[Response To Gentry's Analysis of the Full Preterist View...]

[GENTRY] Sixth, there are numerous other theological and exegetical problems with a spiritual-only resurrection. For one thing, the hyper-preterist view tends to diminish the significance of the somatic implications of sin: Adam's sin had physical effects, as well as judicial and spiritual effects; where are these taken care of in the hyper-preterist system? Death's implications are not just judicial and spiritual, but also physical (Gen. 3:14, 19; Rom. 6:23).

Sixth – This is the very point where much misunderstanding of the nature of the resurrection body surfaces. Neither Murray Harris nor preterists are advocating a “spiritual-only resurrection” as Gentry alleges here. Too many of us overly-exaggerate the importance of the physical consequences of the Fall of Adam, and fail to focus on the spiritual implications. Preterists do not deny there are physical consequences associated with man’s sin. The question is whether physical death was the “Death” God judicially threatened on the day of Adam’s disobedience, or whether it is merely the natural consequence of being human and made from dust. Sin killed them spiritually in their relationship with God. It not only put them in a condemned state of “death”, but also took them out of God’s presence. If physical death was the “death” God threatened Adam with, then Satan told the truth and God lied. Adam didn’t die physically on that day. But he did die spiritually in his relationship to God. It is that spiritual death that is the focus of redemption. And the ultimate resurrection was to reverse whatever “death” God placed on mankind in the beginning. If that original death was spiritual, then the resurrection which reverses it must also be spiritual. It also has physical implications, but the redemptive focus is still on the spiritual relationship with God that is being restored. Just as there was a worse kind of “death” that stalked man from Adam to Christ, so also there is a better kind of “resurrection” than mere resuscitation of the physical body. Surely God’s plan of redemption focuses on the better things, not just on the physical things? Why does Paul tell us to set our minds on the things above, not on the seen things. Christ’s kingdom is not of this physical realm. It is a spiritual kingdom. It requires a spiritual resurrection to get there, not a physical resuscitation. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It requires a different kind of body fitted for heavenly existence.

We believe spiritual death (the real curse) can be reversed without all the physical consequences being eliminated. Jesus is the only one who was ever promised that His flesh would not suffer decay, because He is the only human who never sinned, and was the only human being who was also God in the flesh and virgin-born. Sinfulness still carries some physical consequences with it, even though the judicial curse of spiritual death has been removed by Christ’s atoning death and resurrection life. The seed analogy (1 Cor. 15:35ff) shows that the outer shell is not preserved or resuscitated. It dies and decays. It is still subject to that consequence of being made from dust. For the Christian now after AD 70, resurrection life is already present in us before physical death, because the inside of the seed has been given immortality. The inner man rises into God’s presence with a new kind of body after the outer shell dies.

Now that we have more clearly defined the nature of Christ’s resurrection body, we can discuss how much continuity and conformity our resurrection bodies will have with “His glorious body.” (Phil. 3:20-21) There is a discontinuity that we must not overlook. We get the same kind of resurrection body that Jesus has, but we were never promised that our physical bodies would have the same privileges that Jesus’ physical body had. Jesus was sinless. He is the only one who was ever promised that His flesh would not “see corruption” (Acts 2:24-31). Everyone else was told, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” This means physical death is the natural consequence of being human. One thing is sure: physical death is not the “Death” that was threatened by God against Adam’s disobedience, and therefore not the death that is reversed by the eschatological resurrection event. Jesus nailed the “ penalties” for our sins to the cross. Physical death seems to be a planned, “natural” consequence of being human and living on earth.

Furthermore, Paul’s seed analogy in 1 Cor. 15:35ff indicates that the outer shell of the seed dies and decays. The outer shell is not a part of the new body that rises out of the dust. The new body arises out of the inside of the seed. It is a different kind of body. The outer shell of the seed is not “the body which is to be.” (1 Cor. 15:37) “But God gives it a ... body of its own.” (1 Cor. 15:38) This is a crucial point, one which many exegetes have overlooked.

The seed analogy (1 Cor. 15:35ff) does not teach that the new body with which the seed sprouts has the same outer shell and form that it had before. It is the same seed. The inner part of the seed definitely has continuity with the original seed. But part of that seed stays in the ground. It is the inner man which has the spiritual life and rises with a new kind of body. It is not the outer shell of the seed that is raised and then later changed. The change occurs before it rises out of physical death. The seed’s outer shell dies and stays in the ground, and a new kind of body rises out of the inner part of the seed already changed and fitted for its new existence. For Christians after AD 70, this new body rises at physical death, and we go immediately into the presence of God where we will spend eternity. For Christians before AD 70, they had to wait until the resurrection at AD 70 to be raised with that kind of body. This whole section of 1 Cor. 15:35ff is full preterist turf in the discussion about the resurrection body. It does not teach that we will have “a physical, tangible resurrection” like Gentry suggests.

