A Study of the Resurrection
by Don K. Preston
Part 1 -
Resurrection From What
Death?
Part 2 -
Two
Resurrections?
Part 3 -
It Is the Last
Hour
Part 4 -
The Hour of His
Judgment Is Come
Part 5 -
The Hope of
Israel
Part 6 -
The Kingdom Does
Not Come With Observation
Part 7 -
Resurrection and
the Law
Part 8 -
The Prophetic
Background of John 5
Part 9 -
What Is
Resurrection?
Part 10 -
Resurrection When?
Part 11 -
Problems With
Tradition
Part 12 -
Objections
Considered
Part 13 -
Summary and
Conclusion
RESURRECTION FROM WHAT DEATH?
This book is about the Bible
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The idea that there will some day be
a resurrection of physically dead human corpses is so ingrained in the modern
religious psyche that to question it is considered taboo by most. Yet we will
do just that. It is our contention that the Biblical concept of the
resurrection involves a spiritual raising of man out of sin-death, [i.e.
separation from God caused by sin]; a restoration of man to the presence of
God.
In Genesis 2:15-17 God told
man concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in
the day you eat thereof you will surely die." Man and woman ate of the
fruit; did they die that day? Amazingly, most people will say "No!"
because Adam and Eve did not die physically after they ate the forbidden fruit.
But this is not the whole story.
Death means separation, not
annihilation. And Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden the day they ate the
fruit! Thus, ADAM AND EVE DIED SPIRITUALLY BECAUSE THEY WERE CAST OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF GOD! If Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate then Satan told
the truth and God lied! God said you will die in the day you eat, Satan said
you will not surely die, Genesis 3:1ff. Who told the truth to Adam and Eve?
Unless one can find Adam and Eve physically dead in Genesis 2-3 then the death
they died was spiritual and not physical!
Now if we regain in Christ,
in resurrection, what was lost in Adam,
1 Corinthians
The New Testament writers
likened life under the Old Covenant to death, because all those under the Law
were under the curse, Gal. 3:10f. Paul called the Old Testament the
"ministration of death" because all it did was condemn; it could not
justify, Romans 8:1-3. He spoke of his struggles under the Old Covenant; he
spoke of his past death under it, and lamented "Who shall deliver me from
the body of this death?" Romans 7:9-24.
Jesus' death and
resurrection was the power for the final removal of that law that brought
death, Eph. 2. But that Old Law could not fully pass until it was all
fulfilled, Matthew 5:17-18; and until the New Covenant law of life in Christ
was completely established, Gal.
Our point is that when that
Old Covenant of Death was completely taken away this is called the
resurrection! This is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:54-56. The
resurrection would be when the Old Testament was fulfilled, vs. 54; it would be
when "the law," which was "the strength of sin," was
removed, vs. 56. More on all this later.
The modern concept of a
physical resurrection of human bodies is not consistent with scripture. It
makes physical death the focus of God's threat in
The New Testament believers
were dying to the Old Law as they were baptized into Christ, Romans 6-7. The
Law itself was not dead--they were dying to the Law; "You have become dead
to the law by the body of Christ"
Resurrection is deliverance
from sin; sin-death; read Ephesians 2:1. This happens by faith in response to
the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ has "abolished death and brought life
and immortality to light through the gospel" 2 Tim.
While our study will examine
several different verses this work will concentrate on a pivotal text in the
resurrection discussion-John 5:24-29.
"Most assuredly, I say
to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting
life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death unto life.
Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the
Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of
Man. Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the
graves will he His voice and come forth--those who have done good to the
resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of
condemnation." [NKJV]
This discourse forms the
foundation for the "two resurrection" idea. Most commentators insist
that in verses 24-25 Jesus spoke of a spiritual resurrection available to the
believer today and then in verses 28-29 he spoke of a yet future physical
resurrection.
Our purpose is to examine
the specific context of John 5 and examine Jesus' prediction of the coming
consummative hour in the light of 1 John 2 and Revelation. We will study the
Hope of Israel and the relationship of the fulfillment and passing of the Old
Testament to resurrection. We will note the Old Testament foundation for Jesus'
prediction in John 5. The constituent elements of resurrection will be noted in
light of New Testament teaching that the resurrection had already begun but was
not consummated! Several passages that tell when the resurrection would occur
will be studied. Finally, we will explore some of the contradictions in the
traditional views of John 5, and take note of some objections to the views that
we will set forth.
We have purposely kept the
number of footnotes and references to a minimum. While such notes could be
copiously provided we have decided to observe the "k-i-s-s" principle
as much as possible. For those wishing such references please see Max R. King's
massive volume "The Cross and the Parousia."
It is standard fare to read
in the commentaries that John 5:24-29 speaks of two resurrections. R. H.
Charles says of vss. 24-25 "we are not here concerned with the bestowal of
physical life." When he approaches verses 28-29 however, he simply asserts
without evidence "physical death is presupposed." Hoskyns says
"In the perspective of Christian thought the passage from death to life is
the passing from sin to righteousness and the remission of sins, and from
unbelief to faith [Eph. 2:1; Rom 6:13; 11:15; Col. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:3f,
etc]." After these excellent comments he then says that just because this
is true and that Jesus posits a then present possibility of resurrection this
does not exclude a still future physical resurrection.
