By
Michael Krall
The enemies of fulfilled
eschatology (commonly called preterism, hyperpreterism or full preterism) make
their biggest attacks in this very area - resurrection of the dead and the nature of it. It doesn’t seem to
bother the proponents of this view that the term “resurrection of the flesh” or
“resurrection of the body” never appears in the bible. Nonetheless they make
this a point of fellowship and attack us on this ground believing that this is
our weakest point and most dangerous area.
We believe that this topic as well as any other issue regarding fulfilled eschatology can easily
be defending from Scriptures. Some time back on an internet forum there was a
debate that was taking place between
Preterist Dr. Kelly Birks and
Amillienialist Gene Cook where it was agreed upon by both sides as to the topic
which was how the Lord viewed the timing of his parousia. Little into the
debate Mr. Cook took it upon himself to change the topic to the nature of the
resurrection if somehow that would be how he would defend his view of the
timing texts. It was because Mr. Cook thought that this would be our weak point
and his strong point that he diverted the issue. He made it sound as though it
was necessary to talk nature regarding the resurrection to show how Jesus
viewed the timing of his coming.
It is true that timing and nature
are related and that how one views one of these reflects how one interprets the
other. We aim to show in this article that the nature of the resurrection must
be subjugated to the timing texts as we will give biblical support for this. We
will also show that despite the opposition in their attempts to divert all
discussion to this topic, it is not our weak point and is actually the very
heart of what we believe to be the support of our position.
The question that we need to ask
when looking at the resurrection of the dead and its nature is this.
Is there a biblical basis to interpret passages that speak of life from
the dead or resurrection as something other than being raised physically from
biological death?
We are fully aware that some passages could mean nothing else but a
coming to life back from biological
death such as the resurrection of our
Lord. But what about the examples in the rest of Scripture?
There is one verse that is
overlooked by those on both sides of this issue regarding how the disciples
would have viewed the phrase “resurrection of the dead” or “rise from the
dead.”
The passage is in Mark 9:9-10.
After the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus comes down and says this:
9
And as they came down from the mountain, he
charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the
Son of man were risen from the dead
10
And they kept that saying with themselves,
questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
Now what was in the minds of the
disciples that would make them even wonder what rise from the dead could mean?
Would anyone today have a problem understanding the phrase if someone told them
they would rise from the dead? We don’t know what they were thinking but we do
know they must have had understood the phrase as meaning more than one thing
else why ask the question. Could they be thinking of a passage in the Old
Testament that clearly taught something else? Are there any Old Testament
examples that speak of a resurrection that the meaning is quite otherwise? This
is important if we are to let Scripture interpret scripture as well as
harmonize the timing texts on both the second coming and the related
resurrection of the dead.
The answer is an obvious yes and
one such example is Ezekiel 37. Here is
a description of bones rising up and flesh and sinew coming upon them as their
spirit is put into them. But what does this speak of? Its first application
is Israel coming back to the land after
the Babylonian captivity. The New Testament application of this varies
depending upon one’s eschatological
view. Some would say this secondary application is an actual physical
resurrection such as will be experienced by God’s people in the so called
rapture. Others see the application of this as spiritual which is describing
the regeneration of the sinner via the Holy Spirit under the preaching of the
gospel. And some even say it is Israel coming back into the land in 1948.
Whatever one’s view is on this,
the fact remains of its first application and that should be enough to see that
there is at least one such example of a resurrection described with a much
deeper meaning. Lets look at a few New
Testament passages.
Luke 15:24 For this my son was
dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be
merry.
Here is an example of the
prodigal son that shows a restoration
to a former place that is described as being brought back from the dead.
Romans 11:
15 For if the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall
the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Without getting into
an exegesis of Romans 11 at this point
we just want to point out that this example of Paul’s here has nothing to do
with physical bodily resurrection but a
restoration of some kind to unbelieving Jews coming back into the olive tree.
Romans 6:
4 Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Here is a passage that speaks
of the believers being raised in the
likeness of Christ’s resurrection. This corresponds with such passages as
Ephesians 2 and Colossians 3 where we are said to have been raised with Christ.
This resurrection is obviously a spiritual one since it is clear to all that at
the time of Paul writing these things no one had as yet been resurrected
physically with Christ.
Then there is this one that needs
to be mentioned:
Phil 3:11 If by any means I might attain
unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already
attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I
may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not
myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do,
forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things
which are before,
14 I press toward the mark
for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 ¶ Let us therefore, as
many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded,
God shall reveal even this unto you.
16 Nevertheless, whereto we
have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind
the same thing.
In this passage as the
underscored words will point out, Paul is not speaking of attaining to a bodily
resurrection for if that was the case he had attained to it to some degree as
verse 16 points out. We will not take the time to exegete this passage and
speak specifically of what Paul was speaking of we only want to show what he
was NOT speaking of. It is clear that
is was not a resurrection of the physical flesh and blood body out of
biological death.
