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