The doctrine
of the resurrection is found not only in the New Testament, but also in the writings
of the Prophets. Daniel prophesied:
And at that time shall Michael stand
up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there
shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even
to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one
that shall be found written in the book. 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. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of
the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever
and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the
words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to
and fro, and knowledge shall be increased (Dan. 12:1-4).
Daniel
apparently sees a general resurrection of the dead, “some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2).” Our Lord Jesus
reiterates the teaching of a general resurrection prophesied by Daniel in the
Gospel of John, “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).” According to Jesus, there is no
mention of an interjectory gap of one millennium within “the hour.” At that
hour, “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.” The “resurrection of
life” and “the resurrection of damnation” occur at “the hour.”
Some
dispensationalists might object to this point, claiming that in John 5:25, the
same word “hour” is used to describe the entire gospel age, a time span which
has since lasted for more than two millennia. “Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
of God: and they that hear shall live (John 5:25).” They might argue that since
the “hour” in verse 25 has lasted for more than two thousand years, a series of
two resurrections separated by one millennium can easily fit into the “hour” of
verse 28.
In response
to this argument, we must first note that the Apostle John uses the word “hour”
(ὥρα) to mean various periods of time, the duration of
which depends upon the context of the passage in consideration. For example,
John uses the word “hour” in the same sense as verse 25 in John 4:23. “But the
hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him (John 4:23).”
In both instances, the word “hour” denotes the entire gospel age, whereby the
elect hear the inward calling of the Holy Spirit, as well as the outward call
of the gospel, and becomes regenerated. In other cases, the Apostle uses the
word “hour” to indicate a specific point in time which has either arrived (John
12:23; 13:1; 16:21; 19:14, 27), or which has yet to arrive (John 7:30; 8:20).
If dispensationalists
insist that verse 28 should parallel verse 25, they must consider the fact that
the regeneration of sinners is occurring throughout the gospel period. In which
case, the resurrection of the just and the unjust should likewise be taking
place all through the earthly millennium; but according to dispensationalism,
the resurrection of the just occurs only prior to the millennium, while the
resurrection of the wicked takes place at the end of the one thousand years
reign of Christ. To interpret verse 28 as a parallel of verse 25 would be too
much for even the hidebound dispensationalist.
If the
exegete must understand “hour” in verse 28 to mean a very long period of time –
a period of no less than a millennium – he must contend with the hermeneutical
absurdity of having the voice of the Lord resounding throughout the one
thousand years. For the Apostle John wrote,
“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).”
So, is John
saying that “a long, long period of time is coming, in which all that are in the
graves shall hear His voice resounding all through the millennium?” According
to the context of this passage, it is obvious the Apostle John is indicating
that, at a particular point of time in the future, the Lord’s voice will be
heard once, and all who are in the graves shall resurrect. The just shall be
awarded the resurrection of life, while the wicked will be given the
resurrection of damnation. John is, of course, not suggesting that Jesus’ voice
will be sounded more than one time, or worse, multiple times. John 5:28-29,
therefore, inevitably teaches a general resurrection of the dead that occurs
contemporaneously.
In four
instances in the Gospel of John alone, Jesus taught that the resurrection of
the just shall occur at the last day,
not one thousand years before the resurrection of the wicked. Our Lord
elucidated, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all
which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day. And this is
the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth
on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day
(John 6:39-40).” Again in John 6:44 and John 6:54, Christ taught, “No man can
come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him
up at the last day. . . . Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Loraine
Boettner concurs,
“The notion that the resurrection of
the righteous is to occur a thousand years before the end of the world is
contradicted by Jesus who, on four different occasions, said that He would
raise up those who believe in Him at the
last day (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54). Clearly there can be no other days after
the last day.”[1]
The Apostle
Paul, when he was brought before the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea,
proclaimed, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call
heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are
written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they
themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of
the just and unjust (Acts 24:14-15).” In verse 15, the Greek word αναστασιν (anastasin), which is
translated “a resurrection,” is singular. If Paul had in his mind at least two
separate resurrections, the Holy Spirit could have used the plural form of this
word.
The burden
of proof is, at the very least, upon the Bible Presbyterians and
Dispensationalists. Unless they produce conclusive and incontrovertible
evidence that Scripture teaches otherwise, there is no reason why we must
reject the eschatology of the Reformed Confessions: that there will be one general resurrection of the dead and
one final judgment for both the just
and the unjust.
The General
Resurrection and Final Judgment in the Parables of Jesus
The parables
of Jesus, likewise, contradict the dispensational notion that a one thousand
year gap separates the Second Coming and the final judgment. In the parable of
the wheat and the tares, both wheat and tares are to grow together until the
end of the world. Jesus recounts, “Let both grow together until the harvest:
and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first
the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my
barn (Matthew 13:30).”
In fact, the
tares are gathered first in the parable. But according to dispensational
premillennialism, the wheat is gathered before the tares. If there is any gap
between the resurrection of the just and the unjust – but of course, there is
none – dispensationalists have got the sequence of resurrections reversed.
