The Resurrection of the Dead

[Aaron]

Ok, here's some of my thoughts on the resurrection. Agree or disagree, I'd love to hear what y'all think! And sorry about the length :eek:

The Resurrection of the Dead

The coming of Jesus Christ in the overthrow of the Jewish nation put a full and final end to the “ministration of death” that had long shrouded the land in darkness. With the destruction of the Jewish temple, the old covenant “vanished away,” and the Mosaic age was brought to a dramatic close. This end-of-the-age event signified the consummation of the new covenant of promise in place of the old covenant of law, and revealed that God’s dwelling place was with and among all people. All were included in the eternal covenant of grace that Christ ratified through his sacrificial death on the cross (Heb 9:15-18, etc.).

With the establishment of this new covenant of promise at Christ’s coming, Paul tells us that there would be a resurrection, “both of the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15). What is meant by this? There was certainly no visible, physical resurrection of all people at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. Some proponents of realized eschatology have attempted to solve this problem by re-interpreting what the “resurrection of the dead” means altogether. Instead of seeing it as referring to physical bodies being raised (the traditional idea), they understand the “resurrection” as referring to the corporate body of Israel being “raised” from out of the old covenant “body of Moses,” and into the new covenant “body of Christ.” Consequently, it is thought to have no reference to anyone’s individual post-mortem destiny (at least, not directly). Although I see this as a rather ingenious way of interpretting texts that have long been used to buttress futurism, I am unable to embrace it as the correct view.

This is not to say, however, that there was no dramatic change in those who made up the corporate body of believers (the “body of Christ”) at the time of Christ’s coming. I believe that there was such a change in this body, as described in places such as Philippians 3:20-21, Romans 8:23, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (cf. Luke 21:28). I would agree with those who hold that these verses have no reference to physical bodies being changed from mortal to immortal at Christ’s coming. Instead, I understand these verses to be describing the exaltation of the body of Christ at the time of Christ’s coming, when believers were delivered from all their persecutions, doubts and fears, and entered into the full enjoyment of their salvation by faith. However, as significant as the redemption of the Christian body at Christ’s coming was, I do not believe that this "change" was the resurrection of all who die in Adam for which Paul hoped. Instead of seeing the resurrection of the dead as referring to the corporate body of Israel undergoing a covenantal transition, I believe it has reference to a literal resurrection of all people who had literally died (both Jew and Gentile).

Consequently, I do not think Christ’s own literal resurrection on the third day after his death should be viewed as a mere “type” of Israel’s “covenantal transition” from one covenant body to another. Instead, Christ’s resurrection is representative of what the resurrection of the dead actually is: a literal passing “from death to life” (John 5:24) – that is, a living existence beyond the death of the mortal body. Jesus wasn’t raised up from out of “old covenant Israel”; he rose from out of “the dead” - i.e., those who were in the realm, or state, of the dead. We are told that Christ was “vindicated (or “justified”) in spirit” after being manifested in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). This, of course, refers to his resurrection. But why did Christ’s vindication require his being raised from the dead? According to Old Testament Hebrew thought, he would have simply remained dead (cut off from a living existence) otherwise.
In Acts 2:27 and 31, we are told that God would not leave Christ’s soul in Hades (the “unseen” realm of the dead, which OT scripture calls Sheol). For the psalmist, it was those who had died who were held by the “power of Sheol”: “What man can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol” (Psalm 89:48)? Thus, Sheol/Hades is simply the state of those who are dead. To be delivered from Sheol/Hades was to be delivered from death. As long as a person remained in this state of death, they were not in any sense “alive.” In 1 Sam 2:6, we read, “The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” To be killed was to be brought down to Sheol; to be brought to life was to be raised up from it. Thus, it was necessary for Christ to be delivered from Hades for him to be vindicated from death.

The apostle John quotes Christ as exclaiming, “I am the living one; I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” (Rev 1:18) Had Christ not been raised from Sheol/Hades, he could not have made this triumphant declaration. As long as it was thought that a person remained in the realm (or state) of the dead, he or she was considered “cut off” from a living existence. No one who had died could be considered alive again until they had been raised from Sheol/Hades.

Moreover, it was pretty much unthinkable that the unrighteous would ever be delivered from the dominion of death. The hope of redemption from Sheol was thought to be for the “righteous” (those who were faithful to God’s covenant) alone; for everyone else, the realm of the dead was seen as the final dwelling place. Abandonment to Hades (Acts 2:31) was thought to be the destiny of those who died out of covenant with God. To be in Sheol was to be cut off from both God and human life above (Psalm 6:5; 88:3-12). Psalms 73:18-26 and 49:13-15 both contrast the fate of the wicked as perishing in Sheol with that of the righteous, whom it was believed God would "ransom" from death (Hosea 13:14). Though in some texts Yahweh's power was thought to reach down to Sheol (Ps. 139:8), the dominant idea is that the wicked dead were to be cut off from the land of the living forever (Psalm 37:9, 34).

