Defense of the Orthodox View of the Second Coming of Christ
In Response to the Teachings of Full Preterism
By Rev. Mitchell Dick - Grace Protestant Reformed Church
"But
if FP is arbitrary and prejudiced in its interpretation, it also falls prey to
the criticism of being arbitrary and also inconsistent and in its
hermeneutic."
Full Preterism (FP) is the
teaching that the second coming of Jesus is past. Jesus came, according to FP,
in 70 A.D. in the destruction of
The following is an
examination of the claims of FP. It is written with some in mind whom, I fear,
have been looking at Scripture lately entirely through FP eyes. It is a few
observations, exegetical and doctrinal made by a pastor. This pastor, in the
love of Christ, writes to persuade some to look at Scripture again through
classic Christianity's creedal eyes. These "eyes", I do firmly believe,
though never perfect, have been given clear sight by the Father in heaven; of
the fundamentals of the faith once delivered to all saints (Jude 3).
So that we can believe and
hope, together with the one faith and hope of the Church of all ages (Ephesians
4: 1-6) in what has ever been the one and only blessed hope of true, and always
hope-full believers-the glorious future appearing of the great God and our
Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2: 13), may God bless this presentation, and our
discussion of it.
My examination will proceed
along three lines. First, I would set forth the truth of the concept and
creation in Scripture called "the new heavens and earth." Second, I
would speak to the matter of what in Scripture is called "the coming of
the Lord." Third, I would reflect upon the importance of this matter of
eschatology for our faith, life, love, and hope.
I. The New Heavens and
Earth
The concept and creation of
a "new heavens and earth" is mentioned in passages such as Isaiah 65:
17-25; 66:22- 24; II Peter 3; and Revelation 21. I would make two main points
about this "new heavens and new earth." First, that it is the
creation of a perfected cosmos. Second, that is place of the
glorified eternal life of the believers in Jesus Christ.
A. Perfected Cosmos
As to the first: the new
heavens and earth is the creation of a perfected cosmos, we consider first of
all the fact that this new heavens and earth is indeed a place of cosmic, or
universal scope. FP contends that the passing away of the heavens and the earth
and the creation of the new is the passing away, simply and entirely, of ''the
Old covenant world of Old Israel" "in order to create the
By no stretch of sound
biblical exegesis can the concept "new heavens and earth" in
Scripture refer to anything less than an entirely new creation. The Hebrew
scholar Girdlestone, commenting on the use of the Hebrew word for earth
(Eretz), mentions in his book Synonyms of the OT, p.262, that "when the
earth is spoken of in connection with heaven (as in Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 49:13,
and 65:17), it must have the larger meaning" (That is: it must refer not
to a special territory, but to the whole world, MD). And when speaking of the
Hebrew word Shamaim (heavens), Girdlestone (pp265, 267) speaks of different
referents such as the atmosphere, or the starry heavens-but never once does he
mention that the Hebrew concept Shamaim refers to some Hebrew world, kingdom,
or covenant. Never is there in Girdlestone's exegesis and explanation, any
conclusion made that "heavens and earth" only symbolize spiritual
realities. The only difference of interpretation in the use of, 'heavens"
and "earth" is in the scope, the precise location of the physical
reality to which they refer. Also Gesenius, in his renowned Hebrew lexicon,
knows of no "symbolic" interpretation of heaven and earth.
The context of passages in
which the concept of new heavens and earth are used always plainly teaches that
a cosmic reality is intended. Isaiah 65 passage refers, for example, to wolves
and lambs, lions and bullocks, dust and serpents in the new heavens and new
earth. There are new relationships among these creatures, to be sure, among these
earthly creatures. But this only indicates that they are "new" as is
the new heavens and earth of which they are a part. There is no indication that
these are only "symbolic" or "non-material" creatures, and
that the harmony and end of the curse which is implied by their new heaven and
earth status and relationship is only symbolic, as FP would have us believe, of
a new covenant which has no literal, material, cosmic significance. These
creatures of God will be in the new heavens and new earth. They are part of it.
And when the heavens and the earth are called to sing when the Lord shall have
comforted his people and have had mercy upon his afflicted (Isaiah 49: 13),
this is the whole literal created cosmos. There is no sound exegetical reason
to understand otherwise.
