How do full preterists interpret these passages?

[Kilk1]

Hello! I've seen the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24, and it's made me think. However, other passages currently prevent me from adopting a full preterist view of eschatology. I'll list the passages I'm referring to alongside my interpretations of them. If there are any full preterists on the site, how do you interpret the following passages?


Luke 20:27-36
Here, some Sadducees come to Jesus. They deny the resurrection, so they bring up a scenario where a man dies childless, so his brother marries his widow (as was practiced in the Law of Moses) and then dies. The cycle continues until the widow's been married seven times to seven brothers, and then she herself dies (vv. 27-32). "Therefore," the Sadducees ask, "in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife" (v. 33).

Their assumption about marriage existing in the resurrection is flawed, however, destroying their argument. Jesus explains: "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (vv. 34-36).

In the resurrection, there is no marriage. Since people marry now, isn't the resurrection yet to come? Also—and this is important—in the resurrection, people can't "die anymore." This implies they could die before but could no longer die after the resurrection. This isn't discussing spiritual death, since Jesus gives the reason they couldn't die anymore: "for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (v. 36).

Since angels can die spiritually (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), isn't this passage teaching that in the resurrection, people can't physically die anymore, making them like angels?

1 Corinthians 15
In this chapter, what's said to be first is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead (vv. 3-4). This seems to have in mind His corporeal body, as it's the part of Him that died, was buried, and rose again. We're later told that the resurrected Christ "has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). This suggests that others would later undergo the same thing, "each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming" (v. 23).

Paul elaborates on this as the chapter goes on. When Christ comes, the natural body apparently becomes the spiritual body: "The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:42-44). Notice the pronouns; the thing that's "sown in corruption" is the same thing that's "raised in incorruption," etc. There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter.

To summarize, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again all corporeally and that the same thing will happen to us at His coming. (Compare Romans 8:11, which says that "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies," and Philippians 3:21, which says Christ "will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.") Since the saints' corporeal bodies haven't been raised from the dead yet, wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Ephesians 2:14-16 and Romans 7:1-6
The previous passages dealt with the resurrection, while these two deal with the old covenant, the law of Moses. According to full preterism, there was a 40-year period of overlap between the old and new covenants, starting with the crucifixion of Christ and ending with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. However, Ephesians 2:14-16 discusses "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" as being abolished through Christ's death on the cross.

Also, Romans 7:1-6 explains that we can't be married to Christ until we've "become dead to the law through the body of Christ" in the same way that a wife can't marry someone else until her husband dies. Anything else would be adulterous.

Do these passages confirm that the old covenant ended the same time the new covenant began―namely, at the cross―and that you can't be under both at the same time?

2 Peter 3
From what I've read, conservative scholars date 2 Peter in the mid-to-late 60s, shortly before A.D. 70. And yet, 2 Peter 3 is the passage that warns Christians to be patient about Christ's coming, teaching "that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'" (vv. 3-4). Notice the mention of "creation" here refers to the beginning of the physical Universe, and Peter responds saying "they willfully forget" that in the past, "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (vv. 5-6).

Peter then says that instead of water, fire is reserved for "the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word" (v. 7). He reminds them again to wait, since God wants time for people to repent rather than perish (vv. 8-9). Peter then says again how the present heavens and earth will melt with fire, and so we better live "in holy conduct and godliness" (vv. 11-12).

Since the context is on "the beginning of creation," and since the comparison with the past is the physical word perishing with water, wouldn't the natural interpretation of what's to come be that the physical world will be destroyed by fire—making the elements that melt the elements of the physical Universe?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer my questions!

 

[mlepfitjw]

Not sure what is being asked, there is a lot of text of course. Just live life trusting God, and Jesus Christ. You wont have much to worry about then.

 

[Kilk1]

Not sure what is being asked, there is a lot of text of course. Just live life trusting God, and Jesus Christ. You wont have much to worry about then.

I trust Jesus and what He said. One thing He said is that "the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day" (John 12:48). But what is "the last day"? Full preterists teach that all prophecy―including the Second Coming and the resurrection of the saints―was fulfilled by A.D. 70. I'm wanting to know how they interpret the passages above.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Kilk, it seems to me the last day will be our death day.

 

[Kilk1]

@parousia70 @LightandTruth Don't feel compelled to reply to my OP, but if you're interested, I'm wondering what full preterists think of the referenced passages. I'd like to discuss them with full preterists, but I don't know many of them, so I hope it's okay for me to tag two I've found.

 

[parousia70]

@parousia70 @LightandTruth Don't feel compelled to reply to my OP, but if you're interested, I'm wondering what full preterists think of the referenced passages. I'd like to discuss them with full preterists, but I don't know many of them, so I hope it's okay for me to tag two I've found.

Well, I’m not a full preterist. As a Catholic I adhere to the creeds which teach “He shall come again to judge the living and the dead”, and that is what I believe.
But I have been called a maximum partial preterist or extreme partial preterist or penultimate preterist before... so I may be close enough for you...I have discovered that no matter how close a partial preterist gets to the line of demarcation between partial and full preterism, They can always split the difference and get halfway closer without going over.

 

[parousia70]

I’ve dealt with each issue you raise extensively on this forum.

Resurrection:

Resurrection of the dead is a very sensible, scriptural doctrine from the preterist view.

#1) The dead are all those who finished their lives on planet earth. They are a category of people -- the dead.

#2) In Paul's time, and going all the way back to Adam, the dead went to Hades/Sheol at their physical deaths. This place was NOT Heaven and it was NOT the lake of fire (commonly known as "hell" in today's parlance). Those places weren't prepared yet.

#3) The bible then teaches WHEN Hades/Sheol was to be destroyed (Rev 20:12-15; 1 Cor 15:55-55), giving up the dead.

Preterists maintain that 1 Cor 15:55-56 clearly lists that Hades/Sheol was destoyed when the Age of the Law of Moses came to its end:

1 Corinthians 15:54-56
then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O HADES is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW

That is the victory slogan when the resurrection of the dead happens. All agree on that.

We are not still waiting for Hades to be destroyed. We are not still waiting for the Law of Moses to reach its end. We are not still waiting for the dead to be raised out of Hades and taken into their eternal inheritance in Heaven or eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire ("hell" in common parlance). All the dead are now either in Heaven's eternal bliss or in hell. There is no Hadean realm anymore. Hades was destroyed when the dead were raised out of it (1 Cor 15:55-56; Rev 20:12-15).

The Law Age was forever ended at the destruction of the Temple. That age had run its appointed course of time (Gal 3:19,24-25; Gal 4:4-5). We know that the Old Covenant was still hanging on to God's people as of Heb 8:13 (see also 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:8-12; Col 2:16-22, Acts 21:20-26, etc), but that Old Covenant was about to vanish (Heb 8:13; Heb 10:9) -- it did fully vanish at AD 70 when Christ's prophecies about the Temple came to pass.

Look very closely at the saying that "death is swallowed up in victory." Look how Paul ties it to the end of the Age of the Mosaic Law and NOT the end of the New Covenant Age (which had barely even begun yet). Paul writes:

'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW -- 1 Cor 15:55-56

It was The Law of Moses that was preventing the saints from entering Heaven due to it's condemnation of the saints. Paul sees the victory over death to be tied to the removal of the Law Age, which was centered in the Temple system instituted by God and not destroyed until AD 70. Christ had very much to say about the destruction of the Temple.

