What Does Job 19:25 Really Say About the

Resurrection #1
JULY 30TH Written by Don K. Preston

Throughout church history and engrained in the creeds, is the claim that one day, at the end of human history, all
mankind will be raised from the grave in the body of flesh. This raises all sorts of questions, and commentators
have been perplexed and plagued by these questions. Job 19:25 lies squarely at the root of much of the
discussions. In a short series, I want to investigate what Job 19 actually does-- and does not say.
Job on Life, Death and Resurrection Before Chapter 19
One of the sad realities of claims about Job 19:25 is that most Bible students pay little attention to what came
before it. But when we read Jobs own words about what he believed, it becomes increasingly difficult to ascribe
a belief in resurrection to Job in chapter 19.
Notice Job 7:9-10: As the cloud disappears and vanishes away, So he who goes down to the grave does not
come up. 10 He shall never return to his house, Nor shall his place know him anymore.
One could hardly get the idea that Job had any kind of firm resurrection hope based on these statements. In the
just completed Preterist Pilgrim Weekend, Jerel Kratt, one of speakers, did a good job of showing the complete
uncertainty about a firm doctrine of resurrection in job. DVDs and MP3s of that conference will be available soon,
we hope.
Notice Jobs comments in chapter 10:18-22: Why then have You brought me out of the womb?
Oh, that I had perished and no eye had seen me! I would have been as though I had not been. I would have
been carried from the womb to the grave. Are not my days few? Cease! Leave me alone, that I may take a little
comfort, Before I go to the place from which I shall not return, To the land of darkness and the shadow of death, A
land as dark as darkness itself, As the shadow of death, without any order, Where even the light is like
darkness.
Job: There is No Return from Death!
Notice Jobs reference to dying and not returning. (Compare Jeremiah 51:39, 57, as well). The emphasis is on
not returning.
Likewise, notice chapter 14:7-16:
For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And that its tender shoots will not cease. 8
Though its root may grow old in the earth, And its stump may die in the ground, 9 Yet at the scent of water it will
bud And bring forth branches like a plant. But man dies and is laid away; Indeed he breathes his last And where
is he? As water disappears from the sea, And a river becomes parched and dries up, So man lies down and does
not rise. Till the heavens are no more, They will not awake Nor be roused from their sleep. Oh, that You would

hide me in the grave, That You would conceal me until Your wrath is past, That You would appoint me a set time,
and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait, Till my change
comes. You shall call, and I will answer You; You shall desire the work of Your hands. For now You number my
steps, But do not watch over my sin.
There has always been tremendous controversy over these verses. There is clearly no overt doctrine of
resurrection and absolutely nothing to support the idea of the resurrection of a fleshly body to be found here. In
fact, one could justifiably say that Job contrasts man with the plant world. If a tree seems to die, you can water it
and it comes back. But, that is in contrast to man that disappears and does not come back! Job certainly poses
the famous question: If a man dies, will he live again? but, he gives no definitive, or substantive answer. In fact,
Wright says that the expected answer to the question, given the context is: No! (N. T. Wright, The Resurrection
of the Son of Man, (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2003)97).
But, does Job anticipate the return of man when the mountains are no more? Or, is that a Hebraism, since the
Hebrews viewed the earth as essentially eternal, unmovable? Now, they knew that erosion took place, but, the
earth itself abode. Verse 19 seems to add a note of additional futility or at the best-- uncertainty: As water
wears away stones, And as torrents wash away the soil of the earth; So You destroy the hope of man. This is a
contrast between his earlier statement that dead trees are revived by water. Unlike the trees, man is not revived!
All that one can say is that Job said he would wait on YHVH till my change comes. And yet, we are given no
insight into what he meant by that change, or, when he anticipated it. There is simply no detail given. In fact, in
chapter 16:22 he seems convinced that there is no return from death!
Job 16:21-22: Oh, that one might plead for a man with God, As a man pleads for his neighbor!
For when a few years are finished, I shall go the way of no return. Once again we see the idea of no return.
There is no resurrection of the flesh to be found anywhere!
We are told however, that when we come to Job 19 that Job has a change of heart and mind, and that in these
verses we have a change of theology. Wright comments on this: The passage in Job (i.e. 19:25f, DKP) thought
to be an exception to this rule (of no return, DKP) is almost certainly not. (2003, 98).
From this brief survey of Job, it should be more than apparent that at least up to chapter 19:25, there is no
doctrine of resurrection. There is instead that idea that when one dies there is no return. (This is not the same as
saying that there is no life after death, but, at the very most one could say that Job pondered this question).
There is absolutely no support for a doctrine of the resurrection of a fleshly body in Job. So, does Job change his
mind in chapter 19? Does the Lord give him some additional insight here to cure his pessimism in the earlier
chapters? We will examine Job 19:25 in the next installment, to investigate this question.
In my book, We Shall Meet Him In The Air, The Wedding of the King of kings, I spend considerable time on the
definition of death and resurrection. Be sure to get a copy for your own study. You will be amazed at what you
find!

Then Comes The End - #8 - The End In Daniel From Rod MacArthur
FEBRUARY 25TH Written by Don K. Preston
We have been doing a study of Paul's statement that the resurrection would occur at "the end." Few
commentators deny that Paul is referencing the eschatological consummation. It is important to see that "the
end" in Paul is nothing different from "the end" foretold in the OT. Daniel plays a major role in the "time of the
end" prophetic narrative. Our good friend Rod MacArthur has produced a very brief outline of the references in
Daniel to "the end." While every reference is not to "the end" that Paul had in mind, nonetheless, it is more than
evident that Daniel does predict "the end" that Paul is discussing. Furthermore, it is very clear that for Daniel, that
"the end" was related to the end of Israel's covenant age. Take a look at Rod's brief, but helpful study.
An Appointed End in Daniel

2:38 Nebuchadnezzars dream end of the days

8:1719 Antiochus Epiphanes work pertained to appointed time of the end
9:2627 Daniels 70-7s: the citys end, desolations are appointed
10:14 What will happen to your people in the end of the days
11:27 End would come at the appointed time (cf. 1114, premature fulfillment to fail)
11:35 End time at the appointed time
11:36 A decreed indignation
11:40 Rome to overwhelm both Egypt & Syria and enter Beautiful Land at end time
12:4 Book of Daniel sealed until time of the end
12:67 End of wonders when? Time, times and a half and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the
holy people
12:910 Book of Daniel sealed until the end time; then many with insight will understand
12:13 Daniel to rise again on his allotted portion at the end of the days

Be sure to read my book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined...For the Resurrection, to insight into the NT use of
Daniel 9.

Then Comes The End - A Series - #7: Does Christ

Surrender The Throne?
FEBRUARY 24TH Written by Don K. Preston
This is the final installment in our series on Then Comes The End. Be sure to read the entire series,
beginning here.
As we noted above, one of, if not the key, presuppositions about the end in 1 Corinthians 15 is that it is the end
of time, and the physical resurrection. Since, it is reasoned, Corinthians is about a physical resurrection, and
since that has not occurred, then clearly, the end has not come. Of course, this is purely presuppositional, and
what we have presented in this series falsifies it.
Another foundational presupposition is directly related. And that is the end is the end of Christs rule on his
throne, when he supposedly surrenders the throne, handing it over to the Father and thus, terminating his royal
regency. This is based on the word paradidomi in v. 24 rendered delivers. (From Paradidoi. This word can mean
to surrender in some contexts. However, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul said he had delivered the gospel to the
Corinthians, and clearly does not mean he surrendered the gospel or his authority over it).
Wayne Jackson, (Amillennialist) an outspoken critic of Covenant Eschatology argues: Now, remember that
according to verse 24, when He comes again, He will no longer be reigning, because He will have delivered the
kingdom back to the Father. (Wayne Jackson, The AD 70 Theory, (Stockton, CA. Courier Publications,
1990)37). Jacksons book is one of the most illogical and badly reasoned attempts at refuting Covenant
Eschatology that you will find.
So, the idea that Christ surrenders, abdicates, the throne at his coming is unwarranted linguistically, and
contextually. Let me make just a couple of very quick points, and urge you to read my other comments in this
series, especially our discussion of the wedding motif.
First point - If there was a typological fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15 in AD 70 (as posited by the Dominionists, see
my debate with Joel McDurmon, July of 2012) and if deliver means surrender or abdicate-- just exactly how did
Jesus in any way abdicate the kingdom in AD 70? It is surely wrong to posit a typological fulfillment in AD 70 and
yet, then claim that after all, there was no fulfillment of what was being foreshadowed! Thus, the argument that
AD 70 was typological of the real end demands that in some way, in some manner, some how, Christ abdicated
his rule, his throne, and, divorced his wife! Just how do we see that depicted, in any manner whatsoever, in AD
70? Be sure to read my book, AD 70 A Shadow of the Real End? for an in-depth and thorough refutation of the
idea that AD 70 was a foreshadowing of the final end of the age that is yet future.
So far as I can determine, you will not find a Dominionist who describes AD 70 as in any way at all a typological
abdication of the kingdom by Jesus. Just the opposite. Virtually all postmillennialists I have read speak of Jesus
coming in power and great glory. They speak of Christ exercising his Sovereignty. They speak of Christ receiving
the kingdom in AD 70. Keith Mathison says, commenting on Revelation 11:15f which he applies to the fall of
Jerusalem. Mathison, The kingdoms of this world have already become the kingdom of our Lord and of His
Christ (Revelation 11:15f). (Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Victory, (New Jersey, P & R Publishing,
1999)151+.

Dominionists speak of Christ being revealed as Messiah, sitting at the right hand of the Majesty. Scholars point
out that there is strong linguistic support for the idea that AD 70 was the sign of Jesus full entrance into his
kingdom, of his enthronement. (see for instance Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia, (St. Louis, MO,
Concordia Academic Press, 2000)198f- shows that the sign of the Son of Man in heaven is not a sign in the
sky, but, that, the fall of Jerusalem was the sign of Christs enthronement in the heavens. Postmillennialists
generally agree with this. See e.g. DeMar (Madness, 1994, 158), Mathison (1999, 114), Gentry (Dominion, 1992,
274), Seriah, (End of All Things, 1991, 173), etc.
I have not read even one postmillennialists who suggested that we see any kind of abdication by Jesus in AD 70.
So, how can the Postmillennialists strongly affirm that AD 70 was a sign of the full establishment of Jesus throne,
and yet claim that somehow, someway, it foreshadows the abdication of that throne? How does being
enthroned foreshadow being de-throned? How exactly does enthronement typify abdication? This is not
sound logic, or theology.
Point #2 - You cannot interpret paradidoi in such a way as to contradict the Wedding motif. If, as we have seen,
AD 70 is posited as the time of Jesus wedding and virtually all Dominionists do then to say 1 Corinthians 15
demands abdication, thereby demands that Christ divorces his wife at the real end. This is clearly a terrible
suggestion.
Point #3 - You cannot interpret the end in 1 Corinthians 15 in such a way as to contradict the harvest motif which
linguistically and contextually demands that the full end of the harvest was near. Be sure to read our article on
this motif.
John taught the imminence of the harvest (Matthew 3). Jesus taught the nearness of the harvest (John 4:35).
Jesus himself was the first fruit of the harvest, demanding the initiation of the harvest. Revelation says the
harvest was near in the judgment of Babylon, which, incidentally, virtually all Dominionists identify as Old
Covenant Jerusalem.
In conclusion of this series, here is what we have discovered about the end in 1 Corinthians 15:
It would be the time of the fulfillment of Israels Old Covenant promises.
It would occur at the end of Torah, the law that was the strength of sin. (This logically, and prophetically
demands the establishment of the New Covenant).
It would be the time of Christs wedding when, as almost many Dominionists agree, would likewise be when
Christ divorced the Old Covenant unfaithful, harlot bride.
It would be at the consummation of the harvest, of which Christ was the first fruit.
Not one of these tenets allows us to see AD 70 as typological of the real end. Furthermore, these facts militate
against the idea of the end being any kind of referent to the end of human history, or the end of the current
age. There is no Biblical basis for that doctrine. It is a theological invention without merit.

Then Comes The End - A Series - #6- The

Resurrection and Israel's Festal Calendar
FEBRUARY 19TH Written by Don K. Preston
In our previous article, we discussed the significance of the harvest imagery and the resurrection. We took note
that Paul says repeatedly that Jesus was "the first to be raised from the dead." This is extremely important and
challenging to futurist paradigms.
It is particularly important to see-- as we noted how all of this is part and parcel of the hope of Israel, for her last
days. It has nothing to do with the "end of time" or the "end of the Christian age." We want to continue our study
of this harvest imagery. In this installment we want to focus more on the motif of harvest as related to Israel's
festal calendar.

There is another element to the Harvest Motif that we want to examine ever so briefly, and that is that the NT
writers affirm that Christ was the first to be raised from the dead. As we saw in the last installment,
commentators see a huge problem with this statement, because if the focus of Jesus resurrection is a physical
resurrection, then clearly, Paul was wrong to say Jesus was the first to be raised. Gentry, along with many others,
claim that what Paul meant was that while Jesus was patently not the first person to be raised from the dead
physically, he was of a different order. Many commentators claim that what Paul meant by his statement is that
Christ was the first one to be raised in an incorruptible body. This view is false to the core. See my book Like
Father Like Son, On Clouds of Glory, for an in-depth study of the nature of Christs post resurrection, preascension body. There is simply no justification for the idea that Jesus post resurrection, pre-ascension body was
in any way whatsoever different from his pre-death body.
But, back to our point.
Pauls referent to Jesus being the first fruit of the harvest is an undeniable allusion to Israels Festal Calendar. No
Jew of his day could read that statement and not think immediately of the Feast Days of Israel, and what they
foreshadowed. This is absolutely critical for any proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 and yet, it is one of the
most ignored facts in the commentaries.
There were seven feast days in Israels cultic calendar. Virtually all commentators acknowledge that the first four
were fulfilled in the death / resurrection of Christ and Pentecost (Pentecost was the Feast of Firstfruit, by the
way).
The last three feast days in Israels calendar were:
1.) Rosh HaShanah, the feast of Trumpets, foreshadowing the Day of Judgment.
2.) Yom Kippur The Day of Atonement.
3.) Succot, The Feast of Tabernacles, otherwise called the Feast of In-gathering, or the Feast of Harvest. This
feast typified the resurrection.
Amazingly, in the amillennial and postmillennial schools, while lip service is often given to the significance of the
first four feasts and their fulfillment, the last three feast days are all but ignored, and this is a huge, glaring and
fatal oversight in these paradigms.
It is critical to understand that those feast days were types and shadows of the good things that are about to
come (Colossians 2:14-16). In the Greek text, Paul uses the present active indicative when he said that those
feast days were still, when he wrote, still shadows and types of the things to come. In addition, he said the things
foreshadowed in those New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths, were about to come (from mello, with the
infinitive). Similarly, in Hebrews 9:6-10 the writer says that Israels cultus, built around those feast days, would
stand valid until what they foreshadowed came to a reality at the time of reformation.
So, here is what this means:
Israels festal calendar foreshadowed the realities of Christ.
The first four of Israels typological feast days were fulfilled in Jesus death-resurrection and Pentecost.
The last three of Israels feast days foreshadowed the eschatological consummation, including the Day of
Judgment, the Day of Salvation and the Resurrection.
Israels festal calendar was, without any question whatsoever, an integral part of the law. I would kindly suggest
that anyone that would deny this is simply desperate to avoid the implications of Israel's feast days!

Jesus said that not one single iota of Torah, the law would pass away until it was all (not some, or even most of
it) was fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
Thus, if what those feast days foreshadowed the Day of Judgment, the final salvation, and the Resurrection
has not become a reality (fulfilled) then the entirety of the Law of Moses, including the entirety of those festal
observations, remains valid and binding today.
We will explore more about the incredible significance of Israels festal calendar and its implications for
understanding 1 Corinthians 15 in the next installment.

Then Comes The End - A Series - #5- Christ the First

Fruit of the End Time Harvest
FEBRUARY 17TH Written by Don K. Preston
This is installment #5 in our series based on Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15, that the time of the resurrection is "the
end." Be sure to read the entire series, beginning here. In the previous article, we discussed "the end" as the time of the
Wedding, and demonstrated that it cannot be divorced (pun intended) from the end of Israel's covenant age. This is
incredibly important, and this installment is as well. This installment examines the fact that the Bible says Christ was the first
to be raised from the dead! This is incredibly important, and has a tremendous bearing on our understanding of resurrection,
so take a look!
Christ is the first fruit. There is each in his own order (Greek tagma, meaning in order of occurrence). Those
that are Christs at his coming, then comes the end. Very clearly, in 1 Corinthians 15 the end is the climax of
the harvest. While a great deal could be said of this, we will be brief simply presenting more of the Dominionist
self contradictions and problems with the motif of the harvest and AD 70.
As with other eschatological motifs and passages, the Dominionists differ strongly about the application of the
harvest motif. Gentry applies Matthew 13 to the climax of human history, (2003,140) and says it teaches there will
be no more days after the end of the age of Matthew 13:39f. Gentry says of the end of the age in Matthew 13,
Matthew uses sunteleia (which appears in the phrase the end of the age only for the end of the worlds end:
Matthew 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). (The Olivet Discourse Made Easy, (Draper, Va., Apologetics Group,
2010)46, n. 7). This is patently false. In Matthew 24:3 the disciples were not asking about the end of human
history, as Gentry himself admits. See my book, Into All The World, Then Comes The End, for a full discussion of
this distinctive Greek term.
Revelation 14 likewise discusses the harvest of the earth (land). Although he does not comment specifically on
the harvest motif, Gentry, definitely posits the fulfillment of Revelation 14 during the Jewish War, (Kenneth
Gentry,Before Jerusalem Fell, (Fountain Inn, SC., Victorious Hope Publishing, 2010)244+). Gentry's book is one
of the finest books on the dating of Revelation to be found anywhere. It can be ordered from us, here.
In stark contrast with Gentry and Mathison, Leithhart says the parable of harvest in Matthew 13 refers to the end
of the Jewish age, and God harvesting that age. (Peter Leithart, The Promise of His Coming, (Moscow, Idaho,
Canon Press, 2004)95. DeMar concurs (Madness, 1994, 155). McDurmon, as we have seen, says Matthew 13:
describes the then soon coming end of that old age and the destruction of its children, and the beginning of the
gathering in of the true children of Gods kingdom. It should not be understood as teaching anything beyond
this.(2011,49) As we have noted, McDurmon is wrong to see the end of the age as the beginning of the harvest.
It is, as seen just above, the completion of the harvest of the Old Covenant world, just as Leithart says.

This is really quite a critical, but under emphasized point. The harvest is the climax of the Old Covenant age, and
the gathering of those who had lived under that aeon, including those in Hebrews 11. The harvest was the
judgment of that Old World, for its inefficiency and failure. But, it was likewise the full establishment of the
unending kingdom / age of the kingdom. There will never be an end / harvest of the New Covenant age. This
simply means, as we have noted, of the increase of his government, there shall be no end.
Let me make a point here:
The harvest of 1 Cor. 15 is the harvest of Matthew 13. If not, why not? Was Jesus the first fruit of two harvests, at
the end of two different ages, and two different parousias? No, there was but one hope in scripture, and from
John, who announced the imminence of the harvest, to Revelation, the pronouncement was the time had come
for the harvest. Be sure to read my article, His Winnowing Fork Is In His Hand, (this is the link for part #1) for an
excellent discussion of John and the Harvest.
The harvest of Matthew 13 occurred in AD 70 and there is no further application McDurmon.
Therefore, the harvest of 1 Corinthians 15 was in AD 70, and there is no further application.
This conclusion is confirmed by the indisputable fact of Jesus being the first born or first fruit of the
resurrection. Acts 26:21 confirms that Jesus was the first to be raised from the dead. This is hugely problematic
for those insisting that the end of 1 Corinthians 15 must be the end of human history, climaxing in a resurrection
of human corpses out of the dirt.
Gentry patently sees a problem, and attempts to escape the force of it by saying: Jesus is called the first born,
yet we know that others physically arose from the dead prior to Him, some during his ministry. Thus, his
resurrection was of a different order, a different order that made him a first in that respect. (1992, 283-284). You
will note Gentry fails to define or explain this different order. It seems obvious he was simply trying to evade the
force of Jesus being the first to be raised from the dead, yet clearly not the first to be raised from physical death.
This is an insurmountable problem for those defining Adamic Death as biological death.
Pauls use of harvest imagery and description of Jesus as the first fruit demands that the time of harvest was
present in the first century. And undeniably, in 1 Corinthians 15 that harvest is the climactic, final end of the age
harvest. It did not point to another harvest, at another end. This falsifies the claim that there was a fulfilment of 1
Corinthians 15 but, we are still looking for the final fulfillment.

Then Comes The End - A Series - #4- The Time of the

Wedding
FEBRUARY 16TH Written by Don K. Preston

Virtually all commentators agree the end of 1 Corinthians 15 is the time of Christs coming for his Wedding.This

is critically important, because as the previous article established, "the end" and the Wedding are motifs tied to
the fulfillment of God's Old Covenant promises made to Israel.
For more on the entire topic of the Wedding and eschatology, see my book
Paul said Christ would present the church to himself (Ephesians 5:25f). I have consulted over 50 commentators,
and everyone of them agrees that the presentation occurs at the parousia, agreeing with Matthew 25:1f; Rev.
19:6f.
So, here, in a nutshell, is the problem for the postmillennial (and amillennial) world.
Christs coming in 1 Corinthians 15, at the final the end (being the same end / coming as in Matthew 25:31f; 1
Thessalonians 4, Rev. 19, etc.) is when he surrenders, abdicates, his throne giving it to the Father
(amillennialism, postmillennialism).
But, the coming in 1 Corinthians 15, (Matthew 25, Rev. 19, etc.) is the time of Christs wedding.
Therefore, at his coming for his wedding, Christ divorces, (i.e. surrenders) his wife. He hands her over to the
Father, is no longer married to her!
Lets be honest here. No one says Jesus will divorce his Bride at his parousia! And yet, if the traditional claim that
the end is when he surrenders the kingdom is true, then Jesus must divorce his Bride at the very moment he is
to present her to himself! This is one of those huge disparities, one of the major self contradictions within
Christian doctrine that simply has not been addressed. There is no reconciling these two positions.
The application here should be evident. Gentry says the wedding of Matthew 25 is the consummative, true end,
not a typological Wedding or end. Likewise, he says 1 Corinthians 15, the end, is the time of the Wedding of
Matthew 25. Yet, he then says Christ married his bride in AD 70, with the New Covenant Bride fully supplanting
the Old Bride. And of course, he says AD 70 was typological of the true end! Mathison seemingly agrees with this
assessment, claiming Matthew 25 predicts the yet future parousia (1995, 144). Yet, he says the wedding of
Revelation 21 is being fulfilled. I fail to see how a wedding ceremony can continue for 2000 years!
Thus, of logical necessity, Gentry creates a doctrine of two weddings, two Brides (?) and most assuredly two
comings. McDurmon hints at two Brides / Weddings, or is it two Grooms?, in his comments on Matthew 25. He
applies the parable to AD 70, and the Jews: They had missed their opportunity, not having their lamps lit. They
lost all future inheritance, and were left no better than adulterers, as far as that particular Bridegroom was
concerned (2011, 29). My emphasis,
The position these men take demands either two weddings, two Brides, or two Grooms. They claim AD 70 was
the wedding of Christ, the divorce of the Old Covenant, unfaithful bride. Well, if that was typological of the real
end, we have every right to conclude that the church will one day be divorced for unfaithfulness, and Jesus will
marry another bride, under a (another) new covenant. This is a loathable idea.
The problem is, if the end of 1 Corinthians 15 is the real end, and if it is the time of the Wedding of Christ, the
Biblical truth is there was but one wedding foretold (Isaiah 62; Hosea 1:10f; 2:18f) at the end of the Old
Covenant age, at the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 22:1-10). That leads us to this:

The end of 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 is the consummative end, not a typological end.
The end of 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 is the time of the parousia of Christ for his wedding.
The coming of Christ for his wedding was in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 22; Revelation 19
Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon, Mathison (1999, 157f The marriage and the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 is
currently being fulfilled).
Therefore, the end of 1 Corinthians 15, the consummative end, was in AD 70, at the destruction of Jerusalem.
There is no logical, textual way to posit the wedding (not the betrothal) in AD 70 and yet, posit the wedding at the
so called real end.

A Few Thoughts On Romans 8:18f

FEBRUARY 14TH Written by Don K. Preston
I was recently asked to offer a few thoughts on the relationship between Paul's discussion of the "groaning of
creation" in Romans 8:18f and Isaiah 26, where the prophet described Israel as in the birth pangs, longing for
redemption and resurrection. I was glad to offer a "thumb nail sketch", a "reader's digest" commentary on that
relationship, which I believe is very critical to a proper understanding of Pauline theology. Below is the thumbnail
sketch that I offered,
(Name withheld), per your request, I will provide here a thumbnail sketch of what I see as the relationship
between Romans 8 and Isaiah.
1.) Paul affirms repeatedly that his one eschatological hope was nothing but the hope of Israel. Thus, I accept as
axiomatically true that somewhere in Torah, we should find what Paul is citing in Romans 8.
2.) Paul speaks of the Groaning of Creation-- which I would equate with the Birth pangs of Messiah. This concept
permeates Messianic prophecy. The Birth pangs of Messiah (what is commonly called the Great Tribulation),
would lead directly to the Kingdom / Judgment / the Resurrection.
3.) This motif is right there in Isaiah 26-- Birth Pangs- resurrection- coming of the Lord (v. 20-21)-- destruction of
Leviathan (27:1).
4.) The groaning of creation is therefore, the groaning of Israel in her inability to bring forth deliverance
(salvation), her laboring under sin. I equate "creation" in Paul's discussion to sentient man-- not bugs, slugs and
mosquitoes.
5.) Paul posits that deliverance-- the redemption / adoption-- as already initiated (Romans 8:14f) awaiting
consummation (v. 23).
6.) Paul undeniably posits that redemption in a context of imminence, incorporating three powerful words of

imminence: mello (with the infinitive); apokaradokeo; and apekedekomai. These words can hardly be
"elasticized" into temporal meaninglessness.
7.) Isaiah posited the salvation of Israel that was coming in the context of the judgment of Israel, when the altar
would be turned to chalk stone, the fortified city desolated, and the people whom He had created would be
forgotten (27:10f-- salvation through Tribulation!). Personally, I see here what Wright has commented on, and that
is: There was, in other words, a belief hammered out not in abstract debate, but in and through poverty, exile
torture and martyrdom, that Israels sufferings might be, not merely a state from which she would, in YHWHs
good time, be saved redeemed, but paradoxically, under certain circumstances and in certain sense, part of the
means by which that redemption would be effected. (Victory, 591).
Pitre (Jesus, The Tribulation and the End of Exile; forgot the reference at the moment, but can provide it) concurs
that Israel's tribulation was a means of atonement.
All of this agrees with the narrative found in the Olivet Discourse--- Abomination of Desolation---> Tribulation
(Birth Pangs of Messiah)-- parousia / kingdom / resurrection. In Matthew 24:31 Jesus cites Isaiah 27:13, a
prophecy of the salvation of the remnant (resurrection) at the sounding of the Great Trumpet. All of this was to
occur in Jesus' generation.
Well, that is a "reader's digest" version to be sure, but hopefully it gives an idea of what I see in the text.

Then Comes The End- A Series- #3FEBRUARY 10TH Written by Don K. Preston
In our previous article, we established that no matter what our concept of "the end" might be, from the Biblical
perspective, "the end" would be the fulfillment of God's OT covenant promises made to Israel. This is simply
indisputable. We want now to establish a corollary idea.

Fact #2 - Not only does Paul see the resurrection as the fulfillment of Gods Old Covenant promises made to
Israel, he posits fulfillment at the end of that covenant history. The apostle says the resurrection would be when
sin, the sting of death, and when the law that is the strength of sin would be overcome and removed (1
Corinthians 15:55-56).
Numerous times in my debate with McDurmon, (and in numerous formal debates), I noted that in scripture, only
one law is ever described as the strength of sin and that was Torah, the Law of Moses (cf. Romans 7; 2
Corinthians 3, Galatians 2-3, etc.). McDurmon never denied this, and in the majority of my debates, when I have
asked my opponent to define the law that was the strength of sin they have answered, The law of Moses.
In a 2012 written debate, an amillennial opponent, Jerry McDonald, he responded with this definition. When I
noted the consequences of this (true) answer, i.e. the resurrection would therefore be at the end of the Law of
Moses, McDonald began some of the most desperate verbiage imaginable, changing positions several times.
That debate is archived on this websites, so be sure to check it out.

So, take a look at what it means to say that "the law" that was the "strength of sin" was Torah, the Law of Moses:
The resurrection resurrection from the Adamic death would be when the law that was the strength of sin
was overcome and removed.
The law that was the strength of sin was the Law of Moses, Torah.
Therefore, the resurrection resurrection from the Adamic death would be when the law that was the strength
of sin was overcome and removed.
It is simply indisputable that from Paul's perspective, the resurrection of the dead was inextricably tied to the end
of Israel's covenant age, the end of Torah.
See my book, The End of the Law: From Torah To Telos, for an in-depth discussion of the passing of the Law of
Moses.

Very clearly then, unless one is willing to say the Law of Moses remains valid today the resurrection from the
Adamic death has been fulfilled. And remember, virtually no eschatological paradigm openly says Torah is still
valid, in spite of McDurmons quote above.
The mass confusion of Dominionism is manifest in regard to the Law of Moses. On the one hand they say the
Law remains valid this is essential to their Dominion theology. Yet, they tell us all of the ceremonies, sacrifices
and cultic praxis, and Sabbaths have been removed! But, they do not believe the things foreshadowed in those
ceremonies and Sabbaths have been fulfilled.

For instance, the eternal rest of resurrection salvation typified in the Sabbaths, remains unfulfilled per McDurmon,
Gentry, Bahnsen, et. al. So, per the Dominionists, Jesus words not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law
until it is all fulfilled really meant that some a lot! of jots and tittles of the law would (have) pass without being
fulfilled. I challenged McDurmon to explain how anyone could get that idea from Jesus words, but he never
responded. Be sure to get a copy of the debate book to see McDurmon's total inconsistency in regard to the law.
So, the Dominionists slice, dice and dissect the Law of Moses into all sorts of pieces, claiming that the
"ceremonial" cultus has been removed, but that the moral elements of the Law remain. This is a specious and
untenable position. There is no justification for saying that some of the Law has passed, but some of it remains
binding.
This logically demands the end of 1 Corinthians 15 is the end of the Old Covenant age of Israel, the end of
Torah. It is not the end of time; it is not the end of the Christian age. Since 1 Corinthians 15 is patently about the
final resurrection, not a type or shadow of another one, this definitively falsifies the claim that AD 70 was a type
of the real end. See my book, AD 70: A Shadow of the "Real" End? for a thorough refutation of the idea,
advanced by many Dominionists and Amillennialists, that the events of AD 70 were a foreshadowing of the end of
the Christian age. There is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim.

Then Comes The End- A Series- #2

FEBRUARY 08TH Written by Don K. Preston

Be sure to read the first article in this series here. In this series on "the end" one of the key factors that must be
considered is whether Paul and the NT writers had in mind the end of time, the end of the material universe, and
the end of the Christian age. Or, did Paul have in mind the end of a covenant age, having nothing to do with the
"end of time." Needless to say, the dominant view in all futurists eschatologies is that the "final end" that Paul had
in mind was the end of the current Christian age. I believe that is misguided and un-Biblical. The Bible knows
nothing of the end of the current Christian age! So, let's proceed with out investigation by looking at some
foundational Biblical facts.
Fact #1 - The end under consideration in 1 Corinthians 15-- no matter what we might think otherwise-- is the
time of the fulfillment of Gods Old Covenant promises made to Israel. As we have shown, there is but one
eschatological hope in scripture. The eschatology of Genesis and Gods promises to Abraham are conflated with
the promises of Israel. Fulfillment is posited at the end of Israels history. Hebrews 11 proves this definitively, by
showing the one eschatological hope encompassed Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, to Moses, and consummated
at Zion. See my discussion of this incontrovertible truth in my formal debate with Joel McDurmon, of American
Vision, which was held in Ardmore, Ok., July 2012. McDurmon sought to delineate between the resurrection hope
of Abraham-- the real resurrection hope-- and that of Israel, based on the fact that Abraham predated Israel! The
book of that debate is available here, and I urge you to get a copy and read it. Significantly, American Vision
simply does not promote sales of this book. You are hard pressed to find it on their website. Revealing to be sure,
and when you read the book, you will understand why they do not promote it!
Galatians 3 discusses the Abrahamic promises. Paul makes sure to say Abrahams promises were not to be
fulfilled under or through Torah, for then they would not be promises of faith and grace. However, those promises
were to be fulfilled when the faith i.e. the New Covenant of faith and grace, would arrive (3:23-24).
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul draws from Genesis (v. 22) and the prophecies of Israel in his discussion of the
resurrection. He has one resurrection, one hope in focus. Fulfillment of the Edenic promises and thus, fulfillment
of the Abrahamic promises would be when Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 would be fulfilled.
This point is particularly troublesome for amillennialists and postmillennialists who believe Gods Old Covenant
relationship with Israel was terminated in the first century. If God was through with Israel in the first century, how
can His covenant promises to her remain valid until the end of the Christian age? If His covenant promises to
Israel remain valid, they remain His covenant people. This is inescapable.
Incredibly, in the lead up to my debate with McDurmon, I asked him: At what point of time, and in what event
(events) were (or will) all (not just some, or most) but all, of Gods Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant
Israel after the flesh, be completely fulfilled, (fully accomplished) and His Covenant relationship with her
terminated / consummated? Joel responded, The short answer to what youre getting at is: the physical, bodily
resurrection of the dead.
This is just stunning. On the one hand, Dominionists argue, strongly, against the dispensationalists who claim
that Israel remains Gods covenant people. (DeMar claims all of Gods Old Covenant promises to Israel are
fulfilled). On the other hand, McDumon says Israel will remain Gods covenant people until the physical, bodily
resurrection of the dead.
McDurmon is patently wrong. Paul said Torah and Old Covenant Israel were about to be cast out for persecuting
the New Covenant Seed (Galatians 4:22f). So, Torah and Israel were about to be cast out, for persecuting the
church in the first century. Yet, somehow, Gods covenant and His covenant relationship with them, will remain
until the physical, bodily resurrection of the dead at the end of human history! See my book From Torah To
Telos, for an in-depth study of the passing of the Law of Moses in AD 70. Contra McDurmon, it was not just the
external "ministration" of Torah that was passing; it was Torah itself. he point is, Paul never looks beyond the
fulfillment of Gods promises to Old Covenant Israel in his discussion of the resurrection. This is exceedingly
strange if in fact he taught the resurrection would be the fulfillment of New Covenant promises at the end of the
New Covenant age.

Then Comes The End - A Series - #1

FEBRUARY 07TH Written by Don K. Preston
Few, if any, futurist commentators posit the end of 1 Corinthians 15:24f as anything but the end of the Christian
age the final end. They see the end as the termination of Christs rule on the throne. There is really no need
to document this, since it is so widely accepted. However, one example is Seriah, Christs reign is perpetual
during this age (and will end when this age does). (The End of All Things, Moscow, Id, 1999, 47, n. 9).

Until the advent of the modern Dominionist theology, no one suggested the end had a fulfillment in AD 70,
which was in Pauls mind preliminary to the real end. But, a strange thing has happened...

Of course, the question under review here is whether Paul anticipated a preliminary, typological the end pointing
to the real, real end, or, whether he believed the real end was truly in view. For an indepth study of this
question, see my book AD 70 A Shadow of the "Real" End? This book is a definitive refutation of the idea that the
last days events of the first century were typological of the "end of time."
The term the end is used 19 times in the NT, (NKJV) from Romans - Revelation. Paul speaks of death being
the end of sin (Romans 6:21-22). Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:13, where
Moses could not see the end of Torah). In Revelation, God is the first and the last, the beginning and the end
(1:8; 22:13).
In the majority of occurrences there are definite eschatological overtones to the context. This is especially true in
Hebrews (3:6, 14; 6:11; 9:26) as well as James (5:11) and 1 Peter (1:9; 4:7; 4:17).
The end in 1 Corinthians also has definite eschatological connections.
1 Corinthians 1:4-8 The Corinthians possessed the charismatic gifts. Those gifts had confirmed them, and those
gifts would continue to confirm them until the end, the Day of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 10:11 The end of the ages, i.e. the goal of the previous ages, was even then falling on them. The
consummative nature of this end of the age cannot, in any sense, be labeled as a mere type. It is in fact,
contrasted with the Old Testament events that were typological, but, those types pointed to Pauls generation.
While the specific term the end does not appear in other texts in 1 Corinthians, the eschatological
consummation is nonetheless present. In chapter 7, Paul said the time has been shortened echoing Jesus
words in Matthew 24:21-27. He said the fashion of this world is passing away. Similarly, the apostle anticipated
the cessation of the charismata at the arrival of that which is perfect (1 Corinthians 13:8f). This hearkens back
to chapter 1:4-8 where he said the Corinthians would possess the gifts until the end, the Day of the Lord. So,
again, while the term the end is not used extensively, there is no evidence to support the idea Paul had two
ends in mind.

When we come to the end in 1 Corinthians 15 there is no contextual reason whatsoever to delineate between
the anticipated end there, and that mentioned earlier in the epistle.
Astonishingly, in my debate with Joel McDurmon, July 2012, he actually admitted that there was "a fulfillment" of
1 Corinthians 15 in AD 70. This admission nullifies any other, future fulfillment, and when I pressed McDurmon for
his hermeneutic that justified such a radical view of 1 Corinthians 15, he offered nothing. See the book of that
Several factors militate against defining the end in 1 Corinthians 15 as a referent to the end of time, or the end
of the Christian age. We will present just a small amount of that material in upcoming articles.

His Winnowing Fork Is In His Hand-- John the

Immerser and the End of the Age Harvest- #1Featured
NOVEMBER 01ST Written by Don K. Preston

The harvest is one of the central eschatological doctrines. Foretold in the Old Testament (Hosea 6) the harvest
was one of Jesus major themes. Few would doubt or question the connection between the harvest and the
resurrection. That connection is axiomatic.
The gospel of Matthew particularly contains several passages on the harvest. We will not examine all of those
texts, and need not to so to establish our case. However, one thing is more than clear: the time for the
eschatological harvest and thus, the resurrection-- had arrived.
Of course, adherents of the futurist schools of eschatology scoff at such and idea. They tell us that the harvest
occurs at the end of the New Covenant age, i.e. the end of human history. We are told that the resurrection could
not have been near in the first century, because, after all, that is not a creedal doctrine. That idea is not found in
the patristic authors who wrote long after the first century and yet, those writers clearly still anticipated the
harvest / resurrection at some proposed end of time. See my book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined...For the
Resurrection,for definitive proof that the resurrection was in fact to be in the first century.
I freely admit that what we present here is not in the creeds or church councils. However, I am not bound by the
creeds, counclls or church history, but by the inspired word of God. If that is not alone sufficient, then we have
nothing else to offer.
This article will focus on one short, powerful, and irrefutable text in Matthew: Chapter 3:10-12, and particularly
verse 12, in which John, speak of Jesus said: His winnowing fork is already in his hand.

The language that John used is unmistakable, and yet, overlooked by a host of commentators. What we need to
do is to define the words that John uses, to fully appreciate what it is he says.
Note that John said his winnowing fork (sometimes translated as fan) is in his hand.
Notice first of all the undeniable imminence of the events John is foretelling.

In v. 7 he warned the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the wrath about to come. John used the word
mello in the infinitive to speak of the wrath about to come. Blass-DeBrunner says mellein with the infinitive
expresses imminence. (Blass-DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961,181).
The commentators agree that Johns use of mello indicated that the judgment wrath he had in mind was truly
near.
Donald Hagner says, What frightened Johns listeners was the insistence that the judgment was about to occur
(mellousees). (Word Biblical Commentary, Matthew, Vol. 33a; p. 50). Davies and Allison, commenting on
Matthew 3:7: Who has warned you to flee from the wrath about to come mello here implies no so much
purpose as imminence or futurity (W. D. Davies and Dale Allison Jr. International Critical Commentary, Matthew
1-7, London, T and T Clark,304).
Likewise, Alfords Greek Testament says, The reference of Johns ministry to the prophecy concerning Elias,
Malachi 3:1; 4:5 would naturally suggest to mens minds the wrath to come there also foretold. It was the
general expectation of the Jews that troublous times would accompany the appearance of Messiah. John is now
speaking in the true character of a prophet, foretelling the wrath soon to be poured out on the Jewish nation.
(Alfords Greek Testament, Matthew - John, Vol. I, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1875 / 1980)22).
The imminence of the impending judgment being heralded by John is emphasized in v. 10 where he said: The
axe is already in his hand. The imagery of cutting down of trees springs from the Old Testament prophets and is
undeniably the image of judgment. For John to say that the axe of that judgment was already at the root was a
powerful expression of imminence.
Marius Reiser, commenting on Johns message of the axe at the root says, With the motif of the cutting down of
the bad trees, the Baptizer expanded on the original image and thus created a genuine similitude not only
pointing to the end time cleansing of Israel by the removal of sinners, but giving vivid expression to the immediate
proximity of that event, and thus the urgency of repentance. The axe is already at work!... This temporal
urgency is underscored still further in the Greek text by the present tenses of all three verbs. (Marius
Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, Fortress, English translation, 1997, 175). He continues: The expectation of the
final judgment in the immediate future was the basis of his call for repentance and the action that gave him his
name: baptizing. (1997, 167).
As a concluding emphasis on the imminence of the coming judgment, John then says his winnowing fork is in
his hand. And we will look closely at this imagery in the next installment, so, stay tuned!
The bottom line is that it is indisputably true that in the mind of John, inspired by the Spirit, "the wrath" was
imminent. The cutting down of the unfruitful trees was near, and likewise-- the time of the harvest had arrived. It is
this image of the winnowing fork already being in the hand of Jesus that is on the one hand stunning,
determinative, and yet mostly overlooked.

Paul and the Meaning of "Flesh and Blood" in 1

Corinthians 15 - #2 Featured

OCTOBER 29TH Written by Don K. Preston

Be sure to read the first installment of this two part series on Paul's comment that "flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom" in 1 Corinthians 15. In the previous article, I noted that in our formal debate, in July 2012, Joel
McDurmon defined "flesh and blood" not as the human corpse as so many commentators do, but, as Israel under
the law of Moses! This was simply stunning!
It is fascinating also that on FaceBook, an opponent of Covenant Eschatology took issue with my thoughts in
these articles, calling me a heretic. Interestingly however, like McDurmon, he did not define "flesh and blood" as
the human body, but as carnal man, man under sin. Without knowing it, this objector has-- like McDurmon-falsified his own views of a future physical resurrection. In Corinthians 15 "flesh and blood" is equal to
"corruptibility" and "mortality"-- in other words, the "body" These terms are synonymous. So, if one defines "flesh
and blood" as something unrelated to the human corpse, then , which, per both men, is not referent to the human
corpse! So, by that very definition, they have excluded the "human corpse" from Paul's discussion of the
resurrection! This is what you call self-defeating logic.

The dilemma here is acute, of course. Joel tried to avoid the direct implications of this by affirming that the
ceremonial praxis of Torah were removed by Christ, yet, the Law of Moses itself remains. (I must say that his
desperation on this was amazing). I pressed him continually on this, and asked how he could change Jesus: not
one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled into, some of the law will pass even though what
that part of the law foreshadowed has not been fulfilled.
Note here: I raised the issue of the Seventh Day Sabbath, and the indisputable fact that all of Israels feast days
were Sabbaths. Further, those feast days, foreshadowed final salvation and the resurrection. Thus, until what the
Seventh Day Sabbath and Israels feast day Sabbaths foreshadowed and typified became (or becomes) a reality,
then those Sabbaths, all of them, along with the ceremonial sacrifices attendant with those Sabbaths, must
remain valid. McDurmon admitted to believing that the Seventh Day Sabbath, and Israels ceremonial Sabbaths
have been abrogated, and yet, he says that what they foreshadowed has not been realized! (Interesting side
note: in my September 2013 formal debate with Steve Gregg, he likewise affirmed that Israels festal Sabbaths
have been annulled, but, like McDurmon, says that what those Sabbaths foreshadowed is not yet a reality. This a
huge problem for the futurist camp). Once again, this flies directly into the face of Jesus emphatic and
undeniable words.
Jesus said none would pass until it was all fulfilled. But McDurmon says many of the jots and tittles of the Law
passed, without being fulfilled! McDurmons position is the direct opposite of what Jesus said. McDurmon never
offered an iota of proof or justification for perverting Jesus words. Be sure to get your own copy of the McDurmon
-V- Preston debate book here.
Let me reiterate this critical point: You cannot affirm, as McDurmon did, that Israel after the flesh and that Gods
covenant with her (i.e. the Law of Moses) will remain valid until a physical resurrection, without thereby logically
demanding that all of Torah, every jot and every tittle, remains valid on Israel after the flesh until that resurrection.
So, if Torah remains valid for Israel, then is Israel after the flesh justified by keeping the covenantal mandates?
Further, does the Law of Moses remain today a shadow of good things about to come as Paul described it in
the first century (Colossians 2:14-16; Hebrews 10:21f)?

