The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?

Davo, thanks, I get and already agree that some texts (e.g. Rom 6) can use ‘resurrection’ language without meaning out of a literal grave. No one misses that (including Wright and all those who see 1 Cor 15’s context as 1st century Judaism’s widespread hope for the bodily resurrection of pious Jews).

But on 1 Corinthians 15, I don’t follow your answers. You seem to agree the immediate context of its’ “resurrection” with a new “body” is Jesus’ literal victory over biological death (3-6), and that citing concern about those who have literally died insofar as we have hope only “for this life” implies that the need to be addressed is whether we’re raised to life after death. Right?

And Paul’s account of the specific “kind of body” the dead “come” with when “they are raised” (35-41ff) is placed at an occasion when a “trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised, and we will all be changed” (52), all in the future tense. Thus vs. 54 concludes "then" is when it “will come true” that “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Your belief that Paul can’t be referring to a future event, but means here a metaphorical resurrection that delivered Israel out of it’s old covenant status seems to rest on him sometimes using the present tense to describe the nature of that event’s resurrection body. But I don’t see anything about using the present tense to describe how resurrection works (though it’s about a transaction not yet complete) that warrants such an unusual reading.

Could it also be that a reason that you can find no recognized NT Greek scholar (including Wright) who interprets the use of the present tense here that way, is because the indicators in the text so strongly point to a concern about the solution for Corinthians’ actual plight of facing physical death?

Again, If you think even 1 Cor 15 does not reflect Paul’s belief in a future resurrection (but really only refers to what was already going on), what texts lead you to think Paul believed in a future resurrection?

2 Likes

Sorry Bob but you don’t entirely get what I’ve said… what you’ve stated above is a bit of a mishmash between some of what I have said, but mixed with more of what you think I’ve said.

NO… Paul’s “its” is relative to verses 43-44 and speaks of “Israel” in transition from death to life in Christ, i.e., death-burial-resurrection, in that age. It was a process of dying and rising daily with BOTH a present and future in scope… something occurring (present) and finding consummation in the parousia of AD70 (future).

YES… and that all occurred in AD70 when the NC body was complete — which answers to Paul’s… “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” i.e., the old covenant body, aka the law.

Again you have this twisted as I don’t advocate that… Paul does affirm futurity relative to the end, i.e., AD70 was future to THEM.

It’s NOT that I can’t find any recognised NT Greek scholar BUT that I haven’t as yet come across any translations that acknowledge or present the present tense of the actual text as it appears elsewhere… something indicative of what I’ve previously noted, i.e., translational bias where given assumptions are reflected in how a given text is rendered.

The Greek word in the present tense translated “is raised” is ἐγείρεται egeiretai and this is how the exact same parsing is given elsewhere…

Jn 7:52 They answered and said to him, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee.” — (no prophet rises out of Galilee)

Jn 11:29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly and came to Him. — (she, rising up, came quickly to him)

Jn 13:3-4 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. — (rising from supper he laid aside His garments)

Interesting :thinking:

Now… having shown the above, consider this parsing chart for this word ἐγείρεται egeiretai found HERE.

Please note the highlighted blue section… ‘he/she/it-is-being-RAISE-ed’ — notice the is BEING raised — my exact point! Call me mad if you will but the evidence as I see it does not seem to mitigate against my point.

You’re right that I seem unable to entirely “get” your responses. I know you see 43f as about Israel. But I argued 1Cor 15’s discussion of Corinthian’s resurrection begins with 3-6’s setting of a victory over biological death, and addressing those who have hope only “for this life.” If you answer NO, what do you see 3-6 describing (Israel’s metaphorical resurrection)?

I took you to argue Paul’s present (not future) tense about Corinthians being raised shows that he must not be referring to a future resurrection. When I cite Paul uses the future tense, you appear to clarify that yes, the whole discussion is about a future event, but that it’s the resurrection of AD 70.