Paul was living in the last days of the Old Testament Age when Resurrection was about to happen (Romans 13:11; Acts 24:15), -- it was even to occur in their lifetimes as Paul fully expected and taught (1 Thess 4:15 -- "WE who are alive and remain..."). Acts 24:15 says:

Acts 24:15
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that THERE IS ABOUT TO BE a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous (Young's LITERAL translation)

Indeed, Jesus was resurrected out of Hades at AD 30 and Paul was expecting the rest of the O.T. saints to exit Hades and join Christ in Heaven's bliss very, very, soon. They hadn't yet, but Paul promised that the Hebrews 11 O.T. saints were destined to receive their promise in Paul's generation (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Does Paul tie Resurrection (which he taught was ABOUT TO happen in their lifetimes -- Acts 24:15; Romans 13:11, 1 Thess 4:15) to the end of the New Covenant Age? Absolutely not. Does Paul tie the institution of Resurrection to the end of the Old Testament Age? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. Paul ties the institution of Resurrection to the removal of THE OLD COVENANT LAW OF MOSES. Paul teaches that the sting and victory of death (which futurists teach have not yet been eradicated) exists due to SIN POWERED BY THE LAW OF MOSES! (1 Cor 15:56). Look at it carefully one last time:

1 Corinthians 15:54-56
and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?'[56] And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW.

When the Temple was destroyed at the last trump at AD 70 the dead O.T. saints were instantly taken to Heaven to be with Christ in their eternal inheritance. They are there now and we, the living, are caught up to be with them instantly and exactly as 2 Cor 5:1-2 states:

2 Corinthians 5:1-2
For we know that if the earthly house of our tent is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For most assuredly in this we groan, longing to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven

covenant overlap:

Jerusalem fell precisely BECAUSE the Old Covenant was a valid contract unto AD 70 (Matthew 5:17-18). From AD 66-70, the city of Jerusalem fell under the powerful curses outlined in Lev 26 and Deut 28! If that old covenant was no longer extant, Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen under the curses prescribed in Lev 26 and Deut 28.

I do not deny that the New Covenant was begun during Christ's earthly ministry.
However, the "last days" generation that transitioned in the New Covenant Kingdom age [i.e., AD 30-70] was a mere 40 year struggle to break from the Law bondage and curse for the People of God. The "last days" struggle for God's people ended with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

The kingdom of Christ was in the process of being preached and established among the gentiles while certain of the Jewish establishment sought to stop it from happening. This 40-year struggle grew worse and then ended abruptly when the rebellious Jews were wiped out in Jerusalem. At the coming of the Lord of the Vineyard, the Stone crushed them to powder (Matthew 21:40-45) The obedient Jews (with their gentile brothers added in), in following the gospel, were protected and preserved as the only covenant people left alive. Thus Christ's New Covenant people emerged with the Kingdom while the wicked sons were cast out and killed off to extinction. There was no longer an Old Covenant nation, priesthood, people, or religion after AD 70. The Old Covenant world went up in flames. Christ's New Covenant Kingdom was all that remained.

Look closely at Heb 12:18, and you will see that the contrast is being made between the Old and New Covenant ages. The author states that God "shook the earth" to establish the Mosaic age, but now in their time he was "shaking once more," for they were receiving the New Covenant kingdom Jesus gave them (Matt 21:43/Heb 12:28/Mark 1:14-15). The Old Covenant age was at that moment (i.e., AD 64-66) waxing old and was "about to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). It did vanish away just about five years later at AD 70, for "in a very, very short while, He who was coming came and did not delay" (Heb 10:37).

According to the writer of Hebrews, God was removing the first covenant age so as to establish the second:

--COMPARE THIS--

Hebrews 12:27
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace...

--TO THIS--

Hebrews 10:9
Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first [covenant], that he may establish the second.

--AND TO THIS--

Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first [covenant] obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.

--AND TO THIS--

2 Corinthians 3:6-8, 11
[God] made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? ... For if that which is fading away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

"Is fading away" was then, EXPLICITLY, "present tense", long after the Cross.

Simply put, the Old Covenant world was being removed, and the New Covenant World was being erected in its place. All that took place in the last days period of the Old Covenant age.

Heavens and earth of 2 Peter 3:
2 peter 3:1-13 is self proving of it's non literal nature.

Peter here writes that the pre flood earth/heavens were completely destroyed, wiped out and then REPLACED by a brand new planet and cosmos post flood.
Again, the passage is self proving to be non literal.

What was indeed wiped out and replaced was the old Order of Human interaction, of covenant relationship with the living God. The planet and material cosmos remained the same, and was the EXACT SAME physical, material heavens and earth God created in Genesis, even though Peter poetically writes it was not.

And Peter says in the 1st century a similar wiping away of the old order of Covenant interaction was "about to happen", for the end of all things was at that time "at hand".

Again, The writer of Hebrews confirms this use of "heavens and earth" by saying that the switch over of the Old Covenant system to the New Covenant System was through and by the shaking of "heavens and earth" (Hebrews 12:18-28).

Jesus said we would know "heavens and earth" had passed when the Law of Moses had been removed (Matthew 5:17-19), which was at AD 70. That's why Mark 13:1-31 about the destruction of the Temple also ties in the removal of "heaven and earth" (Mk 13:31) where only Christ's teaching remains after the Temple is gone.

Israel's institution as a Nation under Moses and Joshua was the planting of Heavens and Earth

Isaiah 51:15-16
For I am Yahweh your God, who stirs up the sea, so that the waves of it roar: Yahweh of Hosts is his name. I have put my words in your mouth, and have covered you in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and tell Zion, You are my people.

Deuteronomy 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.

The "shaking/removal of Heavens and Earth" describes any of Jehovah's comings in judgment upon nations and individuals

Against Ancient Babylon
Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Jeremiah 51:48
Then the heaven and the earth, and all that [is] therein, shall sing for Babylon: for the spoilers shall come unto her from the north, saith the LORD

Against King Saul
Psalms 18:7-10
Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills removed and were shaken, because he was wroth ... He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

Against Persia during Zerubbabel's Day
Haggai 2:21
Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth

So, getting back to the use of the phrase, we are to understand it as it was used by the OT prophets, Jesus and the writer of Hebrews in the Context of God's Judgment Comings. We can see that Jesus' and Peter didn't mean the physical planet -- rather, it meant the passing away of the Old Covenant World and the planting of the New Covenant Kingdom.

And finally, Scoffers.
5 Points:

(1) Peter said the "end of all things was AT HAND" (1 Peter 4:7).

(2) Peter says the time of the Judgment (Jn 12:31) had come upon them, and that it had started with the Church (1 Peter 4:17; 4:12).

(3) The "scoffers" were people in Peter's own time (2 Peter 2:1 -- in fact, read all 2 Peter 2). Peter says of them that "their judgment does not linger for a long time now" (2 Peter 2:3). These endtimes scoffers had even been converts to Jesus but had gone fully back into Judaism! (2 peter 2:19-22) like a dog back to its vomit.

(4) The "scoffers" were fellow jewish countrymen of Peter. Their scoffing was: "For since OUR FATHERS DIED (a reference to the Patriarchs) all things continue as from the beginning."

(5) PETER and his own flock were expecting to see the destruction. They were HASTENING THE COMING (2 peter 2:12-14). Peter believed the second coming was to be in his generation (1 Peter 1:11-13)

Hope that addresses most, if not all your OP.

 

[parousia70]

Hello! I've seen the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24, and it's made me think. However, other passages currently prevent me from adopting a full preterist view of eschatology. I'll list the passages I'm referring to alongside my interpretations of them. If there are any full preterists on the site, how do you interpret the following passages?


