Featured 1 Cor. 15: Foundational Passage for Resurrection

For the thousandth time - no Preterist denies the physical resurrection of Christ, that He had a fleshly body. I've written this several times.

 

I agree with your first statement. See my post below.

As to your second statement, well, you gave the answer yourself; "historically understood" ( = outside of scripture). Martin Luther was "historically understood" as being heretical by the church of the time.

 

No, our having a resurrected physical body is not Paul's point. I direct you again to these verses:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.


"The first man is of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) ."

This passage is a continuation of verse 40: somata epigeia and somata epourania now become "ek ges" and "ex ouranou".

Adam came from the earth, from the dust.
The "Second Adam" came from heaven.

Note: In both cases, the origins determine the essence of who these two are - and (v. 48) the essence of their "followers".

Verse 49 says that "we shall [or "let us"] bear the image of the heavenly man" (the Second Adam, from heaven).

Bearing the two ways the verb can be taken, it is either Paul's description of what happens at the Parousia, or it is an exhortation to actively pursue Christlikeness.

Either way, there is no indication that we will be like Christ was in His incarnated or resurrection body. Chrit's being in the flesh had a purpose, that purpose no longer an issue.

 

I hope to write more on this when I get back from breakfast. Short answer for now: What kind fo resurrection was it that these two said had already past? The kind taught by the Apostles (Paul, especially) and Christ. Is that a stretch? I would like to develop this later when I get back.

Thank you for the sensible question. This very verse was at one time a great puzzle to me.

 

Let me get to the first passage you quoted. The history of just when a belief in physical bodily resurrection of believers started among Christians will have to wait a bit.

Of course the assumption that quoters of the 2 Tim. passage is that the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus was the same one Preterists are espousing. But there are several problems with that.

1. Paul was dealing here with an error of timing, not an error in teaching of the nature of the resurrection.

2. This passage was written when the Parousia was still in the future. The Pastoral Epistles were most likely written in the early 60s. For them to say Christ had already appeared was patently false on several counts. Their "overthrowing the faith of some" was in that "already" part, because Paul's churches were taught, necessarily, that there were other realities that had to happen at the same time. One reason they were "overthrowing the faith of some" was the fact that the resurrection was clearly taught to be inseparable from the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and that there would be redemption and relief. (Luke 21)

Christ clearly said that that generation would not pass away until every stone was thrown down and all prophecy was fulfilled:

3. Most modern exposition of this passage - especially those who use it as a 2X4 against Preterists - do not sufficently take into account the connection between the Parousia in this passage and the Kingdom of God. Paul's and Christ's explicit teaching on the Kingdom help us tremendously in understanding this passage.

Christ taught that the Kingdom would be invisible:

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


4. As probable Judaizers, ones interested in teaching the perpetuity of the Old Covenant, H & P gave their false teaching in the hopes of revitializing a lapsed Judaism. (Hymanaeus was also mentioned in 1 Tim. 1, a chapter that deals with Judaizers. Many of the same themes and phrase connect these two passages. I believe in this fourth point also, although it is harder to prove satisfactorily.)

Oops! I have more I feel I should write here but I promised my wife a game of badminton.

Hopefully this will do for now. I know there are some things missing. Let me know what is unclear or sketchy and I will be glad to add more.

 

Before I answer the rest I'll just mention that that very book was highly recommended to me by a friend. Unfortunately it is hard for me to buy books here on account of the exhorbitant shipping surcharge. Something I bought two years ago came outto be very expensive, the shipping was about three times the cost of the item.

But the topic is an important one. I'm not sure of the angle of your author, but I also had done my own study in Isaiah 40 to 66 on the "Jerusalem" passages, resulting in a series of thirteen or fourteen articles. (I think I posted a few here). When I started the series I was a "leaky" amillennialist, but I finished it as a Preterist. (Actually I only got as far as chapter 62, I think)

Can you give me a quick synopsis of Walker's book? Or show me a site that reviews the book? The sites I saw didn't have much.

 

I'm not sure why you think I would disagree with this. "Body", "glorious" or otherwise, does not necessarily mean "body of flesh". Since Christ is now no longer under constraint to be physical (I know you do not believe this, probably) the Christ we will be conformed to is also not physical, but spiritual.

Additionally, it is also most likely that Paul is speaking here of the corporate body of Christ, as he does often elsewhere. I would like to get back to this topic of corporate body but, for now, I suggest you (or anyone else) look up all the "body" verses that you think refer to individual bodies. Notice how many of them use the singular. In many cases coupled with a plural pronoun or other antecedent.

 

I saw that Amazon link. I noticed also that there was a good review from Don Preston. He and I both wrote book introductions for the Fulfilled Covenant Bible; we pretty much have similar beliefs. It was his recommendation that made me want to read your book.

Do you have a link to the ebook?

I should have time in a couple hours to get back to you on this subject.

 

Thanks very much for the link. I bookmarked it and am starting to read it. Along with Josephus have you also considered Ussher's Annals? I am referring especially to the recent republication edited by Larry Pierce, developer of the Online Bible. Ussher's writing along with Pierce's extensive notes and appendices made this one of the keepers in my once large book collection.
http://books.google.com.hk/books/about/The_Annals_of_the_World.html?id=KNR1s2clCX8C

(Our moving so much overseas has seriously whittled down my books).

I am teaching English at a university near Dalian in the Northeast, fairly close to North Korea.

Yes, I know Ed Stevens. I respect his scholarship as well as his respectful handling
of those who disagree with him. (That goes for Don Preston, too, of course).