Is the Resurrection already past?

[TK]

allyn wrote:

I agree with you - the kingdom came at the second coming of Christ.

I don't think you DO agree with me because that is not what I meant. The Kingdom was here during Jesus' eartly ministry.

Regarding your other 2 questions, I havent really thought about it. I will have to take a look. I can't answer off the cuff.

TK

[Conquest]

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).

This is a strange comment for me to take in, Rich. If the resurrection of the dead involves the dead then how is it you come to think it would require celibacy from AD 70 onward? The resurrection spoken of in this passage is the one all Israel looked to as the hope of Israel. Only Israel participated in it and you had to be already dead to qualify. Do you see the resurrection as something different than an actual raising from the dead?

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?

The spiritual resurrection is one's participation in the kingdom of God. It is the same as described in Romans 6-8 in which a believer has a death, burial and resurrection in the likeness of Christ's. He did it physically and the believer does it in Baptism. However the kingdom of God was not yet fully in and would not be until Jesus came again in the glory of His kingdom with all His holy angels. Your use of Acts 24:15 is incorrect in that Paul is referring to the actual dead being raised at the end of the age. Daniel was given a prophecy concerning his people and their resurrection. We find this in Daniel 12 and it describes a time future to Daniel but no further than the end of those days Jesus pointed out as being the time of the end (Mat 24:14). Jesus also confirmed the prophecy of Daniel by associating His second coming with Daniels prophecy as being the same time when those people of Daniel would be raised.(Dan. 12:13)

Do you know of the Jewish Law the Sadduccees question was predicated upon?

Conquest

[Allyn]

Do you know of the Jewish Law the Sadduccees question was predicated upon?

Conquest

Jesus was answering concerning the resurrection - this I know for sure.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hi Allyn (and all others),

I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I've been away from the forum for the past month. This post will be addressing Allyn's questions and comments on some of my initial postings on page 2 of this thread.

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).

This is a strange comment for me to take in, Rich. If the resurrection of the dead involves the dead then how is it you come to think it would require celibacy from AD 70 onward? The resurrection spoken of in this passage is the one all Israel looked to as the hope of Israel. Only Israel participated in it and you had to be already dead to qualify. Do you see the resurrection as something different than an actual raising from the dead?

My comment was delivered in a rhetorical manner of speaking. I was trying to realize how the full preterist would have to interpret Jesus' words here:


Jesus said that in the resurrection there is no more marriage and we are like the angels of God in heaven. Therefore, in order for the full preterist to believe this is fulfilled, they must conclude that marriage is abolished and everyone who participates in the kingdom of God (spiritual resurrection) is like an angel of God in heaven. This is not true for two reasons:

1) Marriage still exists. I know many Christians who are married.
2) We're not like the angels as far as we know. We have bodies that corrode and die...

I apologize if my initial post didn't convey that argument very clearly. How do you answer that?

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?

The spiritual resurrection is one's participation in the kingdom of God. It is the same as described in Romans 6-8 in which a believer has a death, burial and resurrection in the likeness of Christ's. He did it physically and the believer does it in Baptism. However the kingdom of God was not yet fully in and would not be until Jesus came again in the glory of His kingdom with all His holy angels. Your use of Acts 24:15 is incorrect in that Paul is referring to the actual dead being raised at the end of the age. Daniel was given a prophecy concerning his people and their resurrection. We find this in Daniel 12 and it describes a time future to Daniel but no further than the end of those days Jesus pointed out as being the time of the end (Mat 24:14). Jesus also confirmed the prophecy of Daniel by associating His second coming with Daniels prophecy as being the same time when those people of Daniel would be raised.(Dan. 12:13)

Acts 24:15 talks about the resurrection. You can't honestly interpret it to mean participation in the kingdom of God. Why? It's because Paul says that the resurrection will include both the just and the unjust. That's what the verse says. The unjust are not part of the kingdom of God. You cannot answer this passage without trying to squeeze your way out of very simple and plain language. Although I think it is logically impossible, I'd like for you to specifically address these two Scriptures honestly... after all, I will quote you from a post later in the thread: "Truth matters".

[Allyn]

Hi Rich,

Preterists believe that the resurrection of the dead occurred at the end of those days Daniel 12 spoke of and what Jesus referred to as happening around the time of the Abomination of Desolation. This resurrection is out of the sleep Daniel and his people who died before the coming of the Gospel of Christ. Not a resurrection of the spiritual dead. Let me quote from Daniel 12:
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Notice first these are Daniels people who will participate in the resurrection of the dead. His people whether righteous dead or those deserving contempt - all Daniel's people.