Luke 20:27-36
Here, some Sadducees come to Jesus. They deny the resurrection, so they bring up a scenario where a man dies childless, so his brother marries his widow (as was practiced in the Law of Moses) and then dies. The cycle continues until the widow's been married seven times to seven brothers, and then she herself dies (vv. 27-32). "Therefore," the Sadducees ask, "in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife" (v. 33).

Their assumption about marriage existing in the resurrection is flawed, however, destroying their argument. Jesus explains: "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (vv. 34-36).

In the resurrection, there is no marriage. Since people marry now, isn't the resurrection yet to come? Also—and this is important—in the resurrection, people can't "die anymore." This implies they could die before but could no longer die after the resurrection.

I’m going back over my above post it appears I did not address this question.

The "THAT AGE" which is mentioned here is the age of AD 70 and beyond (the eternal New Covenant Age). The subjects being discussed in Luke 20 are all dead. The discussion is about the resurrection of "THE DEAD." The hopeful state that is promised is what THE DEAD would receive at that time: they would not be married and would be in Heaven and like the angels. The reference that they "can't die anymore" should also be compared to Romans 6:9, Rev 2:11; Rev 20:6.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Did you get an answer?

 

[Kilk1]

Well, I’m not a full preterist. As a Catholic I adhere to the creeds which teach “He shall come again to judge the living and the dead”, and that is what I believe.
But I have been called a maximum partial preterist or extreme partial preterist or penultimate preterist before... so I may be close enough for you...I have discovered that no matter how close a partial preterist gets to the line of demarcation between partial and full preterism, They can always split the difference and get halfway closer without going over.

I’ve dealt with each issue you raise extensively on this forum.

Resurrection:

Resurrection of the dead is a very sensible, scriptural doctrine from the preterist view.

#1) The dead are all those who finished their lives on planet earth. They are a category of people -- the dead.

#2) In Paul's time, and going all the way back to Adam, the dead went to Hades/Sheol at their physical deaths. This place was NOT Heaven and it was NOT the lake of fire (commonly known as "hell" in today's parlance). Those places weren't prepared yet.

#3) The bible then teaches WHEN Hades/Sheol was to be destroyed (Rev 20:12-15; 1 Cor 15:55-55), giving up the dead.

Preterists maintain that 1 Cor 15:55-56 clearly lists that Hades/Sheol was destoyed when the Age of the Law of Moses came to its end:

1 Corinthians 15:54-56
then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O HADES is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW

That is the victory slogan when the resurrection of the dead happens. All agree on that.

We are not still waiting for Hades to be destroyed. We are not still waiting for the Law of Moses to reach its end. We are not still waiting for the dead to be raised out of Hades and taken into their eternal inheritance in Heaven or eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire ("hell" in common parlance). All the dead are now either in Heaven's eternal bliss or in hell. There is no Hadean realm anymore. Hades was destroyed when the dead were raised out of it (1 Cor 15:55-56; Rev 20:12-15).

The Law Age was forever ended at the destruction of the Temple. That age had run its appointed course of time (Gal 3:19,24-25; Gal 4:4-5). We know that the Old Covenant was still hanging on to God's people as of Heb 8:13 (see also 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:8-12; Col 2:16-22, Acts 21:20-26, etc), but that Old Covenant was about to vanish (Heb 8:13; Heb 10:9) -- it did fully vanish at AD 70 when Christ's prophecies about the Temple came to pass.

Look very closely at the saying that "death is swallowed up in victory." Look how Paul ties it to the end of the Age of the Mosaic Law and NOT the end of the New Covenant Age (which had barely even begun yet). Paul writes:

'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW -- 1 Cor 15:55-56

It was The Law of Moses that was preventing the saints from entering Heaven due to it's condemnation of the saints. Paul sees the victory over death to be tied to the removal of the Law Age, which was centered in the Temple system instituted by God and not destroyed until AD 70. Christ had very much to say about the destruction of the Temple.

Paul was living in the last days of the Old Testament Age when Resurrection was about to happen (Romans 13:11; Acts 24:15), -- it was even to occur in their lifetimes as Paul fully expected and taught (1 Thess 4:15 -- "WE who are alive and remain..."). Acts 24:15 says:

Acts 24:15
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that THERE IS ABOUT TO BE a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous (Young's LITERAL translation)

Indeed, Jesus was resurrected out of Hades at AD 30 and Paul was expecting the rest of the O.T. saints to exit Hades and join Christ in Heaven's bliss very, very, soon. They hadn't yet, but Paul promised that the Hebrews 11 O.T. saints were destined to receive their promise in Paul's generation (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Does Paul tie Resurrection (which he taught was ABOUT TO happen in their lifetimes -- Acts 24:15; Romans 13:11, 1 Thess 4:15) to the end of the New Covenant Age? Absolutely not. Does Paul tie the institution of Resurrection to the end of the Old Testament Age? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. Paul ties the institution of Resurrection to the removal of THE OLD COVENANT LAW OF MOSES. Paul teaches that the sting and victory of death (which futurists teach have not yet been eradicated) exists due to SIN POWERED BY THE LAW OF MOSES! (1 Cor 15:56). Look at it carefully one last time:

1 Corinthians 15:54-56
and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?'[56] And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW.

When the Temple was destroyed at the last trump at AD 70 the dead O.T. saints were instantly taken to Heaven to be with Christ in their eternal inheritance. They are there now and we, the living, are caught up to be with them instantly and exactly as 2 Cor 5:1-2 states:

2 Corinthians 5:1-2
For we know that if the earthly house of our tent is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For most assuredly in this we groan, longing to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven

covenant overlap:

Jerusalem fell precisely BECAUSE the Old Covenant was a valid contract unto AD 70 (Matthew 5:17-18). From AD 66-70, the city of Jerusalem fell under the powerful curses outlined in Lev 26 and Deut 28! If that old covenant was no longer extant, Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen under the curses prescribed in Lev 26 and Deut 28.

I do not deny that the New Covenant was begun during Christ's earthly ministry.
However, the "last days" generation that transitioned in the New Covenant Kingdom age [i.e., AD 30-70] was a mere 40 year struggle to break from the Law bondage and curse for the People of God. The "last days" struggle for God's people ended with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

The kingdom of Christ was in the process of being preached and established among the gentiles while certain of the Jewish establishment sought to stop it from happening. This 40-year struggle grew worse and then ended abruptly when the rebellious Jews were wiped out in Jerusalem. At the coming of the Lord of the Vineyard, the Stone crushed them to powder (Matthew 21:40-45) The obedient Jews (with their gentile brothers added in), in following the gospel, were protected and preserved as the only covenant people left alive. Thus Christ's New Covenant people emerged with the Kingdom while the wicked sons were cast out and killed off to extinction. There was no longer an Old Covenant nation, priesthood, people, or religion after AD 70. The Old Covenant world went up in flames. Christ's New Covenant Kingdom was all that remained.

Look closely at Heb 12:18, and you will see that the contrast is being made between the Old and New Covenant ages. The author states that God "shook the earth" to establish the Mosaic age, but now in their time he was "shaking once more," for they were receiving the New Covenant kingdom Jesus gave them (Matt 21:43/Heb 12:28/Mark 1:14-15). The Old Covenant age was at that moment (i.e., AD 64-66) waxing old and was "about to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). It did vanish away just about five years later at AD 70, for "in a very, very short while, He who was coming came and did not delay" (Heb 10:37).

According to the writer of Hebrews, God was removing the first covenant age so as to establish the second:

--COMPARE THIS--

Hebrews 12:27
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace...

