A RESPONSE TO MATHISON:
AUDIENCE RELEVANCE!

by Daniel E. Harden

In review of Mathison's "A Brief Response to the Full Preterist Criticisms of Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks", there is much that can easily be said. There are errors in perception and assumptions made by Mathison that can be dealt with in length, as well as arguments on why Preterism is heresy. There is also Mathison's misguided Sola Scriptura, which isn't Sola at all. But that is not my focus here. Rather, I'd like to point out a couple of critical errors Mathison has made in his use of Scripture.

NULLIFYING AND DESTROYING MATHISON'S DEATH PRECONCEPTIONS

Mathison wrote:

"In paragraph ten, Dr. Birks makes a couple of statements to which I must briefly respond. He asks, 'Precisely where in the Bible does it teach an end of this earth, and the ceasing of sin as an expression within that earth?' To begin with, I don't claim that the earth itself is going to end or be completely destroyed. A number of times in the text of my book, I state that I believe that all of creation will be restored. I do not state that this restoration of creation necessarily involves its destruction and re-creation from scratch. But does this mean that sin will continue in Christ's kingdom forever? Dr. Birks asks where the Bible teaches the ceasing of sin as an expression within the earth? I would suggest I Corinthians 15:24-28 as a good place to start. Jesus 'must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.' Sin is His enemy, is it not? 'The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.' Since death is the wage and fruit of sin (Rom. 6:23), it is not an exegetical stretch to say that the destruction of death will necessarily entail the destruction of its source."

This is a common futurist mistake. When asked if and when physical death will cease, they point to this passage. But what is interesting is that the verse actually implies the opposite of what is being asserted. The Greek word that is used in this verse is <katargeo>, which does NOT mean destruction or cessation at all, but rather simply a nullification. The correct rendering of this verse is "The last enemy to be nullified is death." A careful study of this word throughout the NT will suffice for verification. The Greek word properly connotating destruction and cessation is <kataluo>. Compare the difference:

Matt 26:61. and said, "This fellow said, `I am able to destroy <kataluo> the temple of God and to build it in three days.' ''

Rom 3:3. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect <katargeo>?

There is a distinct difference between the two words. Of <katargeo>, Strong's properly renders the definition as "to render useless", while of <kataluo>, Strong's properly renders "to demolish, disintegrate". Note carefully that <kataluo> applies to complete destruction to the extent of cessation, while <katargeo> only conveys the meaning of rendering powerless.

Now look at the passage in question:

1 Cor 15: 24. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He nullifies all rule and all authority and power.
25. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26. The last enemy that will be nullified is death.

Note clearly that all rule, authority, and power still exists, but has been subjugated to Christ. The same is true with physical death. The completion of atonement (Heb 9-10) at the Parousia of Christ at 70 AD nullified the power of physical death. No longer does death mean a separation from God, for perfect atonement was finally achieved.

The use of <katargeo> in this passage in essence confirms the continued existence of physical death, rather than denies it, as Mathison contends!

THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER

Later, Mathison states:

"In paragraph 26, Dr. Birks points readers to the manifestly clear passage of I Cor. 15:35-49 in order to demonstrate that our resurrection body is 'not the same body as that which was buried, but is rather the spirit of the redeemed believer that is given literally, a new body.' The problem with this, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is that if the same body that died is not resurrected then what has occurred is by definition not a resurrection of the body; it is a replacement of the body. This is nothing more than the ancient Gnostic heresy of redemption from the body in a new garb. Since our resurrection is like Christ's (cf. Phil. 3:21; Rom. 8:29), this substitution of 'replacement' for 'resurrection' has enormous implications on the doctrine of Christ's resurrection. If His resurrection was of the same body that died, and it clearly was (cf. Luke 24:37-40), then our resurrection is of the same body. If our resurrection is actually a replacement of the body, then so was Christ's and the tomb was not really empty."