The final text we want to look at
is in Revelation 20:4-5
4 And I saw thrones, and
they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of
them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and
which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his
mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with
Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead
lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first
resurrection.
Now the first resurrection
mentioned here to many amillenialists is the spiritual resurrection the same
one they believe is described in John 5:25. What is interesting about this
passage is that those that hold to the premillenial position use this passage
as the basis to call those holding to the amillenial position Hymanaeus
heretics the same thing many amillenialists call us. We have experienced this
as an amillenialist for over 20 years and ironically am now called it by those
holding to our former position. The fact is that 2 Timothy 2:18 does not
mention which resurrection that was being said was “past already.” For those
that hold to a past fulfillment of Revelation 20:4-5 to call us Hymanaeus
heretics would be comical if it was not such a serious charge. When one looks
at the text in 2Timothy it would not be evident at first glance what
resurrection is being referred to whether the one amils says is past being
spiritual resurrection at regeneration or the so called future resurrection of
the flesh and blood body at the end of the cosmological world.
But there is one thing that our
opponents have overlooked in trying to decipher what resurrection is being
spoken of in the text. It is quite easy to discern by asking this question.
What type of resurrection would more likely be
possible to fool someone into thinking has happened before its time- one that
is spiritual and comes without observation or one that is a grave splitting,
cosmological world ending event in which every grave in the world will open up?
We will let the reader ask in the
theater of their own conscience what is more likely to be the case.
We are well aware that the above
examples by themselves do not conclusively prove that the “resurrection of the
dead” does not mean resurrection of the same body that went in the grave. But
when the above examples are considered in a study of this topic along with 3
additional passages we will now look at- the conclusion, we believe, is
obvious.
The first verses in 1Corinthians
15:35-37
35 ¶ But some man will say,
How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which
thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which
thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain,
it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
The part we would like the reader
to conside is what we have underscored. Those holding to a future bodily
resurrection believe that the body spoken of in these verses is the physical flesh and blood body that went in
the grave. But notice what is said in verse 37. The body sown (physical death?)
is NOT the body that shall be. Could anything be plainer if the body in the
text is the physical body of the believer that went into the grave?
Note our next verse to consider
which is a few verses down from this one -verse 44
44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a
spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Is it not quite clear that there this is a spiritual body
that is different from the natural body? Can one deny that in this text there
is clearly a distinction from what is
sown and what is raised? We have often asked those that hold to the same body
being raised if the exact same body comes out of the grave that went in? Such
as an aborted baby in the womb or siamese twins joined at the head or a person
deformed from birth. The problem is if it is a bodily resurrection exactly the
same as His resurrection –in the likeness of his resurrection- then it must
come out as laid in the grave as His was. The ceases to be a problem when we
realize that His body was the only one promising not to see corruption. Our
body is raised a spiritual body so as our text above states is not the body
that was sown.
The third verse we want to quickly look at to show the
distinction from what is put off and what is put on is 2 Corinthians 5:1-2.
1 ¶ For we know that if our earthly house of this
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens.
2
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to
be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
Now if Paul is talking about putting off of the physical
body, which is what those holding to a future resurrection of the body believe
this is talking about, then we ask this simple question:
Where does the new body that Paul was waiting anticipating come from? the ground
where the other was sown or from heaven?
When one considers these three
verses and the examples given above regarding how the bible uses the terms
raised from the dead and resurrection of the dead what conclusion can one come
to regarding the body that shall be? Again we leave it to the reader to a
answer in their own conscience without prejudice.
In the light of what we have just
seen we now need to ask another question.
Is there biblical examples in the OT that give lay
the framework for a hermeneutic that
does not take the timing passages seriously and gives us liberty to stretch
them to the point of no relevance to those to whom it was originally said?
When we read in the Old Testament
that something was “nigh at hand” was there any reason that those to whom it
was said would not take it to mean just that?
There is no example in the OT where something was said to be near or
nigh at hand that was not at least in some form or another fulfilled in the
lifetime of those to whom it was said. One such passages that some might like
to use is Joel 2 where it says judgment was “nigh at hand.” Now since later in
Joel 2 it is clearly talking about the time recorded in Acts 2 and then later
to AD 70 some like to point out that this is an example of a timing passage not
to be taken literally. But this passage’s first fulfillment was when God
brought the Assyrians against Israel.
This is a common thing we see in the OT where a passage has a historical
fulfillment and an application to find its fulfillment in the New Testament. If
there is such a passage that cannot be applied to some imminent event then it
is an exception to the general pattern in the unfolding of redemptive history.
In the light of that there is a
passage that really needs to be looked at and it is Ezekeil 7 –12. We will look
at sections of this and try to show what happens and how God responds to those
that do not take timing texts seriously.
