1 Corinthians 15:12-24 (Installment TWO)

• Michael Miano

  said

  Now in context we have Paul writing to the Corinthian church concerning the divisions amongst them, the Gentile-Jew divide that is occuring do to freedoms from the Law, and now we have Paul reminding the Corinthians of the gospel which he has delievered to them. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (v.3), He was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (v.4)”, and he appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve, after that more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most who were still living at the time of the letter, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and lastly he appeared to Paul. It’s by God’s grace that Paul was called to be an apostle, therefore whether it was the others or Paul preaching, the gospel is the same, and this is what the Corinthian church has believed.

  “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no ressurection of the dead (v.12)”

  Now it has been said that this is Paul dealing with naysayers of the ressurection of dead bodies, yet I read of no disconnect between the Corinthians who were addressed in verse 11. What it appears from reading the text (as as will be explained throughout the context) is a misunderstanding concerning the ressurection of the dead. “If there is no ressurection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised (v.13), And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith (v.14)”.

  At this point to the common eye, it appears that Paul is being redundant. If Christ has not been raised there is no ressurection of the dead, well duh. But as he makes clear here, that if Christ has not been raised, and there is no ressurection of the dead, your faith is in vain, and as we will see in later context, if this is the case, there is a lose of hope (v.19).

  We must understand this ressurection of the dead concept.The ressurection was the hope of Israel, that Paul always preached (For example, Acts 26 & O.T. Ezekiel chapter 37). If Christ was not raised, Israel was not raised (Hosea chapter 6) and if Israel is not raised, or being raised, then there is no hope for the Gentiles (Romans 11). The promises to the Gentiles are conditioned on the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, therefore the hope of Israel must be true. We clearly see no emphasis on physical body ressurection in this text, it must be forced to make the theme of a future bodily ressurection hope to be in the context.

  So now, if Christ has not been raised the preaching of those who said He has appeared to them are false witnesses and those who have believed their testimony, believe in vain (v.15). If the dead are not raised (remember the hope of Israel) then Christ (who is the end of the Law and the fulfillment of the Scriptures) is not raised (v.16). And if Christ is not raised, the faith of those who believe in the gospel message of reconciliation is in vain and they are still in their sins (v.17).

  “Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost (v.18)”.

  Interesting. So, those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost if there is no ressurection of the dead. Why? Remember the context of this chapter. The first letter to the Corinthians is dealing with the divisions in the Church, and there was a strong sense of Gentile superiority in the first century church, because they weren’t under the Law because it was by grace that they had come to the knowledge of God. If the ressurection of the dead is the hope of Israel, and the Gentile salvation is governed by God’s providential promises to Israel, it is imperative that the ressurection of the dead happens! If there is no ressurection of the dead, those who have died as Christians, which is based on the fullfillment of the Law, are lost! There is no hope! “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (v.19)”.

  But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (v.20)”. Thank God, the proof of the hope for those who had fallen asleep in Christ and for the hope of the Believers is assured because Christ has raised from the dead, Him being the firstfruits that prove the harvest was near (see, Leviticus 26).

  “For since death came through a man, the ressurection of the dead come also through a man (v.21). For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (v.22)”.

  The biggest question of all is what death came through Adam? Many have said it was physical death, which there isn’t much of a basis besides mere speculation. What we do have in the Genesis chapters 2-3 account is God telling Adam that in the day he eats of the tree he will surely die (Genesis 2:17) and when he eats of it he feels shame and is cursed and removed from the garden, no longer having access to the tree of live, and eternal life. We know that in Christ we have eternal life and at the consumation of the promises to Israel (judgement and ressurection) we have access to this tree in Revelation 21-22. Did you see anything physical occur there? Neither did I. This text is speaking to Believers, simply because the ALL who die in Adam, are the ALL who are in Christ. Unless, we are to get into the universal view :)

  “But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power (v.23-24)

