Textual Criticism, Anyone?

June 1, 2012 by Paul Gates

39 Comments 39 Comments

One of the interesting phenomena I encountered early on in my reading of hyperpreterists was their penchant for offering uninformed opinion. Hyperpreterists, prefer to read their tradition, (hyperpreterism) into the text, (eisegesis) rather than allow the text to speak for itself, (exegesis). They employ pseudo-scholarship when in fact they don’t have a clue as to what they are talking about. A recent example of this behavior can be found here, http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/1st-cor-15-51-will-we-all-be-changed-or-won-t-we?xg_source=activity. This is an example of where a layman attempts to wade into the waters of textual criticism.

It appears Mr. Wilkinson realizes, as does his colleague Mr. Duncan McKenzie, it is better to “punt” what Scripture has to say on the resurrection of the self-same body than deal with the implications this truth has to the heretical paradigm he supports. Or perhaps we should rephrase, it appears now Mr. Wilkinson thought it was better to “punt” the issue until he stumbled across a variant reading of 1 Cor. 15:51. Evidently Mr. Wilkinson is of the opinion a variant reading opens the door for him to deny what Scripture explicitly teaches. Mr. Wilkinson denies included within God’s plan of redemption is the body of the believer.

The issue, it would appear, Mr. Wilkinson has, is a serious misunderstanding of the footnote of the NET translation. Evidently Mr. Wilkinson understands the explanation contained in the translators notes provided by the NET for the “the fourth reading” of 1 Cor. 15:51 which explains, “we will not all sleep, but we all will be changed” to mean “the traditional reading”. Rather, the footnote explains that reading “has the best credentials”. Apparently Mr. Wilkinson doesn’t understand the nomenclature, “best credentials” employed within the college of textual criticism. The “credentials” would include several factors not the least of which is the earliest date and most attested.

The simple fact is the reading all the English translations provide is, “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed”. These translations offer this reading not because, at Mr. Wilkinson suggests, this reading is the “tradition” but because it is the best attested by the ancient manuscripts. Philip W. Comfort in his book, “New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament and how they relate to the major English translations” explains the phrase, “we all will not sleep, but we all will be changed” is found in the vast majority of ancient manuscripts. (pg. 524) And while there are variations of this reading, those variations are attributable to copyist errors and scribe’s attempting to correct what they believed was an inconsistency between the text and history.

Dr. Comfort, commenting on the phrase, “we all will not sleep, but we all will be changed”, points out, “…Most of these readings were known to Jerome, who, commented on the (Epist.119). The most satisfactory solution is to say that they TR [Textus Receptus] WH [Westcott & Hort] NU [Nestle Aland/UBS Greek N.T.] reading (followed by all the English versions) is the reading from which all the others [variants] diverged, whether accidently or intentionally. The first statement of the TR WH NU texts certainly accords with Paul’s presentation of the resurrection – that is, not all believers will have died by the time Christ returns (see 1 Thess 4:15-17). The second statement is affirmed in the very next verse: “we will be changed.” Dr. Comfort goes on to explain, “…since Paul himself died, some scribe(s) may have thought it necessary to make an adjustment to the text. “we all will sleep, but we all will not be changed”(variant 1). This could be interpreted to mean that all human beings will die but only Christians will be transformed.”(pg 525)

The fact of the matter, the phrase Mr. Wilkinson identifies as “tradition” is the best attested phrase which has the most credentials and has earned an “A” rating by those professionals whose profession it is is to evaluate the ancient manuscripts. These professionals are not debating the nature of the resurrection but are solely seeking to determine which text is actually the original. The reason the views of men like Mr. Wilkinson and his colleagues are ignored is because they delve into realms they haven’t a clue about and evidently without attempting to educate themselves on the subject offer wild speculations all in an effort to support their eisegesis. Indeed this fits the description Dr. Roger Olson employs of those who deny Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body. Dr. Olson explains they are, “unsophisticated and biblically semiliterate lay people.” (The Mosaic of Christian Belief, Roger E. Olson, IVP, pg 311)

What should not be lost on the reader is the historical record documenting the inspired text. I trust everyone realizes that for Mr. Wilkinson to have Scriptural support for his view some unknown scribe had to amend the inspired words of the Apostle Paul. Without a variant reading, likely as the result of some guy taking it upon himself to correct what he believed was a mistake authored by Paul, Mr. Wilkinson would not have Scriptural support for his view. Now don’t that beat all, the hyperpreterist position was created by someone overriding what the inspired text actually had to say on the matter. Hey, nothing ever seems to change, this is just another example of hyperpreterists changing the text to fit their pretext.

Therefore it shouldn’t be any wonder when we find men like Duncan McKenzie complain, “I am amazed how much my work has been ignored. ; They say you don’t sell the steak you sell the sizzle. Maybe I need to push the sizzle a bit more…”

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2362512%3ABlogPost%3A74597&commentId=2362512%3AComment%3A74755&xg_source=activity

The simple fact the opinions of Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. McKenzie have no “sizzle” is because they are not based on sound scholarship. The issue isn’t that their message has not been marketed correctly. No the issue is that their message is based on fundamentally flawed thinking and an inability to honestly deal with what Scripture has to say on the subject.

David

It’s interesting to me that early scribes understood Paul to say that some of the Corinthians would not sleep before the resurrection, so much so that they began to correct Paul by altering the text. Does “we will not all sleep” mean before all of his audience passes away? Sure sounds like that to me. Sounds like Matt 16:27,28: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Gordan Fee one of my favorites says this about 1Cor 15:51,”First, Paul has already expressed himself similarly in 1 Thess 4:13-18. There in particular it is difficult to avoid the plain sense of the language, that he expected to be among the living at the Parousia.” Clearly Paul thought that the parousia and resurrection would happen in his lifetime and under divine inspiration wrote it down. Was Paul mistaken?

David
PaulT

David,

Given, as noted above, the vast majority of manuscripts don’t indicate a “correction” occurred, it appears what you deem to be “clearly” is not supported by the evidence.

I’m glad Dr. Fee is one of your favorites, I like him as well. Thiselton who I also like notes, “Paul no more asserts that the Thessalonians or the readers of 1 Corinthians are necessarily that last generation (although they may be) any more than the Philippians, who also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” Perhaps the fact Paul doesn’t indicate the Corinthians or Thessalonians will “necessarily” be the last generation is why the vast majority of manuscripts didn’t contain a “correction”. At least, it appears, that is what the evidence supports.