13 “But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.”

Even Daniel will rest in the dust until that day.

[Mellontes]

Jesus said that in the resurrection there is no more marriage and we are like the angels of God in heaven. Therefore, in order for the full preterist to believe this is fulfilled, they must conclude that marriage is abolished and everyone who participates in the kingdom of God (spiritual resurrection) is like an angel of God in heaven. This is not true for two reasons:

1) Marriage still exists. I know many Christians who are married.
2) We're not like the angels as far as we know. We have bodies that corrode and die...

I apologize if my initial post didn't convey that argument very clearly. How do you answer that?

Consider, first of all, the issue of what scripture calls this age, and the age to come. This is vitally important. Most futurists assume that when scripture speaks of "this age" it means the current Christian age that will end with the arrival of "the age to come." This is a fundamental error.

In Luke 20, Jesus discussed the resurrection and the age to come.

Note that Jesus is confronted with the Sadducee's hypothetical argument against the resurrection. They discuss the practice of the Levirate marriage. Jesus, in response, says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, nor can they die...and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." SOURCE

Please take note: Jesus said "the sons of this age marry." Jesus was referring directly to the issue of the Levirate marriage! He was not referring to the universal human experience!! It is wrong to argue "ad hominem" that "Preston is married, therefore the resurrection has not occurred," for this argument totally ignores the fact that the marriage issue at stake was the Levirate marriage law!

In what age was Jesus living, in which the Levirate marriage was the law? Clearly, it was the age of the law that was delivered to Israel at Sinai. It was the Mosaic Age!

( Deuteronomy 25)

Allow me to make three important points:

1. The bible speaks of only two ages, "this age," and "the age to come."
2. Jesus taught that "this age" was the Mosaic Age, and the age to come, was the age of Messiah and the new covenant.
3. Jesus believed that "this age" the age of Moses and the Law, was to end, but the age to come was without end!

There can be no doubt as to the essential truth of these statements. And, consider that the New Testament constantly refers to the end of the Mosaic Age, but affirms repeatedly that the age of Jesus and his New Covenant is without end! (Luke 1:32-35 / Matthew 24:35 / Ephesians 3:20-21). Ask yourself therefore, if the church age has no end, how can anyone teach the end of the current Christian age?

Now to more specifically address Jesus' teaching in Luke 20.

In the age to come: 1.) They neither marry nor are given in marriage. How was Jesus' this age sustained? By marrying. Jesus said in the age to come that would not be the case.

Paul said that in Christ, the age that would follow the Mosaic Age, where "there is neither male or female!" (Galatians 3:28) If, in Christ, there is neither male or female, how can there be marrying and giving in marriage? Further, Jesus said in the age to come, the Levirate marriage would not be the order of the day. Is Levirate marriage practiced under the New Covenant age of Jesus? If not, then the age to come has arrived.

2.) In the age to come they cannot die. Death was the order of the Mosaic Age. Romans 7:7f / 2 Corinthians 3:6f, (Galatians 3:20-21). In contrast, Jesus' New Covenant gives eternal life. John 8:51-Romans 6:23 / Romans 8:1-3 — free from the law of sin and death!

3.) They are Sons of God, being sons of the resurrection! Under the mosaic age — sons of god produced by giving in marrying. Born, then taught! Under the New Covenant, children are produced by faith: "you are all the children of god by faith, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Taught, then born (Hebrews 8:6f). In Romans 6:4f, Paul speaks of death, burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism, the resurrection by faith, that produces sons of god, and life from the dead (Colossians 2:11-13).

Thus, every constituent element that Jesus said would characterize the "age to come" is found in Christ's new covenant world. And, it goes without saying that the New Covenant world followed the Mosaic world in which Jesus was living.

My final argument, therefore, has proven two things. It has proven that what the Bible calls "this age" was not the Christian age, but was in fact, the Mosaic Age, the age of the Law given to Israel at Sinai. This means, unequivocally, that the age to come, the age of the resurrection, is the Christian Age.

Second, since the resurrection was to occur at the end of Jesus' this age," and his "this age" was the Mosaic Age, then since that age came to an end at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, this means that the resurrection occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Source = Point 1-11 under the section 1. Understanding Preterism (http://en.preterism.com/index.php?title ... _Questions)

[RICHinCHRIST]

Thanks for the responses.

