The Error of Hymeneaus

[A Cup of No]

I wonder if misspelled his name. Anyway. I was having a discussion with Dee Dee, and since she is reading The Resurrection of the Son of God (the book in which Wright proves conclusively that the mainstream use of the word "resurrection" in Second Temple Judaism had connotations solely to physical re-embodiment), she said she had rethought her position on Hymeneaus's error. (if I'm misrepresenting this, call me on it Dee Dee, not doing it intentionally). She said that the error was not that he thought the resurrection was a past spiritual one, but rather that the resurrection of the dead (real physical bodies) had already past. Our closest link to what this could have been is in Matthew, when various dead rise from their graves during the death of Christ.

So, what do you guys think? Is he in error in thinking it was a past spiritual, non-physical resurrection, or in thinking the physical resurrection had past, and had only occured to a few in Jerusalem?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The denouncement of Hymenaeus in the New Testament gives us no details on the question. I think - and I've argued in an article on Dee Dee's site, that the way he is condemned shows that the Apostles taught a physical resurrection, but it just looks to me like he thought that "the resurrection of the dead," whatever it consists of, is in the past. It's possible to build up a probablistic argument either way, but it won't get very far in my view.

[dizzle]

I make the argument for both in both of my articles - and I think it can go either way. I have thought it about it some more and really think either is possible.