A Hyperpreterist Recants
Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 18-02-2010
Tagged Under : Paul's Post; resurrection of the dead
Perhaps the emphasis we’ve been placing on the explicit and clear Biblical teaching regarding the nature of the resurrection is catching on. A poster over at SGP recently wrote, “A little more than a year ago I gradually shifted from partial preterism to full preterism, but over last summer I gradually shifted back into partial preterism, because of various difficulties I had with full preterism (most notably fitting the “thousand years” into the 40-years, and the nature of the resurrection).”
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/the-nature-of-the-resurrection?xg_source=activity
The former hyperpreterist is absolutely correct. If you are going to be honest about Scripture you cannot but hold that the inspired text clearly states the self-same body which expires will be raised back to life. Indeed that is the very hope of Christianity. However, giving a glimpse into the rationalism hyperpreterists employ to deny the foundational teaching of Scripture “pastor” Joseph Vincent replies to his former colleague.
Cool bro! Actually, you can also find part of the Athanasius quote from the “House Divided” book…but it’s easy to find online too.
I wonder if Vincent had this quote in mind? Knowing the questionable scholarship of the authors of that book I doubt it. However, Athanasius wrote,
Moreover you know how I always put to rebuke those who had this custom, and exhorted them to cease from it. Bury my body, therefore, and hide it underground yourselves, and let my words be observed by you that no one may know the place but you alone. For at the resurrection of the dead I shall receive it incorruptible from the Saviour.
The above quote comes from the record Athanasius wrote to provide the church a biography of a great saint he had learned much from. Indeed Athanasius writes,
But since the season for sailing was coming to an end and the letter-carrier urgent, I hastened to write to your piety what I myself know, having seen him many times, and what I was able to learn from him, for I was his attendant for a long time, and poured water on his hands; in all points being mindful of the truth, that no one should disbelieve through hearing too much, nor on the other hand by hearing too little should despise the man.
No doubt as his mentor clearly understood, Athanasius understood the Bible clearly taught of the resurrection of the self-same body.
Vincent contines,
On Frost’s explanation of “soma”…I had the same thoughts on that. But the argument I have come to understand is very simple. I went to all the extra biblical usages of the word “soma” outside the bible around the time of Jesus and Paul, and before, and after, and what I found was that the word is used typically of the physical body, or the entire entity of a person (soul, spirit, body, possessions, etc…Especially when speaking of a slave).
That’s interesting it is likely because “Soma” is the Greek word for the body. Vincent continues
Paul no doubt uses the same word “soma” when speaking of “the body” of Christ in Romans, and in 1 Cor. 15, and elsewhere.
What other Greek word for the human body or any other kind of body would the Apostle Paul have used? Vincent contines,
However, we wouldn’t say that Paul is speaking of a “physical body of Christ” would we? No.
NO? Philippians 3:21, “the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body”. How anyone could read that text and concluded the Apostle Paul is not referring to the physical body of Jesus Christ is astounding.
Vincent continues,
Paul’s typical use of this word is very consistent, and he uses the “physical” aspect of Greco/Roman understanding of a “body” and applies the concept as an allegory for “the body” of Christ. So, when Paul uses it this way in 1 Cor. 11-14, it would follow then that he would carry the same theme into 1 Cor. 15 (wouldn’t that be consistent?). Jesus was the head, the first of the firstfruits of “the body” which was to be raised to incorruption. And so Paul goes into his whole analogy of “the body” in speaking of the resurrection of the dead (corruptible Israel…or Old Covenant Israel), which would be raised together with the N.T. believers (both those living and those who had died “IN CHRIST”). This is the same theme Paul addresses in Romans, and in Thessalonians, and elsewhere. Paul does not create a new doctrine in 1 Cor. 15 that he had not addressed in other passages.
