Is the Resurrection already past?
-
RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Is the Resurrection already past?
Does anyone know much about Hymenaeus and Philetus? Is there any extrabiblical writing about these two men and their doctrine?
I've recently heard some defenses for the full preterist interpretation that the resurrection is already past, and that it "began" at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Now, whatever this doctrine Paul referred to must not have been that interpretation of preterism because this is even pre-AD 70 when this was written.
However, is it possible that full preterism could be an antitype of Hymenaeus and Philetus' doctrine?
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
It is possible. Attacks against full preterism often refer to it as "the Hymenaean heresy."
I think it probable that these false teachers were spring-boarding off the true doctrine that Christian regeneration is a resurrection, of a sort (what amillenialists identify with "the first resurrection"—Rev.20:5-6). If it was commonly taught in the apostles that the Christian's rebirth is a spiritual resurrection, but that there is a also future, physical resurrection (e.g., John 5:24-29), it would be a small step for a false teacher to say that the spiritual resurrection (which has already occurred to those who are saved) is the only resurrection, and that there is no future physical resurrection. This error would fit well with gnosticism and Greek philosophy.
Even though Paul wrote this prior to AD70, the fact that this false doctrine "overthrow[s] the faith of some," needs to be considered. How would the teaching that the resurrection is past damage people's Christian faith? Perhaps by taking away from them the blessed hope that serves to fortify the believer in the hardships of this life. However different full preterism may actually be from what Hymeneaus taught, it would seem that both ideas would similarly overthrow the faith of some.
I think it probable that these false teachers were spring-boarding off the true doctrine that Christian regeneration is a resurrection, of a sort (what amillenialists identify with "the first resurrection"—Rev.20:5-6). If it was commonly taught in the apostles that the Christian's rebirth is a spiritual resurrection, but that there is a also future, physical resurrection (e.g., John 5:24-29), it would be a small step for a false teacher to say that the spiritual resurrection (which has already occurred to those who are saved) is the only resurrection, and that there is no future physical resurrection. This error would fit well with gnosticism and Greek philosophy.
Even though Paul wrote this prior to AD70, the fact that this false doctrine "overthrow[s] the faith of some," needs to be considered. How would the teaching that the resurrection is past damage people's Christian faith? Perhaps by taking away from them the blessed hope that serves to fortify the believer in the hardships of this life. However different full preterism may actually be from what Hymeneaus taught, it would seem that both ideas would similarly overthrow the faith of some.
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
At the time that Paul was writing, Hymenaeus and Philetus were heretics because the resurrection was not past. In order to put full preterists in the same camp with these two men, it would have to be demonstrated from Scripture that the resurrection is still future. The creeds don't count, for they were not inspired by God. 2 Timothy 2:16-18, however, was inspired by God, and was written by Paul to refute this heresy because the resurrection was still future to his audience.
The problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus is that they were teaching that the resurrection had already happened before it did. If the traditional view of the resurrection is correct, then how could these men overthrow the faith of some of the people in Timothy's church? In other words, if the resurrection is about biological bodie coming out of the graves and no more biological death occurring after that, how could they possibly overthrow the faith of some when all that the people would have to do is go check the graves or go see that believers were still walking around, particularly, Timothy, their own pastor?
Plus, people were still dying from day to day, so how would this heresy even take root? It couldn't take root if traditional view was right! The point is that the resurrection had nothing to do with biological bodies, but rather, it had to do with the resurrection of the body of Adam in the body of Christ.
In summary, the reason that Hymenaeus and Philetus had any sway at all is because Paul was teaching a law-free Gospel, and if the resurrection had already taken place while the Temple was still standing, then salvation came through the Old Covenant mode of existence. That is what caused some people's faith to be overthrown. They learned from Paul that salvation in Christ comes outside of the Old Covenant mode of existence, apart from circumcision. But if the resurrection had already occurred and the Old Covenant was still in existence (i.e. The Temple still standing), then obviously, the Gospel isn't law-free. To attach the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus to full preterists won't fly because the context won't allow it. What was future to them is not to us.
