Our Singular Body

April 17, 2011 by Jason Bradfield

34 Comments 34 Comments

A couple of days ago, i was reading through Paul’s letter to the saints at Philippi. In the context of the “resurrection from the dead”, he states:

Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Philippians 3.17-21 ESV)

As far as i know, verse 21 is a standard text used by Christians to enforce the doctrine of the resurrection of the body ~ that is, our flesh. And it sure does seem that way, don’t it? “Ahhh, not so fast”, screams the full preterist who believes that all prophecy has been fulfilled, “Look at the Greek!”

Overlooking the fact that hardly any full preterist i know can even read Greek (and i know a bunch)…they will raise a question similar to the one Max King raised in his book “The Spirit of Prophecy”:

Why did he use the plural,’our’ and the singular ‘body,’ if he were talking about a general resurrection of individual dead bodies?

Was Max wrong in pointing out that the word for ‘body’ is singular? No. “Aha…then we’re right! ‘Body’ is being used metaphorically here. He is referring to a spiritual/covenant/corporate body. A single body that they all partook in. How then could the orthodox be so blind? They only reject the clear wording and teaching of Scripture at this point because they love their creeds/confessions more than they do the truth!” So goes the rhetoric and pressure from the full preterists.

“Ahhh, but not so fast”, says i.

Friends, there is something to be said about patience when studying Scripture. As a general practice, full preterists are not very patient. You see this impatience at work on the various forums. An idea is thrown out there; a couple of people chew on it in a 48 hour period; and voila! another dogmatic argument is added to the full pret arsenal. When i first encountered this argument from full preterists, i lacked patience as well and bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Not any more…

After reading this text the other day, i started to ask myself numerous questions. You know…ponder the text…not be quick to jump on any fulfillment bandwagon. And one of the first questions that came to mind was this: are there any other places in Scripture where a genitive plural (our) is used with a singular noun (body) that clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt and agreed by all, does not hint to some ‘spiritual/ covenant/ corporate’ thingy shared by a plurality? I didn’t have to go far:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (Philippians 4.23 ESV)

‘Spirit’ is singular. ‘Your’ is plural. Now, who is going to argue from this text that the ‘spirit’ mentioned here is referring to some corporate/covenant singular unity type of thingy? I can just hear it now, “Yeah, but they were all baptized into one body…one Spirit. I Co 12.13.” That, of course, would be absurd. Surely Paul is not suggesting that the Holy Spirit is in need of some ‘grace’.

See how tricky this all gets? Heretical doctrine typically does not start off sounding absurd. Heretical teachers may even make a legitimate observation about Greek words and even connect us to a true interpretation of another text that we would all agree on. It is that little bit of truth that is mixed in with error that usually hooks an impatient person like myself.

Not convinced from Phil 4.23? Try this one from two letters over:

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Thessalonians 5.23 ESV)

‘Your’ is plural. ‘Spirit’, ‘soul’, & ‘body’ are all singular. Which of you full preterists are now going to tell me that the “spirit, soul, and body” mentioned here is not a reference to the makeup of each individual person, but is instead referring to some corporate/ covenant/ spiritual single metaphorical body that they all participated in?

I’m not done yet:

But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; (1 John 3:17-19 ESV)

See ‘our heart’ in v. 19? ‘Our’ is plural, ‘heart’ is singular. So, are we to believe that if one person within the church closed his heart against his brother and God, then all persons within the church were to doubt that they were of the truth, since they ALL shared in one single corporate/ covenant/ spiritual heart? Come on now.

You got some of it correct Mr King but unfortunately you went on to ask a question and force an interpretation that could have easily been avoided. Dear full preterists…slow down. Stop. Think. Give it ‘time’. Your argument* is not as solid and thorough as you think.

“Your” is plural. “Argument” is singular. And not all full preterists claim that they got this argument from King. ( ;

Erick

Good article Jason. Back in the day I remember arguing with some CBV folks on SGP, at the time I wrote:

“29) The reason I bring up the singular form of the word “body” is because I HAVE heard people make an issue out of the singular form of the noun to prove that it is a singular ENTITY. If this sounds absurd, don’t blame me. Max King for example does this exact thing on page 549 in his “Cross and the Parousia.” This is just as irresponsible as seeing present tense verbs as automatically teaching a present action, translating an article every time one occurs, defining “all” as “all individuals,” defining “until” as “up to a point and not thereafter,” seeing the 2nd person plural “you” as “corporate entity” language rather than “group of individuals” and a whole host of fallacious arguments people build their dogmatism upon. When asking about the TYPE of body the dead would receive at the resurrection one would NOT say “bodies” but “body.” Paul’s entire discussion revolves around body TYPE (“and to EACH of the seedS ITS OWN body). Therefore, Mr. King’s argument is thoroughly bogus.”

It’s like a teacher in Health Class telling students to care for their body. The teacher wouldn’t say, “Take care of your bodIES” but “Take care of your body, it’s the only one you have.” They all have the same “body” in that it is the human body (not a goat’s), but that doesn’t mean their all sharing the same body in number. King’s argument used to (and still does) drive me crazy; and as you demonstrated, it’s as fallacious as could be. The IBD camp is correct in the “individual” part, but there are just as many problems with the rest of that view as with the CBV.
Sam

Erick,

Yep……that’s what we “crammed” into I corinthians 15. We first reasoned that Paul “never” taught what the pharisees taught concerning “resurrection”, then argued that the “some” did not “deny” their own resurrection (soul only), and thus, Paul “must” be talking about something else. We we desperate….
Erick

You know what they say about necessity and invention :) All of the following are very different, but only one (by necessity) forces the adherent to leave behind the orthodox view of the nature of resurrection:

Full-preterism (CBV and IBD):
If parousia, then the second resurrection
70A.D. parousia
Therefore 70A.D. second resurrection

Amillennialism:
If parousia, then second resurrection
No parousia yet
Therefore no second resurrection yet

Premillennialism:
If parousia, then first resurrection
No parousia yet
Therefore no first resurrection yet

Russell:
If parousia, then first resurrection
70A.D. parousia
Therefore 70A.D. first resurrection.
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

I love Phil. 3:21.
Sure, “body” is referring to individuals, and those individuals “do” make-up the entire body (church) of Christ. But no need to quibble on my part… What is very interesting to me, is the Greek word Paul uses for”change” (KJV); “Who shall ‘change’ our vile body (body of humility…)….” Of course, it is the word METASCHEMATIZO. In the past, i have researched this word in a great number of lexicons, Greek Word Study commentaries, etc. Then I searched out all the passages that it is used in the Greek NT. Fascinating, because the normative way that it is used is in the idea of a “transferal.” I know I know, “Birks is IBD, so he’s forcing his interpretation into the text!” This is of course one of the things that I stridently try NOT to do, which is why I formally turned my back on “Full” Preterism about 10 years ago….

The word is used in 1 Cor. 4:6, “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure TRANSFERRED to myself and to Apollos….” Check the context. Metaschematizo should be translated there as a “transfer” and this is correct….

Next, 2Cor. 11:13-15, where Paul uses Metaschematizo twice in those three verses. Again the idea of a transference is presented in the context and by the use of the word. “For such are false apostles, TRANSFORMING (through a “transfer”), themselves into the apostles of Christ…..Therefore it s no great thing if his minsters also be TRANSFORMED as the ministers of righteousness….”

