Jesus and the Eschatological
Resurrection
By Kenneth Perkins
Introduction
One of the primary objections
to “Full Preterism” (the view that all eschatology has been fulfilled) is with
regard to its view of the nature of the “eschatological resurrection,” the resurrection
of the “last day” (Daniel
I have never read anything
by any Preterist that would imply that that particular Preterist denied the
bodily resurrection. What I have seen, however, is the denial of the resurrection
of the physical, flesh body. While this may not jive with “creedal” or “historical”
orthodoxy, this does not “prove” this doctrine to be “heretical” in the sense
of incorrect. The only sense in which full Preterism is “heretical” is in the
sense that is goes against the beliefs of “mainline” Christendom; if that is
the gauge of correctness, however, then most beliefs generally associated with
various groups within Protestantism would also be incorrect, since a large percentage,
if not the majority, of Christendom remains to this day Roman Catholic.
Those whose roots are in
Protestantism should remember that many of the views held by Luther and Calvin
(“Sola Fide,” “Sola Scriptura”) were considered heretical by the historical
and “creedal” standards established at their time. Those of the Restoration
Heritage (churches of Christ) should keep in mind that the leaders in the movement
started their independent groups based on the fact that they saw the religious
practices of their day as being without biblical authority, although such had
“historical” and “creedal” precedent. Just as the early Restoration leaders
attempted to abandon tradition and stick to the Bible with regard to practice,
structure, and other matters of doctrine, it is important today stick to allow
the Bible, and not history or the creeds or our own personal ideologies, to
be the final authority in this area as well.
With this being the case,
it is clear that, while the rejection of the resurrection of the physical body
may not be in accord with “historical Christianity,” it may be the teaching
of the Bible. Jesus’ doctrine was not in line with that of the Pharisees and
Sadducees, but it was 100% of God (cf. Matthew
With this being the case,
one must examine what the word says about the resurrection. Here we will examine
the resurrections of the Bible before the eschatological resurrection and some
of the arguments put forth by the futurists to see if these do in fact support
a resurrection of the flesh. If it is the case that this doctrine lacks sufficient
biblical support, it stands to reason that, while Preterist conceptions of the
resurrection (sans flesh) may not be in accord with “historical” (creedal) Christianity,
this conviction is in accord with scriptural Christianity.
Christ’s Resurrection
The resurrection of Christ
is the cornerstone of Christian belief. Paul wrote, “if Christ has not been
raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians
The Fulfillment of Prophecy
The Bible explicitly tells
us the reason for the physical resurrection of Christ: it was the fulfillment
of Old Testament prophecy:
[22] “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene,
a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed
through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- [23] this {Man,} delivered
over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross
by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death. [24] “But God raised Him
up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for
Him to be held in its power. [25] “For David says of Him, ‘I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS
IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN. [26]
‘THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL
LIVE IN HOPE; [27] BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW
YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. [28] ‘YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS
OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.’ [29] “Brethren,
I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died
and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. [30] “And so, because he
was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT {one}
OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, [31] he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection
of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER
DECAY. [32] “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.
[33] “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received
from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which
you both see and hear (Acts 2:22-33, NASB).
Here Peter, instructed by
the Holy Spirit, tells the Jews on the day of Pentecost that the resurrection
of Christ’s flesh was the fulfillment of the words of David (Psalm
Paul, speaking to another
group, stated the following:
[32] “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made
to the fathers, [33] that God has fulfilled this {promise} to our children in
that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE
MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’ [34] “{As for the fact} that He raised Him
up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I
WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY {and} SURE {blessings} OF DAVID.’ [35] “Therefore He
also says in another {Psalm,} ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’
[36] “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation,
fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; [37] but He
whom God raised did not undergo decay. [38] “Therefore let it be known to you,
brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, [39] and
through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could
not be freed through the Law of Moses (Acts 13:32-39, NASB).
Here Paul, by pointing out
the fact the David’s flesh saw corruption, demonstrated that this passage was
about the resurrection of the Christ. Thus, one can see that the Holy Spirit
records two of the Lord’s apostles’ declarations that the resurrection of the
flesh of Jesus was to fulfill the prophecy of Psalm 16:10.