Demonstrating the clear issue with most hyperpreterists I’ve encountered, Vincent doesn’t base his understanding of what the word means based on the immediate context the word is found within. Vincent rationalizes the meaning to fit his paradigm offering a superficial argument of consistency. The fact the word “soma” (Greek for body) which represents the concrete concept of a human body can also be used to metaphorically refer to an organized living mechanism like Christ’s church doesn’t mean where ever the word is found that is the Pauline usage of the term. Indeed we’ve previously pointed out New Testament Greek scholar James Dunn documents the majority use of the term Soma by Paul is referring to the human body.
Soma, (the Greek word for body) is one of the two most important Pauline terms in his talk of humankind. It occurs more than 50 times in the undisputed Paulines in what we might call the normal usage, that is, in reference to the human body of everyday existence. (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, James D.G. Dunn, Eerdmans, pg 55)
But in answer to Vincent’s question above, no your claim wouldn’t be consistent unless the immediate context requires the consistent application of a former usage. Indeed in chapter 9 the Apostle employs the term in its “normal” usage referring to his very own body, “discipline my body and keep it under control”. Are we to assume because the Apostle employed the word “soma” referring to his body that is what the body is meant to mean in chapters 11 – 14, the Apostles body? That would be consistent, wouldn’t it? Clearly not, the immediate context is what determines the meaning of the word. This is why when the Apostle refers to “my” body we know he is talking about his concrete body. But, when we turn to chapter 12 and read, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.”, we know the Apostle is drawing an analogy of the mechanism of the human body with the church as the corporate body of Christ. However, is this the usage we find in 1 Corinthians 15? Is the Apostle Paul still referring to “His” body as opposed to “our” body?
The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is discussing the restoration to life of dead people. 1st Century people understood dead people are identified by the fact their bodies had expired. Dead people coming back to life is not a commonly accepted concept in the 1st Century. When the Greeks heard of the Apostles testimony regarding Christ raising from the dead they “mocked”, Acts 17:32. And while neophyte Christians in Corinth may have accepted the fact Jesus Christ came back to life, because he was God, clearly there were some denying this event would occur to their fellow believers which is why the Apostle Paul asks, “how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” This denial by some is why the Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
The context is clear, the topic in 1 Corinthians 15 isn’t the church, the corporate body of Jesus Christ, that is “His” body. Notice the Apostle Paul doesn’t ask “which” body will the dead person be raised “into”, but what “kind” of body will they have when they are brought back to life. The “kind” of body would be an appropriate question when dealing with the concept dead people inclusive of their body would be brought back to life. No one in Corinth had ever seen a formerly dead person come back to life. The conventional wisdom of the day required the release of the spirit of man at death, the body being left in the grave. The restoration to life of the dead was a concept the pagans denied, but was the hope of Christianity. It is good to see a hyperpreterist employ a little rational thought to what the Bible actually states and then recant the heresy. Mark, welcome back to orthodoxy, the only rational, consistent view of the inspired text, I’ll bet it was a relief to get your beliefs back into cogent consistent Scriptual order.
Paul,
I’ve been blocked for some time now over at the SGP. So who is it that has recanted FP?
Dr. B…
Dr. Birks,
It is Mark Edward.
Phil
Thanks Phil. His name sounds familiar, but I don’t think i know him.
Dr. B…
Hey,
Dr. Birks, it is good to see you. Alan Bondar responding to Phil’s critque claims he believes in a “bodily” resurrection. This guy is amazing, doesn’t he realize he is deceiving the masses by his claim?
