Is the Resurrection already past?

[RICHinCHRIST]

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...

Hi Mellontes--

I disagree with your assessment of Isaiah 25. Firstly, your saying that salvation didn't happen until AD 70. How could you believe that? Christianity had been growing exponentially the first few decades after Pentecost. If that wasn't because salvation had arrived, I don't know what it was then!

"In that day" of salvation Isaiah is speaking of... why must it be AD 70? There are numerous verses in this context that refer to "that day". Do you take all of them quite as literally? For instance, in "that day" you must also believe that the land of Judah sang a song (Isaiah 26:1ff). But wasn't the land of Judah destroyed on that day, per your interpretation? See Isaiah 26:12-15, 27:1-6, 27:12-13 as well. These phrases do not fit your framework. I see this "day of salvation" as possibly referring to a future restoration of the present Earth at the resurrection when the sons of God are revealed and the creation is liberated from bondage.

Even so, Rev. 21:4 cannot be fulfilled yet. Why? Christians still cry and weep in the midst of their trials. There are believers in Southeast Asia being martyred as we speak and they are feeling pain and sorrow and death. The wages of sin is death. Sin is still happening. Therefore, the process of death has not ended. You can spiritualize everything else you want to in Revelation 21-22, but you cannot spiritualize verse 4. How can you spiritualize sorrow, crying, or pain? These characteristics are not mere symbols that can be interpreted freely, but they are emotional and can be experienced by human nature. These things have not stopped yet. I have no trouble interpreting Isaiah 25 as future, because Paul did. I see no reason why I should interpret the 'day of salvation' as AD 70.


Also, if full-preterism is so important... why didn't God make an apostle write an extra letter to be added to the Canon post-AD 70? Then the apostle could tell us all of these things you are insinuating. Why is it so hard to see your points unless someone accepts your biased framework?

[Allyn]

Mellontes can take all your questions but I want to interject on this one:

Also, if full-preterism is so important... why didn't God make an apostle write an extra letter to be added to the Canon post-AD 70? Then the apostle could tell us all of these things you are insinuating. Why is it so hard to see your points unless someone accepts your biased framework?

The Pharisees demanded a sign because they did not believe what was in front of them - you and other futurist demand an inspired writer to clarify things for you instead of believing the words that have already told you that "This generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" and " I have fulfilled (completed) all things the Father has given me to do"

There is no insinuating but harmony and truth.

[RICHinCHRIST]

The Pharisees demanded a sign because they did not believe what was in front of them - you and other futurist demand an inspired writer to clarify things for you instead of believing the words that have already told you that "This generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" and " I have fulfilled (completed) all things the Father has given me to do"

There is no insinuating but harmony and truth.

I am a partial-preterist. I believe all things did take place before Matthew 24:34. However, I do not believe the resurrection has already happened, and Paul even said some people who were saying the resurrection already took place strayed from the truth.

What was your second reference? Are you referring to John 17:4?



Notice that Jesus mentions it was while He was on Earth. I believe Jesus completed all things the Father had given Him to do... on earth, that is.

The Father still wanted Jesus to ascend to His right hand (Psalm 110:1). At this point, He had not ascended yet. Neither did Jesus begin His high priestly prayer ministry by this point (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25). These are two things Jesus still had not done for the Father. Also, Jesus was to reveal Himself to the Apostle Paul (Acts 9), as well as admonish the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). Jesus still had things to do for His Father when He spoke these words in John 17:4. Jesus also has things to do in the future as well (resurrection, judgment, etc.).

[Allyn]

Rich,

How does a partial preterist deal with Daniel 12 which Jesus said was about the time spoken of in the Olivet Discourse and all those things would be seen in that generation? How does a partial preterist discount that Matthew 25 was also upon that generation?

[Mellontes]

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...

Hi Mellontes--

I disagree with your assessment of Isaiah 25. Firstly, your saying that salvation didn't happen until AD 70. How could you believe that? Christianity had been growing exponentially the first few decades after Pentecost. If that wasn't because salvation had arrived, I don't know what it was then!

