1 Cor. 15: Foundational Passage for Resurrection

[asterisktom]

It might be helpful to once again look at 1 Corinthians 15, since posters have once again quoted this as possible proof against my preterist view. But, far from being an obstacle, this chapter is actually foundational for what I believe.

Where, exactly, do my opponents derive physical resurrection bodies from this chapter? By contrast, we believe that the physical body will be a thing of the past, to be replaced by a spiritual body.

Paul wrote, 15:36-38:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

One person wrote to me elsewhere that Paul argues for "continuity" here. I agree. But what kind of continuity is it? The continuity is in the spirit, not in the flesh. The flesh will be destroyed, dissolved - λύω. Our souls are and will exist forever. - somewhere. The continuity is in our invisible part, 2 Cor. 4:16 - 5:2.

Let's look more closely at that very passage that many say Preterists avoid in Greek, especially verses 42-44:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

Notice that this resurrection of the dead has a fourfold contrast:
It is sown in corruption (φθορά); it is raised in incorruption (ἀφθαρσία):
It is sown in dishonour (ἀτιμία); it is raised in glory (δόξα):
it is sown in weakness (ἀσθένεια); it is raised in power (δύναμις):
It is sown a natural (ψυχικός) body; it is raised a spiritual (πνευματικός) body.

I realize that the sticking point here is in that ψυχικός. But I want to first note that this sowing, described in fourfold aspect, is not at the time of death. A corpse, for instance, would not be characterized as "weak", but lifeless. Further proof that Paul is not thinking of sowing as dying is the fact that he had earlier (vs. 36) distinguished the two, making one contingent upon - but not simultaneous with - the other.

All four of those things being sown - all part of our fallen nature - are to be destroyed.

"Selfish" is like "soulish" in that they both share a worse connotation. They are both products of the Fall. ψυχικός is found here in the New Testament: 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44 (twice); 46; James 3:15; Jude 10, 19. In all of these ψυχικός is shown to be undesirable, art of those things that have no part - even in reconstituted form - in the New Creation.

In this chapter 15 we have a series of contrasts between the new life and the old, the things we will become contrasted to those things we are being saved from.

Those good qualities of the new creature (v. 42-44) are: incorruption, glory, power, spiritual. Then we read about the originators of the two classes, Adam and Christ. Adam "became a living being". Christ, "a life-giving Spirit." KJV unhelpfully provides "became", which is not at all the point.

Then we come to a very important, oft-overlooked, detail. Overlooked in application, the origins of these two persons:

"The first man is of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) ."

This passage is a continuation of verse 40: somata epigeia and somata epourania now become "ek ges" and "ex ouranou". This preposition (ek, ex - the forms only differ because of euphonics) shows origin. Adam came from the earth, from the dust. This brings to mind the very passage from Genesis. The "Second Adam" came from heaven. Note: In both cases, the origins determine the essence of who these two are - and (v. 48) the essence of their "followers".

Verse 49 says that "we shall [or "let us"] bear the image of the heavenly man" (the Second Adam, from heaven).

Now here is our (Preterist) application:

We shall be like Christ. This is Christlikeness, a biblical term.
And what is Christ like - according to this passage? He is like He was when He came to Earth. He is spiritual.
Was Christ fleshly before he came here to Earth? No. He was pure Spirit.
We - according to this passage - will also be like Him.
Pure spirit.

We cannot have part Adam's essence ("dust") and part Christ's, seeing that we could not then "enter into the Kingdom of God". "Dust" has to do with "flesh and blood", not spirit.

 

[Aaron]

Are you saying the Resurrection has occurred?

 

[asterisktom]

Are you saying the Resurrection has occurred?

Yes. But that is only part of what I am saying above.

There are actually two events to consider: What happened at AD70 and what happens to every believer when he dies, no longer has a physical body. It is that latter part that I am most concerned with here, because that is the question that was asked (that is, What kind of body will we have after we die?).

 

[percho]

It might be helpful to once again look at 1 Corinthians 15, since posters have once again quoted this as possible proof against my preterist view. But, far from being an obstacle, this chapter is actually foundational for what I believe.

Where, exactly, do my opponents derive physical resurrection bodies from this chapter? By contrast, we believe that the physical body will be a thing of the past, to be replaced by a spiritual body.

