The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

This was originally posted July 2006 but the information is so darned freakishly awesome, I had to repost. It took me forever to add the new tags to this post.

Continuing in The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright:

Page 301

It is important to spell out the logic of what he [Paul] is saying, because in 2 Corinthians all this is controversial.  (a) He believes, as a good Pharisaic Jew, that the creator God raises the dead, in the normal sense.  (b) He believes this all the more strongly because he believes that God has arty done in the case of Jesus.  (c) He believes that he is living between Jesus’ resurrection and his own future resurrection.  (d) He therefore claims, and discovers in practice, that God’s power to raise the dead is at work in the present time, one of its results of being that God can and sometimes does rescue his people from what had seemed imminent and certain death.  This is inaugurated eschatology and the service of urgent pastoral need.

Page 314

Anything other than some kind of bodily resurrection, therefore, is simply unthinkable, not only at the level of meaning of individual verses and phrases but at the level of the chapter’s argument as a whole.  ‘Resurrection’ does not refer to some part or aspect of the human being not dying but instead going on into a continuing life in a new mode; it refers to something that does die and it is then given a new life.  This distinction, so often ignored and both popular and scholarly treatments of the topic, and of this chapter, is vital.

The overall structure and logic of the chapter thus confirms what we would have guessed from the direction in which the rest of the letter points: that this is intended by Paul is a long argument in favor of the future bodily resurrection…. There was, in any case, no indication in Judaism either before or after Paul that ‘resurrection’ could mean anything other than ‘bodily’; if Paul was going to argue for something so oxymoronic as a ‘non–bodily resurrection’ he would have done better not to structure his argument such a way as to give the appearance of articulating a Pharisaic, indeed biblical, worldview in which the goodness of the present creation is reaffirmed in the age to come.  Since that is the kind of argument he has composed, at the conclusion of a letter which constantly points this way, no question should remain.  When Paul said ‘resurrection’, he meant ‘bodily resurrection’.

Read the rest of this entry »

As you know, I am one of the owners of the TheologyWeb debate forum. I don’t get much time to actually join in many discussions, the time I spend there is more on giving input on administrative issues. But there was a thread in which some were discussing the nature of death with regard to the Fall in a non-Young Earth Creationist interpretation. The thread was an open thread meaning all were welcome to participate being atheist, general theist, b’hai, Christian, heretic, etc. I noted that some in the thread were very breezily dismissing the importance of the badness of physical death, so I felt compelled to step in with this:

Not that this may matter to some participants, but just to throw a splash of cold water here— any view that would claim that physical death is not the enemy referred to in 1 Corinthians is outright heretical.

I don’t expect the nonChristians to care so much about orthodoxy (or those who have already accepted other heresy— not saying anyone has, I only skimmed the thread but saw some question about denying the deity of Christ, don’t know if anyone does, but if they do, I doubt this additional heresy would bother them).

Yes, spiritual death is an enemy, but the “last enemy” is without a doubt physical death in Christian orthodoxy. The only reason I am butting in with a drive-by post is that this is a pet topic of mine dealign with it frequently with hyperpreterists who have deny that physical death is an enemy since they deny the physical resurrection, and sorry folks, denying that physical death is an enemy leads to having to be consistent to deny the necessity of a physical resurrection of all, and once you do that, well, you ain’t in Christianity any longer.

A Catholic member then asked me specifically what portion of 1 Corinthians I was referring to, and I posted this:

The entirety of 1 Corinthians 15, it is a unified whole so I would not just pick a verse or two as it is an extended argument of Paul speaking to the final consummation of all things. This subject (not the particular subject of the thread but of the subject of the general resurrection) has been the focus of my study for well over a decade, and it was a peculiar obsession of the early Church, which as a Catholic, I am sure you are well aware. Well before Christological heresy became a huge problem, spiritualizing of death and of the resurrection was, and it has been, and universally has been, declared that denial of the physicality of this is a potentially damnable heresy that places one squarely outside the Christian faith. I am using the word Christological heresy narrowly here as I believe and so does the Athanasian Creed declare, the denial of the last-enemy-ness of physical death to be a Christology heresy that place one outside the Faith.