Firstly, I am saying that salvation wasn't COMPLETED until 70AD. That is slightly different than your "didn't happen until 70AD." First, they were sealed with the promise. One day the promise would come true. And you have already seen a multitude of Scriptures quoted by us in regards to that time frame, like Matthew 24:34, for instance. I need not post them all again. But, if you believe that the day of salvation had come to those first century Christians (because Christianity had grown exponentially), then according to Isaiah 25:8, death was swallowed up in victory. Paul seems to say otherwise though and that is the difficulty...

"In that day" of salvation Isaiah is speaking of... why must it be AD 70? There are numerous verses in this context that refer to "that day". Do you take all of them quite as literally? For instance, in "that day" you must also believe that the land of Judah sang a song (Isaiah 26:1ff). But wasn't the land of Judah destroyed on that day, per your interpretation?

Actually, I don't know of any preterist who believes the land of Judea was destroyed in 70AD. You obviously misunderstand what we believe in this regard. It was the city of Jerusalem which was destroyed. That is a far cry from all the land of Judea...As for the song, I must ask which tribe was Christ from?

Hebrews 7:14 - For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Perhaps quoting from Genesis would also help...

Genesis 49:10 - The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Perhaps you are not aware of the two Jerusalems - one earthly and one heavenly. One apostate and one in Christ. One after the flesh and the other after the Spirit. That is why it is difficult sometime to differentiate between the Jerusalem rejoicing and the Jerusalem which receives judgment.

See Isaiah 26:12-15, 27:1-6, 27:12-13 as well. These phrases do not fit your framework. I see this "day of salvation" as possibly referring to a future restoration of the present Earth at the resurrection when the sons of God are revealed and the creation is liberated from bondage.

I didn't see the planet Earth in Isaiah 25:8-9 at all. Nor is resurrection, sons of God, or creation mentioned. And perhaps you could help me out here. What do you mean by creation? Are you talking plants, animals, mountains, insects, etc.? I was under the impression that the only creation that was in bondage to sin was that which did sin - human beings. I am also under the impression that redemption from that same sin comes as a result of trusting in Christ, something which animals, plants, mountains, and insects cannot do. Isn't that what was meant by 2 Corinthians 5:17?

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Strange word "creature." A little more than half of the translations use the word "creation" for the Greek ktisis in the above verse. Christians literally become new creations in Christ. The new covenant people are in stark contrast to the old covenant people. The OT prophesies of the new creation, the new heaven and earth. The old heaven and earth gives way to the new heaven and earth - Christians. Now, I KNOW you won't accept that! But unless you can show me where two creations are promised, then what I said is a possibility, especially when understanding the idea that heaven and earth would pass away. But to many futurists, these are speaking of cosmic entities and not Jewish understandings. Ask an orthodox Jew what was meant by heaven and earth sometime. He will answer "the temple." The old covenant temple is replaced by the new covenant temple in CHrist. This was the temple prophesied by Ezekiel. Yet there are those (not saying you are one) who believe this is going to be a rebuilt physical temple...As long as we continue to try to interpret the Bible based upon our Western 21st century understandings, we will be completely lost...

Can you explain what you mean by planetary restoration and support it from Scripture please. I am not saying you can't, it is just that it is tremendously difficult to discuss opinions...I hear a lot of this planet Earth restoration stuff but I never see any Scripture that speaks of that, whether they are old or new testament references. I am also under the impression that the "end" espoused in the OT is the same "end" espoused in the NT. Yet there is clearly nothing related about the "end" in the OT as having anything to do with planet Earth. How would these OT people even know what the planet was named and would they even know it was a planet? And if the "end" from the NT is not the same as the "end" described in the OT, then when is the OT "end," especially since the "end" in the NT is allegedly about the end of time and history? I see the "end" in covenantal terms - the end of the old covenant economy - not in planet Earth terms. Where is it?