Just where in the context of
John 5 is there delineation between two resurrections? Jesus does not say there
are two resurrections; he does not mention spiritual versus physical; he does
not delineate between the "dead" in verses 24-25 and those "in
the graves" in verses 28-29. And what is the difference between hearing
the "voice of the Son of God," vs. 25, and hearing the voice of Jesus
in vs. 28? What is the difference between the "life"
--"everlasting life" of 24-25 and the "life" in verse 29?
Any distinctions are brought to the text by the interpreter! In fact, the
reason commentators draw a distinction between verses 24-25 and 28-29 is
because in vss 24-25 Jesus said "the hour is coming and now is," but
in vs 28-29 he said "the hour is coming." But was Jesus
distinguishing between two kinds of deaths, graves, resurrections, and life,
disparate in nature and separated by millennia, or was Jesus speaking of ONE
RESURRECTION, the INITIATION of which was present and the CONSUMMATION of which
was still future, but imminent, from his perspective? To help us with the
answer consider four passages.
Romans 6
In Romans 6:1-11 the apostle
demonstrates how in baptism the Romans had died with Christ, vs. 3, and had
been raised with him, vs. 4. This patently cannot refer to a physical death and
resurrection. But notice verse 5: "If we have been planted with him in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection." Is the likeness of his death a physical likeness? If so,
they had died physically! But if it be admitted that this refers to a spiritual
likeness how does this impact verse 5? Are we to see that in baptism there is a
spiritual likeness to the death of Jesus but in resurrection there will be a
physical imitation of his resurrection? Who changed the hermeneutic here?
Modern interpreters, not Paul, change the nature of the discussion!
How is it possible to so
radically change Paul's discussion from a spiritual death to a physical life?
For Paul, the futuristic element was of the same nature in
"likeness." In verse 8 the apostle says "if we died with Christ,
we believe we shall also live with him." The coming life was of the same
nature as the death; but the death was not physical, therefore the coming life
was not physical.
In Romans 6 there is an
"already" element of resurrection, and a "not yet" element.
There are not two different and distinct resurrections of two different kinds
of bodies. There is one resurrection which had been initiated and was soon to
be consummated.
If there were two
resurrections in scripture, one spiritual, one physical, separated by
millennia, why do the scriptures never mention resurrections plural?
Stafford North, writing
against the millennial concept of three different resurrections and two
different judgments separated by the millennium, poses a pertinent question:
"If the resurrection of the just and unjust were separated by over a
thousand years, surely Paul would speak of `resurrections' in the plural."
But if that question is valid when arguing against millennialism why is it not
valid in regard to John 5:24-29? Per North, Jesus was speaking of two different
resurrections! If there are plural resurrections in John 5:24-29 then North's
argument against millennialism falls. If his argument is valid, and it is, then
there is but one resurrection in John 5:24-29 and Romans 6.
Philippians 3:1-16
This passage very plainly
reveals that for Paul, the resurrection was a then present, yet not yet
perfected reality.
It must be kept in mind that
Paul is defending not only himself but his Christian brethren from the attacks
and claims of those who insisted that they were the true inheritors of the
promises of God. The question was "Who is the true
This cannot be
over-emphasized. Paul did not preach anything but the hope of Israel, as we
shall see below, yet for Paul Israel's hope did not lie in fleshly things but
in worshipping God "in the Spirit" vs. 3.
In verses 1-6 Paul recounts
his achievements under the Old Law; if anyone had a reason to boast of his
accomplishments before God Paul did! Yet all of these personal credits were
worthless before Christ. Paul had learned that he could not earn righteousness
and all of his efforts under the Law were but an attempt to do so! Therefore
they were not gain to him but actually loss!
The apostle then says that
in counting his achievements under the Law as loss he had but one goal in mind;
to be found in Christ "if by any means I might attain to the resurrection
from the dead" vs. 11.
This is surely a strange
thing to say if the raising of a physical body from the earth is to be an
inescapable universal event! Paul's purpose in counting his personal successes
under the Law as loss was to attain the resurrection!
Examine Paul's reference to
dying. In verse 10 he says he was at that time "being made conformable
unto his [Jesus', DKP] death." This is in the present tense! In what way
was Paul being made conformable to the death of Jesus? It surely cannot be
physically since it was something he was already experiencing! But just as in
Romans 6 where he said the Romans had died with Christ and were anticipating
rising with him, so here Paul speaks of his dying in the image of Jesus' death
and desire for participating in his resurrection. Since the dying is not
physical in either text then the resurrection is not physical either!
Now notice verse 12; after
saying it was his desire to attain to the resurrection he says "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." Now if Paul has physical death and physical resurrection in mind
does not his statement "not as though I had already attained" seem
just a little bit facetious? Of course he had not attained the resurrection; he
had not died yet! That is, if he has physical life and death in view; but we
have just seen that the death he is speaking of cannot be physical!