But, if Torah, the Law of Moses, remains valid on Israel, then shouldnt McDurmon and the Dominionists be highly
supportive of modern efforts to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple? Should they not be supportive of Zionism and the
Dispensational zeal to rebuild? After all, if you believe, as McDurmon claimed, that Israel after the flesh and her
covenant with YHVH remains valid today, then should you not also be affirming her right to the Temple Mount,
and the re-establishment of that Covenantal cultus? Be sure to get a copy of my book From Torah To Telos: The
Passing of the Law of Moses, for a refutation of the idea that part of the Old Covenant could pass while some of it
remain. This is simply false, and leads today to false eschatology as well as eccelesiology.
Yet, McDurmon is on record as rejecting any need for, or Biblical support for, a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple! He says
the Old Covenant Temples centricity was surpassed and abrogated, and that all modern attempts to rebuild a
Temple for the re-establishment of Mosaic sacrifices is misguided. He is very much opposed tot he modern
Zionist movement as a direct negative reflection on the work of Christ!
McDurmon claims that Christs New Covenant Temple has out-stripped and transcended any need for the literal,
physical, Jerusalem Temple. But this is nothing but a self-contradictory smoke screen. If Israel and her covenant
relationship with YHVH remains valid until the end of the current Christian age, it is undeniable that there is a
Divine demand for the Temple and its cultus to be rebuilt. This brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul
was undeniably anticipating the fulfillment of Gods promises to Old Covenant Israel after the flesh (cf. V. 54-56).
You simply cannot, logically or contextually, admit that flesh and blood in 1 Corinthians 15 referred to Israel
after the flesh and that the law that was the strength of sin was Torah, without positing one of a few absolute
logical necessities, as just noted:
1.) If flesh and blood was referent to Israel after the flesh and if Israel after the flesh remains Gods covenant
people until the physical resurrection, as affirmed by McDurmon, then as just noted, there is a divine necessity
for the re-establishment of the Jerusalem Temple, priesthood, sacrificial cultus. You cannot divorce Gods
covenant with Israel from the Temple and cultus. That temple and cultus, as expressed well by Kenneth Gentry:
In essence the temple itself is a symbol: it symbolizes the covenantal relationship of God with His people. The
heart of the covenant appears in the most important promise: I will be your God, you will be my people. The
temple is the special place where God dwells among His people. (He Shall Have Dominion, 2009, 362, his
emphasis).
2.) There is a Two Covenant reality: Israel has her covenant, the church has her covenant. This is the absolute
logical necessity of McDurmons claims. He is undeniably on record as believing that Israel and her covenant will
remain valid until a yet future physical resurrection. Thus, if he believes that the New Covenant has been
established, and that Israels covenant is still valid, then of necessity, McDurmon ascribes to the Two Covenant
Theology.
3.) If Israel and her covenant remains valid, then physical circumcision remains a divine mandate, and still serves
as the covenantal sign between YHVH and Israel. A great deal could be said about this, but I will withhold those
comments for now. Once again, it will not do for McDurmon, the Dominionists and the futurists to say
circumcision is abrogated, but the covenant remains valid. This simply specious and false. There is not one word
of Biblical support for the Dominionist dichotomy of the Law of Moses, with some passing and some remaining.

Much more could be said on these things but this will suffice.
The bottom line is that McDurmons admissions in the debate are fatal to his paradigm.
He defined flesh and blood in 1 Corinthians 15 as Israel after the flesh.
He defined the flesh and blood discussion as a contrast between the Old Covenant and the New.
He defined the law that was the strength of sin as the Law of Moses.
He admitted that there was a fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15 in AD 70.
These admissions leave him and his Dominionist brethren no ground on which to stand. He surrendered his
futurism, and made arguments in full support of the (true) full preterist paradigm. Further, he has taken a position
that would logically demand support of modern Israel and her covenant relationship, thus raising the issue of why
McDurmon and American Vision are so adamantly anti-Zionist.
In the debate, I pressed McDurmon to provide the contextual, exegetical evidence and proof of anything beyond
the admitted AD 70 fulfillment. We received nothing-- total silence. You will have to read the book for yourself to
grasp how feeble McDurmons arguments on 1 Corinthians 15 really were, and how fatal his admissions about
that text are.
Be sure to get your own copy of the McDurmon -V- Preston debate. By the way, you might not want to trouble
yourself trying to find the book on the American Vision website. Just this morning (10-24-13) I tried to find it, with
no success. I did a search under McDurmon and in 18 pages of links, I did not find one link to the book. I
likewise did a search for End Times Dilemma the name of the debate book. I received the message that nothing
was found. I did a search without the quotes, and in three pages of links, the book was not listed.In addition, this
morning, on my FaceBook page, a poster said he also had tried to find the debate book offered, and could not
find it on the American Vision website.
In my search, I finally found one article referencing the debate, an article by McDurmon essentially suggesting
that my willingness to debate him and other non-preterist had backfired in the proverbial mode of the briar patch
and the tar baby. It was mostly ridicule of me and preterists, and promotion of McDurmons new book, with very
little reference to the availability of the actual debate. (I will, in fairness, take note that this one article was written
prior to the publication of the book, and that they offered the electronic version of the debate. It does not alter the
fact that the debate book is hardly to be found).
Now, it is certainly possible that American Vision is in fact offering the book, somewhere on their site, but, my
searches came up almost empty. (Literally, I did not find one distinctive, stand alone offering of the book. If they
are offering it, the offer is buried somewhere. Maybe I am just not an efficient searcher but every mention of the
debate was coupled with their offering of McDurmons book on the resurrection).
To demonstrate that they are not aggressively marketing and promoting sales of the book, they ordered a grand
total of five (yes, five) copies of the book from me for resale, well over two months ago, and have not re-ordered
additional copies. They very clearly are not actively promoting sales of the book. I think this speaks eloquently
and powerfully to how successful American Vision thinks McDurmon was in our debate. They are not promoting
sales of the book, and when they even mention it, it is to promote McDurmons book as a companion to the
debate book. In other words, they dont want you to read just the debate book, they want you to read
McDurmons post debate book, Very revealing indeed!

Paul and the Meaning of "Flesh and Blood" in 1

Corinthians 15 Featured
OCTOBER 23RD Written by Don K. Preston
Just this morning (10-23-13) I was ready some different commentaries and their thoughts on the resurrection.
Virtually all of them insist that when Paul said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom" that he was referring
to biological human flesh and blood. Of course, those same commentators then stridently insisted that the
believer will one day be raised physically! Well, isn't "physical" the very epitome of "flesh and blood"? To say the
least, this is a huge problem for all futurists.
We begin here with a short series on Paul's discussion of "flesh and blood" by examining the comments of Joel
McDurmon in our formal debate, held in Ardmore, Ok., July 2012. A book of that debate is available, as well
asDVDs, and we strongly urge you to obtain a copy of the debate, and see for yourself the almost unbelievable
claims made by McDurmon.

1 Corinthians is clearly the fundamental battle ground for any discussion of the resurrection. We are told by all
futurists that Paul anticipated and predicted a yet future to us raising of dead human fleshly corpses, at the end of
time or human history. This is the view I once held, until I began to more closely examine the texts of Scripture. I
then realized that this is simply not what the Bible teaches.
In the previously mentioned formal public debate with Joel McDurmon, (Head of Research at American Vision, in
Georgia) McDurmon affirmed the necessity for a fleshly, bodily resurrection of corpses out of the ground. Of
course, he had difficulty substantiating this claim in light of Scripture, but, it was his burden to prove the case.
During the Q and A session on Saturday, McDurmon was asked a question about Pauls statement in 1
Corinthians 15, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom. Since McDurmon affirms a resurrection of
flesh and blood this would seem to pose a challenge to his paradigm. McDurmons response to the question
was, in a word, staggering, for in truth, as I noted during the debate, he virtually gave the debate away in his
answer. His answer and my response is in the book of that debate that you can find here.
As an additional thought here: McDurmon took note that preterism is not found in the creeds or church historians,
and that this should give anyone pause before adopting it. I challenged him to show us where, in any creed, any
council, or any early church writer where anyone affirmed that 1 Corinthians 15 had a fulfillment in AD 70.
McDurmon never even tried to do so, because he cannot do so, and he knows it. So, on the one hand he
castigates preterists for being non-creedal/historical, but on the other hand, he espouses a doctrine that is
absolutely non-creedal /historical! But of course, he wants to affirm that he is "orthodox."
Here is McDurmons answer (cut and pasted) to the question: Well, I don't see that as literally as talking about -literally talking about the flesh and blood from your body, obviously. I think it's talking about the flesh and blood
under the fallen system. That is the fallen flesh and blood that we're constantly told throughout scripture that has
to do with fleshly lust and those types of things.
I think it also has to do with Israel after the flesh. We know that ultimately the promise was not to Israel after the

flesh. It came through Israel after the flesh. It was to them in the sense that it was -- to them in the Mosaic
Covenant, but ultimately the promise was through faith in Abraham.
Well, what happens when John the Baptist comes? Even with the Abrahamic promise it was to him and his seed.
And both Jesus and John the Baptist are telling the people of that time period -- that the Jews of that time period,
don't think to yourselves that you're children of Abraham just because you're his flesh and blood. Because God
can raise up from these stones children of Abraham. Of course we find out in Galatians Chapter 3 that the real
seed of Abraham is singular; it's Jesus Christ. And his posterity is all from those who believe in him through faith,
not his flesh.
And so I think that's being loaded in -- and keep in mind, there was tremendous Jew and gentile controversy
going on in all of Paul's Apostles including 1 Corinthians. And when he's bringing this in, he's contrasting that
promise or that covenant, if you will, with the future covenant. That doesn't mean flesh and blood literally cannot
inhabit the kingdom of heaven. It just has to be gloried bodies. (End Times Dilemma, debate book, p. 135).
You just have to catch the power of McDurmons comments! Let me express my response succinctly, and be sure
to read my longer response in the book.
Flesh and blood refers to Israel after the flesh- McDurmon.
The resurrection is the time of the putting off of flesh and blood Paul.
Therefore, the resurrection will be / was, the time of the putting off of Israel after the flesh. i.e. at the
end of the Old Covenant age of Israel!
There is more...
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven Paul.
Flesh and blood is the direct equivalent to mortality.
The resurrection would be the putting off of mortality the body of flesh and blood.
But, flesh and blood refers to Israel after the flesh Joel McDurmon.
Therefore, the resurrection the putting off of immortality would be the time of the putting off of Israel
after the flesh.
Notice carefully that McDurmon said in direct connection with putting off of flesh and blood: keep in mind, there
was tremendous Jew and gentile controversy going on in all of Paul's Apostles including 1 Corinthians. And when
he's bringing this in, he's contrasting that promise or that covenant, if you will, with the future covenant.
So, Pauls referent to flesh and blood is part of the Jew and Gentile controversy that Paul is continuing to
discuss in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul was contrasting that promise or that covenant, if you will, with the
future covenant. In other words, Pauls reference to flesh and blood was a reference to Old Covenant Israel

and the Old Covenant!

For Paul, then, flesh and blood was a covenantal contrast to the coming immortality and incorruptibility of v.
54-56! It was not a contrast in biological, somatic substance, but, a contrast in covenantal stance! But, this being
true, then the contrast between the mortal and the immortal is likewise a covenantal contrast, because
contextually, not only could flesh and blood not inherit the kingdom but, patently, mortality and corruptibility
could not inherit the kingdom either! The connection between flesh and blood and mortality and corruptibility is
direct and undeniable. These are simply different expressions of the same basic concepts, motifs and ideas.
This is absolutely fatal to McDurmons entire eschatology. What McDurmons own words do is to posit the
resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, not at the end of the New Covenant age of Christ, at some proposed end of
human history, but, at the end of the flesh and blood, body of mortality Old Covenant world of Israel! See my
bookSeventy Weeks Are Determined...For the Resurrection, for a powerful demonstration of the fulfillment of the
resurreciton in AD 70. McDurmon's words irrefutably defines the resurrection as a covenantal resurrection for
lack of better term, i.e., the resurrection out of the ministration of death into the ministration of life to use Pauls
terminology in 2 Corinthians 3.
McDurmon says Pauls flesh and blood discussion is a contrast between that promise or that covenant of
Israel after the flesh, and the future (to Paul, DKP) covenant which can only be referent to the New Covenant!
Again, this is a covenantal contrast, not a discussion of the biological substance of human bodies.
Notice how this agrees perfectly with not only what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, but, with McDurmons other
words. In our correspondence, Joel identified the law that was the strength of sin, mentioned by Paul in 1
Corinthians 15:55-56 as the law of Moses. I noted this in our debate, and Joel never denied it at any time. So,
here is what we have:
The resurrection would be the putting off of flesh and blood Paul.
Flesh and blood was referent to Israel after the flesh and the Law of Moses Joel McDurmon.
Therefore, the resurrection would be when Old Covenant Israel after the flesh and the Law of Moses was
put off.
Further...
The resurrection would be the putting off of flesh and blood Paul.
The resurrection would be when the law that was the strength of sin was put away Paul.
But, the law that was the strength of sin, was the Law of Moses Joel McDurmon.
Therefore, the resurrection was when the law that was the strength of sin i.e. the Law of Moses, was
put away.
Now, very clearly, if the Law of Moses, has been done away, then flesh and blood has been put away, the

mortal has put on immortality, the law that was the strength of sin, has been overcome the resurrection has
occurred! See my book Torah To Telos: The Passing of the Law of Moses, for an in-depth study of when the Law
of Moses passed.
On the other hand, if the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 has not taken place, then without any question, flesh
and blood Israel after the flesh- still reigns, the Law of Moses is still the strength of sin!
On this note, I have observed that I asked McDurmon: At what point of time, and with what event (or events)
were, or will, all (not just some) of Gods Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant Israel after the flesh be
fulfilled and His covenant relationship with them fulfilled and terminated?
McDurmon responded that all of this will take place at the time of the physical resurrection.
Do you catch that? Do you see the power of this?
McDurmon is logically and explicitly locked into the position that Old Covenant Israel after the flesh remains as
Gods covenant people today, and that Gods covenant with them, i.e. the law of Moses will remain valid until the
physical resurrection. That raises all sorts of significant theological issues, does it not?
If Israel after the flesh remains as Gods covenant people, and if the Law of Moses, Gods covenant with Israel
after the flesh, remains valid until the physical resurrection, per McDurmon: What then of Christ and the New
Covenant? Has the Law of Moses been married to the Law of Christ? Has new wine been put in old wineskins
after all? See Mark 2:21-22.
Is Israel today still under Torah, and yet, subject to the Gospel as well? Or, does McDurmon affirm as John
Hagee does, that Israel has her covenant with God, and the Gentiles have their covenant (The Gospel) with God,
and that Israel after the flesh is not, therefore, subject to, and does not need the Gospel of Christ? How in the
name of reason can one logically conclude anything else?
If Israel is still Gods covenant people, and if Gods covenant with them is still binding, then of necessity, Israel is
bound, mandated, to be faithful to the Law of Moses all of it! We will have more on this in the next installment of
this article, so stay tuned!

William Bell on the Resurrection-- Great Stuff!

William Bell has been busy lately researching on the resurrection, the Tree of Life, the Death of Adam, and other
related issues. He has just posted a fantastic article, and you will be challenged and blessed when you read it!
Be sure to pass it on as well!
http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/resurrection-trumpets-with-an-uncertain-sound-ibd-view-dismantled/

Resurrection Trumpets of Sounding Brass

The doctrine of the resurrection is of vital

importance to all whether familiar with eschatology or not, whether an advocate of covenant
eschatology or some form of preterism. What is disturbing to me is the persuasion of some to
move the dial of the resurrection from Jesus Christ. His affirmation that He is the Resurrection
and the Life, seems to bounce off the ears of some otherwise scholarly men as though it is
anathema.
Some have chose to replace Christ, the resurrection and the life, Israels Redeemer with their
own view of resurrection, i.e. with the individual body of man as the solution to the problem of
death in the garden. This makes for unfortunate resurrection hermeneutics.

Resurrection Begins and Ends in Christ

It is interesting that immediately after Adams sinned, God offered the promise of Christ and the
defeat of the Satan as the remedy for death. And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.
(Gen. 3:15 )
The promise is Christ, the resurrection and the life, who defeats death by destroying Satan
through his death and the New Covenant. . As N.T. Wright observes, 1 Corinthians 15 is primarily
about renewal of creation and covenant through Christ, N.T. Wright, Paul pp. 28-39.

Misguided Emphasis on Physical Death and Resurrection

Levenson observes: Genesis 3:19

is often taken as an etiology [cause] of death; people die

[physically] because of Adams sin. It is unclear, however, whether God had ever intended Adam
to be immortal. Indeed, the reason given in 3:22 for the latters eviction from the Garden of Eden
is precisely that he might become deathless, having now acquired the knowledge of good and
evil and thus the intellectual capacity to taste of the Tree of Life as well and live forever. In short it
may be that Genesis 3 sees in the disobedience of the primal parents the origins not of the loss
of immortality itself but of the chance to acquire immortality. In that case, v. 19 is better taken as
an etiology not of death but of burial: Adam as the protypical human (adam) ends where he

began, in the ground (adama) returning to the dust from which he was fashioned (2:7). Jon D.
Levenson, Resurrection and Restoration, p. 32.
Levenson goes on to say that, Of the two interpretations of Gen. 3:19 , the first, which sees in
the verse a punishment of death, is likelier to underlie the translation attested in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan. The idea that the sin of Adam (or Adam and Eve) is the cause of human
mortality, arguably absent in the Hebrew Bible, became widespread in Second Temple Judaism,
displacing the older biblical concept (by no means universal in the Hebrew Bible) that death was
Gods preferred plan for every human being from the beginning, the way of all the earth (Josh
23:14 ). The notion that Gods last word to the human race is a death sentence however, did not
sit well with certain elements of Second Temple culture (just as it had not sat well with the biblical
culture that saw in progeny not simply a consolation for death but the survival and continuation of
the person who has passed away). Ibid, p. 32-33.

The Tree of Life and Physical Immortality in the Garden

It is assumed that the tree of life offered the hope of physical immortality, i.e. that Adam
wouldphysically live forever had he eaten of the tree of life before he sinned. This assumption
creates insurmountable problems.
1.

First, Adam would never have died. (See the acknowledgement of this point by IBD
resurrection advocates on #3 below)

2.

If Adam became physically immortal, his offspring would likewise become physically
immortal for every seed must produce after its kind, (Gen. 1:11 ).

3.

Without physical death, physically immortal man would be destined to live on the earth
forever in a flesh and blood body. He would be eternally bound to earth. This creates
insurmountable problems for the IBD people since they erroneously understand flesh and
blood in 1 Cor. 15:50 to speak of human biology. Adam and his immortal posterity would
therefore be unable to enter the kingdom in such condition. A similar point is acknowledged
in the writings of Ed Stevens commenting on Adam eating of the tree in a fallen state: If he
had stayed in the garden (after he had eaten and died spiritually) and continued to eat from
the Tree of Life, he would have physically lived forever even though he was spiritually dead.
Edward Stevens, Questions About The Afterlife, p. 25. Thus, Adams dilemma for eating of
the tree, whether spiritually dead or alive, is he could not inherit the kingdom.

4.

If physical immortality does not mean to be flesh and blood then there is no such thing
as physical immortality, for it would be non-physical immortality, thus again negating the
idea that the tree of life was for mans physical immortality.

5.

If entering the kingdom is salvation and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:50

), given the condition

of #3 above, physical immortality would create the impossibility of saving those with physical
immortality.
6.

On the other hand, if physical immortality is salvation, one would be saved without
entering the kingdom, making void Gods purpose of mans inheriting the kingdom prepared

from the foundation of the world, (Matt. 25:34 )!

7.
Given the scenario of #3, there would be no physical death in the earth and man would
quickly overpopulate the world creating problems with food supply, and spacial limitations.
Can you do the math?

8.

This would also render the penalty of dying totally irrelevant, useless, unenforceable, thus
a joke, for once man ate and became immortal, he could never become mortal. If he did
become immortal and and lost his immortality or apostatized, that would contradict the IBD
resurrection view that once man possesses immortality he cannot apostatize or fall from
that grace.

9.

If, the IBD advocates recognize they have a problem with man eating only once of the
tree of life, but if eating once could not provide physical immortality, how many times would
Adam have to eat to gain physical immortality? Or if man were required to keep eating to
maintain physical immortality, then such implies physical immortality can be lost once
received, if Adam went on a tree of life diet of abstinence, hence the possibility of apostasy
again and thus even in the IBD resurrection view man is capable of dying physically even
after eating of the tree of life!

10.

If man became physically immortal after eating of the tree of life, why would he need to
eat anything to sustain his physical immortality? Food would be unnecessary and God
would have created all those trees good for food to be good for nothing! Would that not
mean that man only got to eat and appease his palette upon the condition that he sinned!?!

11.

Now we see why some IBD resurrection advocates must have a rapture. Its because
physical immortality on earth demands it since man could not die under such circumstances
and thus could not escape an eternal destiny of life on earth. That means no hell and no
heaven. As we raised the question for the kingdom, why did God also prepare the second
death given such an interpretation, Gen. 3:15
?

12.

, Matt. 25:41

; Rom. 16:20

; Rev. 20:14

If Adam could eat and obtain physical immortality on earth, that contradicts the IBD
resurrection view and the Hadean death only view of resurrection that man must die
physically to obtain immortality. How can a physically immortal person die physically?
Impossible.

13.

If Adam could not die before he ate of the tree and if he had obtained physical immortality
by eating of the tree of life, how could Adam have received his physical immortality without
being sown that he might die physically? Does that not give new meaning to sowing a live
body in the ground that could not die even when buried that it may rise from death that it
could not experience in the first place?

14.

If Adam became physically immortal by eating of the tree of life and if such is equated
with the resurrection of Luke 20:35f in being as the angels of God who cannot die, would
that also not mean that Adam would be neither male nor female, unable to marry and
procreate and thus physical immortality on earth would violate Gods command in Genesis 1
:28 to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth? Will man have sex in heaven? Do

physically immortal people sexually reproduce?

15.
If eating of the tree would give Adam physical immortality, and since resurrection is the
putting on of a spiritual body only at death per the IBD resurrection view, then would it not
follow that because Adam could not die, he could never put on the spiritual body being
physically immortal? But if it be argued that physical immortality is the spiritual body and/or
spiritual immortality, then what becomes of physical immortality? Would that not mean that

the tree of life was really for Adams spiritual immortality after all and not physical
immortality thus he would have died physically even with becoming spiritually immortal, thus
proving that spiritual immortality does not preclude physical death?
16.

If the tree of life represents Christ, and if the eating of the tree of life grants immortality
which cannot be obtained while living in the physical body, per the IBD self-contradiction,
then does that not mean that we cannot now have Christ?

17.

If the eating of the tree of life represents Christ and equals receiving physical immortality
which can only happen after physical death which is impossible to do if one has physical
immortality does that not mean we cannot have Christ period, thus, leading to the miserable
conclusion Paul expressed that we of all men are most miserable because it denies the
resurrection of the dead.

18.

Heres one even the futurist can consider. If the tree of life is in heaven and man must
receive the immortal body to enter heaven because he cant get there in his physically
mortal or physically immortal body, then why does one need to eat of the tree of life in
heaven every month if it were essential to have the immortal body to get there in the first
place and one cannot apostatize?

19.

If the IBD view accepted that Christ is the Resurrection and the life would all these
problems immediately go away?

20.

My conclusion: I-B-D stands for Individual Body Dismantled view. It is a discordant sound
to the resurrection of the Bible.

Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life

Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die,
he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? (John
11:25-26 ). Jesus said, he is the resurrection and the life. Just as he said, I am the bread of
life and I am the water of life. Neither of those are understood by informed students of the Bible
to refer to physical realities or some type of body. Yet they are all equivalent statements pointing
back to Christ! Christ is the water of life = the bread of life = the resurrection and the life! Simple
logic. Why complicate it?
That premise can be argued from top to bottom in 1 Corinthians 15 or 2 Corinthians 5. In fact, Im
publishing a new translation on 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5, where I substitute all
references to the resurrection body, immortality, kingdom or house not made with hands to
Christ. Try it and see how it feels just for the fun of it. Jesus will back you up with John 11:25-26
. After all, the text does say, in Christ all are made alive. Christ, the hope and fulfillment of
Israels promises, is the resurrection!
Resurrection trumpets of discord reject the central theme of Israels hope through Christ and turn
resurrection into an individual body motif. Weve shown such resurrection concepts cannot get
past the Cherubim guard of Genesis 2 and 3. Any resurrection concepts that fail to properly
interpret the death, can never be the eschatological resurrection of the Bible.

Was the Resurrection in Matthew 27:52 The

Fulfillment of Daniel 12? #3
AUGUST 29TH Written by Don K. Preston
WAS DANIEL 12:2 FULFILLED IN MATTHEW 27:51-52 #3
Don K. Preston D. Div.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and
everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2).
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks
were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised
(Matthew 27:51-52)
This is the third installment of a brief series on this subject.
I have been asked to comment on the (supposed) correlation between Daniel 12 and Matthew 27:52. I have been
asked recently to specifically address the question of whether Daniels prediction of the resurrection (12:2) was
fulfilled in the awesome events recorded in Matthew 27. There are some who believe that the resurrection of the
saints in Matthew was in fact the direct fulfillment of Daniels prophecy. I do not, and will offer a few reasons in a
brief series of articles, as to why I reject that suggestion.
Notice that Daniel 12: specifically says that those to be resurrected would be raised to everlasting life or, in the
case of the wicked, everlasting shame. Those who suggest that Daniel was fulfilled in the events of Matthew
27:52 are putting the horse before the cart, so far as I can determine. Here is why.
Note that Daniel was told that he would not receive his reward until the time of the end. He would receive that
reward, according to Revelation 11:15f at the time of the resurrection. Likewise, the time of the rewarding of the
prophets was to occur at the end of the age (Daniel 12:2-4). So, when we put these pieces of the puzzle together
we find the following:
The resurrection is the time when the prophets Daniel included would receive their reward (Daniel 12:2-13).
The prophets would receive their reward at the time of the resurrection (Revelation 11:15-18).
The time of the resurrection and the time of the rewarding of the prophets was to occur at the judgment of the city
where the Lord was slain (Revelation 11:8-18).
Therefore, the resurrection for the rewarding of the prophets Daniel 12:2-- occurred at the judgment of the city
where the Lord was slain (Revelation 11:8-18).
To suggest that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is different from the resurrection at the end of the age in Daniel
12:12-13 demands contextual proof. There is no such proof. The resurrection of v. 2 would be at the time of the
end; the resurrection of v. 13 would be at the time of the end. Daniel 12 does not contain a prediction of two

different ends and two different resurrections. There is one resurrection at the time of the end, and Revelation
posits that at the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem. Matthew 27:52 does not satisfy the demands of the text.
More coming.
Be sure to check out my book Seventy Weeks Are Determined...For the Resurrection for more on Daniel 12 and
the resurrection.

Was Daniel 12:2 Fulfilled in Matthew 27:52? #2

AUGUST 27TH Written by Don K. Preston
WAS DANIEL 12:2 FULFILLED IN MATTHEW 27:51-52 #2
Don K. Preston D. Div.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and
everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2).
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks
were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised
(Matthew 27:51-52)
This is the second installment of a brief series on this subject.
I have been asked on numerous occasions to comment on the (supposed) correlation between Daniel 12 and
Matthew 27. I have been asked recently to specifically address the question of whether Daniels prediction of the
resurrection (12:2) was fulfilled in the awesome events recorded in Matthew 27. There are some who believe that
the resurrection of the saints in Matthew was in fact the direct fulfillment of Daniels prophecy. I do not, and will
offer a few reasons in a brief series of articles, as to why I reject that suggestion.
In the first installment we noted that the resurrection of Daniel 12 is inextricably linked to the Great Tribulation of
v. 1. There is no contextual way to dichotomize these two events into two separate times. The resurrection would
come at the climax of the Tribulation. Or, at the very least, at the time of the Tribulation. Since the Great
Tribulation was not in process at the time of Matthew 27:52 this serves as prima facie demonstration that the
resurrection of Matthew 27 was not the fulfillment of Daniels prediction.
Notice now Daniel 12:3. Clearly, verse 3 is tied to verse two thematically as well as contextually. What happens in
verse 3? It is the arrival of the kingdom, per Jesus interpretation and application of verse 3
Daniel 12:3 tells us that at the time of the resurrection, those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the
firmament... like the stars forever. Notice the direct correlation of the resurrection to everlasting life in verse 2, to
the shining as the brightness of the firmament and stars forever.
So, the resurrection of verse 2 leads to the righteous shining forth. Notice now Jesus application of Daniels
prophecy.

In Jesus famous parable of the wheat and tares, Jesus gave his interpretation of the parable, as well as lending
his comment on Daniel 12: 41-43: The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His
kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire.
There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father.
Take note that Jesus directly cites Daniel 12:3 in v. 43. And, he Daniel would be fulfilled at the coming of the Son
of Man, at the end of the age, the time of the harvest. Without doubt, the harvest at the coming of the Lord at the
end of the age is the time of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2.
So, that leads us to this:
The harvest of Matthew 13:41-43 is the resurrection age of Daniel 12:2.
But, the harvest of Matthew 13:41-43 occurs at the coming of the Lord at the end of the age (Matthew 13:41-43).
Therefore, the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 occurs at the coming of the Lord at the end of the age.
Jesus said that at the time of the harvest the kingdom would be present, and the righteous would shine in the
kingdom. Did the kingdom arrive in Matthew 27:52? Did those who were raised in Matthew 27 begin to shine in
the kingdom? If so, how? Again, per Jesus, that kingdom would arrive in power and greatly glory at his parousia
(Matthew 16:27-28; 25:31f).
Patently, the events of Matthew 27:52 did not occur at the coming of the Lord with the angels at the end of the
age.
Those who claim that Daniel 12 foretold the events of Matthew 27 must provide some powerful, substantive,
contextual evidence to show that Daniel 12:2 can be cut out and divorced from verse 1 and verse 3 temporally.
There is simply no contextual support for doing so, and when we accept Jesus application of Daniel 12 to his
parousia at the harvest, this falsifies any application of Daniel 12 to Matthew 27.
For more on the resurrection and the correlation between Daniel 12 and Matthew 13-- see my book Seventy
Weeks Are Determined...For the Resurrection.
More to come.

Was Daniel 12:2 Fulfilled In Matthew 27:52?

AUGUST 25TH Written by Don K. Preston
WAS DANIEL 12:2 FULFILLED IN MATTHEW 27:51-52 #1
Don K. Preston D. Div.

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and
everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2).
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks
were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised
(Matthew 27:51-52)
I have been asked on numerous occasions to comment on the (supposed) correlation between Daniel 12 and
Matthew 27. I have been asked recently to specifically address the question of whether Daniels prediction of the
resurrection (12:2) was fulfilled in the awesome events recorded in Matthew 27. There are some who believe that
the resurrection of the saints in Matthew was in fact the direct fulfillment of Daniels prophecy. I do not, and will
offer a few reasons in a brief series of articles, as to why I reject that suggestion.
What Daniel Foretold As Opposed to Matthew
Those who claim that Daniel foretold the events surrounding events must explain why there is nothing else in the
entire chapter of Daniel 12 that comports to this view. If verse 2 is a prediction of the resurrection of the saints,
why is there no mention of Jesus death and resurrection? Are we to believe that in the midst of predictions of the
other elements, that inspiration essentially dropped a prediction of an unrelated event into the discussion? Let me
clarify.
The chronological flow of the predicted constituent elements of Daniel 12 forbids application of v. 2 to Matthew
27.
The Great Tribulation And the Resurrection
Notice that Daniel 12 posits the statement at that time there was to be the Great Tribulation. Then, in verse 2 is
the prediction of the resurrection. Thus, sequentially, one has the right to say that the resurrection would follow or
climax the Tribulation. If this is so, then clearly, verse 2 did not predict the resurrection of the saints in Matthew
27:52. (We would briefly note that in Jewish thought the resurrection was in fact to follow the Tribulation, and this
is the Biblical pattern throughout).
In Matthew 24 Jesus gave the following sequence of events: The appearance of the Abomination of Desolation
which of course was foretold by Daniel 12:9f. As a direct result of the appearance of the Abomination, the
Tribulation would follow.
Note then that in Matthew 24:31 we find the prediction of the resurrection at the sounding of the Great Trumpet.
This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 27:13, which in turn is based on the prediction of the resurrection of
those in the dust (26:19-21), at the coming of the Lord.
Is the resurrection out of the dust in Isaiah 26 a different resurrection from the resurrection out of the dust in
Daniel 12? I have never seen a commentator such a thing. Those who would delineate between them bear the
burden of proof to demonstrate that they are different. And what is important is that in Isaiah 27 that resurrection
is specifically posited at the time when God would spurn the people He had created, destroy the temple, and
make the fortified city a desolation (27:9-11). This clearly is not a prediction of the time of the passion and Jesus
resurrection in Matthew 27.

Likewise, to get ahead of ourselves just a bit, Daniel posits the fulfillment of his resurrection promise at the time
when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered. Thus, just as Isaiah 26-27 gives a sequence
of events, Daniel follows that exact pattern.
So, we have this sequence of events: Abomination> Tribulation > Resurrection. This alone falsifies the
application of Daniel 12 to the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. Those who apply Daniel 12 to Matthew 27
are taking Daniel completely out of the flow of events, and saying that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 happened,
and then, later, the Abomination and Tribulation occurred. There is not a word in Daniel (Or Isaiah 26-27) to justify
this.
The resurrection of Daniel 12 was to be at the time of the Tribulation, and there is simply no way to say that the
events of Matthew 27 were the Great Tribulation, or the climax of it.
Let me succinctly express some of the issues here:
The resurrection out of the dust of Isaiah 26-27 is the same resurrection as in Daniel 12:2.
The resurrection out of the dust of Isaiah 26-27 would take place at the sounding of the Great Trumpet at the
time of the destruction of OT Israel (27:10-13).
Jesus said the sounding of the Great Trumpet (the time of the resurrection) would be at his coming in judgment,
power and great glory (Matthew 24:29-31).
Therefore, the resurrection out of the dust of Daniel 12 being the same resurrection as in Isaiah 26-27 was to
be at Christs coming in judgment, power and great glory (Matthew 24:29-31).
This falsifies any application of Daniel 12 to Matthew 27:52. The resurrection of the saints in Matthew was
patently not at the time of Christs coming in judgment of Old Covenant Israel. But, let me build on this.
The coming of the Lord at the time of the resurrection in Isaiah 26-27 would be when the Lord would come in
judgment and vindication of the blood of the martyrs (Isaiah 26:21).
The resurrection of Isaiah 26 is the same resurrection as in Daniel 12.
But, the coming of the Lord in judgment and vindication of the blood of the martyrs was to be in the judgment of
Old Covenant Jerusalem Not at the cross.
Therefore, the resurrection of Daniel 12 was to be at the coming of the Lord in judgment and vindication of the
blood of the martyrs in the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem not at the time of Matthew 27:52.
(It is important to note that Isaiah was not predicting an individualized coming of the Lord at their conversion or
death. This is the prediction of an objective historical event related to the corporate judgment of Israel. This is
what Jesus foretold in Matthew 23. This is objective or corporate eschatology, not individualistic eschatology).
Again, the events of Matthew 27, no matter how intriguing they might be, are not what was predicted in Daniel
12.
So...
The order of events in Daniel 12 prohibits application to Matthew 27. The resurrection is inextricably tied to the
Great Tribulation and that was irrefutably not at the time of Matthew 27.

Unless one can delineate between the resurrection foretold in Isaiah 26-27 then since Isaiah clearly posits the
resurrection at the time of the judgment of Israel, then Daniel 12 must be applied to that time as well. And of
course, this is precisely what Daniel 12:7 teaches.
Just like Isaiah, Daniel was told that the resurrection would be fulfilled when the power of the holy people is
completely shattered (12:7). This agrees perfectly with Isaiah, and forbids application of Daniel to Matthew 27.
Isaiah posited the resurrection at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. Again,
this agrees perfectly with Daniel and Matthew 23, and forbids application of Daniel to Matthew 27.
We will offer more on this in following articles. I think it can be easily seen however, that there is no contextual
support for applying Daniel 12 to the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:52.
For more, see my book Seventy Weeks Are Determined...For the Resurrection.

You Don't Fix What Was Not Broken!

APRIL 05TH Written by Don K. Preston
FIXING WHAT WAS BROKEN
Don K. Preston
Question: Is Biblical eschatology--that is the doctrine of the coming of Jesus, judgment and resurrection-presented as having the purpose of restoring what was lost in Eden? It has been my privilege to ask this question
to several hundred people, including college Bible professors, preachers and serious Bible students. Without fail
all of them said "Yes, the coming of the Lord is to bring man "back to Garden." The book of Genesis depicts man
in the Garden in fellowship with God and then cast out. But the book of Revelation depicts man restored to God
in the New Heaven and Earth with the Tree of Life and River of Life.
There are varying views of the nature of that restoration. Some believe it must be a physical restoration to a
rejuvenated Earth. Almost all believe this earth must be either completely destroyed or completely physically
renovated. To understand the nature of the Restoration one must understand the Fall. It is a failure to understand
the Fall that has led to a misapplication of the Restoration. God's purpose was to fix what was broken--so what
was broken?
In the Garden, man was in unbroken spiritual fellowship with his God. He had access to every tree except one-the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told him, "In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Gen.
2:16-17). Adam and Eve ate. The question is, "Did they die that day?"
Far too many would change the meaning of what God said. They would have God say, "In the day you eat you
willbegin to die." This explanation is demanded because clearly, Adam and Eve did not die physically for
hundreds of years. But, the presuppositional approach to the definition of the death that God threatened cannot
be supported. Consider this: Did Adam and Eve eat the fruit within a given 24 hour period of time, i.e. in a "day?"
Or, did they happen, eventually, hundreds of years after God threatened them, finally get around to eating the
fruit? You see "the day" in which they would eat, is the very day they would die. If you make the "day" of their

death to be elastic and ambiguous, then you must likewise make the "day" of their eating equally ambiguous. It is
clear however, that they did eat the forbidden fruit within the limits of a specific twenty four hour day.
The language of Gods threat is equally emphatic, "In the day you eat you will surely die." Now Adam and Eve did
not die physically that day, therefore the death that God was threatening them with was not physical death or else
he lied and Satan told the truth. Remember, Satan told Eve: "You will not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Had physical
death been the focus of the threat then Satan was right because Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate as
God had threatened!
The truth is, Adam and Eve did die that day. Death is not annihilation; death means separation! And in Genesis
3:22f Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden--cast out of the Presence of God and from His fellowship! They
died a spiritual death! Here is the problem--loss of fellowship. And since the story of the Bible is God's plan to
restore what was lost in Adam then the story of redemption is the story of God restoring man to spiritual
fellowship--not a story of physical restoration!
Consider: Man was on earth, in time, and in fellowship with God. The purpose of Biblical eschatology is to restore
man to what was lost in the Garden--spiritual fellowship. This being true, why, per the traditional views, does God
have to destroy earth and end time to restore spiritual fellowship? God's purpose in Christ was to fix what was
broken. The loss was spiritual--the restoration is spiritual.
If spiritual fellowship was what was lost why does God have to destroy earth and end time in order to restore that
fellowship? Adam and Eve died spiritually in Eden. The purpose of Christ's coming was to give spiritual life
therefore not physical life! This is confirmed by studying the nature of "death."
Paul said "death spread to all men because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Just as Adam died spiritually when he
died, all men died/die spiritually when they sin. Paul continued "death reigned from Adam to Moses" Romans
5:14; did physical death--or spiritual --end at Moses? No. Paul's point is that when the Old Covenant was given
that made that death seem even worse: "The law was added that sin(thus death, DKP) might abound" (Romans
5:20-21). God did not give the Law of Moses to make men sin more. He gave the Law to make them more
acutely aware of their sin--and thus their "dead" condition before the Lord.
The apostle said, "I was alive without the law, but the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Romans
7:9f). Here is the Biblical definition of the death Jesus' work was to overcome! This cannot be physical death
because Paul was speaking of something that had already happened in his life (and in the life of all those under
Law). He had died when the Law had pointed out his violation of God's will. Paul had died the identical death that
Adam died!
Paul lamented his condition under that system, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of
this death?" (Romans 7:24). Paul was not desiring deliverance from or for a physical body--he desired
deliverance from the "body of death" created by sin!
The Old Covenant was called a "ministry of death" (2 Corinthians 3:6-7). Paul said "the letter kills." How did it kill;
what kind of death? As we have just seen it was spiritual death, and not physical.
In Romans 8 Paul said the Old Law could not deliver from "the law of sin and death"--the law of God in the
Garden-the law that brought spiritual death. Spiritual death reigned from Adam to Moses. The Law of Moses
could not deliver from that law of sin and death; in fact it exacerbated the problem. But Paul rejoices: "There is
therefore no condemnation in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1.)

This is resurrection! This is life from death! Since the law of sin and death was the law of spiritual death--the
original problem in the Garden--the same problem carried through and compounded under the Old Law--and
since Paul says Christ does deliver from the law of sin and death-it therefore follows that those in Christ have
been "resurrected" from "death"-- spiritual death. See Romans 6:1-10.
When man had sinned in the Garden Jehovah made a wonderful promise, spoken to Satan: "I will put enmity
between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head and you shall
bruise his heel." The promise that the Seed of woman would crush Satan's head is the promise to "fix what was
broken" by sin.
The promise of the Saving Seed was continued through Abraham: "In your seed shall all nations of the earth be
blessed" (Genesis 22:18). (The Seed Promise was also continued through David, Ps. 89; 132). The Abrahamic
Promise was two-fold in nature; the promise of a physical lineage (Genesis 12:1-3), and the promise of the
spiritual(Galatians 3:14-29). The physical promises were fulfilled in the 12 tribes of Israel and the land of
Canaan (Genesis 15:12f). But Abraham was also promised that he would be "heir of the world" (Romans 4:13).
What world was Abraham to inherit in which his spiritual seed would crush the head of Satan?
Hebrews 11:13-16 says Abraham was promised a spiritual city and country. This is the "world" Abraham was to
inherit! If Abraham had been primarily mindful of physical land he could have remained in his homeland. But
Abraham longed for a "new heaven and new earth." Clearly, the new creation in which his seed would crush
Satan's head would be spiritual in nature! The question is: when did Abraham see those promises as being
fulfilled?
Jesus said "Abraham longed to see my day; he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). Sadly, most do not believe
Satan's head has been crushed even though Jesus' day (i.e. generation) was two thousand years ago! Why was
Abraham so glad to see Jesus' day if Jesus did not crush Satan's head and bring to realization the heavenly city
and country?
Hebrews 11:13f says Abraham saw the promises "far off"--but in chapter 12:28 it says they were at that time
receiving (not had received) the kingdom--the new heavenly Jerusalem (vs. 18f)! The Abrahamic Promise was
being fulfilled! 1 Peter 1:3-13 says the Old Testament prophets knew the things they foretold were not for their
time. But they were "ready to be revealed" in Peter's day (1 Pet. 1:5, 18f). What once was far off was now ready
to be revealed! The contrast in time cannot be ignored!
Paul promised the Romans: "The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly" (16:20). Here is the
"Saving Seed" promise of Genesis and it was to be fulfilled shortly! In Revelation Satan is defeated by Christ--the
Saving Seed (Rev. 12, 20). When? When he came against the city "where the Lord was crucified" (11:8). That
can only be Jerusalem. Following that destruction was to come the heavenly city promised to Abraham (Rev.
21:1f). Spiritual Death, the problem in the Garden, is destroyed; and man restored to the tree of life (21:3f). When
was that to be? "Behold, I come quickly" (22:12; 20). Spiritual death-separation from God, was abolished. What
was broken was/is fixed in Christ.

Guest Article: Jerrod Drawbaugh on Resurrection and

1 Corinthians 15

APRIL 17TH Written by Don K. Preston

We are happy to share with our visitors an excellent article by Jerrod Drawbaugh. This
insightful, logical exegesis of 1 Corinthians is well presented and will hopefully help our readers to
see what the real issues in Corinth truly were. As Jerrod notes, one of the greatest problems in a
proper understanding of the resurrection, and 1 Corinthians 15, is a proper understanding of who
the dead werer, and who it was denying resurrection life to them, and why. To fail to put 1
Corinthians in its proper context guarantees the wrong interpretation. Jerrod does a fine job of
establishing that proper context. Enjoy and learn!
Don K
*******************

I want to offer my deepest and most sincere thanks to all those who in recent decades have shown
such great humility in changing their view as needed to conform to the truth of scripture as well as
great courage and confidence in leading or participating in the fulfilled prophecy movement. While
there are more names to thank than I can cite, I do wish to make special mention of three who
have been of particular help to me in my studies: Max King, Don Preston, and Sam Frost. A million
thanks to you and to all others who are taking part in any way, publically or privately, in this
beautiful truth of fulfilled redemption in Christ Jesus!
Any study of eschatology will lead to a study of the resurrection, and any study of the resurrection
will lead to 1 Corinthians 15. Thus in these two articles we wish to give attention to this most
important chapter. It is often said that 1 Corinthians 15 is the most embarrassing and difficult
chapter for those who advocate realized covenantal eschatology, and is the most detrimental
chapter in all scripture to this view. Here we will seek to show that such is not the case at
all. While there is much more that could be said, in these two articles we want to focus our
attention on the nature of the Corinthian denial and the bodily resurrection that Paul teaches. We
will present some challenging questions to our traditional view which we request answers for from
those who advocate it and condemn covenant eschatology as a false and even dangerous
doctrine.
The Corinthian Denial in 1 Corinthians 15
A study of any passage of scripture must begin by setting the proper stage in order to get the full
context. Just as God labored ~1500 years with Israel in order to set the stage for Christ, so too
must we labor to get the background and historical context of a passage in order to set the proper
stage for our study thereof.
A common challenge before us in studying 1 Corinthians is to understand the background. Paul
deals with questions they had asked him and problems he and they were intimately aware of. Paul
had both visited Corinth and written a prior letter to them which has not been preserved for us, and
they had written back to him. (1 Cor.5:9; 7:1) Exegetes have often struggled to understand the
exact nature of various problems Paul dealt with. While this presents some challenges, we do
nonetheless have enough revealed and preserved for us to gather the pertinent information
needed to understand the key matters addressed in this epistle.