http://ad70.net/podcast/new-covenant-eyes/new-covenant-eyes-02-14-2010/
the fact is, he denies the reanimation of the believers body, (bodily resurrection) claiming the resurrection is about being raised into the “body” of Christ. Once again we get to the foundational assumption of the hyperpertist that they cannot support from Scripture, that being “His” body is “our” body. This guy is dishonest, pure and simple.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the heads up on Alan’s position and what appears to be an equivocation of the nature of the believers res. body. And of course, no one will be able to substantiate from scripture what you have wisely pointed out, that Christ’s body is somehow “our” body in the sense that you have been expressing it. Of course, my position on the biblical nature of the believers res. body is not , as you have put it, a “reanimation” of the earthly corpse. I realize that puts me in a category that is unacceptable by some, but I have not elected to “die on this hill” without very good exegetical reason. One thing that we must all agree on is this profound mystery-like biblical expression as to what the final form of the believers res. body will actually be like. I do affirm that it will be an individual (one to one ratio of expression), Christ-like and thereby glorified as Christ’s individual res. body is glorified. I think it is important for us to bear in mind the “advice” that the Apostle John gives us as to the exact nature of the res. body….”Beloved, NOW we are the sons of God, BUT IT DOES NOT YET APPEAR WHAT WE SHALL BE (exist as, in the totality in that res. state), but we know that when He shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John. 3:2. I.E. Christ-likeness on an individual level is the description that John does point us to here. And since John states that “it does not yet appear” what we shall be like, we need to leave room for those biblical possibilities without being too absolute as long as those possibilities do not take us outside of the text, which the Corporate Body View does. This lines up with Phil. 3:21 very succinctly as well, in that he will “transform our (pl) body( sing) of humility so it may have the same form as (summorphon) His glorious body.” I believe that this is what we all need to affirm.
Dr. B…
Dr. Birks,
It is always good to hear from you. Thank you for your input, if you listen to the discussion on the tape it gets almost criminal in how they deal with the concepts under discussion. Frankly, I don’t know how those guys can look in the mirror after postulating some of the stuff they did.
Regarding your position, yes I understand your take issue with my position. By “reanimation” of this self-same body I’m not meaning to suggest the weak, frail human body we have today is merely reanimated, (probably should have chosen my words better). Dr. Bavinck, after reviewing the fact the characteristics of a human body changes over the course of life, I think correctly points out, “in the case of all organisms, and therefore in the case of the human body, there has to be something that keeps its identity in the ever-ongoing process of metamorphosis. Then what is so absurd about believing that such an “organic mold” or “pattern of individuality” of the body remains even after death to serve as “seed” for the resurrection body? For it is a fact that the resurrection body does not, along (geestelijke) or celestial elements. The resurrection body does not come from heaven but from the earth. It is not a self-generated product of the spirit (pneuma) but it is and remains material. That matter, however, is no longer organized into perishable flesh and blood but into a glorified body.” (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 4, Herman Bavinck, Baker, pg 698)
I like what Bavinck says here about our earthly bodies or charactures (my word), that serve as a “seed” for the heavenly body. I disagree with him that it is not a body that comes to us out of heaven. That is a part of that “hill” that i earlier said that I would die on. For i am absolutely convinced that the resurrection body is resurrected out of heaven and I am very sure i have proven that in all exegetical honesty. (See ch. 4 of my book, “The End of Sin”, as well as my CD’s on 1 Cor. 15 in “The Second Coming Series.”)…The point i made earlier about the quote from the 1 John 3:2 passage, remains the balance point for us, i believe, relative to the “exact nature” of the final bodily resurrected state. “…it does not yet appear what we shall be.” Let’s face it, we can’t know for absolute certainty what that final existence will absolutely be like, because the scriptures do not give us that much exacting detail. I believe the scriptures point us in the right direction as to what that body will be like. But we cannot be 100%. My position at this stage is, let us be content and forthright with the knowledge that what the scripture does state about it. This can be at least affirmed as… 1. Individual, 2. Christ-like, 3. Glorified, 4. Heavenly corporeality rather than earthly corporeality, 5. That the abiding continuing factor between our bodies now and what we will have then, is the abiding presence of the regenerate human spirit. That is, our saved spirits, our real selves.
Dr. B…
I am with you all on this, and it is good to hear the Truth!
Though I have not been posting, I have been checking in, and this subject takes me back to my separation from the HP position which resulted in my being banned from their discussion groups. Seems now that Mark E has also come to a similar understanding, and I would expect that his time is short for being heard now as well as the rest of you who are no longer welcome.
I believe that this subject is the watershed subject between the Christian message and the Pagan message. HP is a Pagan message, masguerading as a Christian option! However they have denied the power of Christ in this very position, which we opppose beleiving that Christ can and will raise the dead in Christ, and reviving us to a glorified life. If Christ can not do this, He is not raised, and our faith is in vain! This is not a matter of discussing the timing of this event as HP would confuse the issues!