Steve mentioned gnosticism and Greek philosophy. Full preterists are not arguing that the biological body is evil or good. We are aguing that the biological body is amoral. Ironically, it is the futurist position that has the leanings of Gnostic dualism. According to the traditional view, the inner man of 2 Cor. 4 is being renewed and no longer has to die because it goes immediately to be with the Lord upon ones death of the biological body. But why does the biological body still have to die? According to the traditional view it is because it is so tainted with sin that it has to die before it can be redeemed and glorified. So according to the traditional view, in its body and soul dualism, the soul is being changed into holiness, but the body still has to die because it is still evil. One may try to manipulate this as much as one would like, but the bottom line is, its the traditional view that has the "spirit is good, matter is evil" tendency. While the traditional view would argue that all matter is evil, they do, however, implicitly teach that the matter of the human body is evil.
The problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus is that they were teaching that the resurrection had already happened before it did. If the traditional view of the resurrection is correct, then how could these men overthrow the faith of some of the people in Timothy's church? In other words, if the resurrection is about biological bodie coming out of the graves and no more biological death occurring after that, how could they possibly overthrow the faith of some when all that the people would have to do is go check the graves or go see that believers were still walking around, particularly, Timothy, their own pastor?
Plus, people were still dying from day to day, so how would this heresy even take root? It couldn't take root if traditional view was right! The point is that the resurrection had nothing to do with biological bodies, but rather, it had to do with the resurrection of the body of Adam in the body of Christ.
In summary, the reason that Hymenaeus and Philetus had any sway at all is because Paul was teaching a law-free Gospel, and if the resurrection had already taken place while the Temple was still standing, then salvation came through the Old Covenant mode of existence. That is what caused some people's faith to be overthrown. They learned from Paul that salvation in Christ comes outside of the Old Covenant mode of existence, apart from circumcision. But if the resurrection had already occurred and the Old Covenant was still in existence (i.e. The Temple still standing), then obviously, the Gospel isn't law-free. To attach the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus to full preterists won't fly because the context won't allow it. What was future to them is not to us.
Steve mentioned gnosticism and Greek philosophy. Full preterists are not arguing that the biological body is evil or good. We are aguing that the biological body is amoral. Ironically, it is the futurist position that has the leanings of Gnostic dualism. According to the traditional view, the inner man of 2 Cor. 4 is being renewed and no longer has to die because it goes immediately to be with the Lord upon ones death of the biological body. But why does the biological body still have to die? According to the traditional view it is because it is so tainted with sin that it has to die before it can be redeemed and glorified. So according to the traditional view, in its body and soul dualism, the soul is being changed into holiness, but the body still has to die because it is still evil. One may try to manipulate this as much as one would like, but the bottom line is, its the traditional view that has the "spirit is good, matter is evil" tendency. While the traditional view would argue that all matter is evil, they do, however, implicitly teach that the matter of the human body is evil.
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
Agreed upon logic here, although I wouldn't dismiss the creeds so quickly as they do show how the heart of Christianity understood these issues.Allyn wrote:At the time that Paul was writing, Hymenaeus and Philetus were heretics because the resurrection was not past. In order to put full preterists in the same camp with these two men, it would have to be demonstrated from Scripture that the resurrection is still future. The creeds don't count, for they were not inspired by God. 2 Timothy 2:16-18, however, was inspired by God, and was written by Paul to refute this heresy because the resurrection was still future to his audience.
Umm... I would say pretty simply. They could just teach that resurrection was NOT about the body even though it was. In other words, they could just teach a new (false) definition of the term. That sort of stuff happens often.The problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus is that they were teaching that the resurrection had already happened before it did. If the traditional view of the resurrection is correct, then how could these men overthrow the faith of some of the people in Timothy's church? In other words, if the resurrection is about biological bodie coming out of the graves and no more biological death occurring after that, how could they possibly overthrow the faith of some when all that the people would have to do is go check the graves or go see that believers were still walking around, particularly, Timothy, their own pastor?
This is a very weak argument, in my opinion, in light of the overwhelmingly common usage of the word resurrection in the ancient world. It's primary (almost entire) meaning was wrapped up in the biological body. Resurrection was exactly the term you'd use to describe what happened if there was an empty grave.Plus, people were still dying from day to day, so how would this heresy even take root? It couldn't take root if traditional view was right! The point is that the resurrection had nothing to do with biological bodies, but rather, it had to do with the resurrection of the body of Adam in the body of Christ.
