|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Covenant Eschatology - Spirit of the Word - Introductory Note - New Stuff
A Study of the Resurrection
Part 12
by Don K. PrestonOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
As noted at the beginning of this work, the idea of a physical raising of dead human corpses is so engrained in the modern mind that it is difficult for many to rethink. Changing our way of thinking is difficult and often uncomfortable. Hopefully this book has challenged the reader with enough evidence to initiate that rethinking process. Naturally, there are objections to the views herein elucidated and we wish to deal with two of the more common and significant issues.
JESUS THE FIRSTFRUITS
It is often argued that since Jesus was raised physically from the dead and since we must be resurrected like him, that this proves a physical resurrection. This argument is normally grounded on 1 Corinthians 15:20 which speaks of Christ being "the firstfruits of them that slept." The argument says Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection; the harvest must follow the firstfruits "in kind"; Jesus was resurrected physically; therefore the harvest, i.e. the resurrection must be physical.
The concept of the firstfruits is itself significant. Jesus was the "firstfruits of them that slept" 1 Cor. 15:20. Contrary to the view that there has been so far a two thousand year gap between firstfruits and the harvest, Dunn comments on the significance of the term firstfruits; it "denotes the beginning of the harvest, more or less the first swing of the sickle. No interval is envisaged between the firstfruits and the rest of the harvest. With the first fruits dedicated the harvest proceeds. The application of this metaphor to the resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit expresses the belief that with these events the eschatological harvest has begun; the resurrection of the dead has started, the end-time Spirit has been poured out."
Anyone familiar with harvest time fully concurs with this. To deny that firstfruits implies the imminent harvest is to deny the significance of the firstfruits. Thus, those who lodge the "firstfruits" argument against the spiritual nature of the resurrection actually turn the argument against themselves for their own argument would demand that the physical resurrection was imminent in the first century! And those who make this argument deny this.
This objection also fails to understand two other critical points. First, Jesus' physical resurrection was a sign, Matthew 12:39-40;
Jhn 21:30-31, and a sign never signifies itself!For illustration consider Jesus' miracles. Turning water into wine did not signify a future winemaking event, Jhn 2. When Jesus fed the five thousand and said he is the bread of life this did not signify that he is literal bread. When Jesus walked on the water this did not signify a future time of water walking for all believers. None of the miracles of Jesus signified a future event similar to the miracle! They signified spiritual realities! See especially Mark 2:1-10 where Jesus specifically noted that his miracles were a sign of spiritual truths. Why then is it argued that there must be a physical resurrection because Jesus was physically raised from the dead? His resurrection, like the other miracles he performed, signified his deity and spiritual truths.
Second, Romans 6 identifies the kind of death and resurrection experienced by Jesus that is to be emulated by believers. We have already seen the spiritual likeness of being joined with Christ's death, vs. 3-5. Now notice verse 8-10:
"Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 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 unto God."
Please note that Paul speaks of the Christian's past death in verse 8. What kind of death had they already experienced? It cannot be physical. But there was a future life consistent with the nature of that death. If the past death was spiritual the future life was spiritual! And this future life was to emulate Jesus' resurrection. But what is the apostle's focus when he speaks of Jesus' death and life? Notice carefully: "The death that he died he died to sin once for all; but the life that he lives he lives unto God."
Jesus experienced sin-death on behalf of all men, 1 Peter 2:24; his Father turned his back on him, Mat. 27:46, because "he was made to be sin for us," 2 Cor. 5:21. When he died physically he went to the Hadean realm, separated from his Father, Acts 2:31. But because he was personally sinless Hades could not hold him, Acts 2:24. He rose physically to manifest his triumph over the Hadean realm of separation from the Father. We would not know of Jesus' victory over sin-death were it not for that physical resurrection! That resurrection was proof positive of Jesus' identity and victory, Rom. 1:4f.
When Paul speaks of the believer's participation in Jesus' resurrection he concentrates on Jesus' death to sin and resurrection to life with the Father! This is patently not physical but spiritual!
Those who make this objection fail to note that not only does Paul say the believer must participate in Jesus' resurrection, he makes it abundantly clear that the believer participates in the likeness of Jesus' death.
If physical resurrection is demanded to emulate Jesus' resurrection, why is not a physical death in the likeness of his physical death not also required? Must the believer be crucified like him; scourged and unjustly condemned? And if the believer does not die in true likeness of that physical death does this mean he will not be raised in likeness of Him?
Paul is emphatic in Romans, Philippians, Colossians, etc., that they were participating in the likeness of Christ's death! In Romans 6 he said they had been "baptized into his death" vs. 3; they had been "united with him in the likeness of his death" vs. 5; they had "died with Christ" vs. 8. But is it not irrefutably true that the "likeness of his death" they had experienced was not physical death?
If Jesus' physical resurrection demands a physical resurrection, does this not demand that there had to be some more dying on the part of those to whom Paul wrote?