The First-fruits of the
Believers’ Resurrection
Another reason for Christ’s
resurrection was so that He could be the “first fruits” of the general resurrection:
[20] But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first
fruits of those who are asleep. [21] For since by a man {came} death, by a man
also {came} the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also
in Christ all will be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the
first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, [24] then {comes}
the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished
all rule and all authority and power (1 Corinthians 15:20-24, NASB).
The resurrection of Jesus
served as proof of the future resurrection of the believer:
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those
who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with
Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14, NASB).
Since God raised the Christ,
the Thessalonians were to have faith in God that He would raise those among
them who had fallen asleep. Thus, in a sense, Christ’s resurrection acted as
a guarantee that those who died in Christ would also rise.
While it is the case that
Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection of the saints, it is important
to realize something important about the text of 1 Corinthians 15: it nowhere
teaches that the resurrection of Jesus’ flesh served as a type of the resurrection
of the believer. In fact, no passage of scripture teaches that this is
the sense in which Christ’s resurrection parallels our own. We have seen already
that Christ’s flesh rose from the grave as a fulfillment of prophecy.
To say that it serves as a type of the general resurrection body is fallacious,
as we shall later see.
The Futurist Argument
While the Bible nowhere says
that the flesh shall be raised, it may be proper to come to such a conclusion
if the doctrine of such is implied. For example, the Bible teaches that there
is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). It also teaches that the Father is God (1 Corinthians
8:6), that the Son is God (John 1:1;
The error of coming to this
conclusion (Jesus’ physical resurrection implies the physical resurrection of
the believer), which appears to be a large part of the futurist argument, can
be seen in another example:
[9] And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while
they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. [10] And
as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men
in white clothing stood beside them. [11] They also said, “Men of Galilee, why
do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you
into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into
heaven” (Acts 1:9-11, NASB).
It is argued that, because
Jesus was taken physically up into clouds, He must return physically on clouds,
because the men in white declared that He would “come in just the same way.”
How many futurists, however, would say that because Jesus was taken up during
the first century, since He would “come in just the same way,” that He returned
in the first century? How many futurists would say that, since Jesus left while
an apostle was still physically alive, since He would “come in just the same
way,” returned while there was an apostle still physically alive? How many would
say that because the cloud hid Jesus from the people’s sight that when Jesus
returned on clouds He was not physically seen?
“Now come on Kenneth,” someone
might say, “we know that only Christ’s ‘coming on clouds’ is in view because
the Bible tells us that this is the sense in which Christ would ‘come in just
the same way’ in Matthew 24:30; 26:63, 64; Mark 13:26; 14:61, 62; Luke 21:27;
1 Thessalonians 4:17; Revelation 1:7; 14:14.” Exactly right. Just because Jesus’
ascension parallels His return in some senses does not make it necessarily parallel
to His second coming in every aspect (while we know that Jesus did return
during the first century, hid from physical sight, for other reasons – Matthew
16:27, 28; John 14:19; Hebrews 10:37; James 5:8, 9; cf. Mark 13:1-4, 14-29).
Likewise, just because Jesus’ resurrection parallels the resurrection of the
believer in some senses does not make the two the same in every aspect.
What are some differences
between the resurrected body of Christ and that of the believer? First, Jesus
could eat physical food with His body (John 21); it would appear that Christians
in their resurrection are unable to do so (1 Corinthians
The Bible, in fact, does
tell us how the resurrection of the saints parallels that of Christ:
Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also
live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is
never to die again; death no longer is master over Him (Romans 6:8, 9, NASB).
For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the}
unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the
flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18).
[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me.
And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; [13] and in the middle of the
lampstands {I saw} one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the
feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. [14] His head and His
hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of
fire. [15] His feet {were} like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow
in a furnace, and His voice {was} like the sound of many waters. [16] In His
right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged
sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. [17] When I saw
Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me,
saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, [18] and the living
One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the
keys of death and of Hades (Revelation 1:12-18, NASB).
