Sinking the Ship of "Hyper-Preterism"

 Torpedo #2

 "The Resurrection of the Body"

Written by Joe Puckett   

The Bodily Resurrection

We are looking at a view of eschatology (i.e. study of last things) that believes everything in the Bible was fulfilled by the year AD 70 when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed. Most refer to this idea as “the AD 70 Doctrine”, “Covenant Eschatology” or “Realized Eschatology”. Too often when we hear this kind of a view we just shove it aside and move on with something else, never giving it any serious consideration. However, those who hold this view are not “dummies” as is assumed by some. While I disagree with many of their conclusions, these are people who, like anyone else, are, sincerely searching for truth. We should take this subject seriously because while many of “us” may have truth to share with them on the topic, they have a lot of good insights to give as well. Because many of us have not looked into these matters seriously some of the reasoning I have seen given fails to adequately answer their challenges. Quite frankly, because we have not paid much attention to this subject many are ill equipped to handle it (maybe I am too :). Often we assume that the views of the majority are correct and so we don't "waste" our time with these "wild ideas". Hyper-Preterism is usually ignored and treated as a “silly”, “foolish”, and “unorthodox” view. While the view may be very new to most of us, and I may disagree with many of the ideas they have (many of which I see to be very serious indeed, i.e. those who deny the need for baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. because of it), it is anything but “silly” and should be given more attention (although not all positive attention). 

Those of the “AD 70” view believe that a resurrection took place in AD 70. They hold that the figurative bodies in the figurative graves of the Law of Moses came to Life in Christ in AD 70 when the temple along with everything it stood for fell. They say that Christ “came” to glorify His Kingdom and to give that Kingdom to a new spiritual “nation”, Matt. 21:43, and, they say, He did this in AD 70, Matt. 24:29-30, 16:27-28, Daniel 12:1ff. They believe that all of Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled in AD 70. They also hold the view that the miracles ceased in AD 70 and thus all the books of the Bible were written by that time, 1 Corinthians 1:4-9, 13:8-13, Acts 2:17ff, Eph. 4:7-13.  It may come as a surprise to some of you but, the truth is, I agree with them on these points. Where I differ with them is that they say this is the ONLY thing that the scriptures teach with regard to the subject of resurrection. 

As I understand it, there are at least four different “resurrections” in the Bible: 1) national resurrection, Ezekiel 37:1-14, 2) resurrection in victory, Rev. 20:4, 3) spiritual resurrection, i.e. salvation from sin, John 5:24-27, and 4) the literal bodily resurrection, John 5:28-29, 1 Corinthians 15. Those who subscribe to Covenant Eschatology do not agree with me on this. They usually lump all of these together as one resurrection which happened in fullness at AD 70. But see for yourself if this is true.

First: National Resurrection. The Bible does teach that Israel was to be resurrected (restored). This is taught in places like Ezekiel 37 where, at the time of Christ, Israel was to be restored and their dead bones would come to life. I have no question that this is fulfilled in the work of Jesus in the first century. Rebellious Israel was “dead” and spiritual “Israel” came to life in Christ. This is the restoration that was figuratively described as a “resurrection”. Daniel 12:1-2 also figuratively describes the AD 70 event as the dead coming back to life, cf. Dan. 9:24-27, Matt. 13:43, 24:15.

Second: A Resurrection of Victory. I think victory and vindication are the key words in Revelation 20:1-5. Those who overcame the beast and the dragon “lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years”. This is called the “first resurrection”, vs.5-6. This is where those who were faithful through Jewish persecution were “resurrected” after the city of “Babylon”, the “false prophet”, and the “beast” fell (I’ll get into their identity another time). The righteous were raised to reign “with Christ” to receive victory over the defeated city of “Babylon”, the “false prophet”, and the “beast”. The “thousand years” is not to be taken as a literal number any more than 144,000 is the literal number of people who will be saved. Both numbers symbolize the idea of completeness in Revelation. This particular victory comes after (perhaps well after, but I’ll get into that somewhere else) what happened in AD 70. In fact, whatever your view is of the thousand years and however you take verses 1-6, “I” don’t think you can get around the fact that things were happening after AD 70 at least in verses 7-15. Notice that after the “thousand years” are finished Satan does some more of his dirty work, 7-8, and then is thrown into the “lake of fire” where the beast and the false prophet were, vs. 10. Get this point please. When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, Babylon had already been destroyed and the beast and the false prophet were already in the lake of fire, vs. 10. Notice the chronology here. Babylon (whom the AD 70 theorists take to be Jerusalem, I do too) was destroyed first, 18:1-19:3. After this the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire, 19:20. At this time the dragon (Satan) is bound for a “thousand years”. After the “thousand years were finished” Satan does some more of his evil tricks for a “little while”. After this he is thrown into the lake of fire where “the beast and the false prophet are” vs. 20:10. When Satan was thrown into the lake of fire, “Babylon”, the “beast” and the “false prophet” had already been destroyed. So chronologically (even if it is figurative) Satan is thrown into the lake of fire over a “thousand years” after AD 70. If this is true then the AD 70 doctrine cannot be true. Why? Because they say that there is no scripture that talks about anything beyond the year AD 70. But Revelation 20:7-10 talks about stuff after AD 70 (as I understand it).