David, thank you for your input.
sam

Having translated 1 Corinthians 15 entirely, and having read a great deal of commentaries for that task, scholars appear equally divided on what Paul thought concerning his being involved in the last day transformation of the living. Some have even stated that, grammatically, this “can” be implied, but “not necessarily” so. The “we” can be seen as a “general we”, meaning “we believers who happen to be alive” at this event. The sword cuts both ways. Was Paul wrong? Well, if “we” is pressed to its most literal sense, then yes. Paul died before A.D. 70!

Thus, the textual-critical data appears to want to “save” Paul from this error. Noble. This would indicate the same type of division that scholars have today, and the textual evidence places those who thought that Paul meant himself to be included is quite small. Overwhelmingly, the copyists took “we” as a “general we” and did not interpret Paul as to include himself. Fee overstates the case. Secondly, more than a grammatical issue is the hermeneutical issue, which apparently some of the copyists felt the need to “correct”. And, finally, this does not work for the Full Preterist precisely because these copyists who made corrections (or, as Metzger argued, a possible spelling error based on not reading a word correctly) DID NOT believe that the events HAPPENED, hence the NEED for correction in the first place!

The earliest ms. that we have that reflects a varient (or possibly a discrepancy) is p46 (papyrus number 46), second century (Dublin: Chester Beatty). This reads, “we shall not all sleep, but we shall not all be changed”, possibly wanting to rule out the wicked. Origen and the Alexandrian Codex (fifth century) follow this. One reading has, “we shall all sleep, but we shall not all be raised” (Sinaticus, Tertullian), and this is second century. Thus, the Full Preterist cannot make any “proof” of this from textual criticism. The overwhleming amount of textual evidence gives the correct reading, and it is rather easy to spot the reason for the erroneous. What this means, again, is that the overwhelming understanding is that Paul was not mistaken, he died, and the events described here had not yet happened. Paul’s “we” is “we believers shall not all sleep, but at the last day, we shall be transformed, in a flash….” When? “It is not for you to KNOW the times and seasons the Father has set.” If Paul KNEW, then apparently he had some inside information from God. However, if the Full Preterist view is correct, and this happened in A.D. 70, and Paul died BEFORE then, then he was wrong. Can’t have it both ways, David.
David

I think we can all agree that Paul was not mistaken, if he was then this is all a waste and I’m going fishing. The question is: Did Paul think that the parousia and subsequent resurrection was going to take place in the lifetime of some of the Corinthians? Paul did not say that he would defiantly be alive but that some Corinthians would not sleep, Paul included himself in this group. And yes Paul can know the generation without knowing the exact day and hour. To try and reduce this to an editorial “we” is in my opinion a desperate attempt to explain away what Paul said. Corinthians was not written to me or you but to a first century church expecting the soon return of Christ. This is why I love Fee, he is man enough to admit a point even when it doesn’t fit his theological paradigm. Unfortunately Fee does not see the logical consequences of his admission, namely that if Paul under inspiration wrote that the parousia & resurrection would occur in the lifetime of some of the Corinthians then either Paul was mistaken or it happened in the first century. To me these are the only two options based on this text.

I think I’ll go fishing anyway.

David
PaulT

David,

You claim, “Paul did not say that he would defiantly be alive”, but that isn’t what Fee states of the Thessalonians passage. Fee states, “he expected to be among the living at the Parousia”. This then would seem to pose a problem for your statement, “Paul can know the generation without knowing the exact day and hour.” If you agree that Paul didn’t make a mistake, then it seems you would be hard pressed to turn an expectation of what might be possible into an expectation that it would necessarily occur.

Good luck!
David

Fee is wrong or maybe I should say slightly overstates what Paul actually said. All Paul says is that “we will not all sleep”. Paul is certain that it would happen before some, possibly himself, passed away. All that is certain in the text is Paul’s expectation of parousia & res. before all (Paul & Cor.) had passed. Some would pass some would not. I see no way around this. Paul expected the parousia and res. in the first century. This usage of language by Paul is similar to what he said in 1 Thess 4:13-18 where Fee says, “There in particular it is difficult to avoid the plain sense of the language”.

I find it difficult to avoid the plain sense of the language.

David
PaulT

David,

As I pointed out regarding the Thessalonians passage, if you concede by what Paul wrote he was not indicating he would necessarily be alive at the Parousia, then I’m not sure how you get around the fact he was not indicating those he wrote to would not “necessarily” be alive.

As Dr. Thiselton points out regarding the Corinthian passage, “Paul no more asserts the Corinthians are “necessarily” that last generation, (although they might be)…” My point is “might be” does not mean the same thing as “necessarily will”. As Dr. Fee your favorite points out, “He, (meaning Paul) uses “we” chiefly because nothing else would make sense, especially in the first clause. In a letter where he easily falls in and out of this usage, especially when he wants to include himself with them in the benefits of salvation, it is hardly possible that this clause could have been expressed in either the second or third person. Thus it says very little about Paul’s expectation with regard to the Parousia; what it says is that he is currently among the living.”
Duncan

I agree David. Much of what Paul writes on in 1 and 2 Thessalonians stems from Daniel 11:36-12:13 (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4 with Dan. 11:36-37). Pretty hard not to see the resurrection happening at the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish nation in that text (Dan. 12:1-7).
PaulT

Duncan,

Do you have anything, I mean actual text, where Paul refers to AD70 in conjunction with dead people inclusive of their bodies rising from the grave? I’m referring to passages like the text in 1 Cor. 15 where Paul states, in fact goes out of his way to alter an OT passage to emphasize the point that when the dead rise every enemy of God will have been subdued. Certainly you don’t think all of God’s enemies were subdued in AD70 do you?
David

Paul,

If Paul, the Apostle wanted to say that [some] from among the Corinthians including himself in the [some] would be alive at the time of the parousia and resurrection how would he have said it?

“we will not all sleep”; “we who are still alive, who are left to the coming of the Lord”, That Paul thought [some] of the Thessolonians & Corinthians would be alive at the parousia & resurrection could not be any clearer to me. The plain sense of the language demands it.

