|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Covenant Eschatology - Spirit of the Word - Introductory Note - New Stuff
A Study of the Resurrection
Part 2
by Don K. PrestonTWO 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.
Contents - Part 3 - Don Preston's site - Covenant Eschatology
Spirit of the Word - Introductory Note - New Stuff
Undivided Version
Part 1 - Resurrection From What Death?
Part 2 - Two Resurrections?
Part 3 - It Is the Last Hour
Part 4 - The Hour of His Judgment Is Come
Part 5 - The Hope of Israel
Part 6 - The Kingdom Does Not Come With Observation
Part 7 - Resurrection and the Law
Part 8 - The Prophetic Background of John 5
Part 9 - What Is Resurrection?
Part 10 - Resurrection When?
Part 11 - Problems With Tradition
Part 12 - Objections Considered
Part 13 - Summary and Conclusion