An Egregious Dissimilarity
Full preterism is eerily similar to the unbelief of Sadducees and the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, the two heretics who maintained that the resurrection was past. Full preterism is therefore egregiously dissimilar from the orthodox view. In Philippians 3.11 the apostle Paul speaks of a resurrection that he hopes to attain unto: “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” What kind of resurrection is he speaking of? Is he speaking of regeneration—of hoping to be born again? This would not make sense because he was converted, and therefore regenerated, about thirty years before writing this letter. What resurrection is he looking forward to here except an actual resurrection of his body from the dead? The full preterists assert that every prophecy that was not fulfilled up until A. D. 70 was fulfilled in A. D. 70. It is understandable, then, that they would pick the path of least absurdity by stating that the general resurrection of the dead is not a physical one. What that resurrection is, from their viewpoint, it is hard to tell. William Bell’s ‘hope of righteousness’ does not sound like a resurrection, though that is what he says the resurrection is, or was. If we can make resurrection to mean that, we can make it to mean almost anything. I have read elsewhere that to the full preterist, the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of a cause. But again, if the word resurrection is that malleable, what else could it mean? Are there any limits to its plasticity? The word ‘resurrection’ in Philippians 3.11 means ‘a rising from death.’ The resurrection of a cause would not be a resurrection; it would be a revolution of sorts, or perhaps a reformation. The interpreting of verse 11 is as easy as it gets; and if it is not easy enough on its own, the context makes it even easier. Paul the apostle wants to be found, in the end, in possession of the righteousness of Christ (verse 9.) This is true. But he wants to be found in possession of this that he may know ‘the power of his resurrection.’ There is a hope of righteousness that he looks to; but the end of this desire is to be fully clothed with it and fully changed by it, in both body and soul. We know this because of verse 21: “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” Why speak of a body if what he means is a resurrection that doesn’t involve his body? This ‘body’ is sometimes used as a metaphor to identify the Church body. But usually it means the physical body, as in the ‘body’ of Tabitha, who was raised from the dead. “And turning to the body, said, Tabitha, arise…and he…presented her alive” (Acts 9.40, 41.) This is the kind of body that Paul is talking about in Philippians 3, except that he is hoping for a ‘glorious body’ (verse 21), not one that will be subject to death again, as the body of Tabitha was. It is not impossible to see A. D. 70 in Matthew 24. But he who finds it in Philippians 3 must be looking, not through a glass darkly, but through an A. D. 70 eye-glass. That is what one must do to find a fit for the theory of full preterism; and that is what is being done by an increasing number of misled people.
Full preterism is A. D. 70-ism. Its mode of interpretation is not unlike what is done by our modern Marxists. Whatever these Marxists look at and whatever they read, they see racism in it. Whatever Bible text the full preterist reads, he sees a time stamp pointing to A. D. 70. If he doesn’t see it, he nevertheless looks for it and hopes to see it. Paul wrote to the Philippians in the early 60s from Rome, about 10 years after that church’s founding and more than two decades after his conversion on the road to Damascus. He no doubt knew about the contents of Matthew 24 by then (the contents of the chapter, not necessarily the book of Matthew.) If he was looking forward to a symbolic resurrection of something other than his body, why did he use plain, rather than apocalyptic, language, to voice his desire? Why lead us to believe that he was looking forward to having his vile body changed if he was really looking forward to an allegorical change that had nothing to do with his body? Resurrection in the mold of A. D. 70-ism is egregiously dissimilar from the kind of resurrection that Paul was hoping for. How say the full preterists, then, that the resurrection is not physical and that it happened in A. D. 70? The apostle Paul looked forward to a physical resurrection that he did not associate with the year A. D. 70 at all. There was no other kind of resurrection for him to look forward to. The resurrection that he hoped for is called ‘the redemption of our body’ (Romans 8.23), not the revolution of a cause that began in A. D. 70.
The Scriptures, even by nothing less than the preaching of our Lord, teach that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5.28, 29.) “Marvel not at this.” In other words, take this communication in the plainest sense. Is what he says allegorical somehow, pointing to A. D. 70? How is this passage different from the passage on the vision of the valley of dry bones, in which resurrection is spoken of in a figurative fashion? The difference is that Ezekiel 37 involves a vision. The prophet is ‘carried out in the spirit of the LORD’ to see what must be shown (verse 1.) The interpretation is given in several verses later, of which here is one: “And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel” (verse 22.) So Israel and Judah will be raised from the dead, as it were, joined, and then gathered ‘into their own land’ (verses 17, 21.) Even in this allegorical vision, though, it seems possible that literal resurrections are prophesied, for the passage alludes to a life of immortality: ‘for evermore’ (verse 26.) Conversely, the passage in John by Jesus has nothing in it of allegory. The resurrection spoken of there is wholly literal. Jesus is not having a vision in John 5. Neither is what he says explained as an allegory there. He is preaching a literal resurrection of dead persons from their graves. So the passage in Ezekiel 37, which is chiefly allegorical, may have a literal aspect. And the passage in John 5, which is literal, has no allegorical aspect. There is an egregious dissimilarity between the resurrection of a full preterist, which is allegorical and past; and the resurrection preached by Jesus in John 5, which is literal and futuristic.
Both the Lord Jesus and Saint Paul taught the physical resurrection of bodies from their graves. This resurrection is what a Christian hopes to attain unto because it is the miracle that makes him able to enter upon his inheritance of all good things and to enjoy uninterrupted contact with God in the fullness of both body and soul. A resurrection must also happen to the unbeliever, for sins done in the body must be punished in the body (2 Corinthians 5.10.)