In this relatively short paragraph I find no less than three glaring errors. The first is in his confusion with 'resurrection' and 'replacement'. To understand why Mathison is confused and misguided, we must remember that he is thinking with a twentieth-century mind. The NT was written in the first-century. So to understand the NT, we must get a handle on the first-century mindset.

As the book of Corinthians was written to a Greek church, and as much of our NT is targeted to a Greek audience, we must understand the common understanding of the Greek mind as well. In the philosophies of the Greeks of that time period, there were a variety of understandings for the resurrection was. Most philosophers had opinions on it. What is of note is that up to that time, not one Greek perception of 'resurrection' had anything to do with the physical body. The "resurrection" was a term that was descriptive merely of what happens to man when he dies and leaves his physical body behind. The common understanding, then, wasn't that the physical body is brought back to life, but that the soul proceeds from out of the dead body. Indeed, when referring to a body for resurrected souls, the established philosophical idea was one of "replacement" rather than the idea of "reassembling" that Mathison supports. Mathison totally overlooks this. In fact, the Corinthians rejected the idea of a physical-body resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12), but Paul goes out of his way to reassure them that the resurrection of the dead, while a very real promise, WOULDN’T include the physical body! (1 Cor 15:35 question: "With what kind of body will they [the dead] come?" 1 Cor 15:37 answer: "you do not sow that body that shall be")

Mathison's second error is tied in with the first -- that the Preterist concept of 'resurrection' that conforms to the concept of the first century is a "Gnostic heresy". I suggest that Mathison do a little more homework on this. Were the Gnostics heretics? Yes. Did they nonetheless believe in things that were correct? Yes. To say that they were heretics doesn't mean that they held 100% incorrect beliefs, any more than the proclamation of such groups as Jehovah's Witnessas as heretics doesn't mean they are 100% wrong. If it were the case, then the whole belief in one God would go out the window. The question isn't that a belief may or may not be similar to a Gnostic belief, but rather whether it is Scriptural or whether it is in fact what made the Gnostics heretics.

The Gnostics were spoken out against by John in his letters. It is clear that the Gnostics were labeled as heretics. But the issue in Scripture as to WHY they were labeled as such HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RESURRECTION! The real issue with the Gnostics was that they denied the divinity of Christ while He was on earth, and the humanity of Christ after He ascended. It is directly responsible with why we say "wholly God and wholly man" in our assertion. The Gnostics rejected that notion, and basically nullified the deity of Christ. The only other issue with the Gnostics was not that they advocated a "redemption from the body", it was that they totally ignored the importance of what we do while in the physical body. In fact, they even went so far as to call the physical body evil, and it contaminated the spirit. They were giving themselves license for every type of physical pleasure and sin under the guise that it just didn't matter what was done while in the physical body. 1 John 3:1-10 was almost certainly written to combat this erroneous thought.

John and Paul both speak out against the Gnostics and counter their problems. Why, then, do they never take issue with their idea of what the resurrection was? Simply put, because they didn't have a problem with it.

Ironically, it was the second century church in Rome that sought so strenuously to distance themselves from the Gnostics that they adopted a "physical body resurrection". And apparently the Asian churches weren't happy about this, but were unable to stem the flow of this perception.

One Scripture passage in particular is also very telling on this point:

2 Thes 2:1. Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
2. not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

How could this misleading even be a remote possibility if the resurrection that was associated with the day of Christ was a physical body resurrection??

GETTING INTO POSITION

The third error by Mathison is in quoting Phil 3:21 and Rom 8:29 in asserting that our "resurrected body" must be physical like Christ's was. Again, I need to refer Mathison and the reader to the Greek, not simply accept the accustomed English translations.

Phil 3:21 who will change <metaschematizo> our body of humiliation, conforming <summorphos> it to His body of glory, according to the working of His ability, even to subject all things to Himself.