So, Phil. 3:21 can in fact and no doubt should be translated as, “Who shall transform (through a transferal) our body of humility….” Please keep in mind that this passage here is “not an explanation” of “how” the transformation will take place, but simply a direct “statement of fact”. It is a factual statement, not a statement concerning the nature of the transferal. (The “how” it happens). The point being that however the transformation/transferal takes place, we will SUMMORPHON have the “same form” as his glorious body.

No matter whether you’re IBD or “orthodox” (casket res.), you’re individual body will be like Christ’s body. It’s pretty tough to wrap ones mind around that which it has no comparative experiential analogy to interpret through. …. I’m just glad that my eternal existence will be like Christ. Amazing!

Dr. B…
sam

I think the commentaries suggest the idea of “transformation” in Phil. 3.21 there because, again, the example of Christ. His “glorious body” was his post-resurrection body. Jesus was “transformed”. Another interesting thing is the present existence of Jesus’ “glorious body.” Jesus, in heaven, has a “glorious body”. This is his present existence. So, the argument that “flesh and blood” cannot “inherit the kingdom” goes out the window. If flesh and blood is “transformed” (in whatever manner), then this cannot be Paul’s meaning that fleshly substance cannot in any way, shape or form, be “raised”. Jesus’ resurrection cancels that argument. Paul has Jesus in mind concerning “the resurrection of the dead” (15.42), for Jesus is the “firstfruits” of “the resurrection of the dead”.
Tom

Phil 3:21-22 was the very verse I was studing in 2009 when I realized I could not accept the claims of F&HP. The resurrection of Christ, changed everything. He is the First fruit, there is no fruit since then that come from any other source than his resurrection! Believeing in His Resurrection, is transforming! Paul prayed, that I might know Him, and the power that raised Him from the dead, and the fellowship of His suffering! I have known him, and I have experienced the Power that raised Him, and now we shall learn about the fellowship of his suffering!
http://www.covenantpreterism.ning.com Ken Palmer

Yes Jason and Dr. Birks…these are the tenets of FP I have not accepted. Even when Sam explained it to me briefly a couple of years ago…The plainest understanding of those listening to Paul are NOT thinking “corporate whatever…” their individual bodies are in mind here. No wonder why Gramdma saw her old family and friends gathering around her before she died, waiting to receive her…. :)
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hi Sam,

Hope you’re doing well brother.

Yes, we can both produce “commentaries that will ether affirm or deny our two positions.” You stated…

Sam…I think the commentaries suggest the idea of “transformation” in Phil. 3.21 there because, again, the example of Christ. His “glorious body” was his post-resurrection body. Jesus was “transformed”.

Me… Agreed. Jesus’ body was “transformed.” He is the protokos, the first in order or “head” of the resurrection of the dead. No question about it. However, what we do have to deal with, i believe, instead of simply positing the view that “Because Christ was raised in his physical earthly body, then we will too”, that we must deal with all the “explanation” passages that speak to the issue of our own individual resurrection bodies. In other words, we must deal with passages like 2 Cor. 5:1-4, which said argument concerns our being “clothed upon” with a body out of heaven, and begins back in Ch. 4. I know you’ve read “The End of Sin” and have therefore read Ch. 4 where i deal with this in some detail. It would be great to have you respond to that chapter in particular if you’ve got some time.
The other thing that must be produced by the “orthodox” folks, is a passage or two (at least), where it states that “we will be raised like Christ was raised.” Or, “we will be raised in the same manner.” In other words, where does the NT teach that our resurrection will be “like” Christs resurrection?” What we have are a plethora of passages that speak to the “fact” of our being raised, but none that teach that the “nature” (the “how”) of our resurrection will be “like” Chris was raised. Christs resurrection is the fountainhead of all our resurrections. But when the NT in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5 teaches that our bodies will come upon on us out of Heaven, and “that’ is then called “our resurrection”, then we must step back and reconsider the position.

Sam… Another interesting thing is the present existence of Jesus’ “glorious body.” Jesus, in heaven, has a “glorious body”. This is his present existence. So, the argument that “flesh and blood” cannot “inherit the kingdom” goes out the window.

Me….Actually, i believe the context of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 15:50, is speaking to OUR “flesh and blood” and not Christ’s. 1 Cor. 15:49: “And as we have borne the image of the earthly (Adamic), we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Note, “we will bear his image.” Not in a one to one ratio, but being conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). Also, the word for “bear” there is PHOREO. “To wear as clothing.” To put on over. Our bodies out of heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-2) will clothe our saved spirits, and “that” is what Paul calls our resurrection body. So, no, we will not have “flesh” and blood in the kingdom of heaven. Our bodies will be like his, but not in every way. That much is clear.

Sam…. If flesh and blood is “transformed” (in whatever manner), then this cannot be Paul’s meaning that fleshly substance cannot in any way, shape or form, be “raised”.

Me… But that’s just it. Flesh and blood will not be transformed, we will experience a “transferal”, a METASCHEMATIZO.” I’m still looking for a passage that teaches the idea of our flesh bodies being transformed aka, changed. Paul is giving us the explanation as to what a resurrection is: (A body “out” of heaven-2 Cor. 5:1-2, an exchange (ALLASSO) -1 Cor. 15:51-52, Him “giving” us a body- 1 Cor. 15:38, “wearing like clothing” the image of the heavenly- 1 Cor. 15: 49, “Putting on”-1 cor. 15:53-54…)

Sam…Jesus’ resurrection cancels that argument.

Me…. I really don’t think so. Jesus’ resurrection not only does not “cancel the argument”, it actually forms the basis for what Paul describes as to why we get a body out of heaven. If Jesus wasn’t raised, we would never have a body like his.

BTW, I don’t who it was here recently, possibly on the “Sam Vs. Sam” post, who said that IBD has a lot of problems , or something like that. I would really like to hear what some of those IBD problems are so i can respond to them.

Sam, you and i know every resurrection passage and related passage in the book, and yet, we are coming to different conclusions as to “nature” of the believer’s resurrection body. We are in agreement as to the “fact’ of it and that it is a one to one ratio of eternal existence.

Thanks again Jason, for the opportunity to be on the board here again. And thank you Sam and everyone else who are contributing to these discussions. May they also conform us to the image of Christ.

Dr. B…
Kari Birks

Hi Sam!

A question that keeps coming to my mind in reading the latest posts, is … If you believe that our self same body will be raised, when do you believe that will happen?

~Kari
PaulT

Dr. Birks,

You write,

“Me….Actually, i believe the context of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 15:50, is speaking to OUR “flesh and blood” and not Christ’s. 1 Cor. 15:49: “And as we have borne the image of the earthly (Adamic), we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Note, “we will bear his image.” Not in a one to one ratio, but being conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). Also, the word for “bear” there is PHOREO. “To wear as clothing.” To put on over. Our bodies out of heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-2) will clothe our saved spirits, and “that” is what Paul calls our resurrection body. So, no, we will not have “flesh” and blood in the kingdom of heaven. Our bodies will be like his, but not in every way. That much is clear.”