  Well, there we go. Thank God that Christ was the firstfruits of the ressurection of the dead, now we have hope in this life, and a faith that is not futile. God has fulfilled his promises to Israel, and therefore the Gentiles are welcomed into this reality. Next installment we will deal with Christ handing over the kingdom, after He destroys all dominion, authority, and power, and best of all DEATH!

  lol (just realized I have been spelling resurrection wrong the whole time) Sorry :)

• Samuel Frost

  said

  To all that are posting: Just because we opened the Second Installment does not mean material from the First is now complete. You can continue to bring those points up from 1-11. I just want to be able to catalogue this “discussion debate” in terms of installments; secondly, we don’t want to continue to make the points over and over again. The readers, present and future, will make up thier minds if the points have been proven/addressed by the ones who raised them and responded to them.

  The above material from Mr. Miano (I will just use “Miano” from now on) sounds a whole lot like my material from Exegetical Essays and my material from the Lectures on First Corinthians which RCM published as a Full Preterist ministry. I would have “amened” it! Today, I don’t.

  First, Miano writes, “If Christ has not been raised there is no ressurection of the dead, well duh.” That’s not Paul’s argument. His argument is,”if there is no resurrection of dead ones, then Christ has not been raised from dead ones”. Paul is NOT arguing from the future to the past: “if there WILL BE no resurrection of dead ones (future), then there was no resurrection of Jesus” (past). The tense is present (probably gnomic as a general statement). “If God does not raise dead people, then he did not raise Jesus.” This is where I made a fatal mistake. What follows in the verses is “faith is vain, we are false, those fallen asleep are lost” is the conclusion of JESUS not being raised so that the argument is: if God does not raise dead ones, then he did not raise the dead Jesus, and if he did not raise the dead Jesus, then we are lost, vain, hopless….What Paul is doing is tying the resurrection of JESUS to the benefits of that resurrection to the believers. We do not have any PRESENT benefits if Christ is not raised because Christ is not raised if, in fact, God does not raise the dead! Remember, in the Hebrew Scritpures, God “puts to death and I bring to life” (Deut. 32.39); “The LORD brings death and makes alive, he brings down to the grave and raises up” (1 Sam 2.6). God raises the dead. But if he does not raise the dead, then he did not raise Christ, and if he did not raise Christ, well, then you can see the consequences which you yourself would not affirm.

  Second, the “hope of Israel” is certainly tied to the resurrection of the dead, as the verses provided by Miano prove beyond any doubt. However, where I failed to miss the point was in the fact that I wholly placed the “hope of Israel” in the future. Thus, I could posit that what was being denied was something wholly future (Israel’s resurrection supposedly in AD 70). Therefore, what was being denied was Israel’s future resurrection, so I reasoned. However, Jesus, as Paul argued, IS the hope of Israel and HIS resurrection IS the inauguration of the resurrection of the dead (this is found in several scholars today, as well as the fathers of the past). The resurrection of the dead STARTS with Jesus and ENDS with the resurrection of “all those who call upon my name – I shall raise them up at the last day.” This fact demands that Jesus determines the NATURE of the resurrection: bodily, and the denial of such resurrection: bodily. This is why Paul STARTS his argument with Jesus, who died, and was bodily risen from the dead (vv.1-11), and STARTS verse 12 with, “since Jesus was raised from the dead, then how can some among you say….” Paul’s argument STARTS with the resurrection of Jesus, and the NATURE of the resurrection of Jesus is plain and clear to all: bodily. God raises the dead. He raised Jesus from the dead. But, if he does not raise the dead, then he did not raise Jesus, and if he did not raise Jesus, Christianity is a farce – pure and simple. This is what he is REMINDING them of, over and against the “some” among them that were saying otherwise (it does not appear to be a large group, but a group large enough to create trouble – the majority of the Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, had no problem with resurrection – but some of them, whoever they were, or whatever it was precisely that they were saying – did). Paul would have none of it.