Paul wrote, 15:36-38:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

One person wrote to me elsewhere that Paul argues for "continuity" here. I agree. But what kind of continuity is it? The continuity is in the spirit, not in the flesh. The flesh will be destroyed, dissolved - λύω. Our souls are and will exist forever. - somewhere. The continuity is in our invisible part, 2 Cor. 4:16 - 5:2.

Let's look more closely at that very passage that many say Preterists avoid in Greek, especially verses 42-44:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

Notice that this resurrection of the dead has a fourfold contrast:
It is sown in corruption (φθορά); it is raised in incorruption (ἀφθαρσία):
It is sown in dishonour (ἀτιμία); it is raised in glory (δόξα):
it is sown in weakness (ἀσθένεια); it is raised in power (δύναμις):
It is sown a natural (ψυχικός) body; it is raised a spiritual (πνευματικός) body.

I realize that the sticking point here is in that ψυχικός. But I want to first note that this sowing, described in fourfold aspect, is not at the time of death. A corpse, for instance, would not be characterized as "weak", but lifeless. Further proof that Paul is not thinking of sowing as dying is the fact that he had earlier (vs. 36) distinguished the two, making one contingent upon - but not simultaneous with - the other.

All four of those things being sown - all part of our fallen nature - are to be destroyed.

"Selfish" is like "soulish" in that they both share a worse connotation. They are both products of the Fall. ψυχικός is found here in the New Testament: 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44 (twice); 46; James 3:15; Jude 10, 19. In all of these ψυχικός is shown to be undesirable, art of those things that have no part - even in reconstituted form - in the New Creation.

In this chapter 15 we have a series of contrasts between the new life and the old, the things we will become contrasted to those things we are being saved from.

Those good qualities of the new creature (v. 42-44) are: incorruption, glory, power, spiritual. Then we read about the originators of the two classes, Adam and Christ. Adam "became a living being". Christ, "a life-giving Spirit." KJV unhelpfully provides "became", which is not at all the point.

Then we come to a very important, oft-overlooked, detail. Overlooked in application, the origins of these two persons:

"The first man is of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) ."

This passage is a continuation of verse 40: somata epigeia and somata epourania now become "ek ges" and "ex ouranou". This preposition (ek, ex - the forms only differ because of euphonics) shows origin. Adam came from the earth, from the dust. This brings to mind the very passage from Genesis. The "Second Adam" came from heaven. Note: In both cases, the origins determine the essence of who these two are - and (v. 48) the essence of their "followers".

Verse 49 says that "we shall [or "let us"] bear the image of the heavenly man" (the Second Adam, from heaven).

Now here is our (Preterist) application:

We shall be like Christ. This is Christlikeness, a biblical term.
And what is Christ like - according to this passage? He is like He was when He came to Earth. He is spiritual.
Was Christ fleshly before he came here to Earth? No. He was pure Spirit.
We - according to this passage - will also be like Him.
Pure spirit.

We cannot have part Adam's essence ("dust") and part Christ's, seeing that we could not then "enter into the Kingdom of God". "Dust" has to do with "flesh and blood", not spirit.

Was the first man Adam created before the, "fall," soulish or spirit?

Jesus Christ born of the virgin Mary, the one who came in flesh, the one who came in the water and in the blood, says that his Father, whatever that means, is the one who the Jews said was their God. Jesus also says his Father, whatever that means, is Spirit the God, and is to be worshiped in Spirit and Truth.

Being Jesus to date is the only man born of woman to have experienced the resurrection to die no more Rom 6:9 no more to return to corruption Acts 13:34 is this verse; Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:46, speaking of Jesus?

 

[Aaron]

A corpse, for instance, would not be characterized as "weak", but lifeless.

Tom will not be persuaded, so this is to the rest, and it will fit on a 3x5 index card. What is quoted above is arbitrary and a non sequitur. There are many such logical fallacies in his verbosity, and he relies heavily upon them in his hermeneutics. The physical body, dead or alive, is weak, and corruptible and natural. It's planted in that state. But when IT is raised, it is strong, incorruptible and spiritual. So when someone plants a kernel of corn, something comes up other than that kernel, but what rose came from that kernel. The stalk didn't simply appear out of thin air. So it is with the Resurrection. What comes up is different and glorified, yes, but it was made from what was planted.