If though, as we believe, Christ can and will raise the dead, then we already live in the newness of eternal Life, which is our Glorious Hope. HP is a lie, and the those who present it, are theives who would steal our hope. I have had to be separated from this battle, inorder to allow my eyes of faith to see more clearly how trully deceptive is this teaching! I pray for those who are still lost and locked in Darkness, that their eyes may be opened to see the Glorious light of Christ and the Hope that has been laid up for us in Glory!
The Eastgate is open, The King is in Residence!
Whosoever will, may come in!
Gatekeeper
Dr. Birks,
Thank you for your input. I do appreciate your thoughts but am seriously puzzled over your position. The Apostle Paul is clear, “It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.” The “it” being the body. Dr. Thielston in his commentary on the passage points out, “Thus takes up and presupposes the whole context of vv. 37-41 concerning (a) the discontinuity between the old body which is “sown” 9v.37) and the new body which is raised (v.42)” (NIGTC, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Anthony C. Thielston, Eerdmanns, pg 1271) The “discontinuity” is the different characteristics of the body when sown as compared to when it, the body is raised.
Dr. Fitzmeyer after reviewing several different takes on the passage comments, “In any case, the human body “dies” as does a seed (v. 37), but that is not the end of it. It “is raised” and that means that it “is brought to life,” as is the seed (v. 36) by God (divine passive ZBG s236) (The Anchor Yale Bible, First Corinthians, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Yale, pg 595)
I could provide more from N.T. Wright and Gordon Fee, but I think I’ve made my point.
In follow-up to the comments referred to above in the OP a hyperperterist attempts to explain away the issue in this manner,
Clearly, what the hyperpreterist is leaning on is the metaphorical use of the Apostle to describe regeneration as resurrection. The hyperpreterist evidently assumes the regeneration of the spirit is what the resurrection of the dead is all about. However, a key problem with this explanation is it bears absolutely no value when it comes to 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 where the Apostle Paul explains to then living believers who presumably have already been spiritually “resurrected” that they will also be resurrected from the dead should they expire before the Lord returns. We see the exact same sentiment conveyed by the Apostle as his hope in Philippians 3:11, “by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead”
Are we to assume the Apostle Paul wasn’t spiritual “resurrected” when he wrote the book of Philippians? Or is there another aspect to resurrection dealing with the other aspect of man that needs to be redeemed, the physical aspect. The Apostle in Romans 8 writes, “we wait eagerly for…, the redemption of our bodies.” Perhaps it is time the hyperpreterist rethinks the pattern of resurrection in the New Testament.
Dr. Birks,
Was Christ’s body re-animated when He rose from the dead? If so, then it would only be consistent to believe that our Resurrection will be the same.