• pault

  said

  Sam,

  Great point. Mr. Miano has re-framed what Paul wrote. That isn’t exegesis, nor is it intellectually honest to read into the text something not there.

  God Bless,

• Robert Thaggard

  said

  Nail on the head Sam Frost!

• Michael Miano

  said

  I’m not really a big fan of coat tails so please Paul T, can you explain where I have read something into the text that wasn’t there? Let’s not swing on Sam’s coat tail. As far Robert Thaggard, they let the Ellis Scoffied breed into thereignofchrist, exciting, aren’t we all just a bunch of “hairy ticks” here. LOL.
  What nail did Sam Frost hit on the head, Robert? Please expain.

  Sam, I actually had a hard time following your first arguement. I agree, I think. One can easily notice that you are choosing not to deal with verses 16-18. “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, YOUR faith is futile; YOU are still in YOUR sin. Then THOSE also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost”. The arguement Paul is expressing here is that if the dead are not raised, which they are not if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain and those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. There is a drastic contrast between the the dead and those asleep in Christ. Otherwise the sentence makes no sense.
  In your second arguement you simple just regurgitated everything I said and what the text says, but added “special” emphasis to the nature of the ressurection of Christ and thus us included as bodily. For the record, I believe beyond any doubt that Christ was ressurected bodily (whether it was the same body, a spiritual glorified body, whatever..) but that does not determine the ressurection of the dead would be exactly as is, rather it assured that there would be a ressurection of the dead (Israel).

• pault

  said

  Mike,

  You ask, “can you explain where I have read something into the text that wasn’t there?” It really isn’t that difficult, you wrote, “At this point to the common eye, it appears that Paul is being redundant. If Christ has not been raised there is no ressurection of the dead,” That isn’t what Paul wrote. What Paul wrote is, “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.”

  You’ve inserted your predetermined paradigm, (eisegesis), into the text rather than allowing the text, to speak (exegesis) for itself. The argument was over will dead people will come back to life as evidenced by Paul’s statement in v. 12, “how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” After asking the question, Paul goes on to point out the implication of what it is they denied, “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.” This form of argument is called a modus tolens, “in denying you deny”. In denying the dead rise, they, (Paul’s opponents in the congregation) were in effect denying Christ Jesus rose from the dead. This of course is absurd and demonstrates Paul’s use of reductio ad absurdum.

  Mike, please don’t take this wrong, but have you taken any basic classes in hermeneutics, or read any works explaining the basics of exegesis? Do you understand “exegesis” doesn’t call for rearranging what is written on the page in order of your preference? The net effect of your position, which apparently you are unaware, is the exact same thing Paul’s opponents held in the first century. You deny the dead rise, thus logically based on your denial Christ Jesus didn’t rise. Your position is utterly absurd, that is if you claim to be a Christian. You need to deal with what is actually written on the page rather than what you would prefer was written.

• Greg Kiser

  said

  Mike, this statement is VERY TELLING of your position, “For the record, I believe beyond any doubt that Christ was ressurected bodily (whether it was the same body, a spiritual glorified body, whatever..) but that does not determine the ressurection of the dead would be exactly as is, rather it assured that there would be a ressurection of the dead (Israel).”

  Whether it was the same body, a spiritual glorified body, whatever…, is EXACTLY the issue. It cannot be passed off my throwing it to the side like it doesn’t matter. IT DOES MATTER. The tomb was EMPTY. That’s the point. Paul is clarifying that when he said (borrowing emphasis from PaulT):

  “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” 1Corinthians 15:3-9

  The point in all the above is that the tomb was empty of THE MAN, Christ Jesus. This MAN died, this MAN was buried, this MAN was raised, this MAN was seen by all those listed. This MAN was seen by most of them post-resurrection / pre-ascension, but Paul includes himself in the list even though Paul saw Jesus post-ascension. So we can obviously then say this MAN appeared to Paul as well. And a “man” has a body, the same body that was killed on the cross, buried in the tomb, raised from the dead, and ascended… self-same. THAT’S the point. DEAD MEN are raised… not in something ethereal, but in the SAME body.