Because of this, Sheol was seen as a fearful and undesirable place, even for those believed to be righteous in God’s eyes (Acts 2:24). It was simply not where anyone wanted to “dwell” (figuratively, since it is not a literal “place”) when they died - and certainly not for an endless duration of time. Death was not seen as a blessing; it was the inevitable culmination of God’s judgment on sin, and the unavoidable fate awaiting all mortals. Having been introduced into the world as a result of Adam’s transgression, it was seen as an enemy that needed to be abolished (later, I'll start a thread on why I think the "death" with which Adam was threatened refers to physical death and not to a change in his "covenant status," etc.). Without deliverance from the power of Sheol/Hades, it would seem that one’s existence as a living being would simply be forever terminated after one’s physical death. Therefore, a “rising up” from the realm of the dead was thought to be a covenantal necessity if our relationship as covenant partners with the Living God was to continue after death.

1 Corinthians 15 is known as the “resurrection chapter” of the NT. In verse 1, Paul felt it necessary to remind the Corinthian church of the most basic and fundamental tenets of the faith which he was appointed by Christ to proclaim to the world. It was the message he had preached to them earlier (which led to the planting of this church), and thus was a message which they had previously received, and by which they were being “saved,” if they held fast to it (v. 2). To this Paul added, “…unless you believed in vain” (that is, unless they affirmed it without a genuine, heartfelt conviction of its truth). Paul’s words here at the beginning of chapter 15 are in light of the false views being entertained by some in the Corinthian church regarding the resurrection. The truth of the resurrection was central to the message Paul proclaimed; a denial of its truth cut at the heart of the gospel itself. It is for this reason that we find Paul reminding his readers of the original message, and then immediately launching into a defense of the truth of Christ’s literal, historical resurrection (vv. 4-8). The reason Paul felt the need to review the facts for them is because this particular, foundational tenet of the faith had come under attack. To understand how this could have happened, we must keep in mind that these relatively new believers had not themselves been eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection, but had professed faith in it on the testimony of Paul and the other apostles. Paul also refers to them as being “babes in Christ” who were still not ready for “solid food” (3:1-3). Because of this, they were susceptible to outside pagan influences (of which there were many in Corinth).

Corinth, like its neighbor Athens, was a city steeped in Greek philosophy and pagan beliefs. It is highly plausible that an attitude similar to that which was present in Athens was also present in Corinth (which was also dominated by a largely Gentile population). Those in Corinth who were struggling with a belief in the resurrection of the dead were most likely not zealous Gentile believers denying that old covenant Israel had any part in the redemption of the new covenant body of Christ (or what have you). Instead, those questioning the possibility of a resurrection were more likely “babes in Christ” being influenced by the popular Epicurean philosophy of the day, which we know had a stronghold in the nearby city of Athens (Acts 17:18, 31-32). The Epicureans denied any form of afterlife, believing instead that the body and soul were merely collections of atoms that were finally dispersed at death: "Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us" (Epicurus). Because death was thought to end one's existence, they were convinced that the wisest way to live was by taking advantage of the greatest pleasure available to them: "Let us make the best of this short life, seeing as we have no other portion" (Epicurus). In fact, what Paul quotes from Isaiah 22:13 ("Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die") would have been a typical slogan of the Epicurean school of philosophy.

Thus, it was not the redemption of old covenant Israel that those to whom Paul preached the gospel thought “incredible”; it was the fact that God raises the dead in the same way that Christ had been raised (Acts 26:8). The “resurrection of the dead” which many found so hard to believe was of the same nature as Christ’s own resurrection. What was being denied by some in Corinth, and mocked by others in Athens, was the kind of resurrection of which Christ’s own resurrection was an example.

It is evident from Paul’s arguments against those in Corinth who denied the resurrection that the resurrection being denied is identical in nature to the resurrection Christ himself experienced. The thrust of Paul’s argument (1 Cor 15:12-16) is that, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then “not even Christ has been raised.” Again, he states that God did not raise Christ “if it is true that the dead are not raised” (v. 15). Such an argument only carries force (indeed, only makes sense) if the resurrection of the dead being disputed is of the same literal nature as Christ’s own resurrection. That the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of everyone else are inseparably linked is why Paul began this subject by reminding them of the facts of Christ’s resurrection. A denial of the resurrection of the dead was a denial of Christ’s resurrection. But if Christ was indeed raised, then it could not be consistently argued that the dead cannot be raised (because Christ’s resurrection is evidence to the contrary).

Objection: “Body” is used in the singular in vv. 35-44. Paul is therefore talking about a “corporate body” undergoing covenant transition, not literal human bodies.

Answer: The meaning of “body” in the NT must be determined by the context. That Paul speaks of a “natural body” (singular) and a “spiritual body” (singular) in no way implies he has a “corporate body” of people in view. The “natural body” and “spiritual body” he’s contrasting are simply representatives of the two different categories of human bodies (“natural” and “spiritual”). Paul is not contrasting different spiritual bodies with different natural bodies (as if there are many different kinds of spiritual and natural bodies), but simply contrasting them as two different “kinds” of bodies that humans possess. People speak this way all the time, such as when someone is comparing and contrasting the human body (singular) with the body (singular) of, say, a chimpanzee, a penguin, or a flounder. The bodies being compared and contrasted are simply representative of each different species within the animal kingdom.