ICXC NIKA
Hi Paul,
I believe the definition of who or what the “it” is in V.’s 42-44 begins at V.’s 35-38. I have found that with most exegetical commentaries and in particular those with the pressupposed view of raising and subsequent transformation of the earthly body (directly denied by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:50, btw,), I have found that most all miss this crucial beginning point of Paul’s for the definition of “what’ is n fact “raised.” V. 38 points us to what it means to be raised… “But God gives it (masc. sing) a body as he wills, and to each of the seeds a body of it’s own.” The resurrection body is “given” by God. It is not something one already possesses. It is a gift given to the regenerate believer. Each “seed” gets a body of it’s own. That’s the Greek, direct and simple. Therefore once Paul defines his term in this case, what it means “to be raised”, he proceeds forward with the rest of his argument expecting that we will not define what it means to be “raised’ in any other way. So when we get down to V.’s 42-44, we understand that the “it” (which is not in the Greek text in the first place, but is a reflection of the words in the third person… “Sown”, “raised”– third person. No AUTE or some form of “it”.)… we understand that the “it” is in reference to the nature of the believer’s resurrection state… V. 44 tells us that at the same time the earthly body exists, there is a corresponding heavenly or resurrection body in heaven. “There ‘exists’ (estin) a natural body and there exists a spiritual (body).” The heavenly body will be the habitation of the regenerate believer. This is what Phil. 3:21 is pointing towards. V. 49 tells us that as we have borne (phoreo- to wear as clothing) the image of the earthly, so we will also “wear” the image if the heavenly.” The analogy of putting off and then putting on clothing - on over ones spirit- is what is in view here. V. 50, Paul concludes his argument as to why a renewed earthly body cannot exist in the heavenly realm… “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…” Even a “transformed” body of flesh cannot get in. The reason being is that the earthly body is antithetical to the environment of the heavenly realm. We are carbon in our earthly existence. Our earthly bodies are perfect for living in this carbon based realm. The heavenly realm is not a carbon based realm and the heavenly realm is not made up of materials that would allow the carbon based body to exist and subsist in. This is why Paul brings up the analogy on different kinds of flesh and celestial bodies in V.’s 39-41. Why can a star that falls into our atmosphere, not continue to exist in our carbon oxygenated environment? Because it was made to exist in the environment of space. It’s body is formed for that environment. Same thing with a fish taken out of it’s watery environment. It will die because it’s body was made to exist within the watery environment. Same thing is true for the believer. His earthly flesh and blood body was not made to exist in the heavenly environment. Some would say at this point, “But it’s changed to be made acceptable to the heaven;y environment.” That’s great, but there exists no scripture that says that. Only the opposite (V. 50). The fact of the matter is is that Paul teaches that the resurrection body that is given to the believer (V. 38), is given by way of an “exchange.” Both V.’s 51 and 52 say this. “We shall be changed.” The Greek word for “changed” is allasso. Look it up in any Greek lexicon. It can mean either a “change” or an “exchange.” The idea of “exchange ” for me, is what clearly fits best in Paul’s argument here. 2 Cor. 5:1-4 substantiates this as well.
All the citations, quotes from various commentaries from other exegetes that supports my position, are found in Ch. 4 and the end notes and bibliography of my book, “The End of Sin.” If anyone here would promise to actually read it, I am willing to bite it financially and send a complimentary copy to anyone here who requests it.
Ok, more than i normally write. Have at me…. :>)
Dr. B…
Dr. Birks,
I won’t get into the Greek with you for obvious reasons. I will focus my response out of a single commentary given I’ve already provided more than 1 which supports my position.
You write,
The quote I provided from Dr. Thiselton in commentary of v.42 states, “Thus takes up and presupposes the whole context of vv.37-41” What Dr. Thiselton points out is the contrast in characteristics of the body as it is sown verses raised. The distinction Dr. Thiselton draws regarding the text of v.42 isn’t as you suggest, “what it means to be “raised’ but the characteristics of the body “which is raised”.
The idiom “flesh and blood” isn’t a commentary on the material make-up of the body. The Apostle in context tells us what he means by the idiom, “nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”. The idiom is pointing out the body that has the characteristics of weak, perishable will not inherent the Kingdom, the body is transformed with characteristics of immortality. Dr. Thiselton points out “The LXX regularly uses flesh and blood to denote humankind in its weakness and vulnerability, and this is the sense Paul declares elsewhere that his revelation of gospel truth comes not from “flesh and blood” but from God.” (ibid, pg 1291)
Dr. Birks continues,
The Pauline argument in I Corinthians 15:35-58 is designed to refute the disbelief dead people would come back to life. The fact the body resurrected will have different characteristics than it had prior to being sown isn’t a commentary on the type of environment the body will occupy. The Apostle’s argument is to counter the disbelief people would one day come back to life. However, that doesn’t mean the body must die in order for the changes that will occur to the body to occur. This is the Apostle’s point in vv. 50-56. Not all will die, “We shall not all sleep,” but the bodies of all believers will be transformed, “but we shall all be changed”
Additionally, 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 doesn’t support the concept of “exchange”. The Apostle writes in v. 4, “we would be further clothed”, putting on something over what already exists. Indeed Dr. Harris in his commentary on 2 Corinthians translates the text, “we sigh…because we desire to put on [our heavenly dwelling] as an overgarment” (TNICTC, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Murray J. Harris, Eerdmans, pg 387) Why would the Apostle describe putting on the heavenly dwelling as an overgarment if indeed his concept was to “exchange” the body? However, if the Apostle is reinforcing something he already communicated just a few months prior which was “the mortal puts on immortality” the concept makes perfect sense.