  Christ’s resurrection MOST CERTAINLY defines the nature of the resurrection of believers. He is the FIRSTFRUITS and the LAST ADAM. In every way Paul associates His resurrection with ours. We, the harvest, CANNOT be fundamentally different from the Firstfruits & the Last Adam. His resurrection is inextricably linked to ours. It cannot be that the Firstfruit of the resurrection was raised physically from the dead, and then this be an example of the harvest of a corporate resurrection spiritual covenantal “body.” How does one even make that kind of jump in difference of fruit?

  To say, as you have, “…but that does not determine the ressurection of the dead would be exactly as is” is to put yourself in agreement with the very thing the apostle Paul is arguing against. Think of it! Those Paul was arguing against could’ve been saying EXACTLY that. They could’ve been saying, “Well, the physically dead are NOT raised, that is just silly. Jesus was raised physically, yes, but that does not determine the resurrection of ‘the dead’. Instead it just determines that there would be a covenantal ‘body’ resurrection of Israel.” See? The apostle Paul IS TAKING ISSUE WITH YOUR VERY VIEW.

• Samuel Frost

  said

  Michael, you wrote, “One can easily notice that you are choosing not to deal with verses 16-18. “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, YOUR faith is futile; YOU are still in YOUR sin. Then THOSE also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost”. The arguement Paul is expressing here is that if the dead are not raised, which they are not if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain and those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. There is a drastic contrast between the the dead and those asleep in Christ. Otherwise the sentence makes no sense.”

  But, I did deal with it. You cannot make a distinction between “the dead” and those “fallen asleep.” They are one and the same. Paul’s argument is quite simple: if God does not raise the dead, then he didn’t raise Christ, and if he didn’t raise Jesus, then those fallen asleep have perished. Here, Paul is FLATLY rejecting “soul only” existence. If the soul of those fallen asleep goes to heaven without the futurity of their bodily existence, then there is no existence any more than Jesus exists in heaven without his body. The “body is for the Lord” and was “made for the Lord” (I Cor 6). They are united with each other in the unity of the man (body and soul), so that the fullness of existence is body and soul. The soul, even in heaven, retains the form of the body and the identity with the body, even though, for a time, that corrupt body is on earth. Nonetheless, it is STILL the body of the person to whom it belongs, as Jesus’ body was his, and only his. Your body is yours, and only yours. It is intimately connected with you and you are intimately connected and bound to it, even though, for a time, it “appears” to be apart. It will one day be united again (resurrection – this is the basic meaning of the word). Therefore, if all that we have is a flight of the soul in heaven, without resurrection of the body, then those souls are perished, for there is no full existence apart from the body in the Hebrew Scriptures. “And he was formed from the dust (body) and God breathed, and man became a living being (soul and body).” It’s this same living being that God will raise entirely. JUST AS HE DID WITH THE PROTOTYPE/FIRSTFRUIT: JESUS. This is the whole point you are missing Michael, and one that I entirely missed and even denied……

• dabridge

  said

  Mike i don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand concerning 1 cor 15. There is not difficulty unless you’re trying to interject some foreign (ET) concept in to the text. it is clear from the context vs 1-12 that the topic of discussion was about physical body resurrections and the some among them that where denying that it has, can or would ever take place. NOT A SINGLE HINT OF THEM TAKING ABOUT A SPIRITUAL RESSURRECTION! From a man that’s always screaming “Search the Scriptures” The statements you make concerning 1corithians 15 make you seem incompetent or just seriously brain washed. I’m not insulting you by any means but these passages are just too clear on what they are saying to be taken any other way.

  The point of the passages was not to assure that a spiritual resurrection was going to take place because Christ has been raised . But the point was to show that dead do arise back to physical life and proving it by showing the evidence of testimony that Christ was SEEN alive PHYSICALLY IN HIS BODY after his death thus the physically dead do come back to physical life!! Vs. 1-11 “Simple stuff”

  The fact of the matter is there wasn’t a confusion concerning the resurrection of the dead. It was that There were some (who ever that may be) that were flat out denying that the dead rise (Physically).

