1 Cor. 15: Foundational Passage for Resurrection

[DHK]

It is quite evident Jesus had a fleshly body after his resurrection.
He said to Thomas: Behold the scars in my hands and feet. Touch me...
He ate fish and drank with the disciples.
On the road to Emmaus as they reached their destination he sat down to eat. As they walked all that way they thought they were conversing with a man (not a spirit or anything else). Not until he prayed did they recognize him.

Now the Scripture says concerning us:
[FONT=&quot]1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.[/FONT]
--"When he shall appear we shall be like him."
He will come in the flesh yet a second time. We shall have a glorified body such as he has. We will be like him. We shall SEE him as he is, that is as he is right now in his glorified body. And we shall be like him.

There is no way of denying this truth.

 

[preachinjesus]

To doubt the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ is to be heterodox.

Denial of Christ's post-resurrection ministry as being a physical reality had historically been understood, rightly, as heresy.

And I don't use that term lightly.

 

[asterisktom]

It is quite evident Jesus had a fleshly body after his resurrection.
He said to Thomas: Behold the scars in my hands and feet. Touch me...
He ate fish and drank with the disciples.
On the road to Emmaus as they reached their destination he sat down to eat. As they walked all that way they thought they were conversing with a man (not a spirit or anything else). Not until he prayed did they recognize him.

...[1 John snipped for now]

There is no way of denying this truth.

For the thousandth time - no Preterist denies the physical resurrection of Christ, that He had a fleshly body. I've written this several times.

 

[asterisktom]

To doubt the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ is to be heterodox.

Denial of Christ's post-resurrection ministry as being a physical reality had historically been understood, rightly, as heresy.

And I don't use that term lightly.

I agree with your first statement. See my post below.

As to your second statement, well, you gave the answer yourself; "historically understood" ( = outside of scripture). Martin Luther was "historically understood" as being heretical by the church of the time.

 

[DHK]

For the thousandth time - no Preterist denies the physical resurrection of Christ, that He had a fleshly body. I've written this several times.

Fine, we agree on that.
However, in your third post on this thread you said:

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?).

You seem to be denying our physical resurrection, right?
But from the passage that I quoted it clearly states that "we shall be like him for we shall see him "as he is." He is physical and we shall be also (with a resurrected body as he has.)

That is Paul's point in 1Cor.15.

 

[asterisktom]

Fine, we agree on that.
However, in your third post on this thread you said:

You seem to be denying our physical resurrection, right?
But from the passage that I quoted it clearly states that "we shall be like him for we shall see him "as he is." He is physical and we shall be also (with a resurrected body as he has.)

That is Paul's point in 1Cor.15.

No, our having a resurrected physical body is not Paul's point. I direct you again to these verses:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

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.


"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".

Adam came from the earth, from the dust.
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).

Bearing the two ways the verb can be taken, it is either Paul's description of what happens at the Parousia, or it is an exhortation to actively pursue Christlikeness.

Either way, there is no indication that we will be like Christ was in His incarnated or resurrection body. Chrit's being in the flesh had a purpose, that purpose no longer an issue.

 

[DHK]

No, our having a resurrected physical body is not Paul's point. I direct you again to these verses:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

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.


"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".

Adam came from the earth, from the dust.
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).

Bearing the two ways the verb can be taken, it is either Paul's description of what happens at the Parousia, or it is an exhortation to actively pursue Christlikeness.

Either way, there is no indication that we will be like Christ was in His incarnated or resurrection body. Chrit's being in the flesh had a purpose, that purpose no longer an issue.

This is the reason I took you away from 1Corinthians 15.
Now focus on 1John 3:2 in the light of the resurrected body of Christ.
Again:

It is quite evident Jesus had a fleshly body after his resurrection.
He said to Thomas: Behold the scars in my hands and feet. Touch me...
He ate fish and drank with the disciples.
On the road to Emmaus as they reached their destination he sat down to eat. As they walked all that way they thought they were conversing with a man (not a spirit or anything else). Not until he prayed did they recognize him.