As far as the mind one should have toward Tom, and Preterism if the foolishness he is spewing is a central plank of the theology, I'll simply refer you to 2 Thess. 2 and a good commentary, e.g. Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Calvin, etc.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom will not be persuaded, so this is to the rest, and it will fit on a 3x5 index card. What is quoted above is arbitrary and a non sequitur. There are many such logical fallacies in his verbosity, and he relies heavily upon them in his hermeneutics. The physical body, dead or alive, is weak, and corruptible and natural. It's planted in that state. But when IT is raised, it is strong, incorruptible and spiritual. So when someone plants a kernel of corn, something comes up other than that kernel, but what rose came from that kernel. The stalk didn't simply appear out of thin air. So it is with the Resurrection. What comes up is different glorified, yes, but it was made from what was planted.

As far as the mind one should have toward Tom, and Preterism if the foolishness he is spewing is a central plank of the theology, I'll simply refer you to 2 Thess. 2 and a good commentary, e.g. Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Calvin, etc.

Sure, go the ad hominem route rather than deal with even a part of my scripture and application (to you, mere "verbosity").

This inability to answer is in itself an answer. My last comment to you, Aaron. I'm just not interested in arguing. And that is all I get from you, not really substantial disagreement, just snippy barbs and insults.

I haven't used my penalty box in months, but I guess I will make an exception with you.

 

[percho]

Tom will not be persuaded, so this is to the rest, and it will fit on a 3x5 index card. What is quoted above is arbitrary and a non sequitur. There are many such logical fallacies in his verbosity, and he relies heavily upon them in his hermeneutics. The physical body, dead or alive, is weak, and corruptible and natural. It's planted in that state. But when IT is raised, it is strong, incorruptible and spiritual. So when someone plants a kernel of corn, something comes up other than that kernel, but what rose came from that kernel. The stalk didn't simply appear out of thin air. So it is with the Resurrection. What comes up is different and glorified, yes, but it was made from what was planted.

As far as the mind one should have toward Tom, and Preterism if the foolishness he is spewing is a central plank of the theology, I'll simply refer you to 2 Thess. 2 and a good commentary, e.g. Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Calvin, etc.

The verse to be dealt with.

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

How are being raised the dead ones. Once living souls, Larry, Curly and Mo.
To what yet body they (the once living souls, the dead ones) are coming.

 

[percho]

double post sorry

 

[asterisktom]

The verse to be dealt with.

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

How are being raised the dead ones. Once living souls, Larry, Curly and Mo.
To what yet body they (the once living souls, the dead ones) are coming.

The answer is right here:
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

We have a contrast between the physical (Adam) and the spiritual (Second Adam). First came the natural (physical), then comes the spiritual.

We need to stop interpreting these verses in the manner we were taught, but we need to just look at them afresh.

 

[tyndale1946]

Yes. But that is only part of what I am saying above.

There are actually two events to consider: What happened at AD70 and what happens to every believer when he dies, no longer has a physical body. It is that latter part that I am most concerned with here, because that is the question that was asked (that is, What kind of body will we have after we die?).

I am partial preterist and like to know what you are going to do with these scriptures regarding a bodily physical resurrection. As far as I know these scriptures have not been addressed.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51: And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
This is why I am historical partial and not a full preterist
52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints that slept arose,
53: And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Did these resurrected saints have the same resurrected body that Jesus Christ has? Did they ascend with Christ? According to scripture they couldn't die twice. Did Lazarus?
Hebrews 9:27 And it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgement:

Seems to me there is a conflict between Matthew 27:50-53 & I Cor 15:35-58.

Not trying to start an argument, looking only for clarification and the truth as you and other see it.

 

[asterisktom]

I am partial preterist and like to know what you are going to do with these scriptures regarding a bodily physical resurrection. As far as I know these scriptures have not been addressed.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51: And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
This is why I am historical partial and not a full preterist
52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints that slept arose,
53: And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Did these resurrected saints have the same resurrected body that Jesus Christ has? Did they ascend with Christ? According to scripture they couldn't die twice. Did Lazarus?
Hebrews 9:27 And it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgement:

Seems to me there is a conflict between Matthew 27:50-53 & I Cor 15:35-58.

