|
– Is The
Resurrection Past? –
Consider this:
2Tim
2:16-18
But
shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more
ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer.
Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed
concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and
they overthrow the faith of some.
Paul
challenges the false doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus that was turning
some from the faith "saying the
resurrection is already past." This is the same charge of
'heresy' wrongly brought by those who oppose
fulfilled prophecy;
failing to realise that the 'Hymenaeus and Philetus' argument rather
than diminishing our approach actually strengthens it, the reasoning is
simple:
If the
1st century church expected Christ's 2nd Coming to
be an earth destroying, time ending, history terminating event,
as many today think and await, then how was it possible for some to be
deceived? All someone had to do was look around and ask
"what's
changed!?"
–
physically
nothing! In
other words, if the resurrection [which according to Scripture is
initiated by Christ's return] was to be a "physical event" it would be
self evident, everything "physically" would be changed – a remade world,
people popping up through open graves, and no more physical death. Yet
all the
living were still present and none had been raptured away. Again, had
things been physically reconstituted it would have been self
evident. However, there is no
record of such things occurring.
Obviously, 1st century believers had a concept and belief
about the nature
of 'the resurrection' that is foreign to much popular present-day
Christian teaching. The 'first-fruit' believers [Jas
1:18] understood that Jesus' kingdom did not come with
observation [Lk 17:20],
in fact His kingdom wasn't to be of this "fleshly" world [Jn
18:36] - for flesh and blood i.e., "the natural" could
not enter it [1Cor 15:50].
His spiritual kingdom entered only through spiritual rebirth - looking
not to the "seen" but to the "unseen"
2Cor 4:18. Yet this
confusion over the nature of 'heavenly things' is nothing new,
even the literalistic
thinking
Nicodemus could not conceive how it was possible to be "born
again" except but to enter the womb a second time [Jn
3:9-12].
Paul
does not challenge Hymenaeus and Philetus'
concept or belief as
to the 'nature'
of the 2nd Coming [as they had been Christian], he does
however their
'timing'
of it. Hymenaeus and Philetus were causing a lot of
trouble, and like most of Paul's opposition they were Judaisers [based
on Paul's constant warnings against "going back" to the Law –Judaism,
this is plausible]. Had Hymenaeus and Philetus been correct, then
adherence to the "Law" would also have become a requirement of faith, as
it was still operative [though it had no redeeming value] while the
Temple stood. The writer of Hebrews declares:
Heb
9:8 the
Holy Spirit indicating this, that
the way
into the Holiest of All
was not yet made manifest
while the first tabernacle was still standing.
While
the Temple stood
the reconciliation was not yet complete; Christ's
Parousia was the manifestation of Christ's completed redemption.
Christ's Coming, The Resurrection, The Judgment, and consummation
or fullness of The Kingdom were all
concurrent events [2Tm
4:1; Mt 16:27-28], when one happened they all happened.
For the resurrection to occur whilst vestiges of the Old Covenant
remained i.e., the Temple - typifying the Law, Priesthood, Sacrifices,
Worship etc, and would thus require their inclusion. However, Moses [the
Law] was never to enter the Promised Land [New Covenant]. This mixing of
Law and Grace of course goes completely against all Paul's teaching on
the sufficiency of grace alone apart from the Law, through the faith of
Christ [Gal 4:21-31].
[DISCUSS
HERE]
David
G. Embury
©
Copyright 2004ŕ
Email:
contact@pantelism.com
|