Now the Scripture says concerning us:
[FONT=&quot]1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.[/FONT]
--"When he shall appear we shall be like him."
He will come in the flesh yet a second time. We shall have a glorified body such as he has. We will be like him. We shall SEE him as he is, that is as he is right now in his glorified body. And we shall be like him.

There is no way of denying this truth.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

I hope to write more on this when I get back from breakfast. Short answer for now: What kind fo resurrection was it that these two said had already past? The kind taught by the Apostles (Paul, especially) and Christ. Is that a stretch? I would like to develop this later when I get back.

Thank you for the sensible question. This very verse was at one time a great puzzle to me.

 

[Greektim]

I hope to write more on this when I get back from breakfast. Short answer for now: What kind fo resurrection was it that these two said had already past? The kind taught by the Apostles (Paul, especially) and Christ. Is that a stretch? I would like to develop this later when I get back.

Thank you for the sensible question. This very verse was at one time a great puzzle to me.

Seriously, Tom. You are not going to respond to me? And you were the one that called me asinine. If that is the level of your argumentation, then I was right. I won.

One more time, and this has nothing to do w/ my vertical view of Scripture (you bringing that into the mix is what I commented as asinine... the statement not the person, to which you did the opposite). Your argument has in part been against the orthodox view being shrouded in our tradition. I put the onus back on you and pointed out your own worldview is doing the same exact thing. And you didn't like it I guess b/c you started accusing me of having a low view of Scripture.

Can you defend a neo-platonic duality of material and immaterial from Scripture? Because I've pointed out the repeated sentiment in both testaments that God's throne is heaven and the earth is his footstool. They are linked. The writers of Scripture were not dualists. They were not platonists (from which gnostics came from and argued for the same duality you want). They were eastern pre-modernists. The physical world was a symbolic, mysterious, even mystical world.

I have been debating world views. But I think the discussion should be, what was the world view of the writers of Scripture??? If I am right, then they not only would think of a physical resurrection, but they would detest platonitc thought.

This makes sense in light of the problem of the resurrection at Corinth, a place w/ plenty of Greek philosophies competing against Scripture. Some converts may have expected that salvation was being saved from the material world. Paul, a Pharisee entrenched in resurrection theology, corrected that in 1 Cor. 15. That is why this has been standard orthodoxy for the last 2,000 years. It is not only Scriptural, it is historical.

 

[tyndale1946]

I hope to write more on this when I get back from breakfast. Short answer for now: What kind fo resurrection was it that these two said had already past? The kind taught by the Apostles (Paul, especially) and Christ. Is that a stretch? I would like to develop this later when I get back.

Thank you for the sensible question. This very verse was at one time a great puzzle to me.

Thank you for taking time to answer my question... Like I always say:
II Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. I to will consider your answer.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Let me get to the first passage you quoted. The history of just when a belief in physical bodily resurrection of believers started among Christians will have to wait a bit.

Of course the assumption that quoters of the 2 Tim. passage is that the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus was the same one Preterists are espousing. But there are several problems with that.

1. Paul was dealing here with an error of timing, not an error in teaching of the nature of the resurrection.

2. This passage was written when the Parousia was still in the future. The Pastoral Epistles were most likely written in the early 60s. For them to say Christ had already appeared was patently false on several counts. Their "overthrowing the faith of some" was in that "already" part, because Paul's churches were taught, necessarily, that there were other realities that had to happen at the same time. One reason they were "overthrowing the faith of some" was the fact that the resurrection was clearly taught to be inseparable from the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and that there would be redemption and relief. (Luke 21)

Christ clearly said that that generation would not pass away until every stone was thrown down and all prophecy was fulfilled:

3. Most modern exposition of this passage - especially those who use it as a 2X4 against Preterists - do not sufficently take into account the connection between the Parousia in this passage and the Kingdom of God. Paul's and Christ's explicit teaching on the Kingdom help us tremendously in understanding this passage.

