|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 9, 2010 12:55:53 GMT -5
Preterist Friends,
I have wanted to write an article on the resurrection for a couple of years now but I have been stumped on some matters. Paul said to Timothy that Christ had abolished death. But to the church at Corinth he said that Christ will destroy death. So the abolition of death was still future from the standpoint of the Corinthians.
These two statements by Paul appear to be contradictory. The statement to Timothy clearly says that the abolition of death is a done deal. But Paul held it out as an eschatological hope for the Corinthians.
If you did not see my last post to PT on the "More hope for elf" thread at CARM I said that the firstfruits had been raised from the dead and that Christ was a part of that company. I am thinking now that Paul's word to Timothy that death had been abolished has reference to that company of firstfruits.
Paul said that there was an order to the resurrection. He said, "Each man in his own order; Christ, a firstfruits. Afterwards, they that are Christ's in His presence." The word for 'order' is the Greek 'tagma' and it means, 'a company of soldiers.' So we see that our English word 'order' obscures the idea that Paul meant to convey. Paul wanted us to think of the resurrection of the saints as occuring in at least two companies which were the firstfruits; and afterwards the rest of the crop.
The definite article regarding 'Christ the firstfruits' in our English translations is not in the Greek text. Berry's Interlinear even puts the article in brackets indicating that it was supplied by the translators. Paul did not say 'Christ the firstfruits.' He said, 'Each man in His own company; Christ, firstfruits....' So I add the indefinite article 'a' and it becomes 'Each man in his own company; Christ, a firstfruits.'
Paul said that Christ was raised up in His own company which was the firstfruits. "Each man in his own company; Christ, a firstfruits. Afterwards, they that are Christ's in His presence." Paul's language miltates against the idea that Christ was the fistfruits by Himself in three ways:
1. He had just said that each man will be raised in his own company. Therefore, Christ was raised up in His own company. It's that simple!
2. The idea of Christ being a company of firstfruits by Himself is self refuting for reasons that are obvious.
3. If those who were to be raised up 'afterwards' involved a company, then the resurrection which occurred previously involved a company. "Each man in his own company. Christ, a firstfruits. Afterwards, they who are Christ's in His presence."
This means that the resurrection that the Corinthians waited for was to come soon to them because there can be no huge time gap between the gathering of the firstfruits and of the rest of the crop. The firstfruits were clearly raised when Christ was raised. We have the Biblical account that many were raised when Christ was raised. So Christ was raised in the company of the firstfruits. Therefore, the rest of the crop would be raised within a close proximity of time.
A huge time gap would be absurd! There is no huge time gap of thousands of years between the gathering of the firstfruits and the rest of the crop.
So I am thinking now that Paul's statement to Timothy that death had been abolished had reference to the company of the firstfruits of which Christ belonged. This explanation maintains the integrity of Paul's language. I have dealt with Futurists who say that Paul meant that death had been abolished in principle only. This is sheer nonsense!
Paul meant that death had been abolished for real and I submit that the resurrection of the company of the firstfruits fits the bill!
Finally, even if we could entertain the nonsensical idea that Christ by Himself constituted the company of firstfruits there can be no huge time gap. There is no huge time gap between the gathering of the firstfruits and of the rest of the crop whether the firstfruits be a single unit or a company of units. Christ as a company of firstfruits by Himself would not negate the necessity that the rest of the crop be raised within a close proximity of time.
Please feel free to pick this apart.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 9, 2010 21:01:06 GMT -5
It has to do with power. Death at one time had the power to hold its captives under corruption And it was the devil who had some dominion that wielded that power. But Christ in rising from the dead, nullified the power that death had. Something changed in that death no longer had the power to keep its captives held in bondage. Whom the Lord sets free is free indeed!