Ezek 7:
5 Thus saith the Lord GOD;
An evil, an only evil, behold, is come.
6 An end is come,
the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come.
7 The morning is come unto
thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is
near, and not the sounding again of the mountains.
8 Now will I shortly
pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will
judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine
abominations.
9 And mine eye shall not
spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways
and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know
that I am the LORD that smiteth.
10 Behold the day, behold, it
is come: the morning is gone forth; the rod hath blossomed, pride hath
budded.
11 Violence is risen up
into a rod of wickedness: none of them shall remain, nor of their
multitude, nor of any of theirs: neither shall there be wailing for
them.
12 The time is come,
the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for
wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.
Now this theme goes right through
to chapter 12 of Ezekeil but we will first look at chapter 11 and see how they
viewed this impending judgment.
1 ¶ Moreover the spirit
lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the LORD’S house, which
looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men; among
whom I saw Jaazaniah the son of Azur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes
of the people.
2 Then said he unto me,
Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked
counsel in this city:
3 Which say, It
is not near; let us build houses: this city is the
caldron, and we be the flesh
We see here that the warning of
impending judgment was not taken seriously by Israel and God calls those doing
so as giving wicked counsel. They insisted that it was not near and what did
God then say to them. Here are the words that God spoke concerning this issue
as recorded in chapter 12.
21 ¶ And the word of the LORD
came unto me, saying,
22 Son of man, what is
that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days
are prolonged, and every vision faileth?
23 Tell them therefore,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no
more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at
hand, and the effect of every vision.
24 For there shall be no
more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel.
25 For I am the
LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass;
it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious
house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord
GOD.
26 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
27 Son of man, behold, they
of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many
days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are
far off.
28 Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There
shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken
shall be done, saith the Lord GOD.
This passage alone should be
enough to make any serious bible student look soberly at the timing texts of
soon judgment in the days of the New Testament. Can we still in a good
conscience stretch the timing texts to over 2000 years in the light of Ezekiel
12:28? This will even become more serious when one looks at those passages that
speak of judgment and resurrection in the Greek and see that the word mello in
some form or another is used and is more accurately interpreted as “about to be.”
( see such passages as Matt 16:27; Acts 24:15 and 2Tim 4:1 in Jay P Green’s
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament)
That brings us to the third question that needs to be
addressed then we can see the only biblical conclusion we can come to regarding
the nature of the resurrection and its timing. That is this:
Is there any Old Testament examples of language used
of God coming down in judgment when a physical appearance was not what was
meant?
We will just quote 4 passages
from the Old Testament that prove that there is such examples set forth in the
Word of God.
Isaiah 13 :9 Behold, the day of the
LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate:
and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Isaiah 26:21 For,
behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the
inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her
blood, and shall no more cover her slain
Isaiah 30:27 ¶ Behold, the name of the LORD
cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof
is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring
fire:
Micah 1:3 For, behold, the LORD cometh
forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread
upon the high places of the earth
In the 4 above examples we see a
coming of the LORD in judgment that was not a bodily coming. All of these above
examples have a historical context that was fulfilled when God came in judgment
against a nation be it Babylon as stated in Isaiah 13 or Israel as the other passages
speak of.
In the light of such passages
what are we to think of a passage like Matt 16:27-28; and 24:30 where Jesus
comes in the GLORY OF THE FATHER? Since the Father’s coming many times in the
OT was not a physical coming but a coming down in judgment does not that
warrant the same for Jesus’ coming?
After all did he not say that the kingdom of God comes not with observation
Luke 17:20? Did he not say that the when you see the signs of his coming know
that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand Luke 21:27-30?
What conclusion can we draw from
all this? Lets first state what we have shown from Scripture.
First, that there
are examples of life from the dead and/or resurrection from the dead being used
in Scripture that does not always mean a bodily physical resurrection but can
mean a change from one mode of existence to another or a restoration to a
former mode of existence.
Second the Old Testament specifically Ezekeil 7-12
clearly warn us against not taking the nearness passages at face value.
Third the comings
of God in the Old Testament are never a bodily visible coming but a coming in
judgment to a nation.
Now what does this bring us to as
a conclusion?
First -the kingdom comes without observation when
Jesus comes in power and great glory in the glory of the Father whose comings in the Old Testament were also not with observation.
Secondly the New Testament speaks of Jesus’ coming
as soon, near, at hand, in that generation; and before some standing there
would taste death; and that the resurrection of the dead would accompany that
coming.
Thirdly since the resurrection does not necessarily
have to be a world ending grave opening cataclysmic event- how can we deny that
all these things did not happen as predicted by our Lord and his apostles and
be faithful to the Word of God?
Please direct your
comments to Mike Krall.