A common polemical move in futurist circles is to appeal to Acts 17 as a way of discrediting fulfilled eschatology. The argument usually runs like this. Paul mentions the resurrection in Athens, some hearers mock, and therefore any theology that speaks of resurrection as already fulfilled belongs in the same category as the mockers or as later false teachers condemned by Paul. This argument is often reinforced by a brief appeal to Hymenaeus in 2 Timothy 2.
At first glance, this may sound compelling. In reality, it is not an argument from the text at all. It is a guilt by association argument, and it collapses several distinct positions into one category in order to dismiss them together. Scripture does not reason this way, and neither should we.
In Acts 17, Paul is not speculating about a future event. He is declaring something God has already done. The resurrection is not presented as a hope awaiting confirmation, but as an accomplished act that now carries authority. Paul’s reasoning is explicit:
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31, KJV)
The logic is clear. Judgment is certain because the resurrection has already occurred. Resurrection is the ground of judgment, not its conclusion.
This point is decisive. Acts 17 cannot function as a warning against preterism when it grounds judgment in a resurrection already accomplished. If resurrection is treated as future only, Paul’s argument collapses. The Athenians are not mocking a fulfilled theology. They are disgusted at the claim that resurrection has already occurred (Christ Resurrected) and now demands allegiance, that’s why the cross was “Foolishness to the greeks” as Paul notes. Luke records their reaction immediately:
“And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” (Acts 17:32, KJV)
They are not correcting Paul’s eschatology. They are rejecting his announcement. The scope of this judgment is also important. Earlier in the same chapter, Luke records the accusation made against Paul and his companions:
“These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (Acts 17:6, KJV)
The “world” in view is the same oikoumenē Paul speaks of later. It is the inhabited world of the Roman order. Paul himself uses the same term in his sermon:
“He will judge the world in righteousness.” (Acts 17:31, KJV)
Luke is not shifting categories mid chapter. He is describing judgment within a concrete historical horizon. The further futurists press Acts 17 into a distant, cosmic end of time scenario, the more they expose that the text itself does not allow their reading of assumptions into it.
The same goes for the appeal to Hymaneaus, this is what Paul mentions:
“Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:18, KJV)
Paul does not condemn Hymenaeus just for saying that the resurrection is “past”. Paul did affirm elsewhere of an accomplished resurrection. Read contextually, Paul is condemning the teaching that overthrew faith. Hymenaeus’ mistake was claiming that the resurrection was already finished while the old covenant system, which Paul calls a system of death, was still in place. That kind of claim could only weaken faith, not strengthen it. This is why Paul and Peter repeatedly urged believers to remain firm and patient speaking of an imminent judgment, vindication and coming, because they expected a real substantial change to occur within their own lifetime, not in some distant future. More on Paul’s condemnation of Hymenaeus and Philetus here.
Paul’s own preaching in Acts 17 does the opposite. He proclaims resurrection as already accomplished in Christ precisely in order to establish judgment, repentance, and responsibility. Resurrection, for Paul, does not erase accountability. It enforces it.
To collapse Paul’s teaching, Hymenaeus’ error, and preterist fulfilled eschatology into one category is not careful reading. It is importing assumptions into the text and then blaming the text for failing to conform to them.
The irony is hard to ignore. In Acts 17, Paul proclaims an already raised Christ whose resurrection establishes judgment and calls for repentance. The scoffers deny that claim. Proponents of fulfilled eschatology affirm it. When futurists use this passage to condemn preterism, they do not align themselves with Paul’s reasoning. They stand much closer to those who could not accept the implications of a resurrection already accomplished.
Disagreement is not the problem. Scripture invites examination. But Acts 17 cannot be used as a polemical weapon against preterism without twisting Paul’s own argument. A reading that condemns fulfilled resurrection theology while depending on a resurrection already accomplished is not defending orthodoxy. It is contradicting the text it claims to uphold.
In the very same chapter, Luke commends the Bereans for not settling on tradition but for searching the Scriptures to confirm that Paul’s claims about Christ’s suffering and resurrection truly fulfilled the Old Testament, making it especially ironic to invoke Acts 17 as a shortcut to dismiss careful examination.