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a
perishable {body,} it is raised an imperishable {body ;} [43] it
is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised
in power; [44] it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If
there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual {body.} [45] So also it is
written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam {became}
a life-giving spirit. [46] However, the spiritual is not first, but the
natural; then the spiritual. [47] The first man is from the earth, earthy; the
second man is from heaven. [48] As is the earthy, so also are those who are
earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. [49]
Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of
the heavenly (1 Corinthians
The sense in which the resurrected
body of the believer is like that of Christ is in the fact that, just as Christ
rose and never died again, the body of the believer in the resurrection is never
to die again.
Christ became a life-giving
spirit. Although His flesh rose out of the grave, this passage indicates
that we bear the image of Christ, the life-giving spirit, in this
respect, not with respect to the rising of the flesh. It is His spirit, not
His flesh, that is mentioned in this passage and it is in this sense, and not
the physical sense, that believers bear Christ’s image. Moreover, believers
do not bear the image of the earthly, fleshly man, Adam, but that of the heavenly
Man, Christ. The resurrection body does not parallel that of Jesus in the physical,
earthly sense, but in its heavenly glory. Thus, Christ’s resurrected body is
a type of the believer’s not in that it was physical, but in the fact that it
is immortal and will never die. There is no evidence in the physical resurrection
of Christ that the eschatological resurrection of believers is one of flesh.
Thus, there is no basis in the resurrection of Jesus’ physical body to demonstrate
that the Christian’s flesh rises in the eschatological resurrection.
The Resurrection of the
Saints
We have already examined
the resurrection of Jesus and why He was raised physically. We have also examined
the way in which Jesus’ resurrection parallels that of the believer: not in
the flesh, but in the spirit and in the immortal nature of the resurrection
body. Let us examine what else the Bible tells us about the resurrection of
the saints.
The Eschatological Resurrection’s
Relation to Previous Resurrections
The Bible documents several
physical resurrections. In the Old Testament one reads of the resurrection by
Elijah of the widow’s son (1 Kings
We have already seen that
there were various differences between the resurrected body of Christ and the
resurrected body of the believer. The same is true of the nature of these resurrected
bodies and the resurrected body of the believer in the eschatological resurrection.
First, none of these resurrections was eternal; all of these individuals eventually
returned to the dust. Such is not the case in the eschatological resurrection.
Second, none of these resurrections had an incorruptible body; the resurrected
body of the believer will be incorruptible. Thus, we again see that on basic
levels these resurrected bodies differ from those given in the eschatological
resurrection.
“Now hold on, Kenneth,” some
might say, “of course these bodies aren’t the same in every way. But
they are similar!” Such an objection is reasonable. Why, then, “must”
the body of the eschatological resurrection parallel these bodies in the sense
that it is a resurrection of the flesh? What basis is there for this claim?
If it is not inconceivable that the body of the eschatological resurrection
differs from the body of these resurrections in nature in the said senses, why
is it inconceivable (and even deemed “heretical”) to hold that it differs from
the body of these resurrections with regard to the issue of the rising of the
flesh?
The Bible tells us that there
is a difference between these resurrections and the eschatological resurrection:
“Women received {back} their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured,
not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection”
(Hebrews
The First Resurrection
If one assumes the hyper-literalist
hermeneutic, one can see another flaw in the argument that the flesh must rise:
[4] Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was
given to them. And I {saw} the souls of those who had been beheaded because
of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had
not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their
forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for
a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand
years were completed. This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy is
the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death
has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with
Him for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6).
Only the “soul” comes to
life in this passage. One might argue that the word “soul” is being used as
a synecdoche (metaphor in which a part implies the whole) for the whole person,
and not as saying that only the soul rose. However, it appears that the use
of this argument is more of an attempt to preserve the resurrection of the flesh
doctrine than an attempt at an objective examination of the passage. While “soul”
is used in such a manner (1 Peter
This point does not affect
the beliefs of all futurist frameworks. Some brands of non pre-millennial futurism
view the first resurrection as the spiritual resurrection of regeneration. Thus,
this does not refer to the nature of the body of the resurrection from physical
death. Those who hold to pre-millennialism, however, typically believe that
this event occurs after the dead rise (based on 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians
4:15-17). If the souls seen by John are the bodies of the saints raised for
the “millennial reign,” when do these saints receive their flesh bodies? Scripture
speaks of no other time when people are given resurrection bodies, except at
the resurrection of the rest of the dead (Revelation
Indeed, these, whose souls
have been raised (whether after death or in a resurrection of spiritual regeneration
that happens during the physical life), are called “blessed and holy” (Revelation
20:6, NASB). Why, then, should one expect more? It appears that the non-flesh
nature of the body of the first resurrection is a strong argument against a
resurrection of the flesh of the believer.