Even so, Rev. 21:4 cannot be fulfilled yet. Why? Christians still cry and weep in the midst of their trials. There are believers in Southeast Asia being martyred as we speak and they are feeling pain and sorrow and death. The wages of sin is death. Sin is still happening. Therefore, the process of death has not ended. You can spiritualize everything else you want to in Revelation 21-22, but you cannot spiritualize verse 4. How can you spiritualize sorrow, crying, or pain? These characteristics are not mere symbols that can be interpreted freely, but they are emotional and can be experienced by human nature. These things have not stopped yet. I have no trouble interpreting Isaiah 25 as future, because Paul did. I see no reason why I should interpret the 'day of salvation' as AD 70.

I realize you cannot view Rev 21:4 as being fulfilled. The pain and sorrow is covenant related. We, 2,000 years removed from the old covenant economy, have absolutely no idea what the burden of the law was like. What do you think Christ meant when he said, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"? Let us not forget that Christ was sent to the house of Israel (old covenant Jews). And Paul did interpret Isaiah 25 as being future TO HIM...but not to us:

Luke 21:20, 28 - ...And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh...And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Also, if full-preterism is so important... why didn't God make an apostle write an extra letter to be added to the Canon post-AD 70? Then the apostle could tell us all of these things you are insinuating. Why is it so hard to see your points unless someone accepts your biased framework?

I noticed that you cut my quote off eliminating those verses that indicated exactly what I believe about salvation not being realized fully until 70AD. What explanation would you give to those verses? We believe them.

How would you explain the promise of the Spirit given to those first century saints. What was the promise for and when would the promise be fulfilled? Why was "Christ in you" a future HOPE if it had apparently been realized according to your understanding? Is not "Christ in you" a reference to the presence of the Lord Jesus? Is not the Parousia defined, at least in part, as a presence. If Christ is in you NOW, then the parousia for that presenvce to come has taken place.

I suppose it all comes down to this one question: "Are you 100% redeemed right now by what Jesus did upon Calvary + His resurrection?" In other words, was what Jesus accomplished all that is necessary for redemption? Please understand that I am speaking from a 2010 time frame. Is there anything else that I must do in order to get this redemption? Must I physically die to gain complete redemption? Futurism believes this is so.

What do you do with Luke 21:22?

Luke 21:22 - For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Surely you realize that all things written refers to the OT scriptures. And how could they be all fulfilled at this time (destruction of Jerusalem) if the resurrection is mentioned in the OT? Unless the NATURE of that resurrection is different than what futurists presently believe.

Way too long of a post. Sorry. It is difficult to address so much at one time. I wish we could focus in on one thing and park there a while...

[RICHinCHRIST]

Rich,

How does a partial preterist deal with Daniel 12 which Jesus said was about the time spoken of in the Olivet Discourse and all those things would be seen in that generation? How does a partial preterist discount that Matthew 25 was also upon that generation?

Hi Allyn--

I will admit that Daniel chapter 12 is a very mysterious chapter. I don't really understand it all. I do think it's possible that the resurrection being spoken of in Daniel 12:2 could be referring to those who were resurrected when Jesus died on the cross. It doesn't say that everyone will be raised, but that "many" will be raised in Dan 12:2. It also says "many" were raised in Matthew 27:52. However, I don't understand how Daniel 12 fits the full-preterist framework either. I do believe the abomination of desolation happened at the destruction of Jerusalem, as predicted by Jesus, but I don't see how that proves that the resurrection of all people has already happened. (Also consider this: Everyone has not even been born yet... there are babies who will be born later tonight... have they been resurrected already too?) I also don't see how Daniel 12 proves that the second coming of Christ spoken of so frequently in the NT was also fulfilled at AD 70.

Matthew 25, in my opinion, is speaking of the future judgment. We've already gone over this [pages 2 and 3 of this thread]. Partial preterists believe that there is a distinction made by Jesus between Matthew 24:34 and 24:35. Jesus begins to speak of "that day" when Heaven and earth will pass away from verse 35 onwards. Therefore, we have no trouble interpreting the events and parables taught by Jesus from 24:36 thru chapter 25 to be fulfilled in the future.