Yet the text states, “For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.” There is no reference in the text that “our saved spirits” put on a “resurrection” body. You are begging the question. And your begged question isn’t supported by 1 Corinthians 15 which explains a similar concept, “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” as conveyed in 2 Cor 5:4 There is no warrant to read into the text the pagan notion of transmigration of the soul. What the Apostle longed for was that he would not die, “be found naked” but would “rather” be transformed when this tent is “further clothed” upon because “this mortal body must put on immortality.”

BTW, I’m not sure how you can suggest, “The other thing that must be produced by the “orthodox” folks, is a passage or two (at least), where it states that “we will be raised like Christ was raised.””, in light of this passage, “in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep….Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” Is there something in the agricultural term “firstfruits” that indicates the balance of the harvest isn’t of the same nature as the “firstfruits”?
Erick

“BTW, I don’t who it was here recently, possibly on the “Sam Vs. Sam” post, who said that IBD has a lot of problems , or something like that. I would really like to hear what some of those IBD problems are so i can respond to them.”

Hi Dr. Birks, it was probably me you’re referring to. If so, two of the biggest problems I see are:

1) It places the second resurrection in 70A.D. when it is still future.
2) It is not a “resurrection of the body” since our body is not transformed in any way shape or form, i.e. nothing whatsoever happens to our body.
Erick

ha, the use of “our body” in my last statement (twice) was purely coincidental… i find that amusing, given the discussion. don’t worry, i’m not advocating the CBV ;)
sam

Kari, Hey! To answer your question: at the end of history. When the prayer of Jesus is fully answered: on earth as it is in heaven. This is the only way to square Paul’s langauge of “we shall not all sleep”. Christians who are alive at this point will be changed. The entire church, all of the saints, will be clothed with thier bodies. I am writing an upcoming article on the series I presented on Gordon Clark’s book, “The Biblical Doctrine of Man”. I think Clark solves the whole “dichotomy/trichotomy” issue. Man is unity (his being is his soul, or person) who has a body. To put it another way, man is in a body, but the body itself is not “part” of the man. The body is part of creation, and the creation will be renewed. This is the ultimate outworking of the restoration of all things (which has already begun). For Clark, resurrection of the body is like icing on the cake. We are already made alive in the resurrection of the dead (regeneration) but called has not called “all” of his people from among the nations. There is an “all”. Their names are already written in the Book of Life, from first to last (Isaiah 41.4). When that number of God’s elect has reached its final name, then the fullness of the End will come (the End has already begun, too). Kelly should understand this concept as well (the end of sin). That is what 70 AD means to me: the beginning of the End; the bringing about of what is true for the Man Christ Jesus to his people. He has all things under his feet and so shall we.

This is all too brief, but, for me, the more I think about the resurrection of the dead (in its ultimate form) is the bringing about the end of sin and struggle in the very bodily form sin corrupted my life. In THIS body (the body of creation) I shall see Jesus face to face. It’s the ultimate defeat of death. ALL that Adam’s death claimed, God cancels. That, to me, is ultimate victory. Simply giving me a new body – one that never experienced the defeat of sin and death – is not much of a victory. But, somehow, in a way only known to God, allowing me to recieve back my body of creation as glorified and resurrected, so that I can say, in THIS body I have overcome sin and death – now that’s victory. It’s the REstoration of creation, not the REplacing of creation. This was the significance for Paul in Jesus’ resurrection. He saw Jesus’ glorified body three years after his resurrection. This is what Paul wanted to attain to. To be alive in that which was once “lowly” but now transformed and glorious. The glorification of creation itself. The beutification of substance. This is what the Greeks so abhored in the Gospel. Creation was lowly, corrupt, had no real purpose – it was illusion. The idea of REstoration of creation was uniquely Jewish and Christian. Take that away, and, for Paul, you don’t have a gospel at all.
sam

In this discussion, which is wonderful by the way, I want to raise (!) a question to IBDers. Why are you so adamant against the idea of the resurrection of the self same body? We can prooftext all day long, but we need to really hit the bone of the axiom. Let me rephrase the question: why CAN’T it be the self-same body? Why CAN’T it be resurrection along the lines that we find in Second Temple Judaism (particularly the way the Pharisees defined it, of which Paul said he agreed with, and of which he was and his father). We know, then, that Paul was raised in this tradition. He knew what “resurrection” meant in this context. Where does he ever give the notion that he departed from this doctrine? Thanks for the answers….
sam

on the issue of Paul’s claim to have the same hope of resurrection as the Pharisees, Jason Bradfield has written a wonderful piece here: http://bradfield.thereignofchrist.com/paul-the-deceitful/#comment-177
Christian

First, let me say that I have no dog in your hunt, or the full-preterist hunt. So I’m completely un-biased! :>

But I see the singular “our” or “your” in all of those verses you mentioned as referring to the collective audience…not referring to a corporate body of all believers…and not referring to individuals.

For example: Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Thessalonians 5.23 ESV)

I see “your whole spirit and soul and body” as being the Thessalonians’ spirit and soul and body. It is a letter to them after all. If you’re leaving a family’s house and you say “Hope you have a good night,” you’re not referring to each individually, but not everybody in a family either. You’re targeting the family as a collective, as your audience. So that’s how I see these, audience specific.
Patrick Stone

Sam asked…”Why are you (IBD’ers) so adamant against the idea of the resurrection of the self same body?”

Patrick…

a) As you know, if the resurrection is placed in the past then are two primary ways to explain why it wasn’t a “casket resurrection” (otherwise it would have been seen and almost certainly documented). This includes the CBV and IBD view. The CBV tends to spiritualize everything. The IBD view simply says a new body was given in heaven to those raised.

b) Paul and to a lesser extent Peter (2 Peter 1:14) both thought of the body as a house or garment or tabernacle for the spirit. Utilizing contemporary apocalyptic literature, it can be shown that the “white robes” or garments in revelation could easily be interpreted as “the spiritual body.”

IF the “white robes” in Revelation represent the “spiritual body”
AND IF, the book of Revelation describes the Roman Jewish war of 66-70AD.
THEN since the white robes were bestowed as early as the Fifth Seal (c. 66 AD),
The resurrection must have begun about 66AD.
THEREFORE, a self same body view is not possible and a new body given in heaven is supported.

c) I am not adamantly against a self same body if only a “luz” or seed was used. That is, God only used a few atoms to maintain continuity. I see absolutely no need for this or no scripture that supports it though.

d) I am with Dr. Birks regarding Christ being the first-fruits of the harvest. There is no scripture, as far as I know, that says our resurrection mirrors his. Only that our new bodies will be like his. We shouldn’t press an analogy too hard?

e) Even if the resurrection was in the future, I still would hold to an IBD view. Several individuals and at least one group held to this view (a future new body) in the past, for example John Locke.

Blessings to all… Patrick
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hi Paul T.

My statement that you quoted above does not “beg the question.” I disagree with Sam’s position that the seed analogy does not in fact represent that a believer does not have to die first in order to experience the resurrection which Paul goes on to explain in V. 38 as God “giving”the believer a body which he did not have previously. You yourself in quoting the 1 Cor. 15:52-54 passage, admit that it does say “put on” incorruption…”put on” immortality, etc. It’s a continuation of his presentation that begins at V. 38 and includes V. 44 which states that at the same time we live in a body on the earth, there simultaneously “exists” (Gr: ESTIN) a spiritual body for us to inhabit in heaven.. Also V. 49, where Paul uses the word PHOREO in that we will “wear as clothing” the image of Christ.(Check the lexicons and Greek Commentaries). So as you can see, there is no question begging here.