What were some in Corinth denying in chapter 15? Obviously they were denying the resurrection
of the dead, but this alone does not tell us exactly what they believed and denied for there was
another group (the Sadducees) who denied the resurrection, yet there are differences between
what the Sadducees believed and what some in Corinth believed on this topic.
Paul deals with the Corinthian error (particularly in verses 12-19) by using a line of argumentation
known as modus tollens. Modus tollens argues if P, then Q. If you dont believe Q, you cannot
believe P, for Q is an inescapable logical consequence of P. In other words, Paul presents a series
of consequences to their doctrine which they would find objectionable, but which logically must
follow from that which they believed. The objectionable consequences to their belief were: Christ
is not risen, our preaching is empty and your faith is empty, you are still in your sins, and those
who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. All of these were logical consequences to if the
dead rise not and Paul shows them these consequences to bring to light the error of their
teaching. As the Corinthians would have found these consequences objectionable, we find that
they believed: Christ is risen, the apostles preaching is not empty, their faith is not empty, they are
not still in their sins, and those fallen asleep in Christ have not perished. There were some who
said there is no resurrection of the dead but would not accept the logical inescapable
consequences thereof.
Upon seeing this we can discern a key difference between the Sadducees and some in
Corinth. Though both the Sadducees and some in Corinth said there is no resurrection (Mt.22:23;
Mk.12:18; Acts 23:8; 1 Cor.15:12), those in Corinth believed in continued existence after death
which the Sadducees denied. The Sadducees not only denied the resurrection, but also denied the
existence of angels and spirits. (Acts 23:8) They denied the existence of anything other-worldly
such as continued life beyond the grave. This is why Jesus refuted the Sadducees by appealing not
to instances in the OT where someone physically dead was raised, but rather appealing to the
burning bush passage (Ex.3) which proved continued life beyond biological death (Mt.22:23-33; Mk.
12:18-27; Lk.20:27-40). In doing this, Jesus affirmed (and proved from scripture) what the
Sadducees denied. Paul does not use the same line of argumentation against some in Corinth as
Jesus used against the Sadducees because this argument would not disprove their belief. The
argument Jesus used proved continued life beyond the grave, but in this the Corinthians already
believed, for to say otherwise was one of the objectionable consequences Paul raises which they
would not accept.
This shows that there was a difference between what the Sadducees believed and what some in
Corinth believed concerning the resurrection. Thus simply saying there is no resurrection in and
of itself does not tell us exactly what this group in Corinth believed. We must search a little further
in scripture to discern fully what the nature of the Corinthian denial was.
I believe a fuller understanding of the Corinthian denial can be ascertained by comparing what Paul
says here to what he says in Romans (particularly chapters 5-11). However, as there is more meat
in the Roman letter than we can get into at this juncture, I will seek to show and defend from
scripture my belief as to what the Corinthian denial was aside from what we see in Romans.

I ask you to consider the possibility that the biggest error and controversy we find in Corinth (the
denial of the resurrection of the dead) may very well be one and the same with the biggest error
and controversy we find everywhere else in the New Testament. Without question the biggest
controversy we find in the New Testament centers around Jew/gentile dissention. While Jews in
large part accepted gentiles, many of them at the same time compelled them to be circumcised
and keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15). In other words, they believed you had to go through Moses
in order to get to Jesus. After 1500 years of circumcision and Law-keeping, the teaching that
Gentiles could be saved apart from these things was very difficult for Jews to accept. On the other
hand, many gentiles saw hardened rebellious Israel still clinging to the Law of Moses and saw
Pauls tremendous success among the gentiles, from which it was easy to conclude that Israel had
been cast away, left behind in the past, dead in sin. (This is the main thrust of what Paul deals with
in Romans 9-11.) Paul confronts both of these errors. Pauls aim was to show that Israel had not
been cast away, and neither did gentiles have to go through Moses to get to Jesus, but rather the
message of the gospel is that of uniting both Jew and gentile as one in Christ Jesus.
Do we find this controversy in Corinth? We most certainly do. The church at Corinth had more
issues than any other church we read of in the New Testament. It would seem strange indeed if a
church fraught with so many other issues somehow managed to avoid the one issue that plagued
so many others.
We find Paul ministering at Corinth in Acts 18:1-17. There were both Jews and gentiles present that
he reasoned with in the synagogue every Sabbath. Some of the hardened rebellious Jews opposed
Pauls teaching that Jesus is the Christ which caused Paul to depart from the Jews there and go to
the gentiles. It indeed would have been easy for some of the gentiles in Corinth to see this and
conclude that after 1500 years the Jews are now being rejected for their rebellion and God is now
concerned primarily with having a relationship with gentiles. Paul continued to labor with the
gentiles there for 18 months, after which the Jews were angered and rose up against Paul. Some of
the gentiles responded to this by beating the ruler of the synagogue. Indeed, we see much
Jew/gentile dissention in Corinth.
When Paul wrote his letter to them, we find divisions among them in chapter 1. Among these
divisions were those who said I am of Cephas and others who said I am of Paul or I am of
Apollos. Why were these men (Cephas, Paul, and Apollos) mentioned? Why was no one saying I
am of James, or I am of Philip, etc. Specifically, why were some of them saying I am of
Cephas? Cephas (the apostle Peter) as far as we know never went to Corinth. How then could
some of them say they were of Cephas? It is significant that we have mentioned here the apostle
to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul, and his fellow laborer Apollos). Knowing
that there were Jews present in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17), and that there were some who were saying
I am of Peter (the apostle to the Jews), and since as far as we know Peter never went to Corinth,
it seems that the I am of Cephas group were the Jews who said in essence I am a Jew, Peter is
the apostle to the Jews, thus he is my apostle and I am of him. If this be the case, then not only
was there dissention between Jews and gentiles at Corinth, but this served as the primary basis of
the divisions that were among them. There were certain Jews saying I am of Cephas, certain
gentiles saying I am of Paul or Apollos, and certain others that got it right and saw no distinction
between Jew and gentile and thus said I am of Christ.

Furthermore, we find elements of the Acts 15 Jerusalem conference in 1 Corinthians. The Acts 15
Jerusalem conference met over the issue of whether or not gentiles had to be circumcised and keep
the Law of Moses. The result was the decision that they did not need to do so, but that they were
to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood. (Acts 15:19-20) Do we find any of these elements in 1 Corinthians? Indeed we do. Paul
deals with whether or not one needs to be circumcised in 7:19. He deals with the eating of things
offered to idols throughout chapter 8, and again in chapter 10. He urges them to refrain from
sexual immorality numerous placed (5:1-9, 6:13-18, 10:8, and more). It is evident that Paul taught
them the same things that were decided at the Jerusalem conference, and he did so to confront the
same issues that the Jerusalem conference confronted. This shows us yet further how much
Jew/gentile controversy there was in Corinth, just as there was almost everywhere else we find in
the New Testament.
As Jew/gentile dissention was the biggest controversy in the New Testament, and as Jew/gentile
dissention was present in Corinth, we ought not to be surprised to find that the biggest error in
Corinth (those who denied the resurrection of the dead) was centered in such dissention. I believe
this is the case, but before we proceed to look at the Corinthian denial, one more point needs to be
shown which our traditional view denies: the centrality of Israel in Biblical eschatology.
In teaching the resurrection, Paul affirmed all things which are written in the Law and in the
Prophets (Acts 24:14) and no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would
come (Acts 26:22). If we are still hoping in the resurrection and our hope for it and teaching of it
is not all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets and no other things than those
which the prophets and Moses said would come, then we are not preaching the same resurrection
Paul preached! For Paul, the resurrection is not a new promise, but the fulfillment of an old promise
which God made to Israel.
It was for his teaching on the resurrection that Paul was bound in Acts 24:27 and he affirmed in
28:20 for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. How could Paul have said he was bound
for the hope of Israel when in reality he was bound for his teaching on the resurrection? Because
for Paul resurrection of the dead and hope of Israel are synonymous terms. Resurrection was
the hope of Israel and the hope of Israel was resurrection. Thus for certain gentiles to say there is
no resurrection of the dead was to say there is no hope of Israel.

This is precisely what I

believe the Corinthian denial was. Resurrection of the dead and the hope of Israel are
synonymous terms in Pauls theology even to the extent that you could replace resurrection of the
dead with the hope of Israel in 1 Corinthians 15.
With this let us look at chapter 15 where we find that there are some who said there is no
resurrection of the dead? Who are the some who denied this? Would it be the some that said
I am of Cephas, the some that said I am of Paul, or perhaps another some altogether? As
part of Pauls argumentation to refute this error involved debasing himself, it would seem that the
some who said there is no resurrection of the dead were the some who said I am of
Paul. Paul argues against them saying in essence: Guys, dont say you are of me, for I am the
least of all the apostles, not even worthy to be called an apostle. You think Im something great

because of the tremendous success Im having while Peter is back in Jerusalem with law-observing
Jews? Not so! I am nothing great, but all that you see in my success is not my work, but that of
the Lord who works in me, and Peter and I are one, preaching the same gospel, not one for the
Jews and one for the gentiles.
It is in the light of seeing the Jew/gentile controversy at Corinth that I believe an accurate
understanding of the Corinthian denial of the resurrection can be seen. There were certain gentiles
who were devout followers of Paul and saw Israel as being cast away, left behind, dead in sin. They
viewed the church as the displacement rather than the fulfillment of Gods promises to
Israel. Contrary to this, Paul saw that the resurrection was the hope of Israel. Thus to deny
resurrection was to deny the hope of Israel, and to deny the hope of Israel would be to strip the
gospel of its purpose, for Christ came to fulfill the promises of God made unto the patriarchs
(Rom.15:8-9) and it is only in so doing that the gentiles have any basis of salvation at all for they
are partakers in Israels spiritual things (Rom.15:27). Gentiles were not members of their
own covenant, but of Israels New Covenant (Heb.8:8-13). If God does not keep His promise to
Israel, then the gentiles are left with nothing for everything they were receiving was the fulfillment
of Old Testament promise.
I believe this is exactly what the Corinthian denial was. There were certain gentiles who were
denying resurrection life to OT Israel. The error of their denial was that Christ Himself was born of
Israel under the Old Covenant (Gal.4:4) to which He died and was raised as the first member of the
New Covenant (Rom.8:29; Col.1:15-18). This is the primary applied meaning of Christs
resurrection in which He was the first to be born into the New Covenant. It is death to the Old
Covenant and resurrected life in the New Covenant that was the focus of Christs death and
resurrection, thus the thrust of His death and resurrection is rooted in the changing of the
covenants. Similarly, the saints of Old had to die to the Old Covenant and be reborn under the New
Covenant (as Paul affirms they would be in Romans 11) in order to receive salvation. However,
some in Corinth missed this point and instead saw Israel as being cast aside with no hope. Yet Paul
affirms they were not without hope. They had hope, and their hope, the hope of Israel, was
resurrection from sin-death into a restored right relationship with God. (Of course many, likely the
majority, missed the point that their promised resurrection would be deliverance from sin-death
and saw it instead in terms of national restoration. Thus they killed Jesus for offering a spiritual
kingdom, much as they persecuted Paul for the resurrection He taught, for both Jesus and Paul
preached spiritual realities which were not what the Jews wanted.)
Let us return now to the modus tollens of Paul and see if our traditional view or the view presented
here is more in harmony with such line of argumentation Paul presents. One of the key arguments
Paul makes is if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. If our traditional
view is correct, then Paul is saying if there will not be a literal resurrection of the bodies of
everyone who has ever lived at the end of time, then the logical necessity is that Christ was not
raised. If this sort of resurrection is in view here, then it must be shown that to deny a literal
resurrection of all physically dead bodies of all time logically and inescapably leads to a denial of
Christs resurrection. How so?

Where is the logic in this? Denying the biological resurrection of

others does not necessitate denying the biological resurrection of Jesus any more than denying
others working various miracles would deny that Jesus did. Would it be a logical argument to say

if we will not one day walk on water, then Christ did not walk on water or if we will not one day
turn water to wine, then neither did Jesus turn water to wine? Surely we can see the lack of logic
in such statements. Be it walking on water, changing water to wine, raising the dead, feeding the
5000, or any other miracle you wish to insert here, it is not a logical argument in the least to say
that if we one day will not do these things then neither did Christ do them. If we can see this with
every other miracle Jesus worked, why can we not see it with the greatest miracle of all, the
resurrection? Thus if the dead rise not then Christ is not risen is not a logical argument if
biological resurrection is in view. Therefore, if our traditional view is correct then Paul didnt use
much logic in is argumentation.
Lets look at it now from the standpoint of the view presented here and test if we can see the
inspired logic behind Pauls line of argumentation. In this view Paul twice states that if there is no
resurrection (which remember for Paul is synonymous with the hope of Israel) then Christ is not
raised. Is this a logical argument based on what we know from scripture? Absolutely! Jesus came
to confirm the promises of God made unto the patriarchs of Israel (Rom.15:8-9) and indeed
resurrection was the greatest among these promises (Acts 26:6-8). It was for the nation of Israel
that Christ died and was raised (John 11:50-51). Thus to deny salvation (resurrection from sindeath) for Israel is to make void and empty the promises of God. If the promises of God declared
unto Israel are made void, then the gentiles are left with nothing for the salvation they had was by
partaking in Israels spiritual things (Rom.15:27), thus if there is no resurrection of the dead (hope
of salvation for Israel), then Christ is not risen, for this is the very purpose for which He came. And
if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile (for if Christ is not risen, then the purpose for which He died
and raised (to save His people, Israel) is not fulfilled, and you gentiles are left with nothing, and
thus)); you are still in your sins!
I believe that the logic of Paul was both inspired and perfect, but I cannot see how his line of
argumentation harmonizes with our traditional view.
A key question our traditional view must answer is: did Jesus succeed in what He came to do? He
came to fulfill the promises of God made to Israel (Rom.15:8-9) and resurrection was one of those
promises (Acts 26:6-8). Thus if the resurrection has not occurred, then Jesus did not succeed in
what He came to do! Consider the following two syllogisms:
Major Premise: Christ came to fulfill Gods promises made to the fathers of Israel. (Rom.15:8-9)
Minor Premise: Resurrection was one of the major promises God made to Israel. (Acts 26:6-8)
Conclusion: Christ came to fulfill the resurrection.
The next syllogism is a sorties argument, which is where we take the conclusion from the previous
syllogism and make it the major premise of the next syllogism.
Major Premise: Christ came to fulfill the resurrection.
Minor Premise: The resurrection has not occurred. (Our traditional view)
Conclusion: Jesus failed in His mission.

Our traditional view (when carried to its logical conclusion, which fortunately few if any do)
challenges the deity of Christ! Yet covenant eschatology is labeled as a dangerous doctrine?!?!
Let us test this view against other possibilities of what the denial may have been. The question
before us in understanding the Corinthian denial of the resurrection is both what and who. What
type of resurrection (physical, spiritual, or both) was being denied, and for whom (Israel, gentiles,
all, or all but Christ) was it being denied? Here are all the possibilities of what some in Corinth
were denying.
1.

Spiritual affirmed but physical denied for all.

2.

Spiritual affirmed but physical denied for all but Christ.

3.

Spiritual affirmed but physical denied for gentiles.

4.

Spiritual affirmed but physical denied for Israel.

5.

Physical affirmed but spiritual denied for all.

6.

Physical affirmed but spiritual denied for all but Christ.

7.

Physical affirmed but spiritual denied for gentiles.

8.

Physical affirmed but spiritual denied for Israel.

9.

Both Physical and Spiritual denied for all.

10. Both Physical and Spiritual denied for all but Christ.
11. Both Physical and Spiritual denied for gentiles.
12. Both Physical and Spiritual denied for Israel.
Paul refutes their denial by presenting a series of logical conclusions thereof which the Corinthians
would not accept. Therefore by examining the objectionable consequences of their belief we can
easily rule out most of these options.
They believed Christ had been raised. In this fundamental truth they stood, and denying Christs
resurrection was an objectionable consequence to them. From this we can rule out options 1, 5,
and 9.
They did not deny their own salvation, or spiritual resurrection, as such was another objectionable
consequence Paul offered. From this we can rule out options 6-7 and 10-11, and again 1, 5, and 9.
Their denial was not the dead are only raised spiritually, not physically but rather there is no
resurrection of the dead. They did not believe the dead would experience any sort of
resurrection at all. Thus any view that has them affirming one sort of resurrection while denying
another can be thrown out, thus options 1-9 are all eliminated.
Option 12 is the only view left that fits and harmonizes with what we find in Pauls line of
argumentation.
No matter how hard we try, there is no way we can separate Israel from all Paul dealt with in 1
Cor.15 as for Paul the resurrection and the hope of Israel are synonymous. Until we recognize the
centrality of Israel in Biblical eschatology, we will not ascertain an accurate understanding thereof
and the wonderful truth taught in what we often term difficult passages will continue to evade
us. (The difficult passages are most often the ones that dont fit well in our paradigm. Its not

necessarily that the passage is difficult, but that were trying to fit a square peg in a round
hole. Once our paradigm is in alignment with scripture, so many of these once difficult passages
will come to light in a very glorious way.)
In closing let us summarize what we have seen. We have seen that the biggest controversy in all
scripture was that of Jew/gentile dissention. We have seen that this was very much an issue in
Corinth, and thus we ought not to be surprised that it served as the basis for their biggest
error. We have seen that the most likely candidate for the some in Corinth who were denying the
resurrection were the gentiles who said I am of Paul. We have seen that in Pauls theology the
resurrection of the dead is synonymous with the hope of Israel. Thus there were some gentiles
in Corinth who were denying the hope of Israel. Paul refutes them by humbling himself and
showing them that without Israel they are left with nothing for all they have is coming through God
confirming in Christ the promises made unto them.
There is much more we have not seen but could see by comparing Pauls statements here to his
virtually identical statements in Romans. I urge you at this point to read through 1 Cor.15 followed
by a reading of Romans (especially chapters 5-11) and take note of the parallels.
As I conclude this article I present three questions to those who disagree with realized eschatology:
1-Did Jesus come to fulfill the promises God made to the fathers of Israel? (Rom.15:8-9)
2-Was resurrection among those promises? (Acts 26:6-8)
3-Did Jesus succeed in what He came to do?
Somatic Change in 1 Corinthians 15
It is often objected that covenant eschatology cannot be true because it denies a bodily
resurrection which Paul clearly taught. In this article we hope to give attention to this objection
and to Pauls teaching on the resurrection.
While it is true that covenant eschatology denies that scripture teaches the literal end of time
resurrection of the bodies of all who have ever lived, it is not true that we deny a bodily
resurrection. We affirm that Paul taught a bodily resurrection, we just do not believe our literal
flesh and blood bodies are what the apostle had in mind. In this study we will examine the words of
the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff where Paul addressed the question How are the dead
raised up? And with what body do they come?
As noted in the previous article, we believe the nature of the Corinthian denial was that of
Jew/gentile dissention. Certain gentiles saw themselves as the displacement rather than the
fulfillment of Gods promises to Israel (the dead whose resurrection life was being denied) and
were concluding that God had left Israel behind in the past, dead in sin, never to be
redeemed. This understanding will factor into our study here of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians
15. Please see the previous article for information on this.
It bears mentioning that our traditional view of the resurrection consistently speaks of bodies
whereas Paul spoke of body. Consider the following passages:
But someone will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body (singular) do they (plural)
come? (1 Cor.15:35)

Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within
ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our (plural) body (singular).
(Rom.8:23)
who will transform our (plural) lowly body (singular) that it may be conformed to His glorious
body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.
Paul made a big deal about singular versus plural in Gal.3:16. Would he then turn around and
repeatedly be so careless as to how he used the singular and plural in regards to the
resurrection? Id rather think that we are the ones that have been careless in not closely observing
how Paul writes. In teaching the resurrection Paul speaks of the redemption of a singular collective
body which has multiple members.
The Greek word here is soma which certainly can refer to the physical body (Rom.1:24;,1 Cor.7:4;
1 Cor.13:3; Col.2:23) but more often (particularly in Pauls writings) does not. (Rom.6:6; Rom.7:24;
Rom.8:10; Rom.12:4-5; 1 Cor.10:16-17; 1 Cor.12:12-27; Eph.2:16; Eph.4:4, 12, & 16; Eph.5:23&30;
Col.1:18; Col.2:11; Col.3:15)
Again, the question is with what body (singular) do they (plural) come? The reference is to one
body, not to multiple individual bodies. Scripture often speaks of the body of Christ but also
speaks of the body of sin (Rom.6:6, Col.2:11) and body of death (Rom.7:24). Pauls body of
death in Rom.7:24 is the body defined by existence under the Old Law of which he has been
speaking throughout the chapter. In Pauline theology body or soma most often refers to mans
mode of existence as determined by his covenantal relationship with God, not to mans
physiological make-up.
One is either in the body of Christ or a body of sin and death. Knowing this, and knowing that
Israel of old was not a part of the body of Christ, the gentiles could have asked with what body do
they come? In other words, they lived under the Old Covenant and thus were not a part of the
body of Christ, so if there is no salvation outside of the body of Christ, if in fact they will be raised
out of sin-death, how so? Paul concludes that this is a foolish question. The fact that they were
dead in sin under the Old Covenant does not mean they will be excluded from the promises that
were made to them and whose hope you are participating in, but rather, just as a seed dies and
rises, so to shall the elect of Israel be raised out of sin-death and into a right relationship with God.
As noted in the previous article, the parallels between 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans are many and
impressive. While we will not delve fully into Romans, we do wish at this point to give special
attention to Pauls use of body. Few if any deny that the resurrection of 1 Cor.15 is seen also in
Rom.8 (note v.23). Thus if we can discern Pauls teaching on the matter in Romans, we will go a
long way towards understanding the bodily resurrection of 1 Cor.15.
In Rom.7, Paul recounts his former life in Judaism and shows the impossibility of attaining
righteousness under the Old Covenant. Although the Old Covenant was holy and just and good
(v.12), it was not able to save. What it did was manifest mans problem of sin and complete
inability to save himself, even when shown the way (v.13). It is within the context of Paul describing
life under the Old Covenant that he laments in verse 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will

deliver me from this body of death? That Paul has not switched topics but is still speaking of life
under the old covenant is evident by the following verses (on into chapter 8) where he speaks of
life in the new covenant. What Paul was yearning for then was full consummated deliverance from
the old covenant.
At this point it will be objected that Paul could not have been yearning for deliverance from the old
covenant, for the old covenant had already passed away. While this is another (though closely
related) matter which we cannot delve into fully at this juncture, we do need to make a couple of
comments on it here. First, passages often used to teach that the law had passed at this point
actually teach no such thing. Col.2:13-15 for example does not say that the law had passed, but
that those in Christ had no obligation to keep the law for they had been delivered from
it. Similarly, in Romans 7 Paul does not say that the law had died, but that they had died to the
law. In Heb.8:13, the Hebrew writer speaks of the old covenant as that which had grown old and
was ready (eggus, study how this term is used consistently throughout the New Testament) to
vanish away. Finally (and more to the point of what we are seeing in Romans) Paul spoke of the
passing of the old covenant and full establishment of the new in 2 Cor.3:11, and in verse 12 he
states therefore, having such hope... As Paul was still hoping for this covenantal change, it was
not yet complete. Just as Paul hoped for this in 2 Cor.3, he yearns in Romans 7 for deliverance from
the body of death, which is in the context of life under the old law. What Paul calls the body of
death in Rom.7:24 he calls the ministry of death in 2 Cor.3:7. Again, the parallels between Pauls
letter to the Romans and his letters to the Corinthians are clear and impressive.
If Paul is not speaking of life under the old covenant in verse 24, what body is he speaking of? In
the context he has not been speaking at all about life in his physical body, but about life under the
old covenant. To claim that the physical body is in view here not only breaks from the context, but
also means that we must be delivered from our physical body in order to have victory in
Jesus. Such a view as this is Gnostic to say the least.
Well return later to look at Rom.7:25, but for now let us ignore the man-made chapter division and
march on into chapter 8. In the first four verses, Paul talks about deliverance from the old
covenant and righteousness in Christ under the new covenant. It would seem strange indeed for
Paul to speak of this immediately after yearning for deliverance from the body of death if there is
no connection between the two. In speaking of life under the new covenant Paul affirms in verse
10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness. Seeing our physical bodies in this verse necessitates that one must die physically
before Christ can be in him. This again is a Gnostic view, seeing the physical body as essentially
evil and needing to be done away with before one can have life and righteousness in
Christ. Instead, let us keep with the context of Paul. He has spoken of life under the old covenant
as a body of death, and is speaking now of deliverance from the old covenant and life in the new
covenant. Thus when Paul says if Christ is in you, the body is dead it is the same as saying the
veil is taken away in Christ (2 Cor.3:14) or if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things
have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Cor.5:17). As Paul has been speaking
of law observance but now speaks of freedom in Christ, this statement can also be seen as one and
the same with his statement in Galatians 6:15 (a letter that is all about deliverance from the law)
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new

creation. Paul is saying the same thing in 8:10 as he said in 7:6, that those in Christ had died to
the law (the body of death, v.24).
In 8:13 Paul says For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to
death the deeds of the body, you will live. In this verse living according to the flesh and the deeds
of the body are synonymous. In keeping with the context of Paul, he is not speaking of our physical
bodies, but life under the old covenant which he refers to as living according to the flesh.
Flesh and spirit in Pauls theology are terms often used to describe that which is possible with
man versus that which is possible with God. For example, he says Ishmael was born after the flesh,
but Isaac after the spirit (Gal.4:21-31). Isaac had a flesh and blood body just as much as Ishmael
did. Ishmael, however, was born according to mans power when Abraham knew Hagar and
conceived him whereas Isaac was born according to Gods power when Sarah conceived though
she was past age. Earlier in the same epistle (in which Paul was dealing with Christians who were
being deceived by Judaizers to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses) Paul said Having begun
in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? (Gal.3:3) In Phillipians 3:3-4 Paul
recalls his former conduct in Judaism as that which was in the flesh. (Notice how this ties in to
his teaching of the resurrection later in the chapter.)
Paul speaks in this same manner in Romans. He says that Abraham was not found according to
the flesh (Rom.4:1) even though he had a physical body of flesh. In the context Paul is saying
Abraham was not justified by his own works, but that of God when he placed his faith in Him. Paul
speaks in Romans 7:5 of when we were in the flesh. Clearly Paul is not saying he had put off his
physical flesh and blood body but rather, as we have seen, is talking about life under the old
covenant wherein righteousness was only in mans ability to keep law perfectly. He affirms that in
such fleshly existence there is no good thing (v.18) for though he wants to keep the law perfectly,
he is not able. It is this same fleshly existence that he deals with throughout chapter 8. Thus in
Rom.8:13, Paul is speaking of deliverance from the old covenant and life in the new
covenant. When we view Romans 8 in the context of all he has been saying in chapter 7, we find
that Paul is speaking of covenantal change in terms of bodily resurrection. He then states in verse
23 that he is eagerly awaiting the redemption of our body. As with 1 Cor.15:35 Paul does not say
the redemption of our bodies but rather the redemption of our body. Again, he is speaking of
the redemption of one collective body, not multiple individual bodies. In the following verses in
Romans 8 Paul identifies this as his hope, just as he does in 2 Cor.3:11-12. Within the context of
the covenantal change Paul is talking about in Romans 7-8, it both breaks from his flow of thought
and causes several strange and contradictory statements to make his use of body refer to our
literal physical bodies.
As discussed in the previous article, the nature of the Corinthian denial was that of certain gentiles
seeing Israel as left behind dead in sin. It is interesting, therefore, to see the parallels in Romans 78 and then read on into chapters 9-11 where Paul deals with the destiny of Israel.
With that let us return to 1 Cor.15. We have seen in Romans that Paul dealt with the doing away of
the body of death and receiving the gloried spiritual body. This is exactly what Paul says in 1
Cor.15. The body that is being sewn in 1 Cor.15 is the body of death in Rom.7:24, which is the

body, or mode of existence, as determined by life under the Old Covenant. Paul likens the dying
and rising of this body to the sewing of a seed. You do not sew a dead seed, but a live seed. In the
process, the seed dies and the plant rises. Paul lived at a time of covenantal transition in which the
old covenant body of death was being sewn and the new body of life and righteousness was
coming to life. The dying and the rising are concurrent rather than chronological actions. If this
refers to biological death and resurrection, then in order to keep with Pauls analogy wed have to
be buried alive, then start to die, and start to be raised at the same time. Again, our traditional
view is at odds with the inspired argumentation of Paul. Just as the dying and rising of a seed are
simultaneous, so too was the somatic change (the changing from the Old Covenant body of death
to the New Covenant body of life). The Old Covenant, the ministry of death (2 Cor.3:7) or body of
death (Rom.7:24) was in the process of being fulfilled after which it would vanish away
(Heb.8:13). So too was there a futuristic perspective to the completed establishment of Israels
New Covenant (Rom.11:26-27). Thus covenantal change is what Paul refers to in his saying It is
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body. (v.44)
Pauls answer to the question with what body do they (Israel) come is that though the elect of
Israel existed for 1500 years in a body of sin and death, yet now Jew and gentile are being made
one in the body of Christ. This is the main thrust of Pauls letter to the Ephesians. Unity is the key
word in Ephesians, and the primary unity he deals with is that of Jew and gentile being united as
one in the body of Christ. Thus Paul states in Eph.2:14-16 For He Himself is our peace, who has
made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh
the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself
one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in
one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. Though there is certainly an
already in what Paul speaks, there is also a not yet as this work is tied to the work of the
apostles which had not yet completed (v.19-22). The not yet is also seen in chapter 4 verses 1116 where Paul speaks of the same unity and the same one new man as he did in 2:15, and in
chapter 4 we see the role the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit played in bringing this one new
man (which was born in infancy on Pentecost) to a state of maturity.
Finally, let us look at the victory in Jesus that Paul closes 1 Cor.15 with. We would do well to give
attention to the prophecies of Hosea 13 and Isaiah 25 which Paul quotes from and ties directly to
the resurrection, saying the time of their ultimate fulfillment will be the time of the resurrection of
which he speaks. However, for the sake of brevity we will forego such at this time and give
attention to Pauls statement in verses 56-57: The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is
the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Per verse 56, when the law is removed the strength of sin is removed, and when the strength of sin
is removed the sting of death is removed. Therefore we must give attention to which law Paul
speaks of here, for the time of its passing would be the time of the resurrection.
Paul uses the phrase the law often in his writings, and when it is not modified (such as in Rom.8:2
where he speaks of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus) he consistently speaks of the old
covenant, the Law of Moses. One of the most common basic and universally accepted rules of

hermeneutics is that a word or phrase is to be given its most common meaning unless the context
dictates otherwise. Here the only thing that dictates otherwise is our zeal to uphold our traditional
view. The common usage of the term as used by Paul demands that he is speaking of the time of
the end of the Old Law as the time of the resurrection.
In order to maintain our traditional view, the law Paul speaks of here would have to be the law of
Christ. The law of Christ is the gospel. Is the gospel the strength of sin? God forbid! The gospel is
that which delivers us from sin! It is the Old Law that was the strength of sin. It was the ministry
of sin-death (2 Cor.3:7) which entered that the offense of sin might abound (Rom.5:20) and it was
through it that sin became exceedingly sinful (Rom.7:13). We have ample evidence in scripture that
the Old Law was the strength of sin. Paul speaks of deliverance from the law as victory that Jesus
gives. But if the New Law is what is under consideration here then we must first lose the victory
we have now in the gospel in order to receive the greater victory when were finally delivered from
the gospel. Furthermore, to make the law that is the strength of sin in 1 Cor.15:56 the New Law
(the gospel of Jesus Christ) would mean that we must be delivered from the gospel in order to have
resurrection life, thus Christ has to return to destroy what He died to establish. What a
dilemma! Does this not undermine the gospel? And yet it is covenant eschatology that is a
dangerous doctrine?!?!
Finally, let us notice one last comparison between 1 Cor.15 and Romans. Notice that just as Paul
anticipated deliverance from the body of death as defined by his mode of existence under the
law (Rom.7:24) Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor. 15:57 as he says in Rom.7:25. In both places he
spoke of the same victory in Jesus, and in both places he speaks of full consummated deliverance
from the law. These parallels (and so many more) between Romans and 1 Corinthians 15 are
impressive and significant.
One cannot enter into such an understanding as this without rejoicing over the victory we have in
Jesus. This is not a prospective victory, but a fulfilled victory over sin for all those in Christ, which
fulfillment Paul tied to the changing of the covenants (as we have shown) and which he saw in his
day on the immediate horizon (Rom.13:11-12). What a tragedy that so many Christians are
anxiously awaiting the end of the world and the end of the Christian age that Jesus established in
order to have completed victory in Him. When we awaken to the blessed truth of fulfilled
eschatology then we can truly sing oh victory in Jesus, my savior forever!

The Resurrection of the Flesh

OCTOBER 03RD Written by Kurt M. Simmons
The resurrection of the dead is a question fraught with difficulty for many. Preterists maintain that the
resurrection was and is nonphysical, consisting in the spirit, not the body, of man. Others, including
Postmillennialists, believe that the resurrection is essentially fleshly; that there can be no resurrection apart from
physical bodies rising from their graves. In this article, we want to examine the idea of the resurrection of the
flesh to see if it accords with the scriptures. We believe a candid study will demonstrate that the resurrection
subsists in the immaterial realm of the spirit, not the flesh.

Confusion in the Early Church

Understanding scripture and eschatology can be a great challenge; the meaning is often elusive, cloaked in
metaphors and poetic imagery. Other times it assumes the reader has a familiarity with basic themes of
redemption and sanctification, and Gods established methods and manner of bringing his purpose to pass.
Language that speaks everlastingly may actually mean only age-long. Language that says God causes a
condition or event may really mean that he merely allowed it to come about, etc. The difficulty in understanding
scripture is alluded to by Paul when he said that his preaching was not with words of mans wisdom and that he
spoke not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. (I Cor. 2:4, 13)

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of
this worldBut we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,
which God ordained before the world unto our glory. (I Cor. 2: 6, 7)
The fact that Paul says the message of the gospel was sometimes communicated in a mystery and in terms
that were hidden, eluding comprehension by those who were not perfect (viz., practiced or trained and hence
accomplished and complete, cf. Heb. 5:12-14) is telling. It means that we cannot always take words at their face
value, but must be alert to deeper meanings. In discussing the resurrection, Paul said, Behold, I shew you a
mystery. (I Cor. 15:51) The term mystery can mean something that is marvelous or wonderful. It can also mean
something that is hidden and requires spiritual discernment to be correctly understood. Often it means both. The
scriptures teaching about the resurrection, like eschatology in general, is indeed marvelous; it requires a spiritual
discernment acquired only by years of study, prayer, and contemplation.
The difficulty in understanding scripture would have been especially true of believers from among the Gentiles,
who were less familiar with the usus loquendi (manner of speech) of the prophets. The language of the prophets
evoking images of the heavens on fire and earth dissolving under intense heat doubtless presented a great
challenge to Gentile believers. How was such language to be taken? Was the physical creation really to be
utterly destroyed? What about language that described Christians being caught up to meet Christ in the air?
Would Christians really be changed and be borne away bodily to heaven at Christs return? What interpretive
principles were to guide their (and our) understanding?
Evidence of the difficulty the early church had in gaining a command of prophetic writings may be seen in the
idea of the rapture. The idea of a bodily rapture, a notion strongly connected with a bodily resurrection, gained
currency in the early church. The apostle John alludes to this when he reports that the fact he was to live until
Christs return gave rise to the belief he would be rapturously borne away and never die: Peter seeing him saith
to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet
Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (Jno. 21:2123) Having reported the popular misconception among the early brethren, John disallows entirely that his
remaining alive until Jesus return meant he would not suffer death. This mistake might have been avoided had
the brethren borne in mind that Jesus said substantially the same thing in another place: For the Son of man
shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:27, 28) Notice that Jesus did not say death would cease at his coming. He
merely said some would not taste death before he came. Jesus would come before they tasted death and only
then would they die. Read together, it is clear that John was to be one of those people. Thus, the idea that

Jesus coming entailed an end of physical existence in which the righteous would be borne away to heavenly
portals was simply without basis and was not the teaching of Christ or the apostles. The Lord, who sometimes
spoke enigmatically, had been misunderstood. There was to be no bodily rapture.
Misunderstanding was not limited to the rapture. Some wrestled with the resurrection itself, questioning or
denying its very possibility. Questions about the resurrection entailed the sort of body men would receive. (I Cor.
15:35) Questions of this sort occurred also among the Jews. The Sadducees, although denying the resurrection,
clearly conceived that any putative resurrection would occur in the flesh. Because of this conception, the
Sadducees believed they had discovered an indissoluble dilemma, refuting the notion of the resurrection, by the
question about the seven brothers who had one woman to wife, asking, Whose wife would she be in the
resurrection, since each had her? (Matt. 22:23-33) The basic assumption is that the resurrection would be
physical and therefore entail marriage. It is unclear whether this was the popular conception of the resurrection
or merely the Sadducees idea of it. The better view probably is that it reflected popular belief. It would hardly
make sense for the Sadducees to propound a hypothetical about the fact and nature of the resurrection that was
peculiar merely to themselves, and not shared by the community at large. In that case, the question would refute
only their notion of the resurrection, but not that of the general public whose belief it was their objective to
dislodge. Hence, the necessary and reasonable inference is that it reflected the general understanding of the
Jews of Jesus day. But, whether it be this or that, one thing is clear: Jesus disallowed the concept entirely. First,
by proof that the patriarchs had not ceased to exist, but were participants in the first resurrection in hades
paradise (vv. 31, 32); second, by showing that in the general resurrection men would subsist in the form of
angels. (vv. 29, 30) The resurrection would not be physical; hence, there would be no marriage.
Jewish misunderstanding about the nature of the resurrection had its counterpart in the church which Paul
labored to correct. He dispensed with the idea of a physical resurrection by his statement And that which thou
sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be. (I Cor. 15:37) Could it be any clearer? The body that is sown
(buried) is not the body that is reaped. A physical body is planted, but a spiritual body is raised up. So also is
the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruptionIt is sown a natural body; it is
raised a spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:42, 43) There is simply no credible way to read physical bodies into the text
and spiritual bodies out. The mistake lies in the assumption that the resurrection would occur upon earth and,
hence, be earthly. However, a physical grave cannot retain the spirits of the deceased. The grave had an
immaterial counterpart called hades where the spirits of the departed slept pending the second resurrection.
(Lk. 16:19-31; 24:43) Since these souls were not bound to their earthly bodies, it would not be necessary for
them to be reunited to their bodies in order to inherit glory. Just the opposite, flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (I Cor. 15:50) Absent from the body is present with
the Lord. (II Cor. 5:8) Hence, there was to be no physical resurrection.
Creeds and Confessions Embody Error of Early Church
Notwithstanding the apostles labors, error took root; belief in a bodily rapture and resurrection of the dead at
Christs return gained currency and took up permanent residence in the early church. Both are evidenced by the
creeds that grew up among believing Gentiles. For example, the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (c. 215 A.D.)
thus asks, Do you believein the resurrection of the body? Similarly, the Creed of Marcellus (340 A.D.)
declares: I believe inthe resurrection of the body. The Creed of Rufinus (c. 404 A.D.) is more explicit and
declares I believe in the resurrection of the flesh. The Apostles Creed proclaims belief in the resurrection of the
body, but the Nicene Creed states only a belief in the resurrection of the dead. Other creeds and confessions
holding to the resurrection of the flesh include the Athanasian Creed[1] and the second London Confession of

1689 (Baptist).[2] Although the term body is ambiguous and elastic enough to mean spiritual bodies, we may
assume that physical bodies was intended and understood. Thus, the creeds perpetuated the error of the Jews
and early church in a physical resurrection. The error reported by John that there was to be a bodily rapture at
the Lords return also survived and has continued to this day.
The heirs to the creeds were the articles and confessions of faith of later centuries. For example, chapter XXXII
of the Westminster Confession - Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead - states:

1. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep,
having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then
made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and
glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they
remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for
souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
2. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with
the self-same bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls
for ever.
3. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His
Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.
Notice the confused eschatology here that has the souls of the dead by-passing hades and going immediately to
heaven where they behold the face of God, there awaiting the redemption of their bodies, to which they are
subsequently forced to return. What possible purpose could there be in reuniting the spirits of the saints with
their earthly bodies? Being in a state suited to behold the face of God in perfect holiness, what is the need to
clothe them again with houses of clay? Having begun in the spirit are they made perfect by the flesh? Such is
the garbled teaching of the Westminster Confession. Another doctrinal statement holding to the resurrection of
the flesh is the Belgic Confession (Reformed Church):

Finally we believe, according to God's Word, that when the time appointed by the
Lord is come (which is unknown to all creatures) and the number of the elect is
complete, our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, bodily and visibly, as he
ascended, with great glory and majesty, to declare himself the judge of the living
and the dead. He will burn this old world, in fire and flame, in order to cleanse it.
Then all human creatures will appear in person before the great judge-- men,
women, and children, who have lived from the beginning until the end of the world.
They will be summoned there by the voice of the archangel and by the sound of the
divine trumpet. For all those who died before that time will be raised from the
earth, their spirits being joined and united with their own bodies in which they
lived. And as for those who are still alive, they will not die like the others but will be
changed in the twinkling of an eye from corruptible to incorruptible.

The notion that Christ would return bodily and visibly is closely related to the idea of a bodily rapture and a
fleshly resurrection. Hence, the Belgic Confession weaves all three concepts together. Bodies, by definition, are
confined by time and space. But Jesus is ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. (Eph.
4:10) Only spirit is unbound by time and space and can fill all things. Hence, Jesus is no longer in bodily form, at
least in any earthly meaning and conception of that term. Rather, he is Spirit. (I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17)[3]
Colossians is not to the contrary. When Col. 2:9 states that in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily, the apostle is not referring to Christs form or appearance. He is referring to fulness of divine authority
and Gods redemptive purpose that the Father embodied in Christ. Under the Mosaic law man was incomplete;
for the law made nothing perfect. (Heb. 7:19) But ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality
and power. (Col. 2:10) The law was wistful, a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Col. 2:17)
The body here speaks figuratively to the tangible nature of things come, the substance and reality of the
promises embodied in Christ, of which the law was but a shadow and type. Because Christ is not in bodily form
he is invisible to human eye. After his ascension, visions of Jesus required special revelation of the Spirit. (Rev.
1:10 et seq; cf. Acts 9:7) The doctrine of Christs bodily and visible return is erroneous. His coming would not be
bodily, it would be providential; it would not be visible, it would be historically discernable. In Matt. 24:30, Jesus
said there would appear the sign of the Son of man ruling in heaven in the events marking the destruction of the
city and temple. Speaking to his coming in wrath and vengeance upon the nation of the Jews, Jesus told the
Sanhedrin, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven. (Mk. 14:62; cf. Matt. 24:30) This is the same coming in his kingdom Jesus told the apostles would
transpire while some of them were still alive. (Matt. 16:27, 28; Mk. 8:38-9:1) In each of these verses the coming
of the Lord was providential, not bodily; it was historically discernable, not visible.
The idea that the self-same physical bodies are to be raised up at the last day is every bit as erroneous as the
visible, bodily return of Christ. Not one reliable verse of scripture can be marshaled to establish such claim.
Jesus statement that all who are in the graves would hear his voice and come forth (Jno. 5:25-29) neither says
nor implies the resurrection of physical bodies. The redemption of mens bodies is no part of the redemptive work
of Christ.[4] Those holding this view place the resurrection on the wrong side of eternity. They place the
resurrection in the temporal realm of the flesh, rather than the eternal realm of the spirit where it should be.
Modern Apologists
Modern apologists are not wanting for these ancient errors. One prominent member of this description is
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Gentry, who has done a good deal of valuable work in other areas, is sorely wanting in this
particular area of endeavor. Gentry asserts that If Christ was physically raised from the dead, then so shall we,
for He is the "first-fruits" of our resurrection. The only way around our physical resurrection is to deny Christ's
physical resurrection.[5] This is poor argumentation. Reduced to a syllogism, Gentrys argument looks like this:

Major premise: Christ was raised physically.

Minor premise: Christ was the first-fruits of our resurrection; therefore
Conclusion: Our resurrection will be physical like Christs.
It does not take a logician to see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The resurrection of
physical bodies simply is not a logical corollary of the term firstfruits. The significance of Christs resurrection
was his power over hades, not the physical grave. Thus, in Rev. 1:18, Jesus said: I am he that liveth, and was

dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore. Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Jesus did not say he
have the keys of the physical grave, but of hell (hades). The promise of the resurrection was the release of souls
from hades, not restoring to life physical bodies. Like virtually every other bodily resurrection recorded in
scripture, Jesus physical resurrection was primarily evidentiary; it was intended to serve as a demonstration of
Gods power and work among his people and that he spoke through Jesus. It is interesting that in the
resurrection of saints recorded in Matt. 27:52, 53, Matthew adds the qualifying statement, saying, the bodies of
the saints which slept arose. The purpose of this resurrection of the bodies of the saints was to provide
evidence of Jesus resurrection and that he was the promised Messiah. That Matthew adds the qualifying
statement regarding their bodies serves only to show that there is a resurrection of the spirit or soul of which the
body does not take part. Rom. 1:4 says Jesus was declared to the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. In the resurrection, God declared Jesus to be his Son,
vindicating Jesus claims during his life. But this could not be accomplished without the resurrection of Jesus
body. Had God merely wafted Jesus spirit to heaven, there would have been no objective proof of Christs
Sonship. To the contrary, the continuing presence of the body in the tomb would have shown Jesus a fraud and
a liar. In fact, the very purpose behind the open tomb was so that man could go in and see the Lord was risen
indeed, not so Jesus could come out. The bodily resurrection of the Lord provided empirical evidence that Jesus
was the Son of God, of which the apostles were made witnesses. (Mk. Lk. 24:48; Acts 1:8) The bodily
resurrection of Christ thus served a unique purpose that makes Jesus resurrection unlike our own. The term
firstfruits cannot be pressed into service of the doctrine of a resurrection of the flesh.
The Hebrew writer speaks to the resurrection of Christ when he states that Jesus in the days of his flesh, when
he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from
death, and was heard in that he feared. (Heb. 5:7) Notice that the days of his flesh are set over against Jesus
present form when he is ascended into heaven and set down at the right hand of God. Jesus is no longer in
fleshly form and it is unto this hope that believers aspire, not the reunion of their spirits with their earthly bodies.
Another argument by Gentry is that the spiritual (pneumatikos) body of I Cor. 15:44 is no more immaterial than
the natural (psuchikos) body.[6] This rather startling assertion is based upon use of the terms pneumatikos
(spiritual) and psuchikos (natural) to describe the Christian over against the unbeliever:

But the natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for
they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But he that is spiritual (pneumatikos) judgeth all things, yet he himself is
judged of no man. (I Cor. 2:14, 15)
The terms natural and spiritual in this context speak to the driving force or controlling principle in the
individuals lives, not their material or immaterial state. Hence, Gentry argues, the spiritual body of I Cor. 15:44
speaks only to its controlling principle, not its material or immaterial form. Therefore, although in the resurrection
the body will actually be physical, qualitatively it will be spiritual. Or, so at least Gentry would have us believe.
The better view, however, is that the term spiritual in I Cor. 15:44 is substantive, not qualitative, and that the
body of the resurrection will be intangible, immaterial, and eternal. The spiritual man has a physical body only
because he has not yet put it off in death. Upon the death of the body, the inner man lives on, clothed upon with
a spiritual body of life. But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. (II Cor.
4:16) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, and
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, made without hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we

groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. (II Cor. 5:1) The earthly
house is the fleshly body of this material realm. Upon death, it is replaced by a spiritual and immaterial house
from heaven. Since it is from heaven, it clearly is not the self same earthly body put off in death. In the
resurrection we will be spirit beings with spiritual bodies. (Heb. 12:23; I Cor. 5:5) We will be as the angels (Matt.
22:30): Intangible, immaterial, imperishable, and eternal.[7]
Scriptures for the Resurrection of the Flesh
The reason Gentry and others of his ilk argue for the resurrection of the flesh, is that they believe the saints
eternal reward is in the material realm upon a new earth! His elect people will inherit the eternal estate in
resurrected, physical bodies (Jno. 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:20-28) so that we might dwell in a material New Creation
order (2 Pet. 3:8-13).[8] This belief is utterly fantastic coming from someone of Gentrys talent and ability. It
stems from his belief in Postmillennialism, which holds that Gods redemptive purpose culminates in a redeemed,
material creation.[9] Never mind the many statements in scripture pointing to the fact that the saints inheritance
is in heaven (Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3; I Thess. 4:17; I Tim. 6:7; II Tim. 2:11; Heb. 11:13, 16; I Pet. 1:4), we are now
to believe that our eternal state is upon earth. Little wonder Postmillennialists argue for the resurrection of the
flesh! Language mentioning a new heaven and earth (Isa. 65:17: 66:22; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1) is symbolic of
the Messianic age, the regeneration and restitution of all things in Christ. (Matt. 19:28; Acts 3:21) They were the
good things to come of the law (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1) and Christs High Priesthood (Heb. 9:11), the redemption
from sin and adoption of sonship which early Christians groaned for and were in earnest expectation. (Rom.
8:19-23) These came in fulness at the end of the Mosaic age and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
(Matt. 24:1-3, 34; cf. Eph. 1:21; Heb. 2:5; 6:5) Since references to the new heaven and earth are symbolic, they
must be interpreted and brought into harmony with plain passages of scripture elsewhere, not vice versa. Simply
put, the idea that our eternal state is on a redeemed earth is frivolous. It is the stuff we have come to associate
with the literalisms of Premillennialism, not serious scholarship. The spiritually discerning will reject it out of
hand.
What about the resurrection of the flesh? Do advocates of this school have any verses plainly making this
claim? Here are the verses cited by Gentry,[10] our comments follow.
Job 19:25, 26: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.
This is the only verse in the Bible that makes reference to the flesh in apparent connection with the resurrection.
Apparent, I say, because the verse does not actually mention the resurrection. It is entirely possible that Job
looked to see God in this life time, as in fact he did: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
eye seeth thee. (Job 42:5) However, even assuming that the text posits a resurrection context, the Hebrew of
this verse is so obscure and ambiguous that scholars cannot decide how it is to be translated. Hence, the
marginal reading gives the rendering, After I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of my flesh...
etc. In other words, two renderings, exactly opposite in meaning, can be sustained by the original tongue. Thus,
it cannot be determined with certainty what Job actually stated or said. Given that this is the only place in
scripture referring to the flesh in the context of the supposed resurrection, we would be well advised to opt for the
alternate rendering. At the very least, standing as it does alone, and more especially in view of the poetic nature
of the book, no essential doctrine of scripture can be built upon it.