Mathison contends that this verse indicates a total change of the physical body to be like Christ's resurrection body. But when one accurately investigates the Greek, one finds a different story. The change indicated by <metaschematizo> is not a change in the properties or composition of the body at all. In fact, the "change" is not a true transformation of nature, but merely a temporary assumption of a quality foreign to the true nature. Consider the other uses of the word:

1 Cor 4: 6. Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred <metaschematizo> to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Paul and Apollos assumed a quality that in essence wasn't their true quality, to mollify the Corinthians.

2 Cor 11: 13. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming <metaschematizo> themselves into apostles of Christ.
14. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms <metaschematizo> himself into an angel of light.
15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform <metaschematizo> themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Again, the use of the word is not one of true change, but one of assuming a false quality or condition. The false apostles weren't in fact changed into apostles of Christ. Satan wasn't in fact changed into an angel of light. His ministers didn't in fact change into ministers of righteousness. In fact, some translations of this passage use the word "masquerade" to describe the false front. The root <schema> is indicative of a surface or superficial nature, not the real essential nature. It is the root from which we get our word "schematic".

The second word in the verse that needs to be investigated is <summorphos>. This is used twice in the NT, and those are the two verses in question. Of note is that the root of this word is <morphe>, which indeed does refer to the essential nature. So far, so good for Mathison. But what he fails to take in to account is the prefix. The little prefix in Greek is of great importance. The little word <sun> indicates a together or co-relationship. It is often prefixed as <sun->, <su->, or <sum->, depending on the Greek root word. Again, so far, so good. What Mathison fails to apply is that this renders the root word into a state of dependency. This is especially true on an individual level. Consider:

Rom 6: 3. Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4. Therefore we were buried with <sunthapto> Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5. For if we have been united together <sumphutos> in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6. knowing this, that our old man was crucified with <sustauroo> Him, that the body of sin might be done away with <katargeo>, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
7. For he who has died has been freed from sin.
8. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9. knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

<sunthapto> -- co-buried

<sumphutos> -- co-planted

<sustauroo> -- co-crucified

These are positional words for Paul, contingent not on his own burial, planting, or crucifixion, but on Christ's. He was associating with the work of Christ.

Eph 2: 4. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5. even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together <suzoopoieo> with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6. and raised us up together <sunegeiro>, and made us sit together <sugkathizo> in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

<suzoopoieo> -- co-quickened

<sunegeiro> -- co-raised

<sugkathizo> -- co-seated

Col 2:11. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12. buried with <sunthapto> Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with <sunegeiro> Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
13. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together <suzoopoieo> with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

<sunthapto> -- co-buried

<sunegeiro> -- co-raised

<suzoopoieo> -- co-quickened

These are all positional concepts because of Paul's association with Christ, not because of his own actions or events. Paul wasn't buried, quickened, raised, and seated in heaven, but was associated with the cooresponding actions of Christ. Christ was buried, quickened, raised, and seated in heaven. Paul was merely co-buried, co-quickened, co-raised, co-seated with Christ.

Whenever we see that little prefix, we need to be on the lookout for an association with something done by somebody else. Check each word that I have addressed above, and you will see the same thing. For example, for Paul, his raising <egeiro> was still future, but his co-raising <sunegeiro> was already a positional fact.

So what does that do to Phil 3:21 and Rom 8:29? Merely that the "morphing", the true change, was Christ's, and that Paul was merely showing that our body of humility would achieve a masquerade in co-morphing with Christ. It was Christ who was the only one whose physical body was promised not to see decay. It was Christ whose physical body was metamorphosed into His immortal heavenly realm body. Paul doesn't say he will also be metamorphosed, only co-formed in the image of Christ, or associated with the image of the risen Christ. To assign to the believer a "reassembled" physical body is to give him a different and even more miraculous type of resurrection than even Christ had! Not only was Christ NOT reassembled, He still had the scars and wounds that He had when He died. This presents a serious unresolvable problem for Mathison -- he cannot show a "same resurrection" between Christ and those that are beheaded or burnt for their faith, and indeed every individual under Mathison's scenario must receive the physical body in the same condition that is was in either (1) at death, not a pretty prospect for anybody other than those in the prime of their life, or (2) its current condition, not a pretty prospect for anybody who has been dead for longer than three days!

