Archive for Resurrection
The Basis of Our Expectation
When most Christians think about the parousia of Christ, at which time both the dead and living in Christ are to be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4: 16-17), they think of it as an imminent expectation. That is, the rapture and resurrection of believers is something that can occur during any generation. It doesn’t matter whether you are pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib; if you are solidly evangelical in your views, then you believe that the rapture intimately concerns you. Very well. But while the doctrine of imminency is confessed by all, it is less often understood why this element is essential to a true unfolding of the Gospel message.
We are aware of some who would postpone Christ’s second advent to a far future time. They urge Christians not to look for the second coming, which is the blessed hope of the church (Titus 2: 13), but for the evangelization of the world. They urge us to buy houses and cars, plant vineyards and oliveyards, make investments, and look for long-term schemes to reach fruition. One writer has even suggested that Christ will not return for another 36,000 years! This is wrong, all wrong. If only the truths concerning this matter were better understood, Christians would shun any doctrine that seeks to put off the coming of the King to receive us unto Himself.
The doctrine of imminency is indeed important, and is based – believe it or not – on the substitutionary, sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6: 23). Christ paid the wages when He died on Calvary’s cross. Hence, Christ’s death is substitutionary in nature. That is a simple equation, and easy to understand – as it well should be.
Think about it for a moment. If Christ’s death was substitutionary (which all Protestants admit), then it is evident that regenerate Christians need not die. That is, there is no more necessity for undergoing death. Wherefore Paul explicitly teaches: “Behold, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Cor. 15: 51). That is, not all members of the Body of Christ shall undergo physical death; but regardless of whether we live or die, we shall all be tranformed into the image of Christ. In this regard, nothing has changed since the apostle penned these words.
For any Christian to claim that all the members of Christ’s body on earth at any given time must needs fall asleep in death, is to subvert this truth, and to demonstrate ignorance of the springhead whence it flows. Sometimes Preterists seek to solve the problem of imminency by relegating all the “expectation passages” to the first century, and positing their fulfillment in A.D. 70. But this method is inconsistent, and inadequate to deal with the facts. Paul’s teaching in Philippians 3: 20-21 places the rapture of believers in the immediate foreview of the church. Since the transformation of the living and dead did not occur in the first century, it is clear that it must still occupy an important place in our daily walk. There is only one body and one faith (Ephesians 4: 4-5). The church has received but one set of marching orders. How faithfully we adhere to these marching orders will reveal our value as stewards. It is a matter which concerns “all” (Luke 12: 41-48).
The questions we must ask is: Did Christ die for our sins? Was He raised for our justification? Is He coming again? If you answer yes to all three of these questions, then you will have to place more importance on the second coming, if you haven’t already. For the return of Christ is bound up with His sacrificial death on Calvary’s cross, and is therefore part of that “good news” which we are to preach. Any man who seeks to deny or wilfully obscure such good news will have something to answer for at the judgment seat of seat.
E.W. Bullinger And The Rapture
One of E.W. Bullinger’s greatest attributes was the ease with which he amended his views in light of his acquisition of fresh truth. He once said: “If anyone would know what I believe upon a subject, he must find out what I believe now.” Never claiming to have all the answers, Bullinger worked over a period of many years to produce a system of theology that is still airtight against the arguments of rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Replacement Theology. During the closing years of his ministry, he grappled with the doctrines of Preterism; and his researches in this field produced the monumental work, “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth” (1913). Although hastily written, the amount of scholarship poured into this work is amazing.
But because Bullinger modified his views on the rapture, many Dispensationalists steer away from his books, thinking that perhaps he capitulated on his stance toward pre-tribulationism. Well, this is not the case at all! While Bullinger revised his views concerning the timing of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, he never wavered from his belief that the church would not enter into the tribulation. In fact, Bullinger did more than any other writer to retain the distinction between the church and Israel. This comes into play more explicitly in his later writings, in which he draws a Dispensational frontier at Acts 28.