Also, I do not believe in the pagan concept of a “transmigration of the soul” as you are labeling me with. The concept of transmigration of the soul historically includes human souls pre-existing somehow, as well as human souls going into animal bodies. Pagan indeed and not what i believe. No words in my mouth please! :>) :>)

Dr. B…
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hi Erick,

Nice to be talking to you. :>) I kind of thought that it was you who had made the statement but didn’t want to say unless i was sure.

Your two statements are….

1) It places the second resurrection in 70A.D. when it is still future.

Me…. I’m sorry, but what is a “second resurrection”? I know of no text that speaks in this manner. The “first resurrection” , according to Rev. 20:5b-6,. describes those who participate in the “first resurrection” as they who were raised with Christ when he was raised. This is confirmed by Rom. 6:3-6.

2) It is not a “resurrection of the body” since our body is not transformed in any way shape or form, i.e. nothing whatsoever happens to our body.

Me… Again, their exists no scripture that states the phrase, “resurrection of the body.” That phrase is a theological descriptor that is used by those who believe that this earthly carbon-based body is what is “raised” or transformed.

My question to you would be, can you point me to a passage pf scripture that says “our bodies will be raised”? Not a passage that you “interpret” as that, but a passage that actually states this in a definite fashion.

Thanks! :>)

Dr. B…
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hi Sam,

You state the series of questions above as ….

In this discussion, which is wonderful by the way, I want to raise (!) a question to IBDers. Why are you so adamant against the idea of the resurrection of the self same body? We can prooftext all day long, but we need to really hit the bone of the axiom. Let me rephrase the question: why CAN’T it be the self-same body? Why CAN’T it be resurrection along the lines that we find in Second Temple Judaism (particularly the way the Pharisees defined it, of which Paul said he agreed with, and of which he was and his father). We know, then, that Paul was raised in this tradition. He knew what “resurrection” meant in this context. Where does he ever give the notion that he departed from this doctrine? Thanks for the answers….

Me… As one of the “promoters” of IBD, (since 1999), i would say that the reason it “can’t be ” this self same earthly body that is raised is, 1. All of the scriptures I have given which no one has yet offered me a satisfactory exegetical response to yet (sorry), and 2. As you point out, the Pharisees held to this body being raised and that in and of itself should give one pause as to using their hermeneutic as a reason to hold to it. The gospels are filled with statements from Christ pointing out the plethora of theological error that the Pharisees held to. As Christ said, “Leave them alone. They are blind leaders the blind and if the blind lead the blind, then both will fall into the ditch.” 3. To say that Paul knew this position and somehow agreed to it is an equivocation and assumes facts that are not in evidence. Again, where does Paul state that the resurrection is this earthly body? Not an “interpretation” of a passage that you think says that according to ones presupposition, but where does it actually state this?

Thanks dude! :>)

Dr. B…
Sam

Dr. Birks. The Pharisees were wrong about everything? Where does Paul say that he does not believe as they do on this matter? In fact, the opposite: he says he has the SAME hope in resurrection. Point blank.

This whole “clothing” language, too, is pressed. The “white robes” is said to be “righteousness”. Have we not “put that” on, too? This is merely a metaphor. I am not literally “putting on” Jesus’ body over my soul! But, yet, that’s what it says, right? How can Paul issue the entreaty to “be clothed with Christ” if, in fact, this means “put on a new glorified body”? how can I do that in the here and now? The language of clothing, as metaphor, can equally go right along with the “self-same body” resurrection. It has for church history. This language of “change” and “clothing” does not in any way contradict the language of resurrection of the body. You guys have no resurrection body. It was never dead. Can’t be “glorified” either – it was never without glory. Notice that Jesus’ body is called a “GLORIOUS body” – because he had a lowly body – he lowered himself and became flesh – his body DIED and it was GLORIFIED. None of the language you have used convinces me otherwise. All of this can go right along with, and is, once again, STRONGLY supported by the one thing that keeps me convinced: Jesus was alive, dead, buried, and RAISED. He is our Model. Our Template. He is the Resurrection. He is the First of the Harvest. But, in your view, that breaks down. Our resurrection is nowhere even near his in comparison. And, Dr. B., there is no Scripture that you can furnish that “explicitly” gives me your view “without interpretation”. Not one.
http://kingneb.com Jason Bradfield

Thomas Boston wrote: “A man is said to die, when the soul is separated from the body, “and returns onto God who gave it,” Eccl. 12:7. But it is the body only which is laid in the grave, and can be properly said to be raised– therefore the resurrection, strictly speaking, applies to the body only. Moreover, it is the same body that dies, which shall rise again. At the resurrection, men shall not appear with other bodies, as to substance, than those which they now have, and which are laid down in the grave; but with the self-same bodies, endowed with other qualities. The very notion of a resurrection implies this, since nothing can be said to rise again, but that which falls.”
PaulT

Dr. B,

I didn’t indicate you were begging the question because you disagreed with Sam. I indicated you were begging the question to assume a fact not in evidence. Nor does the fact you do disagree with Sam and misuse the seed “analogy” in 1 Cor 15 save you from begging the question. Again, you’ve assumed an incorrect interpretation without providing basis and which the text itself won’t allow. The fact the body “puts on” a new characteristic doesn’t mean it is a different body. Believe me, my body has “put-on” several new characteristics since birth, yet it is the same body. Also if everyone had to die before “putting-on” the resurrection body why does Paul state not all will die but all will be changed? According to your position the Apostle Paul contradicted himself.

There is nothing in the text of 1 Cor 15 which suggests two bodies simultaneously exist. The text states “it” is sown corruptible “it” is raised incorruptible. Are you suggesting a body from heaven is corruptible? How can that be if the body is in heaven? Or perhaps you are claiming the soul once regenerated dies at death, is that your position?

I’m not “labeling” you, I’m pointing out the reality of the view you advocate. Your position requires the immaterial constituent part of man to leave the body and occupy another body. That is transmigration of the soul. As indicated there is no warrant to suggest Paul was advocating a pagan notion. No, what Paul advocated was the redemption of the whole man, body and soul.

Thanks for the suggestion about checking the lexicons, but you know I don’t claim to have any knowledge of the original languages. However, I’ve got several commentaries that all disagree with your position. And all those commentaries are authored by Greek N.T. scholars who know a heck of a lot more than I do about the original languages. Given we’ve pointed out that the text of both 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5 don’t support your position. And your position is contradicted by Paul’s explanation not all will die I think it is more than likely those N.T. scholars got it correct.

BTW, were you going to address my question about the agricultural term “firstfruits”? Do you have any evidence from anywhere that would suggest the balance of the harvest isn’t to be understood in terms of the “firstfruits”?
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hey Sam….. This is good brother. I’m thankful that we can all talk like this. I feel like my iron is being sharpened. :>0 You said:

Dr. Birks. The Pharisees were wrong about everything?

Me.. Bro, I didn’t say that they were wrong about everything. I stated that they were incorrect about many things and I will add that Jesus stated that the believers resurrection body would be “like the angels” (Gr: Issos, “equal to”),and angels do not have earthly carbon bodies. Their bodies are created already “fit” for dwelling in heaven. This is contra the Pharisees position and therefore, if Paul followed the Pharisees (which i do not believe he did on this issue) then he would be errant as well. (Lk. 20:36)

Where does Paul say that he does not believe as they do on this matter?