Different tenses may be used in the Greek but it is the same word katagareo 2673 that is rendered either abolished or destroyed, brought to nought, vanish away, etc. Whatever power death once held - for a season - it no longer does for those who are in Christ. Death is merely a passage from one world to another, which is what I think its original purpose may have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 10, 2010 7:57:26 GMT -5
It has to do with power. Death at one time had the power to hold its captives under corruption And it was the devil who had some dominion that wielded that power. But Christ in rising from the dead, nullified the power that death had. Something changed in that death no longer had the power to keep its captives held in bondage. Whom the Lord sets free is free indeed! Different tenses may be used in the Greek but it is the same word katagareo 2673 that is rendered either abolished or destroyed, brought to nought, vanish away, etc. Whatever power death once held - for a season - it no longer does for those who are in Christ. Death is merely a passage from one world to another, which is what I think its original purpose may have been. I believe that Paul was talking about death having been abolished experientally in Timothy and in Corinthians. Yet death had not been abolished experientally regarding the Corinthians. It seems to me that Paul's statement to Timothy must have had reference to the resurrection of the firstfruits. This way the word 'katarego' means the same thing both in Timothy and in Corinthians. The difference then would be about the two companies; the firstfruits which had been raised (Timothy), and the rest of the crop to be raised relatively soon afterwards (Corinthians). Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 12, 2010 13:41:39 GMT -5
Different tenses may be used in the Greek but it is the same word katagareo 2673 that is rendered either abolished or destroyed, brought to nought, vanish away, etc. Whatever power death once held - for a season - it no longer does for those who are in Christ. Death is merely a passage from one world to another, which is what I think its original purpose may have been. Yes, this word must be examined as well. Strong's says 'to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively'. Thayer gives more wording but is essentially the same, 1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative 1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency 1b) to deprive of force, influence, power 2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish 2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away 2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one 2c) to terminate all intercourse with one. Death has no further efficiency where there is resurrection, and what is resurrection but passing from death to life. Then, he who has that life will never see death. John 5:24 " Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." John 8:51 " Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death." These verses can't be taken literally regarding the natural body, IMO, for two reasons; the first is because it speaks of a living person being dead and then passing into life, and secondly, all people since Christ (including Himself) saw a physical death. But overall, I can agree with much of what Roo has said, with the caveat that " Afterwards, they that are Christ's in His presence" means just that; " he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life" and enters the presence of Christ passing from death to life. Hebrews 12 tells us, " But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant". Scripture speaks to me that death has been made ineffective through Christ, the firstfruits were those who were 'dead in Christ' when He made death unemployed  , and all who believe since then have experienced a resurrection because they have " passed from death into life". It also speaks to me that there is a future incorruptible body that awaits me when I put off this corruptible body. What that body will be like I have no idea, nor do I need any idea. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 26, 2010 10:20:01 GMT -5
Moris said:
Hi Morris,
The part of your quote I italicized is not what I meant to say or what Paul meant to say. Paul was speaking about the saints who were alive in Christ's presence putting on their immortal bodies.
BTW, you said, "passing from life to death" when you probably meant to say, "passing from death to life."
Blessings,
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 27, 2010 10:53:16 GMT -5
Hi Morris, The part of your quote I italicized is not what I meant to say or what Paul meant to say. Paul was speaking about the saints who were alive in Christ's presence putting on their immortal bodies. Well, all I can say is that I disagree based on all the other verses I looked at. As I see it, being in the presence of Christ means we have passed from death to life, and that we will not know what death really means, having been given eternal life. John 17:3 " And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." 1 John 5:11 " And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." I try to avoid making any doctrinal statements based on only a single verse, but try my best to include all that speak on the subject. Yep.   |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 27, 2010 11:24:52 GMT -5
Hi Morris, The part of your quote I italicized is not what I meant to say or what Paul meant to say. Paul was speaking about the saints who were alive in Christ's presence putting on their immortal bodies. Well, all I can say is that I disagree based on all the other verses I looked at. As I see it, being in the presence of Christ means we have passed from death to life, and that we will not know what death really means, having been given eternal life. John 17:3 " And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." 1 John 5:11 " And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." I try to avoid making any doctrinal statements based on only a single verse, but try my best to include all that speak on the subject. Yep. You make the mistake is assuming that the word 'death' has only one meaning. It may mean condemnation, "He who believes in Me shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life." Or it may mean mortality. Paul is not talking about condemnation at all in 1 Corinthians 15. He is talking about the abolition of mortality (death) by the assumption of a resurrection body. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 27, 2010 16:09:37 GMT -5
