Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Even though I consider myself a full preterist, I have some basic questions about the resurrection. Perhaps some here can offer me some ideas and their own understandings about this topic. I would appreciate it.

Here are my basic questions:

1. If the resurrection is supposed to be understood as a corporate thing, then how can some enter a "better resurrection"? See Heb. 11:35

2. The pharisees asked Jesus about the resurrection, and they tempted Him asking about ahypothetical situation in which a man had 7 wives. They wanted to know which wife would be this man's TRUE wife. Jesus said that in the resurrection, they don't marry or give in marriage, but are like the angels, always beholding the Father's face. How does this image fit into a corporate resurrection motif?

3. John 5:29 says there is a resurrection to damnation. How does this work?

Revelation tells us that it is more blessed to enter into a "first resurrection" What exactly is a "first resurrection" Are there many more "resurrections" after the first one, or just a second or a third? Or, is a first resurrection a particular time period, after which no one else may enter into a "first" resurrection? That is, was this resurrection limited to just a certain group of people, and can people who are saved today not enter into this "first" resurrection?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks.

Views: 257

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on December 10, 2012 at 1:15am

I don't think that Full Preterism has answered those questions directly in my readings.

I'm not a Full Preterist, but my answers are below:

1)  Both good and bad are resurrected to be judged (Dan. 12).  The good are raised but will not receive a negative judgment, which is better than a bad judgment.  Protos (first) can mean either first in a series or first in quality.  I'd suggest that a non-Protos judgment is a worse judgment, which results in the Lake of Fire after resurrection.  I'd also suggest that there is no second in sequence resurrection, a point that the redactor of Rev. 20:5a missed when translating protos.

2)  I don't think it does.  From the IBD (or as I'm contemplating renaming it HBD, or heavenly body at death) position, the story only applies to dead people so the question is what will happen to people who've died after the resurrection begins.  There is no comment at all about what happens to living people after the resurrection begins (meaning that marriage and such may very well apply to them).  In the resurrection people don't marry or are given in marriage because they're in heaven and don't have a reproductive function or a marriage relationship, unlike those alive on earth.

3)  Per Daniel 12, one part is resurrected to a positive justification verdict and the other part is resurrected to a negative justification verdict.  Whether the negative one is eternal conscious torment or annihilation is not clear in my opinion.

People from today can be saved into the better resurrection because after the initiation of the resurrection is declared in Rev. 14

Revelation 14:13 (NKJV)
13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them."

Comment by Doug on December 10, 2012 at 4:06pm

I am confused about my opinion on this. So thanks for telling me yours. I would really like to hear others andhow they view these questons.

Comment by Allyn Morton on December 10, 2012 at 7:59pm

I only have an opinion. But here goes.

1. I don't believe the resurrection is a corporate thing. I cannot find how that would work.

2.

Luke's account is the only one of the three which carefully defines just who it is that will get to be a part of the resurrection from out of the dead. It would not be ALL "the sons of this age." It might not even be any of the seven husbands or the one wife. It would instead be only "those who are considered worthy." This blew away another of the current theories among the Jews that any circumcised (or law-keeping) Jew would automatically "have a share in the age to come."

Who are "the sons of this age" and what is "this age?" The only other New Testament passage which mentions the "sons of this age" is Luke 16:8 (but compare Eph. 2:2). There it is talking about a dishonest steward who exhibited shrewdness in his business dealings. Jesus challenged the "sons of light" to be as shrewd in doing good as "the sons of this age" were in doing evil. It seems like this is another example of Jesus' rebuke of the Jewish leadership who were the contemporary stewards of God's household in that age. Jesus was challenging His disciples to be as shrewd in managing God's kingdom honestly and faithfully, as the Jews had been in their dishonest management. So, the "sons of this age" were the current Jewish leadership who were doomed to dispossession of their stewardship position. Only those among them who were "considered worthy" would "attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead."The Jews were the sons of this age, and "this age" was the Old Testament Jewish age that was about to be changed into "the age to come." The resurrection was the age-changing event.

So, Jesus was simply saying, "Dead Jews of the old age who are worthy to attain to the resurrection from out of the dead will not be raised into a state where there is marriage and giving in marriage. Those worthy dead will receive a resurrection state wherein they "neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God." Again, this is talking about the state of the worthy dead after their resurrection into the heavenly realm, not the state of the living in the visible church after the change of the ages. It was a status that the living worthies would get as soon as they died, but not while they were still living. And this was a status that was not available even to the dead OT worthies until after the resurrection at the change of the ages in AD 70.

Luke's account goes further and shows that Jesus was defining not only what the status of the resurrected worthies would be, but also exactly who would get to be a part of that resurrection. The dead who were "worthy to attain to that age" would not be raised to enjoy physical marital relations again, nor would their resurrection give them mortality again as Lazarus had after his physical resurrection. When "the resurrection of the dead" occurred, those who were worthy of it would not have to live out the rest of their resurrected life and die again like Lazarus. The dead who would be raised "in the resurrection" would never die again. They would be like angels (immortal and not subject to physical death). Jesus said all the dead are conscious and are alive to God. No soul-sleep doctrine is taught here! Neither is a physical resurrection taught here. They are raised immortal, not subject to physical relations and physical death again. The physical resurrection view would play right into the hands of the Pharisees' physical paradise idea.

