How do full preterists interpret these passages?

[Kilk1]

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.

Regarding resurrection (which I'll spend most of this post on), the one in Revelation apparently was an angel, right (Revelation 22:8)? As for the souls crying for justice (Revelation 6:9-11), it doesn't seem to clearly say where they were. I'm under the impressions that they were, in fact, in Sheol/Hades. After all, according to the NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Sheol is the "underworld (place to which people descend at death)" and Hades (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol) is "the abode of departed spirits." Matthew 27:52-53's reference is to "bodies" being "raised," which "appeared" to many in Jerusalem. Correct me if I'm missing something, but I see the raising of these saints as being just as bodily as Jesus' resurrection.

However, what we must remember is that Jesus speaks of a time of future resurrection, in which not some, but "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" (John 5:28-29, 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 as did Christ ("the firstfruits," cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20)? Since all the bodies of the righteous and wicked haven't yet left their tombs, as John 5:28-29 predicts, then wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Also, Philippians 3:20-21 discusses Christians "eagerly [waiting] for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (NKJV), a reference to the Second Coming. Paul told Christians that Christ "will transform [future tense] our lowly body...." 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?

The longest passage dealing with the resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15. Doesn’t it teach a corporeal resurrection, one where our fleshly bodies are changed into glorified, resurrection bodies? Again, the part of Jesus that died, was buried, and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) was His corporeal body, right? Assuming we agree, 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” (emphasis mine). Doesn’t this show that what’s "sown in corruption" is the same "it" that's "raised in incorruption," etc.? There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter when raised.

My only issue with how full preterism (also known as covenant eschatology) relates to the covenants is if it requires us to see pre-70 Christians as being subject to both the old and new covenants simultaneously. 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. Would 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 the old and new covenants simultaneously?

As for 2 Peter 3, Peter says there was a past world. It was destroyed/ruined by water (i.e., the Flood), resulting in a present world. This present world, Peter wrote, would be melted by fire, replaced with a third, future world. Do we agree the first, past world was the globe, or do you believe the Flood to be local? Thanks for your time!

 

[AFrazier]

Regarding resurrection (which I'll spend most of this post on), the one in Revelation apparently was an angel, right (Revelation 22:8)? As for the souls crying for justice (Revelation 6:9-11), it doesn't seem to clearly say where they were. I'm under the impressions that they were, in fact, in Sheol/Hades. After all, according to the NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Sheol is the "underworld (place to which people descend at death)" and Hades (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol) is "the abode of departed spirits." Matthew 27:52-53's reference is to "bodies" being "raised," which "appeared" to many in Jerusalem. Correct me if I'm missing something, but I see the raising of these saints as being just as bodily as Jesus' resurrection.

However, what we must remember is that Jesus speaks of a time of future resurrection, in which not some, but "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" (John 5:28-29, 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 as did Christ ("the firstfruits," cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20)? Since all the bodies of the righteous and wicked haven't yet left their tombs, as John 5:28-29 predicts, then wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Also, Philippians 3:20-21 discusses Christians "eagerly [waiting] for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (NKJV), a reference to the Second Coming. Paul told Christians that Christ "will transform [future tense] our lowly body...." 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?

The longest passage dealing with the resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15. Doesn’t it teach a corporeal resurrection, one where our fleshly bodies are changed into glorified, resurrection bodies? Again, the part of Jesus that died, was buried, and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) was His corporeal body, right? Assuming we agree, 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” (emphasis mine). Doesn’t this show that what’s "sown in corruption" is the same "it" that's "raised in incorruption," etc.? There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter when raised.

My only issue with how full preterism (also known as covenant eschatology) relates to the covenants is if it requires us to see pre-70 Christians as being subject to both the old and new covenants simultaneously. 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. Would 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 the old and new covenants simultaneously?

As for 2 Peter 3, Peter says there was a past world. It was destroyed/ruined by water (i.e., the Flood), resulting in a present world. This present world, Peter wrote, would be melted by fire, replaced with a third, future world. Do we agree the first, past world was the globe, or do you believe the Flood to be local? Thanks for your time!

There are arguments for a localized, Mesopotamian flood, archaeologically, geologically, and even scripturally. I don't honestly have an opinion, really. I'm okay with it being global. I'm okay with it being localized (still the "world" in the world view of those who suffered it). I'm open to either argument, as long as there are valid points made.

My understanding of Corinthians concerning the resurrection is that people were concerned about those who were being immolated. No body, no resurrection. He is therefore assuring them that flesh and blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God. There is a terrestrial body and a celestial body. Whether or not the one transforms into the other, I don't know. I haven't researched the topic well enough to have a solid stance. I have only my opinion based on my understanding already described.

With the two covenants, I am of the firm position that the old covenant was abolished in order to establish the new covenant. I believe they exist simultaneously. The old exists for those outside of Christ, and is the catalyst to bringing believers into the new covenant.

 

[claninja]

I don't think Hades is identical with the physical graves/tombs people are buried in; if you're saying that, we disagree.

Sorry, yes, when I say hades/grave, I meant hades/sheol/place of the dead, not the literal tomb on earth.

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)?

And this would be a much more consistent position with what is taught in the gospels/epistles, than current traditional theology, with the exception the soul being reunited with the entombed body; that is not taught in the NT.

However, it's interesting that the apostles agree that the "end" and Christ's coming was at hand.

1 Corinthians 10:11 11Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

1 peter 4:7 7The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear-minded and sober, so that you can pray

1 john 2:18 18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour

James 5:8-9 8You, too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, because the Lord’s coming is near. 9Do not complain about one another, brothers, so that you will not be judged. Look, the Judge is standing at the door!

This is further confirmed by Jesus telling them the events of his coming would occur during their generation.

matthew 24:33-34 also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near,f right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened

This is further confirmed by paul believing the resurrection was "about to be"

acst 24:15 15and I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there is about be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Daniel is told that the resurrection is to have occurred when the power of the holy people is shattered. IMHO, as Jesus associated his coming with the destruction of Jerusalem, then so do I.

Daniel 12:7 And the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by Him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, and times, and half a time. When the power of the holy people has finally been shattered, all these things will be completed.”

It seems difficult to put the resurrection as only future still. While I believe it future to us who walk in the flesh on earth, I believe it a present reality for those who have died in the Lord since 70ad and beyond.

Revelation 14:12 And I heard a voice from heaven telling me to write, “Blessed are the dead—those who die in the Lord from this moment on.”

 

[parousia70]

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.

Cool

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?

We might be in the "already but not yet" area of covenant overlap here.
If the resurrection Paul was discussing here was going to be literal-physical, why did Paul have to explain to his readers that he had not “already attained” to the resurrection of the dead? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he was not already “perfect“? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he did not consider himself to have already “apprehended” (Phil. 3:12-13)?

Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.

Paul is saying, "I don't have it yet." What is it that he doesn't have yet? The verb lambano is transitive, but the object is not expressed. Is it the resurrection that he mentioned in verse 11 that he has not attained? Yes, the resurrection is included, but it is more than that, I think that what Paul is saying is that his justification had not yet been consummated. Paul was saying, "Not that I have already attained, or have already been justified." At the time of Paul's writing, righteousness was still a hope.

But Didn't Paul and the New Testament saints already have the Justification and righteousness of God?" Not in its consummated sense. The futuristic perspective of God's righteousness was clearly expressed by Paul:

Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

If righteousness was already a fulfilled or completed event, Paul made a big mistake in making "righteousness" by faith a matter of hope. If righteousness was a present reality, why would Paul hope for it?

I maintain Philippians 3 portrays the contrast between the fading body of humiliation (the sinful old covenant life-work-world of God’s people) and the advancing, descending-out-of-heaven
body of Christ’s glory (the redeemed, new covenant life-work-world of God’s people).

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?

But How can you divorce John 5:28-29 from 5:25?
5:25
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.

5:28
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The Hour "coming" in Verse 28 is the exact same hour that "now is" in verse 25.

I'm with claninja on this.. the overwhelming testimony that this event was to be a then present imminent event, about to happen in their day, mandates the rest of the passages be interpreted as having happened then.

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).

I agree, in the sense that Resurrection is only possible for one category of people, namely, the Dead.
You have to be physically dead to participate in the resurrection of the Dead.
It is impossible to take part in the resurrection of the Dead without first physically Dying and having your physical Body decay... they are inextricably linked. Only then will God give you your glorified Spiritual Body.

Might not be able to post for the rest of the year folks.... if not I hope everyone has a Happy new Year and that 2021 brings the blessings of Christ to all!

 

[grafted branch]

This is directed to @claninja and/or @parousia70 since you both have very similar views on this.

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

I want to briefly state my current view before I ask my question.

I see the bodies of the saints that arose in Matthew 27:52-53 as a literal physical resurrection. I see this as the first resurrection (Revelation 20:5) and also as the 144,000 which were the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb (Revelation 14:4).

Since the 144,000 stand on mount Sion with the Lamb (Revelation 14:1), I have come to believe that after the resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 the saints meet up with Jesus, after He arose, and followed him to mount Sion and then to Heaven.

This view has Jesus ascending to heaven right after He arose and then descending back to earth to be seen by the apostles.

#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.

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).

How are you interpreting Matthew 27:52-53; would you agree that this was a literal physical resurrection of many but not all the saints? Or do you have a different interpretation?

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.’”

From John 20:17 Mary is told not to touch (KJV) or cling <680> to Jesus because he had not yet ascended to the Father. In John 20:27 Thomas is able touch Jesus’s hands and also thrust his hand into the side of Jesus.

If <680> is meant as physically touching then Jesus would’ve had to ascend after John 20:17 and descend before John20:27. Perhaps he descended in John 20:19 when Jesus appeared, even though the doors were shut.

If <680> is meant as clinging then in Luke 24:29 they constrained <3849> him … and he went in and tarry with them. This passage would imply that they were able to “cling” to him. So again Jesus would’ve had to ascend and descend at some point.

I’m not sure if you would agree that Jesus ascended to heaven after John 20:17. If you don’t agree can you give your reasoning or show me where you find fault with what I’ve said?

 

[Kilk1]

Sorry, yes, when I say hades/grave, I meant hades/sheol/place of the dead, not the literal tomb on earth.



And this would be a much more consistent position with what is taught in the gospels/epistles, than current traditional theology, with the exception the soul being reunited with the entombed body; that is not taught in the NT.