Me… 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5…. We’re going in a circle now. :>)

In fact, the opposite: he says he has the SAME hope in resurrection. Point blank.

Me…You’re referring to Acts 24:15 i believe. There Paul states that he believes in a resurrection that was about to be as a matter of fact but he does not state the “nature” of said resurrection. He does not explain in his defense before Felix the details of “how” that resurrection would occur. Again, i believe you are assuming facts that are not in evidence there.

This whole “clothing” language, too, is pressed. The “white robes” is said to be “righteousness”. Have we not “put that” on, too?

Me… Don’t confuse my positon with Patrick’s relative to the white robes being a type of our resurrection bodies. I do not hold to that. I find Patrick’s take on it, interesting, but it is not my view. Yes, the robes are no doubt a type of our imputed righteousness.

This is merely a metaphor. I am not literally “putting on” Jesus’ body over my soul!

Me… But a metaphor to what end? Is the metaphor of putting on not meant to convey an understanding of the nature of the thing? Otherwise, the use of the metaphor makes no sense if it is not taken in its normative way: A body that clothes us. Something that comes upon us which is NOT the same as a body that is in and of itself transformed or changed at the molecular level.

But, yet, that’s what it says, right? How can Paul issue the entreaty to “be clothed with Christ” if, in fact, this means “put on a new glorified body”?

Me…. The phrase “being clothed with Christ” is taken in a non-resurrection context and is not speaking to the resurrection issue that we are discussing.

how can I do that in the here and now? The language of clothing, as metaphor, can equally go right along with the “self-same body” resurrection. It has for church history.

Me… I agree. It has gone on thorough out church history and it has been based upon an assumption that has no biblical legs to sand on. Origin took an IBD “like” position. And of course the majority voted him out on it and the church has suffered ever since. That’s what happens when you allow politically motivated groups that control the thought life of the church.

This language of “change” and “clothing” does not in any way contradict the language of resurrection of the body.

Me… Of course it does brother. Allasso: “exchange”, “clothing”, “put on over’, is something that is given in lieu of what one does not yet possess in these resurrection passages.

You guys have no resurrection body.

Me… “You guys”?!?!?…. According to 2 Cor. 5:1-4, my resurrection body (and yours) is in heaven.

It was never dead. Can’t be “glorified” either

Me… It (that which is in heaven) does not need to die, but I (my spirit) is resurrected into it and it was created glorified in that it ‘s origins are not earthly.

– it was never without glory. Notice that Jesus’ body is called a “GLORIOUS body” – because he had a lowly body – he lowered himself and became flesh – his body DIED and it was GLORIFIED.

Me… I know you don’t want to hear this, but according to Ps. 16:10, Jesus’ body was the exception. His body never would decay, but we are promised in Gen. 3:19 that our bodies would see decay.

None of the language you have used convinces me otherwise. All of this can go right along with, and is, once again, STRONGLY supported by the one thing that keeps me convinced: Jesus was alive, dead, buried, and RAISED. He is our Model. Our Template. He is the Resurrection. He is the First of the Harvest. But, in your view, that breaks down. Our resurrection is nowhere even near his in comparison. And, Dr. B., there is no Scripture that you can furnish that “explicitly” gives me your view “without interpretation”. Not one.

Me… So, you are admitting that your view cannot stand any more strongly than my view, because as you have stated, you don’t have any scripture that directly states your view of casket resurrection anymore than my view cannot be sustained. I appreciate the admission.

Love you brother!

Dr. B…
sam

Dr Birks,

this is what I find frustrating with your view. Whenever I bring up a legitimate point, you simply brush aside as non-issue. For example, the language of being clothed with Christ is “The phrase “being clothed with Christ” is taken in a non-resurrection context.” Who says? I find no reason why this language here is NOT resurrection language…You have to demonstrate that it is not. Merely saying it isn’t doesn’t help. The other thing is the constant “Jesus was the exception” argument. Read the commentaries. Jesus was promised not to REMAIN in corruption. You are, in my opinion, completely misreading that text. But, it does your argument, if you are correct, no good, either. For what CORRUPTION is it that he was not promised to “see”? For whatever was CORRUPT, that same thing will be raised INCORRUPT. What, Jesus did not take on our corruption? “He tasted death for everyone.” Doesn’t sound to me that “tasted death” was a reward, but a punishment (Isaiah 53). I don’t think you are taking the death of Jesus seriously in that you still believe that “death” was not in any way associated with the death of Adam. “In Adam all are DYING, in Christ all shall be MADE ALIVE.” What is the equivolent here between “dying” and “made alive”? In what sense am I “dying” in Adam. In what sense do we “die daily”?

Finally, there is a contradiction even in your response: ” According to 2 Cor. 5:1-4, my resurrection body (and yours) is in heaven.” Then, ” It (that which is in heaven) does not need to die, but I (my spirit) is resurrected into it and it was created glorified in that it ‘s origins are not earthly.” Brother, with all due respect, this makes no sense. Your “resurrection body” is in heaven? Don’t you understand that a body that has never entered into the process of dying cannot be called a RESURRECTION body? Then, you say, “does not need to die” (then how can it be called a RESURRECTION body). You switch to “my spirit is resurrected into it”. So, your resurrected spirit is resurrected into the resurrection body that is already in heaven????!!!!! That’s a lot of resurrecting going on!

I’ll stick with the Answer that stood in front of Martha: “I Am the Resurrection and the Life.” He is what it is by example. No way around this. The Corinthians, some of them anyway, thought there might be a way around it. Maybe Jesus was the exception, but the rest of the dead will not come alive in their bodies. Paul says, ‘Fool!’ If the dead are not raised, then neither has God raised the dead body of Jesus. His point is clear and free of the Full Preterist muddling and spin (which I am the chief guiltiest of): belief in the resurrection of Jesus’ body should not present any problems with the believe that in accordance with the will of God to do as he pleases, with his ability to transform seeds into trees, with his ability to create flesh of man, animals, fish, the sun moon and stars, that somehow, he can’t raised the bodies of the dead. All very simple. If he can’t do this, then neither did he raise up Christ. For Paul, being dead for three days, or for fifty thousand years presented no obstacle to the God who “created all things and holds all things together” – every particle, atom, molecule and neutron.
PaulT

Dr. Birks,

You are begging the question again….

Me.. Bro, I didn’t say that they were wrong about everything. I stated that they were incorrect about many things and I will add that Jesus stated that the believers resurrection body would be “like the angels” (Gr: Issos, “equal to”),and angels do not have earthly carbon bodies. Their bodies are created already “fit” for dwelling in heaven. This is contra the Pharisees position and therefore, if Paul followed the Pharisees (which i do not believe he did on this issue) then he would be errant as well. (Lk. 20:36)

You are presupposing into the debate in Luke the “type” of body that will be raised. If men are to become angels why then would Jesus Christ point out they will be “like” angels? Should He have not said, based on your argument, “hey, guys didn’t you know the son’s of the resurrection will become angels.”? Let’s take a look at what the text actually communicates.

