The “Hyper” Charge Addressed and Defined

“For those who died under the Old Covenant, He was the Resurrection, but for those who lived into the days of the New Covenant – which is all of us, He is the Life.” – David Curtis

Systematic Hyper Preterism (aka “Full Preterism”) Study Archive Jesus: “It is finished” (AD30) cf. Hebrews 10:19-22 Hyper Preterism: Defining “Hyper Preterism”– Criticisms from the Inside – Criticisms from the Outside || Progressive Pret | Regressive Pret | Former Full Preterists | Pret Scholars | Normative Pret | Reformed Pret | Pret Idealism | Pret Universalism

William Bell
Max King
Don Preston
Larry Siegle
Kurt Simmons
Ed Stevens

SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM

It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to – such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 – are by no means distinctive to that view.   Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view.   Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I’ve seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:

DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM

• All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70

• Atonement Incomplete at Cross ; Complete at AD70

• The Supernatural Power of Evil Ended in AD70

• The Spirit of Antichrist was Destroyed in AD70

• “The Consummation of the Ages” Came in AD70

• “The Millennium” is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70

• Nothing to be Resurrected From in Post AD70 World ; Hades Destroyed

• The Christian Age Began in AD70 ; Earth Will Never End

• “The Day of the Lord” was Israel’s Destruction ending in AD70

• The “Second Coming” of Jesus Christ Took Place in AD70-ish

• The Great Judgment took place in AD70 ; No Future Judgment

• The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. Utterly Defeated in AD70

• “The Resurrection” of the Dead and Living is Past, Having Taken Place in AD70

• The Context of the Entire Bible is Pre-AD70 ; Not Written To Post AD70 World

DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
(under construction)

• Baptism was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

• The Lord’s Prayer was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

• The Lord’s Supper was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

• The Holy Spirit’s Paraclete Work Ceased in AD70 (Cessationism)

• The Consummation in AD70 Caused Church Offices to Cease (Cessationism)

• The Resurrection in AD70 Changed the “Constitutional Principle” of Marriage (Noyesism)

• Israel and Humanity Delivered into Ultimate Liberty in AD70 (TransmillennialismTM)

• The Judgment in AD70 Reconciled All of Mankind to God ; All Saved (Preterist Universalism)

• Adam’s Sin No Longer Imputed in Post AD70 World ; No Need to be Born Again (Preterist Universalism)

• When Jesus Delivered the Kingdom to the Father in AD70, He Ceased Being The Intermediary (Pantelism/Comprehensive Grace?)

• The Book of Genesis is an Apocalypse; is About Creation of First Covenant Man, not First Historical Man (Covenantal Preterism)

Second Peter 3 & AD70
A Litmus Test for Hyper Preterism?  No.

“He sets forth the destruction of that cursed Nation and their City in those terms that Christ had done, Matt. 24. and that the Scripture doth elsewhere, Deut. 32.22,23.24. Jer. 4.23. namely as the destruction of the whole world, The heavens passing away, the elements melting, and the earth burnt up, &c.  And accordingly speaks of a new heaven and a new earth, from Isa. 65.17. a new state of the Church under the Gospel among the Gentiles, when this old world of the Jews state should be dissolved.” (John Lightfoot, Westminster Assembly Divine)

Scholars differ on what the Bible says about the End Times (2009) “The only views that qualify as unorthodox are those that deny a future coming of Christ, Russell D. Moore, senior vice president for academic administration and dean of the theology school at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said. “Any view that does not hold to a future day of what the church has called ‘the resurrection of the flesh’ is outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy,” Moore said. “Christians have and will continue to disagree about whether some of the events of Matthew 25 or Mark 13 or the book of Revelation were fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem. That can be a disagreement among brothers.

• “As Preterists, we..” “I am just asking why, as Preterists, we are applying that scripture to us now? “

• “We, as Preterists” – If we as preterists say the last day has happened, then logically THE Resurrection has happened – whatever it was.”

Bryan Lewis (2010) “I am among those Preterist who realize that (HyP) Preterism is absolutely not Orthodox Christianity. It is my opinion, there is no fellowship between the two now, nor has their ever been historically.” (Am I a Christian?)

When is preterism taken too far?  Is it possible to take fulfillment beyond the point of Scriptural warrant?  At what point has the declaration of past fulfillment overstepped biblical bounds?  Naturally, it depends on who you ask.  For instance, strict Futurists would say that making AD70 the fulfillment of any of the Olivet Discourse (as opposed to those events serving as a type of their future tribulation) would be taking fulfillment too far.