Hey, I am coming in a little late & I am sure I am missing something in Kelly’s beliefs, but it seems that there are several things wrong with Kelly’s assertions.
1. Several of his sentences are quite hard to follow. He says, “I have found that most all miss this crucial beginning point of Paul’s for the definition of “what’ is n fact “raised.” Does he go on to tell us WHAT is in fact raised? No. He says, “V. 38 points us to what it means to be raised…” There is a huge difference between what is raised and what it means to be raised. For example, re: what is raised I would say the body. Re: what it means to be raised I would say it means to be imperishable, etc. v. 38 is still about the analogy. V42 is picking up the resurrection of the body.
2. No one is denying that it is God that raises the dead. “How are the dead raised?” By God.
3. No need to push Paul’s analogies/illustrations beyond their purpose in 36-41, which v 42 applies when Paul says “thus” or “so it is” with the resurrection of the dead. The analogies simply exist to take them from what they know to what they don’t believe. Like St Patrick appealing to the Shamrock for the doctrine of the Trinity. If you try to get stems, etc., into the Trinity than you are all over the place & missing the point of the illustration.
4. Re: “it”. This seems rather simple, as Paul has regularly pointed out. Given Kelly’s perspective, there is no transformation that takes place if what is sown is different from what is raised. The seed analogy shows their is unity and transformation between the sowing and the rising, so it is with the resurrection of the dead. In Kelly’s view of exchanging “it” was never “perishable” to have to put on the “imperishable”.
5. Disagree re: Kelly’s assertion about v. 50. “Flesh & blood” is simply humanity in its weakness, so, of course, the corrupt, rotting corpses aren’t going to inherit the eternal state: the perishable puts on the imperishable. The “true part of man” isn’t encased in a perishable body, which is put off only to put on the imperishable. No, this perishable PUTS ON the imperishable.
Whatever Kelly wants to be perishable, it is that that puts on the imperishable.
6. Re: allosso, it simply doesn’t fit Paul’s argument. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be exchanged, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be exchanged.” No, the idea is that there is, as Obama would say, change coming & not an exchange coming.
7. Finally, Kelly is wide when he says, “The analogy of putting off and then putting on clothing - on over ones spirit- is what is in view here.” Really? Then there is no continuity between sowing and raising & Paul’s parallels are destroyed. Kelly would need something like v 38 - “but God gives the spirit a body as he has chosen…the spirit of man is sown perishable, the spirit of man is raised imperishable. The spirit of man is sown in dishonor, the spirit of man is raised in glory…” Kelly’s great exchange has nothing to do with dying and rising.
v. 53 “For this perishable body must put on the imperishable and this mortal body must put on immortality.” You can almost see Paul patting his mortal, perishable body and saying it will put on imperishability and immortality. He is not discarding anything.
Hi Jnorm…
The difference between our bodies and Christ’s physical body relative to the subject of resurrection, is that while we are “promised” that our bodies will see decay and return to the dust (Gen. 3:19), Christ was the only recipient to the promise that his body would not see decay and rotting. (Ps. 16:10-12). So the “nature’ of his resurrection and ours is different.
I prefer not to use a non-biblical word like “reanimate” in a discussion such as this. Not a criticism mind you, I just believe it takes us outside of what scripture states as to the nature of the believer’s resurrection body.
Dr. B…
By way of follow-up, we mustn’t separate 35+ from v. 1-11. Christ’s “spirit” wasn’t exchanged from one body and put into another when he came forth from the tomb. This is the Gospel - Christ was raised from the dead. In Luke 24.5, the Angels ask, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” Was the dead Old Covenant Israel? Was “the dead” the “hadean realm”? No, it was the place where people put dead bodies! The angels go on to say, “He is not here, but has risen.” Were they saying that he exchanged his old, corruptible, mortal body for a new one? Absolutely not.