Paul's "dying" is
to be equated with his "forgetting"; his "forgetting and
reaching forth stand in apposition to dying and rising with Christ, and the
subject of this change was the two covenant aeons." [ages, DKP] Since his
"dying" and his "forgetting" equate to the same thing and
his "forgetting" is the laying aside of the Old Covenant World of
Israel then his "attaining to the resurrection" must be seen in
relationship to the full transition from the Old World of Israel to the New
Covenant "law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" Romans 8:1-3.
What Paul was dying to was the Old World of Israel with its dependence on
justification by Law--the things he once counted as gain; what he was rising to
was true righteousness by faith in Christ, Phil. 3:9.
Paul said that the
resurrection of Christ was his goal; he said he had not already attained it.
But he also said "Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already
attained, let us walk by the same rule" vs. 16. Paul has not changed
subjects; he is still focused on his singular desire "the resurrection
from, literally "out from the dead." Yet he is saying he had attained
to a certain degree! Here is the "already-but-not-yet" of
resurrection stated in the clearest terms possible!
Can Paul be speaking of
physical life and death? If so, then he was saying he had "died a little
bit" physically! Of course he did say he had died with Christ, Gal. 2:20,
but once again this was not referent to physical death! Was Paul saying he had
to a "degree" already attained to resurrection from physical death?
To ask the question is to answer it.
Do not forget that Paul is
discussing the hope of
As Jesus does in John
5:24-29, Paul moves from a present "already" resurrection to a
consideration of the future "not-yet." But these are not two
different kinds of resurrections. It is simply a movement from the initiation
to the consummation of the same resurrection. And what did Paul teach about
when that future aspect would be realized?
In chapter 3:20-21 he says
they were "eagerly" awaiting Christ's coming to consummate that
wonderful change and bring life to full reality. The words "eagerly
await" translate the original word "apekdekomai" which denotes
"earnest expectation" This is a word with strong connotations of
imminence. Further, in 4:5 Paul states clearly "The Lord is at hand"
[engus]. As the Expositors Greek Testament says "Quite evidently Paul
expects a speedy return of Christ."
For Paul then, whatever one
makes of the resurrection, that event was imminent. When one sees however that
Paul's discussion of death and resurrection could not be related to physical
death and resurrection then this correlates perfectly with Romans 6 and John 5.
Colossians 3
Colossians 3:1ff is of the
same discussion. Paul said the Colossians had died with Christ and their lives
were hidden. Was that a physical death and physical hidden-ness they had, and
were experiencing? Concerning the death and life of Colossians, William Bell
said "This life had both a present, or already, and a future, a not yet,
in that it was hidden in Christ and would later be revealed. It is not a
different life, but the same and only life which they had. Is Christ the life received
in baptism? Is not this the life the Colossians received when they died with
him? Is not the life they received that which was hidden? Therefore that life,
not physical life, is the life that would appear, be revealed, with him in
glory."
As in Romans there is
therefore an "already but not yet" aspect to the resurrection. This
helps us understand John 5 since Paul is plainly dealing with the same issue as
Jesus, life and death. As surely as Colossians speaks of only one kind of death
and coming life just so it is in John. Paul is simply expounding on what Jesus
had taught.
If the resurrection of John
5:24-25, the spiritual resurrection per most commentators, was a fully present
reality, then there should not have been a yet future aspect to it. That is if
it was to be delineated from the "the hour is coming" resurrection of
John
2 Timothy 2:11-12
The fourth text is 2 Timothy
2:11-12. Paul said "For if we be dead [if we died sunapathanomen, 1 pers.
pl. aorist, indicative], with him, we shall also live with him." As in
Romans, Colossians, and Philippians, Paul addresses a state of death possessed
by the church; it was a state of death that would be overcome in the future.
But it is incontrovertible that the death they had experienced could not be physical!
Therefore the resurrection they were anticipating could not be physical. This
is corroborated by the context.
In 2 Timothy
Since it is undeniable that
the death of verse 11 could not be physical but must be spiritual, Hymenaeus
and Philetus must have reasoned that since spiritual life was
"already" then the resurrection must have already fully occurred. Had
not Paul told the Ephesians they had been raised from the dead, Eph. 2:1?
Remember, Paul was writing Timothy who was in
In each of these passages we
see the "already but not yet" of the resurrection. These texts
provide strong evidence that in John 5:24-29 Jesus is positing the initiation
and the consummation of one resurrection; not two resurrections.
The singularity of the
resurrection in John 5 is established when one honors the text. Jesus simply
moves from "he who hears" to "all that are in the graves."
The movement is from some to all. Since when does such a movement demand a
change in subject matter or the nature of the subject? Further, the movement is
from the hour that "now is" to "the hour is coming." The
contrast is between time referents. If a farmer says the corn harvest has begun
but the hour is coming when the harvest will be consummated, has he changed the
subject from the corn harvest to a harvest of apples?
