|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 16:19:53 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 15 came up in the sermon at church yesterday and while looking over the verses during the sermon, a thought occurred to me. 1 Corinthians 15:42-43 NASB (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; (43) it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; If the body that is perishable and dishonored is the Old Covenant body, and this body is the corporate (whole) OC body, then wouldn't these verses imply a sort of covenantal universalism? If the entire Old Covenant body is "raised in glory," that body includes all of OC Israel, not only the converts to Christianity. Or am I just confused?  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Mar 7, 2011 16:30:48 GMT -5
No, its those who say 1 Cor 15 is the Old Covenant Body who are confused. I believe Paul is not one bit trying to confuse his readers either. The whole context of the chapter is the fact that the corinthians agreed that Jesus was raised from the dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 16:56:22 GMT -5
Thanks, Allyn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Mar 7, 2011 17:07:56 GMT -5
Bev, do you and I agree on this that I said? I think it is a simple teaching from Paul and some make it a hard teaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 7, 2011 18:22:47 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 15 came up in the sermon at church yesterday and while looking over the verses during the sermon, a thought occurred to me. 1 Corinthians 15:42-43 NASB (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; (43) it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; If the body that is perishable and dishonored is the Old Covenant body, and this body is the corporate (whole) OC body, then wouldn't these verses imply a sort of covenantal universalism? If the entire Old Covenant body is "raised in glory," that body includes all of OC Israel, not only the converts to Christianity. Or am I just confused? Bev, OC Israel contain both wheat and tares, both true Israel and the illegitimate sons, both sons/seed of the woman and sons/seed of the serpent. I believe 1 Cor. 15 is referring to the corporate bodies themselves, not the specific contents. After all, what does the passage say made the first body dead, perishable, dishonored, and weak? The tares that had to be burned? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 7, 2011 21:24:21 GMT -5
I realize that many here are anti-corporate body, and that's okay...
But the OC body is what gets raised. Let's not forget that it was the FAITHFUL remnant that receives restoration/resurrection.
The living OC Jews had to transition over into the NC body THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.
This is where Universalism goes wrong. They completely neglect the mediator.
And yes, the Corinthians did beleive that Jesus had been raised. They did NOT, however, believe that previously dead faithful Jews could be raised...
There are only two covenants and only two bodies associated with those two covenants: the body of Christ (which we are very familiar with) and the other body, the OC body (which we are not so familiar with).
The "TWO" principle works well here:
Two covenants
Two Jerusalems
Two Israels
Two cities
Two deaths
Two kingdoms
Two Adams
Two comings
Two temples
TWO heaven and earths :-)
TWO covenant bodies
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 23:16:27 GMT -5
I realize that many here are anti-corporate body, and that's okay... But the OC body is what gets raised. Let's not forget that it was the FAITHFUL remnant that receives restoration/resurrection. Okay. I wasn't thinking of just the remnant. And a remnant—a part of the whole—is certainly biblical. The living OC Jews had to transition over into the NC body THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. This is where Universalism goes wrong. They completely neglect the mediator. Excellent points. And yes, the Corinthians did beleive that Jesus had been raised. They did NOT, however, believe that previously dead faithful Jews could be raised... There are only two covenants and only two bodies associated with those two covenants: the body of Christ (which we are very familiar with) and the other body, the OC body (which we are not so familiar with). The "TWO" principle works well here: Two covenants Two Jerusalems Two Israels Two cities Two deaths Two kingdoms Two Adams Two comings Two temples TWO heaven and earths :-) TWO covenant bodies What two kingdoms? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 23:25:26 GMT -5
Bev, do you and I agree on this that I said? I think it is a simple teaching from Paul and some make it a hard teaching. Regarding the context of the chapter being that the Corinthians agree that Jesus was raised from the dead? Yes, I agree with that. 1 Corinthians 15:13-14, 20-21 NASB (13) But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; (14) and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. ... (20) But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (21) For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. Following the act of the one man (the first fruits), many will follow. Paul relates the same principle in Romans: Romans 5:15-19 NASB (15) But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (16) The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. (17) For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (18) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (19) For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 7, 2011 23:27:48 GMT -5
... I believe 1 Cor. 15 is referring to the corporate bodies themselves, not the specific contents. ... Jeff, can you explain that differently? I don't understand what you mean by "the specific contents." Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 7, 2011 23:42:07 GMT -5
... I believe 1 Cor. 15 is referring to the corporate bodies themselves, not the specific contents. ... Jeff, can you explain that differently? I don't understand what you mean by "the specific contents." Thanks. Bev, OC Israel consisted of the wheat and the tares. The wheat was saved, the tares burned. OC Israel corporately was raised to be NC Israel. But the tares of OC Israel were destroyed. The wheat was saved. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 8, 2011 0:03:19 GMT -5
Jeff, can you explain that differently? I don't understand what you mean by "the specific contents." Thanks. Bev, OC Israel consisted of the wheat and the tares. The wheat was saved, the tares burned. OC Israel corporately was raised to be NC Israel. But the tares of OC Israel were destroyed. The wheat was saved. Okay, so NC Israel is OC Israel minus the tares. I agree with that. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 8, 2011 12:18:07 GMT -5
Huh? For a moment there you made me think I had made an error. It would be similar to the two cities. The OT physical kingdoms ruled by OT physical kings (types and shadows) versus the spiritual kingdom presently ruled by King Jesus (NC kingdom). |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 8, 2011 18:05:09 GMT -5
Huh? For a moment there you made me think I had made an error. It would be similar to the two cities. The OT physical kingdoms ruled by OT physical kings (types and shadows) versus the spiritual kingdom presently ruled by King Jesus (NC kingdom). Going by what I read in BCS regarding the covenants not technically being old and new, but the same covenant renewed, the same idea can be extended to the Kingdom of God. It was always God's kingdom, with God anointing the king who would sit on the throne, beginning from when the Israelites grumbled about wanting a king to judge them "like all the nations." A king other than God. 1 Samuel 8:4-7 NASB (4) Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; (5) and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." (6) But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. (7) The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 8, 2011 22:03:31 GMT -5
Bev,
I still don't see any difference between the physical Jerusalem and the spiritual Jerusalem being applied to the physical kingdom and the spiritual kingdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 9, 2011 10:48:14 GMT -5
Bev, I still don't see any difference between the physical Jerusalem and the spiritual Jerusalem being applied to the physical kingdom and the spiritual kingdom. Perhaps we don't really disagree and are simply looking at it differently. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 15, 2011 11:37:48 GMT -5
That passage in Samuel is interesting in that it shows how even thru the people's unbelief and disobedience, God works His will for the people by making them willing to receive it. God had guided the people thru the wilderness thru direct communication with Moses - and the people murmured against God and Moses. Now in the land, He raised up judges thru whom He led the people and the people still being contentious now wanted a king. But they didn't particularly want a godly king, instead it was just another rejection of God. But God uses their request to give them a godly king. There is something important here in that the people must ask God for the thing He desires to give them - even though they ask with a wrong motive or understanding. At Sinai they asked for a mediator and that made them willing to accept Moses - whom God had already chosen. And in their asking for a king it opened the way not just for David, who was the Lord's choice, but also to send them Jesus in the right time. And now Israel has the godly king they needed, per their own request. The irony is that true Israel receives her King, while earthly Israel continues to grumble and look for another to be sent.
|
|