However, it's interesting that the apostles agree that the "end" and Christ's coming was at hand.

1 Corinthians 10:11 11Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

1 peter 4:7 7The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear-minded and sober, so that you can pray

1 john 2:18 18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour

James 5:8-9 8You, too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, because the Lord’s coming is near. 9Do not complain about one another, brothers, so that you will not be judged. Look, the Judge is standing at the door!

This is further confirmed by Jesus telling them the events of his coming would occur during their generation.

matthew 24:33-34 also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near,f right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened

This is further confirmed by paul believing the resurrection was "about to be"

acst 24:15 15and I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there is about be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Daniel is told that the resurrection is to have occurred when the power of the holy people is shattered. IMHO, as Jesus associated his coming with the destruction of Jerusalem, then so do I.

Daniel 12:7 And the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by Him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, and times, and half a time. When the power of the holy people has finally been shattered, all these things will be completed.”

It seems difficult to put the resurrection as only future still. While I believe it future to us who walk in the flesh on earth, I believe it a present reality for those who have died in the Lord since 70ad and beyond.

Revelation 14:12 And I heard a voice from heaven telling me to write, “Blessed are the dead—those who die in the Lord from this moment on.”

Cool



We might be in the "already but not yet" area of covenant overlap here.
If the resurrection Paul was discussing here was going to be literal-physical, why did Paul have to explain to his readers that he had not “already attained” to the resurrection of the dead? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he was not already “perfect“? Why did he have to explain to his readers that he did not consider himself to have already “apprehended” (Phil. 3:12-13)?

Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.

Paul is saying, "I don't have it yet." What is it that he doesn't have yet? The verb lambano is transitive, but the object is not expressed. Is it the resurrection that he mentioned in verse 11 that he has not attained? Yes, the resurrection is included, but it is more than that, I think that what Paul is saying is that his justification had not yet been consummated. Paul was saying, "Not that I have already attained, or have already been justified." At the time of Paul's writing, righteousness was still a hope.

But Didn't Paul and the New Testament saints already have the Justification and righteousness of God?" Not in its consummated sense. The futuristic perspective of God's righteousness was clearly expressed by Paul:

Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

If righteousness was already a fulfilled or completed event, Paul made a big mistake in making "righteousness" by faith a matter of hope. If righteousness was a present reality, why would Paul hope for it?

I maintain Philippians 3 portrays the contrast between the fading body of humiliation (the sinful old covenant life-work-world of God’s people) and the advancing, descending-out-of-heaven
body of Christ’s glory (the redeemed, new covenant life-work-world of God’s people).



But How can you divorce John 5:28-29 from 5:25?
5:25
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.

5:28
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The Hour "coming" in Verse 28 is the exact same hour that "now is" in verse 25.

I'm with claninja on this.. the overwhelming testimony that this event was to be a then present imminent event, about to happen in their day, mandates the rest of the passages be interpreted as having happened then.



I agree, in the sense that Resurrection is only possible for one category of people, namely, the Dead.
You have to be physically dead to participate in the resurrection of the Dead.
It is impossible to take part in the resurrection of the Dead without first physically Dying and having your physical Body decay... they are inextricably linked. Only then will God give you your glorified Spiritual Body.

Might not be able to post for the rest of the year folks.... if not I hope everyone has a Happy new Year and that 2021 brings the blessings of Christ to all!

Since the last posts by @claninja and @parousia70 are connected, I'll reply to both in one. Let's look again at the passages I've referenced.


Philippians 3:20-21

As for Philippians 3:20-21, it appeared that the post before your (@parousia70's) last understood the lowly body and glorious body to be corporeal (i.e., involving biological bodies), and that our body 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" (emphasis yours). However, I may be misunderstanding you. Your last post doesn't see the verse as corporeal but rather, corporate (i.e., being about the old covenant body vs. the new covenant body). You appear to understand the "body" as being the "life-work-world," which I'll refer to as a corporate interpretation unless it misrepresents what you mean.


As far as "already but not yet" goes, this would seem to apply whether the "not yet" was pointing to A.D. 70 or any other date post-Philippians. There's a sense in which all Christians after the cross "already" would have salvation, but a fuller sense was "not yet" till the final resurrection would come (whether this resurrection was in A.D. 70, as full preterists maintain, or some future date, as futurists maintain). I don't see why it'd be strange for Paul to make such a distinction and explain it—if that's what he's doing here—regardless of when the resurrection would be.


Again, Paul is talking about the Second Coming and heaven in Philippians 3:20, and then in verse 21 says our lowly body would be transformed. Why? Not so that it would be Christ's "glorious body"; rather, "that it may be conformed [i.e., be similar] to His glorious body." I don't see how the corporate sense works for this verse. In this verse, there isn't one body being transformed to be Christ's glorious body; rather, it's transformed to be like Christ's glorious body. This fits a corporeal natural body being transformed to be similar to Christ's corporeal glorious body, but it doesn't fit a corporate old covenant life-work-world merely becoming similar to the new covenant life-work-world, doesn't it? The new covenant replaces the old, rather than the old changing to be merely similar to the new, right?


Bottom line: To use letter variables, A (our lowly body) doesn't become B (Christ's glorious body) in this verse. Instead, A changes, and in this change conforms (summorphos, "showing similar behavior from having the same essential nature") to B. Therefore, A is not the old covenant life-work-world but is our frail, corporeal body, which will one day become transformed to be like B, Christ's glorious (corporeal) body.



John 5:28-29

You mentioned that since Jesus said the event in John 5:25 "is coming, and now is" (NKJV), that therefore He's speaking in the same sense in verses 28-29, which "is coming." However, it seems the fact that Jesus speaks of 5:25 as both future and present would prove that there are two different senses involved, one that already was present, and another that would come later.


In 5:25, Jesus said the dead who hear His voice would live; wouldn't the sense that "now is" be that those who died spiritually would find spiritual life through Him? (See "has passed from death into life," contrasted with coming into judgment, John 5:24.) If so, then the sense in 5:28-29 (which Jesus only says "is coming," not "now is") must be different. This is because John 5:28-29's reference to coming out of the graves can't apply to finding spiritual life, since the unrighteous that come out will experience "the resurrection of condemnation," not "the resurrection of life."


Therefore, John 5:25 discussed a present sense of finding spiritual life through Christ akin to 5:24, while John 5:28-29 appears to be discussing a future sense of raising all physical bodies from their graves/tombs—righteous or otherwise.


1 Corinthians 15

It seems Paul's point in verses 36-44 is that those in verse 35 should know better than to claim that a dead body can't be raised. After all, the very seeds they would sow had to die (vv. 36-37), so why couldn't the same happen with the resurrection? Also, like a seed, our body is sown one way but is transformed when raised: "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" (vv. 42-44, emphasis mine). Regardless, the thing sown is still the same "it" that's being "raised."


Paul's point isn't that our bodies must die in order to be raised, but rather that the objectors of verse 35 can't say that death prevents resurrection; they should know better, as they themselves see the dead things they sow being raised (vv. 36-37). Verses 51-52 confirm this, presenting both the dead (those who "sleep") and the living being changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." In this section, the change is not for dead bodies to revive per se, but for "corruptible" bodies, subject to corruption, to "put on immortality" (v. 53), no longer being subject to corruption. Regardless of whether it's already corrupted (i.e., dead) or still in the process of corrupting, our body is "corruptible" but will be transformed into an incorruptible body, Paul foretells.


To reiterate, isn't the body that's sown the same "it" that's raised (vv. 42-44)?


The "at hand" statements

With everything above considered on the nature of the resurrection, it's hard for me to see it as anything other than a raising of our natural bodies out of their graves, which transform into spiritual bodies in conformity to Christ's glorious body. That being said, @claninja's point on "at hand" statements is the strongest argument I currently know for full preterism. The kind of resurrection I described didn't happen shortly after the writing of the apostles; if true, it would still be yet to come, even 2,000 years after the New Testament. If futurism can't account for claims in the Bible that seem to make the Second Coming chronologically soon, then the doctrine is false. Conversely, if this argument doesn't refute futurism, then nothing can. (At least that's how I see it, as it seems to be the strongest argument against futurism there would be.)

So that's the question. If a prophesied event is "at hand," "near," or "about to happen," does that mean it will be fulfilled chronologically soon? It doesn't seem so. For example, Deuteronomy 32:35 says "the day of their calamity is at hand," but it wouldn't come for a long time. Similarly, Isaiah 13:6 prophecies against Babylon by saying "the day of the LORD is at hand!" This also wouldn't be fulfilled till a long time later. In Obadiah, a prophecy primarily against Edom (though including more, as v. 15 shows), we're told that "the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near" (v. 15), which wasn't chronologically near by any means.

Acts of the Apostles 7:17 says when Abraham's promise "drew near," his family grew in Egypt. The promise wouldn't be realized until quite a while later, after the ruler who didn't know Joseph would come (cf. Acts of the Apostles 7:18), after Moses would free them, and after they'd enter the promise land, right? In Acts of the Apostles 26:22, we're told of things "that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come" (Young's Literal Translation). In the next verse, we're told the prophecies were "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles" (26:23, NKJV). How could Moses say these things were "about to come" when they wouldn't happen for centuries upon centuries later?

It appears that "at hand" can have a range of meanings beyond "chronologically soon," one sense being what's certain to happen and unavoidable. As for the Lord's coming, it can't be avoided, so Christians are warned to prepare for it. Therefore, the "at hand" statements don't seem to refute futurism.

These are my thoughts at the moment. Let me know if there are any holes in my reasoning.

 

[Kilk1]

There are arguments for a localized, Mesopotamian flood, archaeologically, geologically, and even scripturally. I don't honestly have an opinion, really. I'm okay with it being global. I'm okay with it being localized (still the "world" in the world view of those who suffered it). I'm open to either argument, as long as there are valid points made.

My understanding of Corinthians concerning the resurrection is that people were concerned about those who were being immolated. No body, no resurrection. He is therefore assuring them that flesh and blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God. There is a terrestrial body and a celestial body. Whether or not the one transforms into the other, I don't know. I haven't researched the topic well enough to have a solid stance. I have only my opinion based on my understanding already described.

With the two covenants, I am of the firm position that the old covenant was abolished in order to establish the new covenant. I believe they exist simultaneously. The old exists for those outside of Christ, and is the catalyst to bringing believers into the new covenant.