Isa. 26:19: Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell
in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
The historical context of this verse spoke to the restoration of Israel to its land after the captivity. The Jews were
like dead men in the grave of captivity in Babylon. My dead body refers to the Jews collectively. This same
image is given by Ezekiel in the prophecy of the valley full of dry bones. (Ezek. 27:1-14) This is the standard
interpretation, almost universally acknowledged by the commentators. However, that there is also a Messianic
dimension to the passage that looks to the resurrection of Christ and the salvation of believers cannot be denied.
Even so, other than Christs, the resurrection of physical bodies is not mentioned. But, even if they were, the text
is couched in poetic terms; hence we should be slow to overly press the literalness. The bottom line: Physical
bodies are nowhere set out.
Jno. 5:28, 29: Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.
As with Isa. 26:19, no physical bodies are mentioned in this text. All Jesus says is that those in the graves will
come forth. Contrary to Gentrys assumption, Jesus did not say they would come forth on this side of eternity.
Daniel made the like statement, saying, many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan. 12:2) This language is obviously poetic:
The dead do not sleep in the earth; their spirits go to hades. (Lk. 24:43; cf. 16:19-31) Hence, the idea of
waking from the dust is merely accommodative; it points to a coming day of salvation when the death would be
vanquished and man go to his long home with God and Christ in heaven.
Rom. 8:11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from
the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Quickening our mortal bodies does not refer to the resurrection of the body, but the regenerative effects of
Gods spirit in man by the mortification of the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the
Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Rom. 8:13; cf. Gal. 5:24) This is the more apparent in that
in the immediately preceding verse Paul says the body is dead because of sin. (Rom. 8:10) The saints at
Rome were not dead and their bodies were not dead either; the apostle is merely using a figure of speech. As
the source of fleshly lusts, the body is spiritually dead. But by being brought into subjection to the Spirit, the
body is figuratively quickened and made an instrument of righteousness. Peter says substantially the same
thing: For he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his
time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. (I Pet. 4:1) In other words, just as mans spirit is
quickened and made alive by the new birth (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13), so the body is quickened as it is brought into
subjection to Gods spirit and its lusts mortified.
Rom. 8:23: And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves
groan within ourselves , waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
They are the Gentiles, we ourselves refers to the Jews; the Jews had the firstfruits of the Spirit: Of his own
will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (Jm. 1:18) The
gospel message began at Jerusalem and was preached first to the Jews. Hence they were the firstfruits unto

God and the Lamb. (Rev. 14:4; cf. Acts 3:26; 13:46; Eph. 1:12, 13) Both Jews and Gentiles groaned, looking for
the adoption of their collective body, the church. This occurred at the consummation in A.D. 70 when and the
church was manifested as the sons of God and received the decree of adoption by the destruction of the Jewish
state and removal of the Mosaic system and temple. Nowhere does the text mention either the resurrection or
physical bodies.
Phil. 3:20, 21: For our conversation is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working
whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
The singular our vile body refers to the collective body of Jews and Gentiles waiting for the redemption and
adoption of the church. (Cf. Rom. 8:19-23) Until the consummation in A.D. 70, the church was still under
bondage of corruption to sin and death was in earnest expectation of the promised redemption. (Eph. 1:13, 14)
The change referred to here is best understood as legal and soteriological, not bodily or physical; it is the
sanctification and cleansing of the church by Christ, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:26, 27) The
glorious church answers to the glorious body of the Lord. The presentment of the church to himself came at the
consummation of the nuptials in A.D. 70. (Rev. 19:7; 21:9, 10) Notwithstanding the collective nature of this
passage, by analogy we believe the body of sin which is put off in death is replaced by a glorious body in the
resurrection of life. The glorified body is not physical, but spiritual, unbounded by time and space.
I Thess. 4:16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and
with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
We need only note that physical bodies are not mentioned. The very next verse says that those living would be
caught up with them in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (v. 17) Unless the Lord is going to remain
on earth forever, this verse cannot be reconciled with the idea of our eternal state being on a material new earth.
Clearly, the language is accommodative and not to be taken literally. It is descriptive of the victory of the saints
and their translation to heaven as a matter of law at the consummation. (Col. 1:13, 3:1; Eph. 2:1, 6) Their final
translation to heaven as a matter of fact comes only upon the death of the body. To be absent from the body is to
be present with the Lord. (II Cor. 5: 6, 8)
Scriptures against the Resurrection of the Flesh
The verses above are relied upon by advocates of a resurrection of the flesh. As we have seen, the idea of a
physical resurrection is completely away from virtually every scripture cited; the notion has no more basis than
the fanciful notion of mans eternal state subsisting in a material New Created order. Let us now look at a few
verses pointing to the resurrection of the spirit and the inheritance of the saints in the immaterial realm of
heaven. Although dozens of verses might be marshaled, space does not allow us to consider more than a few.
Lk. 23:43: Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
These words, spoken by the Lord in the immediate reaches of death, bore the promise of the first resurrection of
the spirit in hades paradise. Since physical bodies are no part of the first resurrection, what basis is there to
believe they will be part of the second resurrection of the soul in heaven? To the contrary, flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. (I Cor. 15:50)

Jno. 3:5-7: Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not
that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
This verse shows that there are two natures: one belonging to the kingdom of heaven, one belonging to the
earth. The earthly nature and body do not enter the kingdom of God, the spirit does.
Jno. 4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
This verse is dispositive of the idea that physical bodies have any part of the heavenly kingdom. In Lk. 24:38,
Jesus said Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have. Since God is a Spirit, and spirits do not have flesh and bones, it is axiomatic that
God does not have flesh and bone. Christ is now a Spirit. (I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17) In the resurrection,
Christians are to be made like unto Christ and God. (Ps. 17:15; Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 15:49) Hence, we will be
spirit-beings without flesh and bone.
Jno. 6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.
The flesh profits nothing in terms of mans redemption, sanctification, and salvation. It is suitable only for
dwelling upon earth where life is bounded by time and space and consigned to corruption. It is the spirit that is
quickened and receives eternal life, not the flesh.
Rom. 8:10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness.
The body is the source of sin and temptation. The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other. (Gal. 5:17) If the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, it is hardly
possible that it will be saved. If men are to be restored to the original state of the creation before the fall as
Postmillennialists assert, like Adam they will be susceptible to sin and temptation arising in the flesh.[11] If they
are susceptible to sin, the eternal state of any purported new earth will be imperiled; the race may fall again!
Unless we are prepared to believe the whole race is to be exposed to the risk of a second fall, we must reject this
fanciful scheme.
I Cor. 5:5: Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus.
Destruction of the flesh here is best understood in terms of its mortification by denying its affections and lusts.
By excommunicating unrepentant members overtaken in sin, they may be brought to shame and repentance,
leading to the denial and destruction of the flesh. By thus crucifying the flesh (Gal. 5:24), the spirit is restored to
purity, suitable unto salvation. The flesh is expressly excluded from the spirits salvation.
I Cor. 15:44, 49, 50: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual bodyAs we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption.

Here are several plain statements that set the earthly and fleshly body over against the spiritual and heavenly
body. The image of the earthy consists in a natural, fleshly body and carnal mind. The image of the heavenly
consists in a regenerated mind and an immaterial body. The natural and material body of earth is corruptible; the
heavenly and immaterial body of the spirit is incorruptible. The promise of the resurrection is of an immaterial
body, like unto Christ and the angels of God in heaven. (Matt. 22:25; Heb. 2:14-16)
II Cor. 4:16-18: For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is
renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not see: for the
things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
The material is visible and temporal; the immaterial is invisible and eternal. Although the outward and material
man perish, the inward, immaterial man is renewed day by day. The body will perish, but the spirit will inherit
eternal life.
II Cor. 5:1: For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God,
an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Our earthly house refers to our mortal bodies of flesh; this tabernacle refers to this temporal realm, the
tabernacle of the material heavens and earth. (Ps. 104:2 - God stretches out the heavens likes the curtain of a
tent.) Dissolution of our earthly house speaks to putting off the body in death. The building of God, not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens speaks to our immortal, immaterial, and spiritual bodies. These are received
and enjoyed in heaven, not upon a new earth.
II Cor. 5:2, 3: For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
In the resurrection, we are clothed with our immaterial and immortal house from heaven, not our fleshly, mortal
bodies of earth. Naked speaks to putting off the body of flesh in death; clothed speaks to putting on the
spiritual body in the resurrection of life.
II Cor. 5:6-8: Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent
from the Lord: (For we walk by faith not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from
the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Could the apostle have made it more plain? We would be absent from the body of flesh that we might be at
home with the Lord. If, in the resurrection we are reunited with the body, we will be at home in the body and
absent from the Lord! Clearly, that is no part of the Christians hope.
II Cor. 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
This verse, following hard upon the heels of those going before, which so clearly proclaim that to be absent from
the body is to be present with the Lord, makes clear that in the judgment men will not be clothed with houses of
clay. That they are to receive the things done while in the body clearly implies that at the judgment they would be

in the body no more. They have passed from this life and put off their bodies of clay and gone to be judged for
the things done while still in the flesh.
Gal. 3:3: Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Those who hold that the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb. 12:23) must be reunited with the flesh to be
complete and inherit eternal life, fall under the like condemnation Paul reproaches the Galatians with. The
completion of mans salvation is the union of spirit with God in heaven, not being newly clothed upon with bodies
of clay.
Heb. 11:13, 17: These all died in faith, not having receive d the promises, but having seen them afar off, and
were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God:
for he hath prepared for them a city.
Note that the patriarchs and great men of faith were strangers upon earth and looked for an heavenly city and
country. The notion that mans eternal state is in a material new earth is childish in its understanding and
literalism and boarders on being heretical. It is the stuff of Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons. It is an express
denial of the scripture.
Heb. 12:23: To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.
The spirits of the righteous who died before Christ were not wanting bodies, but atonement. With the blood of
sprinkling (v. 22) they were made wholly perfect and the way into heaven opened to them. What need have they
of fleshly bodies seeing they are already perfect? Moreover, the general assembly of the firstborn (the church)
are written in heaven, not a new earth. Our conversation is in heaven (Phil. 3:20); we are to set our affections
there (Col. 3:1) because that is the place of our eternal abode. (Heb. 12:10, 13, 16)
I Pet. 4:6: For for this cause was the gospel preached also unto them that are dead, that they might be judged
according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
This verse seems to speak to the saints of prior ages who had the gospel preached to them in the types and
similitudes of the Old Law. Although condemned by the law according to men in the flesh, they were justified by
the atoning blood of Christ that they might live according to God in the spirit. To be reunited with bodies of clay is
no part of the divine purpose.
Rev. 20:12, 13: And I saw the dead, small and great stand before God; and the books were opened: and
another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Here is imagery portraying judgment day. We note that physical bodies are conspicuously absent. The dead
stand before God. That they are dead, signifies they are on the other side of eternity in the realm of the spirit,
not upon earth. The sea is symbolic of tartarus, the place of the lost dead; hell (hades) speaks to paradise,

the place of the saints and martyrs. The dead come forth from hades tartarus and paradise to receive their
respective rewards. The whole transaction is portrayed as occurring in the realm of the spirit, not the flesh, in the
immaterial realm of eternity, and not time.
Conclusion
The error of the Jews and early church has been kept alive by those today who look for a fleshly resurrection
upon earth. The earthly resurrection of the believer is related to the error of the bodily, visible return of Christ and
the bodily rapture of the saints. By very definition, the spiritual realm is eternal and immaterial. Flesh and blood
bodies are bounded by time and space and therefore cannot inherit incorruption. Let us hold fast to our hope for
we will reap in due time if we faint not.

Sweet hour of prayer! Sweet hour of prayer! May I thy consolation share
Till, from Mount Pisgah's lofty height, I view my home, and take my flight;
This robe of flesh I'll drop, and rise to seize the everlasting prize;
And shout, while passing through the air, Farewell, farewell, sweet hour of prayer.

Notes:
[1] At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
[2] At the last day, such of the saints as are found alive, shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall
be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united
again to their souls forever.
[3] Gentry believes Christ is still beset by the humility of a human body: In the Second Person of the Trinity,
God took upon Himself a true human body and soul (which He still possesses, Col. 2:9) and entered history for
the purpose of redeeming men back to a right relationship with Him (Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Heb. 2:14). Kenneth L.
Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003).
[4] Romans 8:23 mentions the redemption of the Jews and Gentiles collective body (singular), the church, from
the bondage of corruption (sin and death) at the close of the Mosaic age, but nowhere is the redemption of mens
physical bodies taught in scripture.
[5] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003). For the full text of this article
go to www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/gentry-ken_03_ca_01.html
[6] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003).
[7] Heb. 2:14-16 sets flesh and blood over against the immaterial nature of angels.
[8] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003).

[9] God seeks the redemption of the world as a created system of men and things...Christs labors will
eventually effect the redemption of the created system of humanity and things. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr, Three
Views of the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervan, 1999), p. 43. Cf. Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism, An
Eschatology of Hope (P&R Publishing, Phillipsburgn NJ, 1999), p. 107: Christs atonement lays the foundation
for the work of restoring all of man and all of creation.
[10] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr, Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervan, 1999), p. 55.
[11] Jesus was tempted in all points like we. (Heb. 4:15) Hence, although the Spirit abode upon him and he
was spiritual, he was liable to sin as long as he remained in the flesh. (Cf. Rom. 65:7-10) It is only by putting off
the body that the motions of sin in our members are destroyed.

The Resurrection of the Flesh

OCTOBER 03RD Written by Kurt M. Simmons
The resurrection of the dead is a question fraught with difficulty for many. Preterists maintain that the
resurrection was and is nonphysical, consisting in the spirit, not the body, of man. Others, including
Postmillennialists, believe that the resurrection is essentially fleshly; that there can be no resurrection apart from
physical bodies rising from their graves. In this article, we want to examine the idea of the resurrection of the
flesh to see if it accords with the scriptures. We believe a candid study will demonstrate that the resurrection
subsists in the immaterial realm of the spirit, not the flesh.
Confusion in the Early Church
Understanding scripture and eschatology can be a great challenge; the meaning is often elusive, cloaked in
metaphors and poetic imagery. Other times it assumes the reader has a familiarity with basic themes of
redemption and sanctification, and Gods established methods and manner of bringing his purpose to pass.
Language that speaks everlastingly may actually mean only age-long. Language that says God causes a
condition or event may really mean that he merely allowed it to come about, etc. The difficulty in understanding
scripture is alluded to by Paul when he said that his preaching was not with words of mans wisdom and that he
spoke not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. (I Cor. 2:4, 13)

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of
this worldBut we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,
which God ordained before the world unto our glory. (I Cor. 2: 6, 7)
The fact that Paul says the message of the gospel was sometimes communicated in a mystery and in terms
that were hidden, eluding comprehension by those who were not perfect (viz., practiced or trained and hence
accomplished and complete, cf. Heb. 5:12-14) is telling. It means that we cannot always take words at their face
value, but must be alert to deeper meanings. In discussing the resurrection, Paul said, Behold, I shew you a
mystery. (I Cor. 15:51) The term mystery can mean something that is marvelous or wonderful. It can also mean
something that is hidden and requires spiritual discernment to be correctly understood. Often it means both. The
scriptures teaching about the resurrection, like eschatology in general, is indeed marvelous; it requires a spiritual
discernment acquired only by years of study, prayer, and contemplation.

The difficulty in understanding scripture would have been especially true of believers from among the Gentiles,
who were less familiar with the usus loquendi (manner of speech) of the prophets. The language of the prophets
evoking images of the heavens on fire and earth dissolving under intense heat doubtless presented a great
challenge to Gentile believers. How was such language to be taken? Was the physical creation really to be
utterly destroyed? What about language that described Christians being caught up to meet Christ in the air?
Would Christians really be changed and be borne away bodily to heaven at Christs return? What interpretive
principles were to guide their (and our) understanding?
Evidence of the difficulty the early church had in gaining a command of prophetic writings may be seen in the
idea of the rapture. The idea of a bodily rapture, a notion strongly connected with a bodily resurrection, gained
currency in the early church. The apostle John alludes to this when he reports that the fact he was to live until
Christs return gave rise to the belief he would be rapturously borne away and never die: Peter seeing him saith
to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet
Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (Jno. 21:2123) Having reported the popular misconception among the early brethren, John disallows entirely that his
remaining alive until Jesus return meant he would not suffer death. This mistake might have been avoided had
the brethren borne in mind that Jesus said substantially the same thing in another place: For the Son of man
shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:27, 28) Notice that Jesus did not say death would cease at his coming. He
merely said some would not taste death before he came. Jesus would come before they tasted death and only
then would they die. Read together, it is clear that John was to be one of those people. Thus, the idea that
Jesus coming entailed an end of physical existence in which the righteous would be borne away to heavenly
portals was simply without basis and was not the teaching of Christ or the apostles. The Lord, who sometimes
spoke enigmatically, had been misunderstood. There was to be no bodily rapture.
Misunderstanding was not limited to the rapture. Some wrestled with the resurrection itself, questioning or
denying its very possibility. Questions about the resurrection entailed the sort of body men would receive. (I Cor.
15:35) Questions of this sort occurred also among the Jews. The Sadducees, although denying the resurrection,
clearly conceived that any putative resurrection would occur in the flesh. Because of this conception, the
Sadducees believed they had discovered an indissoluble dilemma, refuting the notion of the resurrection, by the
question about the seven brothers who had one woman to wife, asking, Whose wife would she be in the
resurrection, since each had her? (Matt. 22:23-33) The basic assumption is that the resurrection would be
physical and therefore entail marriage. It is unclear whether this was the popular conception of the resurrection
or merely the Sadducees idea of it. The better view probably is that it reflected popular belief. It would hardly
make sense for the Sadducees to propound a hypothetical about the fact and nature of the resurrection that was
peculiar merely to themselves, and not shared by the community at large. In that case, the question would refute
only their notion of the resurrection, but not that of the general public whose belief it was their objective to
dislodge. Hence, the necessary and reasonable inference is that it reflected the general understanding of the
Jews of Jesus day. But, whether it be this or that, one thing is clear: Jesus disallowed the concept entirely. First,
by proof that the patriarchs had not ceased to exist, but were participants in the first resurrection in hades
paradise (vv. 31, 32); second, by showing that in the general resurrection men would subsist in the form of
angels. (vv. 29, 30) The resurrection would not be physical; hence, there would be no marriage.

Jewish misunderstanding about the nature of the resurrection had its counterpart in the church which Paul
labored to correct. He dispensed with the idea of a physical resurrection by his statement And that which thou
sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be. (I Cor. 15:37) Could it be any clearer? The body that is sown
(buried) is not the body that is reaped. A physical body is planted, but a spiritual body is raised up. So also is
the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruptionIt is sown a natural body; it is
raised a spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:42, 43) There is simply no credible way to read physical bodies into the text
and spiritual bodies out. The mistake lies in the assumption that the resurrection would occur upon earth and,
hence, be earthly. However, a physical grave cannot retain the spirits of the deceased. The grave had an
immaterial counterpart called hades where the spirits of the departed slept pending the second resurrection.
(Lk. 16:19-31; 24:43) Since these souls were not bound to their earthly bodies, it would not be necessary for
them to be reunited to their bodies in order to inherit glory. Just the opposite, flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (I Cor. 15:50) Absent from the body is present with
the Lord. (II Cor. 5:8) Hence, there was to be no physical resurrection.
Creeds and Confessions Embody Error of Early Church
Notwithstanding the apostles labors, error took root; belief in a bodily rapture and resurrection of the dead at
Christs return gained currency and took up permanent residence in the early church. Both are evidenced by the
creeds that grew up among believing Gentiles. For example, the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (c. 215 A.D.)
thus asks, Do you believein the resurrection of the body? Similarly, the Creed of Marcellus (340 A.D.)
declares: I believe inthe resurrection of the body. The Creed of Rufinus (c. 404 A.D.) is more explicit and
declares I believe in the resurrection of the flesh. The Apostles Creed proclaims belief in the resurrection of the
body, but the Nicene Creed states only a belief in the resurrection of the dead. Other creeds and confessions
holding to the resurrection of the flesh include the Athanasian Creed[1] and the second London Confession of
1689 (Baptist).[2] Although the term body is ambiguous and elastic enough to mean spiritual bodies, we may
assume that physical bodies was intended and understood. Thus, the creeds perpetuated the error of the Jews
and early church in a physical resurrection. The error reported by John that there was to be a bodily rapture at
the Lords return also survived and has continued to this day.
The heirs to the creeds were the articles and confessions of faith of later centuries. For example, chapter XXXII
of the Westminster Confession - Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead - states:

1. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep,
having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then
made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and
glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they
remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for
souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
2. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with
the self-same bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls
for ever.

3. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His
Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.
Notice the confused eschatology here that has the souls of the dead by-passing hades and going immediately to
heaven where they behold the face of God, there awaiting the redemption of their bodies, to which they are
subsequently forced to return. What possible purpose could there be in reuniting the spirits of the saints with
their earthly bodies? Being in a state suited to behold the face of God in perfect holiness, what is the need to
clothe them again with houses of clay? Having begun in the spirit are they made perfect by the flesh? Such is
the garbled teaching of the Westminster Confession. Another doctrinal statement holding to the resurrection of
the flesh is the Belgic Confession (Reformed Church):

Finally we believe, according to God's Word, that when the time appointed by the
Lord is come (which is unknown to all creatures) and the number of the elect is
complete, our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, bodily and visibly, as he
ascended, with great glory and majesty, to declare himself the judge of the living
and the dead. He will burn this old world, in fire and flame, in order to cleanse it.
Then all human creatures will appear in person before the great judge-- men,
women, and children, who have lived from the beginning until the end of the world.
They will be summoned there by the voice of the archangel and by the sound of the
divine trumpet. For all those who died before that time will be raised from the
earth, their spirits being joined and united with their own bodies in which they
lived. And as for those who are still alive, they will not die like the others but will be
changed in the twinkling of an eye from corruptible to incorruptible.
The notion that Christ would return bodily and visibly is closely related to the idea of a bodily rapture and a
fleshly resurrection. Hence, the Belgic Confession weaves all three concepts together. Bodies, by definition, are
confined by time and space. But Jesus is ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. (Eph.
4:10) Only spirit is unbound by time and space and can fill all things. Hence, Jesus is no longer in bodily form, at
least in any earthly meaning and conception of that term. Rather, he is Spirit. (I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17)[3]
Colossians is not to the contrary. When Col. 2:9 states that in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily, the apostle is not referring to Christs form or appearance. He is referring to fulness of divine authority
and Gods redemptive purpose that the Father embodied in Christ. Under the Mosaic law man was incomplete;
for the law made nothing perfect. (Heb. 7:19) But ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality
and power. (Col. 2:10) The law was wistful, a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Col. 2:17)
The body here speaks figuratively to the tangible nature of things come, the substance and reality of the
promises embodied in Christ, of which the law was but a shadow and type. Because Christ is not in bodily form
he is invisible to human eye. After his ascension, visions of Jesus required special revelation of the Spirit. (Rev.
1:10 et seq; cf. Acts 9:7) The doctrine of Christs bodily and visible return is erroneous. His coming would not be
bodily, it would be providential; it would not be visible, it would be historically discernable. In Matt. 24:30, Jesus
said there would appear the sign of the Son of man ruling in heaven in the events marking the destruction of the
city and temple. Speaking to his coming in wrath and vengeance upon the nation of the Jews, Jesus told the
Sanhedrin, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven. (Mk. 14:62; cf. Matt. 24:30) This is the same coming in his kingdom Jesus told the apostles would

transpire while some of them were still alive. (Matt. 16:27, 28; Mk. 8:38-9:1) In each of these verses the coming
of the Lord was providential, not bodily; it was historically discernable, not visible.
The idea that the self-same physical bodies are to be raised up at the last day is every bit as erroneous as the
visible, bodily return of Christ. Not one reliable verse of scripture can be marshaled to establish such claim.
Jesus statement that all who are in the graves would hear his voice and come forth (Jno. 5:25-29) neither says
nor implies the resurrection of physical bodies. The redemption of mens bodies is no part of the redemptive work
of Christ.[4] Those holding this view place the resurrection on the wrong side of eternity. They place the
resurrection in the temporal realm of the flesh, rather than the eternal realm of the spirit where it should be.
Modern Apologists
Modern apologists are not wanting for these ancient errors. One prominent member of this description is
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Gentry, who has done a good deal of valuable work in other areas, is sorely wanting in this
particular area of endeavor. Gentry asserts that If Christ was physically raised from the dead, then so shall we,
for He is the "first-fruits" of our resurrection. The only way around our physical resurrection is to deny Christ's
physical resurrection.[5] This is poor argumentation. Reduced to a syllogism, Gentrys argument looks like this:

Major premise: Christ was raised physically.

Minor premise: Christ was the first-fruits of our resurrection; therefore
Conclusion: Our resurrection will be physical like Christs.
It does not take a logician to see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The resurrection of
physical bodies simply is not a logical corollary of the term firstfruits. The significance of Christs resurrection
was his power over hades, not the physical grave. Thus, in Rev. 1:18, Jesus said: I am he that liveth, and was
dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore. Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Jesus did not say he
have the keys of the physical grave, but of hell (hades). The promise of the resurrection was the release of souls
from hades, not restoring to life physical bodies. Like virtually every other bodily resurrection recorded in
scripture, Jesus physical resurrection was primarily evidentiary; it was intended to serve as a demonstration of
Gods power and work among his people and that he spoke through Jesus. It is interesting that in the
resurrection of saints recorded in Matt. 27:52, 53, Matthew adds the qualifying statement, saying, the bodies of
the saints which slept arose. The purpose of this resurrection of the bodies of the saints was to provide
evidence of Jesus resurrection and that he was the promised Messiah. That Matthew adds the qualifying
statement regarding their bodies serves only to show that there is a resurrection of the spirit or soul of which the
body does not take part. Rom. 1:4 says Jesus was declared to the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. In the resurrection, God declared Jesus to be his Son,
vindicating Jesus claims during his life. But this could not be accomplished without the resurrection of Jesus
body. Had God merely wafted Jesus spirit to heaven, there would have been no objective proof of Christs
Sonship. To the contrary, the continuing presence of the body in the tomb would have shown Jesus a fraud and
a liar. In fact, the very purpose behind the open tomb was so that man could go in and see the Lord was risen
indeed, not so Jesus could come out. The bodily resurrection of the Lord provided empirical evidence that Jesus
was the Son of God, of which the apostles were made witnesses. (Mk. Lk. 24:48; Acts 1:8) The bodily
resurrection of Christ thus served a unique purpose that makes Jesus resurrection unlike our own. The term
firstfruits cannot be pressed into service of the doctrine of a resurrection of the flesh.

The Hebrew writer speaks to the resurrection of Christ when he states that Jesus in the days of his flesh, when
he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from
death, and was heard in that he feared. (Heb. 5:7) Notice that the days of his flesh are set over against Jesus
present form when he is ascended into heaven and set down at the right hand of God. Jesus is no longer in
fleshly form and it is unto this hope that believers aspire, not the reunion of their spirits with their earthly bodies.
Another argument by Gentry is that the spiritual (pneumatikos) body of I Cor. 15:44 is no more immaterial than
the natural (psuchikos) body.[6] This rather startling assertion is based upon use of the terms pneumatikos
(spiritual) and psuchikos (natural) to describe the Christian over against the unbeliever:

But the natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for
they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But he that is spiritual (pneumatikos) judgeth all things, yet he himself is
judged of no man. (I Cor. 2:14, 15)
The terms natural and spiritual in this context speak to the driving force or controlling principle in the
individuals lives, not their material or immaterial state. Hence, Gentry argues, the spiritual body of I Cor. 15:44
speaks only to its controlling principle, not its material or immaterial form. Therefore, although in the resurrection
the body will actually be physical, qualitatively it will be spiritual. Or, so at least Gentry would have us believe.
The better view, however, is that the term spiritual in I Cor. 15:44 is substantive, not qualitative, and that the
body of the resurrection will be intangible, immaterial, and eternal. The spiritual man has a physical body only
because he has not yet put it off in death. Upon the death of the body, the inner man lives on, clothed upon with
a spiritual body of life. But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. (II Cor.
4:16) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, and
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, made without hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we
groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. (II Cor. 5:1) The earthly
house is the fleshly body of this material realm. Upon death, it is replaced by a spiritual and immaterial house
from heaven. Since it is from heaven, it clearly is not the self same earthly body put off in death. In the
resurrection we will be spirit beings with spiritual bodies. (Heb. 12:23; I Cor. 5:5) We will be as the angels (Matt.
22:30): Intangible, immaterial, imperishable, and eternal.[7]
Scriptures for the Resurrection of the Flesh
The reason Gentry and others of his ilk argue for the resurrection of the flesh, is that they believe the saints
eternal reward is in the material realm upon a new earth! His elect people will inherit the eternal estate in
resurrected, physical bodies (Jno. 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:20-28) so that we might dwell in a material New Creation
order (2 Pet. 3:8-13).[8] This belief is utterly fantastic coming from someone of Gentrys talent and ability. It
stems from his belief in Postmillennialism, which holds that Gods redemptive purpose culminates in a redeemed,
material creation.[9] Never mind the many statements in scripture pointing to the fact that the saints inheritance
is in heaven (Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3; I Thess. 4:17; I Tim. 6:7; II Tim. 2:11; Heb. 11:13, 16; I Pet. 1:4), we are now
to believe that our eternal state is upon earth. Little wonder Postmillennialists argue for the resurrection of the
flesh! Language mentioning a new heaven and earth (Isa. 65:17: 66:22; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1) is symbolic of
the Messianic age, the regeneration and restitution of all things in Christ. (Matt. 19:28; Acts 3:21) They were the
good things to come of the law (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1) and Christs High Priesthood (Heb. 9:11), the redemption
from sin and adoption of sonship which early Christians groaned for and were in earnest expectation. (Rom.
8:19-23) These came in fulness at the end of the Mosaic age and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

(Matt. 24:1-3, 34; cf. Eph. 1:21; Heb. 2:5; 6:5) Since references to the new heaven and earth are symbolic, they
must be interpreted and brought into harmony with plain passages of scripture elsewhere, not vice versa. Simply
put, the idea that our eternal state is on a redeemed earth is frivolous. It is the stuff we have come to associate
with the literalisms of Premillennialism, not serious scholarship. The spiritually discerning will reject it out of
hand.
What about the resurrection of the flesh? Do advocates of this school have any verses plainly making this
claim? Here are the verses cited by Gentry,[10] our comments follow.
Job 19:25, 26: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.
This is the only verse in the Bible that makes reference to the flesh in apparent connection with the resurrection.
Apparent, I say, because the verse does not actually mention the resurrection. It is entirely possible that Job
looked to see God in this life time, as in fact he did: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
eye seeth thee. (Job 42:5) However, even assuming that the text posits a resurrection context, the Hebrew of
this verse is so obscure and ambiguous that scholars cannot decide how it is to be translated. Hence, the
marginal reading gives the rendering, After I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of my flesh...
etc. In other words, two renderings, exactly opposite in meaning, can be sustained by the original tongue. Thus,
it cannot be determined with certainty what Job actually stated or said. Given that this is the only place in
scripture referring to the flesh in the context of the supposed resurrection, we would be well advised to opt for the
alternate rendering. At the very least, standing as it does alone, and more especially in view of the poetic nature
of the book, no essential doctrine of scripture can be built upon it.
Isa. 26:19: Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell
in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
The historical context of this verse spoke to the restoration of Israel to its land after the captivity. The Jews were
like dead men in the grave of captivity in Babylon. My dead body refers to the Jews collectively. This same
image is given by Ezekiel in the prophecy of the valley full of dry bones. (Ezek. 27:1-14) This is the standard
interpretation, almost universally acknowledged by the commentators. However, that there is also a Messianic
dimension to the passage that looks to the resurrection of Christ and the salvation of believers cannot be denied.
Even so, other than Christs, the resurrection of physical bodies is not mentioned. But, even if they were, the text
is couched in poetic terms; hence we should be slow to overly press the literalness. The bottom line: Physical
bodies are nowhere set out.
Jno. 5:28, 29: Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.
As with Isa. 26:19, no physical bodies are mentioned in this text. All Jesus says is that those in the graves will
come forth. Contrary to Gentrys assumption, Jesus did not say they would come forth on this side of eternity.
Daniel made the like statement, saying, many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan. 12:2) This language is obviously poetic:
The dead do not sleep in the earth; their spirits go to hades. (Lk. 24:43; cf. 16:19-31) Hence, the idea of

waking from the dust is merely accommodative; it points to a coming day of salvation when the death would be
vanquished and man go to his long home with God and Christ in heaven.
Rom. 8:11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from
the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Quickening our mortal bodies does not refer to the resurrection of the body, but the regenerative effects of
Gods spirit in man by the mortification of the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the
Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Rom. 8:13; cf. Gal. 5:24) This is the more apparent in that
in the immediately preceding verse Paul says the body is dead because of sin. (Rom. 8:10) The saints at
Rome were not dead and their bodies were not dead either; the apostle is merely using a figure of speech. As
the source of fleshly lusts, the body is spiritually dead. But by being brought into subjection to the Spirit, the
body is figuratively quickened and made an instrument of righteousness. Peter says substantially the same
thing: For he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his
time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. (I Pet. 4:1) In other words, just as mans spirit is
quickened and made alive by the new birth (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13), so the body is quickened as it is brought into
subjection to Gods spirit and its lusts mortified.
Rom. 8:23: And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves
groan within ourselves , waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
They are the Gentiles, we ourselves refers to the Jews; the Jews had the firstfruits of the Spirit: Of his own
will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (Jm. 1:18) The
gospel message began at Jerusalem and was preached first to the Jews. Hence they were the firstfruits unto
God and the Lamb. (Rev. 14:4; cf. Acts 3:26; 13:46; Eph. 1:12, 13) Both Jews and Gentiles groaned, looking for
the adoption of their collective body, the church. This occurred at the consummation in A.D. 70 when and the
church was manifested as the sons of God and received the decree of adoption by the destruction of the Jewish
state and removal of the Mosaic system and temple. Nowhere does the text mention either the resurrection or
physical bodies.
Phil. 3:20, 21: For our conversation is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working
whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
The singular our vile body refers to the collective body of Jews and Gentiles waiting for the redemption and
adoption of the church. (Cf. Rom. 8:19-23) Until the consummation in A.D. 70, the church was still under
bondage of corruption to sin and death was in earnest expectation of the promised redemption. (Eph. 1:13, 14)
The change referred to here is best understood as legal and soteriological, not bodily or physical; it is the
sanctification and cleansing of the church by Christ, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:26, 27) The
glorious church answers to the glorious body of the Lord. The presentment of the church to himself came at the
consummation of the nuptials in A.D. 70. (Rev. 19:7; 21:9, 10) Notwithstanding the collective nature of this
passage, by analogy we believe the body of sin which is put off in death is replaced by a glorious body in the
resurrection of life. The glorified body is not physical, but spiritual, unbounded by time and space.

I Thess. 4:16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and
with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
We need only note that physical bodies are not mentioned. The very next verse says that those living would be
caught up with them in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (v. 17) Unless the Lord is going to remain
on earth forever, this verse cannot be reconciled with the idea of our eternal state being on a material new earth.
Clearly, the language is accommodative and not to be taken literally. It is descriptive of the victory of the saints
and their translation to heaven as a matter of law at the consummation. (Col. 1:13, 3:1; Eph. 2:1, 6) Their final
translation to heaven as a matter of fact comes only upon the death of the body. To be absent from the body is to
be present with the Lord. (II Cor. 5: 6, 8)
Scriptures against the Resurrection of the Flesh
The verses above are relied upon by advocates of a resurrection of the flesh. As we have seen, the idea of a
physical resurrection is completely away from virtually every scripture cited; the notion has no more basis than
the fanciful notion of mans eternal state subsisting in a material New Created order. Let us now look at a few
verses pointing to the resurrection of the spirit and the inheritance of the saints in the immaterial realm of
heaven. Although dozens of verses might be marshaled, space does not allow us to consider more than a few.
Lk. 23:43: Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
These words, spoken by the Lord in the immediate reaches of death, bore the promise of the first resurrection of
the spirit in hades paradise. Since physical bodies are no part of the first resurrection, what basis is there to
believe they will be part of the second resurrection of the soul in heaven? To the contrary, flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. (I Cor. 15:50)
Jno. 3:5-7: Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not
that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
This verse shows that there are two natures: one belonging to the kingdom of heaven, one belonging to the
earth. The earthly nature and body do not enter the kingdom of God, the spirit does.
Jno. 4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
This verse is dispositive of the idea that physical bodies have any part of the heavenly kingdom. In Lk. 24:38,
Jesus said Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have. Since God is a Spirit, and spirits do not have flesh and bones, it is axiomatic that
God does not have flesh and bone. Christ is now a Spirit. (I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17) In the resurrection,
Christians are to be made like unto Christ and God. (Ps. 17:15; Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 15:49) Hence, we will be
spirit-beings without flesh and bone.
Jno. 6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.

The flesh profits nothing in terms of mans redemption, sanctification, and salvation. It is suitable only for
dwelling upon earth where life is bounded by time and space and consigned to corruption. It is the spirit that is
quickened and receives eternal life, not the flesh.
Rom. 8:10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness.
The body is the source of sin and temptation. The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other. (Gal. 5:17) If the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, it is hardly
possible that it will be saved. If men are to be restored to the original state of the creation before the fall as
Postmillennialists assert, like Adam they will be susceptible to sin and temptation arising in the flesh.[11] If they
are susceptible to sin, the eternal state of any purported new earth will be imperiled; the race may fall again!
Unless we are prepared to believe the whole race is to be exposed to the risk of a second fall, we must reject this
fanciful scheme.
I Cor. 5:5: Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus.
Destruction of the flesh here is best understood in terms of its mortification by denying its affections and lusts.
By excommunicating unrepentant members overtaken in sin, they may be brought to shame and repentance,
leading to the denial and destruction of the flesh. By thus crucifying the flesh (Gal. 5:24), the spirit is restored to
purity, suitable unto salvation. The flesh is expressly excluded from the spirits salvation.
I Cor. 15:44, 49, 50: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual bodyAs we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption.
Here are several plain statements that set the earthly and fleshly body over against the spiritual and heavenly
body. The image of the earthy consists in a natural, fleshly body and carnal mind. The image of the heavenly
consists in a regenerated mind and an immaterial body. The natural and material body of earth is corruptible; the
heavenly and immaterial body of the spirit is incorruptible. The promise of the resurrection is of an immaterial
body, like unto Christ and the angels of God in heaven. (Matt. 22:25; Heb. 2:14-16)
II Cor. 4:16-18: For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is
renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not see: for the
things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
The material is visible and temporal; the immaterial is invisible and eternal. Although the outward and material
man perish, the inward, immaterial man is renewed day by day. The body will perish, but the spirit will inherit
eternal life.
II Cor. 5:1: For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God,
an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Our earthly house refers to our mortal bodies of flesh; this tabernacle refers to this temporal realm, the
tabernacle of the material heavens and earth. (Ps. 104:2 - God stretches out the heavens likes the curtain of a
tent.) Dissolution of our earthly house speaks to putting off the body in death. The building of God, not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens speaks to our immortal, immaterial, and spiritual bodies. These are received
and enjoyed in heaven, not upon a new earth.
II Cor. 5:2, 3: For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
In the resurrection, we are clothed with our immaterial and immortal house from heaven, not our fleshly, mortal
bodies of earth. Naked speaks to putting off the body of flesh in death; clothed speaks to putting on the
spiritual body in the resurrection of life.
II Cor. 5:6-8: Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent
from the Lord: (For we walk by faith not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from
the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Could the apostle have made it more plain? We would be absent from the body of flesh that we might be at
home with the Lord. If, in the resurrection we are reunited with the body, we will be at home in the body and
absent from the Lord! Clearly, that is no part of the Christians hope.
II Cor. 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
This verse, following hard upon the heels of those going before, which so clearly proclaim that to be absent from
the body is to be present with the Lord, makes clear that in the judgment men will not be clothed with houses of
clay. That they are to receive the things done while in the body clearly implies that at the judgment they would be
in the body no more. They have passed from this life and put off their bodies of clay and gone to be judged for
the things done while still in the flesh.
Gal. 3:3: Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Those who hold that the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb. 12:23) must be reunited with the flesh to be
complete and inherit eternal life, fall under the like condemnation Paul reproaches the Galatians with. The
completion of mans salvation is the union of spirit with God in heaven, not being newly clothed upon with bodies
of clay.
Heb. 11:13, 17: These all died in faith, not having receive d the promises, but having seen them afar off, and
were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God:
for he hath prepared for them a city.
Note that the patriarchs and great men of faith were strangers upon earth and looked for an heavenly city and
country. The notion that mans eternal state is in a material new earth is childish in its understanding and

literalism and boarders on being heretical. It is the stuff of Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons. It is an express
denial of the scripture.
Heb. 12:23: To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.
The spirits of the righteous who died before Christ were not wanting bodies, but atonement. With the blood of
sprinkling (v. 22) they were made wholly perfect and the way into heaven opened to them. What need have they
of fleshly bodies seeing they are already perfect? Moreover, the general assembly of the firstborn (the church)
are written in heaven, not a new earth. Our conversation is in heaven (Phil. 3:20); we are to set our affections
there (Col. 3:1) because that is the place of our eternal abode. (Heb. 12:10, 13, 16)
I Pet. 4:6: For for this cause was the gospel preached also unto them that are dead, that they might be judged
according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
This verse seems to speak to the saints of prior ages who had the gospel preached to them in the types and
similitudes of the Old Law. Although condemned by the law according to men in the flesh, they were justified by
the atoning blood of Christ that they might live according to God in the spirit. To be reunited with bodies of clay is
no part of the divine purpose.
Rev. 20:12, 13: And I saw the dead, small and great stand before God; and the books were opened: and
another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Here is imagery portraying judgment day. We note that physical bodies are conspicuously absent. The dead
stand before God. That they are dead, signifies they are on the other side of eternity in the realm of the spirit,
not upon earth. The sea is symbolic of tartarus, the place of the lost dead; hell (hades) speaks to paradise,
the place of the saints and martyrs. The dead come forth from hades tartarus and paradise to receive their
respective rewards. The whole transaction is portrayed as occurring in the realm of the spirit, not the flesh, in the
immaterial realm of eternity, and not time.
Conclusion
The error of the Jews and early church has been kept alive by those today who look for a fleshly resurrection
upon earth. The earthly resurrection of the believer is related to the error of the bodily, visible return of Christ and
the bodily rapture of the saints. By very definition, the spiritual realm is eternal and immaterial. Flesh and blood
bodies are bounded by time and space and therefore cannot inherit incorruption. Let us hold fast to our hope for
we will reap in due time if we faint not.

Sweet hour of prayer! Sweet hour of prayer! May I thy consolation share
Till, from Mount Pisgah's lofty height, I view my home, and take my flight;
This robe of flesh I'll drop, and rise to seize the everlasting prize;

And shout, while passing through the air, Farewell, farewell, sweet hour of prayer.