David
Duncan

Usually I ignore Paul. The reason is simple. Basically he had done nothing but try and discredit me for the last 4 or so years (I know, that is just his way). He never stops so I basically don’t respond (or I would be defending myself till the cows come home). I will in this case, however. Yes, I think all of Christ’s enemies were subdued in AD 70 (although they have not all been disposed of yet). Here are some of my thoughts on it.

THE RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT WOULD BEGIN AT THE SECOND ADVENT
One of the basic differences between partial preterism and full preterism is that partial preterists separate the great tribulation (which they correctly say happened just prior to AD 70) from the resurrection and judgment (which they say will happen at a future Second Advent). Full preterists say there is no separation between the two events. While I am not a full preterist, I have to agree with them on this issue: Scripture consistently shows the resurrection and judgment as beginning right after the great tribulation (it continues from that time). Consider the following passage from Revelation 20; both partial and full preterists agree that it is referring to the time of the resurrection.

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:11-15

This is showing the resurrection and judgment—the time when death would be defeated (v. 14). This is the time spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
1 Corinthians 15:20-26

The “end” here is not the end of the world but the end of the old covenant age (cf. Dan. 11:40-12:7; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 8:13; 9:26).55 Jesus speaks of this in Matthew 24.

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” . . . [Jesus answers] “But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.”
Matthew 24:3, 13-14; cf. Rom. 10:17-18; Col. 1:5-6, 23

Jesus’ putting down of “all authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24) happened at the AD 70 end of the age—right after the great tribulation: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (Matt. 24:29). The powers of the heavens—the spiritual rulers of the pre-AD 70 age—would come to nothing at Jesus’ parousia (cf. Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 2:6). This is shown in Daniel 2 in the form of Nebuchadnezzar’s great image being suddenly destroyed by the coming of the kingdom of God (vv. 34-35, 44-45). It is shown in Daniel 7 where the four beasts are all stripped of their authority at the same time (vv. 11-12). This was to happen at the AD 70 coming of God—the time when the saints fully possessed the kingdom (vv. 21-22). It is shown in Revelation 11:15-18 where the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of God (notice that the dead are judged at this time, v. 18; cf. Rev. 16:19).

In terms of the timing of the books opened for the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15, consider Daniel 7: This time of the resurrection and judgment was to happen right after the tribulation—at the AD 70 defeat of the little eleventh horn (see my chapter on Daniel 7 in volume one).

I was considering the horns [of the fourth beast] and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened. I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
Daniel 7:7-12

According to Daniel 7:7-12, the judgment—the time when the court was seated and books were opened in Revelation 20:11-12—would begin at AD 70. Daniel 7:25-27 confirms that this would happen right after the tribulation (i.e., at AD 70).

He [Titus, the little horn] shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. But the court shall be seated [cf. v. 10], and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.
Daniel 7:25-27

The seating of the court for the judgment was to happen at the AD 70 coming of God to defeat the Antichrist (Dan. 7:21-22); it continues since that time. For believers who have died since AD 70 it is not so much a judgment as it is an evaluation of rewards for their works: “. . . Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. [since AD 70, cf. Rev. 14:6-8] ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors and their works follow them’” (Rev. 14:13).

Daniel 12 similarly shows the great tribulation as immediately followed by the resurrection and judgment at AD 70.

And he [Titus, the king of the North] shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him. At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time, and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt . . . it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered all these things shall be finished.
Daniel 11:45-12:2, 7; cf. 7:25-26

Again we find of a book being opened for the judgment (Dan. 12:2; cf. 7:10; Rev. 20:12). Revelation lets us know that the ultimate book is the “Lamb’s Book of Life” (Rev. 21:27; cf. 20:15). Daniel 11:36-12:13 is speaking about “the time of the end” (Dan. 11:40). This was the end of the old covenant age, not the end of the world. This is the end that the NT is referencing.56 There are not thousands of years between the great tribulation and the resurrection; both were to happen at the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nation at the end of the age (Dan. 12:7).57 This would be the time when God destroyed those who were morally destroying the land of Israel.

The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth.
Revelation 11:18

The time for the dead to “be judged” began at AD 70. The great tribulation is shown just prior to this in Revelation 11:7-14. The beast makes “war against” the two witnesses—a symbol of the saints—and overcomes them (v. 7). This contains a direct reference to Daniel 7:21.

I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
Daniel 7:21-22

Scripture constantly points to AD 70 as the time of the parousia and the beginning of the resurrection and judgment; it does not show two different parousiai separated by millennia. Having said that, it should be noted that just because partial preterism is wrong in its teaching of two different comings, that does not mean that full preterism (with its claim of all prophecy fulfilled by AD 70) is therefore correct. Full preterism has its own pitfalls (e.g., a millennium that supposedly started around AD 30 and ended around AD 67).58 I will discuss that in the next chapter.

The Antichrist and the Second Coming, volume II, 328-332.