Bullinger believed that the Book of Acts describes the transition from the kingdom to the church. In his scheme the church of the “one body” actually begins after Acts 28. The Acts Dispensation chronicles the final offer of the kingdom to the children of Israel upon the one condition of national repentance (see Acts 3: 19-21). When Israel rejected this offer in Acts 28, the nation was temporarily set aside by God as unuseable, and salvation sent to the Gentiles. A new body began to be formed at this juncture, designated by Paul as “one new man” (Eph. 2: 15). According to Bullinger, this is where the church age officially begins.
Although I do not agree with Bullinger’s teaching concerning the commencement of the Christian church, I tend to agree that the Book of Acts is transitional in nature, and that the present parenthetical Dispensation begins after Acts 28: 28. However, in my understanding the ‘pure parenthesis‘ does not officially begin until A.D. 70, when the “people of the prince” sacked Jerusalem (Dan. 9: 26). The period between this desolation of the city and the sanctuary and the advent of the “prince” himself, is filled up by the present Dispensation of Grace. Not that grace didn’t have a place before A.D. 70. But that from A.D. 30-70 the Israel question was being settled — ”Let the children first be filled“ (Mark 7: 27). The Gentile economy did not come into full swing until Israel lost its dispensational advantage over the Gentiles. This was in A.D. 70.
Clarence Larkin seemed to hint as much when he wrote: “This Dispensation [i.e., the church age] is a parenthetical Dispensation thrown in between the ‘Dispersion’ of Israel, and their ‘Restoration’ to their own land. The purpose of this Dispensation is to gather out a ‘People for His Name,’ called the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile” (Dispensational Truth, 1920 edition, pg. 39).
If Larkin saw the parenthesis of the present age as connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then it quite possible that he derived his views from Bullinger. Even modern scholars such as Randall Price, have marked on their prophecy charts the significance of A.D. 70 in God’s purpose to call out the church (see Jerusalem In Prophecy, pg. 234, 239, 257). Larkin, however, does mention that the Dispensation of Grace extends from the Cross (A.D. 30) to the Crown (Second Coming of Christ). Perhaps he saw the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem as transitional in nature. We’ll probably never know.
Anyhow, because Thessalonians and Corinthians were written prior to the Acts 28 council, Bullinger construed that the rapture of saints described therein must be tied to Israel’s kingdom blessings (which were forfeited and postponed in Acts 28), rather than to the church age proper. I would, again, disagree with him on this point. However, far from denying the pre-trib rapture, Bullinger saw Paul’s later revelation of the “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (see Phil. 3: 11, 14) as entirely pre-tribulational in nature.
In the Companion Bible, he writes:
“The term ‘resurrection of the dead’ (anastasis nekron) is of frequent occurrence (Matt. 22: 31; Acts 17: 32; 23: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6: 2, etc.), and includes the resurrection to life, of the just, and the resurrection to judgment, of the unjust (John 5: 29; Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2). Resurrection from the dead (ek nekron) implies the resurrection of some, the former of these two classes, the others being left behind. See Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2. Paul had no doubt of attaining to this, as as may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, written some ten years before. The exanastasis must therefore mean a further selection of some before the anastasis of 1 Thess. 4: 14, and Paul was not yet sure of attaining to this. Perhaps he had the assurance when he wrote 2 Tim. 4: 7. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to any living ones being caught up, or any parousia of the Lord, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, 16.” (note on Philippians 3: 11, Companion Bible, pg. 1778).
In his later books, Bullinger seemed to relegate the rapture of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15 to the close of Daniel’s 70th week. But since he held that Acts 28: 28 commenced a new economy, he saw in Philippians 3: 14 the church’s charter for a pre-tribulational up-calling. As he came to this view gradually, his books must be diligently studied in order to see exactly how his understanding of the rapture evolved.
In later years, theologians such as A.E. Knoch corrected Bullinger on some of his views. Whereas others took the more unique elements of Bullinger’s theology and ran them out into what is now known as “Acts 28 Dispensationalism.” Interestingly, however, all of Bullinger’s works are still in print today; and though he exercises little influence in modern Dispensational circles, his contributions to Biblical and exegetical scholarship are never downplayed. It is hoped that in future months his work will be seriously studied afresh by all who love the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1: 19) and look for that “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13).