Of course, we’ve much debated your view that NT promises about the future are completed in AD70, and its’ confirmation that Israel’s Old Covenant is no more. My own sense is that it’s especially unconvincing that the main concern evidenced in the Greek city of Corinth is whether Israel has been metaphorically raised, or assuring them that AD 70 is the event that will bodily change all of them, and show that death has been defeated by victory, even for their already dead brethren.

Again, I share the consensus that what brings assurance here about those who have already ‘fallen asleep,’ and what argues that they need NOT have “hope only for This life,” is the literal belief that God is not finished with us at death, but that Judaism’s 1st century hope of a bodily resurrection is confirmed by eye-witnesses who saw Jesus bodily raised as the precursor of a similar raising in store for us.

1 Like

So Bob it appears you are just obfuscating… I answered your verses 3-6 query already — read it again in my 2nd last post to this one 2nd paragraph down, of which you subsequently saw the agreement: I simply then clarified that your use of “its” was in error as you were applying that to verses 3-6 and NOT to verses 42-44 that I correctly was as THAT’S where such is used in the text AND to which I had already clearly argued.

Not only this Bob, but what is your response the actual and factual textual evidence of the Greek I have supplied… what, not a peep??

I repeatedly detailed recognizing the text’s present tense and what I interpreted Paul meant in so addressing the resurrection body’s nature. Were there other Greek terms you want my view on**??**

On 3-6, I clarified that I see the setting for chapter 15’s having Corinthians raised with a new body on a coming day when “we will all be changed” so that “then” death will be “swallowed up,” is Jesus’ witnessed victory over literal biological death, amid concern for churchmen who’ve already died with hope only “for this life”?

(you know that context leads me to expect Paul to address the hope of life beyond physical death.)
But are you agreeing with me about the setting 3-6,18f establishes? If not how do you read them?

Bob, To me, these verses have nothing to do with a personal resurrection life beyond death. The resurrection they are describing is along the same lines as the Great Awakening. The hope is in creating a better life not only for those who live in the present but for the future generations of children that are born into this world.

1 Like

I agree we will eventually, have a “Great Awakening”… But first we must go, through the “Dead Awakening” - of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3)…So prepare for the worst…but hope and pray, for the best! And folks might get some idea, what this might be like…by watching such great AMC shows, as The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead.

But we do have interjections, of happiness and great joy - at times. Like this great movie, finally coming out this Friday!

Now back to the “Dead Awakening”!

And you keep parroting that sounding like you perceive I peddle no life beyond the grave, i.e., misapplying… “with hope only “for this life”?” as though that is somehow my position when you know full well from our numerous discussion that is not the case.

You do realise Paul was well able to develop given themes, i.e., he could walk and chew gum. What starts out at one level (the literal resurrection of Jesus) then advances on to where the corporate body of Israel, which He came to redeem… bringing restoration from exile, i.e., covenant renewal, aka RESURRECTION because… “your sins have separated you from your God” — “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” — “Behold… the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”.

Israel’s SIN resulted in EXILE and exile was DEATH… Jesus defeated “the death” (1Cor 15:26, 54-55) and his own literal resurrection was the evidence for the consummation of this end that was coming — having accordingly been appointed in power as the world’s Lord through the resurrection.

Israel via Christ and his firstfruit saints was undergoing covenant resurrection (Jn 5:25) which culminated in the general resurrection which WAS associated with Christ’s AD70 Parousia… thus it was then present, as I have argued AND YET still future to them, as I have also argued; for humanity, that which was recorded in the NT is now past; albeit our own ascension to God as we each pass through death’s veil.

I will post more extensive information in a subsequent post below…

Exegetical Essays On The Resurrection Of The Dead, pp.68-76
Samuel M.Frost, M.A.

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?”

The Greek should read, ‘but how are the dead being raised? In what body are they coming?’ Note that so far, Paul has not mentioned ‘soma’ (Gr- ‘body’) until this point. It is strange that if this is the major concern of Paul’s his lack of use is puzzling for the traditional view.

