Job's Resurrection Verse: Job 19:25-26

[asterisktom]

Not really. Otherwise the humility/emptying of Jesus would mean little if it was only temporary. And perhaps your problem is that you cannot see glory in a glorified body.

By the same token one could argue the same for the crucifixion, that it would mean little if it was only temporary. Perhaps my problem is my insistence on the Bible as the definitive source. Where in all of Scripture do you see glorification of believers linked with physical bodies?

We have to divest ourselves from what culture has taught us and actually look at what Scripture teaches.

 

[asterisktom]

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:44-46

Some of the things you are asserting I am not denying. But, for want of time, I want to focus especially on 1 Cor. 15. I believe that chapter proves less than you think. It says othing about our having physical bodies at the resurrection. Rather it teaches us that we will have bodies like Christ had. But more on this in a separate thread. Actually I see I wrote earlier on this here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=75928

This was a thread I had to abandon because of my sudden lack of connectedness here in China. Very frustrating.

Now I really do need to leave the computer. More later.

 

[Iconoclast]

asterisktom

I am not denying this general influence. But I was speaking of those influences that led me to preterism. It was not those influences, but just a determination of finding out how the scriptural dots connected.

Your earlier comments re my influences seemed clearly to have these specific influences in mind, not general ones common to all of Christendom or, even, Christianity.

Hello AT...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/开.../data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x406e0dd6cf66646e?hl=en
Not trying to interrupt your discussion with GT....was curious about your understanding of 2cor5-
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

In verse 2 my understanding was that the words to be clothed upon was used of a baby bird being clothed upon with feathers....I believe that would be our eternal house or body...whatever a Spiritual body is.

 

[prophet]

Job's Resurrection Verse
What does Job actually "know" here?
It is different from what many today say He knows.
​

"For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:"
Job 19:25-26



This is the version often quoted. But already we have an unfortunate problem. This rendition has several problems. Mainly, for my purpose here, two problems:

1. There are no "worms". The King James Version added that in their attempt to be helpful.

2. More importantly, the "see[ing] God" does not come "in" the flesh, but "from" the flesh. In other words, Job is not voicing a confidence that he will, in some future time, have a fleshly body with which he will see God. He is saying that even after his body will be destroyed he will still - afterward - see God. The destruction of his body will have no bearing on his assurance of seeing God. And this interpretation I didn't get from my fellow Preterists. I knew about it long before. Consider these mainline sources:

"And after my skin, thus torn to pieces,
And without my flesh shall I behold Eloah,"

"Therefore by far the majority of modern expositors have decided that Job does not indeed here avow the hope of the resurrection, but the hope of a future spiritual beholding of God, and therefore of a future life;" - Keil & Deilitsch

“After they shall have destroyed my skin, this shall happen - that I will see God.” - Gesenius

"The literal meaning is, “from, or out of, my flesh shall I see God.” It does not mean in his flesh, which would have been expressed by the preposition ב (b) - but there is the notion that from or out of his flesh he would see him;"

It cannot be proved that this refers to the resurrection of that body, and indeed the natural interpretation is against it.
- Barnes

"And after this skin of mine is destroyed I will yet, without flesh, see God." - Luther (translated from the German)

Both of these points I went in greater detail because they help do away with core objections against the Preterist understanding of both human nature and of the resurrection.

Our blessed hope does not include eternal life in physical bodies, however glorified. We will have perfect spiritual existence,individual and corporate. This is neither (as I have been accused) gnosticism or Eastern pantheistic oversoul existence. It is plainly what the Bible teaches. To get to the proof of this - and it admittedly is a slow and painstaking process - one must first deal with each and every passage that seems to teach otherwise. These two verses in Job are prime candidates, seeing that they are often quoted to teach what they pointedly do not teach.

Just for the record. Preterists like myself...
do believe in Christ's literal death on the cross,
do believe in his literal and bodily resurrection,
and that he presented a literal body as proof to his disciples,
also that He rose again in a literal body.

I often run into this misunderstanding concerning what Preterists believe and needed to set this straight. To deny those points is to be beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Scripture provides abundant proof for all of these.

One thing that Scripture does not teach is that Christ will return physically. Of course, I believe that He had already returned (but that has been covered in other articles). The issue here is how He appeared.

He has/had no need to return in a physical body. Consider this: The reason why Jesus went through the whole spectrum of physical experience - incarnation, perfect life, suffering, death on the cross, resurrection, ascension - was so that He would "fulfill all righteousness". All the bases have been touched (if I am allowed to use a mere baseball metaphor for this awesome doctrine).

There is no similar requirements concerning His coming again, or concerning His judgment. Likewise there is no similar requirement that we live on forever in limited physical bodies. The only reason that it seems to be a requirement - and a cardinal doctrine to boot - is because of all that tradition we have inherited over the centuries, not the Bible.

As always, however, we need to always distinguish between what Scripture teaches and what tradition has taught us that Scripture teaches.

Act 12:22-23
22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory:and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

 

[Aaron]

By the same token one could argue the same for the crucifixion, that it would mean little if it was only temporary. Perhaps my problem is my insistence on the Bible as the definitive source.