  At first I was in disagreement with Sam concerning who the SOME AMONG THEM was but after a re-survey of the text I seen how his conclusion made sense. My thinking was “why would Christ resurrection or any hope be of any interest to a non-believer”? But the mistake that i made came from the assumption that Paul was also writing to the “some among them”. Thinking that Paul was addressing the some among them , led me to conclude that the some among them were of the church, that later began to deny the body resurrection of the dead for the above reason.

  In first 1 cor, 15 Paul intent for this portion of the letter was to counter the false teaching that where invading the church at Corinth. These teaching seem to be coming from the “some” that were among them which where denying that the dead rise.
  Paul’s letter to the church is to emphasize the important of maintaining his teaching concerning the resurrection of the dead. His letter seems to be an act of prevention, in hopes to prevent them embracing this false teaching by solidifying the churches position on what they have been taught, and showing them the importance of maintaining this truth. Paul begins:

  1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Reads:
  (1) And, brothers, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and in which you stand;
  (2) by which you also are being kept safe, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

  These passages seem to suggest that this is what was taking place, “Which you also are being kept safe, IF YOU HOLD FAST the word”. This seems to imply that Paul’s intent was to prevent some from embracing this false concept by helping them see the weight and the consequences of accepting this fallacy which in later verses he further expounds.

  Vs. 3-11 is stated to assure some in the church of this doctrine and to also show how silly the statements of the “some among them” are, which deny the truth. In other words “how could they even dare deny the dead rise in the light of all this testimony”.

  Mike, what I think you don’t understand is that the PRIMARY argument is about the resurrection of the dead, that the physically dead do rise from the grave, which was a doctrine denied by the Sadducean teachers (Acts 17:32), Greek Philosophers and the Gnostics. The arguments addressed after where secondary arguments that where in relation to and connected to the Primary.

  I noticed that you pre- define what the context was by saying that Paul was addressing the division in the church as if the divisions were the only thing that Paul was addressing in his letter to Corinth which was not the case. you were Referencing I believe
  1 Corinthians 1:10
  (10) But I exhort you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

  But there where many other things being addressed then the divisions which you apply the rest of the passages of scripture, well at least 1cor 15. I quote Mike:

  “ Now in context we have Paul writing to the Corinthian church concerning the divisions amongst them, the Gentile-Jew divide that is occurring do to freedoms from the Law, and now we have Paul reminding the Corinthians of the gospel which he has delivered to them.”

  First of all the scripture are clear as to what the divisions were that 1 cor 1:10 lets continue the reading
  1 Corinthians 1:11-15
  (11) For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
  (12) But I say this, that every one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
  (13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
  (14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
  (15) lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.

  The Divisions where that they were literally forming Clicks, “I am of Paul”, “I of Apollos” etc..
  The divisions of vs 10 have been addressed in verses 11-15. The point was that they were dividing and that Paul wanted them to remain unified in the Lord. Now to apply this division spoken of in vs 10 to 1cor 15 is simply an injustice to the word of God. Correct me if I’m wrong but this is called clasping context.
  Paul’s desire was that they be unified in the Lord, not divided in clicks chasing after man.
  Paul also shows that there were other things going on other than divisions he needed to address.

  1 Corinthians 3:3
  (3) “For you are yet carnal. For in that there is among you ((envyings)) and ((strife)) and divisions are you not carnal, and do you not walk according to men?”

  Paul also addresses them being puffed up, not because they had freedom from the Law but because they felt they were favored by God in contrast to other saints that were not enjoying their luxuries. They reign like Kings; they were full, rich, wise in Christ, strong. But Paul and others were condemned to death , made spectacle to the world, fools for Christ, weak, dishonored, hungered, poorly clothed, beaten, homeless, they labored, persecuted, defamed and the list goes own (1cor 4:6-13) . Paul experience is in contrast to those in Corinth who were enjoying their lack of these struggles and which was the reason for them being puffed up. Not because they had freedoms from the Law. Where do you get this stuff mike???