Not trying to start an argument, looking only for clarification and the truth as you and other see it.

The ones who were resurrected in Matt. 27 were not what Paul was writing of in 1 Cor 15. Rather I think that this earlier event was a testifying miracle just like the resurrection of Lazarus. As such, there was a need for them to be physical and visible, just like Lazarus's - and Christ's. These three resurrections had the purpose of testimony.

The resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 has a different purpose, and is of a different nature.

As far as Heb. 9:27 is concerned, I believe we have a basically stated truth that is,however, not strictly always true. There are people who have died twice. One example is the widow of Nain's son. Christ resurrected him but - unless we are willing to believe he is still alive (!) - he must have died again.

 

[Aaron]

The verse to be dealt with.

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Paul said that's a foolish question, and points us to nature for instruction. A farmer or a gardener plants a seed in the hope that something will come from that seed. If I plant a bean, that which springs up is nothing at all like that which I buried. I buried a smal, dry, hardened kidney-shaped "pebble," but what springs up is a succulent, lively, climbing stalk or vine in nature nothing like what was buried, but yet it came from that which I buried, and is yet a bean.

 

[percho]

I am partial preterist and like to know what you are going to do with these scriptures regarding a bodily physical resurrection. As far as I know these scriptures have not been addressed.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51: And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
This is why I am historical partial and not a full preterist
52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints that slept arose,
53: And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Did these resurrected saints have the same resurrected body that Jesus Christ has? Did they ascend with Christ? According to scripture they couldn't die twice. Did Lazarus?
Hebrews 9:27 And it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgement:

Seems to me there is a conflict between Matthew 27:50-53 & I Cor 15:35-58.

Not trying to start an argument, looking only for clarification and the truth as you and other see it.

Did the boy Elisha raised from the dead die again? Jairus's daughter, did she die again? What about Tabitah who Peter raised, did she die again?
\
There is a reason Jesus is said to be first born from the dead. It is different from resurrection.

 

[percho]

Paul said that's a foolish question, and points us to nature for instruction. A farmer or a gardener plants a seed in the hope that something will come from that seed. If I plant a bean, that which springs up is nothing at all like that which I buried. I buried a smal, dry, hardened kidney-shaped "pebble," but what springs up is a succulent, lively, climbing stalk or vine in nature nothing like what was buried, but yet it came from that which I buried, and is yet a bean.

I agree.


And the same is said of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Jesus gave his sinless life, and Jesus received life again from his Father by being born from the dead spiritual.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:29 The prophet like unto Moses spoke this.

Jesus who knew no sin, and came into the world in a corruptible body, died the death assigned to the first man Adam.

By grace are ye saved through the faith.

God, the Father of Jesus, raised Jesus from the death, assigned to Adam, raised him to die no more, death has no more dominion over him, raised him no more to return to corruption.

This was done at the resurrection of Jesus when he became the firstborn from the dead. "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee".

Jesus the once living soul, in the figure of Adam, is the new creation of man.

Jesus became the faith of God the Father when raised from the dead after learning and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus, is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

He wasn't born of Mary that way, he was born under the law and he learned and became.

Before the faith came, man was kept under the law, the law being his schoolmaster. After the coming of the faith, man is no longer under the schoolmaster, he is under grace through the faith that came. Gal 3:23-25 Rom 6:14

The what is man verse from Psalms and Hebrews is about the firstborn man from the dead and those born like him as being the inheritors of all things, not the first man Adam.

 

[Greektim]

The answer is right here:
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

We have a contrast between the physical (Adam) and the spiritual (Second Adam). First came the natural (physical), then comes the spiritual.

We need to stop interpreting these verses in the manner we were taught, but we need to just look at them afresh.

You are not looking at the afresh. You are so influenced by neo-platonic dualism of material and spiritual that you think what is so obvious to you is in reality foreign to the Ancient Near Easterners who wrote Scripture.

 

[asterisktom]

You are not looking at the afresh. You are so influenced by neo-platonic dualism of material and spiritual that you think what is so obvious to you is in reality foreign to the Ancient Near Easterners who wrote Scripture.