Note that Jesus is confronted with the Sadducee's hypothetical argument against the resurrection. They discuss the practice of the Levirate marriage. Jesus, in response, says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, nor can they die...and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." SOURCE

I see the point you are making. However, The Sadducees were clearly asking about physical death. One man dies, his brother marries his wife, then he dies, etc. The Pharisees believed in a literal physical resurrection. Paul was once a Pharisee, and he never gave some new revelation in any of his writings about the resurrection being solely spiritual. He did mention that we can be raised with Christ, and experience resurrection power, but he never said we wouldn't be raised. In fact, the very thread topic is entitled from a statement from Paul saying that there were some who were insinuating that the resurrection was already past (2 TImothy 2:17-18). It's impossible to say that Paul was referring in 2 Timothy 2 to a spiritual resurrection at the institution of the Christian age. Why? Because the spiritual resurrection already happened at this point... the Christian age began at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in my opinion. The ages had an overlap. I agree mostly with your assessment of the two ages... but they had an overlap according to 2 Corinthians 3:11


Paul says the Old Covenant is passing away at the time of his writing. In this context, Paul also mentions that those of the old covenant are those of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), as if to mention is was current... yet he says it was passing away currently as well. We know quite well that the Spirit had been poured out at this point and began the kingdom, yet the current system was still around.

Also, there are some uses of the word "age" in which we must see it as separate from the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Some examples:


Did Jesus leave the apostles at the end of the Jewish age? Or does this not apply to us today since the Jewish age is over? Is Jesus not with us?

And if you apply it to the current Christian age, you contradict your framework. You said the current Christian age doesn't have an end! How do you work with that verse? I believe it is referring to a future all-encompassing universal establishment of the kingdom of God... the kingdom is here now... but it's not fully fulfilled because Christ hasn't put all enemies under His feet yet




How does this refer to the difference between the Jewish age and the Christian age? Doesn't make sense, in my opinion.



Once again, the Christian age had already begun by this point, so I believe this 'age to come' is yet future.

In conclusion, some passages where αἰών is used, it's ambiguous in regards to interpreting. I think it's a mistake to prooftext all of the uses of it into two categories which can't be altered. It seems as though it's just fitting your framework rather than taking all of the context and implications into consideration.

I'm still waiting to hear anyone's response about Acts 24:15, when you have the chance.


Also, another thought: How can the resurrection (as defined by Allyn: 'becoming a participant in the kingdom of God') be applicable to one point in time in AD 70? It seems irrelevant that Jerusalem would need to be destroyed in order for people to join the kingdom. Joining the kingdom happens by submitting to the King Jesus. That happened for decades before AD 70, and by golly, it's still happening today. I already proved that it's misleading to say that αἰών is used solely to describe the Jewish age and Christian age only, since there was an overlap. Also, physical resurrection occurred at the time of the cross (Matt 27:52)... this might be a long shot, but I wonder if it's possible to apply this to the Daniel chapter 12 mentioning of the resurrection.

love in Christ,

r

[Allyn]

I hate long posts but it seems that more details must be given as to why and how the full-preterist sees the resurrection mode and timing in a different way from that of the futurist and even the partial futurist.

As a full-preterist I believe that the NT teaching of the soon to come resurrection of the dead was a gradual, transitional outworking of the one resurrection that Paul taught in 1 Cor 15. The resurrection of the body of Adam, dying and rising in Christ, is the resurrection that fully occurred by way of the dead resurrecting from Hades. Scripture makes a distinction between the dead who are still living biologically and the dead who have died biologically. Both had to be resurrected. The difference is that those who had died biologically actually had to be resurrected from Death (the temporary status) and Hades (the temporary location) while those who were still living biologically had to be changed by way of the resurrection of the body. Thus, those who were living biologically were not resurrected from the place of the dead. Yet their death was a death united to Christ and their resurrection was a resurrection united to Christ, just like those who were raised out of Hades. The collective dead was a body that was dying and raising in 1 Corinthians 15. The body could not be completely resurrected, though, without the completion of the promised resurrection of Israel (i.e. the dead ones). That was part and parcel of the resurrected body.

The change that both the biologically living and dead would incur came about through the final permanent death of the Old Covenant ministry of death and the rising to fulness of the New Covenant ministry of life. When the Old Covenant ministry of death was gone, the Old Covenant saints were released from its captivity and resurrected into the New Civenant ministry of life. That was the moment when the resurrection of the body was completed. If Old Covenant saints were not raised, then neither was the rest of the body of Adam that was in Christ, for salvation is of the Jews (Romans 11).