Hello, again! Since you firmly believe the old covenant exists today (for unbelievers) and are open to the position that the natural body transforms into the heavenly (though you're not sure either way), does this mean you're not a full preterist, then, I assume?

 

[AFrazier]

Hello, again! Since you firmly believe the old covenant exists today (for unbelievers) and are open to the position that the natural body transforms into the heavenly (though you're not sure either way), does this mean you're not a full preterist, then, I assume?

It's hard to say where I stand. By definition, a full preterist believes Christ has returned, the resurrection has occurred, and we are in the kingdom of God. From that perspective, I suppose I am a full preterist. But I'm always open to arguments on the subject. This isn't my area of expertise. It's merely my inclination due to the material I've read and researched. But my research on eschatology is by no means as exhaustive as my research on soteriology or New Testament chronology. Those are my true areas of expertise.

 

[claninja]

The kind of resurrection I described didn't happen shortly after the writing of the apostles

Can you point to any NT passage that clearly demonstrates the resurrection involves the soul coming down from heaven and going into the body found in its earthly grave?

So that's the question. If a prophesied event is "at hand," "near," or "about to happen," does that mean it will be fulfilled chronologically soon?

Yes, "qarowb" means near (Strong's Hebrew: 7138. קָרוֹב (qarob) -- near), and never means distant or far off.

Sometimes the prophets spoke of future events, as if they already happened or were presently occurring. This is called the "prophetic perfect" literary style

" when something was absolutely going to happen in the future, it is often spoken of as if it had already occurred in the past. Hebrew scholars are familiar with this idiom and refer to it as “the prophetic perfect,” “the historic sense of prophecy,” and the “perfective of confidence.” (The Prophetic Perfect | Truth Or Tradition?)

"Often times future events are expressed in what is called the “prophetic perfect” tense. In this case future events are spoken of in the past tense in Hebrew. The idea may be that these events are as good as done already. Normally, the context makes it quite clear whether past, present, or future is in view." (I heard that Hebrew language had no means of determining past, present, or future tense. Could the prophecies in the OT possibly refer to past and future events simultaneously? | Bible.org)

"The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they had already happened.[1]" (Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia)

So, when this literary style is used in the hebrew, it doesn't mean that "at hand" is in regards to the present time of author and thus we must change the literal definition to mean its polar opposite, it means that the "at hand" is in relation to the events within the context of what was written, and thus does not lose its literal definition.

So let's look at the verses you posted.

For example, Deuteronomy 32:35 says "the day of their calamity is at hand," but it wouldn't come for a long time.

The context of the song of moses is set in Deuteronomy ch 31. The context is in regards to the "days to come" in which Israel would sin, and not the present prior to entering the promised land. Therefore, we can see the song of Moses is using the literary style of the "prophetic perfect". In other words, the events of the song moses are about the future, but written as if having occurred/presently occurring.

Deueteronomy 31:29-30 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.”
Then Moses spoke the words of this song until they were finished, in the ears of all the assembly of Israel:

Therefore, near/at hand does not lose its original definition, but still means near within the context of the future events. In other words, the "near"/"at hand" is not in relation to the time frame of author/audience, but in regards to the events within the oracle.

Similarly, Isaiah 13:6 prophecies against Babylon by saying "the day of the LORD is at hand!" This also wouldn't be fulfilled till a long time later. In Obadiah, a prophecy primarily against Edom (though including more, as v. 15 shows), we're told that "the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near" (v. 15), which wasn't chronologically near by any means.

Similarly, I would argue, the prophecies of Isaiah 13 and Obadiah 1 also use this "prophetic perfect" literary style. Therefore, the definition of "at hand" or "near" does not lose its literal definition, but maintains it WITHIN the context of the future events. In other words, the "near"/"at hand" is not in relation to the time frame of author/audience, but in regards to the events within the oracle.

Acts of the Apostles 7:17 says when Abraham's promise "drew near," his family grew in Egypt. The promise wouldn't be realized until quite a while later, after the ruler who didn't know Joseph would come (cf. Acts of the Apostles 7:18), after Moses would free them, and after they'd enter the promise land, right?

"Drew Near" is imperfect tense. This indicates a "continuing action in the past". Thus the time was drawing near, not had finished coming near (perfect tense). Additionally, ISTM, that the time of the promise drawing near refers to the birth of Moses.

Acts 7:17-21 But as the time of the promise drew near (imperfect tense) , which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph. He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God’s sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house, and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son.

In Acts of the Apostles 26:22, we're told of things "that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come" (Young's Literal Translation). In the next verse, we're told the prophecies were "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles" (26:23, NKJV). How could Moses say these things were "about to come" when they wouldn't happen for centuries upon centuries later?

Notice the verb "said" in regards to the Moses and Prophets is aorist or past tense. However, "is about to" and "come to pass" are both present tense verbs. In other words, Paul is saying that what the prophets and moses said in the past is presently about to come to pass, not that "about to come" means centuries of time. So based on the tenses and definitions of the words in this passage, I disagree with your argument that it means that moses said these things "were about to come" centuries before, especially since Paul is not quoting a specific verse. And If He did, it's important to determine if moses was speaking about future things WITHIN the "prophet perfect" literary style.

Acts 22:26-23 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said (aorist) is about to (present) come to pass (present): that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

It appears that "at hand" can have a range of meanings beyond "chronologically soon," one sense being what's certain to happen and unavoidable.

No, "at hand" never has a different meaning than literally "soon" or "near".

Therefore, the "at hand" statements don't seem to refute futurism.

Futurists are forced to change the literal definition of the word "near" or "at hand" in order to make their paradigms work. This argument of changing the definition of near to its polar opposite must also completely disregard that the prophets often prophesied of future events as if they had happened or were presently happening.

Preterism, however is much more consistent. It does not need to change the literal definition of words, and it also keeps them within the context of the literary style used by the prophets.

These are my thoughts at the moment. Let me know if there are any holes in my reasoning.

So, were the apostles using the same literary style as the prophets or the were the apostles talking about events directly within their generation

Matthew 24:33-34 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

 

[parousia70]

This is directed to @claninja and/or @parousia70 since you both have very similar views on this.


I want to briefly state my current view before I ask my question.

I see the bodies of the saints that arose in Matthew 27:52-53 as a literal physical resurrection. I see this as the first resurrection (Revelation 20:5) and also as the 144,000 which were the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb (Revelation 14:4).

Since the 144,000 stand on mount Sion with the Lamb (Revelation 14:1), I have come to believe that after the resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 the saints meet up with Jesus, after He arose, and followed him to mount Sion and then to Heaven.

This view has Jesus ascending to heaven right after He arose and then descending back to earth to be seen by the apostles.

Several reasons why I disagree.

How are you interpreting Matthew 27:52-53; would you agree that this was a literal physical resurrection of many but not all the saints? Or do you have a different interpretation?

I don’t find anywhere that scripture teaches that these "raisings' were of any different nature than a resuscitation like Lazarus' rising, the rising of Jarius' daughter, or the boy raised by Elijah. According to Hebrews 11:35, such resuscitations are not the "better resurrection." In the "better resurrection," there is no way to die again.

We have no scriptural basis to claim these people, like Lazarus, et al, did NOT go on to die again after being raised.

From John 20:17 Mary is told not to touch (KJV) or cling <680> to Jesus because he had not yet ascended to the Father. In John 20:27 Thomas is able touch Jesus’s hands and also thrust his hand into the side of Jesus.

If <680> is meant as physically touching then Jesus would’ve had to ascend after John 20:17 and descend before John20:27. Perhaps he descended in John 20:19 when Jesus appeared, even though the doors were shut.

If <680> is meant as clinging then in Luke 24:29 they constrained <3849> him … and he went in and tarry with them. This passage would imply that they were able to “cling” to him. So again Jesus would’ve had to ascend and descend at some point.

I’m not sure if you would agree that Jesus ascended to heaven after John 20:17. If you don’t agree can you give your reasoning or show me where you find fault with what I’ve said?

Here is my main issue with that.

Hebrews 9:24
For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

How often does Jesus travel from earth into Heaven to present His perfect sacrifice for us?

Based on your statement and this passage from Hebrews, you must believe at least twice, right?

But scripture says only once:

25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that, sometime after He came out of the tomb and appeared to Mary, but before he appeared to His apostles, that Christ ascended to heaven and presented Himself as the firstfruits offering, then returned to earth once that offering was accepted By God.

If this is your position, I still don't see How you can reconcile it with Hebrews 9:24?
"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

The writer of Hebrews, writing in the 60's AD, some 30 years after your proposed "ascension & return" claimed that at the time he was writing, Christ was presently in heaven offering himself as the sacrifice for us.

Your view has Him offering Himself the 2nd day after Passover, returning, then ascending again and offering himself AGAIN, which the writer of Hebrews explicitly says CAN NOT BE:

Hebrews 9:25-26
"25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.'

As for why Jesus made the 'don't touch me statement', He actually told Mary not to "Cling to" Him.

John 20:17 NKJ
"Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'

The Greek for "Cling" or "Touch" here is "Haptomai" which means:
to fasten one's self to, adhere to, cling to.

This is not a simple finger extended "touching" of Christ being described here as Thomas did, this is Mary seeing the risin Christ and, not surprisingly, CLINGING to Him.

Jesus tells her not to Cling to Him, in effect because Both He and She had important work yet to do. They would have an eternity to cling to eachother, but Christ effectively told her to "let go" at that point because there was yet unfinished business they both needed to attend to.

Christ ascended to the Father once, and it is recorded for us at the beginning of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[grafted branch]

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that, sometime after He came out of the tomb and appeared to Mary, but before he appeared to His apostles, that Christ ascended to heaven and presented Himself as the firstfruits offering, then returned to earth once that offering was accepted By God.

Thank you for your response, yes you are correct that I currently think Christ ascended shortly after he arose. I have looked at this several times and have gone back and forth as to the timing of His onetime sacrifice.


In Hebrews 9:23-26 it explains that the earthly temple was a pattern of things in heaven; and Christ entered not into the holy places made with hands, but into heaven itself.

It seems to me that Christ would have to enter heaven to complete the one time sacrifice by applying His blood to the mercy seat. However my current view creates an issue with Hebrews 10:12 as there would need to be a time gap between when He offered the sacrifice and when He sat down.

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.