Notes:
[1] At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
[2] At the last day, such of the saints as are found alive, shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall
be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united
again to their souls forever.
[3] Gentry believes Christ is still beset by the humility of a human body: In the Second Person of the Trinity,
God took upon Himself a true human body and soul (which He still possesses, Col. 2:9) and entered history for
the purpose of redeeming men back to a right relationship with Him (Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Heb. 2:14). Kenneth L.
Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003).
[4] Romans 8:23 mentions the redemption of the Jews and Gentiles collective body (singular), the church, from
the bondage of corruption (sin and death) at the close of the Mosaic age, but nowhere is the redemption of mens
physical bodies taught in scripture.
[5] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003). For the full text of this article
go to www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/gentry-ken_03_ca_01.html
[6] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003).
[7] Heb. 2:14-16 sets flesh and blood over against the immaterial nature of angels.
[8] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Christ's Resurrection and Ours, (Chalcedon, April 2003).
[9] God seeks the redemption of the world as a created system of men and things...Christs labors will
eventually effect the redemption of the created system of humanity and things. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr, Three
Views of the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervan, 1999), p. 43. Cf. Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism, An
Eschatology of Hope (P&R Publishing, Phillipsburgn NJ, 1999), p. 107: Christs atonement lays the foundation
for the work of restoring all of man and all of creation.
[10] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr, Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervan, 1999), p. 55.
[11] Jesus was tempted in all points like we. (Heb. 4:15) Hence, although the Spirit abode upon him and he
was spiritual, he was liable to sin as long as he remained in the flesh. (Cf. Rom. 65:7-10) It is only by putting off
the body that the motions of sin in our members are destroyed.

What the Bible Says About The Resurrection And

Immortality

OCTOBER 03RD Written by Kurt M. Simmons

There is a lot of confusion concerning what the Bible says about the eschatological resurrection and immortality.
In this article we want to resolve these issues simply and concisely.
Types of Life
Before we can arrive at a correct understanding of death, resurrection, and immortality, we must first gain an
understanding of the kinds of life represented in the Bible. There are no fewer than five kinds or qualities of life
may be identified. These are 1) Physical/sentient life; 2) Moral/spiritual life; 3) Juridical life; 4) Hadean life; and 5)
Eternal life.
Physical and Sentient Life: Physical life is bare life; it may be of a cell, or a plant, mushroom, or lichen. It is life
without the ability to perceive itself or its surroundings. Sentient life is life defined by the ability to perceive ones
self or surroundings. A worm or shell fish has physical life, but also possesses physical sense and the ability to
perceive and react to threat or danger and, therefore, possesses sentient life.
Moral and Spiritual Life: God elevated man above his other creatures, which possess mere physical and sentient
life, adding moral and spiritual dimension to mans existence by breathing into him the breath of life. (Gen. 1:26;
2:7) The Hebrew word translated breath of life is neshamah and is also rendered inspiration. Thus, Job
states, But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration (neshamah) of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
(Job 32:8) The inspiration God breathed into our first ancestor made him a partaker of the divine image and
likeness, permitting him to possess the fruits of the Spirit love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness,
faith, meekness, temperance. (Gal. 5:22, 23)
Juridical Life: In order for actions to have moral quality, the actor must possess reason, understanding, and the
power of choice, which may be briefly comprehended in the faculty of faith the ability to believe and choose the
good. God concluded man under law and covenant when he gave him the commandment not to eat of the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:17) As long as man exercised his faculty of faith, choosing to believe
and obey, he was just and acceptable before God and possessed what may be called juridical life.
Hadean life: Hadean life is set over against earthly life. Unable to go to be with God in heaven until the blood of
Christ purchased his redemption, at physical death man lived in the realm of Sheol or Hades. The lost were
confined to Tartarus (II Pet. 2:4), the saved to Paradise or Abrahams bosom. (Lk. 16:22; 23:43; cf. II Cor. 12:4)
Eternal life: Eternal life is the life of the spirit or soul of man in heaven.[1] Eternal life is either actual or legal.
Man possesses eternal life in fact (actually) when he enters heaven personally and spatially; he possesses
eternal life in law (legally) when he is declared just before the throne of God. This is the same as juridical life.
When John says, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life (Jno. 3:36), he speaks of juridical life.
Because juridical life is merely legal it is also conditional, and depends upon mans continued obedience to the
gospel of Christ. Adam had juridical life, but lost it through disobedience, as may also we.[2]
Types of Death
For every type of life or being there is a corresponding type of death or nonbeing.
Physical and sentient death: Physical and sentient death entails the cessation of physical and sentient life by
the death of the body. Physical death entered when access to the tree of life was taken away. (Gen. 3:22-24)

The tree of life sustained mans mortal existence indefinitely. But, with the withdrawal of access to this tree,
physical decay and death set in.
Moral and spiritual death: Moral and spiritual death entail the cessation of moral and spiritual life by the entrance
of sin. When sin entered, the image of God in man was lost and defaced; man irrevocably forfeited the
inspiration (neshamah) that made him a partaker of the divine image and likeness; he became carnal, sold
under sin. Adams sons and daughters were made in his image and likeness, not Gods, and, hence, were heirs
of his falleness. (Gen. 5:3; Rom. 5:19; 7:14)[3]
Juridical death: Moral and spiritual death brings juridical death. Juridical death is the judgment of God, giving
sentence against the sin of man. All men that attain to moral accountability ultimately come under the power of
juridical death. When St. Paul states, that death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom. 5:14; cf. 17, 21) he
speaks of juridical death. Juridical death passed upon all men, because all men violate the law of sin and
death. (Rom. 5;12)[4] The wages of sin is eternal death. (Rom. 6:23) When God told Adam in the day that
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2:17), he spoke of eternal death. The fact man did not die
eternally the day he transgressed should not trouble us; in the day speaks to the day of transgression, not
execution of sentence. Several examples occur in the Old Testament where the identical phrase is used, even
though the subject did not die the day he offended. (Cf. I Kings 2:37, 42; Ezek. 32:12-16) The moment man sins
he comes under judgment and sentence of eternal death albeit sentence is not executed until he dies physically.
Man must first die physically before he can die eternally. If he repents before he suffers physical death, the
sentence of eternal death can be vacated and set aside. (Ezek. 18:20-23; 32:12-16)
Hadean Death: Hades is the realm of the physically dead. Hadean death is interposed between physical death
and eternal death or eternal life. Without Hades, man would have passed from physical death to eternal death,
because the blood of Christ was not available to save them. Hence, God confined the soul of man in Hades until
the judgment of the last day.
Eternal Death: Eternal death is the second death or lake of fire (Gehenna). (Rev. 20:11-15; cf. Matt. 10:28) All
that do not inherit eternal life suffer eternal death and destruction in the lake of fire.
Types of Resurrection
Given the different types of life and death that exist in scripture, it should come as no surprise that there are
varied types and forms of resurrection. Let us survey these briefly.
Physical Resurrection: There are numerous examples of the resurrection of physical bodies in the scriptures.
Elisha raised the Shunammites son. (II Kings 4:8-37) In another instance, when a man was being buried and
his body touched the bones of Elisha, he revived. (II Kings 13:20, 21) Jesus thrice restored to physical life those
that were dead. (Lk. 7:11-18; 8:49-56; Jno. 11:1-46) And Jesus himself was raised anew to physical life.
(Jno.20) Peter and Paul also both raised the dead to physical life. (Acts 9:36-43; 20:9, 10) In all these cases,
however, excepting Jesus, those that were raised had to experience physical death a second time. Jesus,
because he was translated (ascended) to heaven similar to Enoch and Elijah, did not die a second time. The
eschatological resurrection of the last day did not involve physical bodies. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God. (I Cor. 15:50) That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be. (I Cor. 15:37)
It is sown a natural, material, corporeal body, but is raised an intangible, immaterial, spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:4244)

National, Political Resurrection: The image of resurrection is used metaphorically of Israel during its captivity in
Babylon and Assyria. Ezekiel saw a vision of dead bones come together and stand upon their feet, a great army.
The vision was interpreted for Ezekiel as prophesying the nations political resurrection and restoration to its
native land. (Ezek. 37) Some attempt to make an analogy and apply this vision to the church, saying there is a
collective and corporate resurrection of the national to the spiritual and the political to the ecclesiastical.
However tempting this analogy may seem, it is certain no New Testament writer ever speaks of the
eschatological resurrection in such terms. It exists only by the invention of certain modern writers and therefore
should not be received as the teaching of the scriptures on the subject.
Moral and Spiritual Resurrection: Repentance and conversion are sometimes described in terms of a
resurrection. Thus, Paul says, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee
light. (Eph. 5:14; cf. Rom. 13:11; I Cor. 15:34) The image here is a man in a state of moral death and
estrangement from God by sin, coming to repentance and life in Christ. However, obviously, this is merely a
literary use of simile and metaphor, and not the eschatological resurrection of the dead. When the scriptures
speak of the resurrection of the last day they are not speaking of repentance and conversion.
Juridical Resurrection: In Ephesians, Paul writes And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and
sinsEven when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and
hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 2:1, 5, 6) This is
juridical resurrection; the image is that of those under judgment of death receiving pardon and figuratively being
raised up from juridical death and made to sit in heavenly places through the agency and representative office
of Christ, who stands before God on our behalf and in whom we stand also. (Cf. Col. 3:3, 4) As before, this is
merely symbolic language adopted to describe a spiritual truth, and not an actual resurrection. The like image is
used again by Paul in the context of baptism: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
(Rom. 6:3-5; cf. Col. 2:11, 12)
In baptism, the repentant believer is made a partaker of the saving effects of Christs death, burial, and
resurrection, and receives remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; 22:16; cf. Mk. 1:4) Hence, Paul speaks of baptism as a
type of juridical resurrection by which the sentence of death pronounced against the sinner is vacated and set
aside and he is raised anew to life. Tertullian put it this way: "Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by
washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life."[5]
It is juridical resurrection that Jesus had in view when he said He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God: and they that hear shall live. (Jno. 5:24, 25) Other similes and metaphors used to describe the
relationship created by mans response to the gospel include marriage, adoption, and rebirth. (Jno. 3:3-5; Gal.
4:1-7; Eph. 22-32) However, in all of these examples the language is purely symbolical and not actual; it is
adapted to describe one that was under sentence of death, receiving pardon unto life by responding to the gospel
call. In no event should they be construed as the eschatological resurrection

Hadean Resurrection: Here we begin to approach the actual, eschatological resurrection of the dead. The spirit
of man does not cease to exist at physical death. Prior to the resurrection of the last day, the spirit of man was
preserved alive and conscious by God in Hades. The wicked were kept under chains of darkness in Tartarus,
reserved unto judgment. (II Pet. 2:4; cf. Lk. 16:19-31) The righteous were kept in Paradise unto the
resurrection of life. (Jno. 5:29; cf. Dan. 12:2) Those in Hades Paradise were described as participants of the first
resurrection. (Rev. 20:3-6; cf. Mk. 12:26, 27) This resurrection consisted of the saved beginning with Abel and
those forward until the eschatological resurrection of the last day.
Eschatological Resurrection: The promise of the resurrection was first made in the garden to Adam. 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. (Gen. 3:15) The promise of resurrection here is couched in poetic terms in which the
serpent is put for death, Eve is put for Gods people (the church), and the womans Seed is put for Christ. Death
would strike at Christ, bruising his heel on Calvary, but Christ would crush deaths head by the power of his
resurrection. The righteous were gathered by God into Hades Paradise at physical death to await the
eschatological resurrection. In the last day of the former eon, Christ raised the dead out of Hades. The wicked
were cast into Gehenna, the lake of fire, or second death; the righteous were taken to heaven. Hades Paradise
has now been destroyed[6] and the righteous now go directly to heaven upon the death of the body. (II Cor. 5:110) Revelation 20:11-15 is the only picture provided by scripture of the eschatological resurrection and it makes
clear that it consisted of individual souls raised from Hades.
The Eschatological Change
If the eschatological resurrection consisted in individuals raised from Hades, the eschatological change was
corporate and covenantal. Hear Paul:

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 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. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be
to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:51-57)
Paul indicates at the outset that what he is about to describe is a mystery requiring spiritual discernment to
understand; thus we must expect our comprehension to be stretched by what he is about to impart. Two groups
are treated of: the living and the dead. Paul states that not all the living would experience physical death
(sleep) before the eschaton. Some would be alive at the Lords return. (Cf. Matt. 16:27, 28; Jno. 21:20-23)
The dead would be raised incorruptible, but we (the living) would be changed. (v. 52) What was this change?
Paul provides the answer in the next verse: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality. (v. 53)
The dead were raised incorruptible, the living were changed by the receipt of immortality. This is often mistaken
to mean that the living would be translated to ethereal realms like Enoch or Elijah (cf. Jno. 21:20-23), but that is

not Pauls meaning. The mortal (living) putting on immortality (eternal life) spoke to the covenantal change by
which the church received the adoption of sonship and redemption from the dominion of sin and death.
Juridical death reigned from Adam to Moses; the law of sin and death could not be satisfied by the blood of bulls
and goats. (Heb. 10:4) Prior to the eschaton, the whole creation (Jews and Gentiles) was under bondage of
corruption and groaned in travail, waiting for the redemption of their collective body. (Rom. 8:19-23; cf. Mk.
16:15; Col. 1:23; Jam. 1:18 on use of the term creature/creation.) In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul spoke of
this as the redemption of the purchased possession. (Eph. 1:14) At the cross, Christ purchased mans
salvation. But the purchased possession (the church) remained to be redeemed; Christ had to return to receive
his bride unto himself. (Cf. Eph. 5:27; cf. Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9) Thus, from the cross to the eschaton, the church
continued under the dominion of sin and death, looking for the redemption, the time when the benefit of Christs
blood would come into full force and effect and they would receive the immortality of divine sonship.
Of course, this immortality is merely juridical and, therefore, conditional. As long as man is in the physical body,
he is subject to temptation to sin and the possibility of apostasy. As John states there is a sin unto death. (I
Jno. 5:16, 17) However, for those who do not sin unto death, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us of
all sin and we remain heirs of eternal life.
Heaven Now?
A strange teaching is afoot in recent times that men are in heaven even while on earth. This error comes from a
misunderstanding of Revelation twenty-one and twenty-two, which describe the new Jerusalem (the church).
The thinking is that this is a picture of heaven on earth. Let it not be mistaken: heaven on earth is not the same
as being in heaven above! Indeed, John states at the very outset that he saw a new "heavens and earth." (Rev.
21:1, 2) Thus, it is not heaven he describes, but earth in the regeneration. Furthermore, John states that he
saw the new Jerusalem descending "out of heaven from God. (Rev. 21:10) Since it descended out of heaven,
the new Jerusalem plainly is not an image of heaven itself. Instead, Revelation twenty-one and twenty-two
portray God coming down from heaven to tabernacle with man, not man ascending to heaven to dwell with God.
They are a portrait of man in a restored relationship to God through Christ; a picture of the church in the
regeneration where the barrier of sin is blotted out and man is admitted anew into Gods presence.

The picture

described is juridical, not actual. There is no new earth in any physical sense; no actual city descended from
heaven. But soteriologically all things have been made new. Man has obtained salvation in Jesus Christ and
been brought anew into God's juridical presence by the blood of the Lamb!
Conclusion
By identifying the different types of life, death, and resurrection present in scripture, we quickly see that the
eschatological resurrection consisted in raising individual souls from Hades. The eschatological change, on the
other hand, was corporate and covenantal; it consisted in the church receiving immortal life. This change is
portrayed in Revelation twenty-one and twenty-two in terms of a new heavens and earth where God's presence
tabernacles with believers in the new Jerusalem, the church. The picture is legal and juridical, not actual; the
believer has been restored to the presence of God in contemplation of law, but he cannot enter Gods actual
presence in heaven until the bodys death.

Notes:

[1] The notion that man will live forever on a new earth is erroneous. The home of the saved is heaven. (Matt.
6:20; Heb. 11:16: I Pet. 1:4)
[2] This does not mean man can earn eternal life by merit; he cannot. It is the gift of God through the atoning
sacrifice of Christ. However, the gift is not unconditional; man must receive it in faith, by repenting of his sins and
obeying the gospel.
[3] Jesus, because he had no earthly father, but was born of the virgin, did not inherit Adams falleness and
thus, was the second Adam, restoring the image of God to mankind. (I Cor. 15:45; Col. 1:15; II Cor. 4:4; Heb.
1:3)
[4] The law of sin and death must be distinguished from the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law subsumed the law of sin
and death, but the latter exists independently of the former. The law of Moses is now done away, but the law of
sin and death remains in force.
[5] Tertullian, On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III. pp. 669, 674, 676.
[6] Whether Tartarus was destroyed may be questioned. There is room to argue that Tartarus still exists as a
place of punishment before the lost suffer eternal death in Gehenna. (See Lk. 12:47, 48) According to this view,
when John states that death and Hades were destroyed, it is understood he spoke only of Paradise; the sea,
being symbolic of Tartarus (Rev. 20:13), was not destroyed.

Resurrection, the Hope of Israel, and the Song of

Moses
SEPTEMBER 18TH Written by Ward Fenley
Though the entire Song of Moses has strong elements of prophecy, this section was particularly striking as it
pertains to the resurrection we now have in Christ. For some time I have contended (and still do) that the fullness
of resurrection comes from the OC Israelite hope of being planted in their land. To them that was resurrection.
And we as Gentiles are grafted into that reality through our life with Christ. I believe that we have nothing short of
what every Israelite throughout redemptive history has. Consider this passage:

Exodus 15:13-17 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast
redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation. {14} The
people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of
Palestina. {15} Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab,
trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt
away. {16} Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they

shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass
over, which thou hast purchased. {17} Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in
the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for
thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.
Remember that the Song of Moses and the song of the Lamb could in very essence be said to be the fulfillment
of the OC hope of Israel and the fulfillment of the NC hope of Israel. First, the elements we see are:
The leading forth of God's people
The redemption of God's people
The guiding of God's people into the holy habitation of God
The nations fearing the people of God
The stilling of the nations before the people of God
The passing over of the people of God into the promised land
The purchasing of God's people
The planting of God's people on the mountain and in the sanctuary of God's inheritance where He dwells.
The reign of God over His people
Paul identified this hope as he testified before the Jews:

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other
Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of
a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Acts 26:6-8 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of
God unto our fathers: {7} Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving
God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am
accused of the Jews. {8} Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that
God should raise the dead?
Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak
with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
When I consider the whole context of redemptive history I see the plain message of Israel's desire: a resurrection
into a heavenly land made by God; an purchase and redemption in order to bring them into that land. Notice that
purchase and redemption are both found in the Song of Moses:

Exodus 15:13 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast
redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.
Exodus 15:16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm
they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people
pass over, which thou hast purchased.
The book of Hebrews clearly declares that Abraham too was hoping in this heavenly land or resurrection:

Hebrews 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a
country.
Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly:
wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them
a city.
Of course that city or heavenly country for which Abraham longed is now inhabited (under the bond of the New
Covenant) by all believers in Jesus Christ:

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
The first century believers were about to enter that city:

Hebrews 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one about (Gk.
mello) to come.
The writer of Hebrews clearly emphasizes the fact that this promise was near or about to happen:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now
that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner
of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day
approaching.
Hebrews 10:36-37 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of
God, ye might receive the promise. {37} For yet a little while, and he that shall come
will come, and will not tarry.
The book of Hebrews deals with the same heavenly country or city, the same promise, and the same
resurrection. This is precisely why chapters 11 and 12 cannot be separated regarding their context. It is
abundantly clear that the writer of Hebrews is showing forth the hope of Israel and its imminence to that firstcentury generation. He is not addressing completely different ideas to be separated by thousands of years.
The question I must ask is this: If one studies the OT context of the hope of Israel and examines all passages
with a hermeneutic that establishes the recurring theme of their hope in being planted in their land, one will also
inevitably find bound in that hope the resurrection of the dead; therefore does it do the redemptive theme justice
to affirm the promises of all the hope of Israel as fulfilled without the fullness of the resurrection or *with* the
fullness of the resurrection? I contend that it is Scripturally far more plausible to see that identifying our being
joined to Israel through faith in Jesus Christ also identifies our being joined to the fullness of the resurrection at
that very moment. In Ezekiel we find a passage that irrefutably supports the synonymity of resurrection and being
planted in their land:

Ezekiel 37:1-14 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the
spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of
bones, {2} And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were
very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. {3} And he said unto me,

Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. {4}
Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry
bones, hear the word of the LORD. {5} Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones;
Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: {6} And I will lay
sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and
put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. {7} So I
prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and
behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. {8} And when I
beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them
above: but there was no breath in them. {9} Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto
the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may
live. {10} So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them,
and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. {11} Then he
said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they
say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. {12}
Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my
people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and
bring you into the land of Israel. {13} And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when
I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
{14} And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your
own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it,
saith the LORD.
I believe that Israel saw this and made this association as well. Certainly the writer of Hebrews did! Consider
again the elements of the redemption and the purchasing of the people of God:

Exodus 15:13 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast
redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.
Exodus 15:16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm
they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people
pass over, which thou hast purchased.
Now recall this passage in Hosea which speaks of this same ransoming:

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them
from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction:
repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
Here God explicitly associates ransom and redemption with the very passage Paul cites to support the
resurrection of the *dead*:

1 Corinthians 15:54-56 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. {55} O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory? {56} The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin
is the law.
Even more fascinating is how Paul associates the law with the curse of *death*. There is only one death
addressed in 1 Corinthians 15, and Paul links that death with the law. This therefore forces the passage to be
referring to its Old Covental relationship. It is all a part of the redemptive goal of Israel.
We must not separate ransom and redemption from the fullness of resurrection in Christ. Through faith in Christ
Israel was resurrected out of their spiritual death under the law into the fullness of ransom and redemption in
Christ. Hence, "the just shall *live* by faith."
We must ask: Have we, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, been ransomed and redeemed? If the answer is
yes, then Hosea tells us what else we have:

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them
from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction:
repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
If we believe that we do not have the fullness of resurrection, then we cannot truly say that we have the fullness
of redemption, for even Paul declared that Israel was still waiting for that fullness which was coming to
completion during the first century:

Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed
with that holy Spirit of promise, {14} Which is the earnest of our inheritance until
the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto
the day of redemption.
Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit,
the redemption of our body.
Individual bodies comprised the OC body (singular) to which Paul is referring inasmuch as individual bodies
comprise the NC body of Christ. Because the OC body was waiting for the individual justification of the last of the
remnant (Romans 11; 2 Pet 3) its transition state had to be identified by Paul:

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the
Lord, are being changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the
Spirit of the Lord.
The glories here are the OC and NC glories which Paul contrasts. But again, this is found in OC prophecy:

Haggai 2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith
the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The image is Christ, into which image they were being changed. They looked for the fullness of that image as
individual elect Israelites were coming to faith in Christ:

1 Corinthians 15:47-49 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the
Lord from heaven. {48} As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as
is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. {49} And as we have borne the
image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
There is only one redemption, ransom, and image, which were all the hope and goal of OC Israel. Hence:

Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:55-56 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
{56} The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
If we do not have the fullness of resurrection, then in some sense we too must still be tied to the law. I just cannot
perceive of Paul addressing two entirely different deaths or resurrections in 1 Corinthians 15. I believe he is
addressing the same hope of Israel from spiritual death and her longing for the heavenly country along with
Abraham, her father. My contention is that the whole context of 1 Corinthians 15 is not dealing with physical
death but rather covenantal death under the law. Otherwise Paul would have never addressed this. Orthodox
Christianity has tried to affirm that Paul was addressing physical death, but one finds commentaries who support
this idea void of any significant or credible explanation of verse 56:

1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
But Paul goes to greater lengths to convince us that the fullness of resurrection is bound in OC prophecies and
not to be disassociated from the theme of one salvation:

1 Corinthians 15:54 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.
From where does Paul get this "saying"?

Isaiah 25 O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for
thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth. {2}
For thou hast made of a city an heap; of a defenced city a ruin: a palace of
strangers to be no city; it shall never be built. {3} Therefore shall the strong people
glorify thee, the city of the terrible nations shall fear thee. {4} For thou hast been a
strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm,
a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the
wall. {5} Thou shalt bring down the noise of strangers, as the heat in a dry place;
even the heat with the shadow of a cloud: the branch of the terrible ones shall be

brought low. {6} And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people
a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of
wines on the lees well refined. {7} And he will destroy in this mountain the face of
the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. {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. {9} And it shall be said in that day, 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. {10} For in this mountain shall the hand
of the LORD rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is
trodden down for the dunghill. {11} And he shall spread forth his hands in the midst
of them, as he that swimmeth spreadeth forth his hands to swim: and he shall bring
down their pride together with the spoils of their hands. {12} And the fortress of the
high fort of thy walls shall he bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to
the dust.
God associates salvation, the wiping away of tears, the rejoicing of God's peole, the feasting of God's people,
and the destruction of Jerusalem with the swallowing up of death in victory. Unless we fall under the category of
the first century saints who were still in the process of being changed, we must affirm that all these promises of
God are fulfilled in us through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ-again, "the just shall live by faith."
Isaiah predicted that at this time it would be said, "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."
He associates the salvation with the swallowing up of death in victory. If this is fulfilled through faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ, then Paul's allusion is clear:

1 Corinthians 15:55-57 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
{56} The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. {57} But thanks be
to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews deals with this same first-century expectation:

Hebrews 10:34-39 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the
spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and
an enduring substance. {35} Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath
great recompense of reward. {36} For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have
done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. {37} For yet a little while, and he
that shall come will come, and will not tarry. {38} Now the just shall live by faith:
but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. {39} But we are
not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of
the soul.

Please note that in the passage in 1 Corinthians the victory is through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is very similar
to:

Romans 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of
this death? {25} I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. {2} For the law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. {3} For
what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: {4}
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit.
Paul speaks of the abolition of death as synonymous with the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law...and
how? "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So then as we return to the passage in Exodus we are able to scrutinize with greater discernment the hope of
Israel and its inseparable conclusion of ransom, redemption, and planting in their land on the mountain of God
where He dwells:

Exodus 15:13-18 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast
redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation. {14} The
people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of
Palestina. {15} Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab,
trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt
away. {16} Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they
shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass
over, which thou hast purchased. {17} Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in
the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for
thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established. {18}
The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.
We are the inheritance in which God dwells. But where then is this inheritance dwelling? We can only find this out
by understanding where God dwells:

Isaiah 57:13-19 When thou criest, let thy companies deliver thee; but the wind shall
carry them all away; vanity shall take them: but he that putteth his trust in me
shall possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain; {14} And shall say, Cast
ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of
my people. {15} For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,
whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a
contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart
of the contrite ones. {16} For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always

wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made. {17}
For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was
wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart. {18} I have seen his ways,
and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his
mourners. {19} I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and
to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.
Truly this was the great desire of our God, Jesus Christ:

John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many mansions (dwelling places): if it were
not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. {3} And if I go and
prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where
I am, there ye may be also.
But Judas (not Iscariot) wondered how this could be possible without the world noticing:

John 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt
manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Christ's answer:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our
mansion (dwelling place) with him.
Christ's prayer of desiring to be with His people (something we have seen was His desire throughout the history
of OC Israel) is fulfilled:

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me
where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou
lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
They were in the process of being built up a spiritual house in which God was dwelling:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are being built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
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.
But they had to separate themselves from those who refused to come out of the bondage of the law of sin and
death:

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate,
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, {18} And
will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord
Almighty.
Notice the end result: He would receive them and they would be His sons. Luke associates this familial
relationship with resurrection:

Luke 20:34-36 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world
marry, and are given in marriage: {35} But they which shall be accounted worthy
to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are
given in marriage: {36} Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the
angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
Christ was not introducing a new redemptive motif. He was rather establishing that which all the prophets
emphasized, and that is the hope of Israel's resurrection. The problem is that the unbelieving Jews associated it
with physical and carnal things such as physical marriage and physical corporeal death. But Christ and Paul
explicitly teach the resurrection and "living unto God" as summarized as being in Christ:

John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that
believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: {26} And whosoever liveth
and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Regardless of whether John is addressing dead and living believers, the end result is clear: those who believe in
the Lord Jesus Christ will never die. And indeed Paul taught that being in Christ is living unto God:

Romans 6:10-11 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he
liveth unto God. {11} Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Luke taught that in the resurrection they would be called the children of God or the sons of God:

Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and
are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
They are equal to the angels ("ye have come to the spirits of just men made perfect and to an innumerable
company of angels [angels are spirits]" ) and they are the sons or children of God:

2 Corinthians 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
This is all related to the ransom and purchase of the people of God, which was the goal of the death of Christ:

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:
for he shall save his people from their sins.
And thus He would restore them and plant them into the spiritual kingdom of Christ, over which kingdom He
would reign forever:

Luke 1:31-33 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS. {32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
{33} And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there
shall be no end.
This of course takes our minds immediately back to our intial context:

Exodus 15:18 The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.
Some might argue that the last passage was from the song of Moses, not the song of the Lamb. But the Bible
says:

Revelation 15:3-8 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song
of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just
and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. {4} Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and
glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship
before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. {5} And after that I looked, and,
behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened: {6}
And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in
pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. {7} And
one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the
wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever. {8} And the temple was filled with
smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter
into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.
From the above text it is clear that the wrath poured out upon apostate Israel would satisfy God to the extent that
the holiest of all would at last be opened to the eagerly awaiting congregation. That outpouring of wrath in those
seven plagues would take place at the last trump:

Revelation 11:15-19 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in
heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord,
and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. {16} And the four and twenty
elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped
God, {17} Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast,
and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
{18} And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead,

that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants
the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and
shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. {19} And the temple of God was
opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and
there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great
hail.
All the elements are there: the reward to the servants, the judgment of the dead and the opening of the holiest of
all. Keep in mind that this reward would come quickly before some of the apostles died:

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give
every man according as his work shall be.
Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. {28} Verily I
say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Was this reward prophesied?

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall
rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
The whole context in Isaiah deals with the appearance of John the Baptist. It would seem very strange for Isaiah
to suddenly interject within the context an event that would not happen until thousands of years after John died.
Isaiah speaks more on this subject:

Isaiah 62:11-12 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say
ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with
him, and his work before him. {12} And they shall call them, The holy people, The
redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.
Isaiah simply cannot separate this reward from salvation, redemption, and this city of God- a city to which the
writer of Hebrews says that the first-century believers had come (Heb. 12:22). And of course Isaiah identifies this
kingdom people as the holy people of God. The phrase "not forsaken" can be related to Hebrews 13 where God
says "I will never leave you nor forsake you," and then a few verses later declares that they were about to come
to this city. The theme of reward stood out in the minds of Jews as that hope of Israel, the resurrection of the
dead.
Remember, this would all be fulfilled at the last trump as we saw in Revelation and in 1 Corinthians 15, the wellknown resurrection text:

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed, {52} In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall
be changed.

This of course is part of the greater resurrection context:

1 Corinthians 15:53-57 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. {55} O death,
where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? {56} The sting of death is sin; and
the strength of sin is the law. {57} But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ.
It all surrounds the swallowing up of death in victory through the judgment of God in pouring out His wrath upon
Israel. The destruction of the OC Temple was the outward sign that God had brought His people into the
complete union He promised for those in Christ.
And what was the timing of this trumpet and redemption:

Matthew 24:31-34 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet,
and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven
to the other. {32} Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender,
and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: {33} So likewise ye, when ye
shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. {34} Verily I say
unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
And even more powerfully, Christ predicts:

Luke 21:28-32 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift
up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. {29} And he spake to them a
parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; {30} When they now shoot forth, ye
see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. {31} So likewise
ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh
at hand. {32} Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be
fulfilled.
There redemption was said to be at hand as they saw those things come to pass. The trumpet would be blown
and the people of God would be delivered from the curse of the law of sin and death. They would be resurrected
(planted) into the glorious kingdom of Christ. The just would "live by faith."
In light of the whole context of redemptive history, it is evident that we must not isolate 1 Corinthians 15 from the
entire biblical expectation of Israel and her hope of the resurrection. Paul was a Jew who had the same hope and
understood the implications of the resurrection. It was to ransom, redeem, and resurrect the people of God out of
spiritual death into the fullness of life in Christ. Again, 1 Corinthians 15 is contrasting the New Covenant elements
of life and righteousness with the Old Covenant elements of death and sin. This must not be overlooked. And
when the entire Biblical theme is grasped, our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 will more accurately represent

the message of the prophets and the significance of all things being fulfilled through faith in Jesus Christ in this
everlasting New Covenant age:

Luke 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel:
and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Luke 24:25-27 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that
the prophets have spoken: {26} Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and
to enter into his glory? {27} And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44-45 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. {45} Then
opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures
In Christ,
Ward

The Resurrection from the Dead

SEPTEMBER 01ST Written by David Curtis
Philippians 3:11
We are going to spend our time this morning studying what the Bible teaches about the resurrection. Paul said in
Philippians 3 that he had forsaken his own righteousness and trusted only and completely in Christ "in order that"
he might attain the resurrection from the dead.
Philippians 3:11 (NASB) in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
What exactly did Paul mean by this? What is the resurrection? We will attempt to answer these questions this
morning.
Let's begin by reviewing the context of this verse. The theme of Philippians 3:4-11 is justification by faith alone.
The key verse in this section is:

Philippians 3:9 (NKJV) and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but
that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
Paul sees only two kinds of righteousness: 1. Self-righteousness which leads to damnation. 2. God's
righteousness given through faith which equals salvation. This is the righteousness that Paul wanted to have, that
which comes by faith in Christ. This is speaking of justification by faith alone.
In verse 8, Paul tells us he is no longer trusting in his own righteousness in order that he may gain Christ. Then in
verses 9-11, he tells us what it means to gain Christ. In verse 9, he tells us that to gain Christ means to receive
His righteousness. Then he goes on in verses 10-11 to explain further what it means to gain Christ.

I see all of the things he mentions in verse 10 to be results of justification. Paul "suffered the loss of all things,
and counted them as dung" in order that he may "gain Christ." And gaining Christ means: "Receiving his
righteousness, knowing him, knowing the power of his resurrection, knowing the fellowship of his suffering, and
being make like him in our death to sin."
Philippians 3:11 (NASB) in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Paul "suffered the loss of all things and counted them as dung in order that he may attain to the resurrection from
the dead. The Greek word that Paul uses here for "resurrection" is exanastasi. This Greek word is only used here
in all the New Testament. It is the word anastasis, which means: "resurrection." with the preposition ek in front of
it which is the equivalent of "out". This is literally, "the out resurrection out from the corpses."
This verse is speaking of the resurrection of the righteous. The resurrection of the righteous will take them out of
the total number of those dead.
Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament says, "Apparently Paul is thinking here only of the resurrection
of believers out from the dead, and so double ex (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). Paul is not denying a general
resurrection by this language, but emphasizing that of believers."
What exactly did Paul mean by "the resurrection"? The traditional view that is held by most of the church is this:
When a believer dies, their body goes into the grave and their spirit goes to heaven to be with the Lord. They are
in a disembodied state awaiting the resurrection at the end of time. Then at the end of time the Lord returns,
resurrects all the decayed bodies of the dead saints, puts them back together, then changes the physically
resurrected bodies into spiritual immortal bodies like Christ's. Does that sound like what you have been taught?
Have you ever thought about how the Lord will put all those decayed bodies back together. Will He re-gather and
reassemble all the scattered atoms and molecules which composed individual bodies at the time of death? This
problem is addressed by M.C. Tenney in his book, The Reality of the Resurrection:

When the body of Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, was
exhumed for reburial, it was found that the root of an apple tree had penetrated the
head of the coffin and had followed down Williams' spine, dividing into a fork at the
legs. The tree had absorbed the chemicals of the decaying body and had transmuted
them into its wood and fruit. The apples, in turn, had been eaten by people, quite
unconscious of the fact that they were indirectly taking into their systems part of
the long-dead Williams. The objection may therefore be raised: How, out of the
complex sequence of decay, absorption, and new formation, will it be possible to
resurrect believers of past ages, and to reconstitute them as separate entities?
This problem of joint ownership of atoms and molecules is a big problem. After death, various body particles
returned to dust, reentered the food chain, got assimilated into plants, eaten by animals, and digested into
countless other human bodies. At the resurrection, who gets which atoms and molecules back? As you can see,
it can get quite complicated. Another thing that bothered me was why does God raise our dead decayed bodies,
put them all back together just to change them into immortal spiritual bodies?

That is basically what the church teaches abut the resurrection, but is it what the Bible teaches? Paul clearly
taught that the resurrection was the hope of Israel.

Acts 23:6 (NKJV) But when Paul perceived that one part were
Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men
and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the
hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!"
Acts 24:15 (NKJV) "I have hope in God, which they themselves also
accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and
the unjust.
Acts 28:20 (NKJV) "For this reason therefore I have called for you, to
see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound
with this chain."
Acts 26:6-8 (NKJV) "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the
promise made by God to our fathers. 7 "To this promise our twelve
tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this
hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. 8 "Why should it
be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?
It is clear from this last verse that Paul sees the resurrection of the dead as that which fulfills "the hope of the
promise made by God unto our fathers."
The word "resurrection" does not appear in the Old Testament, but the concept does.

Daniel 12:2 (NASB) "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the
ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace
and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:13 (NASB) "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you
will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of
the age."
Here we see a resurrection at the end of the age.

THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF RESURRECTION:

It is interesting to note that the Bible never uses the terms "resurrected body," "resurrection of the body," or
"physical resurrection." Does that surprise you? The church uses those term quite often, but the Bible never
does. The phrases that the Bible does use are "the resurrection of the dead" and "the resurrection from the
dead."
So, in order to understand "resurrection" we must understand death. Resurrection is "resurrection from the dead."
To understand death we need to go back to the book of beginnings, Genesis. In the book of Genesis we see God
creating man:

Genesis 2:7-8 (NKJV) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man

became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in

Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
After creating man, God placed him in the garden of Eden and gave him a command.

Genesis 2:15-17 (NKJV) Then the LORD God took the man and put him in
the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God
commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may
freely eat; 17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall
not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
God warned Adam, regarding the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "the day that you eat of it
you shall surely die." Adam disobeyed God and ate of the tree:

Genesis 3:6 (NKJV) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one
wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with
her, and he ate.
Did Adam die that day? Not physically! Adam lived at least 800 years beyond the day he ate the fruit. But, God
said he would die the day he ate and we know that God cannot lie. Adam did not die physically that day, but he
did die spiritually. He died spiritually the moment he disobeyed. Spiritual death is separation from God.

Isaiah 59:1-2 (NKJV) Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, That it
cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. 2 But your
iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have
hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.
Ephesians 2:1-5 (NKJV) And you He made alive, who were dead in
trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course
of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all
once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires
of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just
as the others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love
with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made
us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
Because of his sin, man was separated from God. He was dead in trespasses and sins. The focus of God's plan
of redemption is to restore through Jesus Christ what man had lost in Adam.

Romans 5:18-19 (NKJV) Therefore, as through one man's (Adam)

offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so
through one Man's (Jesus) righteous act the free gift came to all men,
resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be
made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21 (NKJV) For since by man came death, by Man also
came the resurrection of the dead.
Because of Adam's sin, we are all born dead, separated from God. But through Jesus Christ came the
resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the devil:

1 John 3:8 (NKJV) He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned
from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested,
that He might destroy the works of the devil.
What were the works of the devil? They were to separate man from God. Jesus Christ came to redeem man from
death, to resurrect man back into the presence of God. The Bible is God's book, about His plan to restore the
spiritual union of His creation. Resurrection is not about bringing physical bodies out of the graves, it is about
restoring man into the presence of God.

SHEOL AND HADES.

Prior to Jesus' messianic work, no one went to Heaven:

John 3:13 (NKJV) "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came
down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
If prior to Jesus' messianic work, no one went to Heaven-- where did people go when they died? They went to a
holding place of the dead and waited for the atoning work of Christ and the resurrection from the dead.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for where they were prior to the resurrection is Sheol. In the New
Testament the Greek word is Hades. What this place amounted to was a waiting area for disembodied spirits.
The Old Testament uses the word "Sheol" to refer to a place in the depths of the earth. The expressions, "go
down" or "brought down" are used twenty times in connection with Sheol. The "depths of Sheol" are mentioned
six times (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; Prov. 9:18; 15:24; Isa. 7:11; 14:15). Four times Sheol is described as the
farthest point from heaven (Job 11:8; Ps. 139:8; Isa. 7:11; Amos 9:2). Often Sheol is parallel with the "pit" (Job
17:13-14; 33:18; Ps. 30:3; 88:3-4; Prov. 1:12; Isa. 14:15; 38:18; Ezek. 31:14-17). Nine times it is parallel with
death (2 Sam. 22:6; Ps. 18:4-5; 49:14; 89:48; 116:3; Prov. 5:5; Isa. 28:15,18; Hos. 13:14; Hab. 2:5). Sheol is
described in terms of overwhelming floods, water, or waves (Jonah 2:2-6). Sometimes, Sheol is pictured as a
hunter setting snares for its victim, binding them with cords, snatching them from the land of the living (2 Sam
22:6; Job 24:19; Ps. 116:3). Sheol is a prison with bars, a place of no return (Job 7:9; 10:21; 16:22; 21:13; Ps.
49:14; Isa. 38:10). People could go to Sheol alive (Num. 16:30,33; Ps. 55:15; Prov. 1:12).
In Jewish tradition, it was also known as "Abraham's bosom" since at death, the faithful Israelite was said to be
"gathered unto his fathers." Whatever it was called, it was not Heaven.

Acts 2:29 (NKJV) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with
us to this day.
Acts 2:34 (NKJV) "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he
says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,

David was dead, but he did not go to Heaven. But he had a promise that he someday would. God had promised
to redeem His people from the grave:

Hosea 13:14 (NKJV) "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I
will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave,
I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.
Psalms 49:15 (NKJV) But God will redeem my soul from the power of
the grave, For He shall receive me. Selah
This verse expresses hope that God will provide salvation beyond the grave, one of the few Old Testament
references to life after death. This verse anticipates the clear New Testament teaching of life after death, and
eternal life, and salvation from God.
The earliest Christians saw this as a reference to Christ's resurrection. What the psalmist saw as God's
providential care in present danger, Jesus knew was God's ultimate caring and power to bring life from death.
All people were believed to go to Sheol when they die:

Psalms 89:48 (NASB) What man can live and not see death? Can he
deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah.
To be taken out of Sheol and brought into the presence of the Lord is what the Bible calls resurrection. Daniel
spoke of this in:

Daniel 12:2 (NASB) "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the
ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace
and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:13 (NASB) "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you
will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of
the age."
THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION
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 12:1-2 (NKJV) "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great
prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall
be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even
to that time. 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.
Daniel says that this resurrection will come after a time of great trouble for the Jewish nation. That sounds just
like:

Matthew 24:21 (NKJV) "For then there will be great tribulation, such as
has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor
ever shall be.
Here, Jesus is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Notice also verse 3:

Daniel 12:3 (NKJV) Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness
of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the
stars forever and ever.
Now compare that with:

Matthew 13:40-43 (NKJV) "Therefore as the tares are gathered and

burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 "The Son of Man
will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all
things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 "and will
cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of
teeth. 43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom
of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Both Daniel 12 and Matthew 13 are speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The resurrection is an
event that was to happened in AD 70.
Verses 4 and 8 of Daniel 12 identify this time as "the time of the end."

Daniel 12:4 (NKJV) "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the
book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and
knowledge shall increase."
Daniel 12:8 (NKJV) Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said,
"My lord, what shall be the end of these things?"
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 answers in:

Daniel 12:7 (NKJV) Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was
above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his
left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be
for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy
people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.
This again speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In verse 12, Daniel connects the resurrection to the
abomination that makes desolate.

Daniel 12:11 (NKJV) "And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken
away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one
thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Jesus referred to this in Matthew 24:15, in discussing the fall of Jerusalem.

The last verse in Daniel 12, records a promise given to Daniel about his own personal resurrection.

Daniel 12:13 (NKJV) "But you, go your way till the end; for you shall
rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."
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.

John 11:23-24 (NKJV) Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the
resurrection at the last day."
Jesus taught that the resurrection would happen on the last day:

John 6:39-40 (NKJV) "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of
all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the
last day. 40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who
sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will
raise him up at the last day."
John 6:44 (NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent
Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 (NKJV) "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
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."

1 Peter 1:20 (NKJV) He indeed was foreordained before the foundation

of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
Jesus came during the last days of the age that was the Old Covenant age, the Jewish age. That age came to an
end with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NKJV) God, who at various times and in various ways
spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last
days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,
through whom also He made the worlds;
Jesus was speaking in the last days. What last days? The last days of the Bible's "this age" -- the Old Covenant
age.

Hebrews 9:26 (NKJV) He then would have had to suffer often since the
foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
When was it that Jesus appeared? He was born, not at the beginning, but at the end of the ages. 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, indicates that the resurrection
was to occur at the changing of the ages:

Luke 20:34-35 (NKJV) And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons
of this age (the Old Covenant age) marry and are given in marriage. 35
"But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, (the New
Covenant age) and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor
are given in marriage;
The resurrection was not something that was available to them in "this age" (the Old Covenant age) but would be
available to them in "that age" (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 (NKJV) "I have hope in God, which they themselves also
accept, that there will be (mello -about to be) a resurrection of the dead,
both of the just and the unjust.
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 and 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.
We can see from the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus several things about the resurrection beliefs of the
early Christians.

2 Timothy 2:17-18 (NKJV) And their message will spread like cancer.
Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed
concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and
they overthrow the faith of some.
They must have believed that the resurrection would be spiritual in nature, and, therefore, not subject to
confirmation by any physical evidence. If the early Christians had believed that the resurrection would involve the

physical bodies coming out of the graves, as is taught today, Hymenaius and Philitus could never have convinced
anyone that the resurrection had already happened.
They also must have believed that life on earth would go on with no material change after the resurrection. They
didn't believe that they would be on a renovated planet earth as a consequence of the resurrection. Otherwise,
the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus would have been impossible. No one would have paid any attention to
them.
The reason that their teaching that the resurrection has already happened was overthrowing the faith of some
was that it postulated a consummation of the spiritual kingdom, while the earthly temple in Jerusalem still stood.
This was a mixture of law and grace. This destroyed the faith of some by making the works of the law a part of
the New Covenant.

WAS CHRIST PHYSICALLY RESURRECTED?