Again, the investigation of the Greek words nullify Mathison's intention, in actually making them the opposite of what Mathison intended. To put on a "masquerade" in fact means that the body of humility doesn't change its true nature at all!

COUSIN "IT"

In the very next paragraph, Mathison says:

"There is obviously a glorious change in the body when it is resurrected. Paul writes, 'It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' (I Cor. 15:42-44). But notice the fact that in all of the comparisons Paul makes, the same 'it' that is sown is the 'it' that is raised. To use Dr. Birks analogy, God doesn't reach the goal of sanctification in the believer and then throw it all away in order to start over from scratch. With Paul, orthodox Christians await the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23), not a Gnostic redemption from the body."

There is an almost imperceptible sleight of hand here that goes undetected. Indeed, it is possible that Mathison himself doesn't realize it. But it is there nonetheless. Mathison makes the correct statement that "the same 'it' that is sown is the 'it' that is raised." True enough. What he leads you to believe, then, is that the body that is raised must be the same that is sown. His own interpretation of the passage supports it, by stating right up front "lt is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body." The problem is, the text doesn't actually say that! Paul had just brought forth the seed analogy, and in describing the fact that the body of the seed after it is planted and raised is not the same as the body in which it was planted, Paul then sets forth different bodies and how they have differing uses. But what is important is that Paul started out with:

1 Cor 15: 35. But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?''
36. Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies.
37. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain perhaps wheat or some other grain.

Notice clearly that last verse: "what you sow, you DO NOT SOW THAT BODY THAT SHALL BE, but mere grain." The grain has a shell. The seed is planted in the ground in a shell, but that shell falls away and the plant emerges with a different body to suit its needs. Verse 38-41 then describe how different bodies serve different needs. Then verse 42-44:

1 Cor 15:42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It 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.

Mathison has cleverly (or inadvertently, perhaps) identified the 'it' with the body. But in fact, verse 37 identifies that it is not the body that is sown, but the whole seed! You do not sow the body that shall be! Therefore "it" cannot be merely a body, but is in fact what Paul had just finished indicating, the whole seed. This is also verified in the last part of verse 44, which Mathison so conveniently left out -- "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." Two different bodies. The natural physical body is the body or shell of the seed that is sown, and the spiritual body is the body of the seed after it sprouts into a plant. The natural body is not the body that shall be, and it is not the spiritual body.

Paul disagrees with Mathison in 1 Cor 15 not once, not twice, not three times, but FOUR TIMES!

37. And what you sow, YOU DO NOT SOW THAT BODY THAT SHALL BE, but mere grain perhaps wheat or some other grain.
44. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. THERE IS A NATURAL BODY, AND THERE IS A SPIRITUAL BODY

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.

How could Paul have made it any clearer? The body that is raised is not the body that is sown. If it were the same body, why would Paul have bothered to go to such extremes? All he had to say was "What type of body will we have? Our same bodies!" The bottom line is that the physical body has no place in the heavenly realm, but we will receive a body that is suited to that realm. There is not a total discontinuity with the seed, as the spirit/soul continues on, proceeding from the shell/physical body to the plant/spiritual body. All the soul, all the memories, all the essence of the seed/spirit continues on in a new form adequate for the new realm.

ALL CREATION IS NOT CREATED EQUAL

Mathison also states that "Christians await the redemption of the body." Later he also says:

"The basic problem with the full preterist position stems from a failure to account for the basic goodness of the physical creation of God. Because of man's sin both he and all of creation were affected by sin and placed under a curse (cf. Gen. 3:17-18; Rom. 8:20-22). But the effects of redemption are as universal as the effects of the curse (Rom. 8:22-23). In Romans 8:23, Paul explicitly declares his hope for something full preterists adamantly deny - the redemption of the body (Greek - soma). It is not just the spirit that is to be redeemed, it is also the body. Sin did not and will not permanently frustrate God's original purpose for the physical creation. I refer readers to the main body of my book and other Reformed theology texts for further exegetical support of this biblical truth."

