[This post was created from a comment (#3469) in the Questions from the COSM thread.]
Hi, Andrew.
I have now finished COSM, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I’ve been a preterist for two or three years now (I know you don’t like the term, but please permit me to use it about myself since I’m accustomed to it). Since then I have struggled a lot with certain passages, particularly John 6 and Revelation 20, which picture two resurrections. I’ve wrestled a lot with the 1,000 year reign of Revelation 20, and no explanation that I’ve heard from anyone has been able to make sense of it (particularly those from other preterists).
Your separation of the two resurrections (one so that those first Christians who suffered and died could participate in the vindication of Christ at his coming, and another for everyone sometime in the future) makes a lot of sense of John 6 and Revelation 20, coherently fitting them into the larger narrative, so I am really tempted to adopt your view. I have a question, though, and it involves harmonizing these passages with 1 Corinthians 15. You made an excellent point about the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 only having believers in view and therefore that it is only referring to the first resurrection (which is connected to the parousia). I’m with you so far, but I have a question (actually a question-set) about what 1 Corinthians 15 says about Death, the final enemy.
“for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” (vv. 22-26 NRSV)
“Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:
‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’
‘Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?’
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (vv. 51-57 NRSV)
If both of these sections are referring to the same event, that being the defeat of Death, then is death defeated at the parousia, or at the end of Christ’s interregnum? The second passage would seem to place it at the parousia, but the first passage, if your argument on the sequencing function of eita/epeita (I forget which is used here) is correct, places it at the end of the interregnum. So then, are they not actually speaking of the same thing? If not, how can we fit these different statements about death into the larger narrative?
The defeat of death and the destruction of death
The book doesn’t deal particularly well with 1 Cor. 15:51-57. I’m not sure if I was subconsciously avoiding it or whether it was just an oversight.
Anyway, in response to your question the main point to make is that in 1 Cor. 15:51-57 Paul is not speaking about a final destruction of death corresponding to the destruction of death in the lake of fire in Rev. 20:14. We need to differentiate between the defeating or overcoming of death and the destruction of death.
The passage describes what will happen when the early suffering community inherits the kingdom (15:50). The trumpet that sounds is the same trumpet that summons the ‘dead in Christ’ to rise in 1 Thess. 4:16 at the parousia, at the coming of the Son of man, at the ‘first resurrection’ - at the vindication of the suffering church. These faithful saints (the martyrs, those who have imitated Christ, who have been conformed to the image of the Son) will put on imperishability and immortality, which means that for them death has been overcome, it has lost its sting, it has no victory. They have conquered as Christ conquered (cf. Rev. 3:21); they have come to share in the ‘victory’ of Christ (1 Cor. 15:57). But at this point death itself has not been destroyed; it is still out there in the world. Only for those who share in the first resurrection has death been defeated.
The earlier passage, as I see it, tells the whole story - the overcoming of death and the final destruction of death. Christ is raised first, then (epeita) at his coming (I think, in effect, both a coming to receive the kingdom from the Ancient of Days and a coming to defeat his enemies) those who suffered and died with him are raised and inherit the kingdom. Then (eita) at some later point the final enemy death will be destroyed (not merely overcome) and the kingdom will be given back to the Father - because it is no longer necessary for God’s reign to be exercised through one who died.
We need a Lord who made himself of no account, humbled himself, became obedient unto death, because death is still for us an appalling and terrifying reality. Once that enemy has been destroyed, we no longer need the lamb who was slain to be Lord (if I can put it that way) and God can be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:28).
Re: The defeat of death and the destruction of death
Thanks for the response, Andrew. I’m very impressed with how reasonable your approach is, and how it provides a single coherent story - which is something that I’ve been missing for a while now. I’ve thought of a follow-up question. There’s one other passage that I’ve come across (I think you mentioned it in COSM) that deals with resurrection that I have a hard time fitting into your framework. It’s something that Paul says to Felix:
It would seem to me that the Jewish hope was vindication and return from exile, along with everything that would entail (like resurrection of those who died before that time), and not a general resurrection of just and unjust alike. If this is true then their hope fits the first resurrection that you have described quite well, but the hope that Paul describes in the above passage seems to only fit the second resurrection - not the first. Any ideas on how to reconcile this passage with the framework of two resurrections?
Re: The defeat of death and the destruction of death
Jared, I think we have to assume a couple of things: first, that in the speeches in Acts Paul makes a point of demonstrating his Jewish orthodoxy: ‘I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets’ (Acts 24:14); secondly, that Paul’s concern is only to find agreement over the fact of resurrection - or specifically of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 24:15; 26:6-8). It’s probably a mistake, then, to expect an exact correlation between what Paul hints at here and his developed thought.
I’m not sure how Paul or his hearers would have understood the phrase ‘resurrection of the just and the unjust’ - we would have to look at this in more detail. But if Daniel 12:2 lies behind it, it may have in view only the resurrection of Israel at a time of deliverance from extreme oppression. The righteous in Israel are raised to ‘everlasting life’; the wicked in Israel (ie. those who violate the covenant: Dan. 11:32) are raised to ‘shame and everlasting contempt’. In other words, this is not a universal resurrection.
In that case, should we suppose that Paul, for whatever reason, dropped the resurrection of the unjust from his conception of the parousia? Is it there in some other form? Is it perhaps only John who projects the idea of a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked on to a universal screen to become a final resurrection and judgment of all the dead? Paul believes that there will be a vindication of the suffering community, that the lawless and blaspheming oppressor will be defeated at the parousia, and that ultimately death will be destroyed. But it may be that the idea of a universal resurrection and judgment, at least in those terms, is missing from his extant teaching.
Re: The defeat of death and the destruction of death
Ok, that’s good food for thought. I really appreciate the answer, which I’ll have to chew on for a while.