--TO THIS--

Hebrews 10:9
Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first [covenant], that he may establish the second.

--AND TO THIS--

Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first [covenant] obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.

--AND TO THIS--

2 Corinthians 3:6-8, 11
[God] made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? ... For if that which is fading away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

"Is fading away" was then, EXPLICITLY, "present tense", long after the Cross.

Simply put, the Old Covenant world was being removed, and the New Covenant World was being erected in its place. All that took place in the last days period of the Old Covenant age.

Heavens and earth of 2 Peter 3:
2 peter 3:1-13 is self proving of it's non literal nature.

Peter here writes that the pre flood earth/heavens were completely destroyed, wiped out and then REPLACED by a brand new planet and cosmos post flood.
Again, the passage is self proving to be non literal.

What was indeed wiped out and replaced was the old Order of Human interaction, of covenant relationship with the living God. The planet and material cosmos remained the same, and was the EXACT SAME physical, material heavens and earth God created in Genesis, even though Peter poetically writes it was not.

And Peter says in the 1st century a similar wiping away of the old order of Covenant interaction was "about to happen", for the end of all things was at that time "at hand".

Again, The writer of Hebrews confirms this use of "heavens and earth" by saying that the switch over of the Old Covenant system to the New Covenant System was through and by the shaking of "heavens and earth" (Hebrews 12:18-28).

Jesus said we would know "heavens and earth" had passed when the Law of Moses had been removed (Matthew 5:17-19), which was at AD 70. That's why Mark 13:1-31 about the destruction of the Temple also ties in the removal of "heaven and earth" (Mk 13:31) where only Christ's teaching remains after the Temple is gone.

Israel's institution as a Nation under Moses and Joshua was the planting of Heavens and Earth

Isaiah 51:15-16
For I am Yahweh your God, who stirs up the sea, so that the waves of it roar: Yahweh of Hosts is his name. I have put my words in your mouth, and have covered you in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and tell Zion, You are my people.

Deuteronomy 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.

The "shaking/removal of Heavens and Earth" describes any of Jehovah's comings in judgment upon nations and individuals

Against Ancient Babylon
Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Jeremiah 51:48
Then the heaven and the earth, and all that [is] therein, shall sing for Babylon: for the spoilers shall come unto her from the north, saith the LORD

Against King Saul
Psalms 18:7-10
Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills removed and were shaken, because he was wroth ... He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

Against Persia during Zerubbabel's Day
Haggai 2:21
Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth

So, getting back to the use of the phrase, we are to understand it as it was used by the OT prophets, Jesus and the writer of Hebrews in the Context of God's Judgment Comings. We can see that Jesus' and Peter didn't mean the physical planet -- rather, it meant the passing away of the Old Covenant World and the planting of the New Covenant Kingdom.

And finally, Scoffers.
5 Points:

(1) Peter said the "end of all things was AT HAND" (1 Peter 4:7).

(2) Peter says the time of the Judgment (Jn 12:31) had come upon them, and that it had started with the Church (1 Peter 4:17; 4:12).

(3) The "scoffers" were people in Peter's own time (2 Peter 2:1 -- in fact, read all 2 Peter 2). Peter says of them that "their judgment does not linger for a long time now" (2 Peter 2:3). These endtimes scoffers had even been converts to Jesus but had gone fully back into Judaism! (2 peter 2:19-22) like a dog back to its vomit.

(4) The "scoffers" were fellow jewish countrymen of Peter. Their scoffing was: "For since OUR FATHERS DIED (a reference to the Patriarchs) all things continue as from the beginning."

(5) PETER and his own flock were expecting to see the destruction. They were HASTENING THE COMING (2 peter 2:12-14). Peter believed the second coming was to be in his generation (1 Peter 1:11-13)

Hope that addresses most, if not all your OP.

I’m going back over my above post it appears I did not address this question.

The "THAT AGE" which is mentioned here is the age of AD 70 and beyond (the eternal New Covenant Age). The subjects being discussed in Luke 20 are all dead. The discussion is about the resurrection of "THE DEAD." The hopeful state that is promised is what THE DEAD would receive at that time: they would not be married and would be in Heaven and like the angels. The reference that they "can't die anymore" should also be compared to Romans 6:9, Rev 2:11; Rev 20:6.

Wow! You're not a full preterist? Could've fooled me, haha! So you interpret all the passages I've referenced as being fulfilled by A.D. 70, yet you're not a full preterist due to being a Catholic? To make sure I'm following, do you believe all prophecies in Scripture were fulfilled by A.D. 70? If not, which passages have a post-70 fulfillment?

Thanks for all the info. I'm going to look over this more.

 

[parousia70]

Wow! You're not a full preterist? Could've fooled me, haha! So you interpret all the passages I've referenced as being fulfilled by A.D. 70, yet you're not a full preterist due to being a Catholic? To make sure I'm following, do you believe all prophecies in Scripture were fulfilled by A.D. 70? If not, which passages have a post-70 fulfillment?

Thanks for all the info. I'm going to look over this more.

I believe ALL Bible eschatology found it's primary fulfillment in the events leading up to and including Jerusalem's 70AD destruction, and only typifies, dimly, the future creedal consummation, the timing and details of which have not been revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29)

I believe it to be the only consistent partial preterist position, as it is unencumbered with the attempt at splitting eschatological prophesies into past/future and remains fully orthodox.

The eschatological positions of Catholic theologians such as Dr Scott Hahn and Jimmy Aiken most closely resemble the one I hold.

 

[Kilk1]

Hello again, @parousia70! I’ve been looking over your posts (which are long—even longer than my post) and will now reply with another long-ish post. I'll try to be as concise as I can, though.


Resurrection

As for the teaching on resurrection, I must say I've misunderstood your position. I was under the impression that preterists (perhaps some do) interpret Luke 20:27–36 and 1 Corinthians 15 as being corporate (i.e., Israel becoming reborn as the church). I've heard it claimed that "dead" in 1 Corinthians 15 refers to spiritual death while "asleep" refers to physical--but it doesn't appear this is your flavor of interpretation; instead, it's more individualistic, being closer to the corporeal, futurist understanding. However, while your understanding isn't corporate, neither is it corporeal either.


Your response to Luke 20:27–36 seems sufficient to answer my objections. As for 1 Corinthians 15, doesn’t it seem to teach a corporeal resurrection, one where our fleshly bodies are changed to glorified, resurrection bodies? Again, the part of Jesus that died, was buried, and rose again was His fleshly, corporeal body, right? His death also is what overcame the law (cf. Eph. 2:14–16; Col. 2:14), so without Jesus’ death, we would be condemned under the law (1 Cor. 15:17). Wouldn’t this be all that verses 56–57 are saying, rather than dealing with chronology? Again, though, it was Jesus’ body that was nailed to the cross, buried in a tomb, and then raised (into a “glorious body,” Phil. 3:21).


Assuming we agree that Jesus died, was buried, and rose corporeally (i.e., rather than corporately or, alternatively, as a spirit or something), doesn’t Paul say Christ’s resurrection parallels what will happen to us? In rising from the dead, Christ “has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Also, notice again verses 42–44: “The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Doesn’t this show that what’s "sown in corruption" is the same thing that's "raised in incorruption," etc.? There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter when raised.