Revelation 21, which speaks
of a new heaven (singular) and new earth is also, clearly, cosmic. Its
creation, for example, involves the "passing away" of the first
heaven and the first earth so that there is no more sea (v. 1). II Peter 3, as
well, addresses the cosmic aspect of the new heavens and earth when it speaks
of the day of the Lord coming in which "the heavens shall pass away with a
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heart, the earth also and
the works that are therein shall be burned up" (v.l0).
This clearly speaks of the
real stuff of which the real created universe is made, and all of it, being
destroyed. It clearly implies that the new heavens and new earth for which
believers look according to God's promise (v. 13), is made out of the same
stuff, and will be a new universe.
The second outstanding
feature of this new cosmic creation is that it is perfect.
The first creation was a
good creation of God (Genesis 1, 2). This new creation will be eminently good
and glorious and never liable again to imperfection, disruption, disharmony,
death, and curse. This is the plain teaching of Isaiah 65 passage which speaks
of wolf and lamb feeding together, vegetarian lions, and harmless serpents; all
of the creatures of which "shall not hurt nor destroy" in all God's
holy mountain (v.25).
This same new heavens and
earth creature-harmony is referred to in Isaiah 11: 6-9.
How this new creation is
made is important to understand. The creation of new heavens and earth is
twofold. It involves conflagration. It involves conflagration which
is redemption.
Conflagration. The new
heavens and new earth, created at the coming and final day of the Lord, is
established by the burning up of the old earth, and a new creative re-
fashioning of that creation by the hand of God after the old has been purged of
all sin and the effects of sin.
II Peter 3 speaks of the
creation of a new heavens and earth at the coming of the day of the Lord (v.
10ff). The plain sense of the passage is that this occurs at the dissolution of
the physical heavens and earth, and is the creation of an entire new cosmos, a
new heavens and new earth. The day of the Lord, which will come, we are told,
as a thief in the night, is one in which the heavens shall pass away with a
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heart, the earth also and
the works that are therein shall be burned up (v. 10). This coming day of God
will be one of fire "wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat" (v. 12). The destruction of
this heavens and earth is compared with the destruction of ' 'the world that
then was", v.6, at the time of the flood. The heavens and the earth which
are now, by the same word (by which the heavens were of old, and the earth
standing out of the water and in the water (v.5) are kept in store, reserved
unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, v. 7 .
FP tries with might and
main to escape the clear sense and full force of the inspired Peter's words. At
issue is FP's whole doctrinal house. Obviously, at 70 AD, when, it is
contended, Christ came, and the new heavens and earth were created, there was
no literal burning up of the universe. So II Peter 3, which the
Don Preston's
interpretation of II Peter 3 is a glaring and appalling example of the desperate
attempt of Preterists to fit everything into their Preterist glove. In an
article on the subject of "The Passing of the Elements": 2 Peter
"My argument is
simple: Paul wrote the same thing about the passing of the "elements"
of the world as did Peter (2 Peter
As simple as that! Paul
meant one thing about the passing of the elements of the world. Therefore,
Peter, in 2 Peter 3, must mean the same as Paul! About this, several comments:
First, this is no exegesis
of the passage in Peter. It is eisegesis, a reading into the passage what one
wants it to say. It is committing the logical fallacy of "begging the
question,” assuming as true what needs to be proven to be true. It is dishonor
to the Word of God, which must be handled with respect and listened to!
Second, one could just as
well counter, using the same reasoning as
Third, it is the case, in fact
that the Spirit through Paul is addressing of one thing and the Spirit through
Peter is speaking of another thing. Whereas Paul specifically and pointedly
and obviously in Galatians and Colossians, speaks of “elements of the
world" under which those prior to Christ were in bondage, and from which
Christians have been liberated, and, therefore, specifically, and pointedly
and obvious1y is speaking of the glorious blessedness of the new covenant,
Peter in II Peter 3 makes no such reference to these kinds of
"elements of the world", namely principles of the Old Testament law,
nor is Peter speaking of the establishment of the "new covenant", but
of creation of the new heavens and new earth-the exact correspondence of
which two (new covenant and new creation), indeed is what needs to be proven,
and not merely assumed by FP!