The subject is ‘the dead ones’ and this must be kept in mind. We have already discussed that they are not representative of every dead person ever. The deniers believed in their own resurrection, as well as those who fell asleep in Christ (those who accepted the gospel before seeing the Parousia). The ‘dead’ are those who lived and died before the gospel was announced. This includes all of I old covenant Israel. They would not, it was asserted, be raised from Hades or Sheol. They will not participate with those ‘in Christ’ who were being saved by the eschatological Spirit. They have perished. How could they I (note the plural third person pronoun, not ‘we’) be raised? They died under the law and entered Sheol, as the Scriptures say. They did not have the life of Christ? They could not be said to have been in the body of Christ. Therefore, if they are being raised, in what other body would they be coming in?

The eschatological Spirit promised in Ez 37, mentioned above, inaugurated Israel’s hope and resurrection from the dead. This “Holy Spirit of the promise” (Eph 1.13) was promised to OT Israel. It was being fulfilled since the days of Pentecost. Jesus states the same thing (Jhn 5.25). However, if the “body of Christ” is perceived as having its origin from Pentecost onwards, then the question is not that difficult to imagine. How could the dead before Pentecost descend with Christ in his body when his body does not include them? How are they being raised if not through the body? In what body are they coming (present active indicative)? But, if Israelites are being baptized ‘on behalf of the dead’, then the solidarity between the ‘firstfruits’ and those long dead and in Sheol becomes clear. The Spirit was a ‘seal, guaranteeing our inheritance, the redemption of the possession’ (Eph 1.14). Israel was God’s “treasured possession” (Ex 19.5). Israel was “promised” an inheritance. The outpouring of the Spirit guaranteed that God would redeem his possession, and as a result, redeem the world. That this is Paul’s line of reasoning in Ro 11.11-15 is assured. The rejection of Israel brought “riches to the world”. The acceptance of Israel would bring “greater riches” to the world. Through their rejection (of part), salvation came early to the Gentiles. But, because salvation came to the Gentiles, this in turn would bring Israel into her “fullness” and "life from the dead."

If Israel does not come into her designed fullness, then what purpose is there for Gentile salvation? It is understanding this design of God to save the Gentiles in order to bring in the fullness of Israel. That was the reason for the Gentile mission, and the reason as to why Paul, the Jew, could “make much of my ministry to the Gentiles.” He did not go to the Gentiles in order to start a different religion. He went because he was following the prophetic Scriptures (Is 54.1-ff) which stated that the ‘nations’ would come in through the time of Israel’s deliverance. The coming in of the nations by the Spirit meant only one thing according to the Scriptures: “all Israel shall be saved, as it is written” (Ro 11.26a). Therefore, in Ephesians, Paul could write, “and you also (Gentiles) were included…marked in Him with a seal of the Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our (Israel’s) inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession (Israel)” (1.13-14).

The use of the question is telling. The distinction between ‘they’ and ‘we’ is to be noticed. It is not ‘in what body are we coming? How are we being raised?’ If they doubted their own resurrection re-embodiment, why not use ‘we’ instead of ‘they’? The ‘they’ being referred to here is not seen as belonging to the same ‘body.’ Note also that ‘body’ is singular, not plural. It is not necessary for Greek to make a distinction like this, but it can show that the singular body in which ‘they’ (plural) were ‘coming’ (present active indicative) is none other than the ‘body of Christ.’ Thus, this question is not asking, ‘how can dead people, long decomposed, be raised? In what body are they coming since the body that was buried is long disintegrated?’ That this is not the question becomes perfectly clear in the analogy Paul gives.

The ‘dead’ stand for the ‘seed.’ The seed is first seen simply as an existing entity; a single seed. Then, it is ‘sown’ into the ground. Following this, it starts its process of dying. It ‘cannot be made alive unless it dies.’ Being made alive’ is present passive indicative. A seed cannot be in process of ‘being made alive’ (‘the dead are being raised’) unless it has first undergone the process of decomposition. The dead, existing as they do, must be sown, then must die in order to be made alive (‘being raised’).