Endnotes:
55. A chart with verses on “the end” can be found in Russell’s Parousia (pg. 247). It can be found online here: http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/parousia/russell_parousia_02g.htm. What I show below is just part of the much longer chart by Russell. It is very much worth looking at.
The End
Matt. x. 22.—‘He that endureth to the end shall be saved.’
Matt. xxiv. 6.—‘But the end is not yet’ (Mark xiii. 9; Luke xxi. 9).
Matt. xxiv. 13.—‘But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved’ (Mark xiii. 13).
Matt. xxiv. 14.—‘Then shall the end come.’
1 Cor. i. 8.—‘Who shall also confirm you unto the end.’
1 Cor. x. 11.—‘Upon whom the ends of the ages are come.’
1 Cor. xv. 24.—‘Then cometh the end.’
Heb. iii. 6.—‘Firm unto the end.’
Heb. iii. 14.—‘Steadfast unto the end.’
Heb. vi. 11.—‘Diligence unto the end.’
1 Pet. ii. 7.—‘The end of all things is at hand.’
Rev. ii. 26.—‘He that keepeth my works unto the end.’
When I look at these scriptures I see one “end”—the AD 70 end of the old covenant age.
56. Again, see Russell’s above chart on end-time phrases.
57. James Jordan says that Daniel 12:2 is not the resurrection because it talks about “many” rising, not all. He says it is talking about a first century national resurrection of Israel in response to the ministry of Michael (who he sees as representing Jesus). James Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 616-21. I disagree with Jordan on these points. First, I see nothing convincing in the Jesus equals Michael argument (I see the glorious Man of Daniel 10 as being Jesus (cf. Dan. 10:5-12 with Rev. 1:12-17; note how this figure is differentiated from Michael in Daniel 10:13). Second, corporate resurrections show a whole group rising for a positive outcome (see Ezek. 37 and Rev. 11), not some to a good outcome and some to a bad outcome.
Third, contra Jordan, Baldwin argues that the use of the word “many” in Daniel 12:2 does carry the sense of “all”:
The use of the word ‘many’ in Hebrew is not quite parallel with its use in English. Hebrew rabbîm ‘many’, tends to mean ‘all’, as in Deuteronomy 7:1; Isaiah 2:2, where ‘all nations’ becomes ‘many peoples’ in the parallel verse 3; and in Isaiah 52:14, 15; 53:11, 12, where this key-word occurs no less than five times, with an inclusive significance. As Jeremias [in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VI, pp. 536ff, edited by R. Kittel, 10 vols, 1964-77.] points out, the Hebrew word kol, ‘all’, means either ‘totality’ or ‘sum’; there is no word for ‘all’ as a plural. For this rabbîm does duty, and so comes to mean ‘the great multitude’, ‘all’; cf. ‘Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth . . .’ (NIV). The emphasis is not upon many as opposed to all, but rather on the numbers involved.
In the light of this usage our author can be seen to be thinking of a general resurrection prior to judgment. Jesus almost certainly has this verse in mind in Matthew 25:46 and John 5:28, 29. As in chapters 2 and 7, the world as we know it has come to an end and an entirely new order has come, because the everlasting God has broken into time. He is the source of everlasting righteousness (9:24) and of everlasting life, wording first coined here in the Old Testament, though other writers express the conviction that the warmth of fellowship with the Lord that they enjoyed on earth could not be ended merely by death (Pss. 16:11; 17:15; 73:23, 24; Is. 26:19). Mention of the tree of life and the possibility of living for ever (Gn. 3:22) must have kept the thought before the Israelite believer from early times. The phrase the dust of the earth is reminiscent also of Genesis 3, and suggests that that chapter was in mind, but it was the beginning of rebellion and therefore of condemnation, from which few had found the way of deliverance. For all those few remained shame and everlasting contempt, or ‘abhorrence’, a word used elsewhere only in Isaiah 66:24.
Joyce Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 204-05
While I agree with Baldwin that Daniel 2 and 7 show us the new order of the full establishment of God’s kingdom (Dan. 9:24-27 and 11:36-12:13 do also), it is not the end of the world. The kingdom of God was fully established at the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7; cf. Rev. 11:15-18). Baldwin herself notes the following on the statement in Daniel 7:12 regarding the rulers of the first three beasts continuing to exist after the destruction of the fourth beast:
It is a little surprising that the three kingdoms first mentioned still survive [the demise of the fourth]. Two points are clear: (i) whoever the original beasts stood for, their kingdoms continue to have a recognizable identity, and (ii) history has not yet come to an end, despite the intervention of God’s judgment, though a season and a time implies a limited future.
Baldwin, Daniel, 142.
I find Baldwin’s second point especially interesting. People often talk about the final judgment occurring at the end of time. Daniel 7:9-10 depicts this judgment (i.e., the court being seated and books opened, cf. Rev. 20:11-12) but it is not the end of time. According to Daniel 7 the so-called final judgment began at the AD 70 defeat of the little eleventh horn (cf. Matt. 16:27-28; 25:31-46; Rev. 22:12). That is not to say the judgment was finished at that time, however; it is still “appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Since AD 70, those who die that are not in the Lamb’s Book of Life end up in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15; 21:24-27), while those who die in the Lord after AD 70 inherit rewards (Rev. 14:8-13).
58. Daniel 7:9-10 shows that thrones were put in place for the millennium at the AD 70 defeat of the little eleventh horn. That the millennium began at AD 70—right after the tribulation—should be clear just by looking at Rev. 20:4. One of the groups that come alive at the beginning of the millennium is composed of those who were killed in the great tribulation for not taking the mark of the beast (cf. Rev. 13:4-18).
David

1Cor 15-Rev 11

In revelation 11 the “great city”, i.e., Jerusalem is destroyed at the last (7th) trumpet, and the time for judging the dead comes.
In 1Cor 15 Paul says at the last trumpet, parousia, resurrection, the last enemy, death will be conquered. In my opinion these two verses link the destruction of Jerusalem with the resurrection and parousia

David
PaulT

David,

Odd, Dr. Fee, Dr. Theislton, and every other commentator, including the liberals doesn’t seem to see what you think is demanded.

Nevertheless, I think Dr. Fee’s, (again your favorite), explanation addressed your question already. If Paul believing a benefit of salvation for the believer was the resurrection of the body for those who had died in Christ and for those alive at the time of the resurrection, the transformation of their body he would have phrased the passage just like he did. Why because as Dr. Fee explains, “he” at the time of his writing the text, “is currently living”. Are you suggesting Paul should have phrased his letter written to the Corinthians based on the second or third person? As in “you” and “them”? That wouldn’t make much sense, nor sound like a committed keeper of the flock. He was alive and considered the Corinthians to be under his care.
PaulT

David,

I suspect your comment, above, “in revelation 11 the “great city”, i.e., Jerusalem is destroyed at the last (7th) trumpet, and the time for judging the dead comes. In 1Cor 15 Paul says at the last trumpet, parousia…” was intended to address the question I asked Duncan. Perhaps you know Duncan and realize he doesn’t like answering direct questions. Duncan doesn’t appear to like Pauline passages, preferring to deal with those texts wherein the symbolism is open to his wild speculation. Evidently Paul’s direct approach hinders Duncan’s creative flair.

Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Do you have any idea how many times throughout Scripture trumpets are employed in passages dealing with divine events? If you don’t, you may want to check into it because they are regularly used by the inspired authors in conjunction with explaining divine events. That means, just because trumpets are employed by the author, it doesn’t necessarily mean the event is the same. All it means is that the event described is a divine event. Thus your comment above is an example of begging the question. Do you see anywhere in 1 Cor. 15 the destruction of Jerusalem or let alone a city is mentioned? As Duncan pointed out AD70 was the destruction of apostate Israel, which was “one” of God’s enemies. Yet in 1 Cor. 15, as I mentioned, Paul altered the O.T. text, a significant thing, he quoted to included and emphasize that “all” of God’s enemies would be subdued when the dead rise and the living are transformed. You have any thoughts why the Apostle Paul took liberties with the OT text? You have any thoughts as to why the “one” enemy of God destroyed in AD70 qualifies as “all” of God’s enemies?

My point? You need to establish through sound exegesis, which is not pointing out trumpets are employed in independent texts dealing with divine events, of 1 Cor. 15 that the passages are referring to the same event. The questions I’ve asked above have never been addressed let alone effectively addressed by any hyperpreterist I’m aware of. You need to explain how “all” really only means “one of”.
Duncan

David,

Even if you take the last trumpet out of the equation, your point still stands. The AD 70 destruction of those who were destroying (i.e., morally courrupting) the Land was the time for the dead to be judged. It is the same concept as that found in Dan. 12:1-7

The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth.
Revelation 11:18
- PaulT
  
  Folks,
  
  I think the point here is the recognition trumpets don’t help, and despite what Duncan claims, the destruction of just one of God’s enemies is NOT contemplated in 1 Cor. 15. What 1 Cor. 15 explicitly states is that the end comes AFTER “all” of God’s enemies are destroyed. Duncan needs to deal with what 1 Cor. 15 actually states. However, don’t hold your breath for that to occur anytime soon. Although if he actually did provide exegesis of Scripture to support his point of view some “sizzle” might be added to what he writes.
PaulT

Folks,

As is typical with Duncan he side-steps the question. Duncan complains,

“Usually I ignore Paul. The reason is simple. Basically he had done nothing but try and discredit me for the last 4 or so years (I know, that is just his way). He never stops so I basically don’t respond (or I would be defending myself till the cows come home). I will in this case, however. Yes, I think all of Christ’s enemies were subdued in AD 70 (although they have not all been disposed of yet). Here are some of my thoughts on it.”

Actually Folks, what I’ve tried to do is keep Duncan honest which is a never ending battle. For example, we asked Duncan, “Do you have anything, I mean actual text, where Paul refers to AD70 in conjunction with dead people inclusive of their bodies rising from the grave? “ , but what does Duncan provide?

“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
1 Corinthians 15:20-26

The “end” here is not the end of the world but the end of the old covenant age (cf. Dan. 11:40-12:7; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 8:13; 9:26).55 Jesus speaks of this in Matthew 24.”

The reader should note, Duncan doesn’t provide any exegesis of the text he offers. All he does is assert a position, as if we are supposed to accept his claim and then lists texts he as well asserts support his view. What’s interesting is that Duncan began his diatribe with the statement, “Yes, I think all of Christ’s enemies were subdued in AD 70 (although they have not all been disposed of yet). “, yet the text he quotes from 1 Cor. 15 explicitly states, “For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” The last enemy to be destroyed which implies all the other enemies as in rule, authority and power which stand against God have already been destroyed. Allow me to suggest this is why Duncan provides no exegesis of the text because what the text actually states doesn’t support the pretext he is reading into the text.

Additionally, Duncan apparently doesn’t realize in offering the text he does Paul is leveraging a couple of passages from Psalm’s one of them being Psalm 8 wherein the passage deals with “dominion”. Dr. Fee points out of v. 28, “The final sentence ties together all that has preceded. First, it serves as a further elaboration of Paul’s interpretation of Ps 8:6; second it further explicates the twin clauses of v. 24, which state that at the end Christ will hand the kingdom over to God the Father, having subdued all the “powers.” Although it is not specifically said here, it therefore also serves as the culminating word on the necessity of the resurrection of the dead. Paul’s point is that in raising Christ from the dead God has set in motion a chain of events that must culminate in the final destruction of death and thus God’s being once again, as in eternity past, “all in all”.” Dr. Fee’s exegesis of the passage goes on to explain, “The first clause thus repeats the final clause of v.24, but now in the language of the Psalm. “When all things have been subjected (by God, is implied) to him” is thus the new way of saying, “when he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power”

The reader should note the striking difference in the exegesis of a scholar the caliber of Dr. Gordon Fee and the reading into the passage a pretext by a “pseudo-scholar” like Duncan McKenzie. Duncan doesn’t deal with what the text actually states, he prefers to assert his opinion in over the top of the passage. Additionally, according to Duncan AD70 began the reign of Christ, yet according to the expert exegesis of the passage rendered by Dr. Fee, the passage is explicitly dealing with the culmination of the reign when Christ Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father. The problem Duncan has is his understanding of the term “subjection” means within the context of this passage. The passage makes clear it is dealing with the destruction of all opposition. Had Duncan actually dealt with the passage instead of reading into the text his pretext which results in eisegesis, he may have understood this. What Duncan has mistaken for “subjection” is “dominion” which actually leads, as the passage spells out, to the “subjection” as in “destruction” of “all”, not just “one of”, but “all” of God’s enemies, at which point Christ hands the kingdom over to the Father. This is just another example of where Duncan wasn’t honestly dealing Scripture. This is also likely why the vast majority of Folks find his work to be of no value.
Duncan

Again Paul throws the mud. Lets see. As usual, he says I am dishonest. Also he claims “the vast majority of Folks find [my] work to be of no value.” What folks? Have you have done a survey? Have you even read my books Paul? I am confident the work is good (unlike most, I have read it). I challenge people to read volume two and then tell me whether Paul is right or if he is a fool for making such comments about things he knows not of. Even Sam said he finds parts of my work useful (although he strongly disagrees with other parts). I hope people pay attention to all Paul’s put downs. According to him there is no value in my work; it is worthless. I have no doubt that time and the Lord will show just how wrong Paul is.
PaulT

Folks,

As custom would have it Duncan objects to my point that he handles Scripture in an intellectually dishonest manner. Well, if he is correct and I am wrong that he employs eisegesis, all he has to do is provide exegesis of the text in question. However, as indicated, don’t hold your breath for that. I don’t believe you will never see Duncan exegete the text.