Between the time of Christ's resurrection and 70AD, those who had died biologically went to Hades, but were not held there. They were able to pass through Hades and go to the outer courts in the New Jerusalem to await the second coming of Christ (the High Priest) out of the most holy place.

As a point of interest there is an interesting possibility that those who came out of their tombs after Christ's resurrection and went into Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53) were some of the Old Covenant Jews that had recently died and would have been known by those still living. The idea is that they appeared in the city to many as a sign of this very heavenly scene. They would have been witness to the fact that the Great High Priest was going to enter the most holy place "a second time" for the sins of the people and would therefore soon exit the holy place fro the last time (Heb. 9:23-28).

These are the ones that shared in the first resurrection (Rev 20:5-6). They were the firstfruits of Christ, the first stalk. These are the ones God brought with Christ at the parousia (1 Thess. 4:14). They reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Why would they go to Hades before going to heaven? Hades was located between earth and heaven as well as between earth and the final location of eternal death (see 2 Cor. 12:1-4). We usually tend to think of heaven and hell in terms of up and down. But the invisible realm should not be thought of as directional for it is not like the visible realm. Hades was where the dead were held until the final judgment. Thus, Hades prevented the dead from passing on to their eternal destinies until Christ provided the necessary means for believers to enter the presense of God. Since Hades was not yet cast into the lake of fire prior to the final judgment, those who were alive in Christ had to pass through Hades on their way to the New Jerusalem, which both the living and the dead were a part. Let's look at John 5:24-29

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

In verses 24-27, Jesus is talking about people who are biologically alive. Jesus states that those who hear His word, and believe God, pass out of death into life. He further states that a time is coming and now is when this would happen. So "the dead" in verse 25 is referring to those who are in sin-death but are still biologically alive. We must remember that being part of "the dead" did not begin at biological death. It began at biological birth. We are able to determine that "the dead" refers to Old Covenant saints in some of Paul's texts, such as 1 Corinthians 15, because the context demands it. Here the context demands that Jesus is talking about the dead who are living.

Notice that in this passage, judgment is not neutral. It is contrasted with life. It is used negatively to mean eternal death. In verses 28-29, He is talking about the dead who are in Hades. This is clear by the fact that He refers to them as being in the tombs. In these verses, He states that a time is coming, but does not add the phrase, "and now is". There seems to be a distinction between the present and the future passing from death to life. For those who are alive biologically versus the future-only resurrecting of the dead in Hades. That is, the passing from death to life began during Jesus' first coming and would continue into the future whereas the resurrection of the dead in Hades was only future. At what point in Jesus' first coming does the "hour that now is" refer to? John 12:23-33 helps here:

23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.

27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name.”
Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”
29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to Him.”
30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

Jesus is clear here that the hour had to come for Him to die. But His actual death didn't occur on that exact day that He said this. It wasn't until some time later that He died, yet Jesus refers to His death as the hour that had already come. The point is that His death was to occur sometime during the hour that was "now here".

Thus, in John 5:25, when Jesus says that an hour is coming and is now here, He means two things:
1. The time period when the dead who would hear the voice of the Son of God and live would occur at some point during the hour that began while He was on earth. The actual time period of "living" would not begin until His resurrection.
2. The hour, in which the dead hearing the voice of the Son of God and being brought to life, that was "coming" is the same hour in which those who were in the tombs would hear His voice and come forth to a resurrection of life or of judgment. In otherwords, an hour was coming when all the dead (both alive biologically and dead biologically) would come to life and never die again (John 11:25-26). But for those who were living biologically, the coming to life from being dead would begin at the resurrection of Christ and would continue on through the resurrection of the body (which was consummated by the resurrection of the Old Covenant dead from Hades).

