2 Timothy 2:18 "SOME SAYING RESURRECTION ALREADY BECAME"

Why would Paul have to say this to his followers concerning some saying the resurrection has already happened?
[which doesn't appear to occur until Revelation 20:5 "the first resurrection"?]

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

2 Timothy 2:18
who about the truth swerve<795>, saying the resurrection<386> already to have become/γεγονέναι<1096>
and they are subverting<396> the of-some<5100> faith.

become/γεγονέναι<1096>
Speech: Verb Parsing: Perfect Infinitive Active

386. anastasis an-as'-tas-is from 450;
a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):--raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.
795. astocheo from a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and stoichos (an aim);
to miss the mark, i.e. (figuratively) deviate from truth:--err, swerve.
396. anatrepo from 303 and the base of 5157;
to overturn (figuratively):--overthrow, subvert.

Revelation 20:5
The rest of the dead no they live until should be being finished<5055> the thousand years.
This the resurrection/ἀνάστασις <386>, the first.

20:5
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ1 τὰ χίλια2 ἔτη.
αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
oi de loipoi twn nekrwn ouk anezhsan ews telesqh ta cilia eth auth h anastasiV h prwth
Byzantine Majority
kai oi loipoi twn nekrwn ouk ezhsan acri telesqh ta cilia eth auth h anastasiV h prwth.

https://www.google.com/search?clien....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i67j0i10.iqt9fq7uvrQ

The Resurrection from the Dead | David Curtis | Preterist Archive

Philippians 3:11

We are going to spend our time this morning studying what the Bible teaches about the resurrection. Paul said in Philippians 3 that he had forsaken his own righteousness and trusted only and completely in Christ "in order that" he might attain the resurrection from the dead.

Philippians 3:11 (NASB) in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

What exactly did Paul mean by this? What is the resurrection? We will attempt to answer these questions this morning.

Let's begin by reviewing the context of this verse. The theme of Philippians 3:4-11 is justification by faith alone. The key verse in this section is:

Philippians 3:9 (NKJV) and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

Paul sees only two kinds of righteousness: 1. Self-righteousness which leads to damnation. 2. God's righteousness given through faith which equals salvation. This is the righteousness that Paul wanted to have, that which comes by faith in Christ. This is speaking of justification by faith alone.

In verse 8, Paul tells us he is no longer trusting in his own righteousness in order that he may gain Christ. Then in verses 9-11, he tells us what it means to gain Christ. In verse 9, he tells us that to gain Christ means to receive His righteousness. Then he goes on in verses 10-11 to explain further what it means to gain Christ.

I see all of the things he mentions in verse 10 to be results of justification. Paul "suffered the loss of all things, and counted them as dung" in order that he may "gain Christ." And gaining Christ means: "Receiving his righteousness, knowing him, knowing the power of his resurrection, knowing the fellowship of his suffering, and being make like him in our death to sin."

Philippians 3:11 (NASB) in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Paul "suffered the loss of all things and counted them as dung in order that he may attain to the resurrection from the dead. The Greek word that Paul uses here for "resurrection" is exanastasi. This Greek word is only used here in all the New Testament. It is the word anastasis, which means: "resurrection." with the preposition ek in front of it which is the equivalent of "out". This is literally, "the out resurrection out from the corpses."

This verse is speaking of the resurrection of the righteous. The resurrection of the righteous will take them out of the total number of those dead.

Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament says, "Apparently Paul is thinking here only of the resurrection of believers out from the dead, and so double ex (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). Paul is not denying a general resurrection by this language, but emphasizing that of believers."

What exactly did Paul mean by "the resurrection"? The traditional view that is held by most of the church is this: When a believer dies, their body goes into the grave and their spirit goes to heaven to be with the Lord. They are in a disembodied state awaiting the resurrection at the end of time. Then at the end of time the Lord returns, resurrects all the decayed bodies of the dead saints, puts them back together, then changes the physically resurrected bodies into spiritual immortal bodies like Christ's. Does that sound like what you have been taught?