To summarize, doesn’t 1 Corinthians 15 suggest that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again corporeally and that the same thing will happen to us at His coming? His body was glorified when raised, and the same is said to happen to ours. In addition to 1 Corinthians 15, other passages suggest this. Romans 8:11 says that "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies," and Philippians 3:21 says Christ "will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body" (emphasis mine on both verses). In John 5:28–29, Jesus foretells that “a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come out: those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the bad deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (NASB, emphasis mine). Doesn’t this suggest that in the resurrection, the saints in Hades are in some sense returned to their entombed bodies (now transformed into glorious bodies, of course) just as Christ (the firstfruits) did?


Since the saints' corporeal bodies haven't been raised and glorified yet, wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?


Overlap of the covenants

I also may have misunderstood your position on covenant overlap. To make sure, let me confirm: You’d say that the Jewish destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 finalized any attempts to follow the old covenant, marking its complete end. Would you agree with me that, regardless, those who became Christians stopped being under the law at the point they converted to Christ? For example, were those addressed in Romans 7 already dead to the law at the time they read the epistle (vv. 4–6)?


The Resurrection Happening in their Generation

I don’t know if Acts 24:15’s “about to be” (YLT) reference necessarily means it would happen within their lifetime. Thayer's Greek Lexicon says the Greek word used, melló, can be used “in general, of what is sure to happen: with an infinitive present,” citing Acts 24:15 as an example. After all, could Paul say in this verse of the Pharisees that “they themselves also accept” that the temple would be destroyed within their lifetime?


Also, you quoted 1 Thessalonians 4:15 as mentioning "WE who are alive and remain..." If “we” here must include Paul, was Paul “alive” in A.D. 70? All references I know of have him among the dead then.


2 Peter 3

It’s true that heavens and earth can be used figuratively. Specifically, it appears the prophets you referenced are stating hyperbolically that the entire Universe would shake when God judged various nations. At the same time, heavens and earth are also used literally for the Universe as well, being what God created in the beginning (Gen. 1:1; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Psa. 146:6; Jer. 23:24; 32:17).


When reading a text, the meaning is literal until proven figurative, such as if the text is clearly poetic. As for the claim that 2 Peter 3 is obviously non‐literal, there is a mildly figurative element to it (i.e., having one heavens and earth replaced with another), but I don’t see sufficient reason to make it refer to something other than the Universe. Peter says the old heavens and earth perished (apollumi) by water, referencing the Noahic flood (v. 6), but the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire (v. 7). The heavens and earth of verse 6 are the same type of heavens and earth in verse 7, though Peter distinguishes between them. I’m seeing the meaning of the old world perishing as referencing the changes to the pre‐flood world. That world existed before “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up” and before “the windows of heaven were opened” (Gen. 7:11).


With a different element (now fire) comes a different type of destruction, as might also be suggested by the different wording. The world Peter was in “will pass away [parerchomai] with a great noise, and the elements will melt [luo] with fervent heat [kausoo]” (v. 10). To keep things in context, what world was “flooded with water” (v. 6)? Wouldn’t we agree it was the physical, antediluvian world? If so, the second world would be the postdiluvian world in which we still live, not a covenant. How would you flood a covenant with water, if you see where I’m coming from? Therefore, wouldn’t the “present heavens and earth” be the same type as the former, namely, the physical Universe?


Well, looks like I hit a lot, but I know I didn’t hit everything. Maybe we’re dealing with too much at once, haha! It's probably best to focus on the main points of difference rather than get bogged down with every detail. Please bring up anything significant I missed, though. Thanks for having this conversation with me.

 

[parousia70]

Howdy.
And Merry Christmas!
Not a lot of time today as I have family obligations to attend to, but I will quickly address your first point.

Hello again, @parousia70! I’ve been looking over your posts (which are long—even longer than my post) and will now reply with another long-ish post. I'll try to be as concise as I can, though.


Resurrection

As for the teaching on resurrection, I must say I've misunderstood your position. I was under the impression that preterists (perhaps some do) interpret Luke 20:27–36 and 1 Corinthians 15 as being corporate (i.e., Israel becoming reborn as the church). I've heard it claimed that "dead" in 1 Corinthians 15 refers to spiritual death while "asleep" refers to physical--but it doesn't appear this is your flavor of interpretation; instead, it's more individualistic, being closer to the corporeal, futurist understanding. However, while your understanding isn't corporate, neither is it corporeal either.


Your response to Luke 20:27–36 seems sufficient to answer my objections. As for 1 Corinthians 15, doesn’t it seem to teach a corporeal resurrection, one where our fleshly bodies are changed to glorified, resurrection bodies? Again, the part of Jesus that died, was buried, and rose again was His fleshly, corporeal body, right? His death also is what overcame the law (cf. Eph. 2:14–16; Col. 2:14), so without Jesus’ death, we would be condemned under the law (1 Cor. 15:17). Wouldn’t this be all that verses 56–57 are saying, rather than dealing with chronology? Again, though, it was Jesus’ body that was nailed to the cross, buried in a tomb, and then raised (into a “glorious body,” Phil. 3:21).

I contend Jesus was not raised in His glorified Body, it was the self-same body that hung on the cross and was laid in the tomb. He Did not receive His glorified Body until Acts 1:9

John himself, who witnessed His post resurrection, pre ascension Body first hand with His own eyes, Indicates that He had still NOT seen His Glorified Body:

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

At this point, after the Ascension, John is clear that He had NOT seen Jesus "as He is" presently, so, some sort of Appreciable Change to Jesus' body took place AFTER John last saw Him in the flesh.

I contend that "appreciable change" was the Glorification of His Body, The returning of His body back to the condition it was in before the foundation of the world, and it took place the moment the Cloud received Him out of their sight.

As to the timing of Christ's glorification, we have the following scriptures:

John 7.39. 'But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

Here we see that the spirit would be given when Jesus was glorified. During the forty days after his resurrection, the HS was not given. Only after the ascension was the HS given.

John 12.16. 'These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him.'

In the context of this verse Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey and the people cheered. This, again, was only understood by them after his ascension and not during the 40 days.

John 17.24. ' "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world." '

Here, Jesus expressly declared that the disciples would 'behold [His] glory' when they were with him where he was. This was not referring anytime on earth, but must be referring to after his ascension.

I contend Jesus was NOT resurrected in His Glorified Body, He was resurrected in the Self same Body that hung on the cross and Had no different supernatural powers or attributes to it than He had before the Crucifixion (save the fact it could no longer be put to death)

Assuming for a minute Christ’s pre ascension/post cross body IS the body ours will be fashioned like, I wonder if you believe our physically resurrected, glorified bodies will retain any wounds we may have received in death “like Christ’s” did? Or will ours be in superior physical condition to Christ’s?

Most say no, that Christ retained His wounds specifically for evidentiary purposes, which were unique in necessity only for Him. I would agree, though I would extend that into His entire flesh.
We will not need to demonstrate the truth of resurrection to anyone the way Christ Did, right?

Assuming we agree that Jesus died, was buried, and rose corporeally (i.e., rather than corporately or, alternatively, as a spirit or something), doesn’t Paul say Christ’s resurrection parallels what will happen to us? In rising from the dead, Christ “has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Also, notice again verses 42–44: “The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Doesn’t this show that what’s "sown in corruption" is the same thing that's "raised in incorruption," etc.? There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter when raised.

When you bury an acorn, does the outer shell carrying the seed of life within it get reconstituted, somehow changed into the mighty oak tree? Or does the outer shell die, return to dust never to be used again and instead a completely new body springs forth?

I’ll try to get to your other points before the weekend is over, but feel free to address what I’ve said so far anytime.
Cheers!

 

[mlepfitjw]

@Kilk1, very interesting summaries of the transformation because of the Lord Jesus Christ, and right now we are in the bodies that are corroding over time, and while this is. We also have a spiritual body with-in us when we believe and have faith and trust place our trust in God to take care of us and lead us in the right direction.