YES! Absolutely, without a doubt. Since Christ's resurrection was physical, won't ours be? NO! Christ's actual
resurrection was His going to Hades and coming back out. When he was resurrected from Hades, He was raised
into his original body, which was transformed into His heavenly form. This was done as a SIGN to the apostles
that he had done what He had promised. The resurrection of Jesus' body verified for His disciples, the
resurrection of His soul. David had prophesied:

Psalms 16:10 (NKJV) For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will
You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Peter preached that David looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of Christ:

Acts 2:31 (NKJV) "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection
of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see
corruption.
These verses speak of both spiritual death (the soul in hades) and physical death (decay of the flesh). Jesus was
resurrected from both.
The reason there are differences in the way we are raised and the way in which Christ was raised is because of
those Biblically defined differences between Christ's body and ours. Differences such as:
Christ is the only one who is both fully God and fully Man -- God incarnate. (John 1:1-18). Christ is the only one
who was virgin born, and, therefore, born without original sin. (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:12-21; 7:4-11; etc.). Christ is the
only one who ever lived a sinless life. (Heb. 4:15). Christ is the only one promised that his flesh would not suffer
decay. (Acts 2:27,31).
His human body was not subject to original sin, nor corruptible (i.e. He was "impeccable"), nor did He ever
commit sin and become corrupted. Because of this, He could keep His selfsame body, whereas, we cannot.
Unless Jesus' body had been resurrected, His disciples would have had no assurance that His soul had been to
Hades and had been resurrected. The physical resurrection of Christ was essential to verify the spiritual, to which
it was tied. While the physical resurrection of our bodies would have no point, since we will not continue living on
this planet, breathing earth's oxygen, and eating earth's food after we die physically.

WHAT HAPPENS TO US AT DEATH?

Since the resurrection is past, what happens to believers when they die? Their physical body goes back to dust
from which it came:

Ecclesiastes 3:20 (NKJV) All go to one place: all are from the dust, and
all return to dust.
And their spirit is united to their spiritual body and goes to be with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:35-38 (NKJV) But someone will say, "How are the dead
raised up? And with what body do they come?" 36 Foolish one, what
you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, YOU DO
NOT SOW THAT BODY THAT SHALL BE, but mere grain; perhaps
wheat or some other grain. 38 But GOD GIVES IT A BODY as He
pleases, and to each seed its own body.
We get the same kind of body Christ has, but we do not get it the same way He got His, nor do we get our same
physical body back like Christ did. We get a new spiritual body which arises out of the inner man. God gives us a
spiritual body!

1 Corinthians 15:44-46 (NKJV) It is sown a natural body, it is RAISED A

SPIRITUAL BODY. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living
being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the
spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
This affirms two different kinds of bodies. Our natural body dies, and we receive a spiritual body. Paul says, "IT IS
RAISED A SPIRITUAL BODY."
Those of us who have trusted Christ in the New Covenant age, have life and do not need to be resurrected.

John 11:25-26 (NKJV) 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?"
Jesus is saying, "He who believes in me shall live (spiritually), even if he dies (physically), and everyone who
lives (physically), and believes in Me, shall never die (spiritually)."
Two categories of believers are discussed: those who would die before the resurrection and those who would
not. For those who died under the Old Covenant, He was the Resurrection, but for those who lived into the days
of the New Covenant, He is the Life.
Under the New Covenant, there is no death, spiritually speaking:

1 Corinthians 15:54-57 (NKJV) So when this corruptible has put on

incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in
victory." 55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your

victory?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Revelation 21:4 (NKJV) "And God will wipe away every tear from their
eyes; THERE SHALL BE NO MORE DEATH, nor sorrow, nor crying.
There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
Where there is no death, there is no need of a resurrection. We have eternal life and can never die spiritually.
Therefore, we don't need a resurrection. At death, we go immediately to heaven in our spiritual body.
The resurrection was a one time event in which the Old Testament saints were brought out of Hades and finally
overcame death to be with the Lord. We have put on immortality and will put on our immortal body when we die
physically. As believers, we live in the presence of God, and in physical death, we simply drop the flesh and dwell
only in the spiritual realm.

The Dead Are Raised

The above title is selected from the passage in Luke 20:37-38. "Now that the dead are raised even Moses
shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of
the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him." On this occasion, Jesus was countering an objection of the
Sadducees who did not believe in spirits or the resurrection, (Acts 23:6). They were materialists. Proudly, they
presented what in their minds was a thorny problem for those who believed and advocated the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead, (Lk. 20:27-33). Their opposition, at least in part, was based on a physical and
materialistic viewpoint of the nature of the resurrection. While many today do not deny that a resurrection is
taught in scripture, or that spirits exist, they do, however, freely adopt the "leaven of the Sadducees" regarding
the nature of the resurrection. And, as a direct result of this misperception, they miss the fact of the resurrection
which Jesus affirmed in scripture.
The error of the Sadducees was twofold as critiqued by Jesus' reply, "...Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God," (Matt.22:29). However, the Sadducees deserve some credit that many today would be
unworthy to claim. Of what do we speak? Namely, that when Jesus answered their objection to the resurrection
on the grounds that it did not consist in the fleshly dimension of the Jewish aeon (this age) but in the eternal new
covenant aeon (age to come) wherein sonship in Christ is equated with resurrection, the Sadducees apparently
understood and from that time forward never presented their argument based on physical concepts to the Lord
again, (Lk.22:34-40).
Unfortunately, many today are lacking in the wisdom of the Sadducees, for they continually make the
argument which these ancient and skilled theologian polemicists readily abandoned! They along with the
Pharisees were quite astute in perceiving the logic of Christ and usually choose silence rather than to repeat their
blunders.
Paul plainly demonstrated that as sons of God in Christ, "...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus," (Gal.3:27-28). Hence, there is absolutely no possible manner in view of this spiritual "oneness"
to get a "twain" of anything to become one flesh as demanded by physical marriages. Jesus' no "marriage nor

giving in marriage" theology in the resurrection of the new covenant aeon no more precludes marriages in the
flesh today than does Paul's theology of `neither male nor female' in Christ precludes men and women today.
ARE THE DEAD RAISED?
However, the question remains, are the dead raised? Since Jesus appealed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
this is a good starting place to begin our inquiry. The resurrection of these patriarchs was discussed earlier in
Matt.8:11-12. "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
When Jesus spoke these words, Abraham, his son, and grandson were in hades, Lk.16:22. As late as the
writing of Hebrews this trio of patriarchs was yet of the number of Old Testament worthies who desired the
heavenly country or resurrection, (Heb.11:8-16). Having died in faith, they were yet (about A.D. 64) awaiting the
promise of resurrection into the eternal kingdom, (Heb.11:39-40). Although the time was then future, it was not in
the far distant future for the city for which they looked was about to come, (Heb.13:14), and was said to be at
hand, (Rev.1:1,3; 21:2).
It is the conviction of this writer that the Bible clearly indicates the fact and time that Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob were raised from the dead. Read again Matt.8:11-12, only this time consider the parallel text of Lk. 13:2430. The context manifestly involves the period of God's longsuffering to the Jews of the first century for when the
Master rises up to shut the door, they stand knocking saying, "...Lord open unto us...we have have eaten and
drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets," (Lk.13:25-26). This is a clear reference to judgment
for Jesus says (1) "I know you not, depart from me ye workers of iniquity." Compare Matt 7:24. (2) That judgment
would result in the Jews being cast out of the kingdom with weeping and gnashing of teeth. (3) The time of this
judgment equals the time that the patriarchs as well as the saints from the east, west, north and south sit down or
inherit the kingdom and corresponds with their resurrection.
GATHERING FROM THE FOUR WINDS
Jesus speaks of the gathering of the elect from the four winds during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. "And he
shall gather his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four
winds, from one end of heaven to the other, (Matt.24:31; Mk.13:27). There is no difference in gathering saints
from the east, west, north and south and in gathering them from the "four winds" which are clearly poetic
expressions of the same thing. The time of Matt.24:31 is unquestionably before that first century generation
passed. "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled, (Matt.24:34). As
stated earlier, this gathering coincides chronologically with the inheritance of the eternal kingdom by Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob with all the prophets, (Lk.13:28). Thus, their resurrection out of hades occurred before that firstcentury generation passed. The closing of the "gap theory" between Matthew chapters 24 and 25 (24:35 or 36),
contrary to the opinion of some beautifully shows the resurrection alluded to in Matt.24:31, to be contextually and
chronologically parallel to inheriting the kingdom in Matt.25:34. These chapters form an expansion of Jesus'
abbreviated treatment of this subject in Matt.8:11,12 and Lk.13:24-29.
THE TRUMPET SOUNDED IN A.D. 70
In addition, it is not without significance that this gathering of the saints in Matt.24:31, is preceded by the great
sound or voice (marginal rendering) of a trumpet. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob heard "this" trumpet. It therefore
signaled the universal gathering of saints from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven,

(Mk.13:27; 2 Thess.2:1; Heb.10:25), as well as the raising of the patriarchs and prophets from the dead,
(Rom.4:16; Heb.11:39-40). This can be none other than the trump of God of 1 Thess.4:16, and the last trump of 1
Cor.15:52. If not, then do the scriptures teach two separate gatherings preceded by two universal trumpets? Why
make them all the more confusing (a fact evidenced by the attempt to divide Matthew 24), by placing them both
at a coming of Christ, a consummation of an age, a gathering together of the elect in the clouds, and an inheriting
of the kingdom, (Matt.8:11-12, 24:3, 30-31, 34; 1 Cor.15:23-24, 50-52; 1 Thess.4:14-17)? It should be readily
apparent that the trumpet is one and the same. Equally certain is the fact that Matthew 24 places the sounding of
that trumpet at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, before that first-century generation passed, (Matt.24:31,34).
In conclusion, Jesus demonstrated the spiritual nature of the resurrection to the Sadducees. The latter, clearly
grasping the transparent weakness of their fleshly concepts against it, retreated from the resurrection battlefield
in silence. Further, Jesus demonstrated the historical certainty of the resurrection by placing it chronologically in
harmony with the most profound and datable catastrophe of covenantal history, the fall of the Jewish
Commonwealth in A.D. 70. The resurrection of scripture is replete with benchmarks of first-century witness. None
other generation could claim that Jesus had drunk in their presence and taught in their streets. Of no other is it
said that he would gather his elect from the four winds, which undeniably includes the patriarchs, with the
sounding of the trumpet at his coming in the clouds of heaven as he did upon that first-century generation. Yes,
the dead are raised. Hades has been destroyed. The way into the holiest of all is now manifest. Thanks be to
God who gave us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. May God bless all of us with the "eyes of
understanding" that we may truly see, not by burying our heads in the tombs or by stretching our necks to the
clouds above but by examining the testimony of scripture that we be not faithless but believing.

Challenging Concepts Of The Resurrection

It is clear that for some, that resurrection can only mean the rising of a human body from the grave. "What ever
there is about man that "lies down" when he dies, is that which will "stand up" at the time of the resurrection.
What is there of man that lies down at death; is it his soul? Of course not, it is his body. The word resurrection
itself, therefore, suggests the eventual raising up of the human body." (The A.D.70 Theory, by Wayne Jackson,
p.57).
One of the first steps in understanding any subject is to grasp an understanding of the terms. The term
"resurrection" is used in a much wider scope than the average person allows. As above, some confine its use
only to a dead body rising from the grave. However, various sources reveal a wider usage of the term
resurrection.
First, "resurrection" comes from the Greek word anastasis. This is a compound word. The first part, ana means
"up" and the second, stasis means "a standing" (from histemi, to cause to stand). Therefore, the very simple and
basic meaning appears to be "a standing up."
Further, when used as a verb, it can be either transitive (with an object) or intransitive (without an object). When
the transitive form anistemi is used, the object (that which is raised) does not inhere in the word and is no part of
the word. One must carefully consider the context to determine what is raised. When this is observed and
practiced it will guard one from unwarranted assumptions which result from an indiscriminate use of the word. On
the other hand, the subject does not inhere in the word when the intransitive form is used. Again, the context
determines who or what rises.

Secondly, an examination of the various uses of the word will help one to understand the foregoing comments.
The definition of anistemi given by Thayer is, "to cause to rise, raise up." Observe that Thayer does not say what
is raised up. Next, he lists four usages of the word:
a. of one lying (or sitting) down;
"And he gave her his hand, and lifted (raised) her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented
her alive," (Acts 9:41).
b. to raise up, to cause to be born;
"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed
unto his brother," (Matt. 22:24). "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne," ( Acts 2:30).
c. to cause to appear, bring forward;
"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like
unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you, (Acts 3:22).
d. to raise up from death (both spiritual and physical)
"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again at the last day, (Jno. 6:39).
"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses," (Acts 2:32).
From the passages listed above, consider the following observations. One, the word "lifted" (KJV) is the word
used for the resurrection. Dorcas, after having been brought back to life, was sitting when Peter extended his
hand and "raised her up," (Acts 9:40,41). That raising up was not from the dead but from the position of sitting to
that of standing. This was a literal standing up on one's feet, yet the term for resurrection is used. Hence, the
context forbids the use of the word to refer to the rising of a body from the dead.
Next, the word is used in reference to bringing one into existence at birth. "Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man
die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother, (Matt. 22:24). This
denotes a raising up of that individual yet it is not a raising of his body from biological death. The figure of
"resurrection" as a birth was also understood and used by Paul. "And he is the head of the body, the church: Who
is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence," (Col. 1:18). Paul
speaks of resurrection as a birth while the Sadducees used a birth as an illustration of anastasis.
Third, the term means to cause to appear (manifest or reveal) or to bring forward. "For Moses truly said unto the
fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in
all things whatsoever he shall say unto you," (Acts 3:22). Note that God would "raise up" or cause to stand a
prophet. This passage seems to point to the manifesting of Jesus to Israel which was done in a public and
extraordinary manner. Jesus' personal ministry began when he was about thirty years of age, (Lk. 3:23). He was
then raised up, made to appear, manifested or revealed to his brethren. One special purpose of John's baptism
was to manifest Christ to Israel. "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred
before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore
am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a
dove, and it abode upon him, And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto
me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with
the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God," (Jno. 1:29-34). This was an official public
act of God by which Christ was manifested to Israel. It was called a raising up or causing to appear. Christ was

no longer in obscurity as it pertained to his mission and ministry, but was publicly manifested by an official act
and divine declaration of God. Again, this did not involve a literal raising up of his body from the dead.
Fourth, the term resurrection is used to denote the raising up of a body from the dead. "This Jesus hath God
raised up whereof we all are witnesses," (Acts 2:23).
Fifth, it is used to signify the raising up of the spirit from spiritual death (Jno. 6:39).
Sixth, the release of the soul from hades was considered as a resurrection. "Because thou wilt not leave my
soul in hell (hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption," (Acts 2:27). "He seeing this before
spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (hades), neither his flesh did see corruption.
Observe that David does not refer to Christ's flesh when he speaks of his spirit's release from hades. To the
contrary, he is careful to show that Christ's spirit went to hades while his body remained in the tomb.
Seventh, it is used to denote the restoration of Israel from Babylonian captivity to their own land. The land of
Babylon was the "graves" in which Israel was buried in captivity. The opening of their graves and causing them to
live signified restoration to their own land, (Ezk. 37:1-14). In the New Testament there is a similar restoration of
the church or spiritual Israel out of spiritual Babylon or the Jewish age into their own land, the new heavens and
earth. Note the following comments by a writer who has well observed this point in commenting on John 5:28-29:
"...it is assumed that the graves are literal graves. This also remains to be proven. Many mock the idea of the
word grave being used figuratively as a synonym for death, but such usage is common in the scriptures. The
word "grave" was used to picture the national death of Israel while in Babylonian captivity (Ezk. 37). They were
referred to as "dead men," (Isa. 26:19) and their restoration to Palestine was spoken of as a resurrection. The
graves were opened when Cyrus gave them release from Babylon in order to return home. This captivity was
symbolic of the captive state of the New Testament saints during the last days of fleshly Israel. They were
oppressed and persecuted until the very end of that second Babylon (I Thess. 2:14-16). The fall of Babylon
(Israel) and the resurrection of the saints to their homeland, the new heaven and earth, are the basic theme of
God's final revelation to man. As with national Israel in ancient Babylon, the release or deliverance of the saints
from Israel (Babylon) was the opening of the graves and the bringing forth of all into judgment," (The Spirit of
Prophecy, by Max R. King, p. 219).
Eighth, the word is used to denote one standing up or rising out of spiritual inertia or slothfulness. "Wherefore he
saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light," (Eph. 5:14). The one
who slept here was neither physically nor spiritually dead. He was one who had been baptized but was lacking in
spiritual development. Paul tells such to arise from that death. Further, the word in the original is a shortened
form of anistemi, but it is the same word. The shortened form is understood by the use of an apocope, (the loss
of one or more sounds or letters at the end of a word, Webster).
Since it is both true and acknowledged above by Jackson that "resurrection" (anastasis) means a "standing up,"
and since it is true that anastasis is used in a broader sense than merely to the human body, then it logically
follows that the "object" of anastasis, be it referent to body, soul, posture, birth, national freedom, or spiritual
development, etc., was in some sense "lying down" or, better said, in a "non-standing" position. A soul void of a
right relationship with God is a non-standing soul, i.e., dead and in need of anastasis. A nation held in captivity is
a non-standing nation, having lost its freedom and therefore is in need of anastasis or "national" resurrection. An

unborn child though not physically dead, is separated from this life by its mother's womb, hence it is non-standing
and in need of birth, anastasis or separation from the womb. In view of these facts, the transparent glossing over
of evidence that forces dead human bodies to be the object of "resurrection" passages is objectionable when
other options may be valid considerations.
In addition, a futuristic eschatological resurrection of the body creates a serious exegetical problem in the text of
Romans 8:11. "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from
the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you," (NASV). If there is one
indubitable fact in this text it is that the indwelling Spirit effects resurrection of the body. Three questions are
naturally raised at this point. One, how does one get the Holy Spirit to presently indwell physically dead bodies?
Two, is the Spirit necessary to raise the bodies of the wicked and if not, how will they be raised? Three, how does
the Spirit indwell dead bodies today in a non-miraculous age? First, the careful reader will observe that the
bodies in Romans 8 were yet alive physically, but died in some sense both when and only upon the condition that
Christ entered them (v.10). Does "Christ in you" bring about physical death? What a hope of glory! Second, the
bodies in this context were only those of Christians who were physically alive. Third, the indwelling of these
bodies was by a "then present" (A.D.57) miraculous indwelling of the Spirit whose "completed" work was future
but not removed from the age of the miraculous--by His Spirit that indwells you. Clearly, this is a "non-Rover"
perspective of bodily resurrection of which the critics of realized eschatology have very little to say.
Further, could the "bodily" resurrection of Romans 8 which clearly is non-physical death be the same as that of I
Corinthians 15? The context of Romans carries the subject of bodily resurrection all the way through to verse 25.
This connects several important eschatological facets, namely, "bodily resurrection," "heirs," glorified together,"
"revealing of the sons of God," "deliverance of the creation," "redemption," and "hope." One must ask, WERE
THEY HOPING FOR TWO "BODILY" RESURRECTIONS, ONE BEFORE PHYSICAL DEATH AND ONE AFTER
PHYSICAL DEATH, ALL WITHIN THE ONE FRAMEWORK OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY?
Concerning the soul Jackson writes, "If one argues that the resurrection is of the soul, then he must contend
that the soul dies, because whatever dies is that which is raised. If one alleges that the soul dies, he put himself
into the category of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other materialists," (The A.D.70 Theory, p.49).
Here, Jackson's reasoning regarding death of the soul puts him at odds with scripture. He assumes that death
of the soul means that it ceases to exist, that it is "dead all over, just like Rover." He fails to grasp the deeper
meaning of "soul-death" which according to scripture means separation from God (Isa. 59:1,2; Jas. 5:20). God
promised Adam that the day he ate of the "tree" he would die. Must one call God a liar as the Jehovah's
Witnesses do and deny that man has a soul or rather acknowledge sin-death of Adam the very day he ate?
Further, is God a materialist for teaching the death of Adam's soul, that day, for we know that he did not die
physically until several hundred years later? (Gen.5:4).
Next, other New Testament writers have affirmed the death of the soul, yet they never affirm or imply that it
ceases to exist.
"For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead" II Cor.
5:14).
"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1).

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved" Eph. 2:4,5).
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him,
having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col. 2:13).
"But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" I Tim. 5:6).
"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and
shall hide a multitude of sins (Jas. 5:20).
Moreover, Jackson's position on bodily resurrection is strikingly similar to the materialism of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. They object to Adam's death because they do not see in scripture where his body lies down.
Likewise, Jackson objects to "resurrection" on the ground that he does not see man's physical body rise up. The
positions are precisely the same. The only difference is the direction of the body.
It should be clear from the above that one cannot deny a spiritual event that takes place both in time, and within
the dimensions of the physical realm, yet undetected by the physical eye. One could not merely look upon
Adam's outward appearance and know that a change had occurred within, i.e., a fall from his spiritual relationship
with God. The Jehovah's Witnesses are yet unable to grasp this simple but well attested fact of scripture. The
advocates of physical resurrection make the same error by reasoning in the reverse.
In addition, one cannot look upon another by physical senses alone and determine whether that individual is
saved or alienated from God. The details following Paul's conversion adequately substantiate this fact. "And
when he had come to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; and they were all afraid of him,
not believing that he was a disciple (Acts 9:26, NASV). Before this event in Jerusalem, Paul had been a Christian
for about three years (Gal. 1:17,18). Even Paul's "fruits of repentance" did not convince his Jewish brethren that
he was a disciple. It is worthy of note, however, that their unbelief in what had transpired on a spiritual level did
not make the truth of Paul's conversion of none effect.
Similarly, the resurrection of saints from hades and the change of the "living" as far as we know, was not
perceivable to the physical eye. The limits of physical observation do not deny, disprove, or otherwise negate the
clear teachings of scripture that the resurrection occurred in 70 A.D., in connection with the fall of Jerusalem
(Matt. 24:31,34; Lk. 21:22; I Cor. 15). Many could benefit by kicking the "physical observation habit" to which the
Jehovah's Witnesses are "addicted" rather than kicking against the "pricks" of scripture.

A Study of the Resurrection

MAY 11TH Written by Don K. Preston
Resurrection From What Death?
This article is about the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The idea that there will some day be a
resurrection of physically dead human corpses is so ingrained in the modern religious psyche that to question it is

considered taboo by most. Yet I will do just that. It is my contention that the Biblical concept of the resurrection
involves a spiritual raising of man out of sin-death, (i.e. separation from God caused by sin); a restoration of man
to the presence of God.
In Genesis 2:15-17 God told man concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in the day
you eat thereof you will surely die." Man and woman ate of the fruit. Did they die that day? Amazingly, most
people will say "No!" because Adam and Eve did not die physically after they ate the forbidden fruit. But this is not
the whole story.
Death means separation, not annihilation. And Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden the day they ate the
fruit. Thus, Adam and Eve died spiritually because they were cast out of the presence of God. If Adam and Eve
didnot die the day they ate then Satan told the truth and God lied! God said you will die in the day you eat, Satan
said you will not surely die, Genesis 3:1ff. Who told the truth to Adam and Eve? Unless one can find Adam and
Eve physically dead in Genesis 2-3, then the death they died was spiritual and not physical.
If we regain in Christ, in resurrection, what was lost in Adam, 1 Cor. 15:22, and if spiritual life, not physical, is
what was lost, then physical resurrection is not what the Bible means by resurrection from the dead. Instead, the
focus of Bible teaching about resurrection is the spiritual restoration of man from sin-death.
The New Testament writers likened life under the Old Covenant to death, because all those under the Law were
under the curse, Gal. 3:10f. Paul called the Old Testament the "ministration of death" because all it did was
condemn; it could not justify, Romans 8:1-3. He spoke of his struggles under the Old Covenant; he spoke of his
past death under it, and lamented "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7:9-24.
Jesus' death and resurrection was the power for the final removal of that law that brought death, Eph. 2. But that
Old Law could not fully pass until it was all fulfilled, Matthew 5:17-18; and until the New Covenant law of life in
Christ was completely established, Gal. 3:21-29. This meant that there was a time of transition between the Old
Law and the New; a time when those coming out from that Old Law were coming into life. They were being raised
into resurrection life as firstfruits of the coming perfection in Christ.
When that Old Covenant of Death was completely taken away, this is called the resurrection. This is what Paul
said in 1 Corinthians 15:54-56. The resurrection would be when the Old Testament was fulfilled, vs. 54; it would
be when "the law," which was "the strength of sin," was removed, vs. 56. More on all this later.
The modern concept of a physical resurrection of human bodies is not consistent with scripture. It makes physical
death the focus of God's threat in Eden, yet scripture denies this. The modern view denies the relationship of the
Old Covenant to death and life spiritual life. It fails to take into consideration that man stands before God in
relationship to Covenant. To live under a Ministration of Death was to be a body of death, Rom. 7:24; 8:8-10. To
be delivered from that ministration of death was to be resurrected. This is the Biblical concept of resurrection.
The New Testament believers were dying to the Old Law as they were baptized into Christ, Romans 6-7. The
Law itself was not dead they were dying to the Law; "You have become dead to the law by the body of Christ"
Rom. 7:4; "Christ is the end of the law to those who believe," Rom. 10:4. But the Law would pass when fulfilled
and the Hebrew writer says it was at that time growing old and was ready to vanish away, Hebrews 8:13.
Resurrection is deliverance from sin; sin-death; read Ephesians 2:1. This happens by faith in response to the
gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ has "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" 2
Tim. 1:10. Those who would know the life that will never end, John 8:51, must enter the power of Jesus' death
and resurrection to enjoy the salvation/resurrection purchased by Him. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. To

have this life one must be in Christ through baptism for this is where one is joined to Christ's death and
resurrection.
While this study will examine several different verses, I will concentrate on John 5:24-29, a pivotal text in the
resurrection discussion.

"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 unto life. 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. For as
the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and
has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will he
His voice and come forth those who have done good to the resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (NKJV)
This discourse forms the foundation for the "two resurrection" idea. Most commentators insist that in verses 2425 Jesus spoke of a spiritual resurrection available to the believer today and then in verses 28-29 he spoke of a
yet future physical resurrection.
My purpose is to examine the specific context of John 5 and examine Jesus' prediction of the coming
consummative hour in the light of 1 John 2 and Revelation. We will study the Hope of Israel and the relationship
of the fulfillment and passing of the Old Testament to resurrection and will note the Old Testament foundation for
Jesus' prediction in John 5. The constituent elements of resurrection will be noted in light of New Testament
teaching that the resurrection had already begun but was not consummated. Several passages that tell when the
resurrection would occur will be studied. Finally, we will explore some of the contradictions in the traditional views
of John 5, and take note of some objections to the views that we will set forth.
I have purposely kept the number of footnotes and references to a minimum. While such notes could be
copiously provided I have decided to observe the "k-i-s-s" principle as much as possible. For those wishing such
references please see Max R. King's massive volume "The Cross and the Parousia."
Two Resurrections?
It is standard fare to read in the commentaries that John 5:24-29 speaks of two resurrections. R. H. Charles says
of vss. 24-25 "we are not here concerned with the bestowal of physical life." When he approaches verses 28-29
however, he simply asserts without evidence "physical death is presupposed." Hoskyns says "In the perspective
of Christian thought the passage from death to life is the passing from sin to righteousness and the remission of
sins, and from unbelief to faith (Eph. 2:1; Rom 6:13; 11:15; Col. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:3f, etc)." After these excellent
comments he then says that just because this is true and that Jesus posits a then present possibility of
resurrection this does not exclude a still future physical resurrection.
Just where in the context of John 5 is there a delineation between two resurrections? Jesus does not say there
are two resurrections; he does not mention spiritual versus physical; he does not delineate between the "dead" in
verses 24-25 and those "in the graves" in verses 28-29. And what is the difference between hearing the "voice of
the Son of God," vs. 25, and hearing the voice of Jesus in vs. 28? What is the difference between the "life"
"everlasting life" of 24-25 and the "life" in verse 29? Any distinctions are brought to the text by the interpreter! In

fact, the reason commentators draw a distinction between verses 24-25 and 28-29 is because in vss 24-25 Jesus
said "the hour is coming and now is," but in vs 28-29 he said "the hour is coming." But was Jesus distinguishing
between two kinds of deaths, graves, resurrections, and life, disparate in nature and separated by millennia, or
was Jesus speaking of one resurrection, the initiation of which was present and the consummation of which was
still future, but imminent, from his perspective? To help us with the answer consider four passages.
Romans 6
In Romans 6:1-11 the apostle demonstrates how in baptism the Romans had died with Christ, vs. 3, and had
been raised with him, vs. 4. This patently cannot refer to a physical death and resurrection. But notice verse 5: "If
we have been planted with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Is
the likeness of his death a physical likeness? If so, they had died physically. But if it be admitted that this refers to
a spiritual likeness how does this impact verse 5? Are we to see that in baptism there is a spiritual likeness to the
death of Jesus but in resurrection there will be a physical imitation of his resurrection? Who changed the
hermeneutic here? Modern interpreters, not Paul, change the nature of the discussion.
How is it possible to so radically change Paul's discussion from a spiritual death to a physical life? For Paul, the
futuristic element was of the same nature in "likeness." In verse 8 the apostle says "if we died with Christ, we
believe we shall also live with him." The coming life was of the same nature as the death; but the death was not
physical, therefore the coming life was not physical.
In Romans 6 there is an "already" element of resurrection, and a "not yet" element. There are not two different
and distinct resurrections of two different kinds of bodies. There is one resurrection which had been initiated and
was soon to be consummated.
If there were two resurrections in scripture, one spiritual, one physical, separated by millennia, why do the
scriptures never mention resurrections plural?
Stafford North, writing against the millennial concept of three different resurrections and two different judgments
separated by the millennium, poses a pertinent question: "If the resurrection of the just and unjust were
separated by over a thousand years, surely Paul would speak of `resurrections' in the plural." But if that question
is valid when arguing against millennialism why is it not valid in regard to John 5:24-29? Per North, Jesus was
speaking of two different resurrections. If there are plural resurrections in John 5:24-29 then North's argument
against millennialism falls. If his argument is valid, and it is, then there is but one resurrection in John 5:24-29
and Romans 6.
Philippians 3:1-16
This passage very plainly reveals that, for Paul, the resurrection was a then present, yet not yet perfected, reality.
It must be kept in mind that Paul is defending not only himself but his Christian brethren from the attacks and
claims of those who insisted that they were the true inheritors of the promises of God. The question was "Who is
the true Israel?" Thus, Paul asserts in no uncertain terms that the true Israel is not fleshly but spiritual. The true
Jew is not the one who prides himself on his physical circumcision but that of the heart, cf. Col. 2:11ff. Israel's
hope therefore did not lie in her nationalistic heritage but in the spiritual realities of Jesus.
This cannot be over-emphasized. Paul did not preach anything but the hope of Israel, as we shall see below, yet
for Paul Israel's hope did not lie in fleshly things but in worshipping God "in the Spirit" vs. 3. Israel was
persecuting Paul, yet Paul was preaching the hope of Israel! Why then was Israel persecuting Paul? Because in

preaching the "Hope of Israel" Paul was not preaching a nationalistic, and physical hope! In counting his fleshly
circumcision, national heritage, and personal achievements under the Law as "loss" Paul is asserting the spiritual
nature of the Hope of Israel!
In verses 1-6 Paul recounts his achievements under the Old Law. If anyone had a reason to boast of his
accomplishments before God, Paul did. Yet all of these personal credits were worthless before Christ. Paul had
learned that he could not earn righteousness and all of his efforts under the Law were but an attempt to do so.
Therefore they were not gain to him but actually loss.
The apostle then says that in counting his achievements under the Law as loss he had but one goal in mind; to
be found in Christ "if by any means I might attain to the resurrection from the dead" vs. 11.
This is surely a strange thing to say if the raising of a physical body from the earth is to be an inescapable
universal event. Paul's purpose in counting his personal successes under the Law as loss was to attain the
resurrection.
Examine Paul's reference to dying. In verse 10 he says he was at that time "being made conformable unto his
(Jesus', DKP) death." This is in the present tense. In what way was Paul being made conformable to the death of
Jesus? It surely cannot be physically since it was something he was already experiencing. But just as in Romans
6 where he said the Romans had died with Christ and were anticipating rising with him, so here Paul speaks of
his dying in the image of Jesus' death and desire for participating in his resurrection. Since the dying is not
physical in either text then the resurrection is not physical either.
Now notice verse 12; after saying it was his desire to attain to the resurrection he says "not as though I had
already attained, either were already perfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am
apprehended of Christ Jesus." Now if Paul has physical death and physical resurrection in mind does not his
statement "not as though I had already attained" seem just a little bit facetious? Of course he had not attained the
resurrection; he had not died yet! That is, if he has physical life and death in view; but we have just seen that the
death he is speaking of cannot be physical!
Paul's "dying" is to be equated with his "forgetting"; his "forgetting and reaching forth stand in apposition to dying
and rising with Christ, and the subject of this change was the two covenant aeons." (ages, DKP) Since his "dying"
and his "forgetting" equate to the same thing and his "forgetting" is the laying aside of the Old Covenant World of
Israel then his "attaining to the resurrection" must be seen in relationship to the full transition from the Old World
of Israel to the New Covenant "law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" Romans 8:1-3. What Paul was dying to
was the Old World of Israel with its dependence on justification by Law the things he once counted as gain;
what he was rising to was true righteousness by faith in Christ, Phil. 3:9.
Paul said that the resurrection of Christ was his goal; he said he had not already attained it. But he also said
"Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule" vs. 16. Paul has not
changed subjects; he is still focused on his singular desire "the resurrection from, literally "out from the dead." Yet
he is saying he had attained to a certain degree. Here is the "already-but-not-yet" of resurrection stated in the
clearest terms possible.
Can Paul be speaking of physical life and death? If so, then he was saying he had "died a little bit" physically. Of
course he did say he had died with Christ, Gal. 2:20, but once again this was not referent to physical death. Was

Paul saying he had to a "degree" already attained to resurrection from physical death? To ask the question is to
answer it.
Do not forget that Paul is discussing the hope of Israel that is, Israel's true hope as revealed in Christ. This
never leaves his mind. And we shall see below that Israel's singular hope was resurrection. In Philippians 3
therefore Paul is saying that Israel's resurrection hope was finding its present fulfillment in Christ. Yet it was not
yet perfected because the Old System still stood in place.
As Jesus does in John 5:24-29, Paul moves from a present "already" resurrection to a consideration of the future
"not-yet." But these are not two different kinds of resurrections. It is simply a movement from the initiation to the
consummation of the same resurrection. And what did Paul teach about when that future aspect would be
realized?
In chapter 3:20-21 he says they were "eagerly" awaiting Christ's coming to consummate that wonderful change
and bring life to full reality. The words "eagerly await" translate the original word "apekdekomai" which denotes
"earnest expectation" This is a word with strong connotations of imminence. Further, in 4:5 Paul states clearly
"The Lord is at hand" (engus). As the Expositors Greek Testament says "Quite evidently Paul expects a speedy
return of Christ."
For Paul then, whatever one makes of the resurrection, that event was imminent. When one sees however that
Paul's discussion of death and resurrection could not be related to physical death and resurrection then this
correlates perfectly with Romans 6 and John 5.
Colossians 3
Colossians 3:1ff is of the same discussion. Paul said the Colossians had died with Christ and their lives were
hidden. Was that a physical death and physical hidden-ness they had, and were experiencing? Concerning the
death and life of Colossians, William Bell said "This life had both a present, or already, and a future, a not yet, in
that it was hidden in Christ and would later be revealed. It is not a different life, but the same and only life which
they had. Is Christ the life received in baptism? Is not this the life the Colossians received when they died with
him? Is not the life they received that which was hidden? Therefore that life, not physical life, is the life that would
appear, be revealed, with him in glory."
As in Romans there is therefore an "already but not yet" aspect to the resurrection. This helps us understand
John 5 since Paul is plainly dealing with the same issue as Jesus, life and death. As surely as Colossians speaks
of only one kind of death and coming life just so it is in John. Paul is simply expounding on what Jesus had
taught.
If the resurrection of John 5:24-25, the spiritual resurrection per most commentators, was a fully present reality,
then there should not have been a yet future aspect to it. That is if it was to be delineated from the "the hour is
coming" resurrection of John 5:28- 29. Since however we have already shown with conclusive evidence that
there was both a present and future aspect to the spiritual resurrection in Paul's day, this is strong evidence
indeed that Jesus was speaking of the same resurrection in John 5.
2 Timothy 2:11-12
The fourth text is 2 Timothy 2:11-12. Paul said "For if we be dead (if we died, sunapathanomen, 1 pers. pl. aorist,
indicative), with him, we shall also live with him." As in Romans, Colossians and Philippians, Paul addresses a
state of death possessed by the church; it was a state of death that would be overcome in the future. But it is

incontrovertible that the death they had experienced could not be physical. Therefore the resurrection they were
anticipating could not be physical. This is corroborated by the context.
In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul addressed the problem of Hymenaeus and Philetus; they maintained that the resurrection
had already occurred. It should be clear to any thinking person that these two could not maintain with any degree
of success or a straight face that the modern traditional concept of the resurrection had occurred. If the
resurrection is an "end of time" event, then for these men to insist it had already occurred was to invite ridicule
beyond measure. Why didn't Paul just say, "Look around! The graveyards are still full."? But if the resurrection is
related to the death Paul addresses in vs. 11, it is understandable how these men could make such a claim and it
be believed.
Since it is undeniable that the death of verse 11 could not be physical but must be spiritual, Hymenaeus and
Philetus must have reasoned that since spiritual life was "already" then the resurrection must have already fully
occurred. Had not Paul told the Ephesians they had been raised from the dead, Eph. 2:1? Remember, Paul was
writing Timothy who was in Ephesus. The connection between Hymenaeus' teaching and what Paul had written
to the church of which he was a member is very probable. Had Paul not told the Romans that Christ had
delivered them from the "law of sin and death" Romans 8:1f? Had he not written to the Colossians that in baptism
they had put off "the body of flesh," Col. 2:11-12? And had not Paul said in this very epistle that Christ had
"abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" 2 Tim. 1:10? Surely the resurrection
was past already. It is in this context that Hymenaeus and Philetus can be properly understood. They were not
affirming the past occurrence of the end of the physical cosmos. They were affirming prematurely the full
revelation of salvation.
In each of these passages we see the "already but not yet" of the resurrection. These texts provide strong
evidence that in John 5:24-29 Jesus is positing the initiation and the consummation of one resurrection; not two
resurrections.
The singularity of the resurrection in John 5 is established when one honors the text. Jesus simply moves from
"he who hears" to "all that are in the graves." The movement is from some to all. Since when does such a
movement demand a change in subject matter or the nature of the subject? Further, the movement is from the
hour that "now is" to "the hour is coming." The contrast is between time referents. If a farmer says the corn
harvest has begun but the hour is coming when the harvest will be consummated, has he changed the subject
from the corn harvest to a harvest of apples?
Observe carefully the language of the text. In verses 24-26 Jesus speaks of the positive side of his authority; "as
the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself," vs. 26. Now watch: "and has
given Him authority to execute judgment also," vs. 27. After asserting the authority not only to give life but to
render judgment, he immediately says "do not marvel at this for the hour is coming when all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice and come forth those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have
done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." The emphasis is on Jesus' authority not only to give life but to
render judgment. The word "also" in verse 27 focuses our attention on the wider scope of Jesus' authority not
on a change in the nature of the resurrection from spiritual to physical.
It is the Last Hour
Undeniably, John 5 anticipated a consummative last hour the hour of the resurrection. This coming hour would
occur in the "last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48f). Most commentators insist that the hour of 5:28-29 and the

"last day" of these passages must be the last day of time. While this is no where stated in scripture it is assumed
nonetheless. Amillennial commentators are fond of chiding the millennialist: "There can be no days after the last
day. But if there can be no days after the last day then there is no time for a millennium. Therefore the millennial
theory falls." But this challenge soon backfires on the amillennialist.
In 1 John 2:15-18 John, the same writer of the gospel of John, said "the world is passing away, ...Little children, it
is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come,
whereby we know that it is the last hour." The writer who in the gospel anticipated the consummative hour to
come, writes in his epistle that the last hour was upon them!
If there can be no "hours" after the "last hour" here is a severe problem. John wrote two thousand years ago
saying the last hour had come, yet there have been many "hours" since then. It is amazing how exegetes attempt
to disassociate the final hour of John 5 from the last hour of 1 John 2.
Stafford North argues that because the words "last hour" in the original do not have the definite article this means
that "John is speaking in a qualitative or categorical way and not of any definite last hour." In other words, "John
was not saying `This is the last hour of time' but rather, 'this is a critical time.'" (ibid) Besides begging the question
and assuming an end of time, North's suggestion proves far too much.
The definite article does not appear with the "hour" in John 5:28 either. Would North suggest that because the
definite article is missing there this would indicate that passage is not speaking about the consummative hour?
Further, in 1 Peter 4:17 Peter said "The time has come for the judgment (to krina) to begin." Here we have the
use of the definite article. North implies that if the article were present in 1 John 2:18 this would indicate the
consummation was at hand. Will he now suggest that Peter was saying the judgment was at hand? This problem
is compounded by other passages.
In Matthew 10:15 Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in "the day of judgment" than
for those who rejected him. See also Matthew 11:22, 24. Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon
and Sodom "in the day of judgment" (KJV) than for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. North applies these
texts to the "end of time," yet the definite article is absent. Per our brother's logic, therefore, these passages
cannot allude to the "final judgment."
In 1 John 2:8 John says "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining." (NKJV). This
imagery is directly associated with the coming of the Lord, Romans 13:11, 1 Thes. 5:1-6; and was "a vivid
expression of the eschatological consciousness of the church." John's confident (inspired) statement that the day
was already shining is tantamount to saying the coming of the Lord, (i.e. the last hour) was at hand.
Please observe the presence of the miraculous work of the Spirit, vs. 20, 27. We will see below the connection of
the miraculous work of the Spirit with the resurrection. In 1 John the apostle writes to the Spirit endowed church
reminding them that the Spirit "abides in you"; he encourages them to "abide in Him," vs. 28, until the Parousia,
the time of the resurrection, 3:1-3, and tells them "it is the last hour." The reference to the miraculous work of the
Spirit in 1 John inextricably links John's "last hour" with the parousia and resurrection. There is no way to divorce
the work of the Spirit from John's eschatology; therefore John's declaration that "it is the last hour" is a direct
commentary on John 5:28-29.
Finally, John specifically speaks of the then present resurrection. In 3:14 he said: "We know that we have passed
from death to life, because we love the brethren." And in 3:1-3 he anticipated the consummation of the

resurrection. The resurrection of 3:14 involved becoming Sons of God; that of 3:1f involved the manifestation of
Sonship. Not two resurrections, but one.
Just as in John 5:24-29 we find the initiation and anticipation of consummation; in 1 John we also find the "in the
process" resurrection and declaration of the imminent consummation.
The Hour of His Judgment is Come
The same author that wrote of the coming hour in the book of John and said in his first epistle that the last hour
had come also wrote the book of Revelation. Amillennialists commonly see in this book the message of the fall of
Rome. I believe this is incorrect; the book is about the destruction and overthrow of the city "where the Lord was
crucified" 11:8. Needless to say, Jesus was not crucified in Rome."Babylon" was also full of all the blood shed on
the earth, 18:4, 20-24. Jesus identified the persecutor of prophets and apostles as Jerusalem, Mat. 23:31-39;
Luke 13:31-33.
As all agree, the book of Revelation deals with the resurrection. This is the resurrection "hour" of John 5. What
few seem to notice is that the resurrection is depicted in direct association with the fall of the city where the Lord
was crucified, Rev. 11:8-19.
In Revelation 14 John has the critical "hour" in view. This chapter presents a view of an angel with the everlasting
gospel to preach to all the world, vs. 6. The message of the gospel is "Fear God and give glory to him; for the
hour of his judgment is come," vs. 7. This judgment is on the city Babylon, the persecutor of God's saints, 17:6ff .
This is the same city as in 11:8. The time of judgment is when the one like the Son of Man would come on the
cloud and reap when the harvest of the earth was ripe, 14:14f. There are several things to note about this text.
The preaching of the gospel into all the world is representative of the church's responsibility to preach the gospel
to all the world in Jesus' generation before the fall of Jerusalem. In Matthew 24:14, in predicting the demise of
Old Israel, Jesus said: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to the nations
then comes the end." The completion of the world mission was to be a sign of the imminent end of the Old
Covenant Age. Jesus positively declared that his coming would be in that generation, Matthew 24:29-34.
For an entire generation the early church proclaimed, amidst persecution, that impending judgment. The Cilician
apostle said "the day is at hand" Romans 13:11, and God would crush Satan under their feet shortly, 16:20. He
said this after saying the gospel had been preached in all the world, 10:18f. In harmony with Jesus' promise of
Mark 13:9f, Paul said the early Christians would possess the miraculous gifts until the coming of the Lord, 1 Cor.
1:4-8. He said they were living in the end of the age, 1 Cor. 10:11. In Titus 2:11-13 the same apostle said the
gospel had been preached to all men and consequently they were expecting the appearing of Jesus.
In Revelation 14 the angel with the everlasting gospel and its message of impending judgment corresponds to
the mission of the early church with its message of the coming of Christ in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. And in
Revelation 14 that coming judgment is called "the hour of his judgment"; it is the critical hour so central to John's
other writings. It should be noted that John calls it literally "the hour of the judgment." The definite article appears
with both "hour" and "judgment." Compare this with the comments on Stafford North above.
The urgency of the message of that judgment must also be emphasized. The message was that the judgment
had come. In fact, John is told in the most emphatic expressions that his vision was to be fulfilled "shortly," "the
time is at hand," Jesus was to come "quickly," Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10, 12, 20. The consistency of John's writings and

his constant focus on the consummative hour coupled with the imminence of Revelation demands a first century
fulfillment of that critical hour.
John, in 5:24-25 speaks of the beginning of the harvest the firstfruits, if you will "the hour is coming and now
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." He then speaks of the
rest of the harvest in verse 28-29 "Marvel not at this for the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall
hear." The movement is from some who hear unto life, to all those who hear and some to condemnation.
Revelation 14 contains the identical motif. In verses 1-5 we find the 144,000 who are the firstfruits unto God.
These are the redeemed. They follow the Lamb. They hear his voice. In verses 14-20 the focus is on the
remainder of the harvest and on condemnation just as in John 5:28-29.
The parallels between John 5 and Revelation 14 are too obvious to be ignored. The "coming hour" of John 5 is
"the hour of his judgment" in Revelation 14. And since Revelation 14 is so emphatic as to the imminence of that
impending judgment we must see that the critical "coming hour" of John 5:28- 29 was not an event millennia
removed from Jesus' day but was to occur in his generation.
That Revelation, and specifically chapter 14, deals with the A.D. 70 judgment against the Old Covenant World of
Israel is illustrated in several ways. In verse 20 it says the "winepress was trodden without the city" this term
"without the city" is almost a technical term to identify Jerusalem, see Hebrews 13:12-13. Further, the writer says
the blood from the judgment flowed for 1600 furlongs almost 200 miles. As many commentators have noted,
this is the measurement for the land of Israel. This is then a coded expression to signify not only the horrible
nature of the impending suffering but to express its focus as well. Are we to believe that the writer expressed the
judgment in terms that would bring Israel to mind when he actually had Rome in view?
In Revelation 14 we find, as in 1 John and the book of John, the impending critical hour. In both 1 John and
Revelation we find emphatic time indicators saying the consummative hour was imminent.
The Hope of Israel
In his prediction of the resurrection, Jesus was not predicting something new he was speaking of the hope of
Israel. It must be kept in mind that Jesus was a Jew, "made of a woman, made of the Law" Gal. 4:4. In his
ministry Jesus did not minister to the Gentiles but to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Mat. 15:24. Until
Israel's promises were fulfilled salvation could not come to the world because "salvation is of the Jews" John
4:22. Jesus did not come to destroy the Old Covenant but to fulfill, Mat. 5:17-18 and he was a "minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers" Romans 15:8.
This is extremely important but often overlooked in the modern religious world. Amillennialists say all OT
promises to Israel were fulfilled and God's relationship with them was terminated at the Cross. The
premillennialist on the other hand sees that Israel played a pivotal role in God's eschatological scheme; but the
millennial concept is literalistic and totally misses the spiritual nature of God's redemptive and eschatological
scheme. To illustrate the point let us turn our attention to Paul as he is on trial for preaching the hope of Israel.
In Acts 21 the Jews mistakenly believed that Paul had taken a Gentile into the Temple and attacked him with
murderous intent, Acts 21:26f. Taken before the Sanhedrin the next day Paul told them "of the hope of the
resurrection I am called into question" Acts 23:6. This instantly divided the court since "the Sadducees say that
there is no resurrection" vs. 8. Ostensibly, Paul had aligned himself with the Pharisees in their hope of a physical

resurrection because they instantly say "we find no evil in this man" vs. 9. But, as they say, "a funny thing
happened on the way to the Forum."
Seven days, at least, passed between Paul's appearance before the Sanhedrin and his appearance before Felix,
Acts 23:11, 31-32, 24:1. When Paul gives his defense before the governor he says: "I have hope in God, which
these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked"
Acts 24:15. (NASV) What happened to the Pharisees who just a few days earlier had been saying they could find
no fault with Paul?
Clearly it is not the Sadducees Paul is referring to when he says his accusers "cherish" the hope of the
resurrection the Sadducees have dropped out of the proceedings. So what happened to the Pharisees? Why
have they changed their tune from "We find nothing wrong with this man!" to "We find this man a real pest and a
fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world" Acts 24:5? Could it be that they found
out what Paul was really saying about the resurrection? Let us go back to the ministry of Jesus for some help.
Without doubt the Jews were eagerly anticipating the coming of the Messiah and his kingdom, cf. Luke 3:15;
John 1:19ff, etc. Jesus came preaching the imminent establishment of the kingdom, Mk. 1:15. Now the Jews
wanted the kingdom and Jesus promised the kingdom. Initially the Jews were exuberant about Jesus' promise;
but something changed and the Jews killed Jesus. Why? Because Jesus did not offer them the kind of kingdom
they expected and wanted! They wanted the kingdom to come with pomp, circumstance and grandeur not to
mention wiping out the Romans. Jesus said his kingdom was not that kind of kingdom; he forbad his servants to
fight, cf John 18:36f. The Jews killed him for offering a spiritual kingdom when they wanted a national restoration.
Jesus came to be king, John 18:33-37; and on at least one occasion the Jews, impressed with his ability to feed
thousands with just a few loaves and fishes and probably misconstruing the military type arrangement of the
crowd as ordered by Jesus, Luke 9:12ff were about to come and make Jesus their king, John 6:15. But Jesus
refused their efforts. As a result Israel rejected Jesus. Now the Jews wanted a king and Jesus came to be king.
Why then did they kill him? Because he refused to be the kind of king they wanted. If Jesus had offered to restore
national Israel through military conquest, they would have gladly coronated him. But, because he desired to be
spiritual king, they turned on him and killed him. Now back to Paul.
Paul was teaching about the same kingdom and offering the same king as Jesus, Acts 17:6-7. Paul taught the
resurrection. The Pharisees wanted the resurrection, Acts 24:15. But the Pharisees, at first friendly, have now
turned on Paul and want him killed. Why? Paul said it was because of the resurrection. But if Paul taught the
resurrection and the Pharisees believed in the resurrection why do they want to kill him? Could it be that they
wanted to kill Paul for the same reason they killed Jesus; because he did not offer the kind of resurrection they
desired?
It can hardly be objected that the Pharisees objected to Paul's doctrine of the resurrection simply because he
was offering it through Jesus. The Jews had been more than willing to accept Jesus as king on their terms. It was
the nature of what was being offered, not the person it was being offered through that caused the violent reaction.
The person was rejected because of what the person taught about what was being offered. This is, I believe, the
only way to understand why the Pharisees did such an about face in the case of Paul.