We must remember that the resurrection of the body was consummated by the resurrection of the dead from Hades. We also must remember that THE Death and THE Life refer to the death of the body of Adam versus the life of the body of Christ. In verse 24, the phrase, "has passed out of death into life" is literally, "has passed out of the Death into the Life." Jesus is teaching that those who believed were going to pass out of the Death of the body of Adam into the Life of the body of Christ. Being united to Christ, they would no longer be in the Death. Thus, they would be placed into the body of Christ that died in the flesh and came to life in the Spirit (Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Peter 3:18)

Dying with Christ is not the same as being in the Death. Dying with Christ is life because it means conquering the Death. Therefore, whoever believes in Jesus will never die even if he dies! This is how Jesus states it in John 11:25-26 in discussing the resurrection of Lazarus with Martha:
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Christ is the resurrection and the life! Thus, believing in Him brought eternal life at the resurrection even if they died biologically. And whoever lived biologically and believed in Him would never die. So those who believed were taken out of Death of Adam and placed into the Life of Christ so that they would never die again. Therefore, Jesus is speaking of those who would take part in the death and resurrection of Christ through the death and resurrection of the body.

One last thought regarding John 5. This is a text that provides one perspective of the judgment. There are different texts that speak of the different aspects of the judgment even though they aren't consecutive judgments that occur one after the other. There is just one judgment, though different ways of describing the judgment. In John 5:29, there is no separation of the sheep and goats because the dead who are in their tombs (which is a point of reference for those in Hades) were already separated based upon their deeds.

[RICHinCHRIST]

As a full-preterist I believe that the NT teaching of the soon to come resurrection of the dead was a gradual, transitional outworking of the one resurrection that Paul taught in 1 Cor 15. The resurrection of the body of Adam, dying and rising in Christ, is the resurrection that fully occurred by way of the dead resurrecting from Hades. Scripture makes a distinction between the dead who are still living biologically and the dead who have died biologically. Both had to be resurrected.

You can try and spiritualize all of the passages you mention and try to make them fit your framework, but it doesn't answer one issue of 1 Corinthians 15.


Your framework has to believe (if this resurrection and transformation is already fulfilled) that death has been swallowed up in victory. That cannot be true because it says in verse 56 that "the sting of death is sin". If you interpret it to refer to the "spiritual resurrection" alone, you have to say that sin has been abolished. That's not true. It's not true for the Christian. Christians still sin.

Your system has many of these types of flaws and I just don't have the time to address all of them.

I appreciate your effort in helping me further understand your method of interpretation and how it fits your framework. It's unfortunate, however, that the foundation you're building upon is sinking sand, in my opinion, in regards to 1 Corinthians 15. (please re-read mattrose's post which I re-quoted below because his interpretations cannot be refuted).

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.

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.

[Mellontes]

You can try and spiritualize all of the passages you mention and try to make them fit your framework, but it doesn't answer one issue of 1 Corinthians 15.


Your framework has to believe (if this resurrection and transformation is already fulfilled) that death has been swallowed up in victory. That cannot be true because it says in verse 56 that "the sting of death is sin". If you interpret it to refer to the "spiritual resurrection" alone, you have to say that sin has been abolished. That's not true. It's not true for the Christian. Christians still sin.

RICH in CHRIST,

First off, I apologize for the length of this post. Very often things can't be answered in 25 words or less..

I don't know whether you believe the new Jerusalem refers to the church or not, but if you do...

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 – For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

The time when the “mortal” puts on “immortality” is when “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Now, when is “Death is swallowed up in victory”? It occurs at the same time that “the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces” (Isaiah 25:8)

Isaiah 25:8 – He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

So, what is the context of Isaiah 25:8?

Well, we know from Isaiah 25:9 that this is the day of salvation!

Isaiah 25:9 - And it shall be said IN THAT DAY [the day that death is swallowed up in victory] Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

Preterists believe salvation was not complete until the parousia for those transitional saints (30 AD-70 AD) because of post cross verses such as:

Luke 21:28 - And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

and...

Hebrews 9:28 - So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Futurists believe the second coming is yet to occur. So, to them Isaiah 25:9 must refer to an individual's day of salvation because Isaiah 25:9 is VERY clear on the salvation aspect. So, let's go with the futurist view on this. As of today, (post-parousia for preterists) we would agree that the day of salvation occurs whenever a person comes into coveant with God through Jesus Christ by faith in His work upon Calvary. It is often equated with being "born again" or being "saved." This is the day he becomes a member of the universal body of Jesus Christ - the church. This is the day of his new creation (ktisis) in Christ. See 2 Corinthians 5:17...

2 Corinthians 5:1717 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [creation - ktsis): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Many verses translate the word "creature" to "creation." You won't be able to understand this as yet, but the new creation IS the new hewaven and earth. It is the fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17 and Isaiah 66:20-22. Unless one believes TWO new heavens and earths must be created...anyway, I digress.