  In chapter 5 vs 1 Paul also addresses their addresses immoralities…

  The point the point that I’m trying to make is that in the beginning of your statement you have already created the lens that we should view the text from in order for us to arrive at the same conclusion you have but it doesn’t work mike. You have misrepresent the context(s)
  There are many things being address other than the divisions which I might add you wrongly defined)

  I also might add that Paul Being a JEW was already free from the law
  1 Corinthians 6:12
  (12) “All things are lawful to me, but not all things profit. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

  To end with this, your view doesn’t not work!

• Michael Miano

  said

  PaulT, obviously verse 12 doesn’t speak of a a physical resurrection all that clearly, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. What verse 12 says, as your wrote is, “how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead”. We can throw accusations of eisogesis all ovet this forum, fact remains withouth exegetical study we will stick to our own paradigms (and quite possibly even after that). The argument is over the resurrection of the dead, and yes as the text says if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

  What I find interesting about this forum is the fact that in one sentence I am being told that it is plain to see that this text is speaking of a resurrection of the physical dead, which isn’t all that clear. Then in the next sentence I am accused on eisogesis and not proper exegetical study. Which is it? Is it that clear or does it require exegetical study? What it seems to me, is that according to your standards I have not submitted the text to be based on what “orthodoxy” says they must say, and therefore run with it. I will rest with simply seeking to understand the point that is being made in this passage and in context with the whole of Scripture.

  Now Greg, I believe we agree that the tomb was empty and that Christ was resurrected, but I think your really trying to push that issue here. What is simply being told in 1 Corinthians 15:1-12, is a reminder of the gospel that has been preached, witnessed, and is according to Scripture. It is this very reason, that the whole extra-Biblical physical appearence of Christ to Paul must be pushed by those in this forum. Actually Paul is taking issue with those who deny the resurrection of the dead, the contention of our differing views is what exactly that resurrection was. To me, it’s rather simple, as I would argue my case, just as many in here argue there’s, that I am not blinded by a certain paradigm. 1 Corinthians 15 in it’s entirety is dealing with Paul reminding the Corinthians of the gospel which is being preached, starting with the importance of “Christ died for our sins according to Scripture (v.3), “he was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (v.4), that he appeared to many (v.5-7), “and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (v.8)”.”But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead (v.9). Now Paul begins to illustrate the problem with this view, which would be if there is no resurrection of the dead (the hope of Israel, Acts chapter 24), then their faith is in vain () and those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost (). And in the coming installments we will see more issues that are raised. And yet, none of this sounds like my view :)

  Sam, distincion cannot been made between “the dead” and “those fallen alseep”. That is ludicrous. You then force Paul’s argument to be, If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised, and if Christ is not raised, then the dead are not raised. That’s nonsense and I dare to say you know it. Therefore, what is Paul proving? If that’s the case- nothing. Rather, the resurrection of the dead (the hope of Israel) is what everything is contigent upon. Christ rose as the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead, therefore providing the validity of the resurrection, and then the resurrection of the dead has provided a foundational faith for those who believe in the gospel. Since God has been faithful to Israel (you know the whole Jew first, Romans 1:16) we can therefore have faith in His promises, but if He failed to keep that promise? ughhh.