Paul has set out four things in his analogy that follow a sequence: 1). The existence of the seed, which stands for the ‘dead,’ in keeping with the question that was asked. 2). The seed is then sown into the ground. 3). The seed then dies. 4). It is also, at the same time, being brought to life. Let’s run the traditional view through this analogy.

In the traditional view, the dead body stands for the individual ‘seed.’ The dead body/seed is then sown (buried in a casket) into the ground. Then the dead body/seed begins to die, and is at the same time being made alive. Does this fit? Clearly, in the traditional view, the dead body/seed is already dead before it is sown! In Paul’s analogy, death occurs after it is sown. Also, how does the traditional view answer the ‘being made alive’ question as a process? Are physical bodies currently undergoing a death/life process in the casket until the resurrection of the dead? How can Moses’ body be said to be in a process of ‘being made alive’ for 4,000 years now? For Fee, the problem of the analogy is dismissed by not comparing the analogy given by Jesus in John 12.24. ‘There the emphasis is on the necessity of death for fruit.’ (Fee, Gordon D., NICNT, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 781) But this is not the point. Fee realizes that if the necessity of physical death is what Paul has in mind, then he contradicts himself in vss. 50-53, where we see that ‘we shall not all sleep’ (or physically die). I find that Fee must devalue the seed analogy in vs. 36 and its point that ‘unless it dies’ because he cannot maintain his view and stay consistent. He cannot maintain that physical bodies must die in order to be raised, for that would indeed bring Paul into a severe contradiction.

However, Paul is clear: ‘unless it dies, it cannot be made alive.’ How can something ‘be raised’ unless it first die? It is not a resurrection body unless it is raised from the dead! It cannot be a raised body unless it was first a dead body. But, even more than that, Paul is answering a question having to do with ‘the dead’ and how ‘they are being raised.’ In keeping with our thesis, the ‘some’ among the Corinthians knew that in Christ that they themselves had died in Christ and were being made alive in him as well. Equally, those who had fallen asleep in Christ had also died with Christ and were made alive and would rise again into their eternal inheritance. The question is, how can those who died apart from Christ be considered as being in Christ’s body? Do they not have to undergo the “death/life” process through the death/life of Christ?

Wright notes that Paul is no longer talking about the dead as so much as their bodies. Thus, Paul ‘switches to speak of ‘bodies’ when thinking of that which is to be raised.’ (Wright N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, 343n92) To switch, then, is a must for the traditional view. It cannot maintain consistency with ‘the dead’ being in view here. It must now ‘switch’ to talk about dead bodies, and not the ‘dead.’ There is a difference between talking about corpses and dead persons. However, if the ‘dead ones’ were speaking of persons in the first part of this chapter, then why does it now “switch” to their bodies without any indication from Paul? The question is not “how will their bodies be raised” but, “how will dead ones be raised?” I seek to stay consistent within Paul’s argument here and therefore do not need to “switch” the meaning of the plural noun “dead ones.”

Not all bodies are the same, says Paul. The ‘body’ of Christ is not like ‘other bodies’ that we see and touch. It is a spiritual body. It is subject to different laws. You cannot take a fish out of water. If you take a fish body out of water, out of its environment, then it cannot function. Same for the sun and moon. These bodies are subject to their own environmental laws, and these laws are different for each of these bodies. So it is with the resurrection of the ‘dead ones’ and the body they are coming into, says Paul.

The dead of Israel were being sown while in their perishable Adamic nature, with dishonor, decay, and bondage. (The translation above says, ‘the body is sown’ for verse 42, but the word ‘body’ appears in italics, meaning it is not in the text. It is just as possible to be ‘the dead’ here since ‘the dead’ occurs at the end of verse 45) But, they were also ‘being raised’ (the present passive is used throughout) into the imperishable body of the second Adam: Jesus Messiah. The present passive for both “being sown” and “being raised” is in keeping with Paul’s seed analogy for “dying” and “being made alive”, being viewed as concurrent actions. They, in Adam, the ‘natural man,’ in that corrupted body of Adam, are sown into the body of the second Adam, Christ. In that body they are put to death (“dying”) and are also being made alive through the work of the quickening Spirit which was restoring to them all that was promised. The seed (‘the dead’ being denied) ‘dies’ in Christ, and is also ‘being made alive’ and ‘will be made alive’ in Christ, and when Christ comes. When Christ comes, not all will physically die, but all: the dead, those fallen asleep in Christ, and those currently alive who have accepted Christ, will be changed together, for there is only ‘one body’ (Eph 4.4).