Also later on in our own individual deaths, people whom believe will receive a (in my belief), no matter what they have done as long as they have placed trust in God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and loving your neighbour like you should. They will get a spiritual body after this life, because of the resurrection of the Lord, whom makes all things a new, (that new heaven and new earth, ver.)

I look at it as Christ changing your perception about what life is about to, and makes the skies and makes the way you look at people (earth). And this is why right now we are given each a spirit called the holy spirit that lives in any believer, and it always reminds of us what the Good Lord had said to us about not judgement, to have faith, trust, love, have peace, have joy even though we grieve, to talk about our pain, about all the worry of the world, and to walk and love by the spirit that lives inside of you that is a free gift of God because of faith.

I believe that people who are of faith will be in the Kingdom of Heaven, as a citizen that is heavenly because of their own measure of faith they have, and we are all loved the same because nothing can separate us from the love of God because of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Kilk1]

Howdy.
And Merry Christmas!
Not a lot of time today as I have family obligations to attend to, but I will quickly address your first point.

I contend Jesus was not raised in His glorified Body, it was the self-same body that hung on the cross and was laid in the tomb. He Did not receive His glorified Body until Acts 1:9

John himself, who witnessed His post resurrection, pre ascension Body first hand with His own eyes, Indicates that He had still NOT seen His Glorified Body:

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

At this point, after the Ascension, John is clear that He had NOT seen Jesus "as He is" presently, so, some sort of Appreciable Change to Jesus' body took place AFTER John last saw Him in the flesh.

I contend that "appreciable change" was the Glorification of His Body, The returning of His body back to the condition it was in before the foundation of the world, and it took place the moment the Cloud received Him out of their sight.

As to the timing of Christ's glorification, we have the following scriptures:

John 7.39. 'But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

Here we see that the spirit would be given when Jesus was glorified. During the forty days after his resurrection, the HS was not given. Only after the ascension was the HS given.

John 12.16. 'These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him.'

In the context of this verse Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey and the people cheered. This, again, was only understood by them after his ascension and not during the 40 days.

John 17.24. ' "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world." '

Here, Jesus expressly declared that the disciples would 'behold [His] glory' when they were with him where he was. This was not referring anytime on earth, but must be referring to after his ascension.

I contend Jesus was NOT resurrected in His Glorified Body, He was resurrected in the Self same Body that hung on the cross and Had no different supernatural powers or attributes to it than He had before the Crucifixion (save the fact it could no longer be put to death)

Assuming for a minute Christ’s pre ascension/post cross body IS the body ours will be fashioned like, I wonder if you believe our physically resurrected, glorified bodies will retain any wounds we may have received in death “like Christ’s” did? Or will ours be in superior physical condition to Christ’s?

Most say no, that Christ retained His wounds specifically for evidentiary purposes, which were unique in necessity only for Him. I would agree, though I would extend that into His entire flesh.
We will not need to demonstrate the truth of resurrection to anyone the way Christ Did, right?


When you bury an acorn, does the outer shell carrying the seed of life within it get reconstituted, somehow changed into the mighty oak tree? Or does the outer shell die, return to dust never to be used again and instead a completely new body springs forth?

I’ll try to get to your other points before the weekend is over, but feel free to address what I’ve said so far anytime.
Cheers!

You know, those are some interesting points. While it's clear that Jesus now has a glorious body, the only argument I heard for timing prior to your last post was that, after rising from the dead, Jesus was able to pass through walls (John 20:26). While this clearly is supernatural, it could be that this was just one of Jesus' many miracles. While I haven't had time to think about it a lot, I'd say your case for His glorification being post-ascension sounds stronger.

Whether Jesus' body was glorified immediately after His resurrection or shortly thereafter, He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven with a glorified body, which apparently parallels our resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). As for the acorn analogy, I suppose it's true that the outer shell deteriorates and that this can parallel our bodies. That being said, the glorified oak tree is still connected to the acorn and arises from it, such that we we could say, "It is sown an acorn, it is raised an oak tree." While different forms, they still are the same "it." In the same way, our glorified, spiritual body (distinct from a spirit) is connected to our natural body and, from what I can tell, arises from it, meaning we can say, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44).

I used to understand life after death to be like the following, pre-resurrection: The spirit leaves the body, goes to Hades, and then at the resurrection goes to heaven, perhaps getting a separate body then. However, various passages such as 1 Corinthians 15 have led me to modify my understanding to this: The spirit leaves the natural body and goes to Hades. Then, at the resurrection, the spirit reunites with the body, now transformed into a spiritual body fit for heaven.

How else are we to understand, for example, the claim that God will "give life to your mortal bodies" (Romans 8:11) or that Christ "will transform our lowly body that it [the lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body" (Philippians 3:21)? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, and I don't mind the shorter posts; in fact, I probably prefer them.

 

[parousia70]

How else are we to understand, for example, the claim that God will "give life to your mortal bodies" (Romans 8:11) or that Christ "will transform our lowly body that it [the lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body" (Philippians 3:21)?

Here's how I understand those passages:

Romans 8:10-13 is not talking at all about a resurrection of decayed mortal dead bodies in graves:


Romans 8:10-13
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin [not biological deadness], yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness [not bodily resurrection]. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead WILL ALSO GIVE LIFE TO YOUR MORTAL BODIES through His Spirit who dwells in you [the 'mortal body' here is our present, living, biological bodies]. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die [eternal death]; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live [eternal life].


We see that by following Paul's discussion back to Romans 6 we have arrived at the correct sorting out of Paul's metaphor for ceasing to live according to the Old Self and for now living to the New Self as also parallel to:


Romans 6:11-13
Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin [not biological death], but alive to God in Christ Jesus [not bodily resurrection]. Therefore DO NOT LET SIN REIGN IN YOUR MORTAL BODY so that you obey its lusts [the 'mortal body' here is our living biological earthly bodies], and do not go on presenting the members of your body [our earthly biological bodies] to sin as instruments of unrighteousness ; but present yourselves to God AS THOSE ALIVE FROM THE DEAD [metaphorically speaking], and your members [biological bodies] as instruments of righteousness to God.


In both passages the topic is not about biological dying. It is using the metaphor that we have "crucified our old selves" and that we are also at the same time "resurrected to newness of life." Therefore we are to yield our mortal bodies to live after our NEW resurrected selves and not after our Old Selves. For if we now live "according to the flesh" (i.e., according to the old crucified self) we shall have eternal death. But if we shall live according to the Spirit via mortifying the sinful deeds of the flesh we have life everlasting in God's presence.


Likewise for Philippians 3:21
Verse 21 reads like this: "Who (Christ) will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to his glorious body."

Our body did not become a glorious body, but is glorious only in its association with His glorious body. Christ's body is literally glorified and our is co-glorified. We are glorified only in a positional sense.

For example:

Romans 6:4 (NKJV) Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Were we physically, literally buried? No. Was Christ? Yes. We were buried only by association with Christ -- it was HIS burial, but our co-burial through his baptism.

This same association applies in Philippians 3:21 ; "Who (Christ) will transform (metaschematizo - the act of assuming an outward expression that does not come from within.) our lowly body that it (our lowly body) may be conformed (summorphon- co-formed, associated to the fashion of His, not our body) to his glorious body."

It was Christ's body that was "morphed" and made glorious. Our body obtains this glory in this life only through association, or being "with-morphed", if you will. That is why the physical body is now assuming an outward expression that does not come from within- it is housing the now immortal spirit, but it doesn't appear that way. It is not an immortal body. The body is no more "morphed" than it is "buried" in Romans 6:4.