Furthermore, unless chapter 15 be the exception, Paul nowhere talks about old covenant Israel as a “body” in this letter. He speaks of the “body of Christ,” but this “body” was not “dead.” The “natural body” of which Paul speaks in chapter 15 is the natural, physical body we possess as mortal humans. It is the same “body” of which he speaks in 1 Cor 6:12-20 (notice the singular use of “body” in this passage, even when Paul is referring to the physical bodies of all believers).

Objection: Paul is talking about one “body” in transition in vv. 42-44, since it reads “IT is sown…IT is raised.”

Answer: The word "it" in vv. 42 and 44 does not exist in the Greek. When a subject is omitted in Greek, a verb typically takes the most recent subject stated. The most recent subject stated is "the dead" in verse 42. This, I believe, is the intended subject. If “the dead” is the intended subject, it should be read as, "So also is the resurrection of the dead: [the dead are] sown in corruption, [the dead are] raised in incorruption...[the dead are] sown a natural body, [the dead are] raised a spiritual body." etc. Thus, it is “the dead” (all who die in Adam – v. 22) that are being “sown” and “raised,” and it is “the dead” to which the ensuing list of properties refers. Furthermore, I think it is clear that Paul has in view two different kinds of bodies with which the dead are sown and raised, not one body undergoing a transition or change: “There is a natural body AND there is a spiritual body” (v. 44b). Paul even began this very discourse by asserting that "what you sow you do not sow the body that will come to be" (v. 37). The body with which the dead are sown is not the body with which the dead are raised. One body is corruptible (that is, at death it returns to the elements from which it was made), while the other is incorruptible (it never dies and decays).

Next: "The Coming of the Kingdom of God"

[Aaron]

If the resurrection of the dead in which Paul hoped has reference to a literal rising up of all who die “in Adam” to immortal life “in Christ,” then in what sense did this happen at Christ’s coming? I believe our understanding of the resurrection has much to do with our understanding of the kingdom (and vice-versa). Because I believe the resurrection of the dead and the kingdom of God are inseparably related, I believe the dead were raised at the time of Christ’s coming in the same sense that the “kingdom of God” came with power at this time. This, then, begs the question: what is the kingdom of God, and in what sense did it “come” at the time of Christ’s coming?

The word “kingdom” is a translation of the Greek word basileia, which in turn is a translation of the words malkuth (Hebrew) and malkutha (Aramaic). It has been noted that these words do not define kingdom so much by territory as by dominion or reign. Thus, the “kingdom of God” refers not to the territory of heaven, but to the reign of God over the inhabitants of heaven. In this sense, it more accurately refers to the actual existence of those under God’s reign - the holy, immortal beings who are the subjects of God’s heavenly rule. Thus, it is only those who have been resurrected that can enter this reign of God. The kingdom of God, then, is simply an immortal, heavenly existence beyond the grave. It is this glorious existence into which Christ was “born again,” or resurrected, three days after his death. This existence cannot be inherited by mortals, which is why Paul tells us that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”

It may be objected that the kingdom of God is frequently spoken of as something that can be entered into and enjoyed (or not) in this life. If the kingdom of God is an immortal existence beyond the dominion of sin and death, how then can it be spoken of as something that can be entered or inherited in this present life? The answer is that, for all the verses that speak of the kingdom of God as something that people are capable of entering and enjoying in this life, the entering and enjoying is BY FAITH. Thus, there are actually two senses in which the "kingdom of God" (or "kingdom of heaven," etc.) is spoken of in scripture: the first being an actual immortal existence beyond the grave (which was brought to light by the resurrection of Christ), and the second being a BELIEF in this glorious reality.

In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus gives us a profound insight into the nature of the kingdom that was about to come “with power” and be established on earth at the end of the Mosaic age:

"Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with observation, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is among you.”" Luke 17:20-21

On verse 20, John Wesley remarks that the kingdom of God was not to come “with such outward pomp as draws the observation of every one.” The word for “observation” in verse 20 is metaparateseos. A.T. Robertson notes that it is a “late Greek word from paratereo, to watch closely. Medical writers use it of watching the symptoms of disease. It is used also of close astronomical observations.” Thus, Jesus is explaining to the Pharisees that a close watch of external phenomena will not reveal the coming of the kingdom of God.

It is debated among NT scholars whether entos in verse 21 should be understood as meaning “within/inside of” or “among/in the midst of.” One can find a number of Bible translations that support both renderings. Whether entos is translated "within/inside of" or "among/in the midst of," I believe the basic meaning of Christ’s words remains the same: the coming of the kingdom of God would not be a visibly discernible event. Instead, it was (and is) an already-present reality that can only be seen by an eye of faith, and can thus only be enjoyed in the hearts of believers. It's not something physically tangible, nor is it visible to the physical eyes (as was the city of Jerusalem, or the Roman Empire). Though it is most certainly an objective reality that is just as real as that which falls within the range of our physical senses (and therefore does not merely “exist” in the minds of believers as an idealized idea, or as a “moral reign” in the heart), the kingdom of God is an invisible and spiritual (heavenly) reality. Though we cannot see it with our eyes, it is there all the same.

