the Millennium "stands for an exceedingly long period which began at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (i.e., soon after the book of the Revelation was written), and has not yet terminated."46

Hampden-Cook goes even further than Noyes, however, in suggesting the possibility of a "Third Advent" of Christ at the end of the current "Millennium."

He writes:

In the Introduction to The Christ Has Come, Hampden-Cook reveals even more clearly how similar his version of hyper-preterism is to that of Noyes. He indicates that the "first resurrection" occurred at the Second Coming of Christ in A.D. 70. He then adds the following:

The point of all this is simply to demonstrate that the hyper-preterism of Noyes is not at all unlike the understanding of hyper-preterism as presented by acknowledged hyper-preterists such as Russell and Hampden-Cook. If Noyes cannot be accurately classified as a hyper-preterist, neither can they.49

Part of the difficulty involved in this discussion is the inherent difficulty of finding a definition of "hyper-preterism" that all modern hyper-preterists would accept.

This website also provides a section covering some of the many issues currently being debated among the proponents of hyper-preterism. These are listed under the following headings:

• Annihilationism vs. Eternal Punishment 50
• The Rapture 51
• Heaven Upon Spiritual Birth or Upon Physical Death
• Nature of the Resurrection 52
• Celebration of the Lord’s Supper 53
• Nature and Perpetuity of the Bride of Christ
• Will Sin Continue Forever?

Although not listed, the meaning of the "Millennium" is also a debated topic. The hyper-preterist author Kurt M. Simmons, for example, argues that only a "bimillennial" view is consistent with hyper-preterism. A single millennium, in his opinion, entails some element of futurism.54

The debate over the doctrine of the resurrection is also interesting. The two most commonly held views among hyper-preterists appear to be the corporate body view of Max King and the "Immortal Body at Death" view of men such as Edward Stevens and John Noe.55 However, there is deep disagreement about which of these views is most compatible with the hyper-preterist thesis. Samuel Frost, for example, has recently written a critique of the doctrine of the resurrection taught in Tom and Steve Kloske’s book The Second Coming: Mission Accomplished.56 He writes:

Regarding the doctrine of the resurrection taught by the Kloske’s (and Birks, Stevens, Hibbard, and Noe), Frost is highly critical saying, "if the KK [Tom and Steve Kloske] view is what we have to defend an [sic.] A.D. 70 resurrection, then Preterism, as our antagonists proclaim, is false as false can be."58

The point of all of this is simply to demonstrate that there is a wide range of competing views held by those who consider themselves to be hyper-preterists. Some of these views are considered by other hyper-preterists to be inconsistent with hyper-preterism, but which hyper-preterist has the final say regarding what constitutes true hyper-preterism? Mr. Bradfield, for example, writes, "I agree that Noyes would be more in line with Russell, but I find their view odd and inconsistent."59 Mr. Bradfield may consider the hyper-preterism of Russell (and Noyes) odd, but is Mr. Bradfield’s judgment normative for all hyper-preterists? The fact of the matter is that a large number of hyper-preterists consider Russell (rightly so) to be an early proponent of hyper-preterism.

When Mr. Bradfield says that Noyes’ doctrine is "more in line" with Russell’s view than with his own version of hyper-preterism, he is essentially granting my point; namely, that Noyes can also rightly be considered an early proponent of hyper-preterism.

Hyper-preterism is not a confessional movement. There is no "hyper-preterist creed." There is no standard hyper-preterist systematic theology text.60 And even if there were, would all hyper-preterists consider themselves bound to agree with it? No, because such would be tantamount to accepting the necessity of some form of creed or confession, and this is something hyper-preterists typically reject as being contrary to the spirit of the doctrine of sola scriptura.61

Mr. Bradfield objects to my classification of John Humphrey Noyes as a hyper-preterist primarily because of Noyes’ other objectionable doctrines. But these other doctrines do not alter the fact that his eschatology is hyper-preterist in nature. In fact, he considered many of his more unusual doctrines as being necessary implications of the hyper-preterist view. In his discussion of his views of marriage, for example, Noyes writes:

"We come now to ascertain more definitely the precise position of Christ and Paul with respect to all social relations, that of marriage included. It is plain that the constitutional principle on which they stood, toward which they were leading the church, and which they expected would expand and occupy the whole field of the future, was declared in the saying of Christ, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage." Now, whatever may be the exact meaning of the state designated by the term "resurrection," it was undeniably the condition towards which Paul was urging his course, the condition towards which he ever pointed the church as the goal immediately before them." 