Thomas Rattray, 1878 – “Having previously, by an inductive method, drawn from Scripture an Eschatology which placed its subjects at the end of the Mosaic age, and not as generally understood at the end of time; I was led, in this series of discourses, to present the evidences for a conclusion, so different from what has been, and is now, held in Christendom.”

William S. Urmy, 1900 – “The system of eschatology which this work presents requires that certain changes be made not only in the current thought of the day concerning the second coming of Christ, but in creeds, articles of faith, rituals, and hymns, where they refer to this and kindred eschatological subjects.” (Many Examples Found in Regressive Preterism Study Archive)

Hyper Preterism Denied by Hyper Preterists

This list is in the process of containing every known comment by a full preterist on the subject of hyper preterism (or equivalent terms).   Those HyPs who offer a definition (or characteristics) of hyper preterism will be given a star.  Those that deny there to be such a  thing – or belittle the investigation – will be given a whammy.  Hopefully, it can be agreed by everyone else that denying the existence of hyper preterism is worthy of correction.   To dismiss the term simply because one does not like the connotation is an elephant in the living room of full preterism, and the sense of denial inherent in this course is indicative of the overall problem with full preterism’s theological irresponsibility :  “Full Preterism is also known by several other names: Consistent Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Hyper-Preterism (a term used by some opponents of the Full Preterist position and considered to be derogatory by Full Preterists)..” (Wikipedia Entry for “Preterism”)

Dan Harden

“It has become in fashion to add the prefix “hyper” to a view that one feels goes in an acceptable direction but goes too far. It is largely illusion. You are right, there is no such thing as “Hyper-Calvinism”, and while I think there might be a case for overextending the basics of Preterism, I think it is rather hard to pinpoint. Anybody who sees some passages as Preterist but reject other passages as having relevant time indicators tends to resort to the over-used prefix “hyper”.  (PretCosmos Yahoo Group)

---

	Walt Hibbard
	“When I saw that Ken framed his paper around such emotionally-charged words as “hyper-preterism,” “heterodox,” “failure,” “errors,” etc., I was disappointed. Such language has the effect of discouraging bright young students of the Scriptures from pursuing advanced eschatological studies which may take them beyond the generally accepted creedal formulations.” (A Response to Ken Gentry)

---

	Mike Sullivan
	“Gentry, Mathison, and North use the “Hyper-Preterist” slur, because they too are very close to crossing the creedal line of their denominations.  They also know we make them look really bad to the objective reader because we expose the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of their hermeneutics.  So they use “spoofing” and scare tactics and duck debates etc.”   (PretCosmos Yahoo Group)

 

 

Hyper Preterism Defined by Hyper Preterists

“hyper-preterism” defined…
 and self applied by Full Preterist Book:

“It may surprise students of Biblical theology: When we combine the eschatological teachings of the great theologians of the Reformed church throughout the centuries, we arrive at “hyper-preterism”:

(A House Divided Back Book Cover)

 Jason Bradfield  (Now a former full preterist)

• 2009: “If the debate here is whether or not John Noyes was a hyper-preterist, then obviously our first and most important task is to define what is meant by hyper-preterist. We certainly can’t answer our question if we don’t know what we are looking for.  So what is hyper-preterism according to Mathison? Mathison tells us:

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

The next obvious step is to then examine the writings of Noyes and find out if he taught the above, namely, that the Second Coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment occurred during the first century. With that clear definition before us, let us now examine quotes that Mathison provided and ask if it fits that definition” (The Oneida Community and Hyper Preterism )

 Ward Fenley

• Full vs Hyperpreterism and Abiding Faith (2009) “Hyperpreterism is the belief that no one after AD 70 will have eternal life and that no soteriological benefit (i.e. salvific benefit) extends beyond AD 70. They (hyperpreterists) may believe that those particular events happened, but because they do not believe they apply past AD 70, they, by sheer virtue of their own confession, do not believe in the need for forgiveness of sin. After all, if you don’t believe Christ died for you since you were born after AD 70, then you do not believe the Gospel as it is clearly portrayed in the Scriptures”

• “Hyper-Preterism is the belief that all soteriological events were consummated and ended by AD70 and that none of the soteriological benefits of Christ’s redemptive work apply post AD70. “

 Sam Frost (Now a former full preterist)