By over-reacting to the Gnostics’ extreme spiritualizing tendencies, the creedal councils (especially in the West) took the opposite extreme of limiting the resurrection body to being purely physical. Certainly, the Gnostics were wrong in teaching a purely spiritual (non-corporeal) nature of the resurrected person, but so were those dear brothers who assigned a purely physical nature to it. Both extremes missed the point of Paul’s seed analogy. Paul certainly teaches a continuity, but not an exact identity of nature. It is the same inner life of the seed (the person), but a different kind of outer body. The Gnostics eliminated the body completely. The early church kept the body and further insisted on retaining its physical nature even through the resurrection. Paul’s seed analogy keeps the body there, but changes its nature at the resurrection. There is both continuity and discontinuity. The early church missed the point in Paul’s analogy and went to an unfortunate and unnecessary physical extreme. Full preterists are simply trying to bring us back to the balanced Biblical position.

In regard to “Death” and “Resurrection”, we must remember that these two concepts are not brought to their fullest and most final fulfillment by just the sacrificial Lamb’s death on the cross, but also by His resurrection so that He (as the real High Priest) can go and present the sacrificial blood in the heavenly Holy of Holies to consummate the atonement. Not until His heavenly High Priestly duties are finished is our salvation and redemption complete and the curse of Death removed and Life restored. This is where soteriology and eschatology fit together like hand in glove. And this is the very soteriological and eschatological typology that is behind the institution of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) in the OT temple system. It is Scripturally unorthodox to have a fulfilled soteriology (salvation, atonement, redemption) without a fulfilled eschatology, because eschatology IS soteriology. The fulfillment of the whole redemptive plan of God is not complete until all the eschatological events have taken place. Death is the Last (soteriological and eschatological) Enemy. So, it must have been conquered, or redemption is not complete. Athanasius and many others have affirmed that “Death” has been conquered in a soteriological sense. But “Death” is not just the final soteriological enemy. In the context of 1 Cor. 15 it is the final eschatological enemy as well. This issue becomes poignant when we ask the following question: If Death has been conquered, and if that Death is speaking of physical death, then why do we still die physically? And if the final eschatological enemy was spiritual death, why isn’t the resurrection (which reverses it) spiritual also? What is the worst kind of death we can die? What is the best kind of life we can have? It certainly isn’t physical. Hebrews says that there was a “better resurrection.” (Heb. 11:35) What is better than a physical resurrection? A spiritual resurrection, obviously! And if the final resurrection is something “better” than a physical resuscitation, it stands to reason that the “death” it is reversing is something other than (and worse than) physical death? What did Jesus mean when He said not to fear those who could kill the body, but to rather fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell? What is our real enemy? It’s not physical death.

[GENTRY] If Christians now are fulfilling the resurrection expectation of Scripture, then the Gnostics of the early Christian centuries were correct! The physical world seems to be superfluous, in the hyper-preterist viewpoint. The anthropology of hyper-preterism is defective in this, not allowing the theological significance of the body/soul nature of man (Gen. 2:7). This can also have implications for the person of Christ and the reality of His humanity.

Gentry comes close to accusing the full preterist view of Gnosticism in its Christology or anthropology (or both). This would indeed be a “serious problem” if he is correct. Let’s make this point very clear – full preterists are not Gnostics, either in our Christology or in our anthropology. We do not believe in a secret mysterious gnosis (knowledge) that saves us, nor are we dualistic (matter is essentially evil) or docetic (Christ only seemed to come in the flesh). And we do not go to the radical spiritualizing extreme that the Gnostics went to because of their dualism and docetism. Even if we were overly spiritualizing like Origen was, it would still not make us any more Gnostic than he was. Our position on the nature of the resurrection body is basically the same as Murray Harris. We are no more Gnostic than he is (see his book, From Grave To Glory, mentioned elsewhere in this paper).

The term “gnostic” is a very broad term with a lot of ideas associated with it. Nearly everyone’s theology has a point of contact with “gnostic” hermeneutics in some sense. But that doesn’t make everyone Gnostics! So, Gentry needs to be more specific in pointing out exactly where he sees the similarity with gnostic teaching, and then prove from the Bible that this similarity is anti-Biblical. The Gnostics had a different approach to the resurrection than traditional Christianity, but their approach is not the only other approach possible. Full preterists would repudiate the Gnostic approach as well as the overly-physical extreme reaction to it by the Western Church. We take an approach that is different from Western tradition and the Gnostics. We would be closer to the Eastern Church’s position on the nature of the resurrection. Gentry would have to pin a Gnostic label on Murray Harris, Gleason Archer, J. I. Packer, Peter Toon and many other orthodox conservative scholars also, since they take the same view of the nature of the resurrection body as full preterists do.