I have been looking at 2 other possibilities which are …

1. If the one sacrifice was offered after the ascension in Acts 1:9 there would be no time gap in Hebrews 10:12 (between when he offered the sacrifice and sat down) and the earthly temple pattern would seem to match. But the earthly sacrifices would seem to still be valid until His ascension into heaven and the timing of veil being torn wouldn’t make sense.

2. If the one sacrifice was completed at the cross then there still is a time gap between the sacrifice and when He sat down at the right hand of God (He was seen by the disciples until Acts 1:9). Also the earthly temple pattern wouldn’t seem to be an accurate pattern of things in heaven in this case because heaven itself would have to be in the heart of the earth where Jesus spent the 3 days.

So I know my current view has some issues that are not easily explained, but I can’t seem to make any of the other possibilities make complete sense either.

What is your view on when the onetime sacrifice was made?

 

[Kilk1]

Can you point to any NT passage that clearly demonstrates the resurrection involves the soul coming down from heaven and going into the body found in its earthly grave?

To reiterate, I'm not saying the resurrection involves the soul coming down "from heaven" but from Hades, the realm of the dead, at the Second Coming. Let's start where I assume we agree: Jesus' resurrection. To my knowledge, the Bible never explicitly says Jesus' soul ever reunited with His body. However, it does say His body was raised. Wouldn't we agree that if His body was raised that it wasn't, for lack of a better term, a "disemspirited body"? In other words, we agree that when Jesus's body was raised from death, it was reunited with His soul/spirit, right? (Where else would it have gone, Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31?)

If so, I'm simply using the same logic for Christians that I'm using for the firstfruits of Christians (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20). While I don't know a verse that explicitly says our soul will be reunited with our body (as would also be the case with Jesus), it's implied by the fact that our body will be raised, since it obviously wouldn't be a "disemspirited body." The only rebuttal I know of would be to argue the resurrection as not being a literal, corporeal resurrection, but rather a corporate one. I gave my thoughts to this position in my previous post, referencing 1 Corinthians 15, Philippians 3:20-21, and John 5:28-29. Unless you have something to the contrary, the straightforward, literal understanding of these passages have the same thing that dies and is buried, afterward being raised and transformed to be like Christ's glorious body.

Yes, "qarowb" means near(Strong's Hebrew: 7138. קָרוֹב (qarob) -- near), and never means distant or far off.

Sometimes the prophets spoke of future events, as if they already happened or were presently occurring. This is called the "prophetic perfect" literary style

" when something was absolutely going to happen in the future, it is often spoken of as if it had already occurred in the past. Hebrew scholars are familiar with this idiom and refer to it as “the prophetic perfect,” “the historic sense of prophecy,” and the “perfective of confidence.” (The Prophetic Perfect | Truth Or Tradition?)

"Often times future events are expressed in what is called the “prophetic perfect” tense. In this case future events are spoken of in the past tense in Hebrew. The idea may be that these events are as good as done already. Normally, the context makes it quite clear whether past, present, or future is in view." (I heard that Hebrew language had no means of determining past, present, or future tense. Could the prophecies in the OT possibly refer to past and future events simultaneously? | Bible.org)

"The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they had already happened.[1]" (Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia)

So, when this literary style is used in the hebrew, it doesn't mean that "at hand" is in regards to the present time of author and thus we must change the literal definition to mean its polar opposite, it means that the "at hand" is in relation to the events within the context of what was written, and thus does not lose its literal definition.

No, "at hand" never has a different meaning than literally "soon" or "near".


Futurists are forced to change the literal definition of the word "near" or "at hand" in order to make their paradigms work. This argument of changing the definition of near to its polar opposite must also completely disregard that the prophets often prophesied of future events as if they had happened or were presently happening.

Preterism, however is much more consistent. It does not need to change the literal definition of words, and it also keeps them within the context of the literary style used by the prophets.

No one is saying that "at hand" sometimes "means distant or far off" or that it means the "polar opposite" of near. In saying that "'at hand' never has a different meaning than literally 'soon' or 'near,'" would you be disagreeing with Thayer's Greek Lexicon, which says that the Greek word for "at hand" (melló) can be used "in general, of what is sure to happen" (citing Acts of the Apostles 24:15 as one example)? That's how I'm understanding the usage, rather than "distant or far off."

The way things look, you must grant this in a practical sense whether you'd tie the meaning in the word itself or not, given what you've written on the prophetic perfect.

So let's look at the verses you posted.



The context of the song of moses is set in Deuteronomy ch 31. The context is in regards to the "days to come" in which Israel would sin, and not the present prior to entering the promised land. Therefore, we can see the song of Moses is using the literary style of the "prophetic perfect". In other words, the events of the song moses are about the future, but written as if having occurred/presently occurring.

Deueteronomy 31:29-30 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.”
Then Moses spoke the words of this song until they were finished, in the ears of all the assembly of Israel:

Therefore, near/at hand does not lose its original definition, but still means near within the context of the future events. In other words, the "near"/"at hand" is not in relation to the time frame of author/audience, but in regards to the events within the oracle.



Similarly, I would argue, the prophecies of Isaiah 13 and Obadiah 1 also use this "prophetic perfect" literary style. Therefore, the definition of "at hand" or "near" does not lose its literal definition, but maintains it WITHIN the context of the future events. In other words, the "near"/"at hand" is not in relation to the time frame of author/audience, but in regards to the events within the oracle.



"Drew Near" is imperfect tense. This indicates a "continuing action in the past". Thus the time was drawing near, not had finished coming near (perfect tense). Additionally, ISTM, that the time of the promise drawing near refers to the birth of Moses.

Acts 7:17-21 But as the time of the promise drew near (imperfect tense) , which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph. He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God’s sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house, and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son.



Notice the verb "said" in regards to the Moses and Prophets is aorist or past tense. However, "is about to" and "come to pass" are both present tense verbs. In other words, Paul is saying that what the prophets and moses said in the past is presently about to come to pass, not that "about to come" means centuries of time. So based on the tenses and definitions of the words in this passage, I disagree with your argument that it means that moses said these things "were about to come" centuries before, especially since Paul is not quoting a specific verse. And If He did, it's important to determine if moses was speaking about future things WITHIN the "prophet perfect" literary style.

Acts 22:26-23 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said (aorist) is about to (present) come to pass (present): that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

If it's true that Deuteronomy 32:35, Isaiah 13:6, and Obadiah 1:15 are using the prophetic perfect tense and that saying future events are "at hand" or "near" only references the certainty that they will one day be at hand or near, then this seems to admit, for all practical purposes, that just because an event is prophecied to be "at hand" doesn't mean it's about to happen. For all practical purposes, this concedes that the point of "at hand" or "near" in these passages is certainty, not necessarily chronological nearness.

As for Acts 7, I never read "the promise [...] which God had sworn to Abraham" (v. 17) being the birth of Moses. In Genesis 12:1-3, for example, God promises Abraham a land, a great nation, and his lineage blessing "all the families of the earth." While Moses was involved in fulfilment, I've never read of his birth itself being the promise. Is Moses' birth ever depicted as the promise to Abraham?

Last but not least, there's Acts of the Apostles 26:22-23. We should be careful not to read too much into verse 22's present tense here, as verse 23 has the same. The events prophecied are "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise [present tense] from the dead, and would proclaim [present tense] light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." (Interestingly, melló appears both in verse 22 and 23.) At the time Paul was standing before Agrippa in Acts 26:22-23, all that was prophecied in verse 23 was already fulfilled, not "about to happen" in a chronological sense. Jesus already suffered, already rose from the dead, and already proclaimed light to the Jews and Gentiles.

The only sense I see here that works is that "the prophets and Moses spake of [the events] as about to come" (v. 22, YLT) in the sense that they were certain to happen, fixed and unchangable. Again, no one is claiming that something being about to come "means centuries of time." Rather, I'm seeing the meaning to be certainty, or as Thayer put it, "what is sure to happen."

So, were the apostles using the same literary style as the prophets or the were the apostles talking about events directly within their generation

Matthew 24:33-34 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Now, this passage seems more like what we're looking for. In fact, I referenced it in the OP as being the passage that's "made me think." Do we agree that the "at hand" statements, by themselves, are insufficient for time markers and that we need something more specific (as you're arguing is demonstrated in Matthew 24's "this generation shall not pass")? If so, we can drop the "at hand" debate.

While I don't feel my understanding of the resurrection's nature is threatened by the "at hand" passages, by contrast, I confess that I'm not currently sure how Matthew 24 is reconciled with the resurrection passages. Looking at 1 Corinthians 15, Philippians 3:20-21, and John 5:28-29, it seems clear that the same thing that dies and is buried—namely, our corporeal body—afterward is raised and transformed to be like Christ's glorious body. However, if Matthew 24:33-34 is discussing the same event that Corinthians 15, Philippians 3:20-21, and John 5:28-29 discusses, and if it's saying the event would be fulfilled before the current generation that was standing passed away, then something doesn't add up. Perhaps a different event is under discussion in Matthew 24:33-34.

 

[claninja]

To reiterate, I'm not saying the resurrection involves the soul coming down "from heaven" but from Hades, the realm of the dead, at the Second Coming. Let's start where I assume we agree: Jesus' resurrection. To my knowledge, the Bible never explicitly says Jesus' soul ever reunited with His body. However, it does say His body was raised. Wouldn't we agree that if His body was raised that it wasn't, for lack of a better term, a "disemspirited body"? In other words, we agree that when Jesus's body was raised from death, it was reunited with His soul/spirit, right? (Where else would it have gone, Acts of the Apostles 2:27-31?)

Yes, except, IMHO, it is only Jesus' body that was promised never see decay (acts 2:27). The same is not said for our bodies. I don't believe our fleshly bodies are put back together from dust and then glorified. I believe we are simply given a glorified body at our resurrection.

No one is saying that "at hand" sometimes "means distant or far off" or that it means the "polar opposite" of near. In saying that "'at hand' never has a different meaning than literally 'soon' or 'near,'" would you be disagreeing with Thayer's Greek Lexicon, which says that the Greek word for "at hand" (melló) can be used "in general, of what is sure to happen" (citing Acts of the Apostles 24:15 as one example)? That's how I'm understanding the usage, rather than "distant or far off."

The way things look, you must grant this in a practical sense whether you'd tie the meaning in the word itself or not, given what you've written on the prophetic perfect.

We are working with 2 different words:

Mello, which can mean "about to be" and "certainty"

3195 méllō – properly, at the very point of acting; ready, "about to happen." 3195 (méllō) is used "in general of what is sure to happen" (J. Thayer).