Have you ever thought about how the Lord will put all those decayed bodies back together. Will He re-gather and reassemble all the scattered atoms and molecules which composed individual bodies at the time of death? This problem is addressed by M.C. Tenney in his book, The Reality of the Resurrection:

When the body of Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, was exhumed for reburial, it was found that the root of an apple tree had penetrated the head of the coffin and had followed down Williams' spine, dividing into a fork at the legs. The tree had absorbed the chemicals of the decaying body and had transmuted them into its wood and fruit. The apples, in turn, had been eaten by people, quite unconscious of the fact that they were indirectly taking into their systems part of the long-dead Williams. The objection may therefore be raised: How, out of the complex sequence of decay, absorption, and new formation, will it be possible to resurrect believers of past ages, and to reconstitute them as separate entities?

This problem of joint ownership of atoms and molecules is a big problem. After death, various body particles returned to dust, reentered the food chain, got assimilated into plants, eaten by animals, and digested into countless other human bodies. At the resurrection, who gets which atoms and molecules back? As you can see, it can get quite complicated. Another thing that bothered me was why does God raise our dead decayed bodies, put them all back together just to change them into immortal spiritual bodies?

That is basically what the church teaches abut the resurrection, but is it what the Bible teaches? Paul clearly taught that the resurrection was the hope of Israel.

Acts 23:6 (NKJV) But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!"

These verses speak of both spiritual death (the soul in hades) and physical death (decay of the flesh). Jesus was resurrected from both.

The reason there are differences in the way we are raised and the way in which Christ was raised is because of those Biblically defined differences between Christ's body and ours. Differences such as:

Christ is the only one who is both fully God and fully Man -- God incarnate. (John 1:1-18). Christ is the only one who was virgin born, and, therefore, born without original sin. (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:12-21; 7:4-11; etc.). Christ is the only one who ever lived a sinless life. (Heb. 4:15). Christ is the only one promised that his flesh would not suffer decay. (Acts 2:27,31).

His human body was not subject to original sin, nor corruptible (i.e. He was "impeccable"), nor did He ever commit sin and become corrupted. Because of this, He could keep His selfsame body, whereas, we cannot.

Unless Jesus' body had been resurrected, His disciples would have had no assurance that His soul had been to Hades and had been resurrected. The physical resurrection of Christ was essential to verify the spiritual, to which it was tied. While the physical resurrection of our bodies would have no point, since we will not continue living on this planet, breathing earth's oxygen, and eating earth's food after we die physically.
=====================
Date:
02 Oct 2002
Time:
14:04:17
Comments

Excellent job of lining up prophetic scriptures from the old testament with statements made by Jesus which are understood by all serious scholars to refer to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, proving that the resurrection had to have occured at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. Great point about the nature of Hymenaeus and Philetus' teaching, and that such a teaching would not have been believed by anyone if the early church were expecting a literal reviving of dead corpses. I gotta give you credit for taking on the question of the nature of the afterlife too. Many passages we used to think were about the afterlife, we're finding out are actually about new covenant truths. So the nature of the afterlife is a big question, and there's a lot to learn. Maybe a lot that we simply can't learn in this life.

Date:
06 Aug 2004
Time:
16:26:18
Comments

i Read your comments and i think you have a great support of biblical foundation for this great interpretaion of the second coming. we need also to understand that the first 3 centuries the church believed in the premellinium view like turtillian origin, and others. athanasius creed talk about the resurection bodily from the grave and we will havwe same body as he did. when is the general resurection going to happen. it seems from your views there is none. were are the sheep and the goats judgement and people giving account for what they did in the flesh. when is satan going to be sent to the lake of fire as mentioned in revelation with him the false prophet. all of these are not discussed clearly in the preterist view. I am maybe moderate preterist that is recieving lots of persecution for my views without going into the full preterist views. your answer to me would be appreciated. how about the jerusalem coming from heaven adorned for her husband and the marriage of the lamb the great marriage supper. and the rewards for the faithful believers. please send your answers to Jamalbishara@cox.net. God bless you.