Rather, in the context
of II Peter 3 itself, there is clear reference to a world, a
physical world, just like the world that then was before the flood, v.6, which,
upon the coming of the Lord, will bum up. This "burning up", this
being "reserved unto fire" is something which must be taken
literally. There is in this passage no ground for a "spiritualizing"
of this "burning". FP latches on to "elements" here, which
has, it contends, in other places, a meaning which suits its system, and then
forces a "spiritualized" interpretation. But if FP is arbitrary
and prejudiced in its interpretation, it also falls prey to the criticism of
being arbitrary and also inconsistent and in its hermeneutic. For if
"elements" here is spiritual, so is the "burning", so is
the "fervent heat", so are the "works" of men which also
shall be burned up, so are the heavens, and so is the earth which are to be
"burned," and ultimately so are the heavens and earth which are
now, the world that then was, the Deluge which destroyed that (spiritual) place
(v.6), and the very beginning of the creation, v.4 which the day of the Lord
brings to an end!
The desperation of FP to
find an interpretation that fits into its 70 A.D. perception, while
trying to dodge the light of II Peter 3 is seen in another article by
v.21: "And the LORD
smelled a sweet savory; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse
the ground anymore for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil
from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I
have done.
v.22: "While the earth
remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and
day and night shall not cease."
An interpretation which
would find in this passage irrefutable evidence that the Lord would never
destroy the earth is no interpretation of the text. It is a reading into the
text what one wants it to say. The Lord says here that He will not again smite
any more every living thing as He had done (v.21.). This could mean that He
would never send a flood upon the earth again-so that in that manner the
Lord would never visit the earth in judgment. But that is not the idea. The
idea is that the Lord will not destroy the earth at all as long as it
remains. And the reason He gives is that whereas once, due to man's sinfulness,
He would show Himself wrathful (Genesis 6:5), now, though there be this same
sinfulness (8:21), ye He will show Himself the God of mercy in refraining from
destroying the earth so long as it remains.
1) This is not what the passage
says. Verse 22 specifically says: while the earth remains there shall be
seed time and harvest, etc... The Hebrew reads literally "Until all the
days of the earth..." there shall be seed time and harvest, etc..."
.It does not say that the earth, this earth, will exist forever. .It only says
that "until all the days of the earth" there shall be seed time and
harvest, etc... The phrase "until all the days of the earth" might
mean, in fact, that "until all the days" are fulfilled, and the time
which has been appointed for final judgment has come, there shall be no more
preliminary destruction of the earth as in the Deluge." This would be the
traditional understanding of the text in light of the rest of the Bible.
2) Nothing in the passage
in Genesis 8 shows, as Preterists desire it show, that there will be sin on
this earth forever. There will be sin on this earth "while the earth
remains," "until all the days of the earth," but the text does
not say this is forever.
3) The rest of the
Scripture clearly speaks of the destruction of the earth, of the kosmos (II
Peter 3; Hebrews
FP denies that the
establishment of the new heavens and new earth involves the conflagration of
the physical universe and the creation, out of that, of the new. It contends
that it involves, instead, the abrogation of the old covenant, and the
establishment of the new covenant.
This is brought out in FP's
interpretation of various phrases in the book of Hebrews which speak of heavens
and earth and either their shaking or their passing away. This has nothing to
do with "physical worlds" says FP, but with "covenant
worlds" (cf Don Preston, art. "World
Without End").
A passage like Hebrews 1:10-12,
for example, is thought to teach that the folding up of the heavens and earth,
and the changing of them, is the destruction of the old covenant, and the
establishment of the new. The passage reads:
And thou, Lord; in the
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works
of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax
old as doth a garment,' and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they
shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. "
To any believing, Bible
honoring reader this passage can not refer to the abrogation of one covenant
and the establishment a new. As follows:
Here (and in Psalm
102:25-27 of which this passage is a quotation) is clear reference to the
future destruction of the universe. The Lord Himself destroys what He, in the
beginning has made. Since "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1) the Lord
made a physical universe, the "perishing" of it (Psalm 102:26), and
the "folding up" of it must mean, according to sound exegetical
principles, the perishing and folding up that same physical universe.
The purpose of this passage
in Hebrews is the same as the purpose of the entire first chapter: to
establish the preeminency of the Christ of God over all the cosmos!
Here, it is stated that the
Son, whom God hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds, v.2, is the same Lord, v.10 and God (Psalm 102:24,25) Who made all
things, and also, according to His good pleasure and power, shall destroy
them.
Here is trumpeted the
supremacy of the sovereign, cosmic, creating Christ, the very Son of God, the
brightness of the glory of God, the express image of His person, v.3!
