Hyperpreterist’s Butchering the Resurrection of the Dead

[PaulT]

Below is a question by a hyperpreterist designed to impugn the Christian definition of the resurrection of the dead. The question is really shallow for a couple of reasons, 1st it denies Apostloic authority.

Paul claimed he taught the resurrection from the Law and the Prophets. To test whether your teaching is consistent with what Paul taught, please show that both of these resurrections are found in the Law and the Prophets.

However, the denial of Apostolic authority isn’t the only thing shallow about the question. The question presupposes resurrection of dead bodies isn’t taught in the OT. The problem the hypepreterist has is that he has fundamentally missed the concept that for a metaphor to have any meaning it must be based on a concrete concept. Here is what I mean,

There is little doubt by anyone I’m aware of that Ezk 37:1 – 9 is the description of bringing a dead body back to life in very graphic detail, for example, v.7…And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling,… and the bones came together, bone to its bone……But there was no breath in them. 9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”

Clearly Ezekiel 37 describes the bringing back to life of a dead human corpse in graphic detail, yet the hypepretpretist denies this concept. The hyperpreterist will make the case that the passage is about bringing Israel back to life because of what is recorded in v. 11 “Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel” Which indeed is a discussion regarding the restoration of the exiled Nation Israel. The problem the hyperpreterist has if the concrete concept that dead bodies would indeed come back to life one day as Christians understand the resurrection of the dead to mean, didn't exist then why would any Jew in exile have a belief that the Nation would be restored to life? Without the fundamental concrete concept that resurrection from the dead meant restoration to life of mortal bodies which expired Ezkiel’s use of the metaphor would have no meaning to the Jews the message was intended for.

If you still haven't got my point, think back in time to when you were in school. Did you every have a teacher tell you your head was as hard as a rock? If you didn't have an understanding that "rocks" are indeed hard, what meaning would that statment have had for you? The folly of the hyperpreterist position is easily exposed if one takes the time to peal back the layers on the onion. Ezk 37 demonstrates resurrection as in dead bodies come back to life is taught in the OT. JLV, you are correct, the OT teaches what the Apostle expounded upon, why do you deny the power of God?

[dlspence_58]

I have an article I want to submit concerning the resurrection. Unfortunately, I can't scan it or link to it so I'm having to type the entire thing (quite lengthy) and post it in small sections unless I get permission to post the entire thing. One thing I think has been brought up in these various threads, and I believe is accurate, is that the full preterist doesn't understand the resurrection of the body in I Cor. 15 at all.

[PaulT]

I have an article I want to submit concerning the resurrection. Unfortunately, I can't scan it or link to it so I'm having to type the entire thing (quite lengthy) and post it in small sections unless I get permission to post the entire thing. One thing I think has been brought up in these various threads, and I believe is accurate, is that the full preterist doesn't understand the resurrection of the body in I Cor. 15 at all.

I look forward to seeing the work. Dispence, I don't believe the issue is that the hyperpreterist doesn't understand the resurrection of the body, I think they do. What the issue is they redefine the doctrine to make allowance for a system they are forcing on Scripture, therefore they deny was 1 Cor 15 explicitly states. An honest hyperpreterist will admit that if the resurrection of the dead is really about dead people inclusive of their body coming back to life then they are advocating heresy. However, most aren't intellectually honest enough to make this admission.

PaulT

[MoGrace2u]

PT,
You seem to be trying to make a vision given to Ezekiel the same as a parable used to teach a spiritual truth which does use an actual earthly example - the parable of the sower, eg.

But by necessity, the vision is not something that men can see otherwise and so it does not draw on any earthly reality. Where can you find an example of what Ezekiel saw in the earth outside of this vision? Certainly not in any of the stories which depict people being raised from the dead - since all their bodies were intact.

A vision depicts something heavenly in order to paint the picture for us for the spiritual truth to be revealed. So your 'concrete example' is not an earthly picture but one that can only transpire in the realm into which we cannot see. And that the preterist agrees depicts the resurrection of the dead - which nobody here will see 'physically' either.

Any more than they will see an actual beast rise up out of the earth, or a literal river of water flowing from the throne of God into the earth.

[PaulT]

PT,
You seem to be trying to make a vision given to Ezekiel the same as a parable used to teach a spiritual truth which does use an actual earthly example - the parable of the sower, eg.

But by necessity, the vision is not something that men can see otherwise and so it does not draw on any earthly reality. Where can you find an example of what Ezekiel saw in the earth outside of this vision? Certainly not in any of the stories which depict people being raised from the dead - since all their bodies were intact.

A vision depicts something heavenly in order to paint the picture for us for the spiritual truth to be revealed. So your 'concrete example' is not an earthly picture but one that can only transpire in the realm into which we cannot see. And that the preterist agrees depicts the resurrection of the dead - which nobody here will see 'physically' either.

Any more than they will see an actual beast rise up out of the earth, or a literal river of water flowing from the throne of God into the earth.

No, I'm simply stating that a metphor must be based on a concrete concept. For the metaphor to have any meaning to the exiled Israelites they must have had a concpet that dead bodies really would come back to life. We are dealing with a concept, therefore I don't need to demonstrate where the concept had been previously preformed, just demonstrate that without the concrete concept the metaphor would have no meaning which I have done. IOW, if the concept dead bodies would come back to life didn't exist, why would anyone understand the nation would be resurrected? You've never been told your head is as hard as a rock?

PaulT

[MoGrace2u]

No, I'm simply stating that a metphor must be based on a concrete concept. For the metaphor to have any meaning to the exiled Israelites they must have had a concpet that dead bodies really would come back to life. We are dealing with a concept, therefore I don't need to demonstrate where the concept had been previously preformed, just demonstrate that without the concrete concept the metaphor would have no meaning which I have done. IOW, if the concept dead bodies would come back to life didn't exist, why would anyone understand the nation would be resurrected? You've never been told your head is as hard as a rock?