 

[claninja]

In the resurrection, there is no marriage. Since people marry now, isn't the resurrection yet to come?

I agree, with @parousia70 reasonings in regards to the resurrection. Additionally, I am also not full preterist, but pretty darn close.

The traditional doctrine of what happens to a Christian when he/she dies, is that their soul goes to heaven, instead of the grave/hades, to be with the Lord until Christ's future return, when it is then put into a new resurrected body. This transition of the soul going to heaven upon death, instead of the grave/hades, occurred at the cross.

Those who hold to this view, agree that the soul now goes to heaven upon death while simultaneously also believing that it will never die and will not partake in any form of earthly marriage while in heaven. I would refer to this as "having your cake and eating it too".

I see 3 main issues with the traditional belief:

1.) As Jesus clearly told Mary that he had not ascended to the Father prior to his resurrection, then I don't believe the thief did either. There is no punctuation in the koine greek, and therefore, based on Jesus' words, I would place the comma in a different spot.

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.”

2.) It is at Jesus' "coming again" that he takes believers to place he prepared for them. No where is taught that Jesus takes us to the place he prepared prior to His "coming again".

John 14:2-3 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.


3.) We do not go to heaven naked, but further clothed.

2 Corinthians 5:1-5 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Ironically, as the traditional view already holds that those in Christ who physically die "rise" to heaven and will never again die nor partake in any earthly form of marriage, I don't view it as a big enough issue to get into arguments on.

 

[Kilk1]

Here's how I understand those passages:

Romans 8:10-13 is not talking at all about a resurrection of decayed mortal dead bodies in graves:


Romans 8:10-13
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin [not biological deadness], yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness [not bodily resurrection]. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead WILL ALSO GIVE LIFE TO YOUR MORTAL BODIES through His Spirit who dwells in you [the 'mortal body' here is our present, living, biological bodies]. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die [eternal death]; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live [eternal life].


We see that by following Paul's discussion back to Romans 6 we have arrived at the correct sorting out of Paul's metaphor for ceasing to live according to the Old Self and for now living to the New Self as also parallel to:


Romans 6:11-13
Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin [not biological death], but alive to God in Christ Jesus [not bodily resurrection]. Therefore DO NOT LET SIN REIGN IN YOUR MORTAL BODY so that you obey its lusts [the 'mortal body' here is our living biological earthly bodies], and do not go on presenting the members of your body [our earthly biological bodies] to sin as instruments of unrighteousness ; but present yourselves to God AS THOSE ALIVE FROM THE DEAD [metaphorically speaking], and your members [biological bodies] as instruments of righteousness to God.


In both passages the topic is not about biological dying. It is using the metaphor that we have "crucified our old selves" and that we are also at the same time "resurrected to newness of life." Therefore we are to yield our mortal bodies to live after our NEW resurrected selves and not after our Old Selves. For if we now live "according to the flesh" (i.e., according to the old crucified self) we shall have eternal death. But if we shall live according to the Spirit via mortifying the sinful deeds of the flesh we have life everlasting in God's presence.


Likewise for Philippians 3:21
Verse 21 reads like this: "Who (Christ) will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to his glorious body."

Our body did not become a glorious body, but is glorious only in its association with His glorious body. Christ's body is literally glorified and our is co-glorified. We are glorified only in a positional sense.

For example:

Romans 6:4 (NKJV) Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Were we physically, literally buried? No. Was Christ? Yes. We were buried only by association with Christ -- it was HIS burial, but our co-burial through his baptism.

This same association applies in Philippians 3:21 ; "Who (Christ) will transform (metaschematizo - the act of assuming an outward expression that does not come from within.) our lowly body that it (our lowly body) may be conformed (summorphon- co-formed, associated to the fashion of His, not our body) to his glorious body."

It was Christ's body that was "morphed" and made glorious. Our body obtains this glory in this life only through association, or being "with-morphed", if you will. That is why the physical body is now assuming an outward expression that does not come from within- it is housing the now immortal spirit, but it doesn't appear that way. It is not an immortal body. The body is no more "morphed" than it is "buried" in Romans 6:4.

I'm not 100% certain about your points on Romans 8:11, as Romans 8:10 could be referring to our biological bodies being subject to physical death rather than spiritual death. However, your parallel to Romans 6 is sufficient enough for me to drop Romans 8:11, as getting into a big discussion on it isn't as necessary, given the other passages.

Whether Romans 8:11 references the resurrection or not, Philippians 3:20-21 is talking about Christians "eagerly [waiting] for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ," a reference to the Second Coming. Paul told Christians that Christ "will transform [future tense] our lowly body," so it's something that didn't happen yet. The result of this transformation is "that it [our lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body." What gets conformed is our lowly body. The change is not merely external but affects the inner essence as well. This is because the body is both "transformed" (metaschématizó, "properly, to change outward appearance after a change") and "conformed" (summorphos, "properly, conformed, by sharing the same inner essence-identity [form]; showing similar behavior from having the same essential nature"). Isn't Paul clearly telling them that there would be a future time, not already but later, when their lowly body would transform, conforming to Christ's glorious body?

There's also John 5:28-29, which I referenced in the post before my previous one. In it, Jesus foretells that “a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come out: those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the bad deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (NASB). Doesn’t this suggest that in the resurrection, the saints in Hades are in some sense reunited to their entombed bodies, coming out of their tombs just as Christ ("the firstfruits," cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20) did? Since the saints' bodies haven't yet left their tombs, as John 5:28-29 predicts, then wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Finally, there's 1 Corinthians 15, the most extensive passage on the subject, which I've referenced in each of my posts. While you didn't address it in your last post, the post before it responded with an acorn analogy. I responded that although it's true that the outer shell of an acorn deteriorates, the glorified oak tree is still connected to the acorn and arises from it, such that we we could say, "It is sown an acorn, it is raised an oak tree." While being different forms, the acorn and oak tree are still the same "it." In the same way, our glorified, spiritual body (distinct from a spirit) is connected to our natural body and, from what I can tell, arises from it, meaning we can say, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44).

In summary, of these four passages, Romans 8:11 is the main one I can see as possibly referencing something other than the resurrection. However, taking the other three passages together, we seem to have clear references to our biological bodies rising from death and becoming changed in essence for heaven. Doesn't it seem that Philippians 3:20-21 is talking about an event in the Philippians' future, not present, that would change the very essence of their bodies in conformity to Christ's glorious body? And aren't similar thoughts in John 5:28-29 and 1 Corinthians 15?

I'm enjoying this conversation! Your points on "when" Christ's body was glorified and on Romans 8:11 might change my understanding of them, but I still don't see a way past Philippians 3:20-21, John 5:28-29, and 1 Corinthians 15. Feel free to let me know any thoughts you might have on them--when time permits, of course.

 

[Kilk1]

I agree, with @parousia70 reasonings in regards to the resurrection. Additionally, I am also not full preterist, but pretty darn close.

The traditional doctrine of what happens to a Christian when he/she dies, is that their soul goes to heaven, instead of the grave/hades, to be with the Lord until Christ's future return, when it is then put into a new resurrected body. This transition of the soul going to heaven upon death, instead of the grave/hades, occurred at the cross.

Those who hold to this view, agree that the soul now goes to heaven upon death while simultaneously also believing that it will never die and will not partake in any form of earthly marriage while in heaven. I would refer to this as "having your cake and eating it too".