His views of the Second Coming were also what led him to found the Oneida Community itself. The Hand-Book of the Oneida Community contains an "Introduction to the Outline of Doctrines." The author of this Introduction writes:

"…if the final Kingdom of Heaven has been established by Christ's second coming, all progress among men, must consist in an approximation to its standard of manners and social life. The highest civilization must rule, and a final coalescence of the institutions of visible and invisible society must take place, on the platform of resurrection refinement and unity. Those who accept the promises here given, are compelled by a clear line of argument to adopt a new social standard."  63

Yes, these are strange doctrines, but even today, many acknowledged hyper-preterists advocate doctrines that some other hyper-preterists find strange or odd. It is apparent from reading the numerous intra-mural debates among hyper-preterists that some of these other doctrines are considered not only strange but dangerous as well.

I am not suggesting that hyper-preterism does, in fact, necessitate these other strange doctrines. Many futurists have also taught strange doctrines. But that is all entirely beside the point. I am simply pointing out the fact that the existence of such strange doctrines does not change the fact that Noyes was an early proponent of hyper-preterism.

It is easy to understand why modern hyper-preterists would not want to consider Noyes an early proponent of their doctrine, but I am not suggesting he was the founder of the hyper-preterist movement or doctrine. I am simply asserting that he was in fact one of the first open proponents of the doctrine.

I believe that a careful examination of the writings of John Humphrey Noyes indicates that he was an early proponent of what is today referred to as "hyper-preterism," or "full-preterism," or sometimes "consistent preterism." A hyper-preterist could read Noyes’ teaching on the Second Coming and largely agree with what is said.

No futurist and no "partial-preterist" could affirm it. Noyes believed the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70. He also believed that the millennium was inaugurated in A.D. 70 and that there was a secondary element of the resurrection and judgment yet to be fulfilled, but these same doctrines were held by other acknowledged nineteenth century hyper-preterist authors such as Russell and Hampden-Cook. In conclusion, then, I stand by the original remarks in my Introduction to When Shall These Things Be?

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

24 Ibid., 37.

25 Ibid., 37–38.

26 Ibid., 39.

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 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.

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.

38 Emphasis mine. See the online edition at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1891_cook_christ-come

39 Hand-Book of the Oneida Community, 32–34.

40 In a personal email dated April 15, 2004.

41 In a personal email dated April 23, 2004.

42 See, for example, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. "The Historical Problem with Hyper-Preterism," in When Shall These Things Be?, 53.

43 James Stuart Russell, The Parousia (Bradford, PA: International Preterist Association, Inc., 2003), 522.

44 Ibid., 523.

 45 Available online at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1891_cook_christ-come

46 The Christ Has Come, chapter XIV. Available online

47 Ibid.

48 Available online at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1891_cook_christ-come/cook_tchc_01.html

49 The same could be said of those modern hyper-preterists who believe in an ongoing aspect of the resurrection or those who advocate the versions of hyper-preterism taught by Russell or Hampden-Cook.

50 The hyper-preterist author John Bray, for example, advocates annihilationism.  Other hyper-preterist authors denounce annihilationism.

51 This debate has largely been the result of Edward E. Stevens’ recent book Expectations Demand a First Century Rapture, Rev. ed. (Bradford, PA: International Preterist Association, 2003).

52 The hyper-preterist author Kenneth Perkins describes the three primary views held by most hyper-preterists in his article, "Preterist Views of the Resurrection." He labels these views the "Corporate" view, the "Regeneration" view, and the "Post-Mortem" view. The article is available online at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/perkins-kenneth_03_p_02.html

53 The debate concerns whether the Lord’s Supper should continue to be observed at all after the A.D. 70 Second Coming of Christ.

54 See Kurt M. Simmons, "Why the Single Millennium Model Forces a Futurist Eschatology." Available online at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/simmons-kurt_04_p_04.html

55 For a thorough critical examination of these doctrines, see Robert B. Strimple, "Hyper-Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body" in When Shall These Things Be?, pp. 287–352.

56 See Samuel Frost, "A Critical Response to the Kloske’s Exegesis of I Corinthians 15." The article is available online at http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/frost-samuel_04_p_01.html

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 In a personal email dated April 23, 2004.

60 Although Samuel Frost’s website indicates that he is in the process of writing one.

61 See, for example, Edward E. Stevens, "Creeds and Preterist Orthodoxy." Available online at http://www.preterist.org/articles/Creeds_Preterist.asp

62 Hand-Book of the Oneida Community, 57–58.

63 Ibid., 22.