You make the mistake is assuming that the word 'death' has only one meaning. It may mean condemnation, "He who believes in Me shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life."Or it may mean mortality. Paul is not talking about condemnation at all in 1 Corinthians 15. He is talking about the abolition of mortality (death) by the assumption of a resurrection body. Roo What else is resurrection but passing from death to life? 1 John 3:14,15 " We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." This has nothing to do with mere condemnation, yet it says " We know that we have passed from death to life". Following the passage we can see that passing from death to life, having eternal life abide in us, is to also have " the love of God abide in him". "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us." Colossians 3:1 "If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God." So here's the message, sin demands the death of the offender. We are but 'dead men walking', a sure sentence that will be carried out. I don't believe that simple forgiveness can annal this sentence. It can merely postpone it. If mere forgiveness could have been the solution, then faith, outside of the need for the cross, would have been sufficient. Romans 3:25,26 " whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." This says a whole lot but notice how it says that God "suspended" or "tolerated" sin before Christ came. The sacrificial system of the law could not remove the sin of the one making the sacrifice, but it did demonstrate that death must occur regardless. It is remarkable to me why these sins were "passed over". They were passed over so that His righteousness (and love) might be demonstrated through Christ. But there's more. His righteousness doesn't merely pass over these sins or forgive us of them. His righteousness cannot dwell with sin, forgiven or not, and I say that because even if forgiven, the fact remains that we still sinned. How could God possibly 'get around' this? Can God dwell in us who have sinned simply by 'closing His eyes' to it? If this is the case, why did Jesus have to die the death He did? It is His righteousness and the fact that He was just (innocent) that we are justified, that is, declared innocent. The judge didn't say 'the court forgives you', He said 'you have been found to not have committed the offense'! How can this be when I know that I have sinned? This is why when scripture speaks to us that " we died with Christ", I believe that it is telling us that the sentence of death has been carried out and therefore we have " died to sin" and " he who has died has been freed from sin". There is so much I can say here but as I see it in scripture the sentence of death upon us has been carried out through our participation in Christ's death. How? I believe it is by death of our will to God's will. So, the sin committed before which was passed over has indeed been resolved by our death and the sentence has been carried out. Romans 6:9-11 " knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. " So why aren't we "dead". I believe it is because we have been born again, we are a new creation, without sin for as scripture says " he who has died has been freed from sin". I have posted about this before so in brief; a new beginning is great but then what happens when we sin? Are back to square one? As Hebrews puts it, can Christ be sacrificed again? No. That is why God's solution was to bestow His righteousness (where sin has been paid through death) and to place us under His law of liberty (where there is now no law to transgress against). This leads us right back to 1 John 3 where we read, " And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us." " Sin is not imputed when there is no law", and this is how we do not end up in the state we were in before. [God did not give us a 'shampoo gospel' - wash, rinse, repeat]. The danger in this is believing that we are now 'untouchable' as if nothing we do can be wrong. Galatians 5:13 " For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." This law of liberty still has commandments; believe and love, and as is seen in 1 John 3, this love is an exercising of the Spirit of God in us. This is what is said in Philippians 2:12, " Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out [perform, put into effect, exercise] your own salvation with fear and trembling" The body of flesh, be it believer or not, will be destroyed. So we must decide, do we live for the body and die with it, or do we die to it now that we might live after it? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 27, 2010 16:57:57 GMT -5
You make the mistake is assuming that the word 'death' has only one meaning. It may mean condemnation, "He who believes in Me shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life."Or it may mean mortality. Paul is not talking about condemnation at all in 1 Corinthians 15. He is talking about the abolition of mortality (death) by the assumption of a resurrection body. Roo Morris: Paul's doctrine of our death and resurrection with Christ had sole reference to our severed relationship from the law and of sin which condemned us. This had to do with the abolition of 'death' in the sense of condemnation. The souls of the saints still had to go down to hades and await the resurrection until Christ became present. Hades had not been cast into the lake of fire until Christ became present. At that time they were resurrected and put on immortality. So 'death' in the sense of mortality was swallowed up. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 28, 2010 13:35:45 GMT -5
Paul's doctrine of our death and resurrection with Christ had sole reference to our severed relationship from the law and of sin which condemned us. This had to do with the abolition of 'death' in the sense of condemnation. Could you explain this further? I mean, as far as I can tell, this is pretty much what I was saying. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 28, 2010 17:27:32 GMT -5
