Has The Final Enemy Been Destroyed?

[davo]

Jesus was the first to have a true resurrection—the kind of resurrection that Paul depicts in I Cor 15, the kind that all disciples of Christ will experience when Christ raises them to life on the last day (John 6:39,40,44,54).

What Paul describes in 1Cor 15 is Israel’s national or corporate resurrection, the kind mooted in Ezek 37:1-14 i.e., “the hope of Israel” – read N.T. Wright for example who notes “individualistic” “getting to heaven” notions are more a product of western modernity. The covenantal raising of Israel was occurring in THEIR generation through Christ’s work and that of His firstfruit saints. Paul says…

Act 26:6-8 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers. To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?

According to the Greek text where “raises” is ACTUALLY rendered in the PRESENT TENSE this should properly read… “Why should it be thought incredible by you that God is raising the dead?” – egeirei ἐγείρει. Through the gospel of the NEW COVENANT many in Israel and likewise beyond were rising in that day into the new covenant status as servants/children of God, to do the work of God, that was, to secure the redemption of Christ ON BEHALF OF “all Israel” that’s what firstfruits do] which in turn secured the reconciliation of mankind.

Further to this and directly relevant to 1Cor 15… EVERY and I mean “every” instance of “it is raised” is in the PRESENT TENSE, that is, it should read “it is BEING raise” – this was Israel’s covenant resurrection in process in that Ad30-70 which became inclusive of Gentiles… hence the “fleshly” disputes, as previously outline, which Paul was at pains to bear again in them that the dividing wall was gone.

To put it in simple language… Paul’s discussion around “resurrection” was all about STANCE not SUBstance; it was all about covenant renewal unto God not biological renewal unto man. <<<–– read this again and grab a hold of it and it changes everything when you start reading through covenantal instead of biological lens’.

Grasp this and you’ll start to see that Paul’s ‘putting off mortality and putting off immortality’ was the self-same “covenantal language” of ‘putting of the old man’ OC and ‘putting on the new man’ NC, no more, no less. Thus John’s “new creation” IS THE SAME as Paul’s “new creation” simply approached from differing angles… IOW the “new creation” was none other than NEW covenant Israel appointed by God to serve the world.

Again… “the death” Jesus defeated through his Ad30-70 Cross-Parousia event was Adamic death i.e., covenantal/spiritual death, NOT biological death. That Jesus uniquely rose as he did was proof positive that He was Israel’s Messiah as promised by God; the obedient one who was summarily declared Lord of the world beyond Act 2:36].

No-one least of all me denies or rejects Jesus’ self-same bodily resurrection from the grave – he made the same mystical appearances either side of his resurrection in the self-same body. What was totally and fully unique and solely applicable to Jesus’ resurrection, and none other, was the promise of non-decay… simply not true of anyone before or after. Nicodemus for example was dead, fully dead and stinketh much… he was NOT “resuscitated” by resurrected; he however did not possess “the power of an endless life Heb 7:16] as did Jesus.

It was the same body, but a changed body. It had “put on immortality.”

Again Paidion, in the broader picture of Paul’s treatment of “resurrection” try considering these things through that which the prophets spoke, that is… covenant renewal because THAT’S where Israel’s resurrection “hope” lay and would duly rise.

[davo]

There’s an old say… one will not see what one does not want to see. On the early dating of ‘The Revelation’ and in particular so-called apparent issues with Irenæus and Domitian, this HERE is a thorough resource.

[Cole]

Thanks Davo.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Oh man! Preterism gives me the headache, and I’m glad you’re up to discussing it, Paidion and Steve.

Cole, Preterism is so much better than your former Calvinism that I’m not even going to argue with you. I can’t agree, but I can ignore it without feeling too much guilt – especially as Steve and Paidion are much more fit to discuss it than I am.

[Cole]

Cindy,

What are you referring to when you say my former Calvinism?

[Cole]

Paidion,

Jesus physical body was the only one promised not to ever see decay. It was at the ascension that His physical body was changed and glorified. The flesh and bone bodies at the resurrection in 70 A.D. saw decay. Those that were resurrected to life left their old physical bodies behind and given new spiritual bodies when they met up with God. For flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 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. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. - 1 Corinthians 15:44-50

Likewise, everyone who dies post 70 A.D., goes to be with God as they leave their old physical bodies behind in the grave. They are given incorruptible bodies when they meet up with God. For flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.

[edburley]

I will address a few points on a few separate posts. The first involves this idea that Full Preterists are gnostic.

In reality, non-preterists teach that the physical bodies that we now possess are somehow sinful. This is due to a misunderstanding of the use of the word, flesh. Flesh is the translation for SARX, and has to do with being “under the law,” not in physical skin (derma would be the Greek word for skin).

IF SARX referred to our physical nature (as Davo puts it “SUBstance”), the new covenant believers would translate out of their physical bodies at their baptism, when they are “in the spirit” as opposed to being “in the flesh.” The transition is from darkness (OC) to light (NC), death (OC) to life (NC), flesh (OC) to spirit (NC).

With this said, the non-preterist again teaches that this “flesh and blood” (which still has nothing to do with the physical body) cannot inherit the kingdom, and therefore there must be a “new body.” It leaves us believers in this life “under the law” and sinful because we are still in the physical structure we call our body.

In preterism, most of us teach that our physical nature was created by God and is GOOD. We cannot be gnostics for that very reason. We don’t NEED some super-spiritual body to replace the one that God has already given us…what he gave us is good.

[edburley]

Re: Jesus’ physical resurrection.

I have heard it taught, and seen it repeated on this forum, that Jesus walked out of that tomb after 3 days in a glorified and resurrected body. Interesting thing to ponder: if he was GLORIFIED, why did anyone think he was the gardener? If he was all that, why did it take the Eucharist to open the eyes of the Emmaus travelers to see it was Jesus? AND, regarding his post-resurrection ability to walk through walls? Jesus was able to do that prior to the resurrection.

It is my belief, as was stated by Cole (?), that Jesus was raised physically, and upon his ascension was given a glorified body. The body seen by John in the Revelation was the glorified one…

[edburley]

Re: why Revelation was called the Revelation.

In each of the gospels, save John’s, there is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem. John wrote a separate book describing it.

The Revelation uses much biblical imagery (called by some to be the most biblical book in the bible), and was obviously targeted to a particular audience (the 7 churches).

Re: the dating of the Revelation. Bishop John AT Robinson argued that the most convincing argument that he sees in scripture (or in fact doesn’t see) is a description of the past destruction of the Temple. IOW, if Revelation was written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, any thinking person would have realized that such a significant event as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple would have been forefront in the descriptions…

Now Robinson believed that the destruction of Jerusalem was in Revelation but in prophetic form, not historic. The description by John of the angels measuring the temple is evidence also that the temple was still standing at the Revelation’s writing.

These are two internal evidences of the dating and purpose of the Revelation. Many sources, as covered in Ken Gentry’s book, Before Jerusalem Fell, were found to believe that the Revelation, along with the rest of the NT, was written prior to the destruction…

[Cole]

Hey edburley,

Thanks for the comment. I’m undecided on this issue right now. I haven’t studied it in a while. But I will do so at some time in the future.

[davo]

Hey Ed… good to see you around the traps.