We must keep Paul’s seed analogy (1 Cor. 15:35ff) clearly in focus. What does it tell us about when the seed gets its new body, and what the nature of that new body is? The seed analogy shows us that the new body does not appear until the old body dies. The seed (our body) has resurrection life within it from the moment of quickening (regeneration). But that life does not manifest itself in a new kind of body until after the outer shell dies. We have resurrection life within us now if we have been regenerated by Christ, just like the seed has life within it. But we do not get our new bodies until our outer shell dies. So, Christians physically alive today are not living in their resurrection bodies. But they do have life inside them from the moment of their regeneration. That was something new from Christ onwards. The Spirit being poured out at Pentecost and afterwards until AD 70 was the source of a quickening, which was an “earnest” and “seal” of the fullness of resurrection life that came at AD 70. This was only an earnest, pledge or seal of the immortality and restoration of God’s presence that they would receive at the consummation in AD 70. After AD 70 we have the fullness of resurrection life which results in our rising immediately at physical death into the presence of God with our new bodies that are received when the outer shell dies.

Within the full preterist community there are at least three different views regarding the implications of the resurrection event for the individual Christian. That may sound like a lot of confusion among preterists, until you look at the legion of views among futurists. Max King has suggested an approach which focuses almost exclusively on the collective body of the church being raised out of the OT Jewish system. This view has some difficulty explaining the continuity of our resurrection bodies with Christ’s resurrection body, and it forces the exclusive collective body concept into passages which may be dealing with the individual implications of the resurrection instead. J. S. Russell and Milton S. Terry have suggested a resurrection (in the unseen realm) and a literal (but unnoticed) rapture at AD 70 (the “change”) for which (so far) no historical evidence has surfaced. Others have proposed a resurrection of the dead in the heavenly realm with visible signs being given in the physical realm, and say that the rapture is just another description of the invisible “gathering” into the presence of God at AD 70. I would tend to favor this later view, although Russell and Terry’s idea cannot be lightly dismissed.

It has also been discussed whether the living saints after AD 70 already have their new resurrection body (but just don’t see it clearly because of the distractions of this earthly existence), or whether the living were given immortality as a present possession (the change) which enables them to rise with their new spiritual bodies at the moment of physical death. I take this later approach based on Paul’s seed analogy (1 Cor. 15:35ff) and his discussion about the heavenly dwelling (2 Cor. 5:1-10). But, the net effect is the same. After physical death the only kind of body that remains is the new spiritual body. The former position has a Christian in possession of both kinds of bodies simultaneously (with the new spiritual body superimposed over the physical body), whereas Paul’s seed analogy seems to have the heavenly body replacing the earthly body at physical death. One thing is for certain: The transition period saints before AD 70 did not have immortality in the presence of God when they died physically. But they did have “eternal life” which was the quickening of the Holy Spirit given to them as a pledge and seal of their resurrection/change (2 Cor. 5:5). So, it is a matter of determining whether the resurrection at AD 70 actually gave them their resurrection bodies to dwell in God’s presence while still in their physical ones, or whether it just gave them immortality and made their resurrection bodies ready for them to rise into at physical death. I take this later view. And, Lord willing, I will be exegetically defending that position in the resurrection book I am now working on.

What was the nature of the “change” for the living saints at AD 70? (1 Cor. 15:51ff) Did it change their physical bodies and take them to heaven in a literal rapture event like J. S. Russell, E. Hampden-Cook and Milton S. Terry have suggested, or did they simply “put on” immortality which would make their spiritual body ready for them to rise with immediately at physical death? This later view is the one I prefer. Having immortality and a new body prepared for them to live in God’s presence was certainly a “change” in their condition. They had none of this until Christ came and provided it. The saints before AD 70 had “eternal life,” but it was not back in the presence of God yet. What is the difference between “eternal life” and “immortality”? Paul indicates (in 1 Cor. 15) that they would not have “immortality” until the Resurrection. Those transition period saints waited in the outer courts of the heavenly temple (cf. Rev. 6,7) until the High Priest finished His atonement work and appeared the second time back out of the heavenly temple to invite them into His Father’s presence. Those who had “put on” Christ (Rom. 6) and were in solidarity with His death before AD 70 would share in His Resurrection Life at AD 70.