Job
Many hold Job 19:26 to be
a text that proves the resurrection of the flesh: “And {though} after my skin
{worms} destroy this {body}, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (KJV). This argument,
however, seems to be based on two questionable arguments: (1) Job is speaking
of physical death in the first half of this passage, and (2) in connection with
this that the seeing of God is a reference to the resurrection (and therefore
a resurrection of the flesh). Does this text confirm such a notion?
KJV-Based Translations
Let us begin our investigation
of this text by looking at some KJV-related Bible translations and how they
translate this passage:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh
shall I see God (American KJV).
and even after they corrupt my skin, yet this: in my flesh I
shall see God (Modern KJV).
And after my skin is destroyed, this [I know,] That in my flesh
I shall see God (New KJV).
Note that only the AKJV contains
the reference to worms, which is indicated in the KJV as being an interpolation
by the translators. The reference to worms is not found in the MKJV or the NKJV.
It appears then, that the destruction of the skin found in this passage need
not refer to physical death, but may refer to some other event, which we shall
see later.
Other (Apparently) Resurrection
of the Flesh Translations
Some other translations seem
to teach that this passage refers to physical death and the resurrection:
And though after my skin wormes destroy this bodie, yet shall
I see God in my flesh (Geneva Bible).
And though after my skin worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God (1833 Webster Bible).
Here one sees again in some
older Bibles the (interpolated) reference to worms.
And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I
shall see my God (1899 Douay-Rheims Bible).
And after my skin hath compassed this body, then from
my flesh I see God (Young’s Literal Translation).
The reference to skin coming
upon the body has foundation in the Hebrew, which means both to destroy and
to compass. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrews definitions define the word used (“naqaph,”
H5362), as follows:
1) To strike, strike off
1a) (Piel) to strike off skin
2) To go around, compass, round
2a) (Qal) to go around
2b) (Hiphil)
2b1) to go around, surround, encompass, enclose
2b2) to make the round, complete the circuit
2b3) to make round, round off
There is justification, therefore,
for these translations, although this translation is apparently a minority view
and even these translations do not, in and of themselves, imply a resurrection
of the flesh (as we shall see).
Ambiguous Translations
Some translations are ambiguous
as to whether this passage refers to a destruction of the skin in death or while
one is still physically alive:
And if after my skin this shall be destroyed, yet from
out of my flesh shall I see +God (Darby Bible).
Even after my skin has been stripped off my body, I will see
God in my own flesh (GOD’S WORD Version).
After my skin is destroyed, then in my flesh shall I see God
(Hebrew Names Version).
and after my skin has been struck off from my flesh, yet this,
I shall see God (Literal Version)
After my skin is destroyed, then in my flesh shall I see God
(World English Bible).
For I know that he is eternal who is about to deliver me,
and to raise up upon the earth my skin that endures these sufferings:
for these things have been accomplished to me of the Lord; (LXXE, v. 25 and
26)
My flesh may be destroyed, yet from this body I will see God
(Contemporary English Version).
Even after my skin is eaten by disease, while still in this body
I will see God (Good News Bible).
And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will
see God (NIV).
“Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see
God (NASB).
None of these translations
indicates that the nature of this destruction is the decay of death; some, in
fact, intimate that this destruction occurs during the duration of Job’s physical
life (Good News Bible, Contemporary English Version). Thus, it is very possible
that the striking off the skin of which this passage speaks is not related to
physical death at all.
Anti-Resurrection of the
Flesh Translations
Some translations indicate
that this seeing of God occurs outside of the flesh, and would seem to intimate
that this passage is not teaching a physical resurrection of the flesh:
And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed,
then without my flesh shall I see God (ASV).