OK. Got it. We'll just disagree on this. You have a low view of Scripture.

 

[Greektim]

OK. Got it. We'll just disagree on this. You have a low view of Scripture.

What the...??? What does your worldview have to do w/ my view of Scripture???

That is the most asinine thing you've ever said.

Clearly you don't know much about the difference of ancient near eastern worldviews and the western neo-platonic world views you bring into Scripture. Study it.

And perhaps the "tradition" you rail against is right b/c it is following the worldview of its predecessors: the apostles!

Every criticism you throw against us can be touted against you. Except your tradition is an unknown philosophical worldview that borders on gnosticism. And if what you are saying is true, then the gnostic gospel accounts would fit into the NT canon quite well. You should read them. They fit your theological schemata quite well.

 

[asterisktom]

What the...??? What does your worldview have to do w/ my view of Scripture???

That is the most asinine thing you've ever said.

Clearly you don't know much about the difference of ancient near eastern worldviews and the western neo-platonic world views you bring into Scripture. Study it.

And perhaps the "tradition" you rail against is right b/c it is following the worldview of its predecessors: the apostles!

Every criticism you throw against us can be touted against you. Except your tradition is an unknown philosophical worldview that borders on gnosticism. And if what you are saying is true, then the gnostic gospel accounts would fit into the NT canon quite well. You should read them. They fit your theological schemata quite well.

I was trying to say this politely. I guess it sailed over your head. I am not going to argue with someone as asinine as you. I will get my discussion elsewhere. There are enough respectable people here who know how to disagree agreeably. You aren't one of them.

And as far as your view of scripture is concerned: I stand by what I wrote. You give the impression that the Bible is just one of a host of ANE texts.

 

[tyndale1946]

The ones who were resurrected in Matt. 27 were not what Paul was writing of in 1 Cor 15. Rather I think that this earlier event was a testifying miracle just like the resurrection of Lazarus. As such, there was a need for them to be physical and visible, just like Lazarus's - and Christ's. These three resurrections had the purpose of testimony.

The resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 has a different purpose, and is of a different nature.

As far as Heb. 9:27 is concerned, I believe we have a basically stated truth that is,however, not strictly always true. There are people who have died twice. One example is the widow of Nain's son. Christ resurrected him but - unless we are willing to believe he is still alive (!) - he must have died again.

After further consideration and study I also came to that conclusion of those that Jesus raised from the dead who he said were asleep. They didn't return in resurrected bodies as stated by Paul. Those the disciples raised from the dead didn't either. Then there are in the OT Elijah and Elisha when Elisha asked for a double portion of the spirit from his father.
2 Kings 2:10 And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not it shall not be so.
11: And it came to pass as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind unto heaven.
12: And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in to pieces.
Then there was Enos, who was not because God took him.

I want to leave you with this and I'm sure full preterist like yourself have heard this one.

II Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase into more ungodliness.
17: And there word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
Philetus;
18: Who concerning the truth have erred, saying the resurrection is passed already; and have overthrown the faith of some.

Okay Brother convince this Historical Partial Preterist and add a little history of where and when did this belief start of a bodily resurrection of dead that the biggest percentage of Christian denomination believe.

 

[Greektim]

I was trying to say this politely. I guess it sailed over your head. I am not going to argue with someone as asinine as you. I will get my discussion elsewhere. There are enough respectable people here who know how to disagree agreeably. You aren't one of them.

And as far as your view of scripture is concerned: I stand by what I wrote. You give the impression that the Bible is just one of a host of ANE texts.

Really... you are going to call me asinine? I just said that your comment was asinine. You leap to attacking me the person. I guess I win since you went form attacking the concepts to the person.

And this discussion has nothing to do w/ one's view of Scripture.

What you fail to grasp is that it was written in a context where the worldview of the people were far different from yours. That does not diminish inspiration. It just means that you seek to read it in that context. You, however, seem to want to ignore that b/c you want to appear pious? "My view of Scripture is higher than yours," said the Pharisee.

If you don't want to talk to me anymore, that's fine. But don't stroll on your white horse that you are high and mighty when you attack me personally. That's hypocrisy.