During the 40-year transitional period in redemptive history leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, believers could already say that they had been rescued by God from "out of the jurisdiction of darkness" and transported "into the kingdom of the Son of His love." This transference into the heavenly kingdom of God was by faith (a faith in which they were exhorted to continue - Col 1:23). That for which they were still waiting was the establishment of the promise of their heavenly inheritance (Col 1:5). That which had already been inaugurated (and which they could enter into and enjoy by faith) was still awaiting its consummation.

As the author of Hebrews writes, believers were awaiting the removal of things that could be shaken, so that the things that could not be shaken would remain:

"See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This phrase, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of things that are shaken--that is, things that have been made--in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken." (Hebrews 12:25-27)

The word for “remain” is meno, and means, “to stay, abide, continue, dwell and endure.” The kingdom of God, which is an ever-present spiritual reality that transcends temporal things, was "received" by believers when the new covenant was consummated, and established in all its fullness. This was the "period of reformation" (Heb 9:10), when that which had been "growing old" and “becoming obsolete” (the Mosaic covenant - Heb 8:13) finally vanished away. The termination of the old covenant (and the consequent consummation of the new) took place when the Roman armies under Titus sacked the city of Jerusalem and destroyed the temple; it was this Christ-directed judgment that was observable with signs (Luke 17:24). In Matt 24:27, Christ declares, "For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

So, that which would be visibly discernable would be “the removal of things that are shaken,” which took place at Christ’s coming. That which could not be shaken (the kingdom of God) would simply remain (Heb 12:27), as an eternal, spiritual reality that has always existed, but which can only be entered into by faith as long as we’re mortal. Christ told his disciples that the kingdom was prepared for believers to inherit from “the foundation of the world” (Matt 25:34). But being a spiritual and heavenly reality, it is "not of this world" (John 18:36), and thus can only be inherited in this life by faith. As such, it was not available as a full reality to be received and inherited by faith until the old covenant came to an end. This is because those things that could be shaken (the temple, priesthood, sacrificial system, etc.) and that covenant of which those "shakable" things were a physical expression and reminder, were obscuring the reality of the spiritual kingdom that had always been present, but had simply been hidden from view (that is, until the “shakable” things were removed). When the old covenant finally vanished away, the new covenant (which, like the kingdom of God, had always been a reality, but was simply obscured by the shadow of the old law covenant) was established in its place as the eternal covenant that it is.

Just as the kingdom of God was said to come in power at this time, so the dead are represented as being raised at this time. It was at the abolition of the Mosaic Covenant that the promise of resurrection life for all was established in the world. That which took place at the coming of Christ was the full revelation and establishment of the truth and reality of the resurrection of the dead. It was at this time that death lost its sting (when the "dispensation of death and condemnation" came to an end), and those believers who had not “tasted death” but were “alive and remained until the coming of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15) were, by faith, finally able to see and embrace this truth and promise as the reality that it is. Thus, for believers, all who had already died in Adam - both “just” and “unjust” - were seen, by an eye of faith, to rise in Christ at this time. All who had died were seen as rising immortal from the slumber of death (Hades/Sheol) in the same way that the kingdom (which had already been present) was seen to come in power when the temporal things that could be shaken were removed. With the consummation of the new covenant of promise, believers entered into the full enjoyment of their salvation by faith. But just as the kingdom had always been present, the immortal resurrection of the dead had long been taking place, ever since the death of Abel. Thus, the resurrection of the dead is not collective and general, but successive. I believe scripture teaches that it takes place shortly after each person’s death (just as Christ’s resurrection took place only three days after his death).

So the resurrection of the dead and the coming of the kingdom at the “last trumpet” was simply an unveiling of that which already existed and had been taking place since the beginning of the world. The resurrection of all who die in Adam was an already-present reality of which the world had simply remained ignorant, because the shadow of the old Mosaic covenant had hidden its truth. “Life and immortality” was not revealed to the world until the coming of Christ (who is the very embodiment of the new covenant promise, and God’s pledge to raise all people from the dead to an immortal existence). Although it was Christ who brought this truth to light through the gospel of his death and resurrection, the reality itself had existed since death first entered the world. It had simply been veiled from the sight of mortals. Similarly, God's “tabernacle” has always been with mankind. We have always been his people, and God himself has always been our God (Rev 21:3). But again, this reality had remained veiled to mankind (and it is no coincidence that the last book of the Bible is called the Revelation, or Unveiling).

Next "installment": Salvation by Faith

[Aaron]

To be “born again” into God’s heavenly kingdom (not with a natural, physical body of flesh and blood, but with a trans-physical, “spiritual body”) is our “justification” and our “eternal life.” But we cannot enjoy this as a full reality until after we die: as Paul tells us, what is "sown" does not come to life unless it dies. That is why our salvation in this life is said to be “by faith.” The author of Hebrews says that this faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction (or “evidence”) of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). To be exercising faith in something or someone presupposes that one is not, at that time, yet receiving that which one is exercising faith in. Faith looks forward in anticipation to the reality in which it hopes. Faith brings future blessings near, that they may be enjoyed in the present by anticipation. Thus, the kingdom of God that we may inherit in the present is simply a belief in its reality (i.e., the reality of an immortal existence beyond the grave, which Christ brought to light through the gospel of his death and resurrection - 2 Tim 1:10).