“27 There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, 28 and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man [6] must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second 31 and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. 32 Afterward the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.”
34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:34-35)

The issue being addressed is the mortality of the body, you are presupposing into the argument, ie begging the question, the human body by necessity dies of its own accord. Christ Jesus doesn’t say the sons of the resurrection will have a different type of body. He says they won’t after the resurrection die anymore. You are putting words into the mouth of Christ Jesus to suggest the issue is “carbon-based body” a concept btw not found in Scripture, is the delimiting factor in the demise of the human body. Why do you presuppose God is incapable of creating a “carbon-based” body that won’t die?
http://www.covenantpreterism.ning.com Ken Palmer

Sam…what about what Jesus said to Mary?

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and [to] My God and your God.’ ”

“Jesus was not protesting that Mary should not touch Him lest He be defiled, but was admonishing her not to detain Him because He would see her and the disciples again.” (Tenney)

“We need not be detained by that curiosity of exegesis which supposes that he still had to enter the heavenly holy of holies to complete the antitype of the Day of Atonement initiated by his sacrifice on the cross.” (Bruce)

Or Matthew Henry…a calvinist…”He bade the disciples touch him, for the confirmation of their faith; he allowed the women to take hold of his feet, and worship him (Mt. 28:9); but Mary, supposing that he was risen, as Lazarus was, to live among them constantly, and converse with them freely as he had done, upon that presumption was about to take hold of his hand with her usual freedom. This mistake Christ rectified; she must believe him, and adore him, as exalted, but must not expect to be familiar with him as formerly. See 2 Co. 5:16.”Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more”

Why would one assume our body is going to be like His, pre-ascension? This would seem to contradict everything that Christ stood for.
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hi Paul T.,

Allow me to respond to this last posting of yours to me point by point :>)….. You said:

I didn’t indicate you were begging the question because you disagreed with Sam. I indicated you were begging the question to assume a fact not in evidence.

Me… And that is where we must disagree because i have offered nothing but evidence. Scripture after scripture that proves my point. You don’t have to agree with my understanding of it, but you are very wrong as to your assertion that i am begging the question. It’s not question begging if the evidence is provided but you just don’t like the evidence. The believers resurrection body as being this body raised and changed, is a conclusion based upon the presupposition that this is what will happen. Said presupposition is based upon a load of early church fathers and commentators who took Paul’s meaning to have been just that. My position is that they are applying their assumption to the text at an early time in the history of the understanding of these very difficult texts without the benefit of more seasoned and solid overall work in the book that takes place over a long period of time. As you can see, I do not hold the early church writings in some kind of an extra-spiritual, extra special or more accurate way. The more i read them (Anti-Nicene, Nicene and Post), the more exegetical errors i uncover. Most people don’t spend as much time in these works as some of us do and are content to just take other “name” preachers word for it. Now i’m certainly not accusing you of being one of those people. But the NT writings concerning the job and call and subsequent Christ-given authority of the pastor-elder, places the burden of responsibility on the teaching elders over a local congregation to come to the correct exegetical conclusions as to what is and what is not correct biblical enunciation and NOT to sessions of men making decisions that is somehow supposed to guide all the church universal down through the history of the church. The NT simply does not teach such a misguided principle.

Nor does the fact you do disagree with Sam and misuse the seed “analogy” in 1 Cor 15 save you from begging the question.

Me… Please show me through he text of 1 Cor. 15:36-38, how I misuse the seed analogy. That’s a pretty hefty charge my brother. Please think this through and please understand that you’re speaking to a recognized and authorized local church elder who has the responsibility of the soul under his charge. You’ll also need to substantiate that i have “misused” the seed analogy by providing two or three witnesses as well.

Again, you’ve assumed an incorrect interpretation without providing basis and which the text itself won’t allow.

Me… Excuse me, but have you even listened to my teachings on the resurrection of the dead yet? Have you read Ch. 4 of “The End of Sin”? If you have, then you know that your preceding statement is what is without warrant.

(Jason, please do let me know if you believe i am stepping out of line here as I want to maintain a continuous line of respectful discussions here on your board. Whatever you say, is what i’m going to go with. I recognize that i’m a guest here, so i’m submitting to your wishes here as to how I am to conduct myself.)

The fact the body “puts on” a new characteristic doesn’t mean it is a different body.

Me… Not by itself, but it is if other passages insist that it is so. Please provide me with your exegesis of 2 Cor. 5:1-4. Thanks.

Believe me, my body has “put-on” several new characteristics since birth, yet it is the same body.

Me… I believe that this is a weak example on your part and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. This tells me that you really do not fully understand my position on these matters.

Also if everyone had to die before “putting-on” the resurrection body why does Paul state not all will die but all will be changed? According to your position the Apostle Paul contradicted himself.

Me… Sorry, my comment of everyone dying is made in light of the fact that every believer since AD 70 would have to die in order to receive their resurrection body. When Paul speaks of “the change” he states it this way…. “Behold i show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed.” Not everyone that he was writing to in the first century was going to die before experiencing the allasso.(“Allatto”). Greek for “exchange.” Same word Paul uses in Rom. 1:22-23… “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and ‘changed’ (allatto-exchange) the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” In fact, every place where this Greek word occurs in the NT, is easily translated as an “exchange.” Here they are: Acts 6:14, Rom. 1:23, 1 Cor. 15:51-52, Gal. 4:20, Heb. 1:12…..

There is nothing in the text of 1 Cor 15 which suggests two bodies simultaneously exist.

Me… Really? Go look up the word ESTIN in 1 Cor. 15:44 and let me know what you find.

The text states “it” is sown corruptible “it” is raised incorruptible.

Me…. In 1 Cor. 15:42-44, the “it” that you keep referring to is the third person singular of the grammatical construction of the Greek words for “sow” and “raised”. The “it” is not necessitated in the Greek structure of those verses. The plain reading is “Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption”, etc….There is no OUTOS present in the text. The neuter form of this word would indicate an “it.” What is “sown” here in these verses is what Paul spoke of in V.’s 36-38. Several other translations do not even translate the passage as an “it”. Rather they refer to it as a “what.” “What is sown is corruptible. What is raised is incorruptible”. Etc… See the RSV, NRS, NJB, ESV.

Are you suggesting a body from heaven is corruptible? How can that be if the body is in heaven? Or perhaps you are claiming the soul once regenerated dies at death, is that your position?

Me… When you’re ready to ask me a serious question, i will respond to it. This is not one of them.

I’m not “labeling” you, I’m pointing out the reality of the view you advocate.

Me… Now you’re doing it again. In your view, my “reality” that you are inserting into my mouth, is a “transmigration of the soul” reality. I will not respond to this unjust and unfair assertion again. If you don’t like my view, fine. But do me a favor and don’t take my view further into a self-manufactured and truncated attempt at reductio-ad- absurdum.

Your position requires the immaterial constituent part of man to leave the body and occupy another body. That is transmigration of the soul. As indicated there is no warrant to suggest Paul was advocating a pagan notion. No, what Paul advocated was the redemption of the whole man, body and soul.

Me… That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to hold it as I hold to mine. BTW, when you use a word like “constituent”, you are suggesting that a believer’s spirit is simply a “component” (definition of “constituent”). Paul, we are not individuals made up of various pieces of a puzzle. A person’s spirit is not a “component.” It is the real person. It is who they are. It is what is “saved.”