• 10/6/10: “Voila! See, I told you so. IT’S ALL BEEN FULFILLED….there is no “ongoing” anything…..which makes me wonder…..what is the AGE TO COME if not POST A.D. 70? See, they have EVERYTHING relating to the PROMISES to Israel DONE by A.D. 70…..there is no spilling over…..there is no enlargement…..as Mike Sullivan said, the mustard seed parable was FULFILLED……it’s not GROWING anymore…… Now, sure, they will say, people still come into the city of the New Jerusalem and christianity spreads and has spread for the last 2,000 years, BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHIGN THE BIBLE PROMISED, PROPHESIED, or PREDICTED according to what I now call: Hyper Preterism. See, any “impact” on the West, or Civilization (as Rich brought up) is just a “side benefit.” It’s a sort of “extra”…..an unexpected windfall……the Spread of Christianity in the last 2000 years is, in their view, in no wise connected with any prophecy in the Bible, for if it were, then AT THAT POINT, we are beyond A.D. 70 and prophecy is “still being” fulfilled in an ongoing sense, and these hyper-preterists CANNOT HAVE THIS. I don’t know why…..because they get really angry when you bring it up.”

• “This must mean that issues of “sin”, “death” and “law”, which some preterists have written off, are “not for today” (along with the Holy Spirit, faith, and preaching the gospel).  Here, it appears, Dennis is reacting to what we at Reign of Christ Ministries have always called hyper-preterism.  This includes those who see no need for baptism, the Lord’s Table, or church officers.” (from “the reign of christ” website, page now removed)

 Jay Adams

• 2003: “Frost goes on to write, “If the Second Coming really did occur in A.D.70, does this damage the integrity of the church, he history and her claim to know the truth?”  The (Orthodox Preterist) answer?  Absolutely.   The vast majority of biblical exegetes have clearly taught the doctrines that (Unorthodox Preterists) reject.  If UPs are correct, it would mean that the Bible-believing church would have been deluded or deceived for most of its history, and Christians would have truly entertained a “misplaced hope.” (Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox, pp. 2,3)

• “Because UPs are right in many of their interpretations, and because in these they have good exegesis on their side, they have become cocky about the interpretation of other passages in which they show shoddy and forced exegesis to support untenable teachings.” (Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox, p. 4)

 Samuel Dawson

• “Preterists continue to make 70AD the transition line when OLD THINGS END, and NEW THINGS BEGIN. Since the OLD THINGS END (Old Covenant, Old Heavens and Earth, Old Age) pass in 70AD, ALL are then placed in the NEW THINGS (New Covenant, New Heavens and Earth, New Age). And it is interesting how these people don’t see this as HIGHLY Universalistic, especially since in the New Heavens and Earth, the ONLY thing pictured is the New Jerusalem in which the tree of life resides. So if we are ALL now in the New Heavens and Earth, (whereby there is no darkness, only light), how is it there is not seperation from those who are not of God? Preterism results in ALL being found WORTHY to obtain the “age to come”. They teach ALL are in the New Heavens and Earth where by “only righteousness dwells.” 2 Pet 3:13.”

 Kenneth Gentry

• “(“Hyper” Preterism)…goes too far by extending valid observations gathered from temporally confined judgment passages (texts including such delimitations as ‘soon’ and ‘at hand’) to passages that are not temporally constrained and that actually prophesy the future advent of Christ.” (Tabletalk magazine, January 1999, p.56)

• “Before I begin my analysis and critique, however, I must make very clear my orthodox convictions regarding biblical eschatology. I pause to do so because a new, unorthodox movement has arisen that confuses many Christians regarding orthodox preterism. This new movement largely arises from within Church of Christ (Campbellite) circles; indeed, the two main publishing sources of the movement are run by present or former Campbellites (though, like any good cult-like movement, it is widening its net and drawing followers from other sources). This movement asserts that A.D. 70 witnesses the fulfilling of ALL eschatological prophecy. This mutant form of preterism goes too far, for it denies a future Second Advent of Christ; a future, bodily resurrection of the dead; and other historic, orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith.” (An Introductory Disclaimer)

• “Unfortunately, a new gnosticism is infecting the church: hyper-preterism. One major feature of hyper-preterism is its denial of a future physical resurrection of the believer at the end of history. As we shall see, this contradicts a major result of the resurrection of Christ. Before I demonstrate this, I must briefly summarize the argument for Christ’s physical resurrection, which is the effective cause of our own future resurrection. ” (Christ’s Resurrection and ours)

• “First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A. D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A. D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A. D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?” (Brief Theologial Analysis of Hyper-Preterism)