Why Hyper-Preterism Teaches A “Different Gospel”
Within the past week or so, a debate has arisen regarding the question of whether or not Hyper-Preterism presents a “different Gospel” from that of Futurist orthodoxy. Quotes have been offered from both sides — the general consensus of Futurists being that H.P. does, in fact, teach a different Gospel; while Hyper-Preterists insist that their system is a viable expression of Christianity, which maintains the same Christ, the same salvation, and the same “good news.”
But is the Hyper-Preterist position tenable? My answer is that it is not. In fact, I believe it can be demonstrated that Hyper-Preterism presents a message diverse from anything endorsed throughout the history of the church, and that, ergo, it stands in a class of its own. When seen in its proper light, it is evident that Hyper-Preterism teaches a new Gospel. And Paul pronounces all such teachers as under the curse (Galatians 1: 8-9).
But while a hue and cry may be raised regarding my conclusions in this matter, I trust the reader will bear with me as I adduce a few reasons in support of my thesis that Hyper-Preterism promulgates a Gospel different from “that we have received.”
*************
Firstly, the concept of “salvation” endorsed by Hyper-Preterism is radically different from that which Futurists espouse. Historically, Christians have always believed that salvation involves redemption from the consequences of Adam’s fall. These include moral and physical death as well as indwelling sin. That is, we see the results of Adam’s fall as being not simply moral in nature, but physical and anthropological as well. Paul writes, again and again, that the “entire man” is covered by Christ’s redemptive plan (see 1 Thessalonians 5: 23; Romans 8: 11; 1 Corinthians 6: 13-20; Ephesians 1: 14).
On the other hand, Hyper-Preterists generally see Adam’s fall as having “covenantal” and “spiritual” implications alone. So the question naturally arises: do Futurists and Hyper-Preterists view “salvation” differently? Of course they do. Hyper-Preterists do not believe in the redemption of the physical body; and as they teach that Christ’s salvific work was fully consummated in A.D. 70, they deny (notwithstanding Paul’s expectation in Romans 7: 24) that the sin indwelling our members will ever be eradicated. This marks a sharp division between Hyper-Preterism and Futurism, which latter system holds that all of the physical, somatic, and anthropological effects of Adam’s fall will be eradicated at Christ’s second coming. Hyper-Preterists cannot possibly agree with this proposition, because they claim that Christ returned in A.D. 70, fulfilling all prophecy! From this it is obvious that Hyper-Preterists and Futurists define “salvation” differently. And so the substance of our respective “Gospels,” which reveal not only the fact of salvation, but what we are saved from, is fundamentally different.
Then, there is the matter of Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the Cross. Christians have historically held that Christ’s physical death on Calvary’s cross forms the basis of His atoning work (Colossians 1: 22; 1 Peter 2: 24). Because Christ paid the wages of sin (Romans 6: 23) on the Cross, becoming our substitute as the Second Adam (2 Corinthians 5: 21), Hyper-Preterists cannot possibly hold that those “wages” involve physical death — else their theological system would be invalidated. So they reject the notion that the physical death of Christ was substitutionary in nature. That of course, is consistent with their conviction that the body must die, and that there will be no future physical resurrection. The Hyper-Preterist concept of the atonement logically leads to the view that Christ’s physical death had no redemptive/theological significance beyond serving as a “sign” of some spiritual/covenantal transaction from which the atonement derives its real efficacy.
The third element I would like to point out, is the fact that Futurism bases its teachings on the assumed authority of the New Testament canon; whereas Hyper-Preterists propose to re-evaluate the canon in light of allegedly fulfilled events. H.P. therefore posits a set of teachings distinctly different from those delivered by Jesus Christ and His inspired apostles. The Hyper-Preterist conclusions are based on the application of a “critical-historical” hermeneutic, which essentially views the New Testament canon as having less authority those who seek to re-codify its teachings on the basis of “internal evidence” and deductive logic. Such a method is dangerous in the extreme, and reeks of German rationalism and Aristotelian chicanery. Dr. Paul Lee Tan was certainly correct when he wrote: “By misunderstanding the concept of Sitz im Lebem (life situation of the prophets), liberals eviscerate the practical relevance of the Scripture on the altar of the historical” (The Interpretation of Prophecy, pg. 103).