In Romans 6 the apostle says they had already died, vs. 8; in 1 Corinthians 15 they had already borne the image of the man of dust, i.e. death, vs. 49; in Colossians 3 they had already died, vs. 3; in 2 Timothy 2 they had already died, vs. 11. In each of these texts the death had already occurred and the future resurrection was to overcome the present death.
Patently, physical death is not the death they had experienced. But if the future resurrection was to overcome death did they not have to die some more--and a different kind of death? How many kinds of death did Paul say one had to die to participate in Jesus' resurrection? If the future resurrection in these passages is of a different nature than the death they had died, why did Paul see such a direct relationship? Why did he not tell them that although they had already died, this was not the death from which the coming resurrection would free them? And if the future resurrection in these passages would not deliver them from the death they had already experienced does this not mean that they would be physically raised but not spiritually? Did Paul say one had to die twice; once spiritually with Christ and then physically like him? Just where does the inspired apostle suggest such a thing texts? The answer is simple; he does not do so. The apostle speaks of one death and one resurrection.
Finally, appeal to a physical resurrection upon the grounds that Jesus was "the firstborn from the dead" actually demands that the physical resurrection had begun!
The New Testament is emphatic in teaching that the first century brethren comprised "the church of the firstborn ones" Heb. 12:23; Christ had begotten them to be "a kind of firstfruits unto him" Js. 1:18; Paul said Jesus was the "firstborn among many brethren" Rom. 8:29. They had joined with Christ in his death and resurrection, Rom. 6. Clearly, therefore their firstborn status did not refer to resurrection from physical death! They had joined with Christ in dying to sin and raising to life with the Father.
But if the "firstfruit from the dead" argument must refer to physical death and resurrection this means that the entire early church had been physically resurrected since they had joined with Christ in his death and resurrection and become firstfruits!
The objection therefore that the believer must be raised as Jesus was is true if we understand that this refers to Jesus' death to sin and resurrection to life with the Father. But if by this it is meant a physical resurrection this is clearly wrong as Paul shows.
WHAT ABOUT THE BODY?
One of the most common objections to the views presented in this book is that the Bible teaches a "bodily resurrection" and that the concept of a spiritual resurrection denies this. It is often insisted that a spiritual resurrection denies a "bodily" resurrection. But this is truly a misunderstanding of what scripture teaches. We affirm that the Bible definitely teaches a "bodily resurrection"; we just deny that it is the raising of a physical body out of the earth!
Look closer at Romans 6. Notice that Paul says "the old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with" vs. 6. Is there a body here? Surely. Paul says that in baptism one man was put to death and buried; a "body" is definitely involved here! But there is another "body" at work here; the one that is raised. Quite evidently, when Paul says the body of sin was destroyed he is not speaking of the human physical body or else he is saying that a person is baptized to destroy the human physical body!
The identical thought is found in Colossians 2:11:
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ."
An examination of the original text reveals that the words "sins of" are not present. Thus the literal reading is "by putting off the body of the flesh." Paul said they had put off their "fleshly body" in baptism! We do not wish to be redundant but is it possible to understand Paul as referring to the physical body? Surely not. Yet it is undeniable that Paul is teaching that they had put off one body in exchange for another. And what is resurrection but the raising out of death to life; the putting off of one body for another? What was the other body?
They had "put on Christ" Gal. 3:27; they had become a new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; they were creating a "new man," Eph. 4:22-24, even as they "put off the old man which grows corrupt"; in putting off the "body of flesh" they were putting to death "your earthly members," Col. 3:5-10; "the old man with his deeds"; and were putting on "the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created Him."
Here then, Paul is teaching about man's "body" as it stands before God. Man under sin is a body of death; man under God's Covenant is a body of life.
Consider the Prodigal Son. The young man rebelled against his Father's will, wasting his life and fortune in sin. While in that rebellious state his father said he was "dead" Luke 15:24; not physically, but the totality of his existence was alienated from his father. Physical life and death was not the issue; but life and death was!
When he returned, his father said the son was now "alive"; his son had been "resurrected" in the truest sense of the word! His standing before his father had been transformed from death to life. It did not involve his bodily substance, his physical make-up, but it involved his spiritual stance, his standing before his father.
Paul carries this out in Romans 7-8. In chapter 7 the apostle relates his struggles under the Old Covenant; "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." Notice Paul's reference to life and death. As we have repeatedly stated this cannot be referent to physical life and death. Yet it is very real life and very real death! Just because it is "spiritual" does not mean it is not actual and real!
How did Paul refer to his struggles under the Law? Listen to him: "Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Paul was not desiring a deliverance from his human physical body! But he was speaking of his desire for "bodily" deliverance! He referred to his life--the totality of his stance before God under the Old Law as his "body." And under the Law that was a body of death because as we have seen, the Old Law could not justify; it only condemned. It was a "Ministration of Death."
That Paul does not have deliverance of the physical human body in mind is shown in his response to his lamentable condition under the Law: "I thank God--through Christ Jesus our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Paul said the answer for his "body" problem was Jesus! And what is the nature of that deliverance?