Eggizo, which only ever means literally close, at hand, and near.

"1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser)."

The main word we are working with in regards to the prophetic perfect is "eggizo". Eggizo only ever means literally near, closeness, or at hand.

If it's true that Deuteronomy 32:35, Isaiah 13:6, and Obadiah 1:15 are using the prophetic perfect tense and that saying future events are "at hand" or "near" only references the certainty that they will one day be at hand or near, then this seems to admit, for all practical purposes, that just because an event is prophecied to be "at hand" doesn't mean it's about to happen. For all practical purposes, this concedes that the point of "at hand" or "near" in these passages is certainty, not necessarily chronological nearness.

This misses my entire point.

In the context of the prophetic perfect, The "at hand" or "near" is not in relation to the author and audience, but within relation to the context of the events WITHIN the passage.

Let's say, this year, in 2021, I write a book about the future of space travel. The events of this book take place in 2121, but the book is written in the present and past tense. In the book, there is a line: "Planetary colonization is near and about to be a reality because of the advances we have made in interstellar travel". Now, would the planetary colonization be near to me, the author, in 2021 or to the events within the context of the book, in the year 2121?

Obviously the "near" is in regards to the 2121 and the advances in interstellar travel, and not me, the author, in 2021.

Thus, the "at hand" is not in relation to the audiences present time of the passages you quoted, but in relation to the events WITHIN the FUTURE context of the oracles. This is the perfect prophetic.

Context: future punishment of Israel.
Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’

Context: future destruction of Babylon
Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almightyc it will come!

Context: future judgment of Edom and nations
Obadiah 1:15 or the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head.

Therefore, near/at hand never loses or changes its literal definition, and using old testament uses of "near" and "at hand", while ignoring the prophetic perfect, to counter the preterist position doesn't work.

As for Acts 7, I never read "the promise [...] which God had sworn to Abraham" (v. 17) being the birth of Moses. In Genesis 12:1-3, for example, God promises Abraham a land, a great nation, and his lineage blessing "all the families of the earth." While Moses was involved in fulfilment, I've never read of his birth itself being the promise. Is Moses' birth ever depicted as the promise to Abraham?

The greek verb tense for "draw near" is the imperfect tense. It is a continuous action in the past, not a completed action. Thus the time of the promise made to abraham "was drawing near". Moses birth did not fulfill the promise made to Abraham. Moses was God's instrument, and Christ "type", that lead Israel to the land in order that the promises of God made to Abraham might be fulfilled. In other words, when God's promise to Abraham was drawing near, Moses was born.

Acts 7:17-21 “But as the time of the promise was drawing near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph. He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God’s sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house, and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son.

Last but not least, there's Acts of the Apostles 26:22-23. We should be careful not to read too much into verse 22's present tense here, as verse 23 has the same. The events prophecied are "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise [present tense] from the dead, and would proclaim [present tense] light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." (Interestingly, melló appears both in verse 22 and 23.) At the time Paul was standing before Agrippa in Acts 26:22-23, all that was prophecied in verse 23 was already fulfilled, not "about to happen" in a chronological sense. Jesus already suffered, already rose from the dead, and already proclaimed light to the Jews and Gentiles.

1.) "First to rise" is not a present tense verb. the greek word for rise is a noun.

2.) the only verbs in vs 23 are "about to be" and "proclaim".

3.) Of course "mello"/"about to be" can mean certainty, especially when talking about past fulfilled events, like Acts 26:22-23. It doesn't make sense for Paul, long after the cross, to say that Jesus "is about to" suffer and rise again. Therefore, when speaking of fulfilled past events, "mello"/"about to be" would definitely indicate certainty. However, I disagree that when "mello" is used in regards to future unfulfilled events, it would only indicate certainty and not chronological nearness in time. ISTM, that all uses of mello in regards to future unfulfilled eschatological events are translated only as certainty and not chronological nearness, while all uses of mello in regards to future unfulfilled NON-eschatological events are translated as both certainty and in chronological nearness. Eschatological bias, again, appears to be the reason for how to define words.

4.) my argument was that moses and the prophets did not say that Jesus was about to suffer and rise in chronological nearness to writings and audience of the OT, 400-2,000 years prior to Christ. My argument, based on the verb tenses, is that Paul was effectively saying that what Moses and the prophets had said in the past, was presently occurring because of the work of Christ.

The only sense I see here that works is that "the prophets and Moses spake of [the events] as about to come" (v. 22, YLT) in the sense that they were certain to happen, fixed and unchangable. Again, no one is claiming that something being about to come "means centuries of time." Rather, I'm seeing the meaning to be certainty, or as Thayer put it, "what is sure to happen."

I would agree when "mello" is talking about past fulfilled events.

Can you provide any examples where "mello" is used only in certainty, and not chronological nearness, in a NON-eschatological sense to point to a future unfulfilled event?

Now, this passage seems more like what we're looking for. In fact, I referenced it in the OP as being the passage that's "made me think." Do we agree that the "at hand" statements, by themselves, are insufficient for time markers and that we need something more specific (as you're arguing is demonstrated in Matthew 24's "this generation shall not pass")? If so, we can drop the "at hand" debate.

No, we do not agree that "at hand/Eggizo" time statements are insufficient. Such is only the argument of a futurist who must attempt to remove/ignore/change the meaning of Eggizo in order fit scripture to their paradigm.

 

[Kilk1]

Yes, except, IMHO, it is only Jesus' body that was promised never see decay (acts 2:27). The same is not said for our bodies. I don't believe our fleshly bodies are put back together from dust and then glorified. I believe we are simply given a glorified body at our resurrection.



We are working with 2 different words:

Mello, which can mean "about to be" and "certainty"

3195 méllō – properly, at the very point of acting; ready, "about to happen." 3195 (méllō) is used "in general of what is sure to happen" (J. Thayer).

Eggizo, which only ever means literally close, at hand, and near.

"1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser)."

The main word we are working with in regards to the prophetic perfect is "eggizo". Eggizo only ever means literally near, closeness, or at hand.



This misses my entire point.

In the context of the prophetic perfect, The "at hand" or "near" is not in relation to the author and audience, but within relation to the context of the events WITHIN the passage.

Let's say, this year, in 2021, I write a book about the future of space travel. The events of this book take place in 2121, but the book is written in the present and past tense. In the book, there is a line: "Planetary colonization is near and about to be a reality because of the advances we have made in interstellar travel". Now, would the planetary colonization be near to me, the author, in 2021 or to the events within the context of the book, in the year 2121?

Obviously the "near" is in regards to the 2121 and the advances in interstellar travel, and not me, the author, in 2021.

Thus, the "at hand" is not in relation to the audiences present time of the passages you quoted, but in relation to the events WITHIN the FUTURE context of the oracles. This is the perfect prophetic.

Context: future punishment of Israel.
Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’

Context: future destruction of Babylon
Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almightyc it will come!

Context: future judgment of Edom and nations
Obadiah 1:15 or the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head.

Therefore, near/at hand never loses or changes its literal definition, and using old testament uses of "near" and "at hand", while ignoring the prophetic perfect, to counter the preterist position doesn't work.



The greek verb tense for "draw near" is the imperfect tense. It is a continuous action in the past, not a completed action. Thus the time of the promise made to abraham "was drawing near". Moses birth did not fulfill the promise made to Abraham. Moses was God's instrument, and Christ "type", that lead Israel to the land in order that the promises of God made to Abraham might be fulfilled. In other words, when God's promise to Abraham was drawing near, Moses was born.

Acts 7:17-21 “But as the time of the promise was drawing near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph. He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God’s sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house, and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son.



1.) "First to rise" is not a present tense verb. the greek word for rise is a noun.

2.) the only verbs in vs 23 are "about to be" and "proclaim".

3.) Of course "mello"/"about to be" can mean certainty, especially when talking about past fulfilled events, like Acts 26:22-23. It doesn't make sense for Paul, long after the cross, to say that Jesus "is about to" suffer and rise again. Therefore, when speaking of fulfilled past events, "mello"/"about to be" would definitely indicate certainty. However, I disagree that when "mello" is used in regards to future unfulfilled events, it would only indicate certainty and not chronological nearness in time. ISTM, that all uses of mello in regards to future unfulfilled eschatological events are translated only as certainty and not chronological nearness, while all uses of mello in regards to future unfulfilled NON-eschatological events are translated as both certainty and in chronological nearness. Eschatological bias, again, appears to be the reason for how to define words.

4.) my argument was that moses and the prophets did not say that Jesus was about to suffer and rise in chronological nearness to writings and audience of the OT, 400-2,000 years prior to Christ. My argument, based on the verb tenses, is that Paul was effectively saying that what Moses and the prophets had said in the past, was presently occurring because of the work of Christ.




I would agree when "mello" is talking about past fulfilled events.

Can you provide any examples where "mello" is used only in certainty, and not chronological nearness, in a NON-eschatological sense to point to a future unfulfilled event?



No, we do not agree that "at hand/Eggizo" time statements are insufficient. Such is only the argument of a futurist who must attempt to remove/ignore/change the meaning of Eggizo in order fit scripture to their paradigm.

Nature of the resurrection

I understand why you'd think those in the resurrection are given a completely separate body; I used to believe that as well. But the passages I've referenced seem to paint a different picture. I'll deal with them again here. Jesus speaks of a time of future resurrection in which "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" (John 5:28-29, NASB). Instead of leaving Hades, they're leaving their tombs in this passage. Doesn’t this suggest that in the resurrection, the saints do the same thing Christ ("the firstfruits," cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20) did? In other words, doesn't this suggest the saints are in some sense reunited with their entombed bodies, leaving their tombs as Christ left His? Since all the bodies of the righteous and wicked haven't yet left their tombs, as John 5:28-29 predicts, then wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Also, Philippians 3:20-21 discusses Christians "eagerly [waiting] for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (NKJV), a reference to the Second Coming. Paul told Christians that Christ "will transform [future tense] our lowly body...." 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 (becoming similar) to Christ's glorious body?

The longest passage dealing with the resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15. Doesn’t it teach a corporeal resurrection, one where our fleshly bodies are changed into glorified, resurrection bodies? The part of Jesus that died, was buried, and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) was His corporeal body, right? Assuming we agree, 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 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” (emphasis mine). Doesn’t this show that what’s "sown in corruption" is the same "it" that's "raised in incorruption," etc.? There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter when raised.