We are all familiar with the time that God wipes away our tears in Revelation:

Revelation 21:1-4 – And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Notice the connection with death being swallowed up from 1 Corinthians 15:54 and Isaiah 25:8 with that of “there shall be no more death” in Revelation 21:4. Now, when does God wipe away all these tears? Here are five linking events:

1. “A new heaven and a new earth”
2. “The first heaven and the first earth were passed away”
3. “No more sea”
4. “New Jerusalem…prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”
5. “The tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people”

But first, a little more on the new Jerusalem from this same chapter:

Revelation 21:9-10 – … Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

There can be no question (at least not for me) that the arrival of the new heaven and new earth is the same time of the arrival of the new Jerusalem. It is WITHIN these that God wipes away our tears! According to Isaiah 25, this is the day of salvation. I am sure that most preterists (and many futurists) associate the new Jerusalem with the new covenant in Christ – salvation. Dispensationalists do not. Peter refers to the new heaven and earth as a place where righteousness dwells:

2 Peter 3:13 – Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

But we are not done. Let’s look a little closer at point #5 from that list above.

In a continuation of the “dry bones of Israel” that is prophesied to one day have life, Ezekiel states the following:

Ezekiel 37:26-28 – Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

[I recommend reading Ezekiel 37:15-25, the portion between the “dry bones” and the above passage. It speaks of the unity in the one stick – the key word here being “one.”]

The three bolded and underlined points from Ezekiel 37 are found elsewhere. Dispensationalists are reluctant to admit that the same points are exhibited in the church!

2 Corinthians 6:16 – And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I believe we have successfully connected Ezekiel’s prophesy with both Revelation and the church. Salvation, new heaven and new earth, new Jerusalem is concerning the church. Now, there is some controversy concerning the "extent" of the new heaven and earth. Some believe that all present nations exist under the umbrella of the new heaven and earth. Under this umbrella also exits the new Jerusalem. To this group, the new Jerusalem is not to be equated with the new heaven and earth. For others, the new Jerusalem is equated with the new heaven and earth. I equate the two as being equal entities, but I do not believe that all people are dwelling in the new heaven and earth.

A verse to consider in this regard:

Revelation 3:12 - Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

So, does what Peter say regarding the new heaven and earth mean that righteousness exists “under the umbrella” or IS the “umbrella”? We need to go back to Isaiah 65 this time.

Isaiah 65:17-19 – For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: or, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

The bolded and underlined portion matches very well with that of Revelation 21:4’s “and there shall be no more … sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

But there is a bit more from Isaiah 65…

Isaiah 65:25 – The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Which is strangely similar to Isaiah 11…

Isaiah 11:6 – The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And these events occur “in that day” when Isaiah 11:10 is given its fulfillment:

Isaiah 11:10 – And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Which we know to be fulfilled in Paul’s day when he refers to the Gentiles becoming co-heirs of the promise and part of the same body in Jesus Christ as the believing Jews…

Romans 15:8-12 – Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. 12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Romans 15:12 is quoting Isaiah 11:10 from the Septuagint (a matter for personal study). Paul is using Isaiah 11:10 and three other OT passages to prove his point that what was current in his day is that which was prophesied a long time ago. Dispensationalists do not agree because, to them, Isaiah’s reference to the wolf and the lamb indicate a return to the Garden state when animals resort back to being kind, gentle and peace loving. This allegedly occurs in their millennial kingdom which is still a future event.

However, this is exactly what does happen – only it is totally figurative in nature. What happened in the Garden is reversed by the seed prophecy of Genesis 3:15:

Genesis 3:15 – And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And we know that the true seed is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who brings salvation! What was lost in the garden is regained in Jesus Christ.

So, initially we started out in what is known as the resurrection chapter, 1 Corinthians 15. We learned that immortality and incorruption are obtained at this time. We also learned that at this time “death would be swallowed up in victory.” Death is swallowed up in victory the same time God wipes away our tears. This is in the new heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem. It is when salvation occurs. It is when we, as new believers, become new creations (ktisis – Strong’s 2937) in Christ. Therefore, we are immortal and incorrupt at the moment of salvation! Also, the idea that a physical, bodily resurrection stems from 1 Corinthians 15 is totally false. Even the view of new spiritual bodies is being given to passed away saints is false. It has nothing to do with the physical death of a believer! It is all about salvation – being raised from the dead (separation from God because of sin), not being raised from physical death!

Again, sorry for such a long post...