In consideration of these facts, it is therefore safe to allege that since the Hyper-Preterist concept of “salvation” comes from interpreting the Gospels in a non-canonical fashion, their teachings result in a Gospel distinctly foreign to that of Futurism, which interprets God’s message of salvation within the confines of canonical relevancy.
That said, there are many other disparities between Hyper-Preterism and Futurism which could be broached to good effect in demonstration of my thesis. However, I trust that the above points prove sufficiently to any rational enquirer, that Hyper-Preterists do, beyond any shadow of a doubt, teach “another Gospel.” Far from being anything like ours, it is founded on different plan of salvation, a different view of the atonement, and a different hermeneutic altogether. Let it be “anathema.”
Firstfruits And Harvest
One of the things which Hyper-Preterists often ignore in their formulation of the doctrine of the resurrection, is the correspondence between firstfruits and harvest, which is explained in the law. According to Moses, the firstfruits sheaf is always waved first, as a pledge and earnest of the ingathering (Leviticus 23: 9-11). Moreover, the firstfruits and harvest are always of the same kind and nature. If we speak of a firstfruits of barley, then the harvest is also of barley; if of wheat, then the same rule applies.
What Hyper-Preterists do is change this fixed rule, and make the harvest something distinctly different from the firstfruits. Most of them agree that Christ’s physical resurrection was the firstfruits of a yet future resurrection of God’s people. However, because they view the latter as spiritual or “covenantal,” they essentially view the Lord as one who came not to fulfill the law, but to break it — thus invalidating Christ’s own declaration that He came to fulfill the law! See Matthew 5: 17.
It should be admitted, that as violator of the law, Christ could never have been that perfect lamb of God, Who came to do His Father’s will. He would (according to H.P.’s) have been the imperfect Lamb of God, Who came to alter His Father’s will. This is why we orthodox Christians consistently point out that the Hyper-Preterist Christ is different from the One that all Christians know and love. A look at the firstfruits and harvest will bring these facts into sharper profile, that we may understand why Hyper-Preterism is a perversion of true Christianity.
The Pauline concept of resurrection holds that Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15: 20). This implies a future harvest of the same kind and nature. The Greek verb Englished “to sleep” is koimaomai, which means to fall asleep involuntarily. It occurs 18 times in the New Testament, and is unquestionably used in the sense of physical death. See Matthew 27: 52; 28: 13; Luke 22: 45; John 11: 1-12; Acts 7: 60; 13: 36; 1 Corinthians 7: 39; 11: 30; 15: 6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thessalonians 4: 13, 14, 15; 2 Peter 3: 4.
We take it that the firstfruits sheaf was presented when Christ + “many bodies of the saints” (Matthew 27: 52-53) arose from their tombs, appearing unto many as proof that they had been physically resurrected (cf. 1 Corinthians 15: 5-7). To Christ were given the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1: 18). He used these keys once when He raised the firstfruits saints. He will use them again, when He returns at the end of the age to gather those Who are “in Him.”
Paul declares that the harvest will occur at Christ’s parousia (1 Corinthians 15: 23). Parousia is a technical term which occurs 24 times in the New Testament. Eschatologically it is used when referring to Christ’s personal return to earth, as “Son of Man.” Peter affirms that he had gotten a foreglimpse of Christ’s parousia when on the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Peter 1: 16-18). It will therefore be visible and glorious. See Mark 9: 2-3.
Now, Paul’s concept of the “resurrection harvest” of saints shows that it is of the same kind and nature as the firstfruits. He writes: “But every man in his own rank (Gr. tagma): Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, at His parousia.” The expression “they that are Christ’s” manifestly excludes the wicked dead, who are raised at the close of the Millennium. They belong to the last rank, or tagma, and are not included in the harvest.
What saith Paul concerning this harvest? He writes: “Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15: 51). Again, the verb for “sleep” is koimaomai. Paul’s terminology proves beyond question that the resurrection of believers will be physical, as harvest to firstfruits. As Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept, so they who live unto Christ’s coming will not sleep (i.e., physically die). See 1 Thessalonians 4: 14-17. The abolition of death for the believer is pictured in Isaiah 25: 8. It is connected with the recalling of Israel and the destruction of the heathen. It ushers in the Millennium.