These passages are the reason I've changed my understanding of the general resurrection. It strongly seems to parallel Christ's resurrection in that our body is raised.

"At hand" statements

So I guess we agree that mello doesn't always require a chronological imminence, so let's focus on eggus/eggizo. If eggus/eggizo requires a chronological nearness, then it likely doesn't matter if mello also does. Conversely, if chronological imminence isn't required even with eggus/eggizo, then it certainly wouldn't be with mello either. As for the passages I've referenced to show a non-chronological imminence of eggus/eggizo (Deuteronomy 32:35, Isaiah 13:6, Obadiah 1:15, and Acts of the Apostles 7:17), I should clarify, as I must have been confusing about my point which, you said, misses your point. Basically, I don't see the prophetic perfect in the passages in question. Notice the future tense renderings of the verses immediately following the "at hand" statements, Deuteronomy 32:35-36, Isaiah 13:6-7, Obadiah 1:15-16. If the prophetic perfect can be inserted in these verses without a surrounding context to go with it, then the same could be done in eschatological passages as well.

Perhaps more significant, though, is that the prophetic perfect doesn't speak of future events as if they're about to happen; they speak of future events as if they already happened in the past! (See the quotations you referenced earlier from The Prophetic Perfect | Truth Or Tradition?, I heard that Hebrew language had no means of determining past, present, or future tense. Could the prophecies in the OT possibly refer to past and future events simultaneously? | Bible.org, and Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia). In neither of these three biblical passages is such going on, and thus they are not examples of the prophetic perfect. There's no evidence that the prophets are speaking from the point of view of any time period other than their own here. And yet, they speak of the events as being "at hand" (LXX, eggus). This means that future events can be spoken of as being "at hand" (eggus) without referencing chronological imminence--even in contexts not using the prophetic perfect. As for Acts of the Apostles 7:17, I suppose we'd at least agree that a promise can be "drawing near" (eggizo in the imperfect) and still have centuries to reach full fulfillment (Abraham's promise wasn't completely fulfilled before Christ came, which happened centuries after Moses' birth).

I don't see the "at hand statements" as providing clear time statements for when the resurrection would come. By contrast, the doctrine of a resurrection of all our bodies from the tombs/graves--which hasn't currently happened yet--does seem clearly taught in Scripture. Therefore, it's a future event. If my line of reasoning has any holes, please let me know. Thanks.

 

[claninja]

I understand why you'd think those in the resurrection are given a completely separate body; I used to believe that as well. But the passages I've referenced seem to paint a different picture. I'll deal with them again here. Jesus speaks of a time of future resurrection in which "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" (John 5:28-29, NASB). Instead of leaving Hades, they're leaving their tombs in this passage. Doesn’t this suggest that in the resurrection, the saints do the same thing Christ ("the firstfruits," cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20) did? In other words, doesn't this suggest the saints are in some sense reunited with their entombed bodies, leaving their tombs as Christ left His? Since all the bodies of the righteous and wicked haven't yet left their tombs, as John 5:28-29 predicts, then wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

If the resurrection involves literal bodies coming out of tombs, then yes, the resurrection has not yet occurred, and full preterism is false (although, as a partial preterist, I do believe full preterism is false).

However, what happens if you are not buried in a tomb or grave?

I don't believe the spiritual body we are raised in, is the same that was sown.

1 corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

So I guess we agree that mello doesn't always require a chronological imminence, so let's focus on eggus/eggizo. If eggus/eggizo requires a chronological nearness, then it likely doesn't matter if mello also does. Conversely, if chronological imminence isn't required even with eggus/eggizo, then it certainly wouldn't be with mello either. As for the passages I've referenced to show a non-chronological imminence of eggus/eggizo (Deuteronomy 32:35, Isaiah 13:6, Obadiah 1:15, and Acts of the Apostles 7:17), I should clarify, as I must have been confusing about my point which, you said, misses your point. Basically, I don't see the prophetic perfect in the passages in question. Notice the future tense renderings of the verses immediately following the "at hand" statements, Deuteronomy 32:35-36, Isaiah 13:6-7, Obadiah 1:15-16. If the prophetic perfect can be inserted in these verses without a surrounding context to go with it, then the same could be done in eschatological passages as well.

1.) We agree "mello" can mean certainty and not necessarily chronological, future imminence in regards to past events. Chronological future imminence in regards to past events would be an obvious oxymoron. This is evidenced by Acts ch 26 vs 22-23. However, the disagreement is not about "mello" being used to refer to past events, but future events. Therefore, it seem more appropriate to your argument if you could provide a future, NON-eschatological passage in which "mello" only means certainty, and not future chronological imminence. Are you able to provide such a passage from the NT?


2.) While mello has 2 definitions: about to be and certaintiy........
3195 méllō – properly, at the very point of acting; ready, "about to happen." 3195 (méllō) is used "in general of what is sure to happen" (J. Thayer).

....... eggizo/eggus is never defined as anything other as literally near, immediate imminence or extreme closeness.
1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).

2. of Time; concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass: Matthew 24:32; Matthew 26:18; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30, 31; John 2:13; John 6:4; John 7:2; John 11:55; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:10; of the near advent of persons: ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς, of Christ's return from heaven, Philippians 4:5 (in another sense, of God in Psalm 144:18 (); with the addition ἐπί θύραις, at the door, Matthew 24:33; Mark 13:29; ἐγγύς κατάρας, near to being cursed, Hebrews 6:8; ἀφανισμοῦ, soon to vanish, Hebrews 8:13.

Where is eggizo/eggus ever defined as anything other than literal nearness, extreme closeness, or immediate imminence?

It appears you are having to add to the definition of strong's and help's in order substantiate your claim that "near" in deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 13, and obadiah 1, doesn't mean the definition provided, but means something else.

3.) Ignoring the prophetic perfect/present of those passage requires you to change the definition of nearness. This is something I can't agree with, unless you are able to provide evidence from thayer's or helps that defines eggus/eggizo as something other than literal nearness?

Perhaps more significant, though, is that the prophetic perfect doesn't speak of future events as if they're about to happen; they speak of future events as if they already happened in the past! (See the quotations you referenced earlier from The Prophetic Perfect | Truth Or Tradition?, I heard that Hebrew language had no means of determining past, present, or future tense. Could the prophecies in the OT possibly refer to past and future events simultaneously? | Bible.org, and Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia). In neither of these three biblical passages is such going on, and thus they are not examples of the prophetic perfect. There's no evidence that the prophets are speaking from the point of view of any time period other than their own here. And yet, they speak of the events as being "at hand" (LXX, eggus). This means that future events can be spoken of as being "at hand" (eggus) without referencing chronological imminence--even in contexts not using the prophetic perfect.

If The interpretation method of prophetic perfect/present is understood, the definitions of words do not have to be altered.

From the preface of the young's literal translation in regards. Notice points 1 and 2:

"In prosecuting the plan thus adopted, a literal translation was indispensable. No other kind of rendering could place the reader in the position contemplated, side by side with the writer--prepared to think as he does, to see as he sees, to reason, to feel, to weep, and to exult along with him. His very conception of time, even in the minor accidents of the grammatical past, present, future, are to become our own. If he speaks of an event, as now passing, we are not, on the logical ground of its having in reality already transpired, to translate his present as if it were a past; or if, on the other hand, his imagination pictures the future as if even at this moment present, we are not translators but expounders, and that of a tame description, if we take the liberty to convert his time, and tense--the grammatical expression of his time--into our own. King James' translators were almost entirely unacquainted with the two distinctive peculiarities of the Hebrew mode of thinking and speaking, admitted by the most profound Hebrew scholars in theory, though, from undue timidity, never carried out in practice, viz:--

1. That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certainty of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for some time. And
2. That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future were accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense.

These two great principles of the Hebrew language are substantially to be found in the works of Lee, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.; but the present writer has carried them out in translation much beyond what any of these ever contemplated, on the simple ground that, if they are true, they ought to be gone through with. While they affect very considerably the outward form of the translation, it is a matter of thankfulness that they do not touch the truth of a single Scripture doctrine--not even one."

1.) The prophets received visions and dreams from God:

Numbers 12:6-8 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

2.) Both Isaiah and Obadiah were "seeing" God's oracles in the passages you presented. Thus, I would argue, these prophets were seeing future events as if they had already occurred or were presently happening, in accordance with points 1and 2 from Young's preface above. such understanding would not require the changing of the literal definition of near.

Isaiah 13:1 The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
Obadiah 1:1 The vision of Obadiah.


3.) In regards to the song of Moses, the context of Deuteronomy 32 is set in just the previous chapter: the latter day of Israel. Therefore, the day of Israel's calamity was not near in regards to Moses' audience, but near to when the nation's "foot would slip". Again, such understanding would not require the changing of the literal definition of near

Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

 

[Kilk1]

If the resurrection involves literal bodies coming out of tombs, then yes, the resurrection has not yet occurred, and full preterism is false (although, as a partial preterist, I do believe full preterism is false).

However, what happens if you are not buried in a tomb or grave?

I don't believe the spiritual body we are raised in, is the same that was sown.

1 corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.





1.) We agree "mello" can mean certainty and not necessarily chronological, future imminence in regards to past events. Chronological future imminence in regards to past events would be an obvious oxymoron. This is evidenced by Acts ch 26 vs 22-23. However, the disagreement is not about "mello" being used to refer to past events, but future events. Therefore, it seem more appropriate to your argument if you could provide a future, NON-eschatological passage in which "mello" only means certainty, and not future chronological imminence. Are you able to provide such a passage from the NT?


2.) While mello has 2 definitions: about to be and certaintiy........
3195 méllō – properly, at the very point of acting; ready, "about to happen." 3195 (méllō) is used "in general of what is sure to happen" (J. Thayer).

....... eggizo/eggus is never defined as anything other as literally near, immediate imminence or extreme closeness.
1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).

2. of Time; concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass: Matthew 24:32; Matthew 26:18; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:30, 31; John 2:13; John 6:4; John 7:2; John 11:55; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:10; of the near advent of persons: ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς, of Christ's return from heaven, Philippians 4:5 (in another sense, of God in Psalm 144:18 (); with the addition ἐπί θύραις, at the door, Matthew 24:33; Mark 13:29; ἐγγύς κατάρας, near to being cursed, Hebrews 6:8; ἀφανισμοῦ, soon to vanish, Hebrews 8:13.

