The Millennium and the Resurrection of the Dead

I am firmly indebted to Don Preston for his presentation on the Millennium at the 2004 Preterist Research Institute Conference for much of the layout and content of the following.

Biblical eschatology is Jewish eschatology. A “time of the end” for the Church is never addressed in Scripture. Every passage that futurists and partial preterists say applies to a yet future apocalyptic event is easily tied to a promise made to Old Covenant Israel and fulfilled with the birth of New Covenant Israel.

The Resurrection of the Dead was the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel.

1 Corinthians 15 is, of course, the sine qua non of the doctrine of the Resurrection. Paul goes into much more depth here than anywhere else, and this one passage hosts a number of thematic and linguistic links to other passages that strongly suggest an integral unity between them. Let’s start by looking at verses 54 and 55. [All the following citations are from the NIV.]

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?

Paul alludes to two Old Testament passages. Most commentators see in verse 54 that he applies language from Isaiah 25:7-8 to the Resurrection. Here is what it says:

On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death for ever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken.

Next, he paraphrases Hosea 13:14, which reads:

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?

Now, this is the kicker: why must the Resurrection have occurred in the first century? Look at Paul’s next statement (v. 56):

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law.

When the Resurrection occurs, the Law is done away with. The Resurrection is the final fulfillment of the Law. Remember, Jesus says in Matthew 5:18 that “not one jot or tittle” could disappear before the Law was completely and totally fulfilled. Now, is the Law still in effect? If you don’t believe that the Law has been abolished, I trust you are still making animal sacrifices and following Mosaic dietary laws! Note also the correlation between sin and the Law that we see in Romans. Sin was finally done away with when the only true propitiation was made for it, which was Christ’s sacrifice, and the New Covenant was ratified and took full effect (cf. Hebrew 10:16-18). Paul correlates the Resurrection with the end of the Old and the beginning of the New Covenant in Romans 11:15, “For if their [Old Covenant Israel's] rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their [the remnant comprising New Covenant Israel's] acceptance be but life from the dead?” Do not miss, however, the fact that Paul in numerous places implies that the Law still lingered during his time: this ended with the destruction of the temple and of the Holy City.

Resurrection is not Christian eschatology. Jesus, Peter, and Paul never looked beyond AD 70 in their eschatology. They only looked to the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. Paul in numerous places refers to the Resurrection as the fulfillment of the hope and promises God made to the twelve tribes. Consider these passages. In Acts, Paul is arrested by the Jewish leaders and sent around the known world on different trials. He asserts in Acts 24:21, “‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.” With this in mind, refer to the following passages:

Acts 24:14,15 “However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.”

Acts 26:6-8 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O King, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me. Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

Acts 28:20 For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.

Cross-reference these with 1 Thessalonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who [have] fall[en] asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.” [Notice how I had to correct the NIV's misleading translation of the Greek perfect tense!] Paul then proceeds to affirm what that hope is: the Resurrection. Make no mistake, the Resurrection of the Dead was the hope of Israel, and the final page of the Old Covenant promises. There are none left to be fulfilled. If all Israel was not raised, the Old Covenant is still in effect.

To recap, Paul here states that the time of the Resurrection would be

2. the time of the removal of the Law, the “power of sin” (the “ministry of death” in 2 Cor 3:7)
3. the time of the removal of sin, the “sting of death” (Heb 10)
4. the time of the fulfillment of Israel’s promises (Isa 25:8, Hos 13:14, Mat 5:18, etc.)

The Resurrection of 1 Cor 15 and Rev 20:5 at the end of the millennium are the same.

Daniel 9 describes the fulfillment of Israel’s eschaton. It foretold that the completion of the seventy weeks was the time of the end for the people and for “the holy city” (v. 24), which was accomplished with the destruction of Jerusalem and the abolition of Judaism in AD 70. Referring to the coming time of judgment, Jesus said, “These are the days of vengeance in which all things that are written,” ostensibly including Daniel 9, “must be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22).