Thanks for the suggestion about checking the lexicons, but you know I don’t claim to have any knowledge of the original languages.

Me… Which, quite frankly, is why you should not be attempting to have this discussion with me when by your own admission you do not possess the requisite knowledge of the language in order to do so. Reading commentaries (while in and of itself can be commendable to a point), and taking the “majority position” or , the position which best fits your own, is not responsible. Learning the language and spending years honing that skill however, is.

However, I’ve got several commentaries that all disagree with your position. And all those commentaries are authored by Greek N.T. scholars who know a heck of a lot more than I do about the original languages. Given we’ve pointed out that the text of both 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5 don’t support your position. And your position is contradicted by Paul’s explanation not all will die I think it is more than likely those N.T. scholars got it correct.

Me… Way to jump to a conclusion, Paul. Since you can’t work with the language of the Greek text yourself, …..how do you know that what they are telling you is accurate? You have to depend on the work of others and hope to God that they are right….. and what if they’re not?…..

BTW, were you going to address my question about the agricultural term “firstfruits”? Do you have any evidence from anywhere that would suggest the balance of the harvest isn’t to be understood in terms of the “firstfruits”?

Me… First-fruits and harvest are made up of more than one kind plant, vegetable, fruit. A harvest consists of many different types of vegetables, etc. Like you have stated, you shouldn’t push a metaphor out of it’s own reach.

What you must understand here Paul about me, is that i don’t really care what anyone (outside of my church and elders), thinks of me or of my teaching. There is only one judge that I am ultimately concerned with and neither you nor anyone else on this planet qualifies to be that judge. Accept what i say….or…don’t accept what i say. But just make sure that you are qualified to do the work that is required in order to be able to reach those conclusions and not make yourself dependent upon others.

Dr. B…
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Hi Sam,

You said,

this is what I find frustrating with your view. Whenever I bring up a legitimate point, you simply brush aside as non-issue. For example, the language of being clothed with Christ is “The phrase “being clothed with Christ” is taken in a non-resurrection context.” Who says? I find no reason why this language here is NOT resurrection language…You have to demonstrate that it is not. Merely saying it isn’t doesn’t help.

Me… You’re right, and i apologize for that. I should have demonstrated my position on that phrase that you use, “clothed with Christ.”… I just looked up every place in the NT where the word “clothed” is used. There is no scripture that states that we are “clothed with Christ” in a resurrection or non-resurrection passage. The only place that uses the word “clothed” in a resurrection passage is 2 Cor. 5:2-4. There Paul speaks of being, “…clothed upon with our house which IS FROM HEAVEN (not yelling, just emphasizing)…If so being clothed, we shall not be found naked”, etc…. So, Paul is clear as to what being “clothed” (no phrase exists as to “clothed with Christ) is in reference to. It is with our house which is “from” heaven and not from the earth.

As to the rest of this response, i find it very frustrating as well. I have already done my best to explain my position and have validated it all to the best of my ability. So, i guess i’m falling short as to ability. So all i think i should just say at this point is that I find you’re definition of “resurrection via a dead cadaver” is philosophical and not exegetical. I guess we should just take a break here on this.

The blessing of the Lord to you and your family. Looking forward to speaking more to you later. :>)

Dr. B…
http://drkellynelsonbirks.com Dr. Birks

Paul,

You’re understanding of my explanations is truly astounding. I did “not” say that men will become angels in the resurrection. Go back and re-read what i said please.

Dr. B…
Kari Birks

Hi Sam,

You said, “Kari, Hey! To answer your question: at the end of history. When the prayer of Jesus is fully answered: on earth as it is in heaven. This is the only way to square Paul’s langauge of “we shall not all sleep”. Christians who are alive at this point will be changed. The entire church, all of the saints, will be clothed with thier bodies.

Me … I understand Paul to be saying in 2 Cor. 5:1ff through the Holy Spirit that after we die (after “our earthly house of this tabernacle is dissolved), it would not be God’s will for us to be “found naked” and that we wouldn’t because we would then be clothed upon with our house that is out of heaven”.

What I understand you to be saying is that we are indefinitely “found naked” after death, awaiting our physical resurrected body at the end of history.

What state then, would you say, believers who have died in the past exist in in heaven presently? Would they not be “unclothed” or “naked” ?

I understand 1 Corinthians 15:49-52 to have occurred at the Parousia in AD70, where the dead were raised & clothed with their resurrection bodies, while those who remained alive at that time were changed or seized with the knowledge that they would ever be with the Lord, knowledge that they didn’t comprehend until that time. (1 Thess. 4:13-17)

~Kari
PaulT

Dr. Birks,

You wrote, “the believers resurrection body would be “like the angels” (Gr: Issos, “equal to”),and angels do not have earthly carbon bodies.” The difference between “angels” and men is man’s human body. The logical outcome of your claim is that men don’t become “like” angels, but because they take on the body of angels they become angels. Perhaps you should think through the implications of your claims.
PaulT

Dr. Birks,

You write…

“Me… And that is where we must disagree because i have offered nothing but evidence. Scripture after scripture that proves my point. You don’t have to agree with my understanding of it, but you are very wrong as to your assertion that i am begging the question.”

Assertion isn’t offering evidence, thus far you’ve only asserted your position.

You continue,

“It’s not question begging if the evidence is provided but you just don’t like the evidence. The believers resurrection body as being this body raised and changed, is a conclusion based upon the presupposition that this is what will happen. Said presupposition is based upon a load of early church fathers and commentators who took Paul’s meaning to have been just that. My position is that they are applying their assumption to the text at an early time in the history of the understanding of these very difficult texts without the benefit of more seasoned and solid overall work in the book that takes place over a long period of time. As you can see, I do not hold the early church writings in some kind of an extra-spiritual, extra special or more accurate way. The more i read them (Anti-Nicene, Nicene and Post), the more exegetical errors i uncover. Most people don’t spend as much time in these works as some of us do and are content to just take other “name” preachers word for it. Now i’m certainly not accusing you of being one of those people. But the NT writings concerning the job and call and subsequent Christ-given authority of the pastor-elder, places the burden of responsibility on the teaching elders over a local congregation to come to the correct exegetical conclusions as to what is and what is not correct biblical enunciation and NOT to sessions of men making decisions that is somehow supposed to guide all the church universal down through the history of the church. The NT simply does not teach such a misguided principle.”

I’m not sure why you’ve introduced post Apostolic thought on the matter, but this statement of yours, “The NT simply does not teach such a misguided principle”, is an example of assertion.

You continue…

“Me… Please show me through he text of 1 Cor. 15:36-38, how I misuse the seed analogy. That’s a pretty hefty charge my brother. Please think this through and please understand that you’re speaking to a recognized and authorized local church elder who has the responsibility of the soul under his charge. You’ll also need to substantiate that i have “misused” the seed analogy by providing two or three witnesses as well.”

Why would a “authorized local church elder” limit the discussion to 2 verses of the immediate context? As I’ve pointed out your interpretation of those two verses isn’t supported by the immediate context because Paul claims all will not die. The point I made regarding the Apostle’s claim substantiates your misuse of the analogy and my assertion.

You continue…

“Me… Excuse me, but have you even listened to my teachings on the resurrection of the dead yet? Have you read Ch. 4 of “The End of Sin”? If you have, then you know that your preceding statement is what is without warrant.