Some, like Max King, believe that the first resurrection happened before AD 70 and marked the beginning of the “transition period” where the Old Covenant was in the process of being removed. This is called “trans-millennialism”. They say that Satan was then aloud to be loosed for a “little while” just before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. One of the problems with this view is that the souls of those who were killed by Jewish persecutors were “under the alter” not “on the thrones” waiting for their vindication to come, Rev. 6:9-10. King (and others) admit that the vindication did not come until AD 70. But if this were true then what were the martyrs of Revelation 6:10 waiting for? They were not sitting on thrones and reigning with Christ yet. They were told to “wait”. Wait for what? They had to wait for the rest of the martyrs to join them, vs. 11. When their number was complete then their blood would be vindicated. When did this happen? Again, this happened in AD 70. This victory (at least in part) is what is pictured in Revelation 20:1-5. These souls who were killed were no longer under the alter waiting. Why? Their blood was vindicated, the beast, false prophet, and Babylon, was destroyed, Satan was bound, and now they were victorious! So Rev. 20:1-4 cannot be a time before AD 70. I think Revelation deals with a completed victory over particular enemies. This is the first “resurrection”. It is what Jesus said in Matthew 19:28.         

Third: Spiritual Resurrection. The Bible also teaches an individual spiritual resurrection that happens when one becomes a Christian. This is when one dies to sin and becomes alive unto righteousness. Jesus spoke of this spiritual resurrection in John 5:24-27. When one accepts Christ in faith he moves from spiritual death to spiritual life. This is just another way of saying that one stands forgiven and has eternal life and salvation in Him. In Romans 6:1-4 Paul makes the same point and says that we are “raised to walk a new life” when we are baptized into Christ’s death. Again in Ephesians 5:8-18 Paul makes the point that light is not to be in fellowship with darkness and that we should live a righteous life. In verse 15 he describes this righteous life as a resurrection from sleep.

Fourth: The Literal Bodily Resurrection. Those who subscribe to Covenant Eschatology say that the “bodily resurrection” is no different from the first three resurrections already discussed here. But there are many problems with this idea.

The first problem has to do with timing. The spiritual resurrection (i.e. moving from being lost to saved) was happening before AD 70. Remember John 5:24-27? In verse 25 Jesus said that the “time is coming and NOW is” that spiritual resurrection could take place. But Jesus said this over forty years before the year AD 70. Similarly, in Romans 6:1-4 Paul said that one could rise to walk a new life before AD70. So from this text we can immediately see that there is a difference between “national” resurrections and “individual, spiritual” resurrection. National resurrection happens collectively in a clearly defined event, whereas individual resurrection occurs whenever and wherever the person accepted and obeyed Jesus’ words for salvation. Additionally there is a difference in time between the physical “bodily” resurrection and the internal “spiritual” resurrection. This clear difference in timing is seen in John 5:24-30. The spiritual resurrection is in verses 24-27.The bodily resurrection is in verses 28-30. Moving from death to life could happen “now”, vs. 25, but coming out of the graves would happen in a future “hour” only, vs. 28. The AD 70 theorist’s answer to this is to simply say that Jesus is speaking from an “already but not yet” perspective. In other words, while it is true that when someone became a Christian they were “raised” to walk a new life and thus were saved. They did not actually receive that salvation until AD 70 when “all was fulfilled.” It is argued that they received their salvation only in promise before AD 70 and received their salvation in reality after AD 70. It would do us no good to reject the “already but not yet principle” because the principle itself is a valid one. But I do have a problem with how they apply it to this text and to the doctrine of resurrection as a whole. Jesus was not talking about the same resurrection from two perspectives of time. He was dealing with two different kinds of resurrections altogether. One was happening now and the other WAS NOT. If the “already but not yet” principle were applied in John 5:28 to the resurrection of the body then it MUST have been true that they were “already but not yet” coming out of the graves. But this is exactly the opposite of what Jesus actually said. He said one resurrection was actually happening now and yet would be in the future as well. The other resurrection (vs. 28-30) was not happening now and yet would be in the future. Let me say it this way. In John 5:24-27 there might be found an “already but not yet” principle for Jesus does say moving from death to life was “now” happening and yet will happen a coming “hour”. But in verses 28-30 there is no “already but not yet” principle because this resurrection was not at all happening now but ONLY in a coming “hour”. This means that there were two different resurrections and not the same one from two time perspectives. In whatever sense we take the word “now”, one resurrection WAS happening “now” and one was NOT happening “now”.