Had Paul been offering the very thing the Pharisees desired, a physical resurrection, they would have warmly
embraced him as offering the fulfillment of their hopes. They initially believed he was an ally. But they quickly
learned differently and put him on trial for preaching the resurrection, the very thing they were supposed to
believe in. Why seek to kill a man for espousing the same things as you? Paul could not have preaching what
they wanted a physical resurrection. Just like Jesus, he was preaching spiritual, not physical realities. This is
confirmed by looking a little closer at the kingdom.
The Kingdom Does Not Come With Observation
As we have seen, the Jews desired a kingdom that was nationalistic and political an outwardly observable
kingdom. In Luke the Pharisees came to Jesus asking "when the kingdom of God would come" Luke 17:20.
Would the Pharisees who wanted a nationalistic kingdom not also expect a literalistic resurrection? Jesus
responded "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will one say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For
indeed, the kingdom of God is within you," Luke 17:20-21.
Please observe that Jesus said the kingdom would not come with observation. Here is a critical point: the coming
of the kingdom and the resurrection are concurrent events.
In 2 Timothy 4:1 the apostle said "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge
the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom." (See also Mat. 16:27-28; Mat. 25:31). Now if the
nature of the coming kingdom was "without observation" why are we supposed to think that the attendant
resurrection, which would give entrance into that New World order, Luke 20:27-38, would be of a different nature
than the kingdom itself? Here then is help in understanding the vehement antagonism against Paul's doctrine of
the resurrection.
The Pharisees had already rejected Jesus even though he offered them the kingdom. They rejected him
because, while he offered what they ostensibly wanted, what he was truly offering was of a different nature than
what they envisioned. It was no different with Paul. While he was offering them what they supposedly desired
they discovered it was of a different nature than what they wanted. Thus their original defense of Paul, Acts 23,
quickly turned into their damnation of Paul.
All of this manifestly demands that we understand the resurrection as a spiritual event and not physical. It
comports perfectly with what we have seen about the "already-but-not-yet" aspect of the resurrection and it also
agrees with the framework of deliverance from sin. Let us now return to the hope of Israel, the resurrection, in
light of the "already-but-not-yet" and its spiritual nature.
To Paul, Israel's prophetic salvation hopes were summarized in one word resurrection. In Romans 11:7 the
apostle spoke of Israel's hope "Israel has not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it,
and the rest were blinded." Israel's hope was the resurrection, but Paul said while Israel, the majority, had not
obtained that hope, "the election hath obtained it." Follow us here.
The hope of Israel was the resurrection, Acts 26:6f. The elect, i.e. the remnant of Israel, had obtained the hope of
Israel, Rom. 11:7. Therefore the elect, the remnant of Israel, had obtained the resurrection. (This is why they are
called the firstfruits!) This agrees perfectly with our investigation of Philippians 3 above where Paul declared that
he had already attained "to a degree" in the resurrection.
Is it not abundantly evident that the resurrection could not be a raising of dead physical bodies out of the ground?
Paul was not saying that the remnant of Israel had been physically resurrected from the dead was he?

Lest it be argued that Paul is not thinking of the resurrection note vs. 15 where the apostle discusses the fate of
Israel: "If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life
from the dead?" Now if the acceptance of those cast off was "life from the dead" what was it that the "election"
had received? Was it something different? No. The elect had received life from the dead! And when would Israel
receive their "life from the dead"?
In Romans 11:25-27 Paul said Israel's salvation would be when "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." This
fullness of the Gentiles is not a mathematic number but a reference to the bringing of the Gentiles into full
equality in Christ. Compare verses 11-12 to see that Paul's reference to fullness is speaking of a state of
blessedness not numbers to be counted.
Israel's salvation would also be concurrent with the coming of the Lord, "There shall come out of Zion the
Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" vs. 27.
The scope of this piece forbids a full discussion of the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel, but I note one
significant fact: Israel's salvation would come when Israel passed through the fire of God's judgment. Notice a
brief examination of only three Old Testament predictions. Isaiah 2-4; Isaiah 65- 66; Zech. 12-14
1.) Isaiah 2-4
In 4:3-4 Jehovah spoke of when he would cleanse Israel of her bloodguilt and wash away her filth. He would
establish His tabernacle among them for a shelter. This would be "in that day" when the Branch of the Lord was
glorified. Undeniably the "Branch" of the Lord is Christ.
When would "in that day" be? Following the antecedent references into chapter 3 and 2 several things become
apparent. First, it would be a time of warfare, 3:25; when God would arise to judge Israel, 3:13- 14. This would
come because Jerusalem had provoked the Lord, 3:8f. It would be called the Day of the Lord, 2:12, when the
wicked would flee to the mountains "to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the crags of the rugged rocks, from
the terror of the Lord and the glory of His majesty, when He arises to shake the earth mightily" 2:10, 19, 20-21.
Finally, these events would be "in the last days" when the kingdom of God would be established, 2:2ff.
This "Day of the Lord" cannot be speaking of an end of time scenario if men have time to flee to the mountains. It
does comport well with Jesus' prediction of the time of Jerusalem's judgment in Matthew 24:15f, where he tells
his own disciples to flee to the mountains for safety. But we are not left to doubt the application of Isaiah's
prophecy.
In Luke 23:28-31 Jesus directly alludes to Isaiah's prophecy in a prediction of the coming judgment on Jerusalem
in his generation. Now go back to Isaiah 4.
Isaiah, predicted the establishment of God's kingdom, the cleansing of her sin, and the establishment of God's
tabernacle among men; this is all good news to be sure. How would it be accomplished? In the Day of the Lord
and "by the spirit of judgment and by fire" 4:4. All this says is that Israel's salvation would come when Israel was
judged! See Joel 2-3.
Note the correlation of Isaiah to the book of Revelation. In the Apocalypse we find the salvation of Israel, 7:4ff;
14:1-5. The kingdoms of the world become the kingdom of God and His saints, 11:15. The Tabernacle of God is
established among men, 21:3f. Those written in the book are saved, cf. Isaiah 4:2-4; Rev. 20; and all this
happens when the city "where the Lord was crucified," 11:8, is destroyed. Now to our next passage.

2.) Isaiah 65-66

Both chapters speak of the blessedness of the coming "new heavens and earth" 65:17-19; 66:22. This is the
"good news" of the fulfillment of Israel's salvation hopes. But there was also the "bad news" side.
Israel would fill the measure of her sin, 65:6-7; as a result "you shall leave your name as a curse to my chosen;
for the Lord God shall slay you and call His servants by another name" 65:15. While this was true the remnant
would be saved, 65:8-9. In 66:15f this judgment would be at the coming of the Lord "with fire and with His
chariots, like a whirlwind to render His anger with fury and His rebuke with flames of fire, for by fire and by His
sword the Lord will judge all flesh." Since there would be evangelistic efforts after this coming of the Lord, 66:19f,
this hardly suggests an end of time judgment.
Jesus said Israel would fill the measure of her sin and be destroyed in his generation, Mat. 23:29-31; and he
described that event as his coming on the clouds with power and great glory, 24:29- 31. Thus, in Isaiah 65-66 we
find the concept of Israel's salvation occurring at the coming of the Lord to consummate her salvation hopes
through judgment.
The Old Israel of the Flesh would have served her purpose of bringing in the Messiah, Gal. 3:23ff; prefiguring and
foreshadowing his work, Heb. 10:1f; of accentuating the futility of salvation by works and the despair of sin, Rom.
5:20-21. God would sweep away the external and carnal and fully establish the spiritual.
3.) Zechariah 12-14 The prophet foretold the time when "they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they
will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn" 12:10. But
"in that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for
uncleanness" 13:1. This would be when God would "cause the prophet and unclean spirit to depart from the
land," 13:2; and when the remnant of Israel would be saved by passing through judgment, 13:8-9. More
specifically, it would be when the Lord would come with His saints and "gather all the nations to battle against
Jerusalem," 14:1-5.
Zechariah predicted the coming of the Lord against Jerusalem yet predicted that at that time a fountain for her
salvation would be provided. The concept of salvation through judgment is inextricably interwoven into Israel's
Messianic salvation hopes.
In Matthew 24:30 Jesus quoted from Zechariah 12:10-12 and applied it to his coming against Jerusalem in A.D.
70. We thus find the exact motif here as in Isaiah, the salvation of Israel accomplished when Israel was judged at
the coming of the Lord. We have Jesus' application of Isaiah 2-4 to his coming in the fall of Jerusalem; we have
Jesus saying that Israel would fill the measure of her sin, as predicted in Isaiah 65-66, and be destroyed at his
coming against her in the fall of Jerusalem; and Zechariah says Israel would be saved when the Lord came
against Jerusalem. Jesus applies Zechariah to the events of A.D. 70. With these three predictions before us we
return to Romans 11.
The apostle predicted the salvation of Israel when the Lord would come. Is this a different coming than in the
texts cited above? If so then the salvation is different. Yet Paul in Romans 11 is discussing Israel receiving "life
from the dead" and in Acts 24-26 the same apostle said resurrection life was the hope of Israel. Since Paul said
the remnant was receiving at that time the hope of Israel this is "prima facia" evidence of the "already-but-not-yet"
aspect of the resurrection and irrefutable proof of the spiritual nature of the resurrection hope of Israel.

Resurrection and the Law

Our study of Paul on trial not only attests to the spiritual nature of the resurrection but it reveals serious problems
with the amillennial view of eschatology and its relationship to the Old Law.
I am a fourth generation member of the churches of Christ and well versed in those traditional views of the Law
and eschatology. That view says Jesus cast off Israel at the Cross having fulfilled all OT promises to her by that
time; beginning at Pentecost a new set of promises and prophecies was given. But this is not what Paul believed
and taught!
When standing before Felix, Paul said in the most emphatic terms that his gospel of the resurrection was nothing
more or less than what Moses and the Prophets predicted, Acts 24:14f. When the Jews said "This is the man
who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law and this place" Acts 21:28; Paul responded: "Nor
can they prove the things of which they now accuse me" 24:13; and, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor
against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all" 25:8. Paul said he did not teach against
the Old Law; yet the modern interpretation of Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, and Romans 7 has Paul saying the Old
Law was completely taken away at the Cross. Any view that pits Paul against Paul is wrong, and Paul said he did
not teach against the Law.
When studied carefully each of the texts just cited actually teach that those who were coming into Christ by
baptism were dying to the law; the law itself was not dead. There is a vast difference between the Law dying and
believers dying to the Law.
If the Old Covenant fully passed away at the Cross, how could Paul be preaching the yet future to him fulfillment
of that Old Covenant? If the eschatological hope of Christians is/was not supposed to be tied to the fulfillment of
the Old Testament promises made to Israel why was Paul's eschatological hope grounded so firmly in the "law
and prophets"? If Israel was cut off at the Cross why was Paul, some 20 years after the Cross still preaching the
hope of Israel?
It is evident from our study of Romans 11 above that Paul did not see Israel abandoned at the Cross. In fact, for
Paul, Israel's promises were inextricably linked to the Cross and the Cross was the power by which God would
fulfill His promises to them. And, all those promises were not fulfilled at the Cross.
Jesus said the Old Law would not pass until it was all fulfilled, Mat. 5:17-18. But Paul taught that the resurrection
was a constituent element of that Old Law; therefore the Law could not pass until the resurrection occurred.
Few would doubt that the resurrection is the time of redemption. Ephesians 1:13-14 says the miraculous gifts of
the Spirit had been given "until the redemption of the purchased possession." In Luke 21:22-32, Jesus spoke of
his coming in the fall of Jerusalem as the time of redemption, vs. 28. We would note three things in regard to this
text and our discussion of resurrection and redemption.
1.) Jesus said that in Jerusalem's fall "all things that are written must be fulfilled" vs. 22. Thus, Jesus identifies the
time when his requirement for the passing of the Law complete fulfillment would be.
2.) Jesus told the disciples that when they saw the events surrounding Jerusalem's demise "look up, and lift up
your heads, because your redemption draws near" vs. 28. Thus, the time of the day of redemption the time of
the resurrection is identified.

Some say this redemption speaks simply of the saving of their physical lives from any further persecution. But if
this were true, and if it be argued that the fall of Jerusalem was a strictly local event, of what value would these
words be to those outside of Judea?
Many commentators acknowledge that Romans 13:11-13 speaks of the fall of Jerusalem. Yet it is termed "the
day" and Paul says "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." If redemption/salvation is from
physical persecution only, and if the judgment on Jerusalem was a strictly localized event, in what way would the
salvation of the Romans be at hand? Per the "localized judgment" concept there should have been nothing for
the Romans to be "saved from!"
The same is true in 1 Peter 4:7, 17. Peter was speaking to brethren in Asia, Pontus, Galatia, etc, 1 Pet. 1:1. Yet
he said "the end of all things is at hand" 4:7; and, "the time has come for the judgment to begin at the house of
God" 4:17. Coffman says these verses refer to the fall of Jerusalem and that it was "the greatest single event of a
thousand years, and religiously significant beyond anything else that ever occurred in human history." But if this
be so it can hardly be called a "localized event!" For if the fall of Jerusalem was strictly localized, of what
significance would it have been to the brethren in Asia, Cappadocia, Pontus, etc.? The fact is, it was not a
localized event in significance any more than the crucifixion or resurrection were "localized" in significance!
Furthermore, as we have seen in Isaiah 2-4; 65-66; and Zechariah 12- 14 God promised salvation for Israel at
the time of her judgment in A.D. 70. Without dispute Israel was not saved physically at that time!
Our point is that when Jesus said that in the fall of Jerusalem redemption was at hand he was not speaking
simply of deliverance from persecution. While that definitely was included for his disciples, the fall of Jerusalem
signified the consummation of spiritual redemption. What Jesus had initiated by his passion he would
consummate by his Parousia, Heb. 9:24-28.
3.) In Luke 21:32 the Lord specifically said all these events would occur in his generation.
There is perfect harmony therefore between Jesus and Paul in regard to fulfillment and passing of the Law,
redemption and resurrection. The Old Law had to be fulfilled before it could pass. Jesus said the passing of the
Old System would bring redemption; redemption equaled resurrection.
Paul taught that the passing of the Old Law would be the time of the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 the
apostle said that the predictions of the resurrection, found in Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 would be fulfilled when
the sting of death and strength of sin was destroyed. Specifically, he said "the strength of sin is the law" vs. 56.
Reader, what law gave sin its strength?
Does the Gospel give sin its strength? It must if the resurrection does not occur until the end of the Christian Age
for it is the Gospel that is currently God's only law. Thus, since resurrection equals liberty from the strength of sin,
i.e. "the Law", if the resurrection comes at the end of the Christian Age then resurrection must be liberty from the
Gospel. Who can believe such a thing?
The Gospel is God's power to save, Rom. 1:16. The problem is "the law of sin and death" Rom. 8:1-3. The Old
Law could never deliver man from that Law. But the Gospel does! It is not the resurrection that delivers one from

the Gospel; but the Gospel that delivers from the Law of Sin and Death. Since then the Gospel cannot be the
strength of sin, what law was?
Paul uses the term "the law" 117 times in his writings; 110 times that term refers to the Old Covenant. In the
seven times that it does not refer to that Old Law the context very clearly identifies what law is under
consideration. It is evident therefore that when Paul uses the term "the law" in 1 Corinthians 15 that his consistent
use of the term should guide our understanding. Is it possible to define the Old Covenant as the strength of sin?
Indeed.
In Romans 5:20 Paul said the law was added "that sin might abound." This does not mean that God gave the Old
Law to make men sin more man had no problem doing that. But God gave the Old Law to make sin appear
exceedingly sinful, to make man acutely aware of his sinfulness.
In chapter 7 of the same book Paul said:

"I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived,
and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto
death. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew
me" vs. 9-11.
What death is Paul describing here? Is it biological death of his physical body? Patently not. Yet he said he had
died. What law was Paul describing so graphically in terms of sin and death? What law gave sin such a hold on
Paul? It was the law that said "thou shalt not covet" vs. 7 the Old Covenant of Israel.
This is the law that Paul labored under and that created the "body of this death" Rom. 7:24 and from which Paul
longed for full deliverance, cf. Phil. 3:1-15.
In direct contrast to the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ," the Old Law could not deliver from the "law of sin and
death," Rom. 8:1-3. As just seen in chapters 5-7 of Romans the Law actually exacerbated the cognizance of the
"law of sin and death." As Paul expressed in Galatians 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the Law are
under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the
book of the Law to do them." Thus, the Old Law is seen to be the strength of sin.
In his second letter to the Corinthians this apostle further dealt with that Old Law. While the law "written and
engraven in stones" was glorious in design and purpose, it nonetheless was a "ministration of death" 3:7. The
apostle spoke of his then present hope for the full passing of that Ministration of Death, 3:12. Now if the Old Law
had fully passed at the Cross how could Paul still be hoping for its passing over 20 years later as he penned this
epistle? My point is that Paul calls that Old Law the Ministration of Death because it could not deliver from sin.
As he expressed in Galatians "If there had been a law given that could have given life, truly righteousness would
have been by the Law," Gal. 3:10. Paul uses "life" and "righteousness" interchangeably. As we have seen earlier,
the Biblical definition of life and death, in the context of Jesus' redemptive work, is not redemption from biological
death but redemption from death caused by sin, i.e. separation from God. And from this the Old Law could not
deliver. Instead it exacerbated the problem of sin it was the strength of sin.

Now if the Old Law was a ministration of death what would deliverance from that death be? Would it be life from
the dead? Would it be resurrection? And if the Old Law was concerned with "carnal ordinances" Heb. 9:10, and
"things made with hands" but was to give way to the incorruptible Word of the Gospel, 1 Pet. 1:23, would that not
be a change from corruptibility to incorruptibility, 1 Cor. 15:53?
In all of these passages it is evident that the strength of sin was the Old Covenant. Please follow me here:
1.

Jesus said that all of the Law had to be fulfilled before it could pass. Paul said the resurrection would be
when the Old Testament predictions, Isaiah 25; Hos. 13 were fulfilled. Thus, the Old Law could not pass until the
resurrection occurred. If the resurrection has not occurred then the Old Law still stands.

2.

Paul said the resurrection would be deliverance from the strength of sin. The Old Law was the strength
of sin. Therefore resurrection would be full deliverance from the Old Law.

3.

Deliverance from the Old Law, the Ministration of Death, would come therefore when it was fulfilled by
full deliverance to the New Covenant Law of Life in Christ Jesus. If the New Covenant of Christ has been fully
delivered and the Old Law has been fully taken away, then the strength of sin has been destroyed and
resurrection life is a reality in Christ. To put it another way, since the Old Law was the Ministration of Death and
the New Law of Christ is the Law of Life, resurrection became a reality with the full establishment of Christ's New
Covenant.
While the Old Law does not exist today, sin does. And sin still separates just as it did for Jews under the
Ministration of Death or Gentiles "who have not the Law" Romans 2:14, but who were dead in sin nonetheless. It
is resurrection life from sin that has become a reality in Christ. Those who come into Christ today are set free
from sin, Ephesians 2:1, and raised to walk in newness of life, Romans 6:1- 4.
If the Old Covenant has not been fulfilled then the Old Covenant still stands. But if the Old Covenant still stands
there is no current deliverance from the law of sin and death. What good therefore has Christ done? What then is
"the law of the Spirit of life in Christ" Rom. 8:3, and from what does it deliver?
In John 5:24-29 Jesus makes it clear that it is hearing his voice that gives life from death. "Hearing" his voice is a
euphemism for obeying his word, thus obedience to Christ's word gives life from the dead. This is what the Old
Testament scriptures predicted, John 5:39ff, and what has become reality through the Gospel. It is not the Old
Covenant that saves but Jesus.
This brief study of the law and resurrection has demonstrated that the modern view that the Law passed at the
Cross is erroneous since Jesus said all of the law had to be fulfilled before it could pass and one of the
constituent elements of the law was the resurrection. If the resurrection has not occurred then the Old Law still
stands. Further, we have shown that Paul describes resurrection as deliverance from the Old Law that gave sin
its strength; and deliverance to the Gospel of Christ which gives life.
All of this fully agrees with what we have seen in regard to John 5:24-29 and its movement from the beginning of
the harvest/resurrection to the full resurrection. There was a transitional period of time when the Old Covenant
was growing old, Heb. 8:13 and thus "ready to pass away" and the time of complete revelation and confirmation
of the Gospel. Those coming out from under the Law into Christ were experiencing life from the dead. This also
included Gentiles who, while not under the Law, nonetheless were dead in sin, Ephesians 2:1f, but who were
made alive by "being raised together with him by faith in the operation of God" Col. 2:12, in baptism.

When one today realizes the absolute necessity for the fulfillment of the Old Law and Paul's discussion of the
relationship of the passing of the Law to the resurrection it demands that we see the resurrection as full
deliverance from sin, a spiritual resurrection. It also demands a fresh view of God's relationship with Israel
beyond the Cross.
God could not reject Israel until He had fulfilled all His promises to them "for the gifts and calling of God are
irrevocable" Rom. 11:29. If therefore God has not kept his promise of resurrection the Hope of Israel then
God must still have a distinctive relationship with them. Yet the fall of Jerusalem demonstrates beyond doubt that
God's relationship with Israel is terminated, see Daniel 9:24-27; therefore God's promises to Israel stand fulfilled
and the Hope of Israel has become a reality!
The Prophetic Background of John 5
With few exceptions, commentators agree that Daniel 12 and Ezekiel 37 form the prophetic background for
Jesus' prediction of the resurrection in John 5:28-29. And this can hardly be disputed. Interestingly, a few
commentators, aware of the constraints of Daniel 12, deny any connection with John 5:28-29. Jim McGuiggan
and Dub McClish, ministers in the church of Christ, see very clearly that Daniel 12 predicted events associated
with the end of Israel's world in A.D. 70 not the end of time. That this is true can hardly be denied. But the
association of the resurrection in Daniel 12 and the fall of Jerusalem does not disprove the connection of Daniel
12 to John 5. Only presumptive theological necessitates a dichotomy between these passages.
The parallels between Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 fully establishes that Jesus believed Daniel's prediction was to
be fulfilled in his generation. Daniel predicted the time of the Great Tribulation, 12:1; Jesus that would be in his
generation, 24:21. Daniel predicted the salvation of the elect and the resurrection, 12:1-2; Jesus said the elect
would be gathered at his coming in his generation, 24:30-34. Daniel said his predictions involved the time of the
end, vs. 4, 9; Jesus said the end of the age, 24:3, would come when the gospel had been preached into all the
world, 24:14 in his generation, 24:34. Daniel predicted the Abomination of Desolation, 12:11; Jesus said his
generation would see that evil and directly referred to Daniel, 24:15. Daniel heard one angel inquire of the other
when all these things would be fulfilled and the response was "when the power of the Holy People has been
completely shattered all these things shall be finished." 12:7. Jesus said, in predicting the fall of Jerusalem that
all the things predicted by Daniel would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in his generation.
With these incontrovertible parallels before us, when it is admitted that Daniel 12 lies at the foundation of John
5:28f then Daniel's statement that the resurrection would occur at the time of the demise of Israel is inspiration's
definitive answer. The consummative "coming hour" of John 5 was to be when Israel was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Ezekiel 37:12-14 is equally definitive; notice that the resurrection would be accomplished when Jehovah sent the
Spirit upon Israel, 37:14. This positively identifies the time frame for the resurrection as the last days of Israel, per
Joel 2:28f, since it was to be in Israel's last days that the Spirit was to be poured out. This outpouring of the Spirit
was to be miraculous. Since the resurrection was to be accomplished by the work of the Spirit when He was
poured out on Israel, the resurrection therefore is to be limited to the framework of the last days miraculous
working of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit's miraculous work has been finished then the resurrection has occurred! If the resurrection has
not occurred the miraculous work of the Spirit should still be evident! This is clear because it was the miraculous
work of the Spirit that would "lift up your mortal bodies" Rom. 8:11. (This is the same "body" that in vs. 9-10 Paul
said was already dead; was Paul writing to dead people?!) It was the miraculous work of the Spirit that was the

"earnest of the inheritance" Eph. 1:13-14, "until the redemption of the purchased possession." Luke said the day
of redemption would occur with the coming of Jesus in the fall of Jerusalem, Luke 21:28. Now if we no longer
have the miraculous Spirit but the resurrection has not occurred then God took away His guarantee! Who ever
heard of attempting to purchase a house, giving an earnest payment, and then taking the earnest payment back
before taking possession of the house but expect to obtain the house anyway? That earnest is the guarantee
of the consummation of the deal! God gave the miraculous Spirit as an earnest of the resurrection, 2 Cor. 5:5; if
that resurrection has not occurred but God has taken back the earnest, what guarantee do we have?
In reality, the fact that there are no miracles today stands as proof positive that the resurrection has occurred,
salvation is real, and God kept his Word!
When it is realized that the resurrection was to occur in "the last days," of Israel, not time, per Ezekiel 37 and Joel
2; when it is realized that the resurrection was to occur when the power of the holy people was completely
destroyed, Dan. 12:2; when it is realized that Jesus appeared in the last days, Heb. 9:26, and foretold the
complete destruction of the power of the holy people in his generation, Mat. 24, it is abundantly clear that when
Jesus in John 5 spoke of the resurrection and said "the hour is coming" he was not speaking of some distant time
but was truly speaking of his generation. Jesus was acutely aware of his mission to "confirm the promises made
to the fathers" Rom. 15:8. His appearance was not to say the promises would be delayed additional millennia but
to announce their imminent fulfillment.
John 5:28-29 therefore, when seen from its prophetic background, had to occur within clearly defined
chronological parameters. It matters not what a person's concept of the resurrection might be; the Biblically
defined chronological parameters for the resurrection cannot be ignored or rationalized.
What Is Resurrection?
A final question: just what constitutes Biblical resurrection? There are several constituent elements. When we
examine each of these elements in light of the New Testament evidence it is abundantly evident that there
definitely was an "already-but-not- yet" aspect to the resurrection. It also becomes apparent that there is but one
resurrection that is the focus of Biblical eschatology. And this correlates perfectly with our posit concerning John
5:24-29.
To help us in this investigation I will list the element of resurrection and then compare 1 Corinthians 15 with
Colossians 2-3, with attention to other passages as well, to demonstrate not only the spiritual nature of the
resurrection but the already-but-not-yet-aspect as well.
Resurrection Is:
1.) Putting off one body; taking another. 1 Cor. 15:35-44; cf. Col. 2:11-12; 3:5-10. In Corinthians the apostle says
"you do not sow the body that shall be" vs. 37; in Colossians he says they had "put off the body of the flesh" 2:11;
3:9, and were putting on the new man. Are these different "bodies"?
2.) The change from corruptibility to incorruptibility, 1 Cor. 15:42, 54-56; Col. 3:5; Eph. 4:22-25. In Corinthians
Paul says resurrection is the passage from corruptibility to incorruptibility. In Ephesians and Colossians he
speaks of their way of life without Christ as the life that was "corrupt according to deceitful lusts" ; their new life in
Christ was "a new man" 3:10.
This concept is also found in 1 Peter 1. The writer reminded his readers that they had not been redeemed by
"corruptible things"; things typical of the Old Covenant cultus of Israel. They had been redeemed by the blood of

Jesus. In addition, he reminded them that in contrast to those corruptible things they had been "born again, not of
corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever" vs. 18-23. What is the
nature of that which is born of incorruptible seed? In Peter therefore we find the idea of the passage from the
corruptible to the incorruptible to describe the passage from life in sin to the New Covenant World of Jesus.
3.) Raising from death to life, 1 Cor. 15:42f; Col. 2:13; 3:1f; also Ephesian 2:1f. It is very obvious from Colossians
that the raising from death to life involved the forgiveness of sin. Many fail to see that in Corinthians Paul is
dealing with the same issue when he challenges those who were denying that "the dead ones" would be
resurrected. (Those who had fallen asleep before Christ, therefore Old Testament saints, vs. 20). He challenged
them with implications of their doctrine that they did not accept; one of which was that if the dead ones do not
raise "you are still in your sins" vs. 17. Now how would the physical raising of dead bodies, or the failure to raise,
have any bearing on whether the Corinthians had been forgiven? Further, the apostle says if the dead ones did
not raise "those who "have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" vs. 18. What does he mean by perish? They
have already died physically! By perish he means they were lost spiritually! Thus, forgiveness of sin is very much
the issue in resurrection.
This is corroborated in Hebrews 9:15 where we are told that the eternal inheritance which the Old Testament
worthies did not and could not receive under that Covenant was the remission of sin. Yet in chapter 11 we are
told that what they desired was spiritual, vs. 13-16 and was "a better resurrection" vs. 36. Thus, even for those
who lived before Jesus forgiveness of sin was inextricably linked with and identified with resurrection life. And it
was the second coming of Jesus that was to bring to full realization that life that could not be obtained under the
first covenant, Heb. 9:15-28. The Hebrew writer is also emphatic in saying that "in a very little while he who is
coming will come and will not tarry" 10:37.
4.) Resurrection is removing the Image of Adam and taking the Image of Christ, 1 Cor. 15:48-49; Col. 3:10. We
cannot fully develop the issue of the "image of Adam" and the "image of Christ." Suffice it to say that the image of
God is what was lost in the Garden and what Jesus came to restore, 1 Cor. 15:21. The "image of Adam" is man
in sin, depending on self, separated from God. It manifestly cannot be physical death since Paul in Corinthians
says they had already borne that image remember the death Paul said he had experienced under the Old
Law? Once again we are back in the Garden defining the death that Adam died and that is separation from God
because of sin sin-death.
In Colossians Paul is discussing the same contrast in "Man"; the Old Man and the New Man. In Corinthians he
says the "first man," that was to be put off, was "of the earth" vs. 47; in Colossians he tells them to put away the
works of the earth "your earthly members," vs. 5 (McCord, NIV, etc). These things constituted "the old man."
Thus, in both Corinthians and Colossians there is the change from the "earthly" to the "heavenly."
In Corinthians Paul says "as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image, (greek,
eikona), of the heavenly Man" vs. 49. In Colossians the same apostle says they had borne the image of the Old
Man the man of sin but were to "put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image
(greek eikona) of Him who created Him." For Paul, the "image" of the Old Man was the life of sin; the "image" of
the New Man, the one created in Christ's image, was a life of submission to Christ, see Romans 8:29.
We would take special note at this juncture of the "already-but- not-yet" of resurrection life in Colossians 3. In vss.
1, 3 they died and were raised; yet their life was hidden and would be revealed at the parousia of Jesus. The

writer then tells them to put to death "the earthly members," the Old Man, because they have put on the New
Man. The "already-but-not-yet" permeates the text. There is no contrast between the nature of the present and
future; it is simply initiation and anticipation of consummation.
As we have already seen earlier, Paul strongly believed that the transformation from life under the Old Covenant
to life in Christ was a change from life to death. But it was also a transformation into the image of Christ! In 2
Corinthians 3:5-18 he discusses in- depth the then present passing of the Old Covenant System. It was not an
accomplished fact because he calls it his "hope," vs. 12, a hope that he placed in the present tense! He did not
say the Law had passed at the Cross; he said "when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."
The Old Covenant had glory, vs. 9-10; but its glory faded in comparison with the glory of Jesus' New Covenant. In
spite of this surpassing glory those who read the Old Covenant were remaining blind to the New Covenant glory,
stubbornly refusing to change.
Yet the apostle says those who were turning to Christ from that Old Covenant were in fact "being transformed
(present tense) into the same image (greek eikona) from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord" vs. 18. What
image were they being transformed into? It was the glory of the Lord! The transition from the Old Covenant to the
New was a transformation into the image of Christ precisely how Paul defined the resurrection in 1 Corinthians
15:49!
The "already-but-not-yet" is therefore fully established: in 2 Corinthians they were being transformed, present
tense, from one image of glory to another; in Colossians they were putting on, present tense, the new man that
was the image of Christ, 3:10; in Corinthians they were anticipating, the "not-yet," putting on the "image of
Christ."
5.) Resurrection is the state of "no marriage or giving in marriage," Luke 20:35; cf. 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 3:28; Col.
3:11. The literalistic approach to the Lukan text usually says "Since men still get married today this proves the
resurrection has not occurred." But that literalism generally is hastily abandoned when the other texts are brought
to bear. But why is the literalism that is applied to Luke 20 not applicable when Paul says that in Christ "there is
neither male or female," Gal. 3:28; "neither Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised"? If in Christ there is
neither male or female, is there any marrying going on? Why is this "sexless" condition that exists in Christ not
the condition wherein there is neither marrying or giving in marriage?
This is a particularly pertinent question in light of Colossians 2-3 where Paul is so plainly discussing life and
death; death and resurrection; the Old Man and the New. Since Paul's context is resurrection life and he
describes that life as in Christ where there are no distinctions, how does one divorce this "distinction free"
condition from Jesus' description of resurrection life in Luke 20?
6.) Resurrection produces Sons of God, Luke 20:35; Gal. 3:26-29. In language too clear to misunderstand Jesus
said the resurrection would produce Sons of God, Luke 20:36. He also said the "resurrection age," was the age
that would follow the age in which the Levirate marriage was practiced, Luke 20:27-34!
Under the Old Law Sons of God were made by physical birth, marriage and giving in marriage; that was how that
Old Kingdom was sustained and grew. Jesus told Nicodemus that for him, a man physically born into that Old

Kingdom, to enter the kingdom of heaven he would have to be "born again," John 3:1ff. To become a Son of God
he would have to be born again!
In contrast to the Old Covenant wherein one was born physically into that kingdom, through the marrying and
giving in marriage, Jesus said one would become a child of God by resurrection, Luke 20:35- 35; they would
become sons of God, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" John 1:13. In
Galatians 3:26-29 the apostle declared that they had become sons of God by faith in being joined with Christ in
baptism and remember, in baptism a person dies with Christ and is raised with him, Romans 6! Here is death,
burial, and resurrection resulting in becoming Sons of God!
7.) Resurrection is the reception of everlasting life, John 5:24, 29; Luke 20:35-36. Here is one of the clearest
manifestations of the "already-but-not-yet" in scripture if one is willing to open the eyes to what the Bible says.
Jesus said the dead who heard his voice would pass from death to life everlasting life; and those in the
resurrection "cannot die." Thus, resurrection equates to reception of eternal life. As we will see below, herein is
revealed one of the inherent problems with the two resurrection interpretation of John 5.
Jesus said "if anyone keeps my Word he shall never see death" John 8:51. This was the "already." The Jews,
with the literalistic mindset that still prevails, in discussions of life and death, accused Jesus of being demon
possessed for claiming those who believed him would never die, John 8:52ff.
The point is that Jesus said belief in him results in eternal life, cf. also John 20:30-31. John wrote his first epistle
telling his brethren "we know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren" 1 John 3:14;
but the one who refuses to love "abides in death." In comparison he says "everyone who loves is born of God,"
4:7. Remember point #6 above: resurrection equals being born as sons of God. Here John says those who love
the brethren have passed from death to life and are born of God!
John further says in 1 John 5:1 "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" and in 5:11- 13:
"And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has
life: he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in
the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life and that you may continue to believe in
the name of the Son of God."
Now Jesus said that faith in Him resulted in resurrection as Sons of God; John says those who believe in Christ
are born of God and have eternal life; and that they had passed from death to life! This is a powerful example of
the "already but not yet" of resurrection.
While John wrote of the then present reality of "from death to life and Sonship," he also anticipated the
(imminent) parousia in which that Sonship would be fully revealed, 1 John 3:1-3.
And do not forget that they had received the miraculous work of the Spirit, 1 John 2:20-27, as the Earnest of the
revelation of Sonship. They were to "abide" faithful until that coming of the Lord, 2:28; just as the miraculous work
of the spirit was abiding in them, 24, to bring the promise the not yet aspect of eternal life to perfection,
2:25. The anointing of the Spirit was to "abide" with them as they "abided" until the day "when He appears" 2:28.