  Now onto my friend, Vaniel. I will admit from the beginning that I find it quite interesting that you have such a basic view of 1 Corinthians 15, yet scholars cannot seem to agree and even in this group the constant exegetical topic keeps coming up. It’s interesting that you can supply such a polished foundation of this physical resurrection of the dead (which I don’t when I read because I’m not reading that into the text) yet when approached about Matthew 10, Matthew 16, or Matthew 24, you delay to respond. To me those are quite simple statements, wouldn’t you say? :)

  Anyways, just as much as you accuse me of injecting an ET concept into the text, I will those the accusation back at you. Read through some of the other resurrection texts to get confirmation of the lack of “physicality” (if that’s a word, ha ha). But now I remember you will then argue that you don’t read all the texts the same, right? Come on man, by now if you cannot see the nonsense in the “anti-preterist agenda” being propagated here, I don’t know what to tell you.

  You wrote, “The point of the passages was not to assure that a spiritual resurrection was going to take place because Christ has been raised . But the point was to show that dead do arise back to physical life and proving it by showing the evidence of testimony that Christ was SEEN alive PHYSICALLY IN HIS BODY after his death thus the physically dead do come back to physical life!! Vs. 1-11 “Simple stuff””. Interesting, don’t we wish Paul explained it so clearly the way you do. That’s exactly it, you are talking of something different!

  You saying that there wasn’t any confusion about the resurrection of the dead is insane my friend. If you read a bit further, or maybe put on glasses, you will see the next issue being dealt with is “with what kind of body do they come”. Let’s be real here. At first you were in disagreement with Sam because you know that the text is speaking to the Believers. But after thinking, and realizing what the text says you had to figure a way to make it work and therefore it must that some were denying the physical resurrection, right? But that is not what is being made clear from the text, that my friend must be read into the text. They were denying the hope of Israel, the resurrection of the dead. Why? That is the question that must be asked and requires actually reading the letter in context.

  And of course to this you say that I have pre-defined what the lens should be. Instead of going through a whiole exegetical study, I would invite you to read through the entire book of 1 Corinthians, pay attention to pronouns, and the simple eye can see the distinctions being made between the Jewish believers who still felt bound by the Law and the Gentiles who felt superior because they weren’t.

• pault

  said

  Mike,

  You write,

  “PaulT, obviously verse 12 doesn’t speak of a a physical resurrection all that clearly, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”

  Please don’t take offense to this, but that you miss the obvious doesn’t mean the concept isn’t obviously taught. Nor does the fact we are having this conversation mean the concept isn’t obviously taught. Since the second century heretics have been denying God’s obvious propositional truth claims based on what they believe possible.

  Once again, v.12 begins by pointing out, “if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead”. As has been pointed out on several occasions just prior to that phrase the Apostle Paul goes out of his way to explain Christ Jesus who was raised from the dead was also “seen”, as in “with their eye balls” by large number of people. Thus Paul unequivocally establishes the concept of resurrection inclusive of the body, you know, that which was seen by their eye-balls, is the issue.

  Paul then goes on then to ask, “how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Why? Paul tells us in his use of a modus tollens, (in denying is denial) right here, in the very next verse, “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” The question you need to answer is what “resurrection” would be denied, the denial of which would also negate Paul’s witness to the “physical” resurrection of Christ Jesus. I trust you will employ “intellectual honesty” in dealing with the question, because denying spirits move from one realm to the next would have no impact on the claims of people seeing a man who had died come back to life. However, what would negate the wittiness of those who claimed they saw a dead man who came back to life from the dead was to claim the idea dead people can come back to life from the dead wasn’t a possibility.

  Mike you ask,

  “What I find interesting about this forum is the fact that in one sentence I am being told that it is plain to see that this text is speaking of a resurrection of the physical dead, which isn’t all that clear. Then in the next sentence I am accused on eisogesis and not proper exegetical study. Which is it?”

  First, resurrection of the dead inclusive of the believers body is explicitly taught in 1 Cor 15, this is without question. However, in answer to your question, I think both apply. I haven’t seen you provide any of the promised exegesis, and you’ve failed to engage the arguments you’ve been provided. That 1 Cor. 15 teaches the future hope of Christianity to be resurrection inclusive of the body is without question. Even the liberals who deny the concept realize this. They rationalize away what Paul taught believing it to be his buy in, into myth.