The second problem with the AD 70 notion is their idea of the nature of the “bodily” resurrection. Some who subscribe to the AD 70 Doctrine say that the “bodily” resurrection talked about in 1 Corinthians 15 is the “body of Christ”, i.e. the church, being raised out of Judaism? The problem with this is that Paul is clearly talking about individual bodies and not the “body of Christ” as a whole. He is talking about individuals who physically died, vs. 18, and yet who will be raised. Others see this problem and change their view to say that the “body” Paul is describing is one that is made up of “spirit” only and is given at the point of physical death, and thus has nothing to do with the physical body. But this denies Paul’s entire argument. Paul is arguing that the same body that dies is the same body that will be raised. Notice: “The body is sown in corruption, but it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown a natural body, but it will be raised a spiritual body.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. Do you notice all the “ITS” of the text? What does “IT” refer to? It is the person’s body who died physically while “in Christ” vs. 18. In other words, the same body that decays in the ground is the same body that will be raised out of the ground. Even though Paul calls it a “spiritual body” he is not denying that it is still our body. A “spiritual body” is not the same thing as a “spirit”. It is not a “spirit” being raised in 1 Corinthians15 but a “spiritual body” being raised. The spirit without a body is not a resurrected body at all. If fact Paul says that we will be in the same image as the body of Jesus, vs. 49. While Jesus, in a spiritual nature, ascended into Heaven it was not a bodiless spirit. In addition to 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says something important about the subject in 1 Corinthians 6:14. In this context Paul is arguing that we are not to use our “bodies” for prostitution. One of the reasons he gives for this is that our bodies belong to Christ and that God is going to raise it from the dead just like He did with Christ, 13-15. That passage says, “Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ….” Although saying the same thing in the form of a paraphrase, the Living Translation brings the meaning out a little more explicitly when it says, “But our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies. And God will raise our bodies from the dead by His marvelous power, just as He raised our Lord from the dead”.

Did you catch that? The same bodies that might be used for prostitution will be raised from the dead just like Jesus was, vs. 14. Although saying the same thing in the form of a paraphrase, the Living Translation brings the meaning out a little more explicitly when it says, “But our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies. And God will raise our bodies from the dead by His marvelous power, just as He raised our Lord from the dead”. Well, what kind of body is used for prostitution? It is the physical body. Which body did Jesus raise from the dead in? Again, it was His physical body. It was the same body that was in the tomb. Remember? The tomb was empty! His body was gone! The same body he walked around in died and was then buried in the tomb. The same body that was buried in the tomb was the same body that was raised up out of the tomb. This is the way God will raise us up as well, 1 Cor.6:14, 15:49. Was it a spiritual body? Yes. It obviously had a different nature than His “fleshy” existence. It was now a body that would never die again. It was now a body that could walk through walls. But it was still His body. No doubt this is the kind of body that Enoch and Elijah had when they were translated into heaven without dying, Heb. 11:5, 2 Kings 2:11. It is true that Paul did say that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God, vs. 50. However, by “flesh and blood” Paul is merely saying that mortal, decaying bodies cannot live eternally, but the spiritual body will. Jesus did have “flesh and bone” but not from a mortal standpoint, Luke 24:39, John 20:27. So while Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus had their bodies when taken to heaven, they were changed so that they were no longer made of “flesh and blood” from a mortal standpoint (although I don’t believe Enoch and Elijah went to the same “place” as Jesus did. The “heaven” in these two cases simply means the sky). But they still had their bodies. I like what Coffman says in his comments on 1 Corinthians 15:47-49, “As certainly as men are like Adam and have the same physical nature that Adam possessed, that certain are they to bear the image of Jesus Christ and to possess, ultimately, exactly the same kind of spiritual body that Jesus displayed after the resurrection…Paul clearly stated that just as our physical bodies are like that of Adam, our spiritual bodies shall be like that of Christ.” 