This cosmic creating
Christ, in the mention of His causing the earth He has made to perish, the Word
presents as "folding up" the creation as a vesture so that it shall
be "changed." John
Owen comments on this passage as follows:
"The work which was of
old in the creation of the world, and that which shall be in the mutuation or
abolition of it,--which is not less an effect of infinite power than the former,--are
ascribed unto the Lord Christ. Whatever the work be, he compares it to a
garment no more to be used, or at least not to be used in the same kind wherein
it was before; and the work itself to the folding up or rolling up of such a
garment,--intimating the greatness of him by whom this work shall be performed,
and the facility of the work unto him. The whole creation is as a garment,
wherein he shows his power clothed unto men; whence in particular he is said to
clothe himself with light as with a garment. And in it is the hiding of his
power. Hid it is, as a man is hid with a garment; not that he should not be
seen at all, but that he should not be seen perfectly and as he is. It shows
the man, and he is known by it; but also it hides him, that he is not perfectly
or fully seen. So are the works of creation unto God. He so far makes them his
garment or clothing as in them to give out some instances of his power and
wisdom; but he is also hid in them, in that by them no creature can come to the
full and perfect knowledge of him. Now, when this work shall cease, and God
shall unclothe or unveil all his glory to his saints, and they shall know him perfectly,
see him as he is, so far as a created nature is capable of that comprehension,
then will he lay them aside and fold them up, at least as to that use, as
easily as a man lays aside a garment that he will wear or use no more. This
lies in the metaphor." (Hebrews, vol. 3, p.209).
The FP thinks it has
justification for its interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12 in light of Hebrews
No exegesis will help the
FP view. But balanced, contextual explanation of the Word will surely favor the
Reformed perspective of the cosmic covenant and the new heavens and new earth
(cf. John Owen, for a balanced view of both Hebrews I: 10-12 and Hebrews 8:13,
in his Hebrews, vol. 3, p.210, and vol. 6, p. I 76, 7).
The equating of the
establishment of the new heavens and earth with the establishment of the new
covenant, is, I believe, a fatal exegetical and principal flaw of FP. FP needs
this "covenant principle", of course, to justify its view that
Christ came in 70 A.D. and inaugurated then the new heavens and earth. The
"covenant principle" is used by them to explain the apparent
"oldness", still, of the creation. It is used by them to explain that
the possession of resurrection bodies is not important, and not taught in
Scripture. It is used to explain why there is still physical death, and sorrow,
and sighing. The explanation? Salvation is spiritual! Life in new covenant
fellowship with God is the thing! Behold in Christ, the Christ Who is come, all
things are new! And through faith the believer can be now so enrapt with this
new life with God in the new heavens and earth so that the earth and his
present disease and their present deformities do not so much matter.
We beg to differ! Matter
matters. The cosmos matters. The body matters. Because God's covenant
matters, and God's covenant was established in the way of incarnation, matter
matters.
The traditional Reformed
view is as follows.
First, the old covenant/new covenant
transition was established/or the Church in and through the atoning
blood of Jesus, and realized in the Church on the day of
Pentecost (cf Jesus' words at the institution of the Supper, '~This is the new
covenant in my blood...", and Acts 2: 14ff). The Jews as a nation
were rejected already in the cross of Christ's judgment. The destruction of
Second, the covenant is
cosmic. And the cosmos has to do with covenant. God so loved, in covenant love,
the world, the created cosmos, and gave His Son for it (John
To be sure,
Conflagration which is redemption.
The reason that the new heavens and new earth is cosmic, and is a perfect
cosmos, is because redemption embraces the heaven and earth. Even as when God
created the heavens and the earth and even as when in the fall the effect,
the death, was "cosmic", affecting the whole (Genesis 3), so
redemption embraces the whole. The whole creation which groans and travails in
pain together until now, waits for the adoption, the redemption of the body,
which is nothing less than deliverance from the bondage of corruption and a
participation in the glorious liberty of the children of God (Romans 8:19-23)
Cornelis Venema, in his
excellent work entitled "The Promise of the Future," writes:
Sin has disrupted the
harmony and peace between the Triune God and his creatures, a disruption that
encompasses heaven and earth. Even in heaven itself, the enemies of God have
rebelled against his gracious rule. Indeed the rebellion of the creature
against the Creator began in heaven and spilled over to the earth.