The promise of the new covenant (which was established in the world at the coming of Christ in the destruction of Jerusalem) is that all who die in Adam are destined to be justified from sin and released from the condemnation of death, by being raised immortal as “new creations in Christ.” In light of this, the Pauline teaching of “justification by faith” is shown to be good news to both believers and unbelievers alike! That’s because the fact that all who believe on Christ can be justified in this life “by faith” presupposes the fact that all people – whether believers or unbelievers - are destined to be justified by God in reality, through death and resurrection. By simply examining the meaning of biblical faith, we find that this is so. “Justification by faith” is simply “justification by confident anticipation” (of course, there is a righteousness that this faith produces in our hearts, which Paul calls "the fruit of the spirit," but that's a different topic). It is by faith in the risen Christ that we receive the hope of our own resurrection from corruption to incorruption. It is by faith that we enjoy the present blessings that come from an assurance that we will be justified from sin through our death and resurrection. It is for this reason that our faith is to be in the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is this message of God’s love for humanity that reveals the promise of justification as a free and unmerited gift to all (and, as noted earlier, our faith in this reality begins to free us from present sins). As the one who had been appointed by God to reveal this truth and die as the mediator of a new covenant (a covenant not according to LAW but according to PROMISE), our crucified and resurrected Lord is the pledge and guarantee of our resurrection; hence, the repeated command that we put our faith in him.

So, if “whosoever believes” can be “justified” and enjoy “eternal life” by faith (John 3:15-16; 4:14; 6:54; Acts 2:21; Acts 10:43; Rev 22:17), this actually presupposes two salvations:

(1) A future salvation that is both unconditionally promised and all-inclusive (embracing all for whom Christ died and rose again as covenant mediator – that is, everyone; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 2:9, etc.)

(2) A present salvation, in this life (the righteousness, joy and peace that comes from the hope of being “made alive in Christ”), that is conditionally enjoyed only by those who are exercising a living faith in Christ (i.e., believers/the Church).

That the apostle Paul himself believed and taught this is clear from 1 Tim 4:10-11: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things.”

"God is the Savior of all people," absolutely (for all who die in Adam are to be made alive in Christ), but "especially of those who believe," for the latter (believers) anticipate that of which the former (everyone else) remain ignorant. Thus, "salvation by faith" is the enjoyment of our future salvation by confident anticipation in Christ. This faith in Christ by which we enjoy a foretaste of our future salvation (“eternal life,” the “kingdom of God,” etc.) produces righteousness, joy and peace in our hearts and lives (the "fruit of the Spirit"). We are brought to love both God and our neighbor when we embrace, by faith in Christ, the gospel of God’s unconditional, infinite love for us in freely giving us eternal life.

So, salvation “by faith” is a blessing enjoyed in this present life by those who believe on Christ, who is our assurance of God’s promise to save all people from sin and death through an immortal resurrection. This is why only believers can be “justified by faith." But this particular salvation that can only be enjoyed by believers (the Church) pertains only to this present existence, and not to the future life, when all people will come to know God, and the joy of salvation. Moreover, there could be no such thing as "believers" (those who are “saved by faith” by believing the promise of the gospel) and "unbelievers" (those who aren't) if the future salvation of all people through a resurrection was not the truth revealed in the gospel, and established at Christ’s coming.

Unfortunately, many Christians’ understanding of the new covenant gospel is very much like the old covenant law, since (according to the common understanding) they are both basically promises/threats conditioned upon a human response. The only difference is that their understanding of the gospel is that it pertains to the next life, while the law pertained only to this life. The law, being conditional, promised temporal blessings and threatened temporal curses. Whether one was blessed or cursed by God depended on their response to the law (whether they complied with obedience, or not). In the same way, their understanding of the gospel is that it’s a conditional offer of salvation. The only difference is that their “gospel” promises an endless blessing after this life to those who meet the condition (i.e., “believers”), and threatens an endless curse (annihilation, endless torment, or whatever it is they believe to be the penalty for sin) to those who don’t meet the condition (i.e., “unbelievers”). But again, this is the essence of law. If one complies with the conditions, one is blessed; if one doesn’t, one is cursed. The popular understanding of the gospel is that it simply extends the blessing and curse beyond this life, and makes them endless, and permanent. But again, this “gospel” is no different than the law, in that both are conditional and depend on the response of the human party. In the case of both the law and the gospel, we are (according to the popular understanding) to comply with the conditions set forth, under penalty of punishment (which, in the case of their gospel, is endless and permanent). Because both are conditional and depend on the response of man, both are examples of law.

Paul, however, believed that any mixture of law and grace is a denial of grace (Rom. 11:6). The difference between the law and the gospel is like the difference between night and day. The law says, "do.” The gospel says, "done." Legalism always attempts to wear the mask of grace but it always smells like works. Legalism will always enforce its claims, somewhere, with the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. It may talk about "love" and "faith", but legalism must have its “stick and carrot.” At some point the legalist will either promise or threaten something, conditioned upon man’s obedience or disobedience. The true gospel, however, conditions everything on the love and faithfulness of God alone. The true gospel is not conditional, but unconditional. It is an unconditional promise of salvation in Christ, who is our resurrection and our life. Being thus news, it excludes all conditions (you can’t “work news,” or “comply with the conditions of news”). All you can do is either believe the news, or not believe it.