The reason this text seems to be a problem for preterists is that we forget who Jesus and the Sadducees are talking about (people who had already died). They were not talking about people still alive and what life on earth would be like in "the age to come" after it arrived. Jesus was talking about the effect the resurrection would have on the worthy dead. Jesus clearly repudiates the popular notion that the dead would be raised to a physical paradise with marriage and physical relationships. The thought of a physical resurrection is definitely not to be found here. Nor is the idea of a physical resurrection with an immediate change into an immortal body even hinted at. The worthy dead are raised in the unseen realm to a status which was not characterized by physical relationships and mortal limitations.

3. To me, Daniel is clearly shown that out of all the people who had died around the world (at least up to the end of the age) only many of those dead will be raised. Not the whole number of the dead, but only many. Then the angel breaks it down even more and establishes that out of the many, some will be rasied to eternal life and some to eternal condemnation. So in essence we have three group of dead. One group belongs died and was immediately judged by their works and were probably destroyed. A second group is part of Israel but are among the unrighteous. This group is akin to the rich man in Jesus' parable about Lazuras and the rich man. This group will see the promise of the resurrection of Israel happen but they too will become like the 1st group. The thierd group are righteous and believing. They will be raised from hades and will go to be with the Lord.

Comment by Doug on December 10, 2012 at 8:35pm

Allyn,

Those are good and reasonable answers. I will study your thoughts for sure. Yet one thing you implied needs clarification.

"The dead who would be raised "in the resurrection" would never die again. They would be like angels (immortal and not subject to physical death)."

You said that we attain immortality at the resurrection (post-mortem) Do  you not believe we have already received immortality NOW, even though we are housed in mortal bodies? That is, seeing as we have salvation, then we are, in all respects, immortal in God's eyes right now!

How then can we not have already put on immortality?

You also said that the OT "worthies" did not receive immortality until 70AD, yet you repudiate soul sleep. In what state then were the OT "worthies" in prior to 70AD? If they were awake, then they were aware. If they were aware, were they in some kind of "prison", not yet in heaven?

Comment by Allyn Morton on December 10, 2012 at 8:40pm

Doug, yes I do believe we have it now. I was using the 1st century AD tense. Yet even they (believers) had eternal life, according to Jesus, for example, in John 11:26. Its just that the fullness of the age had not yet arrived.

 

Comment by Allyn Morton on December 10, 2012 at 8:42pm

It was a sort of prison, I guess you could say. Maybe this is what is meant by Jesus going to the spirits in prison.

Comment by davo on December 11, 2012 at 2:58am

On #1... as a pantelist I understand the "better resurrection" as pertaining to those martyred saints who would by way of 'reward' received a more blessed portion in said rewards. This then also answers to your question #3... 'more blessed to enter into a "first resurrection"' – none other than those firstfruit saints who were "baptised" [martyred, Mk 10:39] ON BEHALF OF "the dead" i.e., Israel.

On #2... as a pantelist the understanding of this passage becomes much clearer when viewed in its larger context: the soon coming new covenant age would not be like the old covenant nationalistic age where ethnic purity through the birth-marriage-birth cycle was the badge of covenant membership. Unlike the passing old order the coming new covenant age would no longer be established according to nationalistic identity, as per Israel only, but was to be truly inter-national through Gentile inclusion, and so no longer limited to or determined by natural or national progeny.

Thus "neither marry nor are given in marriage" ceases to be an issue; but where all who were called "are equal to the angels and are sons of God" – showing that what was considered as the natural birth rite was no longer the qualifier for being the people of God. Again, it is shown that the Sadducees' questions were fully loaded in that their scenarios were based wholly and solely in terms of Mosaic requirements as per the old covenant order – something that would NOT survive into the coming new age beyond Ad70.

On #3... as a pantelist I understand "the resurrection of damnation" to be speaking of the coming "portion" or "part" [Rev 21:8] of wrath associated with Israel's Ad70 'lake of fire' where those who had formally believed but subsequently having returned to their vomit [law righteousness] and thus having crucified as it where the Lord a second time [Heb 6:4-6; 2Pet 2:20-22] would duly reap the vengeance of the OC's "second death".

Comment by Doug on December 11, 2012 at 10:11am

Davo,

The more you explain pantelism, the more I understand your position. And, the better I understand, the more applications I can make in preterism.

But tell me please. Do you think pantelism is its own standalone doctrine (or dogma) or whatever...

Or, do you think it is just a "fuller" explanation of the fine points of the eschatology within covenant preterism?

I lean towards the latter, but I would rather hear it from you, because prior to coming to DID, I had never heard of pantelism before.