Christ taught that the Kingdom would be invisible:

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


4. As probable Judaizers, ones interested in teaching the perpetuity of the Old Covenant, H & P gave their false teaching in the hopes of revitializing a lapsed Judaism. (Hymanaeus was also mentioned in 1 Tim. 1, a chapter that deals with Judaizers. Many of the same themes and phrase connect these two passages. I believe in this fourth point also, although it is harder to prove satisfactorily.)

Oops! I have more I feel I should write here but I promised my wife a game of badminton.

Hopefully this will do for now. I know there are some things missing. Let me know what is unclear or sketchy and I will be glad to add more.

 

[Aaron]

Yet here, Tom argued that the end had come prior to the writing of the NT, and that the future tenses were abberations brought on by an eschatological bias.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=95322

But here is the point that is overlooked: 1 Cor. 2:6 and 1 Cor. 15:[2]4 describe the very same event, the "rulers of this age" have their power "put to an end". Their "kingdom" that Christ delivers to the Father is the theocratic Jewish Kingdom, now obsoleted by the Kingdom of God. Spiritual Zion now replacing Geographical Zion.

 

[tyndale1946]

Let me get to the first passage you quoted. The history of just when a belief in physical bodily resurrection of believers started among Christians will have to wait a bit.

Of course the assumption that quoters of the 2 Tim. passage is that the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus was the same one Preterists are espousing. But there are several problems with that.

1. Paul was dealing here with an error of timing, not an error in teaching of the nature of the resurrection.

2. This passage was written when the Parousia was still in the future. The Pastoral Epistles were most likely written in the early 60s. For them to say Christ had already appeared was patently false on several counts. Their "overthrowing the faith of some" was in that "already" part, because Paul's churches were taught, necessarily, that there were other realities that had to happen at the same time. One reason they were "overthrowing the faith of some" was the fact that the resurrection was clearly taught to be inseparable from the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and that there would be redemption and relief. (Luke 21)

Christ clearly said that that generation would not pass away until every stone was thrown down and all prophecy was fulfilled:

3. Most modern exposition of this passage - especially those who use it as a 2X4 against Preterists - do not sufficently take into account the connection between the Parousia in this passage and the Kingdom of God. Paul's and Christ's explicit teaching on the Kingdom help us tremendously in understanding this passage.

Christ taught that the Kingdom would be invisible:

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


4. As probable Judaizers, ones interested in teaching the perpetuity of the Old Covenant, H & P gave their false teaching in the hopes of revitializing a lapsed Judaism. (Hymanaeus was also mentioned in 1 Tim. 1, a chapter that deals with Judaizers. Many of the same themes and phrase connect these two passages. I believe in this fourth point also, although it is harder to prove satisfactorily.)

Oops! I have more I feel I should write here but I promised my wife a game of badminton.

Hopefully this will do for now. I know there are some things missing. Let me know what is unclear or sketchy and I will be glad to add more.

Yeah you better make your wife happy, but continue when you return. I will consider it all as there is a lot to consider! Since you are of the preterist brethren here is a book you might be interested in if you don't already have it.
Jesus and The Holy City... New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem by P. W. L. Walker. I've read Russell and highly recommend this one. Is it easy to get publications in China?

 

[asterisktom]

Yeah you better make your wife happy, but continue when you return. I will consider it all as there is a lot to consider! Since you are of the preterist brethren here is a book you might be interested in if you don't already have it.
Jesus and The Holy City... New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem by P. W. L. Walker. I've read Russell and highly recommend this one. Is it easy to get publications in China?

Before I answer the rest I'll just mention that that very book was highly recommended to me by a friend. Unfortunately it is hard for me to buy books here on account of the exhorbitant shipping surcharge. Something I bought two years ago came outto be very expensive, the shipping was about three times the cost of the item.

But the topic is an important one. I'm not sure of the angle of your author, but I also had done my own study in Isaiah 40 to 66 on the "Jerusalem" passages, resulting in a series of thirteen or fourteen articles. (I think I posted a few here). When I started the series I was a "leaky" amillennialist, but I finished it as a Preterist. (Actually I only got as far as chapter 62, I think)

Can you give me a quick synopsis of Walker's book? Or show me a site that reviews the book? The sites I saw didn't have much.