There is nothing anyone can do to gain this salvation, or forfeit it. Whether the promise is believed or not does not alter the promise in the least; one cannot nullify the promise through unbelief. Those who believe the promise are blessed in this life (saved by faith in the promise), and those who don’t, aren’t. But the this-life blessing enjoyed by believing the Gospel (or forfeited by not believing it) is not itself the blessing that the Gospel promises. The blessing that is found in the Gospel is the blessing of the resurrection, which is an unconditionally promised salvation. The salvation which can be enjoyed in consequence of believing the gospel (or forfeited by not believing it) is simply the this-life blessing that believing the Gospel brings (e.g., righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit). The Gospel itself is an unconditional promise.

Concluding Thoughts

Many Christians are unable to embrace a fully realized understanding of eschatology because they see it as offering very little (if any) hope for the future. As it is commonly taught and understood, it provides little foundation for a hope of salvation from the evils of life. If the fullness of our salvation is just as realized in this life as it will be after we die, then who is to say there will not be the same amount of sin, pain, suffering, etc. after we die? And as far as this life goes, we have not seen much, if any, moral improvement in the world since Christ’s coming; if anything, humanity is in worse shape now than we were before 70 AD. What reason have we to expect that physical death will bring us any more salvation than we are supposed to be experiencing now (which is said to be “fully realized”)? This, I believe, is the most consistent view to hold if the reality of our salvation is just as much in this life as it is in the next (if indeed there is a “next” – if the only literal resurrection the NT speaks of is Christ’s, I fail to see how we can have any real basis on which to suppose that anyone, except Christ, will even enjoy a conscious existence after death). But if my views are correct, then what we enjoy in this life is but a foretaste of what is to come after we die. In other words, the fullness of our salvation, as a reality (our justification, eternal life, etc.) lies beyond the veil of death, and can only be enjoyed in this life by faith.

Understood in this way, the salvation that can be said to have been “realized” at Christ’s coming is our salvation by faith. Thus, Christ’s coming did not mark the end of our salvation by faith; it marked the beginning. During the transitional time leading up to the end of the old covenant, the believer’s salvation by faith was not yet fully realized. It awaited consummation. It was at the time of Christ’s coming that the promise of our eternal life was established, and it is in this sense that the righteous were said to “enter into eternal life.” They were at this time given full assurance that they would be “made alive in Christ” after they died, and were thus “perfected” in their faith. Ever since the old covenant world came to an end, all people now live in a “new heavens and a new earth.” But the covenant by which our new heavens and earth are defined is a covenant of PROMISE. It is by faith in the risen Christ (the new covenant mediator, and the pledge and guarantee of our own resurrection) that we enter into the New Jerusalem (the new covenant “city” of promise), and enjoy, by faith, our future salvation, when death and pain will be a thing of the past, and God will wipe away the tears from all eyes.


Well, that's all for now! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

In Christ,
Aaron

[Paige]

Aaron,

There is a lot here to discuss. I hope you don't mind if I ask questions in small segments.

You said:

Consequently, I do not think Christ’s own literal resurrection on the third day after his death should be viewed as a mere “type” of Israel’s “covenantal transition” from one covenant body to another. Instead, Christ’s resurrection is representative of what the resurrection of the dead actually is: a literal passing “from death to life” (John 5:24) – that is, a living existence beyond the death of the mortal body.

I would like to refer to Rom. 6. Paul states that baptismal into Christ was a death and burial for those NT believers. Was this a literal death and burial in the physical sense? Was Christ's a literal death and burial in the physical sense? Further, they were promised a resurrection, just as Christ was raised. Vs. 5, "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection."

With this in mind, how is it that you view resurrection in a literal, physical manner according to this passage?

I get the impression that "death" for you, must be defined as physically passing from the earth? If so, how can one who has physically passed from the earth bury another who has physically passed? "Let the dead bury the dead." And, how did "sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed (past tense) me." <--Paul, Rom.7:11?

Please look at Rom. 7: 8-12, and the Genesis account of the trespass of the command to not eat. Trespassing this command would cause death. How does physical death fit here if it doesn't occur for over 900 years later, -and- how is it that Paul is killed already, yet not physically dead, if the definition of being killed is physical expiration?

Paige

[Amie]

Aaron,

So you believe that the first fruit church inherited the new covenant making the old covenant fulfilled, yet we're still inheriting the new covenant (which would make the old covenant still lacking fulfillment)?

What if Jesus' resurrection wasn't a "type" (who says that it is?) and was a revelation of an as before unseen reality?

Amie

[Amie]

Also -

How could anyone be "in Adam" today if Jesus was the "last Adam"?

1Co 15:45 So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit. Gen. 2:7

[Aaron]

Paige said,

Aaron,

There is a lot here to discuss. I hope you don't mind if I ask questions in small segments.

Not at all! That will help me out as well.