Mathison's appeal to Rom 8 to show that all creation is affected by sin is somewhat faulty. He appeals to Rom 8:23 as the "redemption of the body" rather than the "redemption from the body". Once again, an appeal is made to the Greek. Amazing how so much can be cleared up by looking at the original! The phrase is <apolutroosin tou soomatos> which is actually more accurately rendered "redemption from the body"!

I believe this can be made clear by regarding the section beginning at verse 17 and working forward.

Rom 8: 17. and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
18. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

The first note indicating a reference to time is the phrase "the glory which shall be revealed in us". Notice the Greek word here is our old friend <mello>, which is a clear indicator of imminence. This verse literally reads:

"For that I calculate not worthy the sufferings of the present time to the glory ***about to be*** revealed in us"

This indicates that something is SOON to be revealed.

But look at this:

Matt 10: 23. "But when they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, ***you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.***
24. "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
25. "It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house
Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!
26. "Therefore do not fear them. For ***there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.***

Here we find another clear time reference that links things together. The time when all would be revealed was in the disciples' lifetime, before they could personally go to all the cities of Israel.

See also:

1 Peter 5:1. The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the ***glory that IS ABOUT TO be <mello> revealed:***

and:

1 John 3: 2. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

If that isn't enough for a case of imminency, let's look at the very next verse in Romans 8:

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

The Greek word for "earnest expectation" is <apokaradokia>. The Greek word <karadein> indicates an expectation, or more presicely, to "expect with a raised head". The Greek word <karadokia> implies a more intense expectation, and this word, <apokaradokia> indicates the strongest level of anticipation and expectation.

An 'earnest expectaton' would be rather empty and unfulfilled if it had to wait 2000 or more years. This very attitude indicates or implies a nearness of an anticipated deliverence.

Now, in the same verse we find the word "creation". Milton S. Terry says that the usage of "creation" throughout this whole passage is strongly Hebraic in its vividness and its usage of metaphors. The Greek work here is <ktisis>. Look how this word is used in these passages:

Mark 16: 15. And He said to them, "Go into all the world [kosmos] and preach the gospel to every creature <ktisis>.

Col 1:23. if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature <ktisis> under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

In Mark, Christ tells his disciples to go preach the gospel to every creature. But by the time Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians, Paul says that the gospel has ALREADY been preached to every creature/all creation!

The sense here of the word "creature/creation" is NOT every single biological plant and animal that ever existed. The use of "creature" is indicative, rather, of mankind.

The characteristics in this section (Rom 8:16-23) supports that -- they possess human characteristics, not characteristics
possessed by plants and mere animals. In addition, only part of "creation" in verse 23, as we shall see, are "those with the firstfruit of the Spirit". It would be rather odd and out of place to suggest that "those without the Spirit" include plants and animals in this setting.

Now the next part of the passage:

Rom 8:20. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21. because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23. And not only they, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Notice that "creation" was subject to futility, but delivered from corruption. It groans, and eagerly awaits adoption. But most importantly, it will be delivered **from bondage of corruption** and **into glorious liberty of the children of God.** Again, what <ktisis> becomes/became the 'children of God'? Certainly not rocks or trees or animals. Certainly not unjust men. The Reformed idea and understanding is that becoming 'children of God' is reserved for the saints, the elect, the chosen. The ONLY understanding of 'creation' that can possibly become children of God is mankind, and specifically saints. But the general understanding, like in Mark 16:15 and Col 1:23, of <ktisis> referring to mankind is sufficient. Mankind waits and groans under its curse. The whole creation of man is under this corruption. But by putting on Christ, man becomes a new creation, and that new creation today has not corruption, but incorruption and adoption and redemption. This is what Paul was waiting for so eagerly, and what Christ brought in 70 AD.