I see 3 main issues with the traditional belief:

1.) As Jesus clearly told Mary that he had not ascended to the Father prior to his resurrection, then I don't believe the thief did either. There is no punctuation in the koine greek, and therefore, based on Jesus' words, I would place the comma in a different spot.

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.”

2.) It is at Jesus' "coming again" that he takes believers to place he prepared for them. No where is taught that Jesus takes us to the place he prepared prior to His "coming again".

John 14:2-3 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.


3.) We do not go to heaven naked, but further clothed.

2 Corinthians 5:1-5 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Ironically, as the traditional view already holds that those in Christ who physically die "rise" to heaven and will never again die nor partake in any earthly form of marriage, I don't view it as a big enough issue to get into arguments on.

I don't think Hades is identical with the physical graves/tombs people are buried in; if you're saying that, we disagree. However, I think we agree on points 2 and 3. Here's what I'm saying: What if Jesus' Second Coming is future, and when we die presently, our spirit/soul goes to Hades (a spiritual entity distinct from the physical grave our body is placed in)? When Jesus returns, our spirit would in some sense reunite with our entombed body, coming out of the grave and being transformed for heaven, similar to what happened to Christ ("the firstfruits," cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20)?

 

[AFrazier]

Hello! I've seen the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24, and it's made me think. However, other passages currently prevent me from adopting a full preterist view of eschatology. I'll list the passages I'm referring to alongside my interpretations of them. If there are any full preterists on the site, how do you interpret the following passages?


Luke 20:27-36
Here, some Sadducees come to Jesus. They deny the resurrection, so they bring up a scenario where a man dies childless, so his brother marries his widow (as was practiced in the Law of Moses) and then dies. The cycle continues until the widow's been married seven times to seven brothers, and then she herself dies (vv. 27-32). "Therefore," the Sadducees ask, "in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife" (v. 33).

Their assumption about marriage existing in the resurrection is flawed, however, destroying their argument. Jesus explains: "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (vv. 34-36).

In the resurrection, there is no marriage. Since people marry now, isn't the resurrection yet to come? Also—and this is important—in the resurrection, people can't "die anymore." This implies they could die before but could no longer die after the resurrection. This isn't discussing spiritual death, since Jesus gives the reason they couldn't die anymore: "for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (v. 36).

Since angels can die spiritually (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), isn't this passage teaching that in the resurrection, people can't physically die anymore, making them like angels?

1 Corinthians 15
In this chapter, what's said to be first is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead (vv. 3-4). This seems to have in mind His corporeal body, as it's the part of Him that died, was buried, and rose again. We're later told that the resurrected Christ "has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). This suggests that others would later undergo the same thing, "each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming" (v. 23).

Paul elaborates on this as the chapter goes on. When Christ comes, the natural body apparently becomes the spiritual body: "The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:42-44). Notice the pronouns; the thing that's "sown in corruption" is the same thing that's "raised in incorruption," etc. There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter.

To summarize, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again all corporeally and that the same thing will happen to us at His coming. (Compare Romans 8:11, which says that "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies," and Philippians 3:21, which says Christ "will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.") Since the saints' corporeal bodies haven't been raised from the dead yet, wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Ephesians 2:14-16 and Romans 7:1-6
The previous passages dealt with the resurrection, while these two deal with the old covenant, the law of Moses. According to full preterism, there was a 40-year period of overlap between the old and new covenants, starting with the crucifixion of Christ and ending with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. However, Ephesians 2:14-16 discusses "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" as being abolished through Christ's death on the cross.

Also, Romans 7:1-6 explains that we can't be married to Christ until we've "become dead to the law through the body of Christ" in the same way that a wife can't marry someone else until her husband dies. Anything else would be adulterous.

Do these passages confirm that the old covenant ended the same time the new covenant began―namely, at the cross―and that you can't be under both at the same time?

2 Peter 3
From what I've read, conservative scholars date 2 Peter in the mid-to-late 60s, shortly before A.D. 70. And yet, 2 Peter 3 is the passage that warns Christians to be patient about Christ's coming, teaching "that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'" (vv. 3-4). Notice the mention of "creation" here refers to the beginning of the physical Universe, and Peter responds saying "they willfully forget" that in the past, "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (vv. 5-6).

Peter then says that instead of water, fire is reserved for "the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word" (v. 7). He reminds them again to wait, since God wants time for people to repent rather than perish (vv. 8-9). Peter then says again how the present heavens and earth will melt with fire, and so we better live "in holy conduct and godliness" (vv. 11-12).

Since the context is on "the beginning of creation," and since the comparison with the past is the physical word perishing with water, wouldn't the natural interpretation of what's to come be that the physical world will be destroyed by fire—making the elements that melt the elements of the physical Universe?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer my questions!

Concerning first the resurrection, please note that during the revelatory vision itself, John is confronted with a being of such glory that he bows to it. But he is quickly rebuked and told not to do that, for that being was a Christian brother who had already come out of the persecution. Ergo, there is evidence of the resurrection and angelic, glorified, non-corporeal bodies of already dead saints. There are also other dead saints, crying out for justice, rather than sleeping in Sheol. Matthew also conspicuously states that many of the dead had risen with Christ, and had been seen by many.

So I don't think the resurrection is an issue for the preterist point of view. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is the spiritual body that matters in the resurrection.

Concerning the end of the law, the New Testament itself is loaded with information on the subject. Hebrews is quite clear that Christ did away with the first covenant that he might establish the second.

While the scriptural stereo instructions on how it all functions is not common knowledge, the whole mechanical working of salvation is dependent upon the disannulling of the Old Covenant. Israel, which includes all Christian believers as wild branches grafted into the good tree, were oath-bound to the Old Covenant law. Those present swore an oath on the name of God for themselves, and for all those who follow in perpetuity, to keep the law or suffer death and curses. God swore an oath on his own name to punish those who did not keep the covenant. Since neither we nor God can take God's name in vain (swear falsely by the name of God), the oath and covenant were permanently binding. We all broke the covenant, so God was bound by oath to punish us.

The only way out of that obligation was for God to void the covenant. According to the law of oaths, if a woman vows and vow or swears an oath, her husband (Christ in this case) can nullify it when he hears it, and it is not binding. If he does not nullify it, then it is binding. If he does not nullify it, allowing it to be binding, and then nullifies it after the fact, he is required to bear the wife's iniquity. This is from Numbers 30 or 31.

So God, our husband, voided the oath we swore, that he had previously allowed to stand, and that he swore an oath of his own to enforce. But in voiding our oath after the fact, he was required, by his own law, to bear our iniquity. As per the law, God made a sin offering. He sent Jesus Christ, who is the lamb of God, or more precisely, in the genitive or possessive, God's lamb.

This is the point of Colossians and similar, saying that he cancelled the laws that were against us, nailing them to his cross. Being buried with Christ in baptism, we are resurrected with him, and born again. Through him, we died according to the requirements of the law. We are therefore dead to the law, or rather, dead in the eyes of the law.

Again, I don't see how this has any bearing on the preterist point of view.

As for the world being destroyed with fire ... that's really open to interpretation. 2 Peter quotes from Enoch, which is not recognized as canonical. That's one point worthy of consideration. A second thing worth pondering is the extent of "world" in the context. Perhaps he means the whole globe. Perhaps he means something more local. Perhaps the source he's quoting means something more local.

By example, consider the census in Luke. There is no evidence whatsoever of a universal, empire-wide census in the vicinity of the time Christ was born. It is quite likely that the reference meant the entire local land of Judea.

Those are my thoughts on the questions you posed.