Here's another verse I came across a couple days ago:


These people were martyred, murdered, physically dead. The author of Hebrews says they will obtain a better resurrection.

Now look at verse 40:


They won't be made perfect apart from us? That phrase is implying that we need to walk in the footsteps of the great examples of faith described in this chapter. In some way our walking in faith by looking unto Jesus will co-align us with the saints of the OT. We'll be made perfect together with them. When? I believe it will be when we obtain a better resurrection!

[Mellontes]

Here's another verse I came across a couple days ago:


These people were martyred, murdered, physically dead. The author of Hebrews says they will obtain a better resurrection.

Now look at verse 40:


They won't be made perfect apart from us? That phrase is implying that we need to walk in the footsteps of the great examples of faith described in this chapter. In some way our walking in faith by looking unto Jesus will co-align us with the saints of the OT. We'll be made perfect together with them. When? I believe it will be when we obtain a better resurrection!

This is why preterism is so difficult to accept. You believe the Scriptures were written to you. We believe the Scriptures were written to whom they were written to. We also believe that Scriptures have application to present day us, IF they have application.

The author of the book of Hebrews is not writing to us in the 21st century. He is writing to those first century pre-parousia saints. Those are the "US" he is referring to. And yes, an application to us in the present day to walk in the footsteps of those great ones can be applied to us. Spiritual principles are eternal. Historical events are NOT. Historical events take place among the generation and people to which they happened.

I have said this before on many occasions. Futurism eliminates the original interpretation. We (all Christians), for the most part, have been taught that we must determine the original interpretation that happenend upon the ears of those who heard what was being said or what had been written to them BEFORE we can make application to our own lives. However, this is not what is being done. We assume that we are the audience being written to and this is a GREAT error.

The only time in which the historical context is interpreted properly is when it is regarding every other "ology" (Christology, ecclesiology, angelology, etc.) EXCEPT eschatology.

Perhaps the greatest example of this kind of error is emphasized in such passages as "WE that are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. The "WE" there is NOT us. The original interpretation is Paul, Timothy, Silvanus, and the Thessalonian believers. That is why when Paul says, "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to THEM THAT TROUBLE YOU; And to YOU WHO ARE TROUBLED rest with US, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" from 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8, he is keeping the audience relevance issue consistent. Futurists consistently apply these historical events to a time frame almost 2,000 years removed from whom the letter was written to.

THEM THAT TROUBLE YOU is none other than the unbelieving Jews with those that they were able to rile up (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
YOU WHO ARE TROUBLED is none other than those persecuted Thessalonian believers that Paul is writing to. Yes, there are other persecuted believers in this era as well who would be able to take application from what is written here since they are living in the SAME time frame, but Paul is writing specifically to this church at this time. He can not possibly be writing to us in the 21st century for two reasons:

1) 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1
2) Is this present-day church suffering persecution at the hands of the Jews?

Until one is able to distinguish the first century relevance, one will be at a total loss in trying to figure all this out. We take the time frame seriously; we do not "spiritualize" the time texts to make them of no significance to whom they were written to.

[Allyn]

We've been going round and round on this subject of the resurrection whether it is past or not. As a full-preterist I believe that the timing of the resurrection can be determined by following the Bible teaching where the resurrection is spoken of.

According to the Bible, when was the resurrection to take place? The Scriptures testify that the time of the resurrection was to be at the end of the Old Covenant age. We know this to have happened in AD 70 with the destruction of the Jewish Temple. The disciples knew that the fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the Old Covenant age and the inauguration of a new age.

Daniel says that this resurrection will come after a time of great trouble for the Jewish nation (Daniel 12:1-2). This verse sounds just like Matthew 24:21, where Jesus is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. Now compare Daniel 12:3 with Matthew 13:40-43. Both Daniel 12 and Matthew 13 are speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The resurrection is an event that happened in AD 70.

