Preterists who deny a physical Resurrection of the Dead have been accused of being gnostic (because we supposedly believe that only spiritual reality matters and that the physical world is evil). Yet those who demand a destruction of the physical universe and the replacement with a spiritual new heavens and new earth are surely closer to this belief than are full preterists. We don’t see a reason to believe that the earth and the physical universe will not sustain us into virtual perpetuity. Our strictly spiritual Kingdom is more likely to take over the realm of the physical as we apply the mandate for dominion in every area of our lives. Those looking forward to a restoration of the physical universe need look no further than the preterist’s Kingdom of God made manifest in us, the sons of God, the co-heirs with Jesus.

Genesis 1:28 shows us the original intention God had for man: man was tasked with subduing the earth and ruling over it and its creatures. Now, think theoretically for a second. Was God thwarted in His plan? Was He forced to go back to the drawing board because man did something God knew he was going to do all along? Was the sum of human history a waste because no sooner did God give us the mandate, but we screwed up? Was God’s experiment with a physical universe a dismal failure that He’s been stuck with for millennia, while He sits up there and waits (for something or other) to wipe it off the map and forget the whole embarrassing experience? Poor God. Better luck next time!

This view is untenable for someone who believes that God is omnipotent and omniscient. So it’s really no wonder that Calvin and others devoted especially to the concept of God’s sovereignty should resort to the defense, “Well…God really wanted it that way! Yeah, He didn’t fail: He planned the whole fiasc–, uh, glorious plan!”

I think, rather, that His plan will be fulfilled and that His first-century work was a new beginning. We see a similar pattern in the flood account. What happened after God wiped out the wicked with the Flood? He started again, with the same earth and the same animals, and the faithful; in fact, the only change was in the topology and the exclusion of the wicked from the land. That’s what happened in AD 70. Noah, like Adam, was charged with populating the land with offspring and subduing the creation (Gen. 9:1-3, 7). So it is with us.

When Christendom has finally understood and embraced its reinvigorated Kingdom mandate, the physical world will reap the benefits. This goes for improvement in medical science: the world reshaped by the influence of Christianity has already done much in this direction, but there could be more. For instance, could Christians leading science in the far off future eventually essentially marginalize physical suffering, perhaps even going so far as to subjugate physical death? What about the environment? I don’t just mean caring for it in the ecological sense, but being able to predict and manipulate even the weather — sure, it sounds Star Trek, but my point is that the sky’s the limit. In a few millennia, the fallen world as we know it may be a distant memory, fading away much like the mother’s childbirth pain once she holds the newborn in her arms.

Is this fantasy?


Technorati : ,

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • PrintFriendly
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Peter speaks Preterists point to a panoply of time statements in Scripture regarding the eschaton. Twenty of the twenty-six books of the NT give such time statements,...
  2. Putting our money where their mouths are What would it take to wipe out hunger and give all poor nations a chance at development? Better yet, why aren’t more Christians asking this...
  3. Election and Adoption Part 3: God’s Purpose in Election As I stated in Part 2, I reject the notion that foreknowledge is prescriptive. I hold to the conviction that there is an interplay between...
  4. Election and Adoption Part 1: Romans 7 and 8 As long as I can remember, I have struggled hard against the Calvinist understanding of the doctrine of election. Recently I have been observing and...
  5. Thinking “Outside the Box” about the Bible My friend Cliff Martin has written one of the best, most concise descriptions of the nature and purpose of the Bible that I have ever...
  • Josh, sorry for taking so long to respond!

    I guess I would see it as unappealing (which, of course, is not the same as saying that it is unscriptural), because it can devalue our present bodily existence.

    Moreover, if our endless future is completely nonphysical, we are likely to repeat the mistakes of fundamentalist-evangelicalism, with its failure to deal with ecological issues and its other-wordly 'heavenly' existence.
  • @Stephen: it's interesting that the thought of science advancing is scary sometimes. I guess b/c it could "fall into the wrong hands". But I suppose your answer to that would be "that's why christians need to take the lead on such things now. and you'd be right.

    @graham: what would be the problem with being a bodiless soul? I'm not sure why it's such an unappealing thought.
  • I hope it's not fantasy. In fact, it's very similar to how I tentatively view things. However, even with that being true, removing any thought of a physical resurrection is unappealing to me.

    In a discussion on my blog, one commenter asked a question that I've asked myself many times. If there is no physical resurrection, are we just left with bodiless souls in heaven? That's the kind of view that many of us were glad to ditch, replacing it with resurrected bodies on a restored Earth.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe without commenting