J. S. Russell and many other preterist writers have convincingly shown that the parousia was an AD 70 event. We know that the resurrection event which consummated the promises of redemption occurred in AD 70, simply because 1 Cor. 15:23 connects it directly with the parousia. It was a collective and corporate resurrection of all who were a part of True Israel. It was not the time when eternal life (the quickening) became available, but rather when the presence of God was restored wherein that eternal life and immortality could be fully enjoyed. Believers living during the transition period already had eternal life, but they did not have access to the fullness of God’s presence yet. They only had an earnest, pledge or seal of the good things about to come. They didn’t go to Hades at physical death, but they did have to wait in the outer courts of the heavenly temple (Rev. 6,7) or at the foot of Mt. Zion (Heb. 12) until Christ finished His High Priestly Yom Kippur duties in the Holy of Holies and “appeared a second time” outside to invite them into God’s presence (where no one had been since Adam). After AD 70 we not only have eternal life, but we enjoy immortality in the very Holy of Holies presence of the Almighty. As individuals, we do not enjoy the full benefits of that immortality until our outer shell dies and our inner man rises out of the dust of death in our new body fitted for life in God’s heavenly presence. So, Christians today are not fulfilling the resurrection expectation of Scripture in the way Gentry has suggested. The full preterist view is not Gnosticism. By “physicalizing” our resurrection body, by implication Gentry is actually denying that Christ had a different kind of resurrection body than Lazarus. That robs Christ of His unique status as the “firstfruit” of a new kind of resurrection body. If Jesus’ resurrection was merely a resuscitation of the physical body like Lazarus’, then He wasn’t the “firstfruit” of the resurrection. It is Gentry’s views which posit negative implications for the firstfruit status of Christ.

Gentry’s critique of our anthropology and Christology is based on his assumption that full preterists believe “Christians now are fulfilling the resurrection expectation of Scripture.” This implies that we believe we have our resurrection bodies now while still in the flesh, and that there is nothing else to be gained at physical death. I believe Gentry has misunderstood our position. We have immortality now, but do not receive our resurrection bodies until physical death. That is the whole point of the seed analogy. The seed contains the life of the plant to come while still encased in the outer shell. But it doesn’t have both bodies at the same time. The outer body has to die before the inner life sprouts into its new plant body. So, we have the life (immortality) now, but not our spiritual bodies yet. The saints before AD 70 had the quickening of the Holy Spirit as a pledge and seal of the immortality they would receive at AD 70.

The “change” at AD 70 was putting on (inheriting, receiving) “immortality,” not their “immortal bodies.” Look at the text in the Greek (1 Cor. 15:53-54). It doesn’t say the living would “put on an immortal body.” It says they would “put on immortality.” There is a significant difference between those two concepts, which is too often overlooked or obscured in the various translations and commentaries. The “change” of the living saints at AD 70 was not giving them their new bodies, but giving them immortality. For the dead saints, it was reception of immortality, their new bodies, and full access to the presence of God. For both the dead and the living saints, it was the consummation of the change that had already begun with Christ’s resurrection, and which was guaranteed (pledged, sealed) by the “eternal life” the Holy Spirit had quickened them with during the transition period. The “change” from being “dead in their trespasses and sins” to “alive in Christ Jesus” was fully consummated. That change not only signaled the completion of the High Priest’s Yom Kippur work in the heavenly Holy of Holies to make atonement fully ours, but made immortality available again for the first time since Adam lost access to it in the Garden. And it made the presence of God readily available to us. There was a tremendously significant “change” that occurred then, without which we today could not truly and rightfully “ascend to the hill of the Lord.” The transition period saints only had the pledge and seal of it. If they died before AD 70, they went into the heavenly realm where Christ (the High Priest) was. But they stayed in the outer courts (Rev. 6:9-11), or at the foot of Mt. Zion (Heb. 12:18-29), until the High Priest finished His Yom Kippur duties and “appeared the second time” (Heb. 9:28) to invite them into the Holy of Holies presence of God. When the atonement was finished, the change was complete. We have immortality now. The living only have to wait until physical death to have their spiritual heavenly bodies. But even now, by faith, the living can “always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17).

Gentry suggests that “the physical world is superfluous” for full preterists. Absolutely not so! Another misunderstanding. The physical world is still the best proving ground for God’s elect. We have an even more long-term and optimistic worldview than Gentry and the other partial preterists. With a long-term perspective, we have even more reason to get involved in the affairs of this world to make a difference and cause God’s sovereignty (the Kingdom) over all things to be more widely manifested. We really believe the physical world will be around for a long time (if not eternally), and that the “healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2) is an ongoing process that we as Christians are to be inseparably involved in. What is this “healing of the nations” but a cultural, political, social, religious, spiritual, moral and ethical healing? What principles have the power to accomplish this “healing of the nations”? Only God’s Holy and infallible and eternal Word.