Daniel 12:4, 8 identify this time as "the time of the end." In response to Daniel's question at the end of verse 6, "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" the angel speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Daniel 12:7). In Daniel 12:11, Daniel connects the resurrection to the abomination that makes desolate. Jesus referred to this in Matthew 24:15, in discussing the fall of Jerusalem. Daniel 12:13 records a promise given to Daniel about his own personal resurrection. The statements of verses 1, 7, 11, and 12 tie the resurrection to the time immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

What Daniel had written was well ingrained into the thinking of the Jews. We see from Jesus' discussion with Martha that Martha had no doubt as to when the resurrection would be: "at the last day" (John 11:23-24). Jesus taught that the resurrection would happen on the last day (John 6:39-40,44,54).

[Allyn]

When is the last day? To the Jews, time was divided into two great periods, the Mosaic Age and the Messianic Age. The Messiah was viewed as one who would bring in a new world. The period of the Messiah was, therefore, correctly characterized by the Synagogue as "the world to come." All through the New Testament we see two ages in contrast: "This age" and the "age to come."

Jesus came during the last days of the age that was the Old Covenant age, the Jewish age (1 Peter 1:20). That age came to an end with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Jesus was speaking in the last days (Hebrews 1:1-2). What last days? The last days of the Bible's "this age" -- the Old Covenant age.

When was it that Jesus appeared? He was born, not at the beginning, but at the end of the ages (Hebrews 9:26). To suppose that he meant that Jesus' incarnation came near the end of the world, would be to make his statement false. The world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. Jesus was manifest at the end of the Jewish age .

In Jesus' answer to the Sadducees about the woman who had seven husbands, he indicates that the resurrection was to occur at the changing of the ages (Luke 20:34-35). The resurrection was not something that was available to them in "this world" (the Old Covenant age) but would be available to them in "that world" (the New Covenant age), implying that the resurrection would occur at the beginning of the New Covenant age.

So, the resurrection was to happen at the end of the Jewish age, the Old Covenant age. We know that this happened in AD 70. Paul spoke of the nearness of the resurrection in his day (Acts 24:15):

If the time of the resurrection is seen as AD 70, then we know that the nature of the resurrection was spiritual, rather than physical. It is a fundamental fact of eschatology that time defines nature. Since we know that the resurrection is past, we know that it was spiritual and not physical. The resurrection of the dead that took place at the end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 was not a biological resurrection of dead decayed bodies, but a release from Sheol of all who had been waiting through the centuries to be reunited with God in the heavenly kingdom.

[SteveF]

I want to back this conversation up a little.

Rich asked:

Also, if full-preterism is so important... why didn't God make an apostle write an extra letter to be added to the Canon post-AD 70? Then the apostle could tell us all of these things you are insinuating. Why is it so hard to see your points unless someone accepts your biased framework?

Allyn replied:

The Pharisees demanded a sign because they did not believe what was in front of them - you and other futurist demand an inspired writer to clarify things for you instead of believing the words that have already told you that "This generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" and " I have fulfilled (completed) all things the Father has given me to do"

There is no insinuating but harmony and truth.

Rich replied:

I am a partial-preterist. I believe all things did take place before Matthew 24:34. However, I do not believe the resurrection has already happened, and Paul even said some people who were saying the resurrection already took place strayed from the truth.

What was your second reference? Are you referring to John 17:4?

John 17:4
"I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. (NKJV)

Notice that Jesus mentions it was while He was on Earth. I believe Jesus completed all things the Father had given Him to do... on earth, that is.

Allyn did not respond.

Allyn, how do you respond to this? I too wondered if you were referring to John 17 but thought you couldn't have been since it doesn't apply (I read it like Rich does). Does your lack of response mean you did intend that verse? It would be ironic if you intended to demonstrate how clearly FP is spelled out in scripture and yet seemingly misapplied a scripture.

I fail to see how these two passages provide a self evident, "no brainer", explanation of Full Preterism. It seems to me that your level of dogmatism far exceeds the clarity of scripture on the subject.

Would you not agree that Rich's question is legitimate? I'm assuming you've asked yourself similar questions about the clarity of the subject while researching. Right?

Steve