• Greg Kiser

  said

  Hi Mike,

  You wrote, “Now Greg, I believe we agree that the tomb was empty and that Christ was resurrected, but I think your really trying to push that issue here. What is simply being told in 1 Corinthians 15:1-12, is a reminder of the gospel that has been preached, witnessed, and is according to Scripture.”

  How can you reduce it to that when the discussion Paul is leading to is verse 12?

  1Corinthians 15
  12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

  You just admitted, “we agree that the tomb was empty”. Why was it empty, Mike? Why didn’t Jesus just get an “immortal body at death (IBD)”? Or an “immortal body now” (IBN)? Or why wasn’t it just Jesus’ spirit (i.e. without a body) that came out of the tomb? A technicality? Just a sign? And if His resurrection is called Firstfruits, how does it resemble mine if mine is completely different than His? You are the one that brings in “the whole extra-Biblical” into the equation by testifying OPENLY that Jesus sloughed off His physical body when there is not a single scripture that testifies to this but rather there are 3 VERY POINTED ones that testify EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE (Colossians 2:9; 1Timothy 2:5; 1John 4:2).

  I’m not “pushing” the “physical appearance” of Christ, Paul is. And he’s doing it to make a point.

  You also wrote, “What I find interesting about this forum is the fact that in one sentence I am being told that it is plain to see that this text is speaking of a resurrection of the physical dead, which isn’t all that clear.”

  Mike, it has been painfully clear to every Christian scholar for 2000 years. Do you now get it and no one else did for 2000 years? Can you even find a commentary by ANY theologian for 2000 years that agrees with you? Nope. Doesn’t that concern you just a little?

  Mike I believe if you were honest with yourself, like I had to be, you will admit that you are indeed “blinded by a certain paradigm”. We all are biased, but knowing our bias helps us to strive to be open-minded. But, you MUST have a Jesus that does NOT have a physical body now so you can have your full preterism. And you MUST have a Jesus that does NOT have a physical body now so you can interpret all the time statements in what you deem as a consistent manner. I pray that you realize this and take a long hard look at what you are trading in for “time statements.”

  I was a full preterist for 15 years (since the mid 1990s). I wrote the following:
  ====================
  Basically, the problem with all NT eschatology is a struggle between what to do with the time statements and the nature of Christ’s return. For example, one has to choose between the following:

  1. The time statements are literal and Christ’s return is physical.
  2. The time statements are literal and Christ’s return is spiritual.
  3. The time statements are symbolic and Christ’s return is physical.
  4. The time statements are symbolic and Christ’s return is spiritual.

  A futurist commonly must pick #3 or #4. Most, of course, pick #3. The time statements are said to be “God’s Time,” or they are said to be written so that “every generation of man would expect Christ’s return.” Also it is emphasized, “no man knows the day nor the hour.” Therefore, the futurist likes to call himself a “literalist” concerning the nature of Christ’s return, but when faced with the time statements of the NT, they are clearly not literalists. It is common, because of their expectation of a physical return of Christ, to have to explain the time statements. Thus, the NATURE of Christ’s return in their eyes determines the TIMING.

  A [full] preterist commonly must pick #1 or #2 above. Most, of course, pick #2. The nature of Christ’s return is said to be “seen” or “fulfilled” in the destruction of Jerusalem of 70 AD by the Romans. This is strongly suggested in the Olivet Discourse of our Lord in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13. Therefore, a preterist likes to call himself a “literalist” with regard to the time statements, but when faced with the nature of Christ’s return, they are clearly not literalists (i.e., physical in this case). It is common, due to their understanding of the timing of the return of Christ, to have to explain the nature of the event in a different way. Thus, the TIMING of Christ’s return in their eyes determines the NATURE.
  ====================
  See? I understand. The TIMING of your eschatology DETERMINES the nature of the resurrection. Plain and simple. To maintain your “timing” you will most certainly bring ideas OUTSIDE of scripture into 1Corinthians 15. I did the same, brother.