As events connected with the end (Gr. sunteleia) of the age have never yet taken place, we conclude that the harvest (and therefore the parousia) is yet future. Our prophetic outlook is precisely the same as that of the first-century saints. “For our seat of government already exists in heaven; from whence we also look for the Savior, 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 to Himself” (Philippians 3: 20-21). Certainly this Scripture was not exhausted or “maxed out” by anything that happened in A.D. 70. And if not, then it remains in the prophetic foreview of the church.
The saints are not waiting to “die, and go to heaven” — as some men unscripturally suppose. Rather, we are waiting for the coming of the King (see above text), at which time the redemption of the whole man (body, soul, and spirit) will be complete (1 Thessalonians 5: 23). Then will the Lord gather the pure wheat of the church into His barn, and we shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of our Father (Matthew 13: 43). Maranatha!
Hyper-Preterism’s Resurrection Error
The doctrines of Hyper-Preterism teach that Jesus Christ’s second advent happened in A.D. 70, at the fall of Herod’s temple, and that the resurrection of believers – indeed, of all men – happened at that time. In order to bolster their strange theory, H.P.’s spiritualize every eschatological passage that speaks of resurrection. They also employ a “critical-historical” hermeneutic, which narrows down all eschatological fulfillment to the first century.
Whence did this doctrine arise? Hyper-Preterism was first invented by 19th century liberals and academics, who not seldom wedded the doctrine of “past fulfillment” to a universalistic soteriology. It is basically an ultra-intellectualized form of Christianity, which seeks to give the natural man a sound basis for dismissing the supernatural elements of Scripture, relegating predictive prophecy to historical events that are now past.
What Hyper-Preterism does to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection is simply deplorable. H.P.’s cannot deny that death passed upon all men through Adam’s transgression (Romans 5: 12). But because they see that it is God’s ultimate purpose to abolish death (which didn’t happen in A.D. 70), they change the nature of Adamic death to mean a mere “separation from God.” According to them, it was this spiritual separation that was cast into the lake of fire in A.D. 70!
The Hyper-Preterist theory means, of course, that when Christ died on the cross, He did not pay the penalty for Adam’s transgression. Some Hyper-Preterists are so bold as to say that the cross was merely a “sign.” That is, the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary has no objective efficacy in the work of savlation. It was not Christ’s physical death that provided atonement, but His spiritual separation from God. A more heretical concept we can scarcely imagine.
In answering the Hyper-Preterist, I think it is needful to say that Christ did exactly what was needed of Him to pay the sin-debt – no more, no less. His physical death on the cross defines Adamic death. In fact, if death is not physical in nature, then the physical death and resurrection of Christ have no theological or redemptive significance whatever.
Paul writes: “For the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6: 23).
Remember, it was because Christ was “without sin” that He arose from the dead, becoming the “firstfruits” of them that slept (1 Cor. 15: 20). According to the law, a firstfruits always ensures a future harvest – of the same kind and nature. Christ was physically resurrected along with many saints, as presentation of the firstfruits sheaf (Matt. 27: 52-53). The resurrection of the firstfruits saints demonstrates that Christ has the keys of hell and of death. He used them when He raised that glorious company.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul leaves no doubt that the resurrection harvest will occur at Christ’s parousia. He also says: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15: 51). Since Christ’s physical death is substitutionary in nature, there is no reason why Christians must die! Redemption is not merely a negative blessing, but a positive one. Although we shall not all die, we shall all be resurrected. The Scriptures teach us that are to await the Lord’s coming (1 Thessalonians 1: 10); knowing that He Who rose as firstfruits will also return to gather the ripened grain into His barn.
Eschatology is not as difficult a matter as Hyper-Preterists suppose. As always, however, the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2: 14). Let us not be so foolish as those Athenians, who mocked when they heard the Biblical doctrine of resurrection (Acts 17: 32). But let us acknowledge His power toward usward who believe, as we wait in simplicity and patience for His blessed return.