Consequently, when God's work of redemption reaches its consummation. not only
will every rebellious creature be cast out of heaven, but the earth itself will
be cleansed of every vestige of sin. Heaven and earth, rather than being
estranged from each other, will once more be reunited in a new heaven and new
earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3: 13) (p.459)
Venema writes further:
The future of the
believing community will be one in which the original harmony between heaven
and earth is restored. The peace or shalom that mark the life of the renewed
creation will be expressed in the reconciliation of heaven and earth. Heaven,
the place of God's special dwelling, will come down to the earth and God will
dwell in the midst of his people. The promise of the future for believers finds
its focus in heaven. but it does not exclude the earth. Rather, all things will
be united in Christ. whether things in heaven or things upon the earth (Eph.
And:
The creation will be
wholly sanctified cleansed of every stain and remainder of sin. The new heavens
and the new earth will be more glorious and resplendent of God's power, wisdom,
and grace. that the creation at its beginning. Once more but now in a
.;surpassing wav, the creation will be a temple fit for the dwelling of God
with his people, a place suitable for the eniovent of communion and friendship
between the Creator and the creature. (460)
B. Glorified Eternal Life
of the Believers in Christ
The New heavens and Earth
is the place of eternal blessedness. At the prospect of it the people of God
are called to be glad and rejoice. And the reason is because the new heavens
and new earth shall be the creation of
Believers who presently
bless God for every .spiritual blessing in Christ," (Eph1: 3), will enter into the
perfection of these blessings in the life to come. Every vestige and remainder
of sin will be utterly expunged. Every obstacle to ,fellowship with the triune
God will be removed. No impediment or weight of sin will stand in the wav of
wholehearted communion and love for God. " (p.470)
FP are obviously faced with
a lot of problems when it comes to explaining how, in light of the clear
teaching of Scripture of the "blessed hope" of the believer, that this,
this present life of sin and death, which FP claims is the new heavens and new
earth. could be the consummation of that hope! One tactic is to find a text
which might seem to teach the presence of sin and death in the new
heavens and new earth and to explain what the clear teaching of the Bible on
this matter. in "light" of what might. admittedly, be a difficult
passage.
Such as Isaiah 65:20. This
reads: There shall be no more thence an infant of days. nor an old man that
hath not filled his' days: for the child shall die an hundred years' old, but
the sinner being! an hundred years old shall be accursed
The FP might have the
audacity to suggest that that means there will be sin and death in the new heavens
and earth. But Scripture must decide. and it indeed condemns such a notion. and
for the following: reasons:
1. The Bible clearly says
in other places that in the new heavens and earth in the final state and
condition of the Church of Jesus Christ. there will be no more sin and death.
That there is no more sin
is clear from the fact that this is the place where righteousness (and nothing:
else!) dwells. And where sinners shall have no place, for there shall in no
wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination,
or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life (Revelation
That there is no more death
is clear from the fact that there is no more sin. It is also clear from a
passage such as Isaiah 25: 8 (quoted in I Corinthians 15) which speaks of death
being swallowed up in victory in the day of the Lord. It is also clear from
Revelation 21:4 which is the very New Testament explanation of the joyful state
depicted in Isaiah 65 as it says: "And God shall wipe away all tears
from their eves: and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passing
away." The Lord Jesus. sneaking of the children who are accounted worthy
to obtain "that" (new) world- says that then and there they can not
die anymore (Luke 20:36).
And the honor of that same
Lord Jesus is that He must reign- till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
And that last enemy, according: to 1 Corinthians.
2. As to the interpretation
of Isaiah 65:20 I offer the following:
1) In light of the above
texts, v.20 cannot mean there is sin and death in the new heavens and new
earth.
2) In light of the fact
that God Himself will rejoice in this
3) The first part of the
verse, which reads lit., "From there" shall be no more an infant of
days, etc...", may be interpreted (as by E. Y. Young): "From there
may refer to Jerusalem, the thought being that There will not be from there
(i.e. taken away from there by death) a suckling with respect to days. Thus.
death will not take away from there (i.e. from the
4) As to the expression
"for the child shall die an hundred years old_" this is to be
understood according to the main point which the prophet would make. now
poetically. that the new heavens and new earth will be one of unmitigated joy.
It describes the fact that there will be no death for the child! Just as it is
impossible for a child to die when an hundred years old- for then the child
would no longer be a child, so there will be no death for the child!
