Don K Preston,
Thank you for your continual defense of Biblical truth. I have questions
on the resurrection. (big surprise) Maybe you've answered these questions
in other articles or books. So maybe you could point me in the right
direction. David Pease, Tim Martin, myself, and many others want to get
you out to Montana one of these days. Hope to meet you soon.
My ongoing discussions with my PCA pastor about the resurrection have
trapped me. His arguments are shown in (). I can always point to other
verses stating my case for a spiritual only resurrection, but he chooses
these:
1.) Philippians 3:21 (Why does Paul use "Body" in reference to humble state
and "Body" later referring to the glory of Jesus if this is purely
spiritual?)
Response:
A.) The question is the identity of the "body" in the text, or so it seems
to me. It is normally assumed that Paul was speaking of a human body. I
rather take it as the body of Christ that was being transformed from glory
to glory.
B.) Note that in the early part of the chapter, Paul is discussing the
contrast between the two covenant worlds. He talks about physical
circumcision and spiritual circumcision. He has a true seed and a false. The
discussion in V. 21 cannot be divorced from this context of contrast of the
two worlds.
C.) Note that Paul said that it was his earnest hope to attain to the
resurrection. Now, if this is a purely physical thing, and, as is normally
held, every person who has ever lived is going to be raised, how in the
world would / could Paul say that it was his hope to attain to it?
D.) Note also that Paul emphatically declares that the resurrection was in
the process already! Note his statements that it was his desire to attain to
the resurrection. He then said he had not already attained, but, "to the
degree that we have already attained, let us walk by this..." Note that "to
the degree that we have already attained" ! Many commentators through the
years have observed that Paul was or seemed to be, saying that the
resurrection had already begun, but of course, since they had a certain
concept of the resurrection, they rejected that idea-- and Paul's words!
E.) Note that Paul uses the singular "body". He does not say, Who will
change our vile bodies." Now, the Greek does not demand a plural here, but,
the use of the singular, as in Romans 8:23, is surely not coincidental.
F.) Notice also Paul's reference to the "vile body." Did Paul actually
believe that the human body is vile? If so, then he must have considered
Jesus' human body in that same light! I have a tough time thinking or
believing that Paul viewed the human body as vile. However, in the light of
the earlier discussion, of the nature of the Old Covenant, in contrast to
the New, that becomes another story altogether!
G.) Finally, notice that Paul affirms that the resurrection and
transformation of the body was at hand, in 4:5. This cannot be overlooked!
2.)1 Cor 6:14 (Since this passage is in the context of defiling the physical
body, shouldn't we assume v14 is referring to the literal flesh?)
Response: It seems to me that we often overlook the fact that the
resurrection is a multi-faceted thing. The resurrection was not simply being
raised out of the body of sin death covenantally, but, being raised in glory
to live lives of righteousness! Note that in Romans 13:11, Paul told the
Romans that the Day was near, and they were to walk in holiness "as in the
Day." And, here is where it gets interesting. He told them that it was high
time for them to be raised out of sleep! (The resurrection was at hand, in
other words). The point is, that their raising was not of a human corpse,
but, a raising to a higher, more holy, more glorious kind of life,
consistent with the nature of the Day. This is an area of Covenant
Eschatology that is admittedly not explored near enough.
3.) 2 Cor 4:14 (example of the body following the Head in like manner)
Response: I will
not spend a lot of time on this, but simply observe that there is a
corporate concept that is present that cannot be ignored. Take careful
note of the pronouns! They are all plural, they are collectives! Also,
note that there was a dying and coming to life in the text that simply
cannot be taken in a physical body reference (see v. 10-11, where Paul
said that "we are dying, you are living"! Paul's "we" is the Jews and the
Old Covenant that is in the direct context of chapter 3ff, and the "you"
are the Gentiles coming into life through the death of that Old Covenant
world.
4.) Rom 8:18-25 (if we are still suffering, we are still awaiting a future
glory)
Response: We cannot ignore the audience relevance of this text! Paul was not
speaking of everyday, human suffering. He was addressing Christians
suffering for their faith! For a person to ignore this context is really
just bad exegesis.
Also, note that Paul says "the sufferings of this present time." That was
Paul's time, not your's and mine.
There are three words in the text that defy a long delayed future
application:
mello-- The Glory that is about to be revealed in us
Apekdekomai-- eagerly await
Earnest Expectation-- apokaradokeo-- to look with neck outstretched.
These are three very strong words of imminence and urgency. To ignore them
is not solid exegesis. They cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, the creation of the text is Old Covenant Israel, representative
of man under sin. It is not rocks, trees, mosquitoes, etc.! :-) The
prophetic background of the text is Isaiah 26:16f, where Israel labored as a
woman in labor, to bring forth righteousness and failed. But, God promised
the resurrection from that futility!
5.) Gen 3:17-20 (Aren't at least some of the curse passages physical? How did
they get resolved in 70ad?)
Response: Personally, I just don't see the material creation as cursed! When
you consider the following, it presents a problem-- or at least to me.
Psalms 19 says that the creation testifies of God, in a wonderful manner.
See also Romans 1, and a host of other passages that tell us that nature
testifies of God, of His nature and attributes.
Well, if the creation is so cursed, what does that say of the testimony of
nature about God?
To me, this is just a serious problem, in saying that it is the material
creation that is under the curse. It was man, alienated from God that was
under the curse, not the trees, rocks and mosquitoes!
Well, I will close, as it is getting going home time, and I am bushed. I
hope these few thoughts are helpful, and provoke further study.
For His Truth, and in His Grace,
Don K. Preston
0 comments:
Post a Comment