What is truly hilarious is Duncan’s complaint, “he claims “the vast majority of Folks find [my] work to be of no value.” What folks? Have you have done a survey? Have you even read my books Paul?”. Folks, all I did was echo Duncan’s very own view regarding his work. Duncan McKenzie himself pointed out his work is not being recognized. Duncan wrote, “I am amazed how much my work has been ignored”.

Evidently Duncan cannot make the connection between his comment his work is being “ignored” and the vast majority of people “finding his work to be of no value”. But here is a hint, if people found his work to be of value his work would not be ignored. It’s one of those basic economic tenets. Although, I’m glad Duncan considers his own work to be of value, but then this is hardly surprising. I mean if he didn’t find his work of value why did he waste so much of his time producing it? But the fact he finds his work to be of value hardly means anything.

Nevertheless, the key point here for the reader to remember is Duncan was unable to overcome the objection his opinion was unsupported by an exegetical review of the Scripture in question. Frankly, I don’t think Duncan understands what the term “exegesis” actually means. Duncan asks if I’ve read his work. Why would I want to read the work of someone who apparently doesn’t seem capable of providing basic exegesis of his text? I really don’t care about Duncan’s opinion on the matter. You all know what is analogous to opinions. What I care about is what does God’s Word written on the matter says. And given Duncan is apparently incapable of deciphering what God’s written word is conveying, his opinion is baseless. Gee, you would think, based on his response here, Duncan considers his opinion on the matter to be as inspired as the Apostle’s.
Duncan

To determine if a work has any value, it really does help if one actually looks at it. But I guess you are above that. Thank you for reminding me why I do not waste my time with you.
- PaulT
  
  Folks,
  
  Evidently Duncan didn’t get the message. Why if he is unable to demonstrate basic exegesis of the text here would I want to spend my hard earned money on work that is simply more of his baseless opinion. And, based on Duncan’s own personal testimony as to how his work is being accepted in the market place of ideas, it would appear, I’m not the only one who has this viewpoint.
- PaulT
  
  Folks,
  
  This is after all, all they have which is,
  
  “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).”
  
  At least the poster is consistent in his response. Employment of logical fallacy seems to be his MO.
sam

Let’s employ the “we” language to the Prophets, shall we? “We wait for you” (Isaiah 26:7), set in context of God’s redemption. That’s a mighty long wait, or did Isaiah expect in his own time the fulfillment of 26:1-ff? After all, in Full Preterist rhetoric, who “waits” for something hundreds of years off?

We could also, with the same literal rigidity that David is using apply this exclusively to Isaiah’s time in 64:5, “how then shall we be saved” (apparently, Isaiah was awaiting the answer to this question to be fulfilled in his own lifetime). The answer? “Look upon us, WE pray, for WE are all your people”. In the same context, God answers that he will make a new heavens and new earth (saving them) (65:17-ff). Apparently, then, Isaiah was expecting this in his own day, right? He used the “we”. He prayed God would look upon them and save them, and God answers with new heavens and new earth. I guess, then, we should think that Isaiah was a failed prophet because he used the word “we” (speaking of his own time). Or, maybe Isaiah himself thought he would die, but that his generation would live to see the new heavens and new earth. After all, in the very same context, “My righteousness draws near speedily, my SALVATION is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations” (51:5).

The point is, Full Preterists have no case concerning the “we”. Fee overstates the case, and there are just as many scholars to show our point. When you have this kind of case, it’s known as “weak.”

Also, equating the “seventh trump” with the “last trump” is not a necessary thing. a “seventh trump” was blown in Jericho. Was that the “last trump” to be blown? Hardly. “Last” in a series, and “last” as in “no more will ever be blown” are two different concepts. Sure, I view Revelation 11 as the Fall of Jerusalem, and seven trumpets were blown. But, it was not the “last trump” when the “last enemy” is destroyed and swallowed up completely and entirely for eternity. 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 11 are two different contexts. This is one thing the FP ignores, context. He wants to string together “like sounding words” and then say, “they must mean the same thing and situation.” But, clearly, Jericho’s seven trumpets, Numbers 10 trumpets, 1 Cor 15 “last trump” and Rev 11 “seventh trump” do not all HAVE TO mean the same event simply because the word, “trumpet” is used! I used to fall for this kind of stuff, even throwing in Isaiah 27:13. Now, if Isaiah said, “the last great trumpet will be sounded”, then, well, you have the floor. But he says “a great trumpet will sound”. Yep. Numbers 10. Trumpets sound before God acts in history. The last trumpet? Not necessarily. Each context has to be looked at its own right, rather than just looking for buzzwords to string together under the forced paradigm of A.D. 70 (the constraint of hyper preterists).

See, what virtually all scholars have understood is that Paul is exhibiting classic second temple Judaism in 1 Cor 15. He is speaking of the resurrection of the body in the same way that the dead Jesus was raised. He is talking about dead bodies being raised (Fee, Thiselton, et al). This is PRIMARY. However, we came along and noted some case for “time constraints”, then are forced to go back and REDEFINE what scholars understand so plainly (and church history). This can work both ways. If Paul is teaching what scholars virtually unanimously agree on (liberal and conservative), then would this not CONSTRAIN us that the so called “time elements” hyper preterists try to use are false? It becomes a matter of “clear” passages interpreting “more obscure” passages. The hyper preterist turns what is clear in 1 Cor 15 (which so many apparent numbskull scholars have seen) into something quite difficult (corporate body, rapture in A.D. 70, immortal body at death with the “outer shell of the seed being the body, and the inside of the seed being the soul” and so on and so forth). I mean, how many Full Preterists really get Max King? Even David Green switched up the corporate body view a bit. I was constantly asked, “can you please explain, AGAIN, your view”? Whereas the orthodox view is quite easy to explain and grasp: dead bodies will rise by the power of God at the last day, when the last trump is blown, and the last enemy, death, is entirely swallowed up for good, and thrown into the lake of fire, forever. Death is no more. Simple. This is NOT the language of Matthew 24.

Anyhow….don’t want to spill too many beans….
- PaulT
  
  Sam,
  
  Your point, “Each context has to be looked at its own right, rather than just looking for buzzwords to string together under the forced paradigm of A.D. 70 (the constraint of hyper preterists).”, is the crux of the issue.
  Indeed, I would suggest hyperpreterists are inconsistent with their adherence to the “time” text constraint. For example, in 1 Cor. 15, it seems to me we find the most unequivocal “time text” in the entire N.T. Yet the hyperpreterist seem to read over it. The text states;
  
  “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.”
  
