The Resurrection Already Past?

Is the resurrection already past?

And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:18, 19)

Has the resurrection occurred? If so, does not the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus condemn such a teaching? How could men teach while yet living on earth that the resurrection had occurred?

The Time Problem of the Resurrection Already Past Doctrine

It is, on the surface a seeming just charge. However, the failure to address the time issues of a passage in which timing is a critical component is a far too hasty assessment.

Paul draws attention to their words, "resurrection already past. That is a time issue. It implies that it must be compared or contrasted with something that can be measured as "not already." Without the ability to evaluate the one against the other, the text will make little sense to us.

The Time of Writing

When was 2 Timothy 2:18, 19 written? Of course we would all agree it is within the first century during the lifetime of Paul. Most dating centers around A.D. 66-68. Some may reason earlier. It certainly was not written after Paul's death nor do we have record that he survived until A.D. 70. With this in mind, we can move a bit closer to unraveling the time issues presented in the text.

Observations from the Time

That some time had elapsed since this doctrine was first taught in the early church is implied in its successful propagation. It takes time to formulate new theories, to espouse them, teach them to others and propagate those ideas to the point of a following or a movement.

That Hymenaues and Philetus had been teaching for some time is evident through their having gained some followers. Paul addresses this in his statement, saying that these men have erred (perfect passive) and "overthrow the faith of some." Clearly these men had adherents to their teachings of a 'resurrection already past' which alarmed the apostle so much so that he addressed it in Ephesus with the intent of putting an end to it.

The Relationship of the Resurrection Past Already and the Coming of Christ.

In 2 Timothy 4:1, Paul writes, I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.,

In this text, it is clear that Paul's doctrine on the resurrection time-wise, was in direct contradiction to that of Hymenaeus and Philetus'. However, Paul's teachings on resurrection were not very far removed from it as to take it out of a first century context.

In the text quoted, he used mello "about to be" indicating that although the resurrection had not yet occurred, it was not in the far distant future of several thousand years. Paul taught that God was about to judge the living and the dead, (resurrection). See also 1 Peter 4:5, where the apostle used a similar term (hetoimos, ready)of imminence followed by two undisputed passages of emphasizing and imminent end, (4:7, 17).

Therefore, the distinction between Paul and Peter's writings and the doctrine of Hymanaeus must be more carefully scrutinized in light of these facts. Peter confirmed he and Paul taught the same eschatology, (2 Pet. 3:16)

But, we raised the issued of 2 Timothy because of its connection and correlation of the Parousia and resurrection. The events are connected time wise in scripture which affirms Christ raises the dead at his appearing.

2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or trouble, either by spirit or by worked or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

It appears from this text that not only was there a problem with a contraction of time for the resurrection in Ephesus, but also several years earlier, the same problem had surfaced in Thessalonica.

Paul, addresses those in the church who believed that Christ had already come. The term translated "had come," (NKJV) is from histemi which means already set in or having arrived, compared to engus which means imminent or at hand.

Again, noting the point that the second coming and the resurrection are concurrent events, the clear implication from believing that Christ had come would equate with the resurrection already past doctrine. Yet this text, written about A.D. 51, 52, predates 2 Timothy 2:18, 19, by almost twenty years.

Implications of an Imminent Spiritual Resurrection

The implications that neither Paul, Hymenaeus and Philetus nor the Thessalonicans believed in a far distant biological resurrection is apparent. One taught resurrection as a future but imminent event in his day and time, and the latter taught or believed that it had occurred.

The implication being obvious that neither of them could have believed that the resurrection involved the raising of dead bodies from the grave. This is very strong evidence that they all understood resurrection from a spiritual, non-biological paradigm.

The Distinction Between the Apostles and The Apostates

Paul and Peter taught an imminent resurrection and coming of the Lord which would occur in connection with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, (Matthew 24:3, 31, 34).

Well aware of Jesus' promise to return in the kingdom before some who stood with him died, (Matthew 16:28) and before His generation passed (Matthew 24:34), they taught Jesus' coming in connection with the overthrow of the Jewish temple.

Hymaneaus and Philetus, in their resurrection already past doctrine, they were denying the promise and prophecy of Christ to overthrow the Jewish state and bring an end to Judaism, thereby terminating the persecution against the church.

Such would detrimentally affect believers causing them to abandon the church for the doomed carcass of Judaism. It would counter Paul's entire ministry and mission to the Gentiles.

Summary and Conclusion

Now that we have our temporal measuring line, the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem as the imminent event and time of the Lord's return, we can clearly see the fallacy of the Hymenaen heresy in saying that the resurrection had already occurred, [perfect tense, indicating fulfilled in the past with ongoing results] while in the same epistle an inspired apostle said it was "about to" [mellontos] occur, meaning in the near future. It was an error in time to teach that the event happened too soon.

Jesus would come soon as taught by the Apostles, but not too soon that it would negate the timing of the fulfillment of all things spoken by the prophets, (Luke 21:20-22, 32). The equivalent today of the Hymenaean resurrection already past heresy would be a doctrine that places the resurrection too late, saying it has not happened.

How do we scripturally harmonize a resurrection already past with other texts? Click the above link to learn more about the resurrection. To subsribe to our free newsletter, see below.