5) That the text sneaks of
a sinner being an hundred years old, who nevertheless shall be accursed. is not
to be understood as if there were sinners in the new heavens and earth. The
text is in fact contrasting the state of those in
There seems in fact to be
here a contrast begun in v.13 between the elect servants of God and the wicked
who forsake God. That a sinner is mentioned in this context does not suggest
that the sinner lives side by side with the saints in the new heavens. That a
sinner might have a lot of earthy years, but no blessing, only curse, serves to
contrast the blessedness of the believer In glory with the sinner who perished
under the wrath of God (cf. Isaiah 66:22-24).
6) This interpretation tits
the context. w21-25, in which the blessedness of the glory is further described
as being rid of all semblance and form of the vanity and death of this life. so
that even in the animal realm there is no death, and nothing and no one, not
AIDS, nor cancer, nor heart disease, hurting in all my holy mountain (v.25).
In the eternal glorified
state, condition, and place of the new heavens and new earth will be new
believers! The "newness" of the believers will involve there having
new. resurrection bodies. When the Lord comes again. there is a general
resurrection of both the just and the unjust. John 5:28.29. There is for believers
then. a "redemption" of our bodies (Romans
Since FP advocates the view
that the Parousia of Christ was in 70 A.D., it is forced to confess that there
must have been then a resurrection, of sorts, then. FP, however, denies the
orthodox confession of the resurrection of the body in that- for one thing. it
denies that the resurrection involves our own physical bodies. As the
establishment of the new heavens and new earth is a spiritual-covenantal event,
so the resurrection in 70 A.D. was, if It occurred, of a spiritual sort. and by
spiritual read "non-physical." This is no small matter. but.
according! to the Christian Church. grievous heresy. For the Westminster Larger
Catechism, 0 & A 86 reads "
The communion in glory
with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after
death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received
into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory,
waiting, for the, full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue
untied to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last
day they be again united to their souls.
And Westminister's
Confession of Faith calls the resurrected body of believers the
"selfsame" body which they had on the earth. And the Heidelberg
Catechism speaks of our comfort knowing that in the resurrection this my
body, being raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and
made like unto the glorious body of Christ " (Lord's Day 22).
Speaking on the importance
of maintaining the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection of the body, Venema,
in "The Promise of the Future," writes
The biblical expectation
for the future of believers is not primarily focused upon what is often called
the intermediate state Much less is it the immortality of the soul. The
spotlight of the bible falls upon the resurrection of the body, that is, the
restoration and renewal of the whole person, body and soul, in a renewed state
of integrity within the context of a new heavens and earth. (p.364).
Venema goes on:
This is in fact one of
the distinctive features of the biblical view of the future and of the
salvation that is obtained for us in Christ. The biblical account of creation records that the
Triune God created Adam a 'living soul', formed from the dust of the earth
(Gen. 2.7). Our creatureliness in its wholeness and integrity always
includes the body, which was created originally good. Redemption from the curse
of God against sin likewise addresses the whole of our need, body and soul.
This is the reason the reformation confession, the
Venema in a footnote adds:
In many dualistic
worldview which sharply distinguish the spiritual and the material
(Manichaeism, some forms of ancient Greek philosophy) and in many monistic
worldviews that deny the ultimate reality of the material world (Gnosticism,
Hinduism, Buddhism), the teaching of a resurrection of the body has no
legitimate or proper place. The biblical teaching of the resurrection of the
body has an appropriate home within the framework of the biblical understanding
of creation and redemption, with redemption as a restoration and renewal, and
not a denial, of creation. (p.364,5)
Speaking to the nature of
the resurrection body Venema notes the following:
First, we can draw some
conclusions from the resurrection of Christ's body, for the changing of our
vile body in the resurrection is said to be a fashioning like unto Christ's
glorious body…Phil 3:21. The empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus on earth
tell us that though Jesus' body after His resurrection was different (He could
pass through walls), yet there was substantial likeness: it was the same body,
and He took pains to prove this to the disciples.
Second, we can draw
conclusions from passages which speak more directly of the nature of the
resurrection body. I Tim 2: 18: false teachers taught that the resurrection had
"largely taken place.". These had apparently spiritualized the
resurrection. Phil 3:20,21 teach that our own humble body will be glorified:
our present bodies exhibit all the marks of sin and curse: weak, decaying,
fragile, and temporary; our resurrection bodies: all the marks and benefits of
Christ's saving work: strong, incorruptible, indestructible, enduring... In 2 Corinthians
5: 1-9 believers body are compared to an earthly tent which after it is torn
down is replaced by a building form God a house not made with hands, eternal in
the heavens, vs.