If Kelly is right, then dead men are not raised at all, but, at best, they are exchanged.
Hi Kelly,
My apologies - I responded to Kelly’s comments, thinking they were directed at me. I thought Kelly just made a typo with jnorm…UGH! Sorry about that. I just saw jnorm’s comments.
1. Re: “reanimate”. I didn’t use that word, but given the parameters of our English, I have a hunch that many of our words aren’t “Scriptural”. The issue isn’t whether our words are “Scriptural”, but whether the sum and substance of them are Scriptural. I don’t believe the resurrection of the dead is a mere reanimation of physical bodies just to die again. Rather, they are raised immortal. Besides, obviously something that was dead that is resurrected is reanimated, even if you want to say a “national resurrection”. For example, if the South was to rise again after its death, then everyone would see it as a “reanimation” of the life & culture of the South. The substance of “reanimation”, as long as it is not left to a mere reanimation, like Lazarus’, is fine.
2. I disagree re: the “nature” of the two resurrections, especially given Paul’s argument in 1 Co. Christ is the “firstfruits”. What good is a firstfruit if the its nature is different than the harvest? Could you see someone bringing in as a firstfruit a physical body, then later on bringing in some spirits & saying, “here is the harvest?” “Wait! You are trying swindle me.” That doesn’t work with the text.
Sorry to add another post, but if Kelly’s beliefs are right, then v. 53 & 54 would read something like this, “For this perishable body must be put off and then the spirit that is in this perishable body will put on the imperishable, and this spirit must put off the mortal body and the spirit will put on the immortal. When the perishable is put off and the imperishable put on, and the mortal is put off and the immortal put on, then…”
That just doesn’t make sense of Paul’s argument.
P.S. Kelly, if you happen to have chapter 4 in a pdf or word file, then I would love to read it & I promise to have an interaction with it right here.
Let me know.
Also, Jonathan is the same as J.R. It all depends on whether I am logged into wordpress or not.
Hi J.R.,
Thanks for letting me know that you are “two.” :>)
No, i’m afraid i don’t have it in any form other than the book. Still want it?
Dr. B…
Kelly,
A couple things:
1. Please email me jon . rollen at gmail dot com
2. “I disagree with him that it is not a body that comes to us out of heaven. That is a part of that “hill” that i earlier said that I would die on. For i am absolutely convinced that the resurrection body is resurrected out of heaven and I am very sure i have proven that in all exegetical honesty.” This is a radical redefinition of “the resurrection of the dead”. For it is not a resurrection of the dead at all, unless you place the dead in heaven.
Again, the Angels asked, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” If we are raised from the dead, then we are raised from that realm. That realm is not heaven.
I look forward to reading your book. I will read it and post my interactions with it here, so you can respond in kind.
Thanks.
Sam Frost comments on the post which generated the OP over at SGP,
Frost goes on to explain 3 options for the “dilemma” he creates in the opening paragraph. However, is that a dilemma. What does the condition of Christ’s resurrected body have to do with the “it” of 1 Corinthians 15? Is Sam suggesting Christ’s “soul” was what died for it to have been sown and then raised? I’m not sure why Sam doesn’t think this text applies to the “it” that is sown.
18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. John 2:18-22
Sounds like Jesus Christ thought his “it” would be destroyed and in 3 days raised back up.
At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter if Christ’s body still retains the scars or not because the believer is promised the “it” that is the raised body will be transformed by God, “to be like his glorious body”. Frost’s argument is nothing but a smoke screen to attack the “traditional” view. Oh, yeah, the reason it is the “traditional” view is because the words as read by those who read and understood the original languages understood 1 Corinthians to be addressing the body that is sown is the body that is raised.