And when after my skin this is destroyed, then without my flesh
shall I see God (1901 Jewish Publication Society Old Testament).
And, though, after my skin is struck off, this followeth,
yet, apart from my flesh, shall I see GOD (Rotheram Bible).
The word translated as “in”
in some versions but as “without” and “apart from” in these versions has a wide
range of meanings. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrews definitions define the word
used (“min/minniy/minney,” H4480), as follows:
1) From, out of, on account of, off, on the side of, since, above,
than, so that not, more than (preposition)
1a) from (expressing separation), off, on the side of
1b) out of
1b1) (with verbs of proceeding, removing, expelling)
1b2) (of material from which something is made)
1b3) (of source or origin)
1c) out of, some of, from (partitively)
1d) from, since, after (of time)
1e) than, more than (in comparison)
1f) from...even to, both...and, either...or
1g) than, more than, too much for (in comparisons)
1h) from, on account of, through, because (with infinitive)
2) That (conjunction)
Thus, the KJV rendering is
not the only one that is grammatically possible though, in the hypothetical
realm, it may be correct.
This survey of English translations
should clearly demonstrate the problem with attempting to use this passage to
“prove” the resurrection of the flesh body. Too much variation exists among
those translations that seem to actually put forth a specific view for the meaning
of this passage. Those translations that are more ambiguous only “prove” a fleshly
resurrection in a circular sense:
The resurrection of the flesh is a true doctrine; therefore Job
Job
By resorting to this passage,
one is using a doctrine to prove a scriptural interpretation, and then using
the interpretation wrought by this method to prove the original doctrine! That
is not how proper exegesis is done.
The Bible provides a more
consistent interpretation of this passage. By allowing scripture to interpret
scripture, one learns that Job’s skin had been previously struck with boils
(Job 2:1-10). It seems then, that the destruction of the skin in this passage
is a reflection on this event, and that Job is saying, “even though my skin
is destroyed, I shall see God.” In the case of the YLT and the Doauy-Rheims
translations, one could see this as meaning, “when my skin (which has been destroyed
by boils) has been restored, I shall see God.” Thus, there is no evidence in
this passage that the incident of which Job is speaking is death. Moreover,
this is in accord with the context of the verse in question itself:
[13] "He has removed my brothers far from me, and my acquaintances
are completely estranged from me. [14] "My relatives have failed, and my intimate
friends have forgotten me. [15] "Those who live in my house and my maids consider
me a stranger. I am a foreigner in their sight. [16] "I call to my servant,
but he does not answer; I have to implore him with my mouth. [17] "My breath
is offensive to my wife, and I am loathsome to my own brothers. [18] "Even young
children despise me; I rise up and they speak against me. [19] "All my associates
abhor me, and those I love have turned against me. [20] "My bone clings to
my skin and my flesh, and I have escaped {only} by the skin of my teeth.
[21] "Pity me, pity me, O you my friends, for the hand of God has struck
me. [22] "Why do you persecute me as God {does,} and are not satisfied
with my flesh? [23] "Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed
in a book! [24] "That with an iron stylus and lead they were engraved in the
rock forever! [25] "As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last
He will take His stand on the earth (Job
Thus, in the very context
of Job’s statement, one can see the mention of the affliction of Job’s skin.
The seeing of God in this
passage need not refer to an after-death experience, for the same word is used
elsewhere to refer to instances of people seeing God while still alive (“chazah,”
H2372 – Exodus 24:11; Psalms 11:7; 27:4). Moreover, other words for “to see”
are also used to refer to people seeing God (“nabat,” H5027 – Exodus 4:6) and
to people seeing God and God appearing to them while still alive (“ra’ah,” H7200
– Genesis 16:13; 32:30; 48:3; Exodus 4:1; 24:10; 1 Samuel 3:21; 2 Chronicles
1:7; 18:18; Jeremiah 31:3 and elsewhere). Thus, considering the context of the
story of Job, it is clear that this passage need not be interpreted as referring
to something that would happen to Job after death. Rather, it should be understood
as Job being comforted that, though he is suffering, he would see God in mercy.