  According to Paul the end comes “after” the destruction of EVERY rule, power and authority. The text, as well is unequivocal indicating the “end” is when the resurrection of the dead occurs, or consummates in that it began with the resurrection of Christ Jesus. However, the hyperpreterist or pseudo-hyperpreterist as in the case of Duncan McKenzie who claim the promise of 1 Cor. 15 was fulfilled at AD70 ignores this unequivocal “time text”. Interestingly enough Duncan even concedes, “Yes, I think all of Christ’s enemies…have not all been disposed of yet).”, yet inexplicably claims 1 Cor. 15 was fulfilled in AD70.
  
  As you point out, “Each context has to be looked at its own right”. Merely asserting an opinion about the text by “linking” nouns from independent passages without delving into the text to determine how those nouns, verbs and adverbs are arranged by the author to convey his thoughts is very superficial, and, as in the case of Duncan, leads to self-contradictory conclusions. The only thing surprising, is that those who take this superficial approach to the text are surprised their work is being ignored.
- John Marra
  
  Sam,
  
  I certainly agree that employing the “we” language in the rigid manner in which the typical full preterist usually does in places like Isaiah 26:7 and the surrounding context doesn’t work. I also think that you are correct to point out that stringing together like sounding words and saying they must mean the same thing and situation is equally fallacious. However, in the case of the “we” language in places like 1 Corinthians 15:51, why would it not be exegetically appropriate to employ it as such since Paul has already explicitly identified himself and his contemporaries as those upon whom the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11) in the preceding contexts?
  - sam
    
    John, that’s a fair question. With the weight of the scholars, who are divided on this, what we can say with definite-ness is that it does not HAVE to be taken that way. It COULD be, but not NECESSARILY (I use caps, by the way, because the response box does not have italics – I wish it did). Finally, if Paul was “certain” that he would be one of the “alive and remaining”, then clearly, he was wrong, because his death was somewhere under Nero’s reign.
    
    Finally, the language of “change” and “transformation” carries with it a strong meaning that something spectacular is to happen. In the Full Preterist “corporate” view, what would this have been? The “parousia” over Jerusalem brought what “change” to the believers in, say, Thessalonica? In a flash. How would they have known that Jerusalem fell at the ninth of Ab (or whenever)? When they heard the news, did something “change in a flash” in them? Or is this language purely metaphorical? This is where Ed Stevens (derived from J.S. Russell) takes the language seriously. There was a literal change/transformation of believers, a literal “rapture”. Yet, we have absolutely no documentation of this. Surely someone would have recorded the fact that grandma vanished!
    
    Thus, when you put together Stevens and Preston, you get orthodoxy. Preston is correct that a literal rapture in AD 70 is absurd. Yet, Stevens is correct to insist on the literal-ness of the language. Put them together, and what do you get? Transformation at the last day, last trump when the last enemy, Death, is swallowed up forever. This forms, then, the context of 1 Corinthians 15. It is not the same context as Matthew 24. As for the simularity of language, we have in the OT several, several “comings” of the Presence (pariemi, parousia) of YHWH using the same descriptive elements that constitute such comings, or “days of the LORD”. Why should we limit the “days of the son of man” to one? Where does the Bible say, ‘there is only one coming of the son of man, and one only”? I can’t seem to locate that text. Rather, we see Jesus/YHWH taking the mantle of the OT “days of the LORD” and inaugurating his reign with the destruction of Jerusalem (a Day of the LORD). This was on the NT horizon. But, it would not be the last one, or only one. There would be more as he reigns over the nations, toppling kings and setting them up. What Paul envisions, then (and the OT), is an eventual “last day” where the “last trump” would bring about the final dissolution of the death that came through Adam. How else would Paul describe this event except by the typical langauge we find with the comings of YHWH? Clouds, hailstorms, lightning, presence, trumpets, and the like. I would describe the Fall of the Third Reich in the same terms: “Thou hast made thy throne in the heavens, you beast with five heads (Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Bormann, Goebbels), but I will throw you down to the earth, and trample your cities into powder by the brightness of my presence. Vultures will gather over your land and the righteous will be rewards, while you and your hordes suffer eternal torment from the flames of my arrows.” Something like that. How else would a prophet describe such earth shattering events?
  - Duncan
    
    Have to agree with you John. It is very confusing if the end spoken of in the NT is the end of the age in some places and the end of time in other places. If this were true one would expect the NT writers to provide more of a differentiation between the two ends (and they don’t). If anyone wants to seperate them and say which is which, here is a list. Pin the correct end on the correct verse.
    
    The End
    Matt. x. 22.—‘He that endureth to the end shall be saved.’
    Matt. xxiv. 6.—‘But the end is not yet’ (Mark xiii. 9; Luke xxi. 9).
    Matt. xxiv. 13.—‘But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved’ (Mark xiii. 13).
    Matt. xxiv. 14.—‘Then shall the end come.’
    1 Cor. i. 8.—‘Who shall also confirm you unto the end.’
    1 Cor. x. 11.—‘Upon whom the ends of the ages are come.’
    1 Cor. xv. 24.—‘Then cometh the end.’
    Heb. iii. 6.—‘Firm unto the end.’
    Heb. iii. 14.—‘Steadfast unto the end.’
    Heb. vi. 11.—‘Diligence unto the end.’
    1 Pet. ii. 7.—‘The end of all things is at hand.’
    Rev. ii. 26.—‘He that keepeth my works unto the end.’
    
    PS in the Olivet Discourse Jesus is teaching from Dan. 11:36-12:13. There the “end” is the end of the O.C.. age at the destruction of the Jewish nation (Dan. 11:40; 12:1-7).
    - PaulT
      
      Folks,
      
      Once again we Find Duncan begging the question when he claims, “It is very confusing if the end spoken of in the NT is the end of the age in some places and the end of time in other places.” Why is it confusing? I certainly don’t find it confusing.
      
      Duncan provides several verses but never any exegesis of the text the verse is found within immediate or otherwise. The question, why is Duncan confused without performing the necessary exegesis of the text which would support the idea the “end of the age” and the “end of time” whatever that may mean to Duncan are the same?
      