The temple still standing was only a symbol of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant had already passed away. I don't really follow your logic that if the resurrection had taken place before AD70 it would have been an endorsement of the Old Covenant. I don't think so.In summary, the reason that Hymenaeus and Philetus had any sway at all is because Paul was teaching a law-free Gospel, and if the resurrection had already taken place while the Temple was still standing, then salvation came through the Old Covenant mode of existence. That is what caused some people's faith to be overthrown. They learned from Paul that salvation in Christ comes outside of the Old Covenant mode of existence, apart from circumcision. But if the resurrection had already occurred and the Old Covenant was still in existence (i.e. The Temple still standing), then obviously, the Gospel isn't law-free. To attach the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus to full preterists won't fly because the context won't allow it. What was future to them is not to us.
But God doesn't think the body is amoral. He thinks the biological body is good. And He wants to redeem the whole of His creation. And creation itself is waiting for this to happen. And the resurrection of Christ's biological body is the firstfruits, a sign that the physical realm will indeed be redeemed.Steve mentioned gnosticism and Greek philosophy. Full preterists are not arguing that the biological body is evil or good. We are aguing that the biological body is amoral. Ironically, it is the futurist position that has the leanings of Gnostic dualism. According to the traditional view, the inner man of 2 Cor. 4 is being renewed and no longer has to die because it goes immediately to be with the Lord upon ones death of the biological body. But why does the biological body still have to die? According to the traditional view it is because it is so tainted with sin that it has to die before it can be redeemed and glorified. So according to the traditional view, in its body and soul dualism, the soul is being changed into holiness, but the body still has to die because it is still evil. One may try to manipulate this as much as one would like, but the bottom line is, its the traditional view that has the "spirit is good, matter is evil" tendency. While the traditional view would argue that all matter is evil, they do, however, implicitly teach that the matter of the human body is evil.
The traditional view does not imply that bodies are evil. It implies that bodies must be transformed. They do not HAVE to die, most just will b/c Christ only comes back at one point in history. Those alive at that time won't die, they will be changed right then and there.
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
Thanks matt,
From this point on, if we continue here, lets both bring in some Scripture to make our argument. It would be good for others to see our views expressed through Scripture.
From this point on, if we continue here, lets both bring in some Scripture to make our argument. It would be good for others to see our views expressed through Scripture.
-
RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
Great points, Matt.
The Sadduccees, who said there was no resurrection, were obviously referring to a physical resurrection. Here would be a great time for Jesus to have said that the resurrection was spiritual. However, He does not say that, and rather He points out that there is no marriage in the resurrection. If the resurrection happened in AD70, then why isn't everyone celibate and unmarried? That is one of the key aspects of the resurrection according to Jesus. We're also not "like" the angels in heaven any more than the humans before AD70 were (as far as we know).
Here Paul refers to the resurrection as a future thing. Now, the full preterist might say, "it refers to the future at AD70". But how does the resurrection full-preterism defines different than the spiritual resurrection which had already happened to many saved individuals at this point? Many people experienced the "spiritual resurrection" (John 5:24-25) at this point in time. But Paul seems to be referring to a different "resurrection" still future. Not only that, the wicked will be resurrected too... so how does that work for the full preterist? Have the wicked also been spiritually resurrected?
Allyn wrote:Thanks matt,
From this point on, if we continue here, lets both bring in some Scripture to make our argument. It would be good for others to see our views expressed through Scripture.
The Sadduccees, who said there was no resurrection, were obviously referring to a physical resurrection. Here would be a great time for Jesus to have said that the resurrection was spiritual. However, He does not say that, and rather He points out that there is no marriage in the resurrection. If the resurrection happened in AD70, then why isn't everyone celibate and unmarried? That is one of the key aspects of the resurrection according to Jesus. We're also not "like" the angels in heaven any more than the humans before AD70 were (as far as we know).
Here Paul refers to the resurrection as a future thing. Now, the full preterist might say, "it refers to the future at AD70". But how does the resurrection full-preterism defines different than the spiritual resurrection which had already happened to many saved individuals at this point? Many people experienced the "spiritual resurrection" (John 5:24-25) at this point in time. But Paul seems to be referring to a different "resurrection" still future. Not only that, the wicked will be resurrected too... so how does that work for the full preterist? Have the wicked also been spiritually resurrected?
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
Do you think this is what Paul was claiming here,mattrose wrote: But God doesn't think the body is amoral. He thinks the biological body is good. And He wants to redeem the whole of His creation. And creation itself is waiting for this to happen. And the resurrection of Christ's biological body is the firstfruits, a sign that the physical realm will indeed be redeemed.