Also Kenneth Gentry Jr. says concerning the resurrection of Jesus and our own that,

“After insisting that Christ was resurrected from the dead and that this is the foundation of our redemptive hope (vv. 1-19), Paul then powerfully links our resurrection to Christ's. In other words, his whole point regarding Christ's resurrection is to lay a foundation for ours. In verse 20 we read: "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first-fruits (Gk., aparche) of those who are asleep." This first-fruits imagery carries a load of theological implications regarding our physical resurrection.

First, the temporal significance of "first" requires that Christ's resurrection is peculiarly the first of its kind. No other consummate-order resurrection occurred previously. Second, in that He is the "first-fruit" He represents the rest, just as the Old Testament offering of the first part of the harvest represented the whole harvest (cp. Rom. 11:16). Christ's resurrection represents our own. Third, the "first-fruit" also promises more to come. Christ's was unique for the time, but it spoke of others to follow at "the end" (v. 24). Thus, the resurrection of Christ as the first-fruits is: (1) the first of this order to occur, (2) represents His people's resurrection, and (3) expects more eschatological resurrections to follow at the end.” (See Gentry, Christ’s resurrection and ours)

Yet others argue that the concept of “first-fruit” implies an imminent harvest of that which is to follow. If this were true, it is argued, then that tells us that the resurrection of believers was to happen very soon, within that generation. For example, William Bell argues in this way saying,

“He (referring to Kenneth Gentry, JP) fails to recognize that first fruits in the Old Covenant from where the imagery is drawn, occurs within an imminent, uninterrupted and defined time frame.” Bell goes on to say “In the natural sense, the Jews did not harvest the crop thousands of years after the first fruits were received. They harvested in the same year, beginning with the first of the first fruits, (Lev. 23:10; 12; Exodus. 23:19) the first fruits 50 days later (Lev. 23:16,17) and the harvest at the end of the season. (Lev. 23:22). Thus, to make an argument on the first fruits which extends beyond “this age”, i.e. that age in which Christ, the first of the first fruits was raised (Heb. 9:26) and the first fruits (church in the first century, James 1:18; Heb. 12:22) were being raised, is to violate the analogy and meaning of first fruits. It destroys the imminence inherent in the concept and thereby breaks the continuity.” (William Bell, “Gentry on Resurrection”).

This criticism is an unnecessary one, however. The idea of “first-fruits” is only intended to imply that there will be more to come. There is nothing “inherent” in the word “first-fruits” to indicate any measure of time. Paul’s whole argument in 1 Corinthians is not to prove the timing of the resurrection but rather the certainty of it because some was denying it altogether, 15:12. Bell makes too much of the timing concerning the “first-fruits” of the Old Testament. To take the timing of these OT examples literally would mean that the resurrection of believers happened within one year of the resurrection of Christ not forty years. Thus, Bell’s argument comes back to haunt him. Obviously the timing is not the point in the first-fruits concept.

