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

[GENTRY] Eighth, practically I wonder on the hyper-preterist view what the difference our resurrection makes in this life? We get ill and are weak on the same scale as those prior to the A.D. 70 resurrection. Did this glorious resurrection of the "spiritual body" have no impact on our present condition? A hyper-preterist analysis might leave us to expect that Paul looked to A.D. 70 as an agent of relief from the groanings and the temptations of the flesh (Rom. 7:25), yet we still have such - despite the supposed resurrection.

Eighth – What difference does it make to us in this life if the resurrection has already happened? We still get sick and die physically. We still have to contend with the groanings and temptations of the flesh. Wasn’t the resurrection supposed to remove all our weaknesses and give us a perfect physical body? Is that really what the resurrection is all about? Is physical death really the worst kind of death that can happen to man? Is physical death really the ultimate “Last Enemy” of mankind? Is physical sickness really the worst kind of sickness man can have? Is redemptive history really primarily concerned with saving us from those lesser problems of the flesh, or the sin sicknesses of the soul? Didn’t Jesus say something about not fearing those who could kill our physical bodies, but rather fear Him who can destroy our souls? What is the real threat against man, and what are the real benefits in the redemptive plan?

Quite frankly, it surprises me to hear questions like these coming from someone who has written a commentary on the book of Revelation from a partial preterist view. In that commentary and in his other writings against premillennial dispensationalism, he has pointed out how the “health, wealth and peace” language of the prophets referred to the spiritual nature of the kingdom and our spiritual dominion in it. The Jews, the chiliasts of the early centuries and premillennialists today interpret that language materialistically literal, postulating a physical paradise where sickness, poverty, weakness, temptation and all other human problems are removed, within a physical, materialistic environment. Is that what Gentry expects the resurrection to provide? I don’t think so. So, why is he requiring us to produce that kind of physical evidence for the resurrection at AD 70? He believes the resurrection will end the physical universe and usher all the saints who have died into the eternal spiritual presence of God, the only place where there is true immortality and redemption from the weaknesses of mortal flesh. The difference between Gentry’s view of the resurrection and mine are my past timing of it, and the continuation of human history afterwards. Otherwise we agree that the resurrection would see all the dead up to that point raised and judged and placed in their appropriate eternal dwelling places. This happened in the heavenly realm, not in some sky-splitting, earth-burning, universe-collapsing, de-creative event. From that point on there was no longer a waiting period for another resurrection and judgment. Now the righteous go immediately at physical death into the presence of God with our immortal bodies. So, the timing of the resurrection is the only significant difference between Gentry’s resurrection concept and mine.

The Jews, the chiliasts, and the premillennialists today want to convince us that the resurrection event should usher in a physical paradise free from any kind of physical problems. Like Eusebius said of the chiliasts of his day, such a view fails to understand that these prophecies were “propounded mystically.” This was the whole reason the Jews rejected Christ. They failed to realize that the kingdom of God is “spiritually discerned” and is “not of this realm.” The kingdom is not primarily focused on saving us from physical suffering and giving us a physical paradise to enjoy again. The spiritual things are the realities that the kingdom is concerned with now, and these realities are described in apocalyptic language. Taking apocalyptic language as materialistically literal is a big hermeneutical blunder. It is disappointing to see Gentry do so well in his treatment of the book of Revelation and then use a premillennial dispensational, Jewish, chiliast argument here against the full preterist view of the resurrection.

The result of the AD 70 resurrection is that the OT saints have been rescued from Sheol/Hades and are now in the presence of God with immortality and eternal life. They had to wait in Sheol/Hades at physical death. They did not get immortal bodies at their physical death, nor were they allowed into the presence of God. The sin-guilt which separated them from God had not yet been atoned for. Christ’s resurrection reversed that curse of spiritual death which hung over all mankind because of Adam’s sin. That spiritual death robbed us of immortality and fellowship with God in His presence. The AD 70 resurrection restored the fullness of life (immortality) and access to the fellowship and presence of God (the paradise that man had lost), but we have to wait until after this physical life is over before we enjoy the full benefits of that immortality in His presence.

Gentry’s questions in point number eight necessitate our explaining what the transition period (AD 30-70) saints had before AD 70, versus what those of us living after the consummation now have. They only had an “earnest, pledge or seal” of the full inheritance, whereas we have the full-course eschatological banquet. They had a partial, immature state of transition, while we have the complete fullness of the kingdom inheritance. It would be unreasonable to believe the state of transition has lasted now for 2,000 years, especially in view of the imminency time statements in those texts dealing with the transition. (Heb. 8:13; 1 Pet. 1:3-7; etc.)

The transition period saints had “eternal life,” but not access to the presence of God yet. When they died physically they did not go to Sheol/Hades, but rather to be in the outer courts of the heavenly temple (cf. Rev. 6:9ff; 7:9-17). They were not allowed access to the presence of God until Christ the High Priest finished His Yom Kippur duties inside the heavenly Holy of Holies. When He completed that atonement, He came back out and “appeared the second time” to the anxiously awaiting saints gathered in heaven’s outer temple courts (cf. Rev. 6:9ff; 7:9-17) at the foot of Mt. Zion (cf. Heb. 12:18-29). Christ opened the way for us, and at AD 70 He gathered the saints and brought them back into God’s fellowship and presence for the first time since Adam and Eve lost it in the Garden. Paradise Restored! All God’s people can be in the Holy of Holies now. There is no more separation. However, this can only be the case if the High Priest has “appeared the second time” from the Holy of Holies. If Christ has not yet returned to escort His waiting saints into His Father’s presence, then we are still not in His presence, and the “salvation which was ready to be revealed” in that “last time” in connection with the High Priest’s return, is still in “limbo” (cf. Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:3-7). This shows how important a grasp of the temple, priesthood and sacrificial typology is for understanding the flow of eschatological and soteriological events, especially in the books of Hebrews and Revelation. And it shows how inseparably intertwined redemption (soteriology) and eschatology really are.

An AD 70 resurrection means we have the fullness of our kingdom inheritance now available to us, not just the partial things that the saints of the transition period had. True, we as living believers don’t enjoy the full benefits of the resurrection until our outer shell dies, but it is nice to know that we don’t have to die and wait in Sheol/Hades outside the presence of God until all things are consummated. We will go immediately at death into the full presence of God with our immortal bodies. No more waiting in Hades, nor partial or limited access any longer.

Though we cannot see it with our physical eyes, in a spiritually real sense we have our eternal life now and are already dwelling in His presence. Our corporate worship services reflect our restored status with God as it really is now, not just how it will be after a “hoped for” future consummation. We truly have been gathered into the heavenly kingdom around Christ’s feast table. The Lord’s Supper was predicted to be observed in a new way once the kingdom arrived in its fullness. (cf. Matt. 26:29 and parallels) We no longer solemnly observe it as a memorial of Him until He returns. We observe it as a victory celebration, the Messianic banquet, the wedding feast, the eschatological supper – in His presence, at His table, in the kingdom! The fulfillment doesn’t give up anything, but enhances it and makes it even more meaningful and edifying. Our awareness that the resurrection has come and removed the curse from mankind should be a tremendous blessing and encouragement to us. We no longer have to dread the separation from God in Sheol/Hades that the OT saints had to endure. This should generate a much more positive worldview than the gloom and doom views of the futurists. This longing for redemption from Sheol is probably one of the reasons every generation of mankind likes to believe they are the “terminal generation”. We must remember that the redemption of our bodies (the resurrection) did not give us freedom from physical problems, but deliverance from the eternal consequences of sin and spiritual death. And it restored the paradise of God’s presence to us.