Observe carefully the
language of the text. In verses 24-26 Jesus speaks of the positive side of his
authority; "as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son
to have life in Himself," vs. 26. Now watch: "and has given Him
authority to execute judgment ALSO," vs. 27. After asserting the authority
not only to give LIFE but to RENDER JUDGMENT, he immediately says "do not
marvel at this for the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of
life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
The emphasis is on Jesus' authority not only to give life but to render
judgment! The word "also" in verse 27 focuses our attention on the
wider scope of Jesus' authority--not on a change in the nature of the
resurrection from spiritual to physical.
Undeniably John 5
anticipated a consummative last hour--the hour of the resurrection. This coming
hour would occur in the "last day" [John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48f].
Most commentators insist that the hour of
In 1 John 2:15-18 John, the
same writer of the gospel of John, said "the world is passing away,
...Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, whereby we know that
it is the last hour." The writer, who in the gospel anticipated the
consummative hour to come, writes in his epistle that the last hour was upon
them!
If there can be no
"hours" after the "last hour" here is a severe problem.
John wrote two thousand years ago saying the last hour had come; yet there have
been many "hours" since then! It is amazing how exegetes attempt to
disassociate the final hour of John 5 from the last hour of 1 John 2!
Stafford North argues that
because the words "last hour" in the original do not have the
definite article this means that "John is speaking in a qualitative or
categorical way and not of any definite last hour." In other words,
"John was not saying `This is the last hour of time' but rather, `this is
a critical time.'" [ibid] Besides begging the question and assuming an end
of time, North's suggestion proves far too much.
The definite article does
not appear with the "hour" in John
In Matthew
In 1 John 2:8 John says
"the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining."
[NKJV]. This imagery is directly associated with the coming of the Lord, Romans
Please observe the presence
of the miraculous work of the Spirit,
vs. 20, 27. We will see below the connection of the miraculous work of the
Spirit with the resurrection. In 1 John the apostle writes to the Spirit
endowed church reminding them that the Spirit "abides in you"; he
encourages them to "abide in Him," vs. 28, until the Parousia, the
time of the resurrection, 3:1-3, and tells them "it is the last
hour." The reference to the miraculous work of the Spirit in 1 John inextricably
links John's "last hour" with the Parousia and resurrection. There is
no way to divorce the work of the Spirit from John's eschatology; therefore
John's declaration that "it is the last hour" is a direct commentary
on John 5:28-29.
Finally, John specifically
speaks of the then present resurrection. In
Just as in John 5:24-29 we
find the initiation and anticipation of consummation; in 1 John we also find
the "in the process" resurrection and declaration of the imminent
consummation.
THE HOUR OF HIS JUDGMENT IS COME
The same author that wrote
of the coming hour in the book of John and said in his first epistle that the
last hour had come also wrote the book of Revelation. Amillennialists commonly
see in this book the message of the fall of
As all agree, the book of
Revelation deals with the resurrection. This is the resurrection
"hour" of John 5. What few seem to notice is that the resurrection is
depicted in direct association with the fall of the city where the Lord was
crucified, Rev. 11:8-19!
In Revelation 14 John has
the critical "hour" in view. This chapter presents a view of an angel
with the everlasting gospel to preach to all the world, vs. 6. The message of
the gospel is "Fear God and give glory to him; for the hour of his
judgment is come," vs. 7. [my emphasis] This judgment is on the city
The preaching of the gospel
into all the world is representative of the church's responsibility to preach
the gospel to all the world in Jesus' generation before the fall of
For an entire generation the
early church proclaimed, amidst persecution, that impending judgment. The
Cilician apostle said "the day is at hand" Romans 13:11, and God
would crush Satan under their feet shortly,
Our point is that in
Revelation 14 the angel with the everlasting gospel and its message of
impending judgment corresponds to the mission of the early church with its
message of the coming of Christ in the fall of
The urgency of the message
of that judgment must also be emphasized. The message was that the judgment had
come. In fact, John is told in the most emphatic expressions that his vision
was to be fulfilled "shortly"; "the time is at hand"; Jesus
was to come "quickly,"
Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10, 12, 20. The consistency of John's writings and his
constant focus on the consummative hour coupled with the imminence of
Revelation demands a first century fulfillment of that critical hour.
John, in 5:24-25 speaks of
the beginning of the harvest--the first fruits if you will--"the hour is
coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live." He then speaks of the rest of the harvest in
verse 28-29--"Marvel not at this for the hour is coming when all that are
in the graves shall hear." The movement is from some who hear unto life,
to all those who hear and some to condemnation.
Revelation 14 contains the
identical motif. In verses 1-5 we find the 144,000 who are the first fruits
unto God. These are the redeemed. They follow the Lamb--they hear his voice! In
verses 14-20 the focus is on the remainder of the harvest and on condemnation
just as in John 5:28-29.
The parallels between John 5
and Revelation 14 are too obvious to be ignored. The "coming hour" of
John 5 is "the hour of his judgment" in Revelation 14. And since
Revelation 14 is so emphatic as to the imminence of that impending judgment we
must see that the critical "coming hour" of John 5:28-29 was not an
event millennia removed from Jesus' day but was to occur in his generation.