 Scott Hahn

• 2003: “I was originally attracted by Max King and J. S. Russell, but subsequently rejected their view that 70 AD exhaustively fulfills NT prophecy. Personally, I have come to conclude that the main error of “hyper-preterism” is based on the common failure to recognize the theological significance of the biblical (and ancient Jewish) view of Israel’s temple as a “microcosm” (i.e., the cosmos in miniature), which implies that the cosmos itself was seen as a “macro-temple” (see Ps 104, Job 38).  Accordingly, the divinely decreed destruction of the Jerusalem (microcosmic) temple was itself a typological event, one that foreshadows the future destruction of the cosmos (i.e., as macro-temple). The destruction of the Jerusalem temple is thus a true — but partial — fulfillment, which implies a partial non-fulfillment, thus pointing to a still greater fulfillment in the future, when the cosmos undergoes the same divinely decreed destruction as the Jerusalem temple. An integral interpretation of NT prophetic texts is rooted in the scriptural view of creation, set forth in terms of temple typology (see Hebrews 9:1-12). What happens to the temple must eventually happen to the cosmos; the resurrected body of Christ is the New Temple, which will be fully manifested in glory only when the old cosmos undergoes the same transformative judgement of God, thus bringing forth a New Creation — which the Apocalypse rightly describes as the Divine Temple (Rev. 11:18ff) of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:22).” (comments, ca-anathema, 2003)

 Keith Mathison

• 2009 : “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”

 Gary North

• “I recommend the immediate public recantation and personal repentance of Russell’s theology (Full Preterism). Barring this, I recommend the heretic’s excommunication by his church’s judicial body.  The elders should allow the accused member to identify the heresy for which he is then excommunicated.” (David Chilton, R.I.P.)

• “I would suggest that we not encourage (David Chilton’s) heresy by interacting with him on this matter on this or any other forum.  It is now a matter of Church discipline, assuming that he is under any.” (North on Chilton)

• “We can and should pray for the restoration of his mind, but to debate with him publicly will almost certainly drive him deeper into this heresy. He will feel compelled to defend himself in public. Let him go in peace. It is not our God-given task to confront him at this point. That is for his local church to do.”  (North on Chilton)

• “Church officers who learn of any member’s commitment to the doctrine of “full preterism” have an obligation to help this member clarify his or her thinking, and either become fully consistent with the full-preterist position or else fully abandon it. The member should be brought before the church’s session or other disciplinary body and asked the following six questions in writing:”

• “the member must also be asked to sign an affirmation of Chapter XXXIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith and answer 90 of the Larger Catechism. This signed statement constitutes a formal rejection of the “full preterist” position. The member must be told in advance that this signed statement can be shown to others at the discretion of the session. If the member refuses to sign such a statement under these conditions, the elders should continue the disciplinary process.”

• “There are only three lawful ways out of a local congregation: by death, by letter of transfer, and by excommunication. Presbyterian laymen who have been brought before the church’s session because they are suspected of holding heretical preterism, and who persist in their commitment to heretical preterism by refusing to sign a statement that is consistent with the Westminster standards, must be removed from membership in the local congregation by excommunication.” (“Full Preterism” : Manichean or Perfectionist-Pelagian?)

Kim Riddlebarger “full preterists teach that the resurrection—which, they say, is not bodily but spiritual—has already occurred. To teach, as full preterists do, that Christ has already returned and that the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70 at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem is heresy, according to the apostle Paul.” (A Case For Amillennialism: Understanding The End Times, 239)

Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (1856) “The author maintains that the key to the Apocalypse is, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the second coming of Christ, and that there is no other advent of Christ to be expected (Lecture xvi.) He is an ultra-preterist. Those who believe in a literal coming of the Lord to judgment, yet to take place, he condemns in language sufficiently strong. Any system (millenarian or not) that takes for granted a future advent of Christ, is founded on ” strained interpretations”— “patchings of the Word of God”—” positions plainly untenable.” Whereas, his own doctrine (that there is no advent) is written as with a sunbeam, and the whole body of the Scriptures coincides with it (p. 431). ” (vol. 22, p. 98)

 Tommy Ice

• (1999) “EXTREME preterists, or consistent preterists, as they prefer to be known as, hold that all future Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If there is a future second coming, they say, the Bible does not talk about it. Extreme preterists believe that there is no future bodily resurrection, which place them outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy.” (Has Bible Prophecy Been Fulfilled?)

 Tim LaHaye

• “those who teach Christ came physically in A.D. 70 are borderline heretics” (End Times Controversy, p. 10)

 Robert Mounce

• “The major problem with the preterist position is that the decisive victory portrayed in the latter chapters of the Apocalypse was never achieved. It is difficult to believe that John envisioned anything less than the complete overthrow of Satan, the final destruction of evil, and the eternal reign of God. If this is not to be, then either the Seer was essentially wrong in the major thrust of his message or his work was so hopelessly ambiguous that its first recipients were all led astray”  (The Book of Revelation, 1977, 27)

 Joe Price

• 1989: “It is not a harmless, private conviction which can be held without hurting oneself and others, but a pernicious theory of error which engulfs the soul of men in destructive heresy!” (Joe Price, “The Second Coming of Christ: Did it Already Occur’! (3),” Guardian of Truth. November 2, 1989, p. 650).