Here is one representative mere sample of the type of rhetoric that the early Christians engaged in on this topic. (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho)

“I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and (believe) that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines (delivered) by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this (truth), and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are (only) called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, (as) the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”

Yes Justin confirms things I don’t, such as a literal millennial reign, but he doesn’t condemn that as heresy, and in other writings admit that there are true Christians who disagree. But the Bible and the early Church, and the Nicene Church, and the medieval Church, and what’s left of the modern speaks with one voice on the physicality of the resurrection.

As N.T. Wright put it

You may be allowed to eat meat offered to idols, but you cannot deny the future bodily resurrection and claim that denial as an allowable Christian option.

I used to be much more interested in YEC than I am now. But when investigating into this area, I get very worried when I see people blithely (not talking about the nonChristians in this thread because they have their own worldview which I am not now presently critiquing, I am doing an in-house post) de-emphasizing the wrongness and enemy-ness of physical death in order to get a nonYEC reading of Genesis. I am not saying you have to do that to be a nonYEC. I am saying some nonYEC DO do that, and they gut the faith when they do so. That is why this issue is important, not because of the age of earth per se, etc etc etc, whether God used evolution, blah, blah, blah, but because this is where the Gospel story starts, and some don’t think twice about tinkering with it here and not seeing how it decimates it when it comes to the New Testament.

I ended with noting

And I realize I am sending the thread into somewhat of a sidetrack, but I wanted to answer Catholicity’s question. I will not sidetrack the thread further as such discussion more properly belongs in a theology section I suppose rather than Natural Science, I just felt it prudent to throw a cautionary note of exhortation to the brethren.

Here is the thread if you are interested

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?151926-Question-for-non-YEC

Note to hyperpreterists, if you think this is a perfect opportunity to jump and evangelize your heresy, nope. You certainly can promote hyperpreterism in the unorthodox theology section though if you wish. We have many heretical members. I am just noting that hijacking the Natural Science thread won’t be happening, and my posts were at the forbearance of the thread starter.

This is a great article that I really related to. Check it out.

Continuing with N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God

Page 282

Who then is able to receive such teaching, such wisdom? The mature (teleioi, 2.6); the ’spiritual’ to (pneumatikoi, 2.13). This leads Paul to the fundamental contrast between two different types of people, a contrast which points all the way ahead to the central contrast between the two different types of ‘body’ in chapter 15: the ’spiritual’ and the ’soulish’, and pneumatikos and the psychikos. … the distinction between psyche and pneuma, then, cannot simply be read off the surface of a lexicon of ancient Greek (still less, for that matter, in terms of what the words ’soul’ and ’spirit’ mean to an average reader in the modern Western world). Paul is defining his terms as he goes along, and the critical grid of definition is the eschatological one.

Page 283

But when he described someone as ’spiritual’ (pneumatikos) he does not simply mean that they are more in touch with their own ’spirit’ then the ’soulish’ person is, but that the Spirit of the living God has opened their hearts and minds to receive, and be changed by, truth and power from the age to come.

Page 285

This continuity gives specific focus to several aspects of 1 Corinthians, leading in the end to what would otherwise be a non sequitur at the end of chapter 15: because of the future resurrection, get on with your work in the present (15.58)! Paul believes that with the resurrection of the Messiah the new world has already begun; that the Spirit comes from that future into the present, to shape, prepare and enable people in churches for that future; and the work done in the power of the Spirit in the present will therefore last into the future. This is none other than a pattern of the resurrection as we have seen articulated throughout the other letters.

DDW Note: The continuity mentioned above deals with the breaking in of the new age into the present age… The gospel-project is “(from one point of view) about building a new Temple: the long-awaited eschatological dwelling-place for the divine name among all the nations, and this project will be completed precisely through the resurrection.” The chapter then closes with another contrast between the wisdom of the present age and the glories of the world to come, which already belongs to Christians because they belong to the Messiah (3.18-23).

Page 289

In particular, the argument of 6.12-20 depends on Paul’s belief that what is done with the present body matters precisely because it is to be raised. The continuity between the present body and the future resurrection body is what gives weight to the present ethical imperative:

The body is not meant to for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. God both raised the Lord, and will also raise us through his power. Do not know that your bodies are members of the Messiah? Shall I therefore take the Messiah’s members and make them members of a prostitute? Certainly not! Don’t you know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body? For the Scriptures says ‘the two shall become one flesh’. But the one who joins himself to the Lord becomes one spirit [with him].