I see some difficulty in Christ’s scars, but it is not as grand as Sam is trying to make it, but is Frost saved from a similar “dilemma”? For he tells us, “Paul is not contending for a ‘re-embodiment’ of a dead person with his body laid in the casket, but a re-embodiment of the dead-in-sins-person in the body of Christ (being made a ‘member’ of that body). That body died and was raised on the third day, and it is that body that was ‘given’ for the church to eat, absorb, and become one with.”
This is difficult to follow, b/c I don’t know if “THAT BODY” is the “dead-in-sins” body or “the body of Christ”, but either way, even if you consider Sam’s public admission of his struggle with sins, how is he carrying around the “dead-in-sins” blemishes as Christ’s incorruptible body? Is he telling us that “Christ’s resurrected body” still has sins and blemishes & corruption?
I would much prefer our “dilemma” than his.
J.R.,
Sam,’s point pf view on the nature of the raised “body” in 1 Cor. 15:35ff, has been corrected by me on a number of occasions, as I have done with all the “corporate body view” folks. What he is explaining that the resurrection is, actually took place when Christ arose and raised us up with him into newness of life. This is an AD 30 (approximately) action and has nothing to do with AD 70. See Rom. 6:3-6, and Eph. 2:6. We were raised with Christ from the grave and raised up (pre AD 70) to sit with him in the heavenlies. What has always amazed me is that my argument- and these texts- have always fallen on deaf ears.
Dr. B…
Dr. B,
Not all ears were deaf. :o)
What you bring up is similar to an issue I had as an HP. I’ve stated that what I have now, spiritual life, is what the HP claims to have too, except I can look forward to a glorified resurrection body and a transformed earth. The HP seems to have simply changed the spiritual reality of eternal life from the cross to AD70. Otherwise, nothing else has changed.
We cn see this when the HP goes hunting proof texts from the early church. It seems inevitably they end up with quotes which speak of the spiritual life the believe has but they will claim the early church was really espousing full preterism, they just didn’t understand thats what they were doing.
Hope you and Kari are doing well!
Blessings,
Sharon
Sharon,
That is a great testimony.
Sjharon,
Yes, I agree with Paul: That is a great testimony. Kari and i are doing great! Thanks for your “hope” for us. :>)
Even though various forms and developments of “preterism” are throughout the writings of the history of the church on the eschatological subjects, it was the writings that began mid second century that began our present historical course of delimiting the importance of the AD 70 event. It wasn’t until mid second century that we began to see a new formalized shift as to all things eschatological being still in the future. “The Shepherd of Hermas”, the writings of Justin Martyr, 2 Clement, were the first historical non-canonical writings that presented a still future second coming. There was nothing prior to those writings that espoused such a view point. What we had was the NT documents. Therefore, the struggle within the writings of the church fathers and others relative to this subject. They conceived of the event of the parousia in Greek naturalistic thought forms and had dismissed the Hebraic nature of the descriptive metaphore. So when sun moon and stars were spoken of in scripture for instance, it became (always) a reference to the cosmic universe and pjhysically created associates. Same thing with the heavens and the earth. In any case, what they believed as a pressupposition (natural), was often seen as a direct contradiction to what the scriptures were saying. Therein lies the preteristic statements that HP’s quote assuming that the church was fully knowledgeable as to a supposed FP proposition.
Dr. B…
Dr. Birks,
Are you aware of the testimony of the grand nephews of Jesus Christ before Caesar?
Hey Kelly,
I think your treatment of “Greek naturalist thought” and “Hebraic metaphor” is over done, although I am sure the “covenant creation” guys would thank you for it.
1. Did it really “become (always) a reference to the cosmic universe”?
2. Was the “Greek naturalist” understanding really not existent in Judaism prior to that point?
3. I think even within 2 Peter the idea is that the “cosmic” order continues to go on & not just a “covenantal order”, i.e. Mosaic. “For ever since the fathers (i.e. Patriachs) fell asleep all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact…” He then appeals to “cosmic” and not just “covenantal” destruction. There was a stream of thought within Judiasm that was “naturalist” and that is found 2 Peter &, I believe, in the OT prophets &, also, in the bodily resurrection of the dead.