Partial Preterism & Full Preterism

[Guest]

Hey Jim...Did Peter really say that the END of ALL THINGS was AT HAND??? Did he really say that the END of ALL THINGS was really THOUSANDS OF YEARS AWAY?

Think about that...Does AT HAND really mean THOUSANDS OF YEARS???

Was Peter just using this kind of language to scare his followers into obedience?

Just kidding...But not really!

Anyhow...Re: 1 Cor 15...Modus Tollens. If A then B. But if no B then no A.

This was Pauls argument. He claimed that the resurrection WAS happening in his day. And he was pointing to the fact that Jesus had risen to prove it. Now did this mean resurrection like dead bodies coming up out of the ground. Nooooo...He was talking about the restoration of the whole house of Israel here in 1 Cor 15. Was he also talking about a future resurrection of those saints that had died in faith referred to back in Daniel 12? Absolutely...but there was a resurrection/restoration that was happening in his day that was a fulfillment of the Ezekiel 37 dry bones passage.

Most people don't catch this line of reasoning that Paul was using. Most people think that Paul is saying, "There will be a resurrection because Christ is raised." But that's just not the case. What he is saying is, "That if the dead are not rising then Christ did not rise and our preaching is in vain." He was using the proof of Christs' resurrection(A) to prove that the resurrection/restoration(of the whole house of Israel) was happening in his day.(B) if A then B...but...if no B...then...no A.

1 Cor 15:12-15

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead(present tense)? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.

What Paul is saying is that if the dead are not being raised then Christ is not risen.

Paul is not using a resurrection some countless thousands of years in the future to prove that Christ has risen. Simple logic...you can't use something that has not happened yet as proof that something has happened as a predecessor.

Paul did not say, "Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there will be no resurrection of the dead."

No

He said,"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead."

Paul was not only speaking of a future resurrection in 1 Cor 15. He was also speaking of a resurrection/restoration that was happening in his day. Which is why he said, "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “ O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”

Paul was quoting two passages from the books of Isaiah and Hosea which speak nothing of dead bodies coming out of the ground...but speak very clearly of the restoration of Israel.

Just a few 4 a.m. ramblings that have been rattling around in my head.

8) Mike

[Guest]

Okay Mike, let's break this down:

Is it your conviction that if the present tense is used in the New Testament, then the action in question must be taking place at the time of speaking/writing?

[Guest]

Okay Mike, let's break this down:

Is it your conviction that if the present tense is used in the New Testament, then the action in question must be taking place at the time of speaking/writing?

Well...I think that you need to look at it that way first and ask if that makes sense. I have wondered how someones view of eschatology would affect their interpretation of scripture. I'm speaking of those who have been on translation boards of say the NIV, NASB, NLT, etc. First hand I have seen this in the NLT regarding a passage in Daniel that speaks of the time of the end. It was translated "end of the world." With no justification.

I mean...why wouldn't someones views on soteriology or eschatology affect how they translate thing. I know they can try to be unbiased. But that doesn't mean that they aren't human.

So yes, I do question someones motive for puting a present tense action way off in the future when it could equally well be valid in the present tense. Now obvious the context needs to be considered. Now it is quite clear in the 1 Cor 15 passage by Pauls method of argumentation that he's not talking about something thousands of years off in the future. That would make his argument just plain old silly.

I do understand how a present tense verb is used as it was explained to me yesterday re: the persecution that the apostles would experience in the future. But especially when it comes to passages dealing with eschatology, I think twice before I make a decision.

So yes...Sometimes. If a present tense verb is used it is speaking of the present tense.

mike

[Guest]

Hello sean......i think you misunderstand me.....

2 Tim 2:17 Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

I think this is the strongest evidence against the version of full preterism you mention, because you say that this was present since John 5.


In john 5 i agree its spiritual life, but that the hour is coming was then, in 70 a.d, because i link the resurrection with the parousia, which scripture teaches. You agree with this also, just not when it happened. So the timothy verse would still be applicable to them, because the resurrection of those dead did not happen as of yet.

So again, my dilemma is on what type of resurrection. I guess my thought is, since when we die we transcend this material world, and into another existence, whatever form that is. I dont see clearly stated that we will come back to this particular planet, thereby needing a physical body similiar to ours now. That belief is based upon the New Heavens and Earth, but if thats not a literal heavens and earth similiar to the present, then there is no need for our body to be similiar. Jesus' was of course, because the current planet was still in existence.

[Guest]

Ely, I think my understanding of 1 Corinthians 15 speaking of a present tense and still yet future to the Corinthians resurrection is fully acceptable with scripture.

John 5:25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

Pauls teaching of a present day resurrection lines up perfectly with what Jesus taught.

Agreed???

8) Mike

[Guest]

Hey Mike,

It sounded as though the present tense verbs was the clincher for you. But we are agreed that the tense of a verb in and of itself does not tell us the time of the verb.

Concerning John 5, you are suggesting (I think) that Jesus was describing the same thing as Paul was describing in 1 Corinthians 15. If so, then I disagree, for similar reasons to the ones Sean has brought up.

I understand Paul to be saying that Jesus' own resurrection is the catalyst/ blueprint/ original model/ springboard for the resurrection of believers.

If John 5:25 = 1 Corinthians 15, can I ask you, when did the resurrection begin to happen? Is it the case that from the begining of human history, men have been spiritually resurrected as soon as they died? Or did this only begin to happen at Jesus' incarnation? Did Jesus' death and resurrection change anything?

Ely

[Guest]

Hey Mike,

It sounded as though the present tense verbs was the clincher for you. But we are agreed that the tense of a verb in and of itself does not tell us the time of the verb.