That Revelation, and
specifically chapter 14, deals with the A.D. 70 judgment against the Old
Covenant World of Israel is illustrated in several ways. In verse 20 it says
the "winepress was trodden without the city"--this term "without
the city" is almost a technical term to identify
In Revelation 14 we find, as
in 1 John and the book of John, the impending critical hour. In both 1 John and
Revelation we find emphatic time indicators saying the consummative hour was
imminent.
In his prediction of the
resurrection Jesus was not predicting something new, he was speaking of the
hope of
This is extremely important
but often overlooked in the modern religious world. Amillennialists say all OT
promises to
In Acts 21 the Jews
mistakenly believed that Paul had taken a Gentile into the
Seven days, at least, passed
between Paul's appearance before the Sanhedrin and his appearance before Felix,
Acts 23:11, 31-32, 24:1. When Paul gives his defense before the governor he
says: "I have hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there
shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked"
Acts 24:15. [NASV, my emphasis] What happened to the Pharisees who just a few
days earlier had been saying they could find no fault with Paul?
Clearly it is not the
Sadducees Paul is referring to when he says his accusers "cherish"
the hope of the resurrection--the Sadducees have dropped out of the
proceedings! So what happened to the Pharisees? Why have they changed their
tune from "We find nothing wrong with this man!" to "We find
this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews
throughout the world" Acts 24:5? Could it be that they found out what Paul
was really saying about the resurrection? Let us go back to the ministry of
Jesus for some help.
Without doubt the Jews were
eagerly anticipating the coming of the Messiah and his kingdom, cf. Luke. 3:15;
John 1:19ff, etc. Jesus came preaching the imminent establishment of the
kingdom, Mk. 1:15. Now the Jews wanted the kingdom and Jesus promised the
kingdom. Initially the Jews were exuberant about Jesus' promise; but something
changed and the Jews killed Jesus. Why? Because Jesus did not offer them the
kind of kingdom they expected and wanted! They wanted the kingdom to come with
pomp, circumstance and grandeur--not to mention wiping out the Romans. Jesus
said his kingdom was not that kind of kingdom; he forbad his servants to fight,
cf John 18:36f. The Jews killed him for offering a spiritual kingdom when they
wanted a national restoration.
Jesus came to be king, John
18:33-37; and on at least one occasion the Jews, impressed with his ability to
feed thousands with just a few loaves and fishes--and probably misconstruing
the military type arrangement of the crowd as ordered by Jesus, Luke
9:12ff--were about to come and make Jesus their king, John 6:15. But Jesus
refused their efforts. As a result
Paul was teaching about the
same kingdom and offering the same king as Jesus, Acts 17:6-7. Paul taught the
resurrection. The Pharisees wanted the resurrection, Acts 24:15. But the
Pharisees, at first friendly, have now turned on Paul and want him killed! Why?
Paul said it was because of the resurrection! But if Paul taught the
resurrection and the Pharisees believed in the resurrection why do they want to
kill him? Could it be that they wanted to kill Paul for the same reason they
killed Jesus; because he did not offer the kind of resurrection they desired?
It can hardly be objected
that the Pharisees objected to Paul's doctrine of the resurrection simply
because he was offering it through Jesus. The Jews had been more than willing
to accept Jesus as king on their terms. It was the nature of what was being
offered, not the person it was being offered through that caused the violent
reaction! The person was rejected because of what the person taught about what
was being offered! This is, we believe, the only way to understand why the
Pharisees did such an about face in the case of Paul.
Had Paul been offering the
very thing the Pharisees desired, a physical resurrection, they would have
warmly embraced him as offering the fulfillment of their hopes. They initially
believed he was an ally. But they quickly learned differently and put him on
trial for preaching the resurrection-the very thing they were supposed to
believe in! Why seek to kill a man for espousing the same things as you? Paul
could not have preaching what they wanted, a physical resurrection; just like
Jesus, he was preaching spiritual, not physical realities! This is confirmed by
looking a little closer at the kingdom.
THE KINGDOM DOES NOT COME WITH OBSERVATION
As we have seen, the Jews
desired a kingdom that was nationalistic and political--an outwardly observable
kingdom. In Luke the Pharisees came to Jesus asking "when the
Please observe that Jesus
said the kingdom would not come with observation. Now here is a critical point:
THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM AND THE RESURRECTION ARE CONCURRENT EVENTS!
In 2 Timothy 4:1 the apostle
said "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who
will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom." [See
also Mat. 16:27-28; Mat. 25:31]. Now if the nature of the coming kingdom was
"without observation" why are we supposed to think that the attendant
resurrection, which would give entrance into that
The Pharisees had already
rejected Jesus even though he offered them the kingdom. They rejected him because,
while he offered what they ostensibly wanted, what he was truly offering was of
a different nature than what they envisioned. It was no different with Paul.
While he was offering them what they supposedly desired they discovered it was
of a different nature than what they wanted. Thus their original defense of
Paul, Acts 23, quickly turned into their damnation of Paul.