Thus, the contradiction of ‘dying’ in v. 36 and in v. 51 is removed. The former verse speaks of dying ‘in Christ,’ whereas the second speaks of physical demise. Fee has them both speaking of physical death, however, he realizes that if both verses are speaking of physical death, and since Paul said “not all will die”, then he eliminates the “necessity of death” in v. 36! Rather, since a seed must die (isn’t that necessary agriculturally speaking?), and since Paul says “not all will die”, the solution is to be seen in that in verse 36 Paul is speaking of dying in Christ. The dead must also go through the ‘dying in Christ’ in order to be raised in Christ. Israel must go through the death that abolished “in his flesh, the Law” which “stood against us” (Eph 2.15; Col 2.14). How else would Moses be raised? His physical death certainly did not “free him from the Law” did it? The penalty of the Law was death. Moses did not “enter heaven”. He did not enter into his promised inheritance.

Christ was the “firstborn” from the dead ones, the first in all things. As a Jew according to the flesh, he was the forerunner for those faithful servants of God under the old covenant. His death was a removal from the penalty of the Law, and his resurrection was a resurrection from The Death that held all of Israel in “fear” (Heb 2.15). Israel, then, must enter in through the body of Christ and be incorporated in it. Christ was the way of their redemption because he was covenantally tied with them in the flesh.

Therefore, the natural body in Adam that Israel had is not “the body of that which is raised.” There are different bodies. Christ’s body is different from the body of that which is sown. However, there is continuity of the same body. That which is sown, it is also being raised. Israel, dead in Adam, who were promised a ‘new heart’, who were not made alive before the outpouring of the promised Holy Spirit, were sown in Christ while yet corrupt, but they are also being made alive with Christ into their incorruptible inheritance. They were being sown while in a natural body (life in Adam), or a seed, but were being raised as a spiritual body, like the seed, which is not raised as the same body with which it was sown. In short, Israel was sown while in a corrupted nature, but Israel is also raised incorruptible. The body of Israel before will not be the body of Israel after, but it will still be Israel! It is Israel transformed, just like an apple seed is transformed into an apple tree. This transformation can only take place in the body of Christ.

Paul’s consistent use of the present verbs reveals that he is not speaking of something in the far distant future, but of what was then transpiring in his generation through the work of Christ. If Israel’s inheritance is heavenly glory, then she has been postponed since the work of Christ even longer than she was under the Law of Moses! This just will not do. Christ came to redeem “his people.” The traditional view states emphatically that this has not yet happened. Rather, Paul views the reign of Christ for the purpose of putting the death that separated man from God due to Adam under his feet. When he did that, then Israel would be “saved” and “raised from the dust of the earth” (Da 12.2).

Paul has already mentioned the difference between `the spiritual’ and ‘the natural’ man before. In 1 Co 2.14,15 the ‘natural man’ (psychikos anthropos) ‘cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God.’ The ‘spiritual man’ (pnuematikos) does. If ‘natural man’ here means ‘man in a biological body,’ then no person alive can ‘receive the things of the Spirit’ while in a physical body! Paul is saying that he is attaining unto a ‘spiritual man’ because he has received ‘the mind of Christ.’ Does this mean that he was getting better eyesight and glorified legs? If it is absurd to read that into these words, why is it not equally absurd to see it in the verses in 1 Co 15?

No, that dodges my argument. It’s incorrect that I’m implying that you don’t affirm life beyond the grave. Your making that so clear is why I asked each time what texts you based your affirmation of that on.