In His article, Bell, also asserts that the ONLY purpose for the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus was to be a sign to His believers that He in fact was alive spiritually. Like many “full” Preterists, Bell takes the position that our being raised to walk a new life in our baptism in Romans 6 is the same resurrection as that of 1 Corinthians 15. I will not go into the details here, but suffice it to say at this point that there are clear differences in Paul’s discussion of “resurrection” in the two chapters that allows us to see that two different usages of “resurrection” are employed. They are different in 1) timing, 2) nature, and 3) purpose. 1) They are different in timing because one is STRICTLY a present reality (Romans 6) and the other is STRICTLY a future reality (1 Corinthians 15). The “already but not yet” concept does not explain the difference of “timing” in this case. Paul in 1 Corinthians gives no indication that the resurrection he speaks of was a “process” in which they were “being” raised, but rather only speaks of it as a future event which the Corinthians could look forward to. The resurrection of Romans 6 was something that the Roman brethren did when they were baptized. This resurrection meant one could give acceptable obedience to God. The 1 Corinthians 15 “resurrection” was eternal life with God in a “spiritual body” given at a future time only. The differences in timing finds additional significance in the fact that the two “resurrections” were different in nature as well as purpose. 2) They are different in nature because one deals with living faithfully in our mortal bodies, Romans 6:12-13, and the other deals with changing our mortal bodies to immortal bodies like Jesus did after His death, 1 Corinthians 15:50ff. Romans 6 is clearly dealing with the figurative death of our old way of life, and 1 Corinthians. 15 is clearly dealing with our literal death and the hope of our resurrection AFTERWARD, 1 Corinthians. 15:18-19. 3) The two chapters are different with regard to Paul’s purpose and point as well. In Romans 6 he is trying to motivate the saints to faithfulness in life. In 1 Corinthians. 15 Paul is trying to keep the Corinthian’s hope in the future alive with regard to eternal life in their immortal bodies after mortal death at the end when Christ comes again. There were those in Corinth who were denying the resurrection. But I don’t think they were denying that the Corinthian church was “living in newness of life” as per Romans 6. They were denying that there was going to be a resurrection any time after physical death, vs. 18-20, 36.

But getting back to the comparison of our resurrection and Jesus’, Paul said that if the BODY of Jesus was not raised IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS then we are still in our sins, vs. 15:12-19. The actual resurrection of Jesus from the literal grave was not JUST a sign, it is our salvation. If it was ONLY a sign then why does Jesus STILL possess that same body in Heaven? I say this because of two reasons. 1) Jesus never “dropped” His body when He ascended into Heaven, Acts 1. The apostles saw Him, with His body, go into Heaven. 2) Paul still calls Jesus the “Man” who mediates for us in Heaven, 1 Tim. 2:5. He said this well after His ascension. In order for Jesus to be a “Man” He must still possess His “body”. While He is fully God He is also fully Man. It is in this state that He is able to represent man and God fully, and thus mediate for us. Notice that it was only after the bodily resurrection of Jesus that Paul calls Him the “Heavenly Man” (1 Corinthians. 15:48) and then says that we will share the exact same “image” of that Heavenly Man in our bodily resurrection (15:49) in the end.

If our resurrection is not exactly like Jesus, then Paul’s whole argument losses it’s effectiveness. His whole argument rests on the fact that our resurrection will be like His. If we are going to be raised in “spirit” only and Jesus was raised in His “physical” body then the two resurrections are not comparable at all. It would seem that Paul would need to contrast our resurrection to Jesus’ not compare them. In fact, the discussion of 1 Corinthians 15 would have been a good time for Paul to explain that although Jesus was actually raised in His “heavenly body” (the one that came out of the grave) we will actually be raised in spirit only. But Paul NOWHERE gives the impression that our resurrection will be the slightest different than His. In fact, EVERYTHING Paul says about our Lord’s resurrection he says about our own. In other words, IF Paul wanted to tell us that we are going to be raised EXACTLY like Jesus was, then how else could he have told us this in any other way than He did?

Consider this point too. In Acts 17:32 some people were upset that Paul preached about the “resurrection of the dead”. Why were some so upset? Many of the people who were listening to Paul were “Stoic” and “Epicurean” philosophers, vs. 18. These philosophies wrongly believed that the physical body was evil. The idea that Jesus’ body rose from the grave was an evil doctrine to them. But why do I bring this up here? Because what they were upset about is that they heard Paul preach about the “resurrection of the dead”. The word “dead” in the Greek is in its plural form meaning that Paul was talking about more than Jesus being raised. They understood Paul to be saying that the “dead ones” will be raised. Paul did not deny this and, therefore, the accusation was true. The bodies of the dead ones would be raise just like Jesus was. This is why they were upset.

The conclusion is? Because people are still dying and bodies are still in the graves, the resurrection that will be like Jesus’ must still be in the future.   

  as of 8-2005