Well then perhaps you need to rethink what a 'concrete concept' is, if it is not something that can be actually known in this world. A heavenly vision is painting a picture of something never seen, a parable is drawing upon an actual earthly example. Therefore the source of the metaphor is not always 'concrete' in the way you are trying to say. Unless you want us to think that Ezekiel's picture of the dead rising will be exactly how it is to be done in the earth? Either way it is still not 'concrete', because it hasn't happened yet. Therefore it is not 'concrete' and why a vision was needed to depict it.

Kinda like how the angel was the one who measured Ezekiel's visionary temple - and why was that? Because it didn't yet exist in the earth. A temple was however something actually physical that Ezekiel had seen - just not that one in the vision. And we know that the vision temple was not going to be a literal physical temple either, but a heavenly one - hence the vision was needed to even see it.

Being a living stone with a rock hard head is better than a dead dog anyday!

[PaulT]

Well then perhaps you need to rethink what a 'concrete concept' is, if it is not something that can be actually known in this world.

If a concept is known, how can it not be known to the world. You don't make any sense.

PaulT

[kramden327]

A vision depicts something heavenly in order to paint the picture for us for the spiritual truth to be revealed. So your 'concrete example' is not an earthly picture but one that can only transpire in the realm into which we cannot see. And that the preterist agrees depicts the resurrection of the dead - which nobody here will see 'physically' either.

Any more than they will see an actual beast rise up out of the earth, or a literal river of water flowing from the throne of God into the earth.

I would have to agree with you MG2U. It seems PaulT is making the argument for a future literal resurrection of physical bodies because the vision in Ezekiel depicted actual physical body parts. (Sorry if this is not the case PaulT.) I don't see why a vision of a bunch of dead, dry life-less bones being transformed into living bodies couldn't be a picture (as you said) of a dead, God-less nation being regenerated into a Christ-centered, "holy nation" - the church - after He breathed Life into it.

A belief in the resurrection of the dead is not required to understand Ezekiel's vision. Just the mental capacity to make the connection between the conversion of dead bones to living beings and the dead nation who had rejected God to a nation who received His Son (the Church).

Would you apply that same principle to John's vision of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21? I know some are expecting a literal 1500 mile crystal cube to be the residence of all believers someday. The vision can (and does In this case IMO) depict something completely different than the physical subject described.

(Please don't accuse me of rejecting the resurrection of Christ or believers. If you do, you missed the point.)

[dlspence_58]

My summary and links to the article I previously spoke of are in Jame's e-mail box. When he has the opportunity he will put it in the forum. I'm looking forward to reading some of the responses to the article.

[Osito]

Mr. PaulT, aside from the point you are making regarding the differences in the interpretations by preterists and hyperpreterists, I believe argument you are trying to make is misconceived. There all kinds of things that we envision everyday that has no direct corresponding physical realty. For instance, consider the movie The Mummy. We know of physically existing mummies, and we can apply our imaginations to animate the thing. But in "real life," there are no marauding mummies. Therefore, a vision of bones coming together and animating is suitable for a metaphor without the need for the process to have ever existed in real life.

In short, you might be right in the ultimate conclusion regarding the resurrection of the body, but your reasoning is faulty.

[PaulT]

I would have to agree with you MG2U. It seems PaulT is making the argument for a future literal resurrection of physical bodies because the vision in Ezekiel depicted actual physical body parts. (Sorry if this is not the case PaulT.) I don't see why a vision of a bunch of dead, dry life-less bones being transformed into living bodies couldn't be a picture (as you said) of a dead, God-less nation being regenerated into a Christ-centered, "holy nation" - the church - after He breathed Life into it.

A belief in the resurrection of the dead is not required to understand Ezekiel's vision. Just the mental capacity to make the connection between the conversion of dead bones to living beings and the dead nation who had rejected God to a nation who received His Son (the Church).

Would you apply that same principle to John's vision of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21? I know some are expecting a literal 1500 mile crystal cube to be the residence of all believers someday. The vision can (and does In this case IMO) depict something completely different than the physical subject described.

(Please don't accuse me of rejecting the resurrection of Christ or believers. If you do, you missed the point.)

You are missing the point, The reason Rev 21 carries meaning is becasue we understand what a city full of people means. However, If the people didn't comprehend dead bodies could come back to life, why would the metaphor carry any meaning for the nation?

In short, you might be right in the ultimate conclusion regarding the resurrection of the body, but your reasoning is faulty.

What we "envision" is based on a concrete concept. We understand what a mummy is based on a real mummy, not a vision of a mummy. We understand what a live human being is based on the concrete concept of what a live human being is. For the "evision" to have any meaning it must be based on a concrete concept. If the people whom Ezekiel gave the message to did not have within their lexicon the concept dead bodies could come back to life, they metaphorical use of that illustration for the nation would have had no meaning. Let me suggest to you, the reason mummies coming back to life has some meaning to you is based on your Judeo-Christain principle that dead can come back to life. If you still think I'm wrong, look up the meaning of metphor.



PaulT

[kramden327]

You are missing the point, The reason Rev 21 carries meaning is becasue we understand what a city full of people means. However, If the people didn't comprehend dead bodies could come back to life, why would the metaphor carry any meaning for the nation?

I have not seen one HP (as you call them) deny that there is no life after death. That would be heresy. It is the type of body at issue. And if you can read Paul's lengthy description "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" and you conclude it is a physical body, not a spiritual body, then up is down, black is white, and "must shortly take place.... for the time is near" of course means "won't take place for thousands of years".

1 Cor 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as [is] the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.] 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

PaulT, what Scripture tells you the body will be physical?