The reason I kept citing the material within 1 Corinthians 15 is only because that context is pivotal for how I hear the nature of the hope for future resurrection that Paul develops therein. And I don’t see that such concerns about a future resurrection and life beyond the grave as supportive of your interpretation that Paul is forecasting AD 70 as the “general resurrection” that would provide folk in Greek Corinth with the assurance they needed.

Ok so I get that, i.e., what I’m presenting of which Frost better explains, totally threatens your sacred cow — well fair enough I get that.

The assurance they needed was misplaced which is WHY Paul explains as he does that IF there was no resurrection, which some were supposing was true, then they were wasting their lives as believers (so were more the pitiable, so why not… eat, drink for tomorrow we die) because logically they were STILL firmly lost in their sins. And then more obvious to the point… IF there was be no resurrection THEN Jesus himself likewise failed in his mission as Israel’s firstfruits of the resurrection — the first to rise up out of the dead ones, i.e., Israel. And as I HAVE ALREADY explained… Jesus was NOT the first to rise from physical death, as the bible gives ample testimony. Jesus’ literal resurrection was the sign to Israel that He was indeed Israel’s Messiah AND now the world’s LORD… as per the texts previously given.

So Bob, answer this question… WHY did Paul say Jesus was “the first from the dead” when he wasn’t? You know my explanation… what’s yours?

Maybe Paul well knew through his ‘road to Damascus’ that the resurrection of Christ was a gateway for the people of that time to be
understanding of what was going on…And he definitely was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

The life beyond life as we know it is a great mystery, but in biblical times, the mystery was cloaked in mysticism and tradition, so those folks who were there at the 70 ad event were living through the prophesy, and no matter how you slice the scripture, it happened.

So moving from that understanding, what happened to the Christians that headed Christ’s warning and were not involved in the Roman Seige?

No one survives biological death, we ALL DIE… but that there is life beyond biological death is a biblical given… “so shall we ever be with the Lord” was for example the promise to the Thessalonians etc.

I just finished the first volume of Wright’s ‘Paul and the Faithfulness of God’, now eagerly looking forward to volume 2. An impressive work and deeply engrossing.
He devotes a number of pages to the ‘now-not yet’ scriptural theme, and puts some real work into showing, scripturally, the hope of Christians and indeed mankind and the Cosmos, when Christ returns.
Unless he is remarkably mistaken, I’m persuaded he is correct. We will be physically resurrected, in a body like the one Jesus had at the resurrection, and we will be with the Lord forever.
I can’t answer all the questions, of course, but he seems like a reliable guide to understanding Paul.

I looked at my scribbles in the margin of the book and had to laugh. I had written on various pages ‘davo’ ‘Bob’ Paidion’ ‘Qaz’ ‘MM’ ‘Steve’ ‘Randy’ ‘John’ ‘TH’ ’ LLC’ etcetc
Maybe I need to get a life? :rofl:

1 Like

On (1) what is the “sacred cow” you dismiss that I feel totally threatened about?? Hope for new life beyond the grave? Why would the context’s concern for resurrection life beyond the grave be irrelevant to debating what Paul’s theme is here?

On (2) What “assurance” are you saying was misplaced?

On (3) I specified above my two explanations for why it’s called the first (and unique) resurrection.

But it seems that we both feel our answers and arguments are not engaged. Perhaps it’s because we are appealing to different rationales to interpret what Paul is addressing here, and even while we see the other guy’s reasoning, we tend to camp on our own, baffled at how he can dismiss what seems compelling to us.

That is an interesting point, so is this for just Christians or for all of man kind?

Thanks in advance.

You hang with some bad dudes.:roll_eyes:

That is an interesting view but sir Wright may be wrong…

We may well be with God, Forever, but we have no idea of the afterlife. Tom is selling books… And doing a fine job.

Selling books. Way to go, dissing a guy’s 30 years of scholarship. Geez.
Wright is, I believe, right. Right?

Yep, OT Jews might say they’d be with God forever in Sheol, but they considered it the pits, and consistently pleaded not to go there.