All of this manifestly
demands that we understand the resurrection as a spiritual event and not
physical. It comports perfectly with what we have seen about the
"already-but-not-yet" aspect of the resurrection and it also agrees
with the framework of deliverance from sin. Let us now return to the hope of
To
The hope of
Is it not abundantly evident
that the resurrection could not be a raising of dead physical bodies out of the
ground? Paul was not saying that the remnant of
Lest it be argued that Paul
is not thinking of the resurrection note vs. 15 where the apostle discusses the
fate of
In Romans 11:25-27 Paul said
Space forbids a full
discussion of the coming of the Lord for the salvation of
1.] Isaiah 2-4--In 4:3-4
Jehovah spoke of when he would cleanse
When would "in that
day" be? Following the antecedent references into chapter 3 and 2 several
things become apparent. First, it would be a time of warfare,
This "Day of the
Lord" cannot be speaking of an end of time scenario if men have time to
flee to the mountains. It does comport well with Jesus' prediction of the time
of
In Luke 23:28-31 Jesus
directly alludes to Isaiah's prophecy in a prediction of the coming judgment on
Isaiah, predicted the
establishment of God's kingdom, the cleansing of her sin, and the establishment
of God's tabernacle among men; this is all good news to be sure. How would it
be accomplished? In the Day of the Lord and "by the spirit of judgment and
by fire" 4:4. All this says is that
Note the correlation of
Isaiah to the book of Revelation. In the Apocalypse we find the salvation of
2.] Isaiah 65-66--Both
chapters speak of the blessedness of the coming "new heavens and
earth" 65:17-19; 66:22. This is the "good news" of the
fulfillment of
Jesus said
The Old Israel of the Flesh
would have served her purpose of bringing in the Messiah, Gal. 3:23ff;
prefiguring and foreshadowing his work, Heb. 10:1f; of accentuating the
futility of salvation by works and the despair of sin, Rom.
3.] Zechariah 12-14--The
prophet foretold the time when "they will look on Me whom they have
pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for
Him as one grieves for a firstborn" 12:10. But "in that day a
fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of
Zechariah predicted the
coming of the Lord against
In Matthew 24:30 Jesus
quoted from Zechariah
The apostle predicted the
salvation of
Our study of Paul on trial
not only attests to the spiritual nature of the resurrection but it reveals
serious problems with the Amillennial view of eschatology and its relationship
to the Old Law.
The current writer is a
fourth generation member of the churches of Christ and well versed in those
traditional views of the Law and eschatology. That view says Jesus cast off
Israel at the Cross having fulfilled all OT promises to her by that time;
beginning at Pentecost a new set of promises and prophecies was given. But this
is not what Paul believed and taught!
When standing before Felix,
Paul said in the most emphatic terms that his gospel of the resurrection was
nothing more or less than what Moses and the Prophets predicted, Acts 24:14f.
When the Jews said "This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against
the people, the law and this place" Acts 21:28; Paul responded: "Nor
can they prove the things of which they now accuse me" 24:13; and,
"Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against
Caesar have I offended in anything at all" 25:8. Paul said he did not
teach against the Old Law; yet the modern interpretation of Ephesians 2,
Colossians 2, and Romans 7 has Paul saying the Old Law was completely taken
away at the Cross! Any view that pits Paul against Paul is wrong and Paul said
he did not teach against the Law!
When studied carefully each
of the texts just cited actually teach that those who were coming into Christ
by baptism were dying to the law; the law itself was not dead. There is a vast
difference between the Law dying and believers dying to the Law! See our
comments above.
Now if the Old Covenant
fully passed away at the Cross how could Paul be preaching the yet future, to
him, fulfillment of that Old Covenant? If the eschatological hope of Christians
is/was not supposed to be tied to the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises
made to
It is evident from our study
of Romans 11 above that Paul did not see
Jesus said the Old Law would
not pass until it was all fulfilled, Mat. 5:17-18. But Paul taught that the
resurrection was a constituent element of that Old Law; therefore the Law could
not pass until the resurrection occurred.
Few would doubt that the
resurrection is the time of redemption. Ephesians 1:13-14 says the miraculous
gifts of the Spirit had been given "until the redemption of the purchased
possession." In Luke 21:22-32, Jesus spoke of his coming in the fall of
1.] Jesus said that in
2.] Jesus told the disciples
that when they saw the events surrounding
Some say this redemption
speaks simply of the saving of their physical lives from any further
persecution. But if this were true, and if it be argued that the fall of
Many commentators
acknowledge that Romans 13:11-13 speaks of the fall of
The same is true in 1 Peter
4:7, 17. Peter was speaking to brethren in
Furthermore, as we have seen
in Isaiah 2-4; 65-66; and Zechariah 12-14 God promised salvation for
Our point is that when Jesus
said that in the fall of
3.] In Luke
There is perfect harmony
therefore between Jesus and Paul in regard to fulfillment and passing of the
Law, redemption and resurrection. The Old Law had to be fulfilled before it
could pass. Jesus said the passing of the Old System would bring redemption;
redemption equaled resurrection.
Paul taught that the passing
of the Old Law would be the time of the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:54-56
the apostle said that the predictions of the resurrection, found in Isaiah 25:8
and Hosea 13:14 would be fulfilled when the sting of death and strength of sin
was destroyed. Specifically, he said "the strength of sin is the law"
vs. 56. Reader, what law gave sin its strength?