The traditional view does not imply that bodies are evil. It implies that bodies must be transformed. They do not HAVE to die, most just will b/c Christ only comes back at one point in history. Those alive at that time won't die, they will be changed right then and
there.
“52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” 1 Corinthians 15:52, 53
Conquest
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
I think that whole chapter is quite clearly referring to physical/bodily resurrection (again, I hesitate to even use the words 'physical/body' and 'resurrection' consecutively since it is somewhat redundant.Conquest wrote:Do you think this is what Paul was claiming here,
“52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” 1 Corinthians 15:52, 53
Conquest
15:1-11
Paul begins the chapter by saying that Christ was buried (obviously referring to his physical body). He then says Christ was raised 3 days later (again, obviously bodily). He appeared (obviously physically) to more than 500 people.
15:12-34
Paul argues that the fact of Jesus (bodily) resurrection points to the future (bodily) resurrection of the dead (those who have fallen asleep). Since Adam, we all die physically. But through Christ, we may be raised in like manner. Christ's physical resurrection was that of a firstfruits, implying that our resurrection will be in like manner. This future resurrection will occur only after 'death' has been finally defeated.
15:35-58
Paul clarifies the nature of the resurrection. He says specifically that there will be a transformation of the body. A perishable body will become an imperishable body. And so on and so forth. A body dominated by the flesh will become a body dominated by the Spirit. It could be no other way... corrupted humanity can't inherit the kingdom of God. There has to be transformation. Through Christ death will be once and for all defeated (never to occur again). Because of this future hope in (bodily) resurrection, our labor is not in vain.
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
It seems to me that both Matt and Rich have presented irrefutable arguments. It makes me wonder what motivation could cause an otherwise-evangelical thinker to look for more esoteric interpretations of statements that would have been plainly understood by the original readers as assertions of physical resurrection. I mean, looking for counterintuitive interpretations of plain passages of scripture always is the result of pressure coming from some other direction. My question is: Where is this pressure upon full-preterists coming from?
Take an analogy. I have plainly declared my doubts about the traditional view of hell. Yet there are some scriptures which (in the minds of many) appear to teach the traditional doctrine. I confess to a tendency to interpret those passages in a non-traditional and non-literal manner. Why? What is pressuring my interpretative enterprise to find alternatives to the traditional understanding of those passages? I will identify openly where the pressure is coming from. It comes from the tandem truths that 1) the traditional view challenges the character of God revealed in Christ (thus the glory of God seems to be compromised by the tradition); and 2) there are many other passages that seem to teach views contrary to the traditional one.
Now, if I were to adopt a full-preterist position and feel compelled to shoe-horn every inconvenient biblical passage into conformity with this position, what outside considerations would be supplying the pressure upon my hermeneutic to motivate this novel approach? This is an honest question. I do not know what motivates the full-preterist in this enterprise.
I don't think that the position has any bearing one way or another on the character of God or the glory of Christ, so that does not seem to be the guiding principle here.
A second possibility might be the pressure to bring difficult passages into harmony with the flow of biblical history and worldview, in general. However, I fail to see this as relevant to the question at hand—in fact, I would consider this consideration to be detrimental to the full-preterist position.
The only thing that seems to be present is (as I have mentioned elsewhere) a wooden consistency in the interpretation of the very flexible term "parousia." Without a commitment to such an unwarranted consistency, I do not see anything else that would provide the necessary pressure to dodge obvious meanings of so many biblical passages. But I am interested in knowing if there is more to it.
Take an analogy. I have plainly declared my doubts about the traditional view of hell. Yet there are some scriptures which (in the minds of many) appear to teach the traditional doctrine. I confess to a tendency to interpret those passages in a non-traditional and non-literal manner. Why? What is pressuring my interpretative enterprise to find alternatives to the traditional understanding of those passages? I will identify openly where the pressure is coming from. It comes from the tandem truths that 1) the traditional view challenges the character of God revealed in Christ (thus the glory of God seems to be compromised by the tradition); and 2) there are many other passages that seem to teach views contrary to the traditional one.