The "abiding" of the Spirit and their "abiding in Christ" were concurrent, synchronous, and inextricably related. If
the Spirit was not to abide until the "Day" then they were under no obligation to "abide in Christ" until that
appearing. The Spirit was the "Guarantor" of that eternal life which they had begun to experience; remove the
Spirit before His work was completed and there was, (and thus could not be today!), no eternal life.
Yet the traditional amillennial view of John 5 and 1 John emphatically denies that eternal life is a present
possession of the believer today; "It is more accurate to view the present possession of eternal life as
prospective." But if this is so this means there is not a present "spiritual resurrection" as demanded per the two
resurrection interpretation of John 5:24-29. It means that one does not in reality pass from death to life; only
"prospectively." It means that if one does not have life he is not in Christ, 1 John 5:12: "no Son, no Life; no Life,
no Son"!
Eternal life was "prospective" from the Old Testament perspective, John 5:39f. If Christ has not fulfilled that Old
Covenant hope what has he accomplished? Read carefully Hebrews 9:15 and ponder.
We have thus examined seven constituent elements and results of resurrection. We have demonstrated that the
New Testament writers stated in unequivocal terms that those things were already present; not in physical
resurrection, Sonship, or body, but in the passage from the Old Covenant World of the Ministration of Death to
the New Covenant World of the Spirit of Life in Christ; from the death that is "the wages of sin," Rom. 6:23, to the
life that is righteousness in Christ. The "already" of resurrection life is therefore undeniably established.
The "not-yet" aspect of these things would be fully revealed at the coming of Jesus. The writers affirmed this was
at hand and involved the passing of "the world", 1 John 2:15; and the "last hour" had arrived, 1 John 2:18.
All of this evidence for an "already-but-not-yet" resurrection; and the manifest spiritual nature of that resurrection
strongly indicates that in John 5:24-29 Jesus was giving the foundational teaching upon which the rest of the
inspired penman rested their teaching.
Resurrection When?
I would like to briefly list several, although by no means all, of the time indicators for the resurrection. Our choices
are simple but challenging:
A.) If Jesus taught a physical resurrection and that it was to occur in his generation, then he was wrong and
Christianity is built on a false foundation.
B.) If Jesus taught a spiritual resurrection and that it was to occur in his generation, then Jesus was right.
C.) If Jesus taught a physical resurrection and that it was not to be in his generation, then the thesis of this work
is wrong.
The question is: did the prophets, or Jesus or Jesus' disciples, give any clear-cut time indicators for when the
resurrection would occur? The answer is a resounding "Yes!"
1.) Daniel 12, 1-7, 13
Daniel foresaw the end of the age and the resurrection when his eternal inheritance would be received. He was

also told it would occur when the power of the Holy People was completely shattered, vs. 7. This can be no other
time than A.D. 70.
2.) Matthew 8:11ff
Jesus spoke of many from the east and west, i.e. the Gentiles, coming and sitting at meal with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in the kingdom. The imagery is of the Messianic Banquet based upon Isaiah 25:6; Isaiah 65:13ff, etc.
This Banquet would occur when God "swallowed up death" Isaiah 25:8; it would also occur when Israel had filled
the measure of her sins and was destroyed, 65:6-15.
Jesus said the Banquet would occur when the Sons of the Kingdom, i.e. Old Covenant Israel, was cast out and
the Gentiles fully brought in! When were the Jews fully cast out; and would that be before they had filled the
measure of sin? See Matthew 21:40-43 it was at the Lord's coming in A.D. 70 in the judgment of Israel.
Matthew 8 is an excellent commentary on 1 Corinthians 15. In verse 54 Paul said the resurrection would be the
fulfillment of Isaiah 25:8. In verses 50 he said "flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."
Resurrection equaled entrance into the kingdom, cf. John 3:1-5. Notice the correlation between Matthew and
Corinthians.
In Matthew and Corinthians, Isaiah 25:6-8 is the foundational Old Testament prophetic text. In both Matthew and
Corinthians entrance into the kingdom is the focus of the fulfillment of the prediction, Mat. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:50. In
Matthew the Kingdom Banquet would be enjoyed when the Jews were cast out, i.e. at the end of the Old
Covenant Age. In Corinthians the resurrection would occur at the consummation of the Old Covenant promises,
i.e. when all of the Old Testament promises had reached final reality. Thus when the Old Covenant would pass,
Matthew 5:17-18.
3.) Matthew 13:36-43
The end of the age when the Son of Man would send his angels to gather the elect would be when the "righteous
will shine forth." But this is a direct quote from Daniel 12:3! And Daniel's prediction of the end of the age and
resurrection was to consummate in A.D. 70! Thus, by inspiration's decree the resurrection is placed at the end of
the Old World of Israel and not the end of time.
4.) Matthew 16:27-28
In terms too simple and too plain to misunderstand Jesus promised his coming for the purpose of judgment on
every man; and it would be during the lifetime of his audience! Later in that same generation he said "Behold, I
come quickly and my reward is with me"; a direct allusion to his earlier promise! What he had promised to occur
within the lifetime of his earlier audience he was now, two thousand years ago, promising to accomplish "soon"
"quickly"; it was "at hand"; and "must shortly come to pass" Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10, 12, 20.
5.) Matthew 23:29-39
Would you agree that the resurrection is when all the martyrs of God are vindicated, judged and rewarded? Yes
or No? Every Bible student I have asked this question has answered in the affirmative.
But in Matthew 23 Jesus said that "all the righteous blood shed on the earth" all the way back to creation would
be judged "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" 23:36. Here is my argument:
Major Premise: The resurrection is when all the martyrs of God are judged.
Minor Premise: All the martyrs of God would be judged in Jesus' generation.
Conclusion: The resurrection would be in Jesus' generation.
It can scarcely be argued that the fall of Jerusalem was simply a "local judgment of the Jews" based upon what
Jesus predicted. He said all of the blood, of all the martyrs, all the way back to Abel, would be judged in his

generation. Abel was not a Jew. Thus, Jesus' prediction entailed not only the living, his generation, but the dead
as well. That can hardly be called a local judgment!
The theme of the book of Revelation is the judgment of the city that killed the prophets, and was guilty of the
blood of "all who have been slain on the earth" 18:24. This city is none other than where the Lord was crucified,
11:8, and that judgment was "at hand" 1:1-3.
6.) Matthew 24:29-31
In this text Jesus promised his coming in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. He said that in that
complex of events would occur the sending of his angels to gather the elect this is the precise same gathering
of the elect in Matthew 13 above. Jesus said this would be in his generation, Matthew 24:29-34. How is it
possible, as most amillennial exegetes do, to insist that the coming, angels, clouds, trumpet, gathering, etc. of
Matthew 24 must be understood of the spiritual realities occurring in the end of Israel's Age in A.D. 70, but the
identical elements must be understood literally of another end of the age in Matthew 13 and 16? What is the
magic hermeneutical principle that allows one to so sharply delineate between these "comings" and "gatherings"?
When it is seen that Jesus' Olivet Discourse is the foundation for Paul's Thessalonian discourse about the Lord's
coming to gather the saints, 1 Ths. 4:13-18; 2 Ths. 1:7-10; 2 Ths. 2:1, then these resurrection passages must
also be seen in the light of the time frame of the Olivet Discourse; the end of Israel's Old Covenant World.
7.) Luke 20:34
The resurrection would usher in "the age to come". Question: what was "this age" from Jesus' perspective?
Galatians 4:4 tells us Jesus was born under the Law, the Old Covenant Age. Hebrews 9:26 says Jesus appeared
in the end of the age; surely this can not be referent to the end of time as all agree. So Jesus appeared in the Old
Covenant Age; this was his "this age" in Luke 20:34. And the resurrection was to usher in the "age to come."
What age followed Jesus' "this age"?
8.)Luke 20
The resurrection would inaugurate the Age following the Age of the Levirate Marriage. In what age, which Jesus
called "this age," was the Levirate Marriage practiced? See just above and Deuteronomy 25.
9.)1 Cor. 15:52
The resurrection would be when the last trumpet would sound, and Paul told the Corinthian church that not all of
them would die until that happened, 1 Cor. 15:51. Compare this text with Matthew 16:27-28.
Further, Paul said they were living in the end of the age, 1 Cor. 10:10-11; they would possess the miraculous gifts
of the Spirit until the coming of the Lord, 1 Cor. 1:4- 8; and that the time had been shortened and the world was
passing away, 1 Cor. 7:28-31.
It is significant that in Revelation we read of seven Trumpets and that the resurrection, which would be when the
prophets and martyrs would be rewarded, 11:18, is directly associated with the fall of the city "where also our
Lord was crucified", 11:8.
The time of the sounding of the seventh (last) trumpet is also when all the things foretold by the prophets would
be fulfilled, 10:7. And do not forget that Jesus placed the final fulfillment of "all things that are written" in relation
to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
10.)2 Timothy 4:1
Paul said Jesus would judge the living and the dead at his appearing and kingdom. In Luke 21:26-31 Jesus told

his disciples that in the fall of Jerusalem they would see the coming of their redemption, vs. 28; (the gathering of
the elect, Mat. 24:31); the kingdom, vs. 31; and his parousia, vs. 27. Needless to say he also said all this would
be in his generation, vs. 32.
11.) 1 Pt. 1:3-13
Peter, writing before A.D. 70 said the time for the reception of the eternal inheritance foretold by the prophets,
see #1 above, was "ready to be revealed" at the coming of the Lord. The prophets knew salvation was far off; it
was not for their time, vs. 10- 12. But Peter said it was "ready to be revealed." The contrast in time cannot be
overemphasized! The reception of the eternal inheritance was now ready to be revealed; it once was not "ready
to be revealed" but now was.
This is why Peter said Jesus was "ready to judge the living and the dead" 4:5. The word "ready" is the same word
as in chapter 1. The Expositors Greek Testament says the Greek reader would understand it to refer to "the
imminent judge." Here then is an unequivocal statement about the first century imminence of the resurrection.
Peter also said "the end of all things is at hand" 4:7. Literally, this reads "has come near," cf. Mat. 3:2, "the
kingdom of heaven has come near." In what ever way the kingdom had drawn near in Matthew, the end of all
things had drawn near in Peter. The kingdom was truly imminent in Matthew, therefore the end of all things was
truly imminent in Peter.
The apostle also said "the time has come for the judgment to begin at the house of God" 4:17. Do not all agree
that the resurrection is concurrent with the coming of the Lord, the end of all things and judgment? Certainly.
Thus, in Peter we find that the Lord was "ready" to be revealed; "the end of all things" was "at hand"; the time for
"the judgment" had come; and Jesus was "ready to judge the living and the dead." How much clearer could
inspiration declare the imminence of the resurrection?
Here then are several emphatic chronological indicators, and there are many more, for not only when the
resurrection was to occur but the framework for its occurrence at the end of the Old World of Israel.
It does not matter what one's concept of the resurrection is: if one is to maintain belief in Biblical inspiration
hemust acknowledge that the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and his disciples plainly taught that the
resurrection was to occur at the end of the Jewish Theocracy in A.D. 70.
The overwhelming sense of eschatological imminence that permeates the New Testament simply cannot be
ignored by the honest Bible student. Scholars have struggled with this imminence coupled with their literalistic
views of the "last things" and come to the conclusion that Jesus and scripture was not inspired. And it is not a
question of whether the imminence was real; the Greek words admit no other meaning and these scholars know
it. On the other hand, the language of resurrection very plainly does admit of a spiritual, non-literal meaning. And
this is the only solution for the dilemma.
Allowing the Bible to define the resurrection as deliverance from the Old Covenant of Death to the New Covenant
of Life, as deliverance from the death brought by sin, separation from God, not physical death, acknowledges the
full force of the New Testament language of imminence.

Problems With Tradition

While it is widely maintained that in John 5:24-29 there are two resurrections, one present and one future, one
spiritual, one physical, a closer look reveals that this belief is actually denied at the very time it is maintained!
In a study with two elders from the churches of Christ in my area, John 5 became the focus of our discussion. I
asked one of the elders if John 5:24-25 is a present reality: he said "Yes." I then asked if this meant we today
possess everlasting life as promised in the text; he replied emphatically that we do not! This is representative of
the amillennial view. What does this mean? It means there is no spiritual resurrection today at all; the promise of
John 5:24-25 is not valid.
The amillennial view, which I once held, actually makes Jesus a giver of false promises. It says even though
Jesus said "the hour is coming and now is" for the believer to receive everlasting life, that the reception of that life
must wait until the arrival of the other hour, the one Jesus said had not yet arrived.
Remember, the amillennial view does not believe that Jesus' "now is" hour and the "the hour is coming" hour are
the same. They are separated, by two thousand years so far, and involve two different kinds of resurrections; two
kinds of life. Nonetheless, when amillennialism says the life of verse 24-25 is in truth the life that is received at
the time of the hour of verse 28-29, it logically demands that verse 24-25 was not then present and that the life in
24-25 is the same as the life in 28- 29. Thus, per this view, the hour that "now is" and the "coming hour" are
combined and equate to the end of time. Jesus did not actually mean the hour of salvation was present he just
said so. Should we not be cautious to accept a position that so radically rejects Jesus' words?
If a person does not today receive everlasting life as a result of faith in Christ, what do they receive? Jesus said
they are passed from death to life, but the amillennial view says that is not true because this would imply the
impossibility of apostasy. (This is a false assumption without merit but lies outside the point of the discussion
here.) According to the amillennial view, a person is in spiritual death outside of Christ. But even though they
receive Christ in faith they do not receive eternal life in this sphere. This logically demands that there is no such
thing as spiritual life for the believer today since they do not truly "pass from death to life" as Jesus promised.
Just what kind of life does the believer actually receive in Christ anyway? Temporal life? "Almost eternal" life?
Half eternal, half temporal?
Jesus said the believer receives everlasting life; the amillennial view says "No, the believer receives the promise
of everlasting life." In effect, this says the believer is not raised from spiritual death because that would mean he
has life. He can only have the promise of everlasting life. Are we to understand that Jesus was giving a promise
of being raised to a promise? But if the believer does not today receive the passage "from death to life", then
Jesus was clearly wrong when he said "the hour is coming and now is." It is one of the embarrassing selfcontradictions of the amillennial view that they attempt to say John 5:24-25 is a present day reality for believers
and then immediately assert that the believer does not possess what John 5:24-25 promises.
Objections Considered
As noted at the beginning of this work, the idea of a physical raising of dead human corpses is so engrained in
the modern mind that it is difficult for many to rethink. Changing our way of thinking is difficult and often
uncomfortable. Hopefully this book has challenged the reader with enough evidence to initiate that rethinking
process. Naturally, there are objections to the views herein elucidated and we wish to deal with two of the more
common and significant issues.
Jesus the Firstfruits
It is often argued that since Jesus was raised physically from the dead, and since we must be resurrected like
him, that this proves a physical resurrection. This argument is normally grounded on 1 Corinthians 15:20 which
speaks of Christ being "the firstfruits of them that slept." The argument says Jesus was the firstfruits of the

resurrection; the harvest must follow the firstfruits "in kind"; Jesus was resurrected physically; therefore the
harvest, i.e. the resurrection, must be physical.
The concept of the firstfruits is itself significant. Jesus was the "firstfruits of them that slept" 1 Cor. 15:20. Contrary
to the view that there has been so far a two thousand year gap between firstfruits and the harvest, Dunn
comments on the significance of the term firstfruits; it

"denotes the beginning of the harvest, more or less the first swing of the sickle. No
interval is envisaged between the firstfruits and the rest of the harvest. With the
first fruits dedicated the harvest proceeds. The application of this metaphor to the
resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit expresses the belief that with these
events the eschatological harvest has begun; the resurrection of the dead has
started, the end-time Spirit has been poured out."
Anyone familiar with harvest time fully concurs with this. To deny that firstfruits implies the imminent harvest is to
deny the significance of the firstfruits. Thus, those who lodge the "firstfruits" argument against the spiritual nature
of the resurrection actually turn the argument against themselves for their own argument would demand that the
physical resurrection was imminent in the first century. And those who make this argument deny this.
This objection also fails to understand two other critical points. First, Jesus' physical resurrection was a sign,
Matthew 12:39-40; John 21:30-31, and a sign never signifies itself.
For illustration consider Jesus' miracles. Turning water into wine did not signify a future winemaking event, John
2. When Jesus fed the five thousand and said he is the bread of life this did not signify that he is literal bread.
When Jesus walked on the water this did not signify a future time of water walking for all believers.
None of the miracles of Jesus signified a future event similar to the miracle. They signified spiritual realities. See
Mark 2:1-10 where Jesus specifically noted that his miracles were a sign of spiritual truths. Why then is it argued
that there must be a physical resurrection because Jesus was physically raised from the dead? His resurrection,
like the other miracles he performed, signified his deity and spiritual truths.
Second, Romans 6 identifies the kind of death and resurrection experienced by Jesus that is to be emulated by
believers. We have already seen the spiritual likeness of being joined with Christ's death, vs. 3-5. Now notice
verse 8-10:
"Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised
from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin
once for all: but the life that He lives He lives unto God."
Please note that Paul speaks of the Christian's past death in verse 8. What kind of death had they already
experienced? It cannot be physical. But there was a future life consistent with the nature of that death. If the past
death was spiritual the future life was spiritual! And this future life was to emulate Jesus' resurrection. But what is
the apostle's focus when he speaks of Jesus' death and life? Notice carefully: "The death that he died he died to
sin once for all; but the life that he lives he lives unto God."
Jesus experienced sin-death on behalf of all men, 1 Peter 2:24; his Father turned his back on him, Mat. 27:46,
because "he was made to be sin for us,", 2 Cor. 5:21. When he died physically he went to the Hadean realm,

separated from his Father, Acts 2:31. But because he was personally sinless Hades could not hold him, Acts
2:24. He rose physically to manifest his triumph over the Hadean realm of separation from the Father. We would
not know of Jesus' victory over sin-death were it not for that physical resurrection! That resurrection was proof
positive of Jesus' identity and victory, Rom. 1:4f.
When Paul speaks of the believer's participation in Jesus' resurrection he concentrates on Jesus' death to sin
and resurrection to life with the Father. This is not physical but spiritual.
Those who make this objection fail to note that not only does Paul say the believer must participate in Jesus'
resurrection, he makes it abundantly clear that the believer participates in the likeness of Jesus' death.
If physical resurrection is demanded to emulate Jesus' resurrection, why is not a physical death in the likeness of
his physical death not also required? Must the believer be crucified like him; scourged and unjustly condemned?
And if the believer does not die in true likeness of that physical death does this mean he will not be raised in
likeness of Him?
Paul is emphatic in Romans, Philippians, Colossians and elsewhere that they were participating in the likeness of
Christ's death. In Romans 6 he said they had been "baptized into his death" vs. 3; they had been "united with him
in the likeness of his death" vs. 5; they had "died with Christ" vs. 8. But is it not irrefutably true that the "likeness
of his death" they had experienced was not physical death?
If Jesus' physical resurrection demands a physical resurrection, does this not demand that there had to be some
more dying on the part of those to whom Paul wrote?
In Romans 6 the apostle says they had already died, vs. 8; in 1 Corinthians 15 they had already borne the image
of the man of dust, i.e. death, vs. 49; in Colossians 3 they had already died, vs. 3; in 2 Timothy 2 they had
already died, vs. 11. In each of these texts the death had already occurred and the future resurrection was to
overcome the present death.
Obviously, physical death is not the death they had experienced. But if the future resurrection was to overcome
death did they not have to die some more and a different kind of death? How many kinds of death did Paul
say one had to die to participate in Jesus' resurrection? If the future resurrection in these passages is of a
different nature than the death they had died, why did Paul see such a direct relationship? Why did he not tell
them that although they had already died, this was not the death from which the coming resurrection would free
them? And if the future resurrection in these passages would not deliver them from the death they had already
experienced does this not mean that they would be physically raised but not spiritually? Did Paul say one had to
die twice; once spiritually with Christ and then physically like him? Just where does the inspired apostle suggest
such a thing texts? The answer is simple; he does not do so. The apostle speaks of one death and one
resurrection.
Finally, appeal to a physical resurrection upon the grounds that Jesus was "the firstborn from the dead" actually
demands that the physical resurrection had begun.
The New Testament is emphatic in teaching that the first century brethren comprised "the church of the firstborn
ones" Heb. 12:23; Christ had begotten them to be "a kind of firstfruits unto him" Js. 1:18; Paul said Jesus was the

"firstborn among many brethren" Rom. 8:29. They had joined with Christ in his death and resurrection, Rom. 6.
Clearly, therefore their firstborn status did not refer to resurrection from physical death. They had joined with
Christ in dying to sin and raising to life with the Father.
But if the "firstfruit from the dead" argument must refer to physical death and resurrection this means that the
entire early church had been physically resurrected since they had joined with Christ in his death and
resurrection and become firstfruits.
The objection therefore that the believer must be raised as Jesus was is true if we understand that this refers to
Jesus' death to sin and resurrection to life with the Father. But if by this it is meant a physical resurrection this is
clearly wrong as Paul shows.
What About The Body?
One of the most common objections to the views presented in this study is that the Bible teaches a "bodily
resurrection" and that the concept of a spiritual resurrection denies this. It is often insisted that a spiritual
resurrection denies a "bodily" resurrection. But this is truly a misunderstanding of what scripture teaches. I affirm
that the Bible definitely teaches a "bodily resurrection"; I just deny that it is the raising of a physical body out of
the earth.
Look closer at Romans 6. Notice that Paul says "the old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be
done away with" vs. 6. Is there a body here? Surely. Paul says that in baptism one man was put to death and
buried; a "body" is definitely involved here! But there is another "body" at work here; the one that is raised. Quite
evidently, when Paul says the body of sin was destroyed he is not speaking of the human physical body or else
he is saying that a person is baptized to destroy the human physical body!
The identical thought is found in Colossians 2:11:

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ."
An examination of the original text reveals that the words "sins of" are not present. Thus the literal reading is "by
putting off the body of the flesh." Paul said they had put off their "fleshly body" in baptism! We do not wish to be
redundant but is it possible to understand Paul as referring to the physical body? Surely not. Yet it is undeniable
that Paul is teaching that they had put off one body in exchange for another. And what is resurrection but the
raising out of death to life; the putting off of one body for another? What was the other body?
They had "put on Christ" Gal. 3:27; they had become a new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; they were creating a "new
man," Eph. 4:22-24, even as they "put off the old man which grows corrupt"; in putting off the "body of flesh" they
were putting to death "your earthly members," Col. 3:5-10; "the old man with his deeds"; and were putting on "the
new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created Him."
Here then, Paul is teaching about man's "body" as it stands before God. Man under sin is a body of death; man
under God's Covenant is a body of life.
Consider the Prodigal Son. The young man rebelled against his Father's will, wasting his life and fortune in sin.
While in that rebellious state his father said he was "dead" Luke 15:24; not physically, but the totality of his
existence was alienated from his father. Physical life and death was not the issue; but life and death was.

When he returned, his father said the son was now "alive"; his son had been "resurrected" in the truest sense of
the word. His standing before his father had been transformed from death to life. It did not involve his bodily
substance, his physical make-up, but it involved his spiritual stance, his standing before his father.
Paul carries this out in Romans 7-8. In chapter 7 the apostle relates his struggles under the Old Covenant; "I was
alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." Notice Paul's reference to
life and death. As we have repeatedly stated this cannot be referent to physical life and death. Yet it is very real
life and very real death! Just because it is "spiritual" does not mean it is not actual and real!
How did Paul refer to his struggles under the Law? Listen to him: "Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver
me from this body of death?" Paul was not desiring a deliverance from his human physical body! But he was
speaking of his desire for "bodily" deliverance! He referred to his life the totality of his stance before God under
the Old Law as his "body." And under the Law that was a body of death because as we have seen, the Old Law
could not justify; it only condemned. It was a "Ministration of Death."
That Paul does not have deliverance of the physical human body in mind is shown in his response to his
lamentable condition under the Law: "I thank God through Christ Jesus our Lord! So then, with the mind I
myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Paul said the answer for his "body" problem was
Jesus. And what is the nature of that deliverance?
In Romans 8:1-3 the apostle explains:
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the
flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin
and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh."
For Paul, deliverance from the "body of death" was New Covenant salvation in Christ! It was, as Tim King
suggests, a change in "stance" before God not a change in physiological "substance." It was "bodily" salvation to
be sure, but not of a human corpse out of "terra firma."
This is further corroborated in Romans 8:6-14. Here the apostle makes comments concerning life and death,
body and resurrection, flesh and spirit, that simply cannot be applied to physical life and death, physiological
body versus man's spirit, and raising of human corpses from the earth.
In verse 8 he says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Now if by "flesh" he meant the human
physical body (soma) then clearly man cannot please God in this life! But as King says "Flesh and spirit for Paul
equal determinative modes of existence." This is undeniable, For instance, in Galatians 3:1f Paul wrote to
Christians being tempted to return to the Old Law "having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect in the
flesh?" "In the Spirit" refers to their New Covenant life in Christ; "in the flesh" refers to a return to the Old
Covenant. "Flesh" and "Spirit" are modes of existence; not physical bodies versus disembodied spirit.
On a wider scale, life "in the flesh" included the Gentiles that, while not under the Mosaic Covenant, were guilty of
sin and thus "in the flesh," Eph. 2; Col. 2-3. Thus, Paul charged that whether "Jew or Greek all are under sin"
Romans 3:9. Life apart from God was life "in the flesh," and constituted "the body of the flesh"; the "body of sin."

On the other hand, to be in the spirit, for Paul, was not to be disembodied from the human body, but to be
delivered from one mode of existence under the Old Law to a new mode of existence under the New Covenant
Law of Jesus Christ. This is the very thought in Galatians 3-5 as well.
Continuing in Romans 8 we find that Paul said "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit
is life because of righteousness." Ponder this: Paul says if Christ dwelt in them, the body was dead. What body?
Was it not the body Paul referred to in Romans 7:24 the one he desired deliverance from? It surely cannot be
the physical body or else he is saying that Christ only dwelt in physically dead people.
He then says that if Christ dwelt in them "he who raised up Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal
bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." This "mortal body" is not different than the body already in view
the body Paul has been discussing in relationship to the Law, sin and death.
We are back to the "already-but-not-yet" since Paul has declared deliverance from the law of sin and death, Rom.
8:1, and yet is still speaking of life from death. Paul is dealing with the firstfruits since they had received "the
firstfruits of the Spirit," 8:23, (see 8:28 also) but were anticipating the full deliverance. He has not changed the
focus from spiritual death and life to physical death and life; from a spiritual body to a physical body. Paul is
consistent throughout. His entire focus is on deliverance from the law of sin and death; on the death that "passed
on all men because all have sinned, Rom. 5:12. This is the death of the Garden; and as we have seen this
cannot be physical death.
The inspired writer not only speaks of the coming resurrection but reminds them that God had given them the
"firstfruits of the Spirit" as the guarantee of that coming consummation, 2 Cor. 5:5. We have already seen that this
is a reference to the presence of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Ezekiel promised that God would place His Spirit in Israel and raise them from the dead, Ezekiel 37:12- 14. This
was not to be a nationalistic restoration but a release from sin through the saving work of the Messiah; and it is
called coming out of their graves! Our point is that Paul teaches that the miraculous work of the Spirit would be
perfected and finished in the resurrection. If there are no miracles today then the resurrection must have
occurred or the Spirit failed to complete his mission! If the resurrection has not occurred the miraculous works of
the Spirit must be present!
There is no scriptural indication that God would pour out His Spirit (for one generation) to guarantee the
resurrection; take the Spirit away for an indeterminate time, and then send Him again for a "final miracle"! One
cannot divorce the resurrection work of the Holy Spirit from that first century framework without doing great
violence to the text.
What we have seen then is that Paul did teach a "bodily" resurrection. Yet his concept of the "body" is not that of
the modern church. Modern man thinks of body substance; Paul thinks of man's stance before God. Modern man
thinks of a body out of the ground; Paul thinks of man delivered from sin. Man thinks physiology; Paul thinks
soteriology. The Bible student needs to bring his thoughts into alignment with Paul.
We have examined two main objections to the view that the Bible concept of resurrection is deliverance from sin
and reconciliation with God. The objections reject the Biblical definition of death; they fail to acknowledge the
"sign" nature of Jesus' physical resurrection; and they change the definition of Paul's "body" resurrection.

Summary and Conclusion

We have seen that the death for which resurrection is the cure is Biblically defined as sin-death, separation from
God, and not physical death.
We have seen that Jesus' declaration of the resurrection in John 5 must be seen as moving from initiation to
perfection; from the authority to give life to the authority to render judgment; from "some" to "all." John 5 does not
contain two different kinds of resurrection; one spiritual and one physical. This is borne out by other NT
passages.
It has been shown that the relationship between the passing of the Old Law, the Ministration of Death, and the full
confirmation of Jesus' New Covenant of Life. Resurrection life was brought to a reality by the complete fulfillment
of that Old Law, 1 Cor. 15:54-56.
We have studied Paul's trial before the various authorities and demonstrated that his hope could not have been
for a physical resurrection. His resurrection hope was the Hope of Israel. The elect had begun to obtain it; Paul
was already participating in it. If God cut off Israel at the Cross then He cut them off before fulfilling His promises
to them!
We have examined the OT prophetic foundation for the resurrection and seen that John 5 is grounded firmly on
two passages, Daniel 12 and Ezekiel 37, both of which clearly define the time and framework for the resurrection.
In addition we have seen from other Old Testament prophecies that Israel's salvation would come when Israel
was judged and each of those texts isolates the time of that judgment the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
We have noted the traditional view of John 5:24f and found it to be self-contradictory at best. In addition we have
seen that John, in his gospel, anticipated the coming of the consummative "hour"; in his first epistle he
emphatically declared the hour was upon them; in Revelation 14 we find that the hour of the judgment had come
and it was associated with the fall of the city where the Lord was crucified.
In 1 John we find the very motif predicted in Ezekiel 37 the presence of the Holy Spirit to bring about the
resurrection. The miraculous nature of the work of the Spirit and its limitation to the "last days" of Old Israel's Age
places the time of the resurrection in that framework, Joel 2-3.
As suggested above, the coming critical hour was when the spiritual salvation/resurrection initiated by Jesus'
resurrection would be consummated when the Old World of the Ministration of Death, 2 Cor. 3, was swept away
in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
We have examined some of the constituent elements of resurrection and demonstrated that in the first century
the New Testament writers positively stated the present, but not yet consummated reality of each of these
elements. And not one time do the writers associate these elements with physical death and life but with the
passage from sin to righteousness in Christ. This shows in the strongest possible way that the resurrection
cannot be a passage from physical death.
With several examples but by no means all that could be given, I have demonstrated the Biblical time- frame and
framework for the resurrection. The New Testament writers were uncompromising and unequivocal in stating that
the resurrection was near at hand and would come at the "end of the age"; at the end of Israel's Age not the end
of time. They were either right or wrong there is no middle ground.

Finally, we have examined some of the objections against the view herein presented and found them to be at
odds with the express statements of scripture.
What this all means is that in Christ today there is to be found true life. God through Christ has conquered sin
and death and for those in Christ; "there is therefore now no condemnation" Romans 8:1. The resurrection life
brought to a reality by Christ was in one sense a one time for all time event because it involved the final judgment
on the Old Covenant World of Israel and sin. But it is because of that event that Life in Christ has become an
eternal reality.
The establishment of the kingdom in the first century was a one time for all time event never to be duplicated; yet
the blessings are with us today "world without end" Eph. 3:20-21. The miraculous work of the Spirit was limited
"one time for all time" to the last days of Israel never to be duplicated again. Yet we today have the abiding result
of that perfected work. Jesus died one time for all time, Rom. 6:8-11; yet we today have the unending blessings
resulting from fulfillment of the prophecies of that death.
Just so, Christ's coming at the end of the age was not to end judgment but to establish unending judgment,
Isaiah 9:6-9; it did not mean there would be no judgment after his coming. Contrary to the amillennial view, at his
coming Christ would sit on the throne of his glory to judge not surrender his throne. Christ's throne, his throne
of judgment, is without end, Luke 1:32-35. Christ's eternal standard of judgment, His Word, not only judged in
"the last day," but is the unmovable standard of judgment, Heb. 12:28; 13:20.
Death reigned from Adam to Moses, Rom. 5:14f. The Law entered and exacerbated man's futility making sin
"exceedingly sinful" Rom. 7:13, and man aware of his state of death, Rom. 7:24, longing for deliverance. That Old
Law could not give life but it promised it when Messiah would come. Jesus truly has "abolished death and
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" 2 Tim.1:9f. Man once separated from God can now, in
Christ, be delivered from sin raised from the deadness of sin. This is true resurrection!
This study, while necessarily involving much material, has therefore examined one of the key passages used to
buttress the "two resurrection" concept and found that John 5 must be kept within the timeframe of the first
century, and framework of the passing of the Old Covenant.
While this study has, in its polemic aspect, focused on some of the weaknesses of the amillennial view, the
implications are just as devastating against the literalistic premillennial paradigm. For if the Hope of Israel was
not a physical resurrection, much more was it not a nationalistic restoration.

Putting off the Flesh

MAY 11TH Written by Don K. Preston
Resurrection is normally understood as the putting off of the fleshly body and taking on the immortal body. Yet the
only Bible passage that explicitly speaks of putting off the body, specifically the body of flesh, speaks of being
raised from sin-death [1]. Sin-death is the death resulting from sin. This is spiritual death and not physical. God
told Adam and Evethat they would die in the day you eat Genesis 2:15-17). They did not die physically; they
died spiritually by beingcast out of the presence and fellowship of God.

Close to everlasting life in Christ.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins
of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him
through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12, NKJ) In the original language,
the words the sins of are not present. The text literally reads putting off the body of the flesh. Paul speaks of
death, resurrection, the body of flesh. This has caused commentators no little consternation for it seems that Paul
was proclaiming realized eschatology. He seems to be saying that the Colossians had already been
resurrected! Yet the traditional view of the resurrection of the biological body is totally absent.

There is probably no element of Pauls theology that is more misunderstood than his doctrine of the body, of
flesh, and the resurrection. One of the reasons the apostle is so misunderstood is because most Bible students
approach scripture with a Greek world view and not a Hebrew. Yet Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews
(Philippians 3:5); he thought and wrote from the Jewish mind set.

Western civilization is dominated by the Greek world view. In regard to man that means that we think of man as
possessing a body and an eternal soul. Yet as Robinson expresses it, the Hebrews believed Man does not have
a body, he is a body. [2] . John A. T. Robinson, The Body, A Study in Pauline Theology, (Philadelphia,
Westminster Press, 1952)14.

Further, whereas the Greeks defined flesh as the soft tissue parts of the body, the Hebrew thought was that
Flesh represents mere man, man in contrast to God--hence man in his weakness and mortality. [3]. Robinson,
p. 19 To summarize, the Greeks thought of flesh and body in crassly materialistic terms. The Hebrew thought of
these in theological terms; they thought of man in relationship to God.
Paul fully concurred with Hebrew thought. In Romans 8:8f he said those who are in the flesh cannot please
God. It is readily apparent that Paul was not saying that anyone biologically alive cannot please God. He
continued You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit verse 9. The apostle was not speaking to disembodied spirits.
He was speaking to Christians who had stopped living a kind of life that was antithetical to God. This relates
directly to his concept of the body.

In Romans 7 the apostle recounted his (mans) life under law. The struggle to obtain righteousness on personal
merit was futile, (Romans 7:15f). He thus lamented Oh, wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the
body of this death? Dunn misunderstands Paul when he says that the deliverance Paul desired is not a
deliverance which can be experienced within the fleshly constraints of this life, but for deliverance from the fleshly
constraints of this life. [4] . James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, Romans 1-8, (Waco, Word
Publishers, 1988) 397. Paul was not longing for deliverance from his physical body. He desired freedom from
the body of death that was the result of sin. The body of death was Paul under the condemnation of sin. This
was the death introduced by Adam and that was the curse of all mankind.

In Genesis 2:15-17 God threatened Adam and Eve that if they ate of the forbidden fruit in the day you eat thereof
you shall surely die. Normally this is interpreted to mean that they would begin to die physically. Yet God did not
say they would begin to die; he said they would die the day they ate! Death is separation and Adam and Eve
were driven from the presence of God the day they ate the fruit, (Genesis 3:23-24). They died spiritually. It is this
death that Paul has in mind in Romans 5:12: Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world and
death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned.

The subject is not physical death. The subject is the law of sin and death. That law says You sin, you die It
was deliverance from this law that Paul longed for in Romans 7:24. He desired to put off the body of death
created by sin and live in a body of life. Did Paul enlighten us as to how this could/would be achieved and when?
Yes, indeed.

WHAT THE LAW COULD NOT DO

Before investigating what Paul had to say about deliverance from sin and death we must first of all see mans
inability to deliver himself.
From Adam to Moses death reigned (Romans 5:14).The Law of Moses entered that sin might abound
(Romans 5:20-21); to make man exceedingly aware of sin. For this purpose the Law was perfect; yet, it could not
deliver from sin and death: if a Law could have been given that could give life verily righteousness would have
been through the Law (Galatians 3:20-21).
Instead of delivering man from sin and death the Law became the strength of sin. The Law became a ministry of
death written and engraven in stone (2 Corinthians 3:6f) because of its ability only to make sin exceedingly
sinful. The Law could not deliver from the law of sin and death, (Romans 8:1-3). The body of death remained.
There was no means by which man could put off the body of flesh and find life because there is none
righteous, no not one (Romans 3:10). But Jesus appeared to change all of this.

THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST

Jesus said I am come that they might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10).The book of John
repeatedly tells of Jesus purpose to give life--life from the dead, (John 5:24f) and to save man from perishing
(John 3:16). He promises that if any man keeps my word, he shall never taste death (John 8:51). It is clear from
these texts that his mission was not to raise man from biological death but spiritual. Jesus mission was to deliver
man from the law of sin and death.

Most Bible students today believe the law of sin and death will be destroyed at the end of time. This is
supposedly when the body of flesh is removed. Yet this is not Pauls doctrine. Paul believed that man in Christ
has put off the body of flesh and is raised from the dead.

In Romans 6:3f the apostle reminded the brethren that when they were baptized into Christ they were baptized
into his death. They were joined with Christs death so that the body of sin might be destroyed (verse 6). In
participating with Christ they had died with Christ (verse 8). In dying with Christ and being raised to walk in
newness of life the apostle told them to consider themselves to be raised from the dead, (Romans 6:11).

In Romans 8:1 the same man who spoke of his intense desire to be delivered from the body of death now says
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Paul had found
deliverance from the body of flesh and from death itself in Christ! It is important to these thoughts to Colossians
2.

In Colossians the apostle said the body of flesh was removed in Christ and that the brethren were alive from the
dead (Colossians 2:13). As a consequence, the Colossians, Gentile Christians being pressured to keep the Old
Covenant Law, were under no obligation to keep that Law. Jesus had nailed the handwriting of debt [5]

Paul taught that it was the obligation to keep the Law--not the Law itself-- that had been nailed to theCross for
those in him (Romans 7, 10; Ephesians 2). See James D. G. Dunn, The New International GreekTestament
Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996)164+ for a full discussion of this text.
Close to the Cross for all those in him.

TWO RESURRECTIONS?; TWO BODIES OF FLESH?

It may be rejoined that while Paul definitely taught the present reality of resurrection life in the first century, he
also believed in a future resurrection when Christ would finally destroy death, (1 Corinthians 15:24f). It cannot be
denied that Paul taught both a present and future view of resurrection, (compare 2 Timothy 1:9-10 with 1
Corinthians 15:24f). The question is: was the future resurrection to be the consummation of a process begun; or
was it to be of a different nature than the one already being experienced? [6]
The question of the resurrection is also clearly a question of time. The New Testament is clear in declaring that
the resurrection was to occur in that generation, Matthew 23:29-36; Romans 8:18f; 1 Corinthians 15:50-51;
Philippians 3:20-4:5; 2 Thessalonians 1; 1 Peter 4:5-7, etc. etc.

Traditionally it is believed that Jesus taught two resurrections: one spiritual, the other physical. Spiritual
resurrection is said to be the focus of Romans 5-6 and Colossians 2 while physical resurrection is said to be the
subject of Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15. Yet this view raises major questions. Did God threaten Adam and Eve
with two different kinds of death? Does the Bible teach that man has two different kinds of bodies? Does the Bible
teach that man has two bodies of flesh? Does the Bible teach that man was created in the images (plural) of

God, or the image of God? Does the Bible teach that man receives two different kinds of resurrection bodies?
Does the Bible promise two different kinds of eternal life? With respect to Gods redemptive plan, the answer to
all of these questions is emphatically No!

Man in sin is in the flesh, (Galatians 5:19f).); man living for God is in the spirit (Romans 8:1-2). Man in sin is
dead, (Romans 6:23); man delivered from sin is raised from the dead, (Ephesians 2:1f). Man in sin is dead; man
in Christ can never die, (John 8:51). Man in sin is dead; man in Christ has eternal life, (John 5:24f). Man in sin is
in the image of Adam--fallen; man in Christ is in the image of God--restored, (1 Corinthians 15:46-49; 2
Corinthians 3:16; Colossians 3:9f). Those who are not in the flesh, but in the spirit are freed from the law of sin
and death. Now if the believer in Christ is set free from the law of sin and death, can he die? If man in Christ is
still subject to the law of sin and death it is irrefutably true that Jesus work is no better than the Old Covenant
Law!

It should be clear that physical death is not the focus of the redemptive work of Jesus. The Old Law could not
solve the problem death introduced by Adam and reigning from Adam to Moses. The Old Law exacerbated the
problem--the problem of the flesh. Christ solves the problem of the flesh; not by the destruction or
transformation of biological or physiological substance, but by creation of the new man man who is created
according to the image of him who created him (Colossians 3:10). These great truths gave rise to the conflict of
realized eschatology within the early church prior to the perfection of what had begun. Some were teaching that
the resurrection and Day of the Lord had already happened, (2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:18) They could, at
least ostensibly, appeal to Paul, for he surely taught the beginning of the resurrection, (Philippians 3:9-16).

It is abundantly clear however, that Paul did not teach that the resurrection of the biologically dead masses of all
ages had begun. And significantly, when correcting those who insisted that the resurrection was past already
Paul did not correct their concept of that event. [7]
See my booklet How Is This Possible? for a fuller discussion of this extremely important issue. Close Paul did
teach that resurrection was occuring for those coming into Christ. He did teach that those coming into Christ were
putting off the body of flesh. He did teach that believers were putting on the image of Christ as they put off the
Old Man. But Paul perceived of this as a process begun, not a process consummated.
In Romans 6:5 Paul said the brethren had died and been raised. Yet he also said If we have been buried with
him in the likeness of his death we shall be like him in the likeness of his resurrection Here is the anticipation of
the consummation of a process begun. It is clear that the yet future aspect of resurrection was not revivication of
physical bodies however, because the future resurrection was to be of the same nature as the likeness of his
death! The Romans--need we say--had not died physically in the likeness of Jesus death. If the likeness of
Jesus death was spiritual, the likeness of his resurrection was to be spiritual. If the body that they had put off was
spiritual, the body they were to put on was spiritual. If the body of death that they were to be freed from was
spiritual, the body of life they were to (fully) receive was spiritual. You cannot divorce the nature of the
resurrection from the nature of the body of death.

The same is true in Colossians 2-3. Paul said that the Colossians had put off the body of flesh; they had been
raised from the dead. Yet they were also anticipating life at the coming of the Lord, (Colossians 3:1-3). The nature
of the resurrection they were anticipating must match the nature of the death that they were experiencing. Paul
said For you died; is it not abundantly clear that the Colossians had not died physically?

Patently, the terms flesh, body, death and life are fundamental tenets of Pauls eschatology. Yet to see these as
referents to mans biological substance and not mans standing before God is erroneous. Pauls concept of
putting off the body of flesh was the removal of a life of sin and rebellion against God. To the Jew putting off the
body of flesh meant to worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Jesus Christ, and put no confidence in the flesh
(Philippians 3:3). It meant deliverance from the ministration of death engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:6f) to
the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1-3). To the Gentile it meant abandoning the life of sin
and being quickened from the dead, (Ephesians 2:1-2).

The process of the passing of the Old Law was not completed at the Cross. [8] See our work Have Heaven and
Earth Passed Away? for a vindication of this posit. The work is availablefrom Living Presence Ministries.

The transformation from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant--and Life!--was the focus of Pauls ministry, (2
Corinthians 3-4:1f). [9]
The traditional amillennial view is that the Old Law passed at the Cross. This being true it should havemeant that
the transition from the Old Covenant to the New was completed well before Paul was called. Yet
Paulemphatically declares that the transition from the Old Covenant Glory to the New was his mission!
The process--from death to life, from flesh to spirit--had begun but would only be perfected at the parousia, when
the law [10]
The term the law is a favorite of Pauls being used 117 times. When no qualifier is used, as is the casein 1
Corinthians 15:54-56, it invariably refers to the Old Covenant Law of Moses. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 15:56
theresurrection would occur when the Old Law--the ministration of death--was abolished. that was the strength of
sin was abolished, (1 Corinthians 15:24-56).
The modern expectation of a revivication of physical bodies is not consistent with the Biblical doctrine of
resurrection. Paul, more than any writer speaks of the removal of the body of death and of flesh. He speaks of
putting off the image of Adam and putting on the image of Christ. Yet Paul never has biological life and death in
mind in his eschatological expectations. He speaks of man as he stands in Covenant relationship to God. He
anticipated the consummation of Gods Scheme of Redemption when Christ would finally put aside the Old
Covenant of Death and perfect his New World of Life in Christ.

Christ has perfected his work by destroying the works of Satan, (1 John 3:8), and destroying him who had the
power of death, (Hebrews 2:14f). Because of this, man, by faith can truly put off the body of flesh. Resurrection
life is a reality for those buried with him by baptism because it is there that the believer is also raised with him

by faith in the operation of God (Colossians 2:12). Christ gives life. In him we put off the body of flesh and walk
in the spirit. He has conquered death for us: Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift! (2 Corinthians 9:15).

Harvest is at the End of the Age

NOVEMBER 15TH Written by Don K. Preston
We are constantly told that the resurrection, the time of the harvest at the end of the age, is still future. Yet, Jesus
was the first-fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:23). When would harvest, the resurrection, occur? It
seems not to have occurred to most people that if Jesus was the first-fruit, that the time of the harvest, i.e. the
time of the resurrection, was definitely at hand in the first century. Yet, most insist it is still future and entails the
raising of physical bodies from the ground.
The Bible tells us when the resurrection was to be, and it is not in our future! Jesus' "first-fruit" resurrection
occurred in "the end of the age" (Hebrews 9:26). Clearly, this was not at the end of the Christian Age. Jesus
appeared in the end of the Mosaic Age. Can the first-fruit be at the end of one age, but the harvest at the end of a
different age thousands of years later? The first-fruit and the harvest are never in different seasons. The
suggestion is disjunctive to say the very least. The word "first-fruits" demands that harvest is near.
In Matthew 13:38-40 Jesus said, "harvest is the end of this age." Jesus was living in the Mosaic Age when he
said this. He said the harvest would be at the end of the age in which he was living not at the end of "the age
to come." Since Jesus was the first-fruits of the resurrection, at the end of the Mosaic Age, and since he
predicted the harvest would be at the end of that age, the harvest was to be at the end of the Mosaic Age not
at "the end of time."
This is confirmed in Revelation 14 where the 144,000 were the "first-fruits" of the harvest, unto God. An angel
proclaimed: "the hour of hisjudgment has come" (v. 6-8). This was the judgment on the Great City Babylon at
the coming of the Son of Man the time of harvest. The harvest would be when Babylon was judged. Babylon is
identified as the Great City, "where the Lord was crucified" (Revelation 11:8). It was the city that had slain the Old
Covenant prophets (18:24). This can be no other than Old Covenant Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). And her judgment,
at the time of resurrection (Revelation 11:15f), was "at hand."
Jesus and John agree. Jesus said the harvest would be at the end of the age in which he was living. The end of
that age was at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24:3, 29-34). John said the harvest/resurrection would
be when Babylon the city that crucified the Lord was judged. That was in A.D. 70.
Jesus and John were either right or wrong. If they predicted the raising of physical corpses out of the ground at
the end of the Mosaic Age, then they were wrong.
Jesus' prediction as to the time was correct. It is the concept of physical resurrection that needs to be realigned in
harmony with inspiration's time statements.

1 Peter 4:17 - What Judgment?

MAY 11TH Written by Jeremy Lile

When translated, 1 Peter 4:17 reads, "it is the time for the judgment to begin..." Unfortunately, most English
versions do not translate the article (the) preceding "judgment." During a recent debate here in Indianapolis, one
participant exclaimed that there is "no justification" for translating the article in 1 Peter 4:17. I was hoping that he
would go on to examine the text and explain why this is the case. Unfortunately, he did not. He simply stated his
position and then cited several English translations.
To paraphrase noted grammarian A.T. Robertson, the Greek article is never meaningless. In other words, the
article isnt just taking up space in 1 Peter 4:17. Peter placed the article before "judgment" for some reason. The
question is: why? This is the question we will seek to answer in this brief article. We will begin by examining a
common use of the Greek article. Then, we will make a few observations. The following is an excerpt from from
Wallaces Grammar: 1
1. Anaphoric (Previous Reference)
The anaphoric article is the article denoting previous reference. (It derives it's name from the Greek
verb, , "to bring back, to bring up.") The first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous
(anarthrous means without the article - JL) because it is merely being introduced. But subsequent
mentions of it use the article, for the article is now pointing back to the substantive previously
mentioned. The anaphoric article has, by nature, then, a pointing back force to it, reminding the reader
of who or what was mentioned previously. It is the most common use of the article and the easiest
usage to identify.
For example, in John 4:10 Jesus introduces to the woman at the well the concept of living water (
). In v 11 the woman refers to the water, saying, "Where then do you keep the living water?" (
;). The force of the article here could be translated, "Where do you
keep this living water of which you just spoke?"
3) Finally, the anaphoric article may be used with a noun whose synonym was mentioned previously.
That is to say, although the terms used to describe may differ, the article is anaphoric if the reference is
the same.
...
C) Illustrations

Romans 6:4
we were buried with him through the baptism
The previous reference to baptism, in v 3, is the verb . The anaphoric article thus can refer
back not only to a synonym, but even to a word that is not substantival.
Now, to the point. Remember: "The anaphoric article has, by nature, then, a pointing back force to it, reminding
the reader of who or what was mentioned previously." Wallace also notes, "Practically speaking, labeling an
article as anaphoric requires that it (i.e. the concept - JL) have been introduced at most in the same book,
preferably in a context not too far removed." Now, lets take another look at 1 Peter 4:17 in both Greek and
English.

1 Peter 4:17
because it is the time for the judgment to begin

You will notice that the article (underlined) precedes (judgment). If the article is never "meaningless," what
is it doing there? Is it anaphoric? If so, what "judgment" is Peter trying to "remind" his readers of in this context?
Could the article preceding be "pointing back" to the same concept previously introduced by Peter "in a
context not too far removed"? Absolutely! Lets jump back a few verses.

1 Peter 4:5
They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
Notice the underlined infinitive () in verse 5 and its similarity to (judgment) in verse 17. These two
words are cognates. Why is this important? The anaphoric article can refer back to verbs, synonyms, and
substantives - even epexegetical infinitives as in 1 Peter 4:5. So what "judgment" was Peter reminding his
readers of in verse 17? What "judgment" had already been mentioned? "It is the time for the judgment to begin
(thisjudgment of the living and the dead of which I just spoke)." Verse 17 points back to verse 5. In other words,
the resurrection was at hand!

[1] Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the NT; Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 218-19