Coming out of the Grave
One final main argument used
to “prove” the resurrection of the flesh can be found in the use of the word
for grave used in Greek (“mnemeion,” G3419). Thayer defines this word as follows:
1) Any visible object for preserving or recalling the memory
of any person or thing
1a) a memorial, monument, specifically, a sepulchral monument
2) A sepulchre, a tomb
It is held by many that this
word refers, when used in the second sense, as referring strictly to the physical
tomb, as seen in the following passages:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and
say, ‘If we had been {living} in the days of our fathers, we would not have
been partners with them in {shedding} the blood of the prophets’ (Matthew
The tombs were opened,
and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming
out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared
to many (Matthew 27:52, 53, NASB).
And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and
he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away
(Matthew 27:59, 60, NASB).
Immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded {him}
to bring {back} his [John the Baptist’s] head. And he went and had him beheaded
in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and
the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard {about this,} they
came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb (Mark
So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the
tomb four days (John
So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, *came to the tomb.
Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it (John
So the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out
of the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to testify {about Him}
(John
It is often argued that,
because the word is used in a strictly physical sense, the word should be used
with a fully physical denotation with regard to the eschatological resurrection:
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all
who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who
did the good {deeds} to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil
{deeds} to a resurrection of judgment (John 5:28, 29, NASB).
Thus, the above passage should
be understood as teaching that, just as Jesus called Lazarus physically out
of the grave, the physical body is to be raised in the eschatological resurrection.
Conceding that “mnemeion”
is always used with reference to the physical grave need not demand that this
passage teach that the physical flesh rises. First, let us consider what this
passage, if taken fully literally would imply: that those who are not
in physical graves will not rise! What will happen to those who are cremated?
Will they miss the resurrection because they are not in sepulchers? Of course
not. While the word “mnemeion” is not being used to refer to a “spiritual” grave,
the phrase “all who are in the tombs” is an expression referring to the dead
in general.
This is similar to the use
of the words “asleep” and “awake” to speak of the dead and the resurrection
though the dead are conscious after death (as one can see in the story of the
rich man and Lazarus – Luke 16:19-31):
“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands {guard}
over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress
such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that
time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these
to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace {and} everlasting contempt (Daniel
12:1, 2, NASB).
Since a cremated person in
an urn somewhere is not “in the dust of the ground” does this mean that
this person will miss the resurrection? Clearly not. As with the phrase “all
who are in the tombs,” this phrase refers to the dead by idiom.
Even with this consideration
in mind, it must be pointed out that neither of these passages says that the
flesh body will be raised. As one can further see in the article “Preterism
and the Resurrection,” one must remember that “that which you sow, you do not
sow the body which is to be” (1 Corinthians 15:37, NASB). Comparing the dead
body and the raised body of the resurrection to a seed, Paul declares that that
which is sown is not that which is raised. If this passage is speaking of the
sowing of the flesh body, how does this passage imply that the flesh body will
rise in the eschatological resurrection? Indeed, it appears that Paul is teaching
exactly the opposite: the (flesh) body sown is not the body raised.
Rather than speaking of the
rising of the flesh, these above resurrection passages speak of the new body
of the dead at the second coming rising out of the grave for judgment:
[11] Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it,
from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
[12] And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne,
and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is {the book} of life;
and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according
to their deeds. [13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death
and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one
{of them} according to their deeds. [14] Then death and Hades were thrown into
the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [15] And if anyone’s
name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake
of fire (Revelation
The use of the word “mnemion”
does not imply the rising of the flesh body, but is used as part of an expression
(similar to that found in Daniel 12) that is representative of the dead. While
this is the case, for those who are in physical graves, it refers not to the
rising of their flesh, but to the new resurrection body, which is not that which
is sown (the flesh body), out of the grave.
Conclusion
One can see that the futurist
arguments in favor of a resurrection of the flesh do not hold in light of the
Biblical evidence. Christ’s resurrection was not a type of the Christian’s resurrection
in the respect that His flesh was raised. There is insufficient support to show
that the resurrections of the Old Testament and the miraculous resurrections
of the New Testament typify the resurrection of the saints at Christ’s coming
with regard to the flesh nature of the body. There is no support in Job