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

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by asterisktom ……"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

…..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.

This is a very biblical, rational, interpretation. It’s no different than the actual ‘singing’ of the Song of Moses:

19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach thou it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, flowing with milk and honey, and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxed fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and despise me, and break my covenant.
21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they frame this day, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.
22 So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel. Dt 31

The Song of Moses is being sang IN HEAVEN in Rev 15:3.

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!

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Jn 8:56

So, where exactly was Abraham when he was doing the 'rejoicing and the seeing'?

There's nothing biased (or heretical) about the way Tom is interpreting this, at all.

 

[Greektim]

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?

Its convenient for you to ask for Scripture when I have already mentioned Ezekiel's example.

ANE stands for Ancient Near Eastern... the culture that the Bible was written in and from. Yet you are advocating more of a western, philosophical, neo-platonic dualism of the world (natural and supernatural). My point is, sacred space (where God "lives") is not dualistic. In the ANE mind, heaven and earth were linked, the temple being the bridge. Good example is the example is the concept that heaven is God's throne and earth is his footstool. They are linked.

And if you need a prooftext (not my style, btw), Isa 66:21 mentions new creation and v. 22 mentions "all flesh worship before me".

Another point that I failed to mention. Can you demonstrate when the word "resurrection" (anastasis) does not refer to bodily life? Any examples, Biblical or secular.

 

[kyredneck]

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.

Wrong thread for 1 Cor 15:

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

 

[PreachTony]

Wrong thread for 1 Cor 15:

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

So, does that mean I'm not allowed to make a point on a thread without first checking every other active thread to make sure that scripture isn't being discussed elsewhere?

 

[kyredneck]

...nah, do as you wish.

 

[PreachTony]

...nah, do as you wish.

I'm still learning the rules here, ky. I haven't been involved in the thread you linked and it looks a whole lot more technical that I've aimed for so far.

 

[kyredneck]

It can indeed get technical when the Greek geeks get involved, but if you peruse the thread I believe you'll see your very point was already articulated there, which is an old consistent objection to full preterism.

 

[PreachTony]

It can indeed get technical when the Greek geeks get involved, but if you peruse the thread I believe you'll see your very point was already articulated there, which is an old consistent objection to full preterism.

I must've missed it in my read through. I re-articulated it anyway, and added some extra stuff.

 

[kyredneck]

...and I could be wrong, perhaps it wasn't articulated there, however 1 Cor 15 is a primary text of consideration in that thread; this thread is a spin off from that one concerning the passage in Job.

 

[tyndale1946]

It can indeed get technical when the Greek geeks get involved, but if you peruse the thread I believe you'll see your very point was already articulated there, which is an old consistent objection to full preterism.

Yeah!... This is truly a bone of contention and I'm not getting into it!... But I know God has the answer and it will be what it will be.:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Jn 8:56

So, where exactly was Abraham when he was doing the 'rejoicing and the seeing'?

Neither Jesus or Abraham said "I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold." Abraham was IN HIS OWN PHYSICAL BODY when he METAPHORICALLY did see Christ by the EYE OF FAITH. Notice the past tense "and WAS glad" as an accomplished act by faith.

In direct contrast the subject of discussion with Job is his physical body and its destruction in the grave and seeing Christ with "mine eyes" and "for myself" as HIS REDEEMER. The clear hope expressed is redemption of His body.

There's nothing biased (or heretical) about the way Tom is interpreting this, at all.

Total perversion of the text that can only be derived by pure bias!!

 

[asterisktom]

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!

Speaking of exercises in futility, you did not at all interact with what I had written. Did Barnes, Luther and the rest also "theological bias" because they have the same view?

Why should I write more to be ignored?

 

[asterisktom]

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.

This is a good question, PreachTony. In fact all of 1 Cor. 15 is useful for the present subject of resurrection. I hope to start another thread on Resurrection based on this chapter but, short answer for now, your verses above need to be understood in context with the passages that he was quoting: Isa 25:7 - 8 and - though many would disagree - Rev. 10:17 and 11:15. Also I suggest you continue beyond where you quoted in 1 Cor. 15. Verses 55 - 57.

Here is the passage in Isaiah that Paul draws from, Isa. 25:6 - 9 (ESV):

6 On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.

7 And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.

8 He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken.

9 It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the Lord; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

The mountain is Mount Zion [Isa.24:23; 2:2-4], the spirtual home of the redeemed of all ages.

Interesting item to notice are the words "veil" and "death". They have a bearing in Paul's use of this passage, a use that I believe is hardly given the due weight it deserves. These two terms are metaphors for the Old Covenant. (I can give other verses to show this, if necessary. Trying to shorten this). Christ did away with both. The veil is taken away in Christ (2 Cor) and He, of course, overcame death.

