How Many Biblical Resurrections Are Metaphorical?
- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I’ve seen some amillennialists claim that the Bible speaks of metaphorical resurrections, as well as literal ones. I’ve already done enough research to tell that the three examples one of them has given me (Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37:12, & Romans 11:15) are indeed referring to literal resurrections, but I also know that you acknowledge John 5:25 as a legitimate example.
So that got me wondering: are there any other Biblical mentions of dead people coming to life that legitimately are metaphorical, or is John 5:25 the only one?
-
Actually, John 5:25 refers to a time to come and also a time that “now is.” The time to come is the resurrection at Christ’s return. It is more likely that the time that “now is” refers to those raised from their graves when Jesus was raised (Matt. 27:52-53). That both are literal is strengthened by the fact that in vs. 28 Jesus goes on to refer to “all who are in their graves,” which must be a literal resurrection. It is not likely that Jesus referred to both a literal and figurative “resurrection” in the same breath.
Amills attempt to demonstrate that resurrection can be figurative in order to claim that it is figurative in Rev. 20:1-4. But that interpretation won’t work because the former one is called the “first resurrection” which implies that the resurrection after the millennium is a second, and that both must be of the same kind. The real problem is that the “first resurrection” is of those who are killed by the ‘beast.’
-
But the events of Matthew 27:52-53 took place at least two Passovers after the events of John 5, per John 6:4 & 11:55. Does it really make sense to claim that a time “now is” (νῦν ἐστιν), with reference to an event that’ll happen over a year from now? Sorry if my tone seems bad, but I want to make sure the methodology behind these conclusions is as non-arbitrary as we’re aiming for it to be.
-
-
IMO, there is a reference to a near and a far resurrection in John 5:25-28, and both are literal. There is an identical statement in chapter 4 vs. 23. “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshippers. (NASB). This was not fulfilled until Pentecost. So the word “now” in 4:23 covers even more time than 5:25.
-
Thanks (sorry for not saying that more often, by the way; I’ve GOT to get better about giving concluding feedback).
Speaking of the word “hour”, I’m curious about your take on this argument that John 5:28-29 teaches only one mass resurrection:
Dispensationalists argue that the word “hour” in John 5:28 is being used of a broad span of time. Pentecost tells us that Jesus is talking about the “resurrection program,” which will span over a thousand years. While the word “hour” may be used of a “season” of time (e.g. Jn 5:35 – “for a while”), the process within that “hour” must be constant to use it this way. When Paul spoke of causing the Corinthians sorrow for a while, it was only true while the sorrow was in progress (II Cor 7:8). Notice that the condition (sorrow) endures for the entire period rather than being on and off, or starting and stopping. Associating this use to resurrections separated by 1,000 years is a misuse of the word “hour.”
Looking at a few other New Testament examples verifies this view. The hour of Galatians 2:5 was a period of consistent fidelity through that entire period of time. It was not on and off faithfulness. Paul was away from the Thessalonians for an “hour,” but the condition of being away was consistent through the whole period (I Th 2:17). He was not away for an “hour,” but came back several times during that “hour.” Jesus told the Samaritan woman that an hour was coming (Jn 4:21-23). She could understand that as meaning a period of time was coming, but would not have thought that period of time would have “true worship” characterized this way only now and then. When the word hour is used as an extended period of time, it refers to events consistently true throughout that period. In this case, the worship of the Father will be of a particular nature, and will hold true throughout. [Additional examples: John 2:4; 16:2, 32; Philemon 1:5; Rev 3:10.] Spreading five resurrections over 1,007 years of time is an unacceptable use of the word “hour.”Now, aside from noting that his citations of John 2:4 & Philemon 5 as examples are nonsense (the word doesn’t even occur in the Philemon passage!), I’d retort that the Greek phrasing of Philippians 3:11 is incompatible with any more or any less than 2 mass resurrections, so John 5:28-29 must be interpreted in light of it, not vice-versa. But can you come up with an even better response regarding the word for “hour”?
And where do you suppose he gets the idea that Dispensationalists teach 5 mass resurrections? I’ve only seen up to 3 in their system!
-
Karl,
The word “hour” is used many times both literally, and figuratively as referring to an extended period of time, up to several years. But concerning John 5:28, the above quote uses a straw-man argument. No dispensationalist that I know of interprets the word “hour” as spanning 1000 years. Rather, the argument is that there is an “hour” assigned for the resurrection of the Just and another “hour” for the resurrection of the unjust. The Greek does not use the definite article before “hour” as in some translations. So the correct interpretation is that “an hour” is coming for each of the resurrections mentioned in the next verse. There is no legitimate grammatical argument that can be made to require both resurrections in vs. 29 to be contained within a single “hour” (whether literal or figurative). Amillennialists who try to do this are saying MORE than the grammar requires.
There is ample proof from the NT that the “first resurrection” of Rev. 20 is literal. For one thing, those “resurrected” are said to have been “beheaded” for their Christian testimony. So they are DEAD. Consequently, taking part in the “first resurrection” is a bodily resurrection, period. It cannot be figurative.
Also, see the following article where I prove from the consistent pattern of the NT that the resurrection of the Just CANNOT be a general resurrection of all of the dead, but requires that only SOME from among the dead are raised. https://www.4windsfellowships.net/blog/resurrection-out-from-among-the-dead/
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.