No, that's not your problem.

Where in all of Scripture do you see glorification of believers linked with physical bodies?

This body will be raised a spiritual body. Those who are alive and remain will be similarly changed.

You can't get out it. We will be raised in exactly the way that Christ was raised. He raised Himself, He will raise us. And when we see Him, we shall be like Him.

Pretty straightforward, cut and dried. Do I really need to supply the references?

 

[percho]

Some of the things you are asserting I am not denying. But, for want of time, I want to focus especially on 1 Cor. 15. I believe that chapter proves less than you think. It says othing about our having physical bodies at the resurrection. Rather it teaches us that we will have bodies like Christ had. But more on this in a separate thread. Actually I see I wrote earlier on this here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=75928

This was a thread I had to abandon because of my sudden lack of connectedness here in China. Very frustrating.

Now I really do need to leave the computer. More later.

I also posted a bit in that thread.

The man dies. The man that was once a living soul. The once living soul when he breathed his last breath of spirit life which came from God passes through the gates (death) of Hades into Hades. The man is dead and the house of the man's tabernacle corrupts away.

The man must be born again and or raised from the dead and or changed and as 1 Cor 15:35 asks, in what body will that dead man be raised?

Jesus the Christ who came by the water and the blood, born of the virgin Mary was raised from the realm of the dead (thou shall not leave my soul in Hades) no more to return to corruption. Neither did his flesh see corruption. God his Father gave Jesus his Son the sure mercies of David.

In his house from heaven incorruptible and eternal.

 

[Greektim]

I would say it comes to mind because we have been conditioned to think of the passage that way when in fact context and cross-reference point to a different application altogether. Because (like I wrote earlier) the majority of Bible readers under-estimate the Jewishness of the Bible they overlook the (relatively) more immediate application of this passage in Ezekiel.

If I have time later I hope to write on this very topic. But the outside world is asserting itself once again.

Really... you are going to make that argument about the Jewishness of the OT when you are using concepts foreign to the ANE culture of the Jews and advocating western philosophical dualism???

 

[Greektim]

By the same token one could argue the same for the crucifixion, that it would mean little if it was only temporary. Perhaps my problem is my insistence on the Bible as the definitive source. Where in all of Scripture do you see glorification of believers linked with physical bodies?

We have to divest ourselves from what culture has taught us and actually look at what Scripture teaches.

I agree... you need to put aside the neo-platonic conceptualism of heaven and the supernatural world and try to think in a pre-modern ANE mindset where heaven and earth were interconnected w/ one another.

 

[Yeshua1]

I imagine my beliefs on this topic are the same as yours except that our resurrection will not be physical, but spiritual. But "spiritual" does not imply vague, unreal, gnostic, or neo-Platonic. It is very much real. We will always be individuals. We will always have personality.

We both agree that Christ existed non-physically throughout eternity past. He did not need a physical body, of course. Likewise, there is no need for us to have physical bodies. Neither is there any passage that teaches that.

If God has from eternity past until the Incarnation existed purely as spirit, and the Father and Holy Spirit are still entirely spirit (though Preterists would say Christ is too) why do some view it as cultic or gnostic for us to be the same way?

If the Trinity, eternally self-communicating and self-loving (as John Owen writes in his Christologia) was already perfect how can this perfection be "improved" by a change of essence of one of them? How can perfection be improved? If there is room for improvement that implies that what God was before was not perfect.

Again, to deny the future apsect of His second coming, and to see that there is no physical resuurection of the dead in christ has always been labeled as heresy by the church!

 

[asterisktom]

Here we go again. Tedious verbosity saying the divines were close, but have had it all wrong for two millennia.

But I'm glad you were rash enough to go after the bodily resurrection. I can't think of a better orthodoxy to illuminate your hermeneutical offenses—unless it's the Virgin Birth.

:wavey:

Wow. Tedious verbosity and rashness all in the same post.

Bodily resurrection.Maybe you can begin your defense of the bodily resurrection of Christians by starting with those passages that explicitly mention this. Oh wait...

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom




Hello AT...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/开.../data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x406e0dd6cf66646e?hl=en
Not trying to interrupt your discussion with GT....was curious about your understanding of 2cor5-
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

In verse 2 my understanding was that the words to be clothed upon was used of a baby bird being clothed upon with feathers....I believe that would be our eternal house or body...whatever a Spiritual body is.

My understanding here, as far as I can tell, is that Paul is speaking of the corporate body, not of individuals. The "house" here would be the same as some other uses of house elsewhere in his epistles. "House", "temple", "body" are sometimes used by Paul this way, though other times he uses the same term referring to individuals.

I'd be glad to elaborate more if you want. I meant to get to these posts sooner. Some unnecessary drama here in the Middle Kingdom called me away.

 

[asterisktom]

This body will be raised a spiritual body. Those who are alive and remain will be similarly changed.

You can't get out it. We will be raised in exactly the way that Christ was raised. He raised Himself, He will raise us.

