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"