Where is eggizo/eggus ever defined as anything other than literal nearness, extreme closeness, or immediate imminence?

It appears you are having to add to the definition of strong's and help's in order substantiate your claim that "near" in deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 13, and obadiah 1, doesn't mean the definition provided, but means something else.

3.) Ignoring the prophetic perfect/present of those passage requires you to change the definition of nearness. This is something I can't agree with, unless you are able to provide evidence from thayer's or helps that defines eggus/eggizo as something other than literal nearness?




If The interpretation method of prophetic perfect/present is understood, the definitions of words do not have to be altered.

From the preface of the young's literal translation in regards. Notice points 1 and 2:

"In prosecuting the plan thus adopted, a literal translation was indispensable. No other kind of rendering could place the reader in the position contemplated, side by side with the writer--prepared to think as he does, to see as he sees, to reason, to feel, to weep, and to exult along with him. His very conception of time, even in the minor accidents of the grammatical past, present, future, are to become our own. If he speaks of an event, as now passing, we are not, on the logical ground of its having in reality already transpired, to translate his present as if it were a past; or if, on the other hand, his imagination pictures the future as if even at this moment present, we are not translators but expounders, and that of a tame description, if we take the liberty to convert his time, and tense--the grammatical expression of his time--into our own. King James' translators were almost entirely unacquainted with the two distinctive peculiarities of the Hebrew mode of thinking and speaking, admitted by the most profound Hebrew scholars in theory, though, from undue timidity, never carried out in practice, viz:--

1. That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certainty of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for some time. And
2. That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future were accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense.

These two great principles of the Hebrew language are substantially to be found in the works of Lee, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.; but the present writer has carried them out in translation much beyond what any of these ever contemplated, on the simple ground that, if they are true, they ought to be gone through with. While they affect very considerably the outward form of the translation, it is a matter of thankfulness that they do not touch the truth of a single Scripture doctrine--not even one."

1.) The prophets received visions and dreams from God:

Numbers 12:6-8 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

2.) Both Isaiah and Obadiah were "seeing" God's oracles in the passages you presented. Thus, I would argue, these prophets were seeing future events as if they had already occurred or were presently happening, in accordance with points 1and 2 from Young's preface above. such understanding would not require the changing of the literal definition of near.

Isaiah 13:1 The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
Obadiah 1:1 The vision of Obadiah.


3.) In regards to the song of Moses, the context of Deuteronomy 32 is set in just the previous chapter: the latter day of Israel. Therefore, the day of Israel's calamity was not near in regards to Moses' audience, but near to when the nation's "foot would slip". Again, such understanding would not require the changing of the literal definition of near

Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

I was surprised to find out @parousia70 wasn't a full preterist, and now I'm doubly surprised to discover you're also a partial preterist! What prophecy/prophecies to you believe to be post-70?

Nature of the resurrection

I also used to think the resurrection couldn't involve physical bodies rising from graves, and for the same objection you raised: "However, what happens if you are not buried in a tomb or grave?" However, we have to remember that passages such as John 5:28-29 are in the context of "all who are in the graves." As for those not in the graves, we'd have to go elsewhere to learn about them. Many understand "The sea" that "gave up the dead who were in it" in Revelation 20:13 as addressing them. And as for those still alive at the Second Coming, they're included in passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:51-57, etc.

You also mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:44, and I believe it illustrates my point: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (emphasis mine). Notice the same thing that's "sown a natural body" is the same "it" that's raised a spiritual body. For more details, see what I wrote on the chapter in my previous post as well as what I wrote there on John 5:28-29 and Philippians 3:20-21.

"At hand" statements

Regarding mello, one example that Thayer lists as an example of the “certainty” sense is Acts 24:15. Granted, it is an eschatological verse, but this doesn’t mean I’m engaging in circular reasoning. I believe we’d both have to grant a non‐chronological sense here due to the fact that even Paul’s accusers accepted/awaited the hope Paul had in the verse, and the hope they shared was “that there will be [mello + eimi] a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” Could we say Paul’s accusers believed the resurrection was “chronologically imminent”? No, but we could say they agreed that it was, in Thayer’s words, “sure to happen.” This is likely why most translations here and in Acts 26:22-23 don’t even translate the word as “about to” or anything like that.

More important is eggizo/enggus. In the Septuagint (LXX) version of Deuteronomy 32, we see enggus (v. 35) used to refer to something that wouldn’t be fulfilled for many centuries later. Verses 6-17 are past tense, verse 18 looks present, verse 19 resumes the past, and then in verse 20 God “said” (past tense) that He “will turn away my face from them, and will show what shall happen to them in the last days” (future tense). Verses 21-34 discusses what "They have" done (v. 21) and who they currently are (v. 28), and this section also shows what God "will" do as a result (e.g., v. 23). Then in verse 35, we discover that God "will recompense" (future tense) in the day their foot should be tripped up, saying the day is "near to them." Through the future tense, the day God would "recompense," when their foot would slip, is spoken of as being yet to come, so it can't be in the prophetic perfect/present here. This disproves your last post's claim that the song is speaking from the point of view as if already in the time when the nation's foot would slip. While my last link was an English translation of the Septuagint, here's a Greek/English interlinear of the Septuagint for reference.

Similarly, if you read through Isaiah 13:6 (LXX), this is the case. The description as you read the verses following verse 6 are of a future event. And here's the Greek/English interlinear of Isaiah 13. Finally, in Obadiah 1:15 (LXX), we see the same thing. Both in verse 15 and following, we see the events spoken of as yet to come. Here's the Greek/English interlinear of Obadiah. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with your position. If perhaps you're saying that only the "at hand" parts of the prophecies, not the rest, use the prophetic present/perfect, that would seem quite arbitrary, would it not? (This source also is useful for studying the Septuagint.)

For these reasons, I don't see the "at hand" statements as clear markers for when things will happen, but I do see the nature of the resurrection as clear, and it describes something that hasn't happened yet. I don't see any explanation for why Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Obadiah can speak of things centuries ahead as being "at hand," that couldn't also be used to explain why the NT says the Second Coming is "at hand."

 

[claninja]

I also used to think the resurrection couldn't involve physical bodies rising from graves, and for the same objection you raised: "However, what happens if you are not buried in a tomb or grave?" However, we have to remember that passages such as John 5:28-29 are in the context of "all who are in the graves."

I believe Jesus was referring to Daniel ch 12. Therefore, I don't hold the "graves" as literal tomb sites only, but as any who sleep in the dust of the earth.

Daniel 12:2 And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Notice the same thing that's "sown a natural body" is the same "it" that's raised a spiritual body.

But not the same body. For what you sow is NOT the same body that it will be.

1 corinthians 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else.

Regarding mello, one example that Thayer lists as an example of the “certainty” sense is Acts 24:15. Granted, it is an eschatological verse, but this doesn’t mean I’m engaging in circular reasoning. I believe we’d both have to grant a non‐chronological sense here due to the fact that even Paul’s accusers accepted/awaited the hope Paul had in the verse, and the hope they shared was “that there will be [mello + eimi] a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” Could we say Paul’s accusers believed the resurrection was “chronologically imminent”? No, but we could say they agreed that it was, in Thayer’s words, “sure to happen.” This is likely why most translations here and in Acts 26:22-23 don’t even translate the word as “about to” or anything like that.

Correct. Thayer lists "mello" as meaning "about to be" and also "certainty".

d. in general, of what is sure to happen: with an infinitive present, Matthew 24:6; John 6:71; 1 Timothy 1:16; Revelation 12:5; Revelation 17:8; with an infinitive future ἔσεσθαι, Acts 11:28; Acts 24:15.

Again, providing a NON eschatalogical passage to support that "mello" means only certainty and not chronological nearness would better support your argument.

More important is eggizo/enggus. In the Septuagint (LXX) version of Deuteronomy 32, we see enggus (v. 35) used to refer to something that wouldn’t be fulfilled for many centuries later. Verses 6-17 are past tense, verse 18 looks present, verse 19 resumes the past, and then in verse 20 God “said” (past tense) that He “will turn away my face from them, and will show what shall happen to them in the last days” (future tense). Verses 21-34 discusses what "They have" done (v. 21) and who they currently are (v. 28), and this section also shows what God "will" do as a result (e.g., v. 23). Then in verse 35, we discover that God "will recompense" (future tense) in the day their foot should be tripped up, saying the day is "near to them." Through the future tense, the day God would "recompense," when their foot would slip, is spoken of as being yet to come, so it can't be in the prophetic perfect/present here. This disproves your last post's claim that the song is speaking from the point of view as if already in the time when the nation's foot would slip. While my last link was an English translation of the Septuagint, here's a Greek/English interlinear of the Septuagint for reference.

Similarly, if you read through Isaiah 13:6 (LXX), this is the case. The description as you read the verses following verse 6 are of a future event. And here's the Greek/English interlinear of Isaiah 13. Finally, in Obadiah 1:15 (LXX), we see the same thing. Both in verse 15 and following, we see the events spoken of as yet to come. Here's the Greek/English interlinear of Obadiah. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with your position. If perhaps you're saying that only the "at hand" parts of the prophecies, not the rest, use the prophetic present/perfect, that would seem quite arbitrary, would it not? (This source also is useful for studying the Septuagint.)

You are providing more of a subjective argument than an objective one.

You are attempting to show that "eggus/eggizo/qarob" can mean certainty, and not necessarily chronological nearness, NOT by providing the definition of the word that supports your position, BUT by how YOU interpret the passage.

Because YOU interpret the passage not in the prophetic perfect/present then it requires YOU to change the definition of "at hand" or "near" to instead mean "certainty without chronological nearness".

However, UNLIKE "mello", "eggus/eggizo" is never defined as certainty without chronological nearness. "Eggus/Eggizo" is defined as literal nearness in regards to time or place.

eggus: near (in place or time)
Original Word: ἐγγύς
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: eggus
Phonetic Spelling: (eng-goos')
Definition: near (in place or time)
Usage: near.

Strong's Concordance
eggizó: to make near, refl. to come near
Original Word: ἐγγίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eggizó
Phonetic Spelling: (eng-id'-zo)
Definition: to make near, to come near
Usage: trans: I bring near; intrans: I come near, approach.