In Romans 8:1-3 the apostle explains:
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh."
For Paul, deliverance from the "body of death" was New Covenant salvation in Christ! It was, as Tim King suggests, a change in "stance" before God not a change in physiological "substance." It was "bodily" salvation to be sure, but not of a human corpse out of "terra firma"!
This is further corroborated in Romans 8:6-14. Here the apostle makes comments concerning life and death, body and resurrection, flesh and spirit, that simply cannot be applied to physical life and death, physiological body versus man's spirit, and raising of human corpses from the earth.
In verse 8 he says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Now if by "flesh" he meant the human physical body [soma] then clearly man cannot please God in this life! But as King says "Flesh and spirit for Paul equal determinative modes of existence." This is undeniable, For instance, in Galatians 3:1f Paul wrote to Christians being tempted to return to the Old Law "having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect in the flesh?" "In the Spirit" refers to their New Covenant life in Christ; "in the flesh" refers to a return to the Old Covenant. "Flesh" and "Spirit" are modes of existence; not physical bodies versus disembodied spirit!
On a wider scale, life "in the flesh" included the Gentiles that, while not under the Mosaic Covenant, were guilty of sin and thus "in the flesh," Eph. 2; Col. 2-3. Thus, Paul charged that whether "Jew or Greek all are under sin" Romans 3:9. Life apart from God was life "in the flesh," and constituted "the body of the flesh"; the "body of sin."
On the other hand, to be in the spirit, for Paul, was not to be disembodied from the human body, but to be delivered from one mode of existence under the Old Law to a new mode of existence under the New Covenant Law of Jesus Christ. This is the very thought in Galatians 3-5 as well.
Continuing in Romans 8 we find that Paul said "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Ponder this: Paul says if Christ dwelt in them the body was dead! What body?!? Was it not the body Paul referred to in Romans 7:24--the one he desired deliverance from? It surely cannot be the physical body or else he is saying that Christ only dwelt in physically dead people!
He then says that if Christ dwelt in them "he who raised up Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." This "mortal body" is not different than the body already in view--the body Paul has been discussing in relationship to the Law, sin and death.
We are back to the "already-but-not-yet" since Paul has declared deliverance from the law of sin and death, Rom. 8:1, and yet is still speaking of life from death. Paul is dealing with the firstfruits since they had received "the firstfruits of the Spirit," 8:23, [see 8:28 also] but were anticipating the full deliverance. He has not changed the focus from spiritual death and life to physical death and life; from a spiritual body to a physical body. Paul is consistent throughout. His entire focus is on deliverance from the law of sin and death; on the death that "passed on all men because all have sinned, Rom. 5:12. This is the death of the Garden; and as we have seen this cannot be physical death.
The inspired writer not only speaks of the coming resurrection but reminds them that God had given them the "firstfruits of the Spirit" as the guarantee of that coming consummation, 2 Cor. 5:5. We have already seen that this is a reference to the presence of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Ezekiel promised that God would place His Spirit in Israel and raise them from the dead, Ezekiel 37:12-14. This was not to be a nationalistic restoration but a release from sin through the saving work of the Messiah; and it is called coming out of their graves! Our point is that Paul teaches that the miraculous work of the Spirit would be perfected and finished in the resurrection! If there are no miracles today then the resurrection must have occurred or the Spirit failed to complete his mission! If the resurrection has not occurred the miraculous works of the Spirit must be present!
There is no scriptural indication that God would pour out His Spirit [for one generation] to guarantee the resurrection; take the Spirit away for an indeterminate time, and then send Him again for a "final miracle"! One cannot divorce the resurrection work of the Holy Spirit from that first century framework without doing great violence to the text.
What we have seen then is that Paul did teach a "bodily" resurrection. Yet his concept of the "body" is not that of the modern church. Modern man thinks of body substance; Paul thinks of man's stance before God. Modern man thinks of a body out of the ground; Paul thinks of man delivered from sin. Man thinks physiology; Paul thinks soteriology. The Bible student needs to bring his thoughts into alignment with Paul.
We have examined two main objections to the view that the Bible concept of resurrection is deliverance from sin and reconciliation with God. The objections reject the Biblical definition of death; they fail to acknowledge the "sign" nature of Jesus' physical resurrection; and they change the definition of Paul's "body" resurrection.
Contents - Part 13 - Don Preston's site - Covenant Eschatology
Spirit of the Word - Introductory Note - New Stuff
Undivided Version
Part 1 - Resurrection From What Death?
Part 2 - Two Resurrections?
Part 3 - It Is the Last Hour
Part 4 - The Hour of His Judgment Is Come
Part 5 - The Hope of Israel
Part 6 - The Kingdom Does Not Come With Observation
Part 7 - Resurrection and the Law
Part 8 - The Prophetic Background of John 5
Part 9 - What Is Resurrection?
Part 10 - Resurrection When?
Part 11 - Problems With Tradition
Part 12 - Objections Considered
Part 13 - Summary and Conclusion