Concerning John 5, you are suggesting (I think) that Jesus was describing the same thing as Paul was describing in 1 Corinthians 15. If so, then I disagree, for similar reasons to the ones Sean has brought up.

I understand Paul to be saying that Jesus' own resurrection is the catalyst/ blueprint/ original model/ springboard for the resurrection of believers.

If John 5:25 = 1 Corinthians 15, can I ask you, when did the resurrection begin to happen? Is it the case that from the begining of human history, men have been spiritually resurrected as soon as they died? Or did this only begin to happen at Jesus' incarnation? Did Jesus' death and resurrection change anything?

Ely

I'm suggesting that the 40 year period between the cross and the parousia(<-70A.D.) was known as "the first resurrection." A time of restoration of the whole house of Israel. A time of grace in which you could partake in the death of Christ to be raised new to reign with Him as kings and priests. And if you did partake in this "first resurrection," then the second death has no power over you.

8) Mike

[Guest]

Hey Mike,

I'm suggesting that the 40 year period between the cross and the parousia(<-70A.D.) was known as "the first resurrection." A time of restoration of the whole house of Israel. A time of grace in which you could partake in the death of Christ to be raised new to reign with Him as kings and priests. And if you did partake in this "first resurrection," then the second death has no power over you.

8) Mike

I don't think that Jesus was talking about the same thing as Paul was in 1st Corinthians. Let's look at some pertinent portions of 1 Corinthians 15. I'm using the ALT which is more literal in it's rendering of verb tenses. I've highlighted the relevant present tense verbs in red:

1Co 15:12-20
But if Christ is preached that He has been raised from [the] dead, how are some among you* saying that [there] is no resurrection of [the] dead? But if [there] is no resurrection of [the] dead, neither has Christ been raised. But if Christ has not been raised, in that case, our proclamation [is] empty [fig. without purpose], and your* faith also [is] empty. And we also are found [to be] false witnesses of God, because we testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise if indeed [the] dead are not raised. For if [the] dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised. But if Christ has not been raised, your* faith is futile [or, worthless]; you* are still in your* sins. In that case, also, the ones having fallen asleep [fig., having died] in Christ perished. If in this life only we have been hoping [or, have been having confident expectation] in Christ, we are of all people most pitiful! But now Christ has been raised from [the] dead! He became the first-fruits of the ones having fallen asleep [fig., having died].

Okay, is Paul saying that the dead were at that time being raised? Maybe. He does use a lot of present tense verbs here. However, read further. Note the future tense verbs in green:

1Co 15:21
For since by means of a man death [came], also by means of a Man [is] [the] resurrection of [the] dead. For just as in Adam all die, in the same way also in Christ all will be given life. But each in his own order, Christ [the] first-fruit, afterwards the [ones] of Christ at His Arrival.

Paul is continuing his discussion concerning the resurrection the dead. he says that all shall be made alive in Christ. Future tense. One could counter and say "no, he meant that eventually, all people will finally be resurrected." Maybe, but he also goes on to give an order of resurrections:

1st - Christ himself (note, not before the cross)
2nd - Those who are His at His arrival (parousia/ coming)

Wherever you want to locate this arrival, it's definitely future from Paul's time of writing, thus, the resurrection was also yet future form that time.

Sean has already shown from the latter verses of 1 Corinthians 15 how Paul parallels Jesus’ bodily resurrection and that which believers look forward to receiving. I’d just like to point out that the future tense verbs in there (in bold green again):

1Co 15:51-55
Listen! I tell you* a secret: We indeed will not all sleep [fig., die], but we will all be changed [or, be transformed], in a moment, in a blinking of an eye, in the last trumpet, for it will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible [or, imperishable], and _we_ will be changed [or, transformed]! For it is necessary [for] this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality. Now when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then will happen the word, the one having been written, "Death was swallowed up into victory." [Isaiah 25:8] "O Death, where [is] your sting? O realm of the dead [Gr., hades], where [is] your victory?" [Hosea 13:14]

There is a plethora of future tense verbs.

But more importantly, notice how Paul seems to be speaking of one event in which all will partake at a particular time, the sound of the last trumpet and at that time, two OT prophecies will be fulfilled. These verse need to be joined together with the previous ones which showed that the resurrection will happen as Christ's coming.

It is not difficult to see one event in view here on which the following things will occur:

- Christ will come
- The last trumpet will sound
- The dead will be raised and put on incorruption and immortality
- Those who are still alive will be changed (put on incorruption/immortality)
- Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 will be fulfilled

For these reasons, I believe that whatever Jesus was speaking about, it wasn't the same thing as what Paul was speaking about. Paul was speaking about a future bodily resurrection at Christ's parousia. IMO, this event did not come into view in Jesus' words in until He said:

Joh 5:28-29
"Stop marveling at this, because an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will hear His voice, and they will come forth: the ones having done the good [things] into a resurrection of life, but the ones having practiced the wicked [things] into a resurrection of judgment." (I believe Jesus was speaking about two separate resurrections here. In the Corinthians passage, Paul was referring to the first one, the resurrection of life.)

Ely

[Guest]

Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems like we are saying the same thing.

There are two resurrections spoken of by Jesus, Paul and John the Revelator.

Otherwise there would have never been any reason for the designation "First Resurrection." Why a first if there wont be a second?

Mike

[Guest]

I take the first ressurrection to be "being born again" as Jesus told Nicodemus. You were dead in trespasses and sin and were raised to a new (spiritual) life by Christ. These people face the first death (their body dies) but not the second death (the lake of fire). That's why the second death has no power over them.