Verse 14 is the key. The emphasis of the Greek, hard to bring out in English, is as crucial here as in chapter 15: the ‘both… and…’ joins together the resurrection of Jesus and that of believers, both of them accomplished (as usual in Paul) by the divine power (dynamis). Clearly Paul assumes that the body — the same body which can be abused in immoral behavior — is meant ‘for the Lord’; this refers, it seems, (a) to the eventual union with the Messiah, anticipated in baptism, which will take place in the resurrection, and also (b) to the service to the Messiah which is was to take place (as in the Romans 6:12-14; 12.1-2) during the present time.

It strikes me, sometimes, how much hyperpreterism necessarily, by its core, gives support to or concedes the point of Jehovah’s Witnesses on a point of doctrine which even  the heretical preterists agree is heretical that being, the bodily resurrection of Christ.  What exactly do I mean?  Most hyperpreterists confess (at least on the face of it, though according to the Apostle Paul, they do not) the bodily resurrection of Christ.  I presume that the majority of them would also concede the theological necessity of the actual bodily resurrection of Christ, not merely the scriptural support.  For example, there are some things which Scripture simply speaks of, but make no theological imperative for things to be so, in other words, they could have been otherwise without losing any scriptural doctrinal ground.  The bodily resurrection is not one of those doctrines.  Not only is it factually taught, it is doctrinally necessary for Christ to have been bodily raised to have completed our redemption.  I presume that most hyperpreterists would concede that point.  What is amazing is that they do not see, however, what follows inexorably from that, i.e., our bodily resurrection is just as theologically necessary.  One follows from the other.  That is exactly the  Apostle Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 15 - without the bodily resurrection of believers, there is no redemption.  And that is why hyperpreterism is, at its heart, in addition to its many shades of other heresies,  both foundational and/or peripheral, another Gospel.  Which is no Gospel at all.

“Romans is suffused with resurrection.  Squeeze this letter at any point, and resurrection spills out; hold it up to the light, and you can see Easter sparkling all the way through.” N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (page 241).  Wright brings out an oft-missed resurrection passage in the opening language of the Book of Romans.  In that passage it is stated that Jesus was marked out as the son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead.  As in many other passages that use the phrase “resurrection of the dead,” the Greek literally means “from the resurrection of the dead ones.”  This, once again, contrary to Hymenaean assumptions, completely parallels Jesus’ resurrection with ours.  As Wright stated, “this was, in embryo, ‘the resurrection of the dead’, of all the dead.”  Page 243 footnote 77 notes also that in this usage there is an allusion to the firstfruit imagery 1 Corinthians Chapter 15.

Okay when I started going cover to cover through N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God I already knew it (to borrow a phrase from a very colourful anti-preterist rant I found) decimated the unmitigated twaddle of hyperpreterism but it goes over and beyond what I expected. The book is an utter gem. I am somewhat abashed that when I first started it I was somewhat critical in that it does start very very very slow. But don’t be fooled, while the first section may be a yawner, it gets good…. and boy does it get good.

I have been posting tidbits here rather than just simply keeping my own personal notes for future reference. I will continue to do so until I am done.

Page 146 - Judaism was never a religion of speculation or private devotion only. It was rooted in daily, weekly and annual observances and worship. At the heart of worship, open to all Jews whether or not they could get to the Temple with any regularity, was the life of prayer. And the central prayers, in the first century as in the twenty-first, were and are the Shema Israel (’Hear, O Israel…’) and the Tefillah, the ‘prayer’ of all prayers, also know as the Shemoneh Esre or ‘Eighteen Benedictions’.

The second of these Benedictions is quite explicit: Israel’s god is the Lord who gives life to the dead:

You are might, humbling the proud; strong, judging the ruthless; you live for evermore, and raise the dead; you make the wind to return and the dew to fall; you nourish the living, and bring the dead to life; you bring forth salvation for us in the blinking of an eye. Blessed are you, O Lord, who bring the dead to life.

That prayer CANNOT be wrenched from it Pharisaic mooring. Those words meant something specific, and that something is irreconciable with hyperpreterist mythology. It is facsinating that the “blinking of an eye” is tied here to resurrection - I hear echoes of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 - that wondrous passage of our future hope, without which we are still dead in our sins.