Worse, Bible Presbyterians insist that the wheat be gathered first, leaving
only the tares for the Great Tribulation. In keeping with dispensational
premillennialism, a second harvest is mandatory, as there will be wheat growing
out of the tares during the Great Tribulation. Yet a third harvest is needed
for those converted during the millennium. But Jesus is adamant that the
harvesting occurs only at the end of the world, and only once.
Herman
Hanko, commenting on this parable, explains,
“The harvest in the parable is the
end of the world. This is the end of the world in the absolute sense. Jesus
knows only of this one end, not the many “ends” of which premillennialism
speaks. It is that moment when God’s purpose, according to his counsel, is
realized, for all that he has determined to do has been accomplished. Creation
and history are brought to their telos
(their purpose, their goal). Then all things are ready. The wicked have filled
the cup of iniquity, and the filling of this cup has made them ripe for
judgment. The church is ripe for her final salvation, and all things are ready
for Christ to return.”[2]
In the
parable of the dragnet (Matt. 13:47-50), the separation of the good fish and
the bad fish shall be performed “at the end of the world.” The wicked are
separated from the just. Both the just and the unjust shall be judged, and the
wicked will be cast into the furnace of fire. Once again, the just will not be
separated from the wicked in a rapture one thousand years – or one thousand and
seven years according to pretribulationism – prior to the final judgment. The
final judgment will be a general judgment of both the saints and the
reprobates. The general resurrection and the final judgment occur “at the end
of the world.”
Hanko
writes,
“The final separation of the good
and bad fish takes place at the “end of the world.” This is not an arbitrary
end, nor an end among many ends. It is the final and absolute end of the age
from the viewpoint of God’s purpose. God’s purpose is fully accomplished as he
determined that purpose from before the foundation of the world. . . . From
God’s point of view, there is no possibility of history continuing. It cannot
go on for another moment.”[3]
Furthermore,
the final judgment is clearly depicted in the parable of the sheep and the
goats in Matthew 25:31-46. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory (Matt.
25:31),” the separation of the wicked and the just shall occur at the same
time. The linchpin of premillennialism, that is, a thousand year gap between
the Second Coming of Christ and the final judgment, is absent from this
parable.
The
eschatological schema presented in this parable, as well as the others, is
consistent with amillennialism. Even staunch premillennialist, George Eldon
Ladd, had to concede that the scheme of prophecy presented in this parable is
essentially amillennial:
“A final question remains to be
asked. If this is the final judgment, what do we do about the millennium? There
seems to be no room for it. The author is frank to admit that if we had to
follow this passage as our program of prophecy, there would be no room for a
millennium. I would have to be an amillennialist.”[4]
Indeed, Professor
Ladd would be more consistent with Scripture if he was an amillennialist. How,
then, did he escape the inescapable conclusion that Jesus did not teach a millennium in this parable?
He concluded that this parable has nothing to do with the “program of prophecy.”
“It is a dramatic parable,” he said,[5] and it
merely conveyed instructions to Jesus’ disciples concerning the Great
Commission.
In the
following words, Ladd attempted to dissipate the eschatological thrust of the
entire parable:
“Jesus knows that he is about to
leave his disciples in the world with a commission to take the gospel to all
nations. He is in effect saying to them, “I am entrusting the destiny of the
Gentiles into your hands. Those who welcome and receive you welcome and receive
me, and they will be blessed in the day of judgment. Those who reject and
exclude and punish you do so to me, and it will go ill with them in the day of
judgment.’”[6]
By denying
the obvious conclusions taught in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Ladd
contradicted his own principle of hermeneutics - that the exegete must never
avoid the “clear and unambiguous” meaning of language in Scripture.[7]
Marcellus
Kik, a postmillennialist, explains that “in Matthew 25:31-46, a universal
judgment is depicted and all people who have lived upon the earth are judged
according to their works. The average Christian reader of the Matthew passage
believes that the final judgment is set forth. And he is right. The
premillennialist has to explain this passage away because it does not fit in
with his eschatological views. Actually he has to forsake his “literal”
interpretation which he so stoutly maintains is the only proper way of
interpretation.”[8]
In my
perusal of Dr Jeffrey Khoo’s writings, I am absolutely perplexed as to why he
has avoided a discussion of Matthew 25:31-46 in both his book The Gospels in Unison, and his lectures
notes The Life of
Christ.[9] Is
it true that he, too, has found it difficult to reconcile the parable with dispensational
premillennialism?
References
[1] Loraine Boettner, The Millennium, rev. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co, 1957), 169.
[2] Herman Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Jesus’ Parables, 2nd
ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1975), 54.
[3] Ibid., 93.
[4] George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co,
1978), 101.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1972), 266.
[8] J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co, 1971), 169.
[9] See Jeffrey Khoo, The Gospels in Unison: A Synthetic Harmony of the Four Gospels in the
KJV (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1996). Also see Jeffrey
Khoo, The Life of Christ (Singapore
No comments:
Post a Comment