Notice then the beginning of the next verse, verse 23: "And not only they, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves" which indicates a 'different' group. Actually, the rendering here is better in the NIV: "Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly" -- there is no Greek indication of 'they' in the beginning of the verse. At any rate, the 'we' is a subset of the 'creation' -- indeed, it was the first-century Christians who had the firstfruits of the Spirit as a guarantee:

2 Cor 1:21. Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God,
22. who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit.

2 Cor 5: 5. Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Eph 1: 13. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

So we have the saints groaning for what? Adoption.

Now this is a key! What follows not too long after this passage? After yet another reference to imminence:

Rom 8: 38. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things ***about to come*** <mello>,
39. nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We find the section in Rom 9-11, which deals with the saving of the "tree" of Israel through the pruning of the apostate and the grafting -- that is, adoption! -- of the Christians.

Keeping in mind that 'redemption' here in Rom 8:23 is a further clarification or description of the word before it, the 'adoption', so that the two are basically referring to the same thing, we find that Paul uses this concept in the letter to the Galatians:

Gal 4: 4. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

5. to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Notice the interconnectiveness of 'redemption' and 'adoption' here as well.

But regarding 'redemption', or <apolutrosis>:

Eph 1: 13. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption <apolutrosis> of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. '

Again notice the interrelationship between 'inheritance' and 'redemption'. Inheritance and adoption are two ways of expressing the same concept -- the soon-to-be completion of the Christians being the true and only sons of God.

Also:

Eph 4:30. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. <apolutrosis>

Were the first-century Ephesians sealed for that day of redemption? Indeed. Paul here was in the middle of giving the Ephesians a group of exhortations designed to bolster them as they prepare for and make themselves ready for something that is
definitely imminent.

Interestingly enough, Christ Himself used the same Greek word and tied it into 70 AD:

Luke 21:28. "Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption <apolutrosis> draws near.''
29. And He spoke to them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees.
30. "When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near.
31. "So you, likewise, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.
32. "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things are fulfilled.

Now the usage of a word 'redemption' is not in itself proof that it is talking about the SAME redemption. Any physical release can be a 'redemption'. However, there is only one soteriological 'redemption', one true Atonement made for us by Christ Himself.

Accordingly, note that the Greek phrase 'redemption of the body' could, and possibly should, be rendered 'redemption out of the body' or 'redemption from the body', because of the -apo- prefix. This fits more in line with the Adamic curse. We are by nature sinful and corrupt in body. But Christ provides a redemption from out of that curse. This verse doesn't indicate or necessitate a future resurrection of the physical body -- it can't, for:

1 Cor 15: 37. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain perhaps wheat or some other grain.

The body that is sown is NOT the body that shall be.

But rather:

1 Cor 15: 53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Same concept -- we have redemption today, we have immortality, despite the corrupt and mortal physical nature and body. We have the salvation and eternal life through Christ, which nullifies and overcomes the curse of this body. We have incorruption despite still being in a body that is corrupt.

We see in Rom 8:23 that 'redemption' is equivalent to 'adoption'. What then follows?

Rom 8:24. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?
25. But if we hope for what we do not see, then we eagerly wait <apokaradokia> for it with perseverance.

Again, the 'eagerly waiting' that is expressed with the utmost anxiety is indicative of something that is surely on the verge of happening. The Greek literally expresses an action where the neck is hyperextended and the head is thrust out in an effort to see what is about to become visible as soon as it does.

Now, back to the phrase in Rom 8:22 -- "the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now". Again, the concept of 'birth pangs' is by nature imminently anticipatory. Birth pangs indicate that something is in the process of being born. Where else do we find them?

1 Thes 5: 1. But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you.
2. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.
3. For when they say, "Peace and safety!'' then sudden destruction comes upon them, as ***labor pains upon a pregnant woman***. And they shall not escape.
4. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.