Now, to your points...
#1. My question was about how a corporate view of the resurrection would fit into individual rewards. That is, if the resurrectino is corporate, then how can an individual person receive more "reward" than another person?

#2. So you are saying that the "marriage" Jesus was talking about was not true marriage (in the flesh) but He was instead answering their question about the Kingdom and likening it to an "inclusion" of all saints into one body? That is, the mixing between races which was forbidden under the old covenant would instead be, as Paul said in Gal. 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Is that your point?

#3 So you are basically affirming a corporate view of the resurrection, right? That is, the "damnation" that occurred in 70AD applied corporately, just as the resurrection applies corporately.  But applying this logic further, wouldn't that also mean that a person could become "unsaved". But that would not fit a corporate view of salvation, because then an individual person can become "unhooked" from the corporate body, thus becoming unsaved after once being saved. I am kind of confused on your point here.

Comment by davo on December 11, 2012 at 10:39pm

Doug: Or, do you think it is just a "fuller" explanation of the fine points of the eschatology within covenant preterism?


I lean towards the latter...


Yes Doug regarding pantelism this would be correct.


Doug: #1. My question was about how a corporate view of the resurrection would fit into individual rewards. That is, if the resurrectino is corporate, then how can an individual person receive more "reward" than another person?


It works like this... Jesus [the individual] in faithful obedience secured the redemption of Israel corporately, and thus accordingly was made/declared [reward] not only "Christ" [messiah] of Israel BUT also "Lord" of all [Acts 2:36; Rom 10:12]. And so further, those individual firstfruit saints were duly "rewarded" accordingly as they joined in the outworking Jesus' work, filling up "what was lacking" Col 1:24, NOT in efficacy but in breadth of scope to the fullness of Israel's redemption - have in mind Jesus' "greater woks than these" - not in magnitude but rather in multitude; Jesus was one, they were the many. Here are two texts not often given enough recognition in demonstrating what I've said above...


Heb 2:3 ...how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,


2Cor 1:20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.


Thus were the firstfruit saints indelibly linked in with the fullness of Israel's redemption in Christ.


Now in regards to your #2... I wouldn't disagree with your thoughts but to say Jesus was taking the marriage scenario beyond the strict wooden literalism by which the Sadducees were hamstrung, and so has the obvious implications you alluded to.


Doug: #3 So you are basically affirming a corporate view of the resurrection, right? That is, the "damnation" that occurred in 70AD applied corporately, just as the resurrection applies corporately. But applying this logic further, wouldn't that also mean that a person could become "unsaved".


The loss of salvation meant the loss of covenant blessing, which in part included literal survival into the coming new age. As such from the pantelist perspective said salvation has nothing to do with the post mortem condition or destinies as per the traditions of ECT or annihilationism.


Doug: But that would not fit a corporate view of salvation, because then an individual person can become "unhooked" from the corporate body, thus becoming unsaved after once being saved. I am kind of confused on your point here.


Remember Doug, those 'warning texts  I gave previously were not given in a vacuum, that is, they had traction and context in that age and were written to covenant people - old or new.

Comment by Doug on December 12, 2012 at 11:42am

Sometimes, the best way for me to understand something is to repeat it back and see if I got it right.

So, what I hear you saying is that our salvation is not the [traditional] idea that we are not really "saved" until we have completed our work on earth. Therefore, in pantelism (and in covenant preterism also) our salvation is complete because the resurrection of Christ is complete. And, because we have accepted His invitation to join Him in the earthly work of bringing others into the body, we too are saved, simply because we are part of that work.

Furthermore, our "reward" is not a mansion on a hill on a golden street, post-mortem, but instead it is the privilege of being able to work in the body, supplying our particular giftedness to the work of God as He works out salvation [the harvest of others into the joy of the Father] through generations on into eternity.

Continuing, the "damnation" of people is not plunging into hellfire, but instead it was typified in the destruction of Jerusalem, but it goes on through later ages in the sense that those who do not join to the body will not receive the privilege (the reward) of working with Christ.

Do I have it right so far?

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Olivet Discourse Movie

How the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century.
Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21
Riley O'Brien Powell

Events

Forum

Delivered from the Law

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 15. 13 Replies

FEAR obviously struck..

Started by Julia A Waldron in Eschatology. Last reply by John Mar 24. 1 Reply

For the Preterist

Started by Julia A Waldron in Eschatology. Last reply by Julia A Waldron Mar 24. 22 Replies

Isaiah 2:2-4 Used to refute preterism

Started by Steve G. in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Aug 13, 2018. 1 Reply

This Site Active?

Started by Doug in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Jul 29, 2018. 28 Replies

Gen 1 vs Isa 51

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 3, 2018. 4 Replies

The sin of the Gentiles

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Brother Les Jan 18, 2018. 3 Replies

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Nov 5, 2017. 9 Replies

Though he dies yet shall he live

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 25, 2017. 8 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6, 2017. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by Judy Peterson Apr 8, 2018. 21 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Judith Ann Maness Aug 4, 2018. 10 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

© 2019   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service