Paul continues in 1 Cor.15:

54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The power of sin is the Law. Christ did away with the Law (Matthew 5:18) when He fulfilled it perfectly and died for us. And the Law is nothing more,when viewed from a New Covenant perspective, than a "ministry of death" (2 Cor. 3:7).

In rendering one null and void (katargeo) He does it to the other also.

 

[asterisktom]

This is a very biblical, rational, interpretation. It’s no different than the actual ‘singing’ of the Song of Moses:

19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach thou it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, flowing with milk and honey, and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxed fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and despise me, and break my covenant.
21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they frame this day, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.
22 So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel. Dt 31

The Song of Moses is being sang IN HEAVEN in Rev 15:3.



Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Jn 8:56

So, where exactly was Abraham when he was doing the 'rejoicing and the seeing'?

There's nothing biased (or heretical) about the way Tom is interpreting this, at all.

:thumbs::thumbs:

And, yes, that Song of Moses was another Aha Moment. Another example of how study bibles can be studious neglect bibles, with their cross[-eyed] references, totally ignoring valid and logical references.

 

[asterisktom]

Its convenient for you to ask for Scripture when I have already mentioned Ezekiel's example.

Yes, you had mentioned this:

And to say there is no passage that teaches a physical resurrection is absurd. Valley of dry bones was the first to come to mind.

Are you seriously saying that Ezekiel 37 is the template for your understanding of a bodily resurrection?

First of all it was a vison (vs. 1). We must always be careful which details we focus on in visions (as well as metaphors, which this is also).

Second, the people in this vision army are of Israel (vs. 11ff). This first vision goes together with the following passage of the two sticks, Ephraim rejoining with Israel (see also Isa. 11:12-13). They are about the same thing; Israel unifying again and returning to their own land.

This has nothing to do with an actual, physical resurrection.

Most importantly, look at how Paul used this passage. Look aspecially at the end of Ezek. 37, verses 24 - 28. Compare them with 2 Cor. 6 (esp. vs. 16). Paul was drawing upon this passage to extoll the much better excellence of the New Covenant.

 

[percho]

This is a very biblical, rational, interpretation. It’s no different than the actual ‘singing’ of the Song of Moses:

19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach thou it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, flowing with milk and honey, and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxed fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and despise me, and break my covenant.
21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they frame this day, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.
22 So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel. Dt 31

The Song of Moses is being sang IN HEAVEN in Rev 15:3.



Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Jn 8:56

So, where exactly was Abraham when he was doing the 'rejoicing and the seeing'?

There's nothing biased (or heretical) about the way Tom is interpreting this, at all.

Abraham was rejoicing and seeing when he was untying Issac. He was seeing the Son of God, the seed of Abraham, the Christ, being resurrected from the dead.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Heb 11:17-19

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal 3:16

 

[percho]

So, does that mean I'm not allowed to make a point on a thread without first checking every other active thread to make sure that scripture isn't being discussed elsewhere?

Beside that, the scripture you ask about applies just as my post #18.

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

The reason I started with V44 because it is, the man, the once living soul in soulish body, that is sown, and that man is raised in a spiritual body as a man born of the spirit. Just as the preeminent Jesus was a living soul who died and afterward, after the resurrection, was quickening Spirit man with a spiritual body.

There is a reason Col 1:18 uses the firstborn from the dead and not first resurrected from the dead.

After the verse you quoted, comes to pass, we also will be born from the dead, just as Jesus, born of the virgin Mary was so born?

 

[asterisktom]

Beside that, the scripture you ask about applies just as my post #18.

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

The reason I started with V44 because it is, the man, the once living soul in soulish body, that is sown, and that man is raised in a spiritual body as a man born of the spirit. Just as the preeminent Jesus was a living soul who died and afterward, after the resurrection, was quickening Spirit man with a spiritual body.

There is a reason Col 1:18 uses the firstborn from the dead and not first resurrected from the dead.

After the verse you quoted, comes to pass, we also will be born from the dead, just as Jesus, born of the virgin Mary was so born?

Rather than lead this thread away from Job, where I still am looking for some response, I went ahead and started a new thread specifically dealing with 1 Cor. 15:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=95495

 

[The Biblicist]

Speaking of exercises in futility, you did not at all interact with what I had written. Did Barnes, Luther and the rest also "theological bias" because they have the same view?

Why should I write more to be ignored?

Baloney! You don't believe the text has anything to do with Job's hope of resurrection of his body at the coming of Christ. That is clear! However, the contextual facts are equally clear which prove he most certainly does have that in view and only a biased mind with an agenda can fail to see it, as it is obvious to anyone simply seeking the truth of the passage.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

was Jesus resurrection a spiritual or a physical one?

And do you see a future time yet for His second coming, when all the saved shall be raised up physically, or is thatall now just a spiritual resurrection already at salvation?