Ah, got it. We will be raised in exactly the same way He was raised.

And how was He raised? You said it yourself - He raised Himself.

So ... we will raise ourselves too?

I'm just following your logic.

I hope you see that there are some differences between Christ's resurrection and ours.
1. He raised Himself. He was also raised up. Scripture says both. But this cannot be said of us.
2. He was raised for our justification (Romans 1). This cannot be said of us.
3. He was raised as a demonstration of victory, triumphing openly over His enemies. This cannot be said of us.
4. He was raised in a body still showing the visble proofs, scars, of His suffering and dying for us. This cannot be said of us.
5. He was raised as proof that He had fulfilled all righteousness. We, on the other, are raised in order to walk in that righteousness the Lord bought for us.

And when we see Him, we shall be like Him.

Yes. We shall be like Him. It is called Christlikeness.

Pretty straightforward, cut and dried. Do I really need to supply the references?

No. I know the references.

 

[asterisktom]

I agree... you need to put aside the neo-platonic conceptualism of heaven and the supernatural world and try to think in a pre-modern ANE mindset where heaven and earth were interconnected w/ one another.

You need to put aside the arcane terminology and deal with what I wrote. Is it Scriptural or not? If not, show me from Scripture. Your pinning strange labels on me is vaguely irritating, but nothing more. Irritating because I don't know what the heck you are talking about. What exactly is an ANE?

 

[Aaron]

Ah, got it. We will be raised in exactly the same way He was raised.

And how was He raised? You said it yourself - He raised Himself.

So ... we will raise ourselves too?

I answered this too.

I'm just following your logic.

No, you're not. The One that raised Him will raise us. The same power that raised Him will raise us.

You see, you arbitrarily attach meanings to things that aren't even implied. If you so misconstrue the words of men, then what are you doing with the words of God?

Clarify one thing for me. Is there a future bodily resurrection for the saints?

 

[asterisktom]

I answered this too.



No, you're not. The One that raised Him will raise us. The same power that raised Him will raise us.

You see, you arbitrarily attach meanings to things that aren't even implied. If you so misconstrue the words of men, then what are you doing with the words of God?

Clarify one thing for me. Is there a future bodily resurrection for the saints?

You refuse to see that Christ's resurrection and ours is inherently and Scripturally different. And yet you are asking me to clarify? You will just ignore what doesn't fit your paradigm.

But, no, we will not have a physical resurrection. If by "bodily" you mean "physical, then my answer is no. We will, each and every one of us, have a spiritual resurrection.

 

[asterisktom]

Again, to deny the future apsect of His second coming, and to see that there is no physical resuurection of the dead in christ has always been labeled as heresy by the church!

Yes, it certainly has - for most, but not the very earliest of the church's history.

Of course, many tenets that have come out of the Reformation have also been labeled as heresy by the church.

 

[The Biblicist]

Job's Resurrection Verse
What does Job actually "know" here?
It is different from what many today say He knows.
​

"For I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:"
Job 19:25-26



This is the version often quoted. But already we have an unfortunate problem. This rendition has several problems. Mainly, for my purpose here, two problems:

1. There are no "worms". The King James Version added that in their attempt to be helpful.

2. More importantly, the "see[ing] God" does not come "in" the flesh, but "from" the flesh. In other words, Job is not voicing a confidence that he will, in some future time, have a fleshly body with which he will see God. He is saying that even after his body will be destroyed he will still - afterward - see God. The destruction of his body will have no bearing on his assurance of seeing God. And this interpretation I didn't get from my fellow Preterists. I knew about it long before. Consider these mainline sources:

Whom I shall see for myself, and MINE EYES shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. - v. 27

Obviously you have a theological bias when coming to this text as do those you quote. He is speaking of his physical body, its destruction and its restoration as it is with "MINE EYES" he beholds him and that is said in spite that "my reins be consumed within me." He is obviously speaking of His future hope of seeing His redeemer in his resurrected body if one has no bias or axe to grind. He calls him his "redeemer" in lieu of the destruction of his body!!!! If the body is not the object of this redemption than this expression is an exercise of futility rather than redemption!

 

[Jerome]

Yes, Ancient Near Eastern is an oh so obscure term, has no relevancy to an OP about the book of Job.
:BangHead:

 

[Aaron]

But, no, we will not have a physical resurrection. If by "bodily" you mean "physical, then my answer is no. We will, each and every one of us, have a spiritual resurrection.

Is that a future thing, or has it already happened?

 

[PreachTony]

You refuse to see that Christ's resurrection and ours is inherently and Scripturally different. And yet you are asking me to clarify? You will just ignore what doesn't fit your paradigm.

But, no, we will not have a physical resurrection. If by "bodily" you mean "physical, then my answer is no. We will, each and every one of us, have a spiritual resurrection.

Just out of curiosity, then, what do take from Paul's writing at the end of 1 Corinthians 15: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." (verses 52-54).

The corruptible putting on incorruption sounds an awful lot like a physical/bodily resurrection to me. Based off David's writing in Psalms, stating that the Holy One would not see corruption.