Another imminency passage. He was telling the Thessalonians to be ready so as not to be surprised by the Day. (This is an empty exhortation unless it really was about to come upon them!)

The idea of childbirth is frequently used in Scripture to indicate something that is imminent.

So, then, does the fact that 'the whole creation groaned' in Rom 8 mean it still groans today? Not at all. Does the fact that 'the whole creation was not yet liberated' in Rom 8 mean it still isn't liberated today? Not at all. It only means that whatever "the whole creation" was, it was groaning when the New Testament was written. And whatever it was groaning about was not yet resolved in the first century.

But all the surrounding implications indicate that whatever it was waiting for was on the verge of happening -- <mello> about to happen, <apokaradokia> awaiting so eagerly as to have extended head and neck, etc. Their consummated adoption was right around the corner.

A CASE OF TYPES

Mathison later asserts:

"That human physical death, as well as spiritual death, is a result of the fall has been always and everywhere taught by orthodox Christians simply because it is taught by the Scriptures. In I Corinthians 15:21, for example, Paul writes, 'For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.' The kind of death meant by Paul may be ascertained by examining the kind of resurrection to which he refers. When Paul says that 'by a man also came the resurrection of the dead' he is undoubtedly referring to Jesus Christ. And undoubtedly physical death is one of the many things Christ overcame by His resurrection. Christ did not merely experience a spiritual resurrection. In the context of Paul's sentence then, the death that came by "a man" (Adam) must also include physical death. (There are literally scores of exegetical works explaining the Scriptural doctrine and defending it against those who advocate the Pelagian/Socinian interpretation. A good basic starting place for those
interested in further study is Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, pp. 79-85). "

Unfortunately, his reasoning is less than air tight. He strains at the common usage of common words to try to fit his own preconceived notions. But the fact remains that the natural progression is from "death" to "what happens next". There is no necessity to equate the type or realm of one to the other, and in fact every reason not to. For the age-old question is being answered: "What happens after we die?" So just as death was initiated by one man, so too was the resurrection initiated by one man. Did Christ overcome death by His resurrection? Absolutely. And when He finished atonement, death was completely nullified of the power it had previously held. Christ brought the fullness of the kingdom (which does NOT mean perfect understanding, just a perfect kingdom) at AD 70, and part of that kingdom was the nullification of death. Mathison seemingly does not yet feel that Christ has indeed broken the power of physical death!

CONCLUSION: PAROUSIAL MOUNTAINS

One last note. Mathison makes it a point to clarify that he is well aware of the different words indicating a "coming" of Christ. What he seems to ignore, once again, is audience relevance. This is a point which I brought out in my book: "Overcoming Sproul's Resurrection Obstacles". Christ was very strong in His language that He was coming in that generation. In fact, there is no place where He speaks of His "coming" which can be isolated from this context. The first century Christians were very keenly aware that something big was about to happen that constituted a "coming" of Christ. In light of this, it is most important to note that any reference to a Parousia of Christ that is NOT DIFFERENTIATED from the Parousia that Christ spelled out MUST BE IDENTIFIED with that coming! It was first and foremost in the minds of the first century Christians. A good analogy would be standing at the base of a mountain that is part of a chain of mountains. When referring to "the mountain", the natural assumption is the mountain that is in sight, not those that exist beyond that mountain. Any other mountain that is referred to MUST be differentiated from the visible mountain.

The same is true of first century Christians. Any "coming" that is not explicit must be referring to the coming that is indeed right in front of them. This is imperative in understanding the first century mindset.

Unfortunately, Mathison has his own mountains that are in the way of seeing Scripture. We can only hope that he gets in the trenches and investigates the original Greek with the original audience clearly in mind, and taking in account the common definition of such terms as "resurrection".

Again, this article is aimed solely at the Scriptural arguments that Mathison has presented in his paper, not at the non-Biblical arguments he presents. But what we find is that the other items fall by the wayside when the Scripture is clearly understood within the scope of the original audience.

Articles