Daniel 9 and 1 Cor 15 are referring to the same event. Notice how both deal with:

2. the promises made to Israel
3. the time of the end
4. the time of the Kingdom which is without end (Heb 12)
5. the time of the putting away of sin
6. the end of the age of Israel (Dan 9:27, 1 Cor 15:56)

Revelation 20:4-6 makes several obvious allusions to Daniel 7:9-27. In both passages:

• The observer sees thrones set up (Dan 7:9, Rev 20:4)
• The saints sit on the thrones and are given authority to judge (Dan 7:26, Rev 20:4)
• The saints reign in the Kingdom (Dan 7:18, 22, 27, Rev 20:4, 6)

One may object that in Daniel, the Kingdom of God headed by the Son of Man is said to be without end (7:13, 14), whereas Revelation 20:4-6 makes reference to a 1,000 year kingdom. The difference is that Revelation 20 has mainly in view the specific prediction of certain events within that eternal kingdom. Does God’s reign really have an end? The thousand years were simply an apocalyptic description of the phase before the Resurrection and the coming of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21). It’s the same as hearing George say that Oswald Knodishall moved to Ireland and then remained there the rest of his life, and then hearing Reginald say, “Oswald Knodishall bought a car when he moved to Dublin. He then lived in Dublin 20 more years driving that same car. Then he finally got another car and used it to drive around Dublin for the rest of his life there.” When comparing these two accounts, we have no reason to assume that George and Reginald were talking of different Oswald Knodishalls.

Jesus in Matthew 5:18 put the timing of the fulfillment and removal of the Law at the same time that the “heavens and earth”, an Old Testament metaphor for the Old Covenant, would pass away. Now recall Isaiah 25:8 above, in which Isaiah synchronizes the swallowing up of death “for ever” as the point at which “the Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces.” Does this ring a bell? Think Revelation 21:4. The “old order” which passed away was the “ministry of death”, the Law of Moses. The Resurrection Paul talks about is the end of Death and of his abode, Sheol/Hades. Either the Resurrection has occurred and death is no more, or the Old Covenant is still in effect! Where else do we see our heavens and earth (read: covenant) passing and being replaced? This is what the full and partial futurists must posit, sans scriptural references.

Many preterists, like myself, doubt that individual spiritual resurrections were ever primarily in view. Paul refers to the redemption of the “body” (singular), and draws a parallel between corporate participation in the Fall through Adam and corporate participation in the Resurrection through Christ. One is “resurrected” by God’s adoption of him as a son, and hence participates in the resurrection of Christ. Check out what Ward Fenley has to say on this point:

Finally, in regard to the resurrection body of Christ, the church is that resurrection body. We are raised together with Christ. Yes, it is a spiritual resurrection. The Church is His body, not some material form with literal arms and legs. Of course Christ was raised physically, but that was the outer sign to show that He was the first to rise from the dead spiritually. He was the firstfruit of the firstfruits (after all, Jesus said the harvest was plenteous then and Paul and James and John both affirmed first-fruits in the first century Rom 8; James 1; Rev. 14). Christ was the firstborn AMONG many brethren. Jesus died to bring many sons to glory (Heb 2). His bride cannot be separated from His glory resurrection, for she is ONE FLESH with Him. Just as the Husband is the glory of God, so the Bride is the glory of the Husband.

Now, do I completely understand all the mystical and practical differences between the Resurrection in 20:4 and in Revelation 20:5? No, but regardless of one’s view on the nature of the Resurrection, the timing is crystal clear: the fulfillment of God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel were to be completed at the same time the New Covenant was established. The final Resurrection is everywhere presented as the completion of a covenant, and the Christian age established at AD 70 has no end. I could cite several irrefutable attestations of the eternality of the New Covenant in both the Old and the New Testament, and one would be hard-pressed to come up with Scriptures that say otherwise. None of Jesus’ parables that speak of the Kingdom of God make a distinction between a Kingdom coming in forty years and another coming in 2,000 or more years. Yet this is exactly what is mandated when you postulate a still futurized eschatological judgment event!

Summary

• The Resurrection at the end of the age belongs to Old Covenant Israel and belongs to her last days.

• Israel’s promises had to be fulfilled before the Law could pass (“not one jot or tittle”).

• The time of the harvest (Matt 13) was fulfilled at AD 70.

• The Resurrection in 1 Cor 15 correlates with the end of the Law, and thus pertained to the fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel’s promises.

• There is no Scripture that supports a yet future event in which the Son of Man comes, resurrects the dead, and pronounces judgment.

• The final Resurrection of the living and the dead cannot pertain to the end of the Christian age because the Christian age has no end.

Related posts:

1. The Resurrection of the Dead Sheol. The grave. The pit. Hades. What do all these have in common? They’re the same thing. At least, in the Bible they are. The...
2. The reign of Christ during the Millennium As my regulars probably know, I like podcasts. One I listen to regularly (it comes out daily) is Renewing Your Mind with Dr. R.C. Sproul...
3. The Sheep, the Goats, and the Judgment One of people’s hang-ups about full preterism is that they feel that the Great White Throne Judgment sounds too momentous to apply to less than...
4. 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,...
5. 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...