(Jason, please do let me know if you believe i am stepping out of line here as I want to maintain a continuous line of respectful discussions here on your board. Whatever you say, is what i’m going to go with. I recognize that i’m a guest here, so i’m submitting to your wishes here as to how I am to conduct myself.)”

No, I’ve read what you’ve written here which is that the soul transfers to another body. That is transmigration of the soul. Do your teachings on the resurrection contradict what you’ve written here?

You continue…

“Me… Not by itself, but it is if other passages insist that it is so. Please provide me with your exegesis of 2 Cor. 5:1-4. Thanks.”

I already have to some extent in pointing out you were misusing that text. As I recall you never addressed my rebuttal of your misuse of that particular text. Why would I want to continue to provide you exegesis of a text when you never addressed the rebuttal of that text I provided you?

You continue…

“Me… I believe that this is a weak example on your part and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. This tells me that you really do not fully understand my position on these matters.”

Dr. Birks assertion doesn’t support your claims. The fact bodies “change” characteristics has everything to do with what we are discussing here. Because as the N.T. Greek scholars of the ESV translate 1 Cor 15.53, “this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality”

You continue…

“Me… Sorry, my comment of everyone dying is made in light of the fact that every believer since AD 70 would have to die in order to receive their resurrection body. When Paul speaks of “the change” he states it this way…. “Behold i show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed.” Not everyone that he was writing to in the first century was going to die before experiencing the allasso.(“Allatto”). Greek for “exchange.” Same word Paul uses in Rom. 1:22-23… “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and ‘changed’ (allatto-exchange) the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” In fact, every place where this Greek word occurs in the NT, is easily translated as an “exchange.” Here they are: Acts 6:14, Rom. 1:23, 1 Cor. 15:51-52, Gal. 4:20, Heb. 1:12…..”

This is called begging the question. You’ve imposed a view on the text which isn’t supported by the text and in fact contradicts the text. Please stick to the immediate context. Your assessment of the analogy leads to Paul contradicting himself within a few verses of the text, thus your “interpretation” of that analogy is untenable. There is no way for those Corinthians to know from the text that some event twenty years in the future would dictate that the dead who formerly weren’t “resurrected” prior to that event were now to be considered “resurrected”.

You continue…

“Me… Really? Go look up the word ESTIN in 1 Cor. 15:44 and let me know what you find.”

Please, with all due respect, your employment of the “Greek” doesn’t mean much.

You continue

“Me…. In 1 Cor. 15:42-44, the “it” that you keep referring to is the third person singular of the grammatical construction of the Greek words for “sow” and “raised”. The “it” is not necessitated in the Greek structure of those verses. The plain reading is “Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption”, etc….There is no OUTOS present in the text. The neuter form of this word would indicate an “it.” What is “sown” here in these verses is what Paul spoke of in V.’s 36-38. Several other translations do not even translate the passage as an “it”. Rather they refer to it as a “what.” “What is sown is corruptible. What is raised is incorruptible”. Etc… See the RSV, NRS, NJB, ESV.”

I’m not sure how you think this assists your argument. That the original language enabled Paul to address the concept of “body”: without employing the term because of the syntactical construction doesn’t mean he isn’t addressing the body which is sown in corruption to be raised in incorruption. The “what” that is sown is the corruptible body because as Paul affirms elsewhere to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

You continue…

“Me… When you’re ready to ask me a serious question, i will respond to it. This is not one of them.”

Hiding from the obvious implication of your position isn’t supporting your position. Remember “Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption” Are you seriously suggesting the soul is what is “sown in corruption”?

You continue…

“Me… Now you’re doing it again. In your view, my “reality” that you are inserting into my mouth, is a “transmigration of the soul” reality. I will not respond to this unjust and unfair assertion again. If you don’t like my view, fine. But do me a favor and don’t take my view further into a self-manufactured and truncated attempt at reductio-ad- absurdum.”

Dr. Birks, please, pointing out the implication of what you claim isn’t absurd. The absurdity is your attempt to construct that position into a legitimate view of the text. If you think my assertion that your position is transmigration of the soul then explain why the soul leaving one body to migrate to another isn’t transmigration of the soul. You need to deal with the implication of your position and throwing up your hands characterizing a very fair description of your position as unfair isn’t dealing with the issue.

You continue…

“Me… That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to hold it as I hold to mine. BTW, when you use a word like “constituent”, you are suggesting that a believer’s spirit is simply a “component” (definition of “constituent”). Paul, we are not individuals made up of various pieces of a puzzle. A person’s spirit is not a “component.” It is the real person. It is who they are. It is what is “saved.””

Indeed, that you are advocating transmigration of the soul is my opinion of what you have written. Words have meaning and the words you’ve employed to define the concepts you are conveying mean “transmigration of the soul”. So the “person” is now the “soul”. Gee, I wonder why God gave Adam a body? Gee I wonder why the Son of God went through the incarnation? BTW are you claiming the person is “sown in corruption” although Paul claims to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?

You continue…

“Me… Which, quite frankly, is why you should not be attempting to have this discussion with me when by your own admission you do not possess the requisite knowledge of the language in order to do so. Reading commentaries (while in and of itself can be commendable to a point), and taking the “majority position” or , the position which best fits your own, is not responsible. Learning the language and spending years honing that skill however, is.”

Dr. Birks, with all due respect you seem to be to be hiding behind the “Greek”. It seems to me that when your position is pointed out as absurd based on the “English” translations you retire to the original languages for which your unique views seem dubious. There are a plethora of world-class Greek NT scholars who don’t support your position. Are you suggesting you are correct and they simply got it wrong?

You continue…

“Me… Way to jump to a conclusion, Paul. Since you can’t work with the language of the Greek text yourself, …..how do you know that what they are telling you is accurate? You have to depend on the work of others and hope to God that they are right….. and what if they’re not?…..”

How do I know what you are conveying is accurate? Oh, I know, it doesn’t make sense given the English translation of the text. What is sown is a corruptible body, what is raised is the body incorruptible, that is unless you want to justify a view that implies the “new” creation in Christ suddenly becomes corruptible only to be raised incorruptible.

You continue

“Me… First-fruits and harvest are made up of more than one kind plant, vegetable, fruit. A harvest consists of many different types of vegetables, etc. Like you have stated, you shouldn’t push a metaphor out of it’s own reach.”

This isn’t answering the question, the point is the 1st orange picked is like the last orange picked.

You continue…

“What you must understand here Paul about me, is that i don’t really care what anyone (outside of my church and elders), thinks of me or of my teaching. There is only one judge that I am ultimately concerned with and neither you nor anyone else on this planet qualifies to be that judge. Accept what i say….or…don’t accept what i say. But just make sure that you are qualified to do the work that is required in order to be able to reach those conclusions and not make yourself dependent upon others.
Dr. B…”

Indeed you should be concerned about what that one judge thinks because as James points out,

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

When I’m asked to explain why I advocated the self-same body will be raised from the dead I will be able to point out that God’s inspired author claimed that not all bodies of His will die but that all will be transformed, thus the body is as elsewhere explained by His inspired said, “to be redeemed”.

Dr. Birks what are you going to say? “I wanted to cram everything into AD70”?
Erick

Dr. Birks, if you can agree with the following, then I’ll show you what a second resurrection is.

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”

Share with your friends!