Commenting at length on the
most extensive passage, I Corinthians 15, Venema explains as follows:
Conclusions:
1. Paul is answering the
question: what kind of body do they come, 35.
2. First the apostle uses
the metaphor of the see that is sown and its eventual germination and bringing
forth of fruit to illustrate the connection between the present body and the
resurrection body. However great the difference between the seed sown and the fruit
it eventually bears the seed and the fruit are of one kind. . . Then the
apostle elaborates at some length upon the obvious differences in the kinds of
flesh that distinguishes various creatures. The resurrection of the body is
likened to the dying of a seed in order that it might come to life in the form
of its fruit. This means that the resurrection body is of a distinctively human
kind. When God raises believers from the dead. their bodies, however new and
changed, remain distinctively and peculiarly human, according to their kind.
3. Second, a series of
contrasts are drawn between the natural and the spiritual body. The earthly
body is sown perishable: in dishonor: in weakness: is natural... the body that
shall be raised is raised imperishable: in glory; in power; is heavenly.
Summarizing Ihese contrasts
Venema notes: p.374:
These terms- do not
contras- a body that is made up of "material stuff’ with a body that is
made up of 'spiritual stuff’, as if to suggest that the resurrection body will
me immaterial or non-fleshly. Rather, they distinguish sharply the present body
as one which belongs to the present age which is passing away and under the
curse of God, and the resurrection body which belongs to the life of the Spirit
in the age to come. The distinction is not between material and immaterial. but
between two kinds of bodies. that answer to the present age and the age to
come.”
4. Third. in the closing
section the description of these respective bodies is based on the contrast
between the two original bearers or these bodies: the first man, Adam and the
second man, Christ. Adam who is from the earth is intimated with the earthly
bodies of those that bear his image. Adam represents the first humanity which
is under the dominion and liability of sin, meaning it is subject to perishing,
dishonor, weakness,. death. Christ, who is "from heaven" is closely
related to the heavenly bodies who bear his image: they are the second humanity
under the dominion and blessing of salvation, the recipient of imperishability,
glory, power and never ending life. The resurrection body of believers will be
conformed to that of Christ's glory; it will not be wholly dissimilar to the
present body but will have similarity and continuity. Thus it will be the same
body, but glorified, and a real body, material and fleshly but so conformed to
the image and glory of Christ that no vestige of the power and destructive
effects of sin will remain.: vv54-57.
This resurrection glory,
Venema goes on, is linked to the resurrection and renewal of all things:
If the salvation of
believers includes the restoration of body and soul to a state of integrity and
wholeness, then it must also include the full restoration of the creation. Just
as Adam was originally formed from the dust of the earth and placed within the
creation-temple of God in which to serve and glorify the Creator, so also in
redemption the new humanity will be restored to a life and service under the
headship and dominion of the second Adam, in a newly cleansed creation temple.
So Venema concludes. p.378:
This intimate link
between the believer's resurrection and the renewal of the creation allows us
to see the unity between individual and general (or cosmic) eschatology. It
also joins together the salvation of the church and her members with the great
events of cosmic renewal that will accompany Christ’s return at the end of the
age.
Indeed, in a legitimate
sense, the justification and sanctification of the believer find their
parallels' in the justification and sanctification of the heavens and earth in
the new creation. Just a the Lord declared the first creation in its state of
integrity very good (Genesis 2.. 31), so the renewed creation will be worthy of the
same judgment. And just as the first creation was perfect and holy in its
consecration to the Lord, so the renewed creation will be one 'wherein dwells
righteousness' (see II Peter
So, a mystery! But a
blessed truth! We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed!
Resurrection change! Shall your body die, and even decay, or be cast to the
four winds or eaten by wild animals? No matter. for through Jesus Christ. and
His resurrection as the first-fruits of the redemption of His own Body, your
body shall be raised. Perhaps God will form the resurrection body from the same
identical particles as the present body. Our God could do that. But this need
not be the case for there to be substantial and personal identity to exist
between the present body and the resurrection body. As in our own life we know
that from our body we are losing, as we speak millions of cells and others are
replacing it: also. we have injuries. and even might lose a limb: or undergo a
heart transplant: yet always we are the same and have the same body,
substantially. so God, Who does all things marvelously. will raise and renew us
in our bodies in the final day in the general. public resurrection of the dead!
"Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according to him abundant mercy hath
begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the power of God through him
unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time! (I Peter 1:3-5)