Paul's doctrine of our death and resurrection with Christ had sole reference to our severed relationship from the law and of sin which condemned us. This had to do with the abolition of 'death' in the sense of condemnation. Could you explain this further? I mean, as far as I can tell, this is pretty much what I was saying. Paul said, "He that is dead is free from sin." The word 'dead' has to do with our dying with Christ. So our death and resurrection with Christ sets us free from the GUILT of sin. This has to do with the abolition of death in the sense of condemnation. That's not what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul was talking about the abolition of death in the sense of mortality. You seem to be lumping Paul's teaching of our resurrection with Christ by which we were set free from the guilt of sin with the resurrection to immortality. The former has to do with the abolition of death in the sense of condemnation. The latter has to do with the abolition of death in the sense of mortality. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Oct 29, 2010 11:38:13 GMT -5
First, thanks for the additional explanation. Paul said, "He that is dead is free from sin." The word 'dead' has to do with our dying with Christ. So our death and resurrection with Christ sets us free from the GUILT of sin. This has to do with the abolition of death in the sense of condemnation. That's not what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul was talking about the abolition of death in the sense of mortality. The link I'm struggling with here is the connection between being dead to sin and an abolition of death. How can death be considered abolished if he also says we are dead. Said another way, how can he use death to sin as a example of no more death. The illustration seems strange; 'there is no more death, and to prove it, you are dead'. Now, I agree with you in the freedom from guilt. Justification declares us innocent (i.e. not to have committed the offense) and therefore we are not guilty of the death penalty demanded by sin. This is only possible because the penalty had been carried out on our old self. The new creation that we are in Christ is innocent and not subject to the law by which the offense can be committed (no law, no breaking of it). [Again, we are under the law of Christ, the law of liberty, whereby as long as we submit to Him and remain in Him, we cannot break it.] Now, condemnation is what leads to our death, even regarding our mortality. Without the condemnation there is no death in that sense. There is also no death without condemnation. If the condemnation is abolished, so is the death. So why is it that we still die in the flesh? If we are now innocent, guilt free, and dead to sin and condemnation, why must we die? Here are my thoughts on this; Our 'new self', our " new creation", is not of the flesh or of our natural body. It is our spirits that are new and which " sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus". If our 'old spirit' is dead, having been condemned by sin, it cannot die again and " Death no longer has dominion over" it. We now have the Spirit of Christ and the father in us. Thus, knowing God is eternal life because this new spirit we have will never perceive what death is. When we die in the natural, it is only the body that dies for it represents the old self. As Paul said, " He condemned sin in the flesh". Condemnation brings death and that is what Paul said is happening to sin; Christ brings death back onto sin "in the flesh". Our spirit does not die with the body, but rather goes to God from where the life of our spirit comes from. .
This why our body must die, but our spirit will now never die as Jesus told us, "if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death". As for what a new 'body' will be like, I don't know. For all I know, our spirit will be our new body. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 30, 2010 11:13:56 GMT -5
Morris said:
Hi Morris,
Your statement above reflects the problem. Adam was created mortal and could have experienced physical death if he had not eaten of the tree of life. Paul explicitly said that the first man was mortal from his creation.
Adam was created with a natural body. He was made of dust which is inherently mortal. He could have physically died. So condemnation does not lead to mortality. Adam was just as mortal before he sinned as he was after he was condemned. God had to put him to sleep to create the woman. This means that he could have felt pain. God had to close up his flesh after the surgical procedure. This means that he was mortal.
The 'death' that entered into the world through Adam was condemnation and not mortality. In justification our sin is canceled and death in the sense of condemnation is abolished. In the resurrection death was canceled in the sense of our mortal condition from Adam's creation.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 8, 2010 13:35:01 GMT -5
Hey Friends,
I have another possible explanation on how to reconcile Paul's two statements regarding the abolition of death. In 1 Corinthians 15 he says that death will be destroyed (future). In 2 Timothy he says that death has been abolished (past). The same Greek word 'katarego' is used in both epistles. The epistle to the Corinthians was written around ad55 and the epistle to Timothy was written ad68.
It is probable that Christ returned before ad70 and resurrected the saints thus abolishing death. So death was abolished by the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy which was 13-14 years later then the writing of Corinthians. I still maintain that the firstfruits were raised when Christ was raised. But now I am thinking that both Corinthians and Timothy are speaking of the abolition of death in reference to ALL God's people. Before I had said that Timothy had to do with the abolition of death only with the firstfruits.
Here is another observation I have made. In 1 Corinthians Paul said that all things will be made subject to Christ (future). But Hebrews 2:8 says that all things were put under His subjection and that God left nothing that is not under Christ's subjection. There is a time gap between the writing of 1 Corinthians and Hebrews too. The former was written in ad55 while the latter was written in ad64 nearly a decade later. So at some time between the writing of 1 Corinthians and the writing of Hebrews God had put all things under Christ's subjection.
Christ's coming probably began before ad70 with it culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. All things including death had been put under His subjection by the time Hebrews was written in ad64. Jesus told Caiaphas, "From this time and onward you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of glory."
Roo
|
|