Does the Gospel give sin its
strength? It must if the resurrection does not occur until the end of the
Christian Age for it is the Gospel that is currently God's only law. Thus,
since resurrection equals liberty from the strength of sin, i.e. "the
Law", if the resurrection comes at the end of the Christian Age then
resurrection must be liberty from the Gospel! Who can believe such a thing?
The Gospel is God's power to
save, Rom. 1:16. The problem is "the law of sin and death"
Paul uses the term "the
law" 117 times in his writings; 110 times that term refers to the Old
Covenant. In the seven times that it does not refer to that Old Law the context
very clearly identifies what law is under consideration. It is evident therefore
that when Paul uses the term "the law" in 1 Corinthians 15 that his
consistent use of the term should guide our understanding. Is it possible to
define the Old Covenant as the strength of sin? Indeed.
In Romans
In chapter 7 of the same
book Paul said:
"I was alive without
the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the
commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin
taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" vs.
9-11.
What death is Paul
describing here? Is it biological death of his physical body? Patently not. Yet
he said he had died. What law was Paul describing so graphically in terms of
sin and death? What law gave sin such a hold on Paul? It was the law that said
"thou shalt not covet" vs. 7 --the Old Covenant of Israel.
This is the law that Paul
labored under and that created the "body of this death"
In direct contrast to the
"law of the Spirit of life in Christ," the Old Law could not deliver
from the "law of sin and death,"
In his second letter to the
Corinthians this apostle further dealt with that Old Law. While the law
"written and engraven in stones" was glorious in design and purpose,
it nonetheless was a "ministration of death" 3:7. The apostle spoke
of his then present hope for the full passing of that Ministration of Death,
As he expressed in Galatians
"If there had been a law given that could have given life, truly
righteousness would have been by the Law," Gal.
Now if the Old Law was a
ministration of death what would deliverance from that death be? Would it be
life from the dead? Would it be resurrection? And if the Old Law was concerned
with "carnal ordinances" Heb.
In all of these passages it
is evident that the strength of sin was the Old Covenant. Please follow us
here:
1.] Jesus said that all of
the Law had to be fulfilled before it could pass. Paul said the resurrection
would be when the Old Testament predictions, Isa. 25; Hos. 13 were fulfilled. Thus,
the Old Law could not pass until the resurrection occurred. If the resurrection
has not occurred then the Old Law still stands.
2.] Paul said the
resurrection would be deliverance from the strength of sin. The Old Law was the
strength of sin. Therefore resurrection would be full deliverance from the Old
Law.
3.] Deliverance from the Old
Law, the Ministration of Death, would come therefore when it was fulfilled by
full deliverance to the New Covenant Law of Life in Christ Jesus. If the New
Covenant of Christ has been fully delivered and the Old Law has been fully
taken away then the strength of sin has been destroyed and resurrection life is
a reality in Christ! To put it another way, since the Old Law was the
Ministration of Death and the New Law of Christ is the Law of Life,
resurrection became a reality with the full establishment of Christ's New
Covenant!
While the Old Law does not
exist today, sin does. And sin still separates just as it did for Jews under
the Ministration of Death or Gentiles "who have not the Law" Romans
If the Old Covenant has not
been fulfilled then the Old Covenant still stands. But if the Old Covenant
still stands there is no current deliverance from the law of sin and death.
What good therefore has Christ done? What then is "the law of the Spirit
of life in Christ" Rom. 8:3, and FROM WHAT DOES IT DELIVER?
In John 5:24-29 Jesus makes
it clear that it is hearing his voice that gives life from death.
"Hearing" his voice is a euphemism for obeying his word, thus
obedience to Christ's word gives life from the dead. This is what the Old
Testament scriptures predicted, John 5:39ff, and what has become reality
through the Gospel. It is not the Old Covenant that saves but Jesus.
This brief study of the law
and resurrection has demonstrated that the modern view that the Law passed at
the Cross is erroneous since Jesus said all of the law had to be fulfilled
before it could pass and one of the constituent elements of the law was the
resurrection. If the resurrection has not occurred then the Old Law still
stands. Further, we have shown that Paul describes resurrection as deliverance
from the Old Law that gave sin its strength; and deliverance to the Gospel of
Christ which gives life.
All of this fully agrees
with what we have seen in regard to John 5:24-29 and its movement from the
beginning of the harvest/resurrection to the full resurrection. There was a
transitional period of time when the Old Covenant was growing old, Heb. 8:13
and thus "ready to pass away" and the time of complete revelation and
confirmation of the Gospel. Those coming out from under the Law into Christ
were experiencing life from the dead. This also included Gentiles who, while
not under the Law, nonetheless were dead in sin, Ephesians 2:1f, but who were
made alive by "being raised together with him by faith in the operation of
God" Col. 2:12, in baptism.
When one today realizes the
absolute necessity for the fulfillment of the Old Law and Paul's discussion of
the relationship of the passing of the Law to the resurrection it demands that
we see the resurrection as full deliverance from sin, a spiritual resurrection.