You said:
Quote:
Consequently, I do not think Christ’s own literal resurrection on the third day after his death should be viewed as a mere “type” of Israel’s “covenantal transition” from one covenant body to another. Instead, Christ’s resurrection is representative of what the resurrection of the dead actually is: a literal passing “from death to life” (John 5:24) – that is, a living existence beyond the death of the mortal body.

I would like to refer to Rom. 6. Paul states that baptismal into Christ was a death and burial for those NT believers. Was this a literal death and burial in the physical sense? Was Christ's a literal death and burial in the physical sense? Further, they were promised a resurrection, just as Christ was raised. Vs. 5, "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection."

With this in mind, how is it that you view resurrection in a literal, physical manner according to this passage?

Well first of all, although I believe the resurrection is indeed literal, I don’t understand it as being “physical” (in the sense of our being raised with a natural, biological body like the one we have now). I believe we rise with a spiritual body that is, for lack of a better word, “trans-physical” - not “immaterial” in a strict sense, but undetectable to our natural, biological senses (just as I believe Christ was, unless God manifested him to those who were appointed to be witnesses of his resurrection). I don’t believe Christ rose in his natural body, and I don’t believe we will, either. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; we must be "born again" of the spirit.

As to how I view the resurrection in a literal manner according to Romans 6, here’s how: Just as Christ literally died (he was “cut off” from a living existence in this world), and then three days later literally rose from the dead (“the dead” = those in hades, or a state of death), so shall we. Baptism is a figure of our death and resurrection. Death and resurrection cleanses us from all sin, and water baptism is a sign of that (Acts 22:16). Through death and resurrection, we will be free from all sin and temptation to sin, just as we’re told in Hebrews 2:14 that Christ destroyed "the devil," who has "the power of death" (literal death), through his own death (I believe the devil = the inducements of the flesh that tempt all mortal people to sin). Jesus, the Anointed One, was appointed by God to reveal to the world our salvation, which is through death and resurrection. He revealed to us that, through death, "the devil" (the desires of the flesh that tempt us to sin) is destroyed. By being baptized, we are manifesting our faith in Christ (who is the promise and guarantee of every person's resurrection). This is what Paul means by being “baptized into Christ” and being “buried with him by baptism into death.” Our being immersed in water represents our death, and our rising from out of the water represents our resurrection into eternal life, in a justified, sinless condition. Those who believe on Christ and thereby receive the hope of being resurrected after they die will consequently walk in “newness of life,” because this hope of being raised immortal to a holy and happy existence beyond the grave (just as Christ was) purifies our hearts, and produces the "fruit of the spirit" in our lives.

I get the impression that "death" for you, must be defined as physically passing from the earth? If so, how can one who has physically passed from the earth bury another who has physically passed? "Let the dead bury the dead." And, how did "sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed (past tense) me." <--Paul, Rom.7:11?

Surely you’re aware that “death” can be used in a literal or figurative sense in scripture (for it is used in both a figurative and literal sense in the expression you quoted). But the figurative has it basis in the literal; there could be no figurative understanding of “death” if there were no literal death. The figurative sense ultimately derives its meaning from the literal. “Let the dead bury their dead” is a figurative expression. But Jesus died a literal death (not a figurative), and so will we. And Jesus’ resurrection was a literal resurrection, and so shall ours be (otherwise the harvest wouldn’t be like the “firstfruits”).

Again, in Romans 7:11, Paul is using “death” in a figurative sense, but it is an expression grounded in the literal sense. Paul “died” in the sense that, in violating his conscience and sinning, he thus embraced the condemnation of death that he was already under as a mortal child of Adam. Whereas before he was unaware of death as his condemnation (for he had not yet sinned and experienced guilt), when he transgressed he found himself under the sentence of certain death, just as Adam was placed under the sentence of death on the day he transgressed. It is in this sense that Paul “died” and was "killed." He simply became guilty, and knew he deserved to die.

Please look at Rom. 7: 8-12, and the Genesis account of the trespass of the command to not eat. Trespassing this command would cause death. How does physical death fit here if it doesn't occur for over 900 years later, -and- how is it that Paul is killed already, yet not physically dead, if the definition of being killed is physical expiration?

Well, I’ve already explained how Paul could say he had “died” and was “killed.” And you are correct in seeing a connection with the Genesis account. In order for you and others to better understand my view of the Genesis account, let me first say a word about how I understand sin, and God’s justice.

Happiness (or well-being) is that for which we are all wired. By God’s design, it is the law of the human heart; we cannot help but pursue it in all that we do. Blaise Pascal was right on target when he wrote,

“All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of man, even of those who hang themselves.”

God created us to be happy, and his moral law is perfectly adapted to our nature. Sin is, I believe, a violation of the law of our nature (and is thus said to be “lawlessness”). Any action or intention that diminishes our enjoyment of life, and is counterproductive to our happiness and the happiness of others, is sin. Sin is fundamentally life-denying, and leads only to death (love, on the other hand, is fundamentally life-affirming, for it ascribes worth to others and seeks to promote and secure their well-being; it is thus said to be the fulfillment of the law). Because sin is the enemy of happiness, it is the enemy of mankind.

As you implied in your response, the opening chapters of Genesis are especially foundational to our understanding of humanity’s problem (which is sin and death). There, we find our first human parent, Adam, violating the moral law of God (what I believe to be the law of our human moral nature) and transgressing the command given him. In doing so, he consequently involved himself and all his posterity in sin and “death.”