 

[Iconoclast]

Phil.3:21 says who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body

 

[tyndale1946]

Before I answer the rest I'll just mention that that very book was highly recommended to me by a friend. Unfortunately it is hard for me to buy books here on account of the exhorbitant shipping surcharge. Something I bought two years ago came outto be very expensive, the shipping was about three times the cost of the item.

But the topic is an important one. I'm not sure of the angle of your author, but I also had done my own study in Isaiah 40 to 66 on the "Jerusalem" passages, resulting in a series of thirteen or fourteen articles. (I think I posted a few here). When I started the series I was a "leaky" amillennialist, but I finished it as a Preterist. (Actually I only got as far as chapter 62, I think)

Can you give me a quick synopsis of Walker's book? Or show me a site that reviews the book? The sites I saw didn't have much.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802842879/?tag=baptis04-20

Also I saw on a google web site that it was available as an EBook, do you have access to that format in China?

 

[asterisktom]

Phil.3:21 says who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body

I'm not sure why you think I would disagree with this. "Body", "glorious" or otherwise, does not necessarily mean "body of flesh". Since Christ is now no longer under constraint to be physical (I know you do not believe this, probably) the Christ we will be conformed to is also not physical, but spiritual.

Additionally, it is also most likely that Paul is speaking here of the corporate body of Christ, as he does often elsewhere. I would like to get back to this topic of corporate body but, for now, I suggest you (or anyone else) look up all the "body" verses that you think refer to individual bodies. Notice how many of them use the singular. In many cases coupled with a plural pronoun or other antecedent.

 

[asterisktom]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802842879/?tag=baptis04-20

Also I saw on a google web site that it was available as an EBook, do you have access to that format in China?

I saw that Amazon link. I noticed also that there was a good review from Don Preston. He and I both wrote book introductions for the Fulfilled Covenant Bible; we pretty much have similar beliefs. It was his recommendation that made me want to read your book.

Do you have a link to the ebook?

I should have time in a couple hours to get back to you on this subject.

 

[tyndale1946]

I saw that Amazon link. I noticed also that there was a good review from Don Preston. He and I both wrote book introductions for the Fulfilled Covenant Bible; we pretty much have similar beliefs. It was his recommendation that made me want to read your book.

Do you have a link to the ebook?

I should have time in a couple hours to get back to you on this subject.

Here it is... http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesus_and_the_Holy_City.html?id=koxXsUgtlk4C

btw... What are you doing in China?

I'm reading of course the Bible, Josephus, Online commentaries on the time in question, and the book I recommended to you. Also you being in the link surely know who Ed Stevens is! After getting the ebook and reading it you need to be the first to write a review. We will talk later still searching!:thumbsup:

 

[asterisktom]

Here it is... http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesus_and_the_Holy_City.html?id=koxXsUgtlk4C

btw... What are you doing in China?

I'm reading of course the Bible, Josephus, Online commentaries on the time in question, and the book I recommended to you. Also you being in the link surely know who Ed Stevens is! After getting the ebook and reading it you need to be the first to write a review. We will talk later still searching!:thumbsup:

Thanks very much for the link. I bookmarked it and am starting to read it. Along with Josephus have you also considered Ussher's Annals? I am referring especially to the recent republication edited by Larry Pierce, developer of the Online Bible. Ussher's writing along with Pierce's extensive notes and appendices made this one of the keepers in my once large book collection.
http://books.google.com.hk/books/about/The_Annals_of_the_World.html?id=KNR1s2clCX8C

(Our moving so much overseas has seriously whittled down my books).

I am teaching English at a university near Dalian in the Northeast, fairly close to North Korea.

Yes, I know Ed Stevens. I respect his scholarship as well as his respectful handling
of those who disagree with him. (That goes for Don Preston, too, of course).