Now, if I were to adopt a full-preterist position and feel compelled to shoe-horn every inconvenient biblical passage into conformity with this position, what outside considerations would be supplying the pressure upon my hermeneutic to motivate this novel approach? This is an honest question. I do not know what motivates the full-preterist in this enterprise.
I don't think that the position has any bearing one way or another on the character of God or the glory of Christ, so that does not seem to be the guiding principle here.
A second possibility might be the pressure to bring difficult passages into harmony with the flow of biblical history and worldview, in general. However, I fail to see this as relevant to the question at hand—in fact, I would consider this consideration to be detrimental to the full-preterist position.
The only thing that seems to be present is (as I have mentioned elsewhere) a wooden consistency in the interpretation of the very flexible term "parousia." Without a commitment to such an unwarranted consistency, I do not see anything else that would provide the necessary pressure to dodge obvious meanings of so many biblical passages. But I am interested in knowing if there is more to it.
Re: Is the Resurrection already past?
In the context of the way Jesus uses the word Parousia and with reference to Daniel, the prophet, who is, in part, being taught from by Jesus in Matthew 24, it is obvious to the preterist that there is a tight sequence of events being shown to the 4 disciples after their querry to Jesus on the Mount of Olives. It is the partial preterist who finds it neccessary to unnaturally breakup chapter 24 into two events separated by, now, 2000 years. A comma determining a lapse of thousands of years not even hinted at by Jesus Himself.
What Jesus does do, and what the inspired writers who came after Him have done is give a certain indicator that all of these things Jesus spoke of were to happen not only in the 1st century, at the observance of the whole known world, but to a people it all was promised to by a covenant proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets.
With just one example, I can demonstrate this using the Apostle Paul as one of several who taught the coming of Christ in the 1st century and the resurrection of the dead.
The Apostle, being taught by Jesus Christ Himself, speaks in 1 Thess 4 that at the last trump the dead will rise. It is THE trump of God and the only trump calling forth Daniel and his people from their sleep. Some will be raised to DEATH and others to everlasting life. This trump is the same of 1 Cor. 15 where Pauls declares this same truth saying: "...at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised..."
This is the same last trump spoken of that must take place at the end of those days spoken of in Matthew 24 and in reference to Daniel 12 where Daniel was also told of this time of the resurrection at the end of those days. The angel specifically told Daniel that at the end of the Abomination that makes desolate the dead in their graves (which only included the people of Daniel) would be raised. Jesus said this was the time of the end which the Disciples had asked Jesus about when He said that not one stone would be left standing upon another. Dr. Luke also gave a gentile rendition of the same account by saying that Jesus was speaking of a time when armies surrounded Jerusalem.
Therefore in the very same passages of the inspired writings of Paul to both the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul, with knowledge given to him by Christ Himself, put the event of the Last Trump at the very exact same time as the Last Trump Jesus spoke of in His olivet discourse of matthew 24 where He said with profound absoluteness: "29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
What Jesus does do, and what the inspired writers who came after Him have done is give a certain indicator that all of these things Jesus spoke of were to happen not only in the 1st century, at the observance of the whole known world, but to a people it all was promised to by a covenant proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets.
With just one example, I can demonstrate this using the Apostle Paul as one of several who taught the coming of Christ in the 1st century and the resurrection of the dead.
The Apostle, being taught by Jesus Christ Himself, speaks in 1 Thess 4 that at the last trump the dead will rise. It is THE trump of God and the only trump calling forth Daniel and his people from their sleep. Some will be raised to DEATH and others to everlasting life. This trump is the same of 1 Cor. 15 where Pauls declares this same truth saying: "...at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised..."
This is the same last trump spoken of that must take place at the end of those days spoken of in Matthew 24 and in reference to Daniel 12 where Daniel was also told of this time of the resurrection at the end of those days. The angel specifically told Daniel that at the end of the Abomination that makes desolate the dead in their graves (which only included the people of Daniel) would be raised. Jesus said this was the time of the end which the Disciples had asked Jesus about when He said that not one stone would be left standing upon another. Dr. Luke also gave a gentile rendition of the same account by saying that Jesus was speaking of a time when armies surrounded Jerusalem.
Therefore in the very same passages of the inspired writings of Paul to both the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul, with knowledge given to him by Christ Himself, put the event of the Last Trump at the very exact same time as the Last Trump Jesus spoke of in His olivet discourse of matthew 24 where He said with profound absoluteness: "29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."