God’s justice required that Adam die as a consequence of his sin, and so it was death with which Adam was threatened. What kind of death is in view here? Though many Christians have argued that God must have been threatening Adam with something other than literal, physical death (and I used to hold to this popular view as well) I now believe the language and context fully justifies a straightforward, literal meaning of the word. An understanding of sin and God’s justice supports this understanding as well.

Justice, I believe, is simply the divine principle of God’s nature that seeks always to maintain what is right, and to make right all that is wrong. Because I understand God’s justice as demanding that all wrong be made right, I believe all sin must ultimately come to an end. Every punishment enforced by divine justice, therefore, is designed towards this end (and being the attribute of an all-wise and all-powerful God, I believe it is certain to achieve its intended purpose). With a sovereign Lord reigning over the moral universe, justice cannot but prevail in all cases. It is therefore impossible that sin be perpetrated forever; it must ultimately come to an end for all people. God's perfect justice requires it.

The apostle Paul tells us that, according to God’s righteous judgment, those who sin are deserving of death (Rom 1:32), and that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Death, then (which, according to the Bible, is essentially a “cutting off” from a given state of existence) is the penalty designed by God to satisfy the full demands of his justice.

It was because of the inflexible demands of divine justice that God sentenced Adam to certain death as the penalty for his disobedience (Gen 2:16-17). “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19), was never spoken until after Adam had eaten from the tree of which God commanded him not to eat. After Adam transgressed and proved himself to be a creature incapable of complying with the demands of God’s moral law, God’s justice required his ultimate death to put an end to his imperfect, sinful existence.

It is sometimes argued that God must have had something other than literal death in view in Gen 2:16-17, since Adam did not immediately die physically after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, I don’t believe this follows; I believe this line of reasoning is based on a misunderstanding of what is actually being said. Notice that there is nothing actually said by God about the "when" of the death in view. That is, there is nothing said regarding how long it would be until Adam actually died after transgressing. All Adam is told is that in the day he disobeyed God, his death would become a certainty; in the very day he transgressed, he would be doomed to return to the dust from which he was made. This is expressed by the Hebrew idiom, “you shall surely die,” which denotes certainty, not immediacy. It would be like a college professor telling a student who has almost exceeded the number of “unexcused absences” allowed for the semester, “On the day that you miss this class again, you will have to repeat the course.” No one would understand the professor to mean that her student would have to repeat the course on the very day he missed his next class. Instead, we would understand her to mean that, on the day of the student's next absence, he would be withdrawn from the course, and would have to take the class again at a future time (whether it be next semester, that summer, or two years into the future).

In the next chapter, shortly following humanity’s first act of disobedience, we find that God is true to his word. After God pronounces the judgment of Adam’s death, there is, on the very day of Adam’s sin, a swift execution of the divine judicial sentence: Adam and Eve are banished from the garden and thereby cut off from access to the “tree of life.” This is done, we are told, so that they would not then be able to partake of its fruit and “live forever,” or have age-during life (Gen 3:22-23). This, it seems, would have been the blessing of which they could have partaken had they obeyed God (whether or not they really could have obeyed God is another question – I don’t believe they could have). But since they didn’t, they were consequently “doomed to die” on the day of their transgression.

From this I believe we can conclude that, upon his transgression, Adam did NOT lose some sort of “inherent immortality” that he originally possessed. Instead, there is every reason to believe that Adam, like all created life on earth, was mortal from the time of his creation. Adam did not become mortal because of his sin; he was simply excluded from the only source of “eternal life” by being banished from the “tree of life.” God’s action of removing them from the garden made their deaths absolutely certain. From the day that Adam proved himself to be a creature incapable of complying with the demands of God’s moral law, he (and all his posterity) were thus condemned to live out the rest of their days under a divine death sentence. It was by God’s mercy that our first parents were allowed to live more than 900 years before finally paying the penalty for their disobedience as required by God’s law.

From this opening story in Genesis, therefore, we find that the kind of existence from which sinners must be “cut off” in order to satisfy the strict demands of divine justice is the earthly state of existence into which we come into being. It is with these “natural,” corruptible bodies of flesh and blood that we possess both the potential and inclination to sin. If God’s justice is to ultimately prevail, then all sinners must be cut off from that form of existence that unites them with the one through whom sin originally entered the world.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Hope that helps,
Aaron

[Paige]

Aaron,

Where do you posit Rev. 21 and 22 as occurring, or to occur?

Paige

[Paige]

Also,

Through death and resurrection, we will be free from all sin and temptation to sin,

Am I to understand that you believe it is our own personal death and resurrection which will ultimately free us from sin?

Paige

[Laren]

Hi Aaron, I find all this interesting and I thank you for your hard work.

A question that comes to mind, and is much more elementary probably than others, is why do animals suffer the wages of sin??

Also, why do plants suffer the wages of sin?

And one other thought, is that fruit trees were in the garden, and by the very nature of seed bearing fruit, there had to be death already before Adam and Eve's transgression. A seed must die to bear fruit?

thanks.

Laren