      This gets back to the assertion Duncan made regarding 1 Cor 15:20-26. Duncan claims v.24 is dealing with, “The “end” here is not the end of the world but the end of the old covenant age”. The translation Duncan used translates the text of v.24 as, “He puts an end”. However, both Thielston and Conzelmann indicate the term indicates “annihilation”. Does Duncan explain why the text is not explaining the destruction as in “annihilation” of every dominion, power and authority? Or does Duncan merely assert his opinion?
      
      Again, assertion without support is baseless. Duncan has provided absolutely no support for his opinion which is that 1 Cor 15:20-26 is not indicating the destruction as in annihilation or as he put it EVERY rule, power and authority is “disposed of”. Perhaps if Duncan dealt with the didactic passages rather than the apocalyptic which are full of symbolism, he would gain some clarity.
      - sam
        
        Paul, I have to agree with you. I don’t find it confusing at all. I did operating under a Dispensational/Full Preterist “all or nothing” approach, but I don’t find it confusing at all anymore. “He that perseveres to the end, shall be saved”. Now, “some of you shall be put to death” through persecution. Did Jesus really mean that those who persevere until AD 70 will be saved, when, in fact, he told them that some of them would die BEFORE AD 70? “End” here means “end of your life”. Same in Daniel 12, “Go your way, Daniel, until the end”. Are we to infer that Daniel would live until AD 70, or is that “end” the end of his life? This is another case of “end means one thing and one thing only: AD 70″. Thus, when I cite Isaiah 41,4 “I am with the first generation, and also with the last” the “last” generation there is the last generation of ethnic Israel in, you guessed it, AD 70! It’s called tunnel vision, and very myopic. The same controls exist in Dispensationalism. These guys can’t see the forest because of the trees.
        
        Whereas, Paul can speak of the “near” end of the age, and can also speak of “the end” in terms of the “last trumpet” (no more trumpets after that). I suggest that Duncan read Numbers 10 on trumpet blowing. He would have to conclude that God is out of the trumpet business (hence, out of “moving out” in world affairs) since the “last” and “final” trumpet was blown in AD 70. No, it’s not confusing. It’s confusing to those who are laboring under false assumptions to begin with.
http://www.historicalpreterism.com Ken Palmer

Sam,

“One reading has, “we shall all sleep, but we shall not all be raised” (Sinaticus, Tertullian)”

This falls more in line with Pharisaical theology as well. The wicked are never raised. Only the righteous.

Great article Paul, home run? Why not.
- PaulT
  
  Ken,
  
  Thank you.
  
  God Bless,
Doug Wilkinson

If you’re going to criticize what I wrote, you might as well try to keep up with the conversation.

—

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/1st-cor-15-51-will-we-all-be-changed-or-won-t-we

I’ve been thinking about this passage some more this week. After a converstation with Gary Bauscher it seems that there might be a fifth option thrown into the mix. In his Aramaic NT he translates the section along the lines of the popular #4 option. However, when I pointed out to him that there were four Greek traditions with significantly different results he sat down and considered whether the Aramaic had to be translated in a way similar to the Greek #4 option. The result matches a similar dynamic that I’ve seen in other portions of scripture, which is that negatives are notoriously tricky to translate.

Before we get to the 1st Cor. 15 example, we’ll look at how this plays out in the Olivet Discourse. Years ago I was listening to a lesson on Matthew 24 in which the pastor emphasized that our normal understanding of Matt.24:1-2 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] might be a shade off. The regular translation is:

“Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

The word for word translation of verse 2 is:

“The yet Jesus said to them not you are looking all these verily I am saying to you not no may be being from let here stone on stone which not no shall be being down loosed”

That’s quite a mouth full. The question is, how should that first phrase be translated. That pastor’s conclusion was the following:

“But he answered them, “Don’t look at them! Truely, I say to you . . . ”

This is a small, realistically insignificant change. But, it seemed to me that it was closer to how conversations tend to go.

Back in 1st Cor. 15, we might be having a similar problem trying to figure out how to assign absolutes (all) and negatives (none). The literal Greek and Aramaic are the following (according to Greek option #4):

Greek – Be perceiving secret to you I am saying all indeed not we shall be being put to repose all yet we shall be being changed.

Aramaic – Behold, say I to mystery [no, not] [all, every, whole, entirely] sleep [all, every, whole, entirely] [but, yet] [change, transmute, alter].

According to Bauscher, the Aramaic phrase might be legitimately translated:

“None of us shall sleep, but all of us shall be transformed.”

He ties this to another intriguing passage about the resurrection (with the possible significant parallel in bold):

Joh 11:23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
Joh 11:24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
Joh 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

I’ve heard several novel interpretations of this one from preterists. What if 1st Cor. 15 is an extension of it? I still have some thinking to do on this one, but I thought I’d point out this interesting development.
- PaulT
  
  Doug,
  
  Thank you for your thoughts, but frankly this sentence of yours says it all for me,
  
  “I’ve been thinking about this passage some more this week. After a converstation with Gary Bauscher it seems that there might be a fifth option thrown into the mix.”
  
  When you come up with something credible, please let me know.
- PaulT
  
  Doug,
  
  Is this comment of yours,
  
  “I guess Sam didn’t like my response on his site. I pasted the update from 5/28 to the comment section to help Paul keep up to speed on what I was doing, but someone deleted it. Oh well.”
  
  representative of your research capabilities?
Samuel Frost

Doug, no one has deleted your comment. No one. Can you please retract that statement on Death is Defeated, thanks.
Doug Wilkinson

When I posted my comment above it seemed to me that it was visible. When I went back an hour later, it was gone. Now, it’s there. I think this was probably a function of approving the comments, so all is well.

Doug
sam

Doug, we all jump to conclusions from time to time…..
sam

Yet, Duncan wants us to believe that we are in the period of Gog and Magog. Nope, no trumpet blowing going on there! Paul designates the context by mentioning the LAST trump. This is the LAST affair of God in human history “in the world” before he sets about renewing all things. Context markers abound.
Dee Dee Warren

Oh my, I just read that argument on the variant reading, and I am astounded anyone would decieve themselves into thinking this was some good evidence. Oh. My.

Share with your friends!