 David B. Updegraff

• (1892)  “THE effort to make people believe that the promised parousia [coming] of our Lord took place at the “destruction of Jerusalem” tends to mislead souls, blot out the Christian’s hope, and destroy the value of Scripture as a definite testimony to anything.”  (Old Corn: Or, Sermons and Addresses on the Spiritual Life, p. 278)

 Jim West

• “We must not let them get away with calling themselves “preterists” or “consistent preterists,” or believers in “fulfilled eschatology.” The word “preterist” is a good word. The disciples of Hymenæus are not preterists; their “dispensable eschatology” makes them heretics. ” (The Allurement of Hymenæan Preterism: The Rise of Dispensable Eschatology)

 Douglas Wilson

• “When some people find a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. In the world of hyper-preterism, we find that everything is devoted to tying everything else into A.D. 70 somehow.” (WSTTB, p.255 )

 Hubbard Eastman

• 1849: Noyesism Unveiled: A History

“Theses of the Second Reformation.”
John Humphrey Noyes From From Aug. 20, 1837

“26. We believe, that Christ plainly and repeatedly promised to his disciples, that he would come to them a second time and complete their salvation within the life-time of some of his immediate followers.
27. We believe, that the primitive church, living in the transition period, from the first to the second coming of Christ, were more or less partakers of the resurrection, holiness, liberty, and glory of Christ according to their faith.
28. We believe, that at the destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish dispensation, Christ came to believers the second time, according to his promise.
29. We believe, that at the period of the second coming of Christ, christianity, or the kingdom of heaven, properly began.”

SAM FROST FINDING AGREEMENT AMONG FULL PRETERIST GROUPS THAT REFUTES THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING THAT “ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70” // CREATES NATURAL DEFINITION FOR “HYPER-PRETERISM” – “ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70” Sam Frost: BCS, Ch. 21 Pt. 1 (11/5/10) “The “buzz” going around on the other Preterist websites is that they, too, see “ongoing fulfillment.” If this is the case, then Full Preterism needs to drop the moniker that “we believe ALL prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.” They weren’t. The prophecies concerning the “age to come” are being fulfilled today.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here

Date: 29 Nov 2009
Time: 15:24:47

Your Comments:

If, as HP teaches,that all was compleated concerning the Old Covenant,(and I believe from my own studies,that this could be so)than I would like to hear from them about this New Heaven and Earth,and in what way this effects us today.

Date: 26 Aug 2010
Time: 08:27:24

Your Comments:

After reading all this stuff -I never heard of this preterism business- I have this to say: If one is looking for “orthodox” or “historic” Christianity he needs to abandon his commentaries and “confessions”, and then undertake a rigorous study (more likely a lifetime study} of everything pertaining to he Bible. This includes history, geography, archeology and especially the study of the meanings of almost every word in the Bible. There is not a single word in the Bible that can be accurately equated with our English words in “main street USA”. I challenge anyone to do any exhaustive study on the words in the Bible that are translated “earth”, “land”, “world” and that amazing word “gentiles”. No dictionary will give an accurate and usable definition for the understanding of the Bible’ purpose and end. Let us stop this “heritic” and “excommunication” garbage business. After all, it seems to me that these discussions are about the tips of the branches of the tree. We need to go to the “root” before proceeding to the “fruit”. The “fruit”, in my estimation, deals with the end to which our remarkable Bible proceeds. We ain’t near there yet! Thanks for listening. LOU

Date: 22 Aug 2012
Time: 22:52:42

Your Comments:

I suppose that “heretic” means someone who doesn’t agree on every point of your “orthodoxy”. The assumption is that orthodoxy is always correct, at least to the person within that group that claims to be orthodox.

And how did that pan out in history? Lessee….Catholics burnt heretics… Puritans whipped Quakers out of town, tied to a cart.

The only TRUE orthodoxy is what the Lord Jesus Christ believes. I’d wager that, by Him, we could all be charged with heresy on one point or another.

Date: 03 Feb 2013
Time: 08:57:38

Your Comments:

your site introduced me to preterism many years ago. i believe in sovereign grace because i have expierienced it. i believe in the preterist interpretation because i see it it scripture. i believe the reason people don’t see and or depart from full preterism is because they don’t really understand sovereign grace, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. only he who knows God will understand what he has written