Date: 20 Jul 2006
Time: 22:24:24

Comments:

I have begun exploring the preterist view, and I have enjoyed this article very much.
However, I am struggling with the first verse you quoted from Philippians 3 : 11. Could you please help me with it?
If Paul was already raised from the dead, raised to spiritual life from spiritual death, why would he be still hoping to "attain to the resurrection from the dead"? As I am understanding you in your article, he already has life and is in no need of resurrection. (John 11 : 25 -26)
Thanks for your help.

tdidymas said:

For all:
It is possible that Mat. 27:52-53 was the basis for the false idea that the resurrection had already happened: "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many."

Some people claim this is an "apocalyptic statement" and therefore was not a real event. I don't agree with that, because it reads like a historical event IMO. I believe the tearing of the veil was a historical event just like the earthquake, and that this resurrection was also historical. So if this is true, it begs the question has the first resurrection already happened?

I get the idea that Matthew was written before 2 Thes, and 2 Thes. was written before Revelation. It seems to me that the apostle Paul knew about the Mat. resurrection, and still told the Thessalonians that their resurrection was still a future event. No doubt the false idea that was propagated at the time had to do with what they were saying about it, and not about the fact that Mat. had a resurrection account.

Click to expand...

That is an awesome event in the Bible and perhaps where the idea of Zombie movies came from?
Did a googles search on Matt 27:51-53
https://www.google.com/search?clien...i30j0i13j0i13i30j0i13i5i30j33i160.OP7K2q-aYhk

What happened to the resurrected saints mentioned in Matthew 27: 52-53?

Matthew 27:51-53 tells us what happened right after Jesus Christ died: “Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

This resurrection of several believers was one of the phenomena accompanying the resurrection of Jesus Christ to underscore that monumental event. These saints came back to physical life. (In the Bible, the word saints means those who are sanctified or set apart as holy, meaning all of God’s true followers.) We know from such scriptures as 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 that God has resurrected no one to eternal life as an immortal spirit yet—except Christ.

For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 says: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

These references teach us that God will change the righteous dead along with living Christians to immortal beings when Jesus Christ returns.

After God brought the people mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53 back to life, they undoubtedly went back to their homes, where many acquaintances saw them. It’s hard to imagine how utterly startling such an experience would be for their relatives and friends!

The Bible says nothing further about these people God resurrected at Christ’s death, leaving us to conclude that they eventually died (again) and their families buried them (again). Along with all other saints who died, they await in their graves their resurrection to spirit life.
==========================
This event in John shows Lazarus being resurrected and coming out of the tomb:

John 10:
38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.”
43 When he had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
==============================
A similar event happens in Revelation concerning the rapture of the 2 witnesses [of which I have a thread on]:

Lazarus and 2 witnesses of Reve 11 similarity

Revelation 11:
11 And after the three days and half days, a breath of life out of the God entered in them and they stand upon their feet and fear great fall upon the ones observing them.
12 And they hear a great Voice out of the Heaven saying to them "ascend ye here!" And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud....
============================
Also, in this covenantle parable of Luke 16, a man named Lazarus is also shown as dead, but instead of being buried, he is "raptured" to Abraham's bosom.

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

Afterward, speaking primarily to his disciples but with the Pharisees (and probably the crowd) still listening in, Yeshua related the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13). The Pharisees, who were "lovers of money" (Luke 16:14), realized that the Messiah was alluding to them with this parable and took offense. They scoffed at Yeshua.
The final part of his response to the derision of the Pharisees and scribes was the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

We'll now examine this parable in detail to grasp exactly what the Messiah was teaching about the kingdom of God:

LUKE 16:
19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day."
20 "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores."
22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the Messengers to Abraham's bosom.
The rich man also died and was buried."

The next events recorded in this parable are the deaths of Lazarus and then the rich man. Since the parable has been figurative up until this point, there is no reason to assume it becomes literal now.