It also demands a fresh view of God's relationship with
God could not reject
THE PROPHETIC BACKGROUND OF JOHN 5
With few exceptions
commentators agree that Daniel 12 and Ezekiel 37 form the prophetic background
for Jesus' prediction of the resurrection in John 5:28-29. And this can hardly
be disputed. Interestingly, a few commentators, aware of the constraints of Daniel
12, deny any connection with John 5:28-29.
Jim McGuiggan
and Dub McClish,
ministers in the church of Christ, see very clearly that Daniel 12 predicted
events associated with the end of Israel's world in A.D. 70--not the end of
time. That this is true can hardly be denied. But the association of the
resurrection in Daniel 12 and the fall of
The parallels between Daniel
12 and Matthew 24 fully establishes that Jesus believed Daniel's prediction was
to be fulfilled in his generation. Daniel predicted the time of the Great
Tribulation, 12:1; Jesus that would be in his generation, 24:21. Daniel
predicted the salvation of the elect and the resurrection, 12:1-2; Jesus said
the elect would be gathered at his coming in his generation, 24:30-34. Daniel
said his predictions involved the time of the end, vs. 4, 9; Jesus said the end
of the age, 24:3, would come when the gospel had been preached into all the
world, 24:14-- in his generation, 24:34! Daniel predicted the Abomination of
Desolation,
With these incontrovertible
parallels before us, when it is admitted that Daniel 12 lies at the foundation
of John 5:28f then Daniel's statement that the resurrection would occur at the
time of the demise of
Ezekiel 37:12-14 is equally
definitive; notice that the resurrection would be accomplished when Jehovah
sent the Spirit upon
If the Holy Spirit's
miraculous work has been finished then the resurrection has occurred! If the
resurrection has not occurred the miraculous work of the Spirit should still be
evident! This is clear because it was the miraculous work of the Spirit that
would "lift up your mortal bodies" Rom. 8:11. [This is the same
"body" that in vs. 9-10 Paul said was already dead; was Paul writing
to dead people?!] It was the miraculous work of the Spirit that was the
"earnest of the inheritance" Eph.
if that resurrection has not occurred but God has taken back the earnest, what
guarantee do we have?
In reality, the fact that
there are no miracles today stands as proof positive that the resurrection has
occurred, salvation is real, and God kept his Word!
When it is realized that the
resurrection was to occur in "the last days," of Israel, not time,
per Ezekiel 37 and Joel 2; when it is realized that the resurrection was to
occur when the power of the holy people was completely destroyed, Dan. 12:2;
when it is realized that Jesus appeared in the last days, Heb. 9:26, and
foretold the complete destruction of the power of the holy people in his
generation, Mat. 24, it is abundantly clear that when Jesus in John 5 spoke of
the resurrection and said "the hour is coming" he was not speaking of
some distant time but was truly speaking of his generation. Jesus was acutely
aware of his mission to "confirm the promises made to the fathers"
Rom. 15:8. His appearance was not to say the promises would be delayed
additional millennia but to announce their imminent fulfillment.
John 5:28-29 therefore, when seen from its prophetic background, had to occur within clearly defined chronological parameters. It matters not what a person's concept of the resurrection might be; the Biblically defined chronological parameters for the resurrection cannot be ignored or rationalized.
A final question and
thought: just what constitutes Biblical resurrection? There are several
constituent elements. When we examine each of these elements in light of the
New Testament evidence it is abundantly evident that there definitely was an
"already-but-not-yet" aspect to the resurrection. It also becomes
apparent that there is but one resurrection that is the focus of Biblical
eschatology. And this correlates perfectly with our posit concerning John
To help us in this
investigation we will list the element of resurrection and then compare 1
Corinthians 15 with Colossians 2-3, with attention to other passages as well,
to demonstrate not only the spiritual nature of the resurrection but the
already-but-not-yet-aspect as well.
RESURRECTION IS:
1.] Putting off one body;
taking another. 1 Corinthians 15:35-44; cf. Col. 2:11-12; 3:5-10. In
Corinthians the apostle says "you do not sow the body that shall be"
vs. 37; in Colossians he says they had "put off the body of the
flesh"
Are these different "bodies"?
2.] The change from
corruptibility to incorruptibility, 1 Corinthians 15:42, 54-56; Col. 3:5; Eph.
4:22-25. In Corinthians Paul says resurrection is the passage from
corruptibility to incorruptibility. In Ephesians and Colossians he speaks of
their way of life without Christ as the life that was "corrupt according
to deceitful lusts"; their new life in Christ was
"a new man"
This concept is also found
in 1 Peter 1. The writer reminded his readers that they had not been redeemed
by "corruptible things"; things typical of the Old Covenant cultus of
3.] Raising from death to life, 1 Corinthians 15:42f; Col. 2:13; 3:f; also Ephesians 2:1f. It is very obvious from Colossians that the raising from death to life involved the forgiveness of sin. Many fail to see that in Corinthians Paul is dealing with the same issue when he challenges those who were denying that "the dead ones" would be resurrected. [Those who had fallen asleep before Christ, therefore Old Testament saints, vs. 20]. He challenged them with implications of their doctrine that they did not accept; one of which was that if the dead ones do n