First, to prove that this language is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally, let's examine exactly what we are told by Yeshua. He says that first, Lazarus dies and is taken to the bosom of Abraham. Notice, there is no mention of his burial here. Then later the rich man dies, and he is buried (in Hades, according to verse 23). So the time sequence given indicates that upon his death, Lazarus was taken immediately to Abraham's bosom, while afterward the rich man was buried in Hades when he died.

If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life. Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:

In contrast to Lazarus, the rich man was buried in Hades. An understanding of the original meaning of the Greek word hades is necessary to grasp the message of the parable. Regarding the possible etymology of this word, the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that hades ". . . comes from idein (to see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible . . . In the LXX hades occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances to translate Heb. she'ol, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is the land of darkness . . ." (p. 206, vol. 2).

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man, long used by mainstream Christian ministers to teach the "reality of hell," really has nothing to say about punishment or reward in the afterlife. Yeshua used this story, which fit the common misconception about life after death in his day, to show the fate that awaited the Jewish nation because of the unbelief and faithlessness which caused them to reject him as the Messiah. They still suffer from that fate to this very day. Yet the time is soon coming when God will pour on the Jews the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on their Messiah whom they pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for him as one grieves for a firstborn (Zec. 12:10).
====================================

D P.................

Commentary...........

The Hymenaean Heresy| A Response. Introducing a New Guest Author

Below is an article by Holger responding to the charge that preterism is a revival of the on the Hymenaean Heresy.

Those who reject the clear time statements for the resurrection often cite 2 Timothy 2:17,18 as an alleged proof text that the resurrection is still yet future. But this passage teaches no such thing. The scripture posits the resurrection at the fall of Jerusalem and ample proof will be supplied in this article. Hymenaeus and Philetus taught the “resurrection is past already”(2 Timothy 2:18), because they would not honor God’s own time statements and argued that the Jewish system was to continue.

Hymenaean Heresy: How Is This Possible?
First, if the common belief of the early church was that the resurrection was to take place at the end of physical universe, then how could have Hymenaeus and Philetus influenced anyone at all? They would have been viewed as crackpots that had lost their minds and no one would have taken them seriously. Paul would not have wasted the precious words of inspiration on such nonsensical false teachers. But if they were saying that the resurrection was past while Jerusalem was still standing they would have been teaching the same thing as the Judaizing false teachers, which taught the law and temple would remain. The false prophets of 2 Peter 3:4 were of this ilk, which said, “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” which contradicted Peter’s own words, that “the end of all things was at hand”(1 Peter 4:7). The Jewish age was to come to an abrupt end with the destruction of its temple and law (Matthew 24:3,34; Daniel 9:24-27).

See Don K. Preston’s book: How Is This Possible for an even deeper investigation of this point. It really is the epitome of illogic to believe that Hymenaeaus could convince anyone that the end of time, the raising of every dead corpse in the ground, and the destruction of the universe had taken place yesterday….or at any point in the past!


How could anyone, convince anyone, that the universe was destroyed and time had ended?
Second, Hymaneaus and Philetus could have influenced the early church only if the disciples believed that the resurrection was to take place in the very generation that they lived in. Jesus said, “the men of Ninevah shall rise in judgment with this generation” (Matthew 12:41). Jesus was referring to that particular generation that was then living. When Martha said of Lazarus, “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:24) she was referencing the Jewish age and not the Christian age. Martha was a Jew and lived in the Jewish age. She knew that Daniel was to, “stand in his lot at then end of the days”(Daniel 12:13). Daniel was referencing the end as it was attached to the “abomination of desolation,” a clear reference to end of the temple and the daily sacrifice (Daniel 12:11;Matthew 24:15). The Jews knew that resurrection would take place at the end of their age, not at the end of another distant age.
Third, the only time there is specific mention of a resurrection of both the just and unjust in the Old Testament is found in Daniel 12:2, which says, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel tells us that this resurrection would take place at “the time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time” (Daniel 12:1). This time reference is the time of the great tribulation where Jesus said, “For then there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be”(Matthew 24:21). Therefore, the resurrection was to take place at the time of the great tribulation.