You have yet to offer any evidence as to how eggus/eggizo can mean certainty without chronological nearness other than your own interpretation of the passages. As such we will not agree. However, if you can provide any definitions (thayer, help, strong....) that support your interpretation, that would be much more convincing to your argument.

I, on the other hand, am holding the words to their literal definition. Thus by holding the prophetic perfect/present position on those passages, I do not need to change the definition of the words to make my argument work.

 

[Kilk1]

I believe Jesus was referring to Daniel ch 12. Therefore, I don't hold the "graves" as literal tomb sites only, but as any who sleep in the dust of the earth.

Daniel 12:2 And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to shame and everlasting contempt.



But not the same body. For what you sow is NOT the same body that it will be.

1 corinthians 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else.



Correct. Thayer lists "mello" as meaning "about to be" and also "certainty".

d. in general, of what is sure to happen: with an infinitive present, Matthew 24:6; John 6:71; 1 Timothy 1:16; Revelation 12:5; Revelation 17:8; with an infinitive future ἔσεσθαι, Acts 11:28; Acts 24:15.

Again, providing a NON eschatalogical passage to support that "mello" means only certainty and not chronological nearness would better support your argument.





You are providing more of a subjective argument than an objective one.

You are attempting to show that "eggus/eggizo/qarob" can mean certainty, and not necessarily chronological nearness, NOT by providing the definition of the word that supports your position, BUT by how YOU interpret the passage.

Because YOU interpret the passage not in the prophetic perfect/present then it requires YOU to change the definition of "at hand" or "near" to instead mean "certainty without chronological nearness".

However, UNLIKE "mello", "eggus/eggizo" is never defined as certainty without chronological nearness. "Eggus/Eggizo" is defined as literal nearness in regards to time or place.

eggus: near (in place or time)
Original Word: ἐγγύς
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: eggus
Phonetic Spelling: (eng-goos')
Definition: near (in place or time)
Usage: near.

Strong's Concordance
eggizó: to make near, refl. to come near
Original Word: ἐγγίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eggizó
Phonetic Spelling: (eng-id'-zo)
Definition: to make near, to come near
Usage: trans: I bring near; intrans: I come near, approach.

You have yet to offer any evidence as to how eggus/eggizo can mean certainty without chronological nearness other than your own interpretation of the passages. As such we will not agree. However, if you can provide any definitions (thayer, help, strong....) that support your interpretation, that would be much more convincing to your argument.

I, on the other hand, am holding the words to their literal definition. Thus by holding the prophetic perfect/present position on those passages, I do not need to change the definition of the words to make my argument work.

I see the nature of the resurrection as being one in which the current body becomes the future body. Let's look at the passages I've referenced before in order to explain why I believe this.

1 Corinthians 15

Here, the old becomes the new. In one sense, the old is not the new; a seed is quite different from the plant it becomes (v. 37). In another sense, the seed is the plant because the plant is the new form of the seed. We could say, "It is sown a seed; it is raised a plant." The same things that's sown a seed is raised a plant. It seems Paul's point in verses 36-44 is that those in verse 35 should know better than to claim that a dead body can't be raised. After all, the very seeds they would sow had to die (vv. 36-37), so why couldn't the same happen with the resurrection? Also, like a seed, our body is sown one way but is transformed when raised: "The body is sown in corruption, it [i.e., the body that's sown in corruption] 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" (vv. 42-44, emphasis mine). The thing sown is the same "it" that's being "raised."

While it's true that the sown body isn't the same kind of body it will later become, won't the body that's sown become the body that's raised? To reiterate, isn't the body that's sown the same "it" that's raised (vv. 42-44)?

Philippians 3:20-21

As for Philippians 3:20-21, I'm not sure what your position is, but @parousia70 argued that the "body" here is the "life-work-world," which I guess is a corporate, not corporeal, interpretation. Paul is talking about the Second Coming and heaven in Philippians 3:20, and then in verse 21 says our lowly body would be transformed. Why? Not so that it would be Christ's "glorious body"; rather, "that it may be conformed [i.e., be similar] to His glorious body." Therefore, I don't see how the corporate sense works for this verse. In this verse, there isn't one body being transformed to be Christ's glorious body; rather, it's transformed to be like Christ's glorious body. This fits a corporeal, natural body being transformed to be similar to Christ's corporeal, glorious body, but it doesn't fit a corporate old covenant life-work-world merely becoming similar to the new covenant life-work-world, does it? The new covenant replaces the old, rather than the old changing to somehow be merely similar to the new, right?


Bottom line: To use letter variables, A (our lowly body) doesn't become B (Christ's glorious body) in this verse. Instead, A changes, and in this change conforms (summorphos, "showing similar behavior from having the same essential nature") to B. Therefore, A is not the old covenant life-work-world but is our frail, corporeal body, which will one day become transformed to be like B, Christ's glorious (corporeal) body.

John 5:28-29

Jesus said the event in John 5:25 "is coming, and now is" (NKJV). Saying it's both present and future would seem to confirm there are two different senses involved, one that already was present, and another that would come later.


In 5:25, Jesus said the dead who hear His voice would live; wouldn't the sense that "now is" be that those who died spiritually would find spiritual life through Him? (See "has passed from death into life," contrasted with coming into judgment, John 5:24.) If so, then the sense in 5:28-29 (which Jesus only says "is coming," not "now is") must be different. This is because John 5:28-29's reference to coming out of the graves can't apply to finding spiritual life, since the unrighteous that come out will experience "the resurrection of condemnation," not "the resurrection of life."

The main point is that, rather than spirits going from Hades to heaven, we see the dead rising from where they died. This sounds much more like what happened to Christ. He died and went to Hades, but then He returned to earth when His entombed body rose from the dead. In the same way, all in the graves are said to be raised in the future--not from Hades where they'd wait, but from the graves their bodies were buried in.

Therefore, John 5:25 discussed a present sense of finding spiritual life through Christ akin to 5:24, while John 5:28-29 appears to be discussing a future sense of raising all physical bodies from their graves/tombs—righteous or otherwise. (I believe the same would happen to those not buried in tombs as well.)

_________________________

I'm going to stop this post earlier than expected, as I'm running out of time today, but as for the at hand statements, I do think it's interesting that Thayer and HELPS don't give a "certainty" definition to eggus/eggizo. That said, I feel there's a parallel to what we see in the OT. We know that what's prophesied in the OT references I cited weren't fulfilled soon after the prophecies were made. Looking at the nature of what's prophesied, in this case judgment, makes it clear such wasn't fulfilled for a while.

With this in mind, could the same be said for the New Testament prophecies? Since we know, as you said, that no physical bodies were raised in A.D. 70, and since the passages I cited seem clear that this would happen one day, isn't it clear that such is yet to come? Assuming the prophetic perfect/present is how we should explain the at hand statements elsewhere when we don't see an immediate fulfillment, could we do the same in the NT when we don't see an immediate fulfillment?

Two more things before I head out: I was interested to hear you're not a full preterist; are there prophecies in Scripture you believe to have a post-70 fulfillment? Also, do you believe that Christians were still under the Old Testament during the period after Jesus' resurrection but before Jerusalem's fall? Thanks!

 

[claninja]

I see the nature of the resurrection as being one in which the current body becomes the future body. Let's look at the passages I've referenced before in order to explain why I believe this.

1 Corinthians 15

Here, the old becomes the new. In one sense, the old is not the new; a seed is quite different from the plant it becomes (v. 37). In another sense, the seed is the plant because the plant is the new form of the seed. We could say, "It is sown a seed; it is raised a plant." The same things that's sown a seed is raised a plant. It seems Paul's point in verses 36-44 is that those in verse 35 should know better than to claim that a dead body can't be raised. After all, the very seeds they would sow had to die (vv. 36-37), so why couldn't the same happen with the resurrection? Also, like a seed, our body is sown one way but is transformed when raised: "The body is sown in corruption, it [i.e., the body that's sown in corruption] 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" (vv. 42-44, emphasis mine). The thing sown is the same "it" that's being "raised."

While it's true that the sown body isn't the same kind of body it will later become, won't the body that's sown become the body that's raised? To reiterate, isn't the body that's sown the same "it" that's raised (vv. 42-44)?

Philippians 3:20-21

As for Philippians 3:20-21, I'm not sure what your position is, but @parousia70 argued that the "body" here is the "life-work-world," which I guess is a corporate, not corporeal, interpretation. Paul is talking about the Second Coming and heaven in Philippians 3:20, and then in verse 21 says our lowly body would be transformed. Why? Not so that it would be Christ's "glorious body"; rather, "that it may be conformed [i.e., be similar] to His glorious body." Therefore, I don't see how the corporate sense works for this verse. In this verse, there isn't one body being transformed to be Christ's glorious body; rather, it's transformed to be like Christ's glorious body. This fits a corporeal, natural body being transformed to be similar to Christ's corporeal, glorious body, but it doesn't fit a corporate old covenant life-work-world merely becoming similar to the new covenant life-work-world, does it? The new covenant replaces the old, rather than the old changing to somehow be merely similar to the new, right?


Bottom line: To use letter variables, A (our lowly body) doesn't become B (Christ's glorious body) in this verse. Instead, A changes, and in this change conforms (summorphos, "showing similar behavior from having the same essential nature") to B. Therefore, A is not the old covenant life-work-world but is our frail, corporeal body, which will one day become transformed to be like B, Christ's glorious (corporeal) body.

John 5:28-29

Jesus said the event in John 5:25 "is coming, and now is" (NKJV). Saying it's both present and future would seem to confirm there are two different senses involved, one that already was present, and another that would come later.


In 5:25, Jesus said the dead who hear His voice would live; wouldn't the sense that "now is" be that those who died spiritually would find spiritual life through Him? (See "has passed from death into life," contrasted with coming into judgment, John 5:24.) If so, then the sense in 5:28-29 (which Jesus only says "is coming," not "now is") must be different. This is because John 5:28-29's reference to coming out of the graves can't apply to finding spiritual life, since the unrighteous that come out will experience "the resurrection of condemnation," not "the resurrection of life."

The main point is that, rather than spirits going from Hades to heaven, we see the dead rising from where they died. This sounds much more like what happened to Christ. He died and went to Hades, but then He returned to earth when His entombed body rose from the dead. In the same way, all in the graves are said to be raised in the future--not from Hades where they'd wait, but from the graves their bodies were buried in.

Therefore, John 5:25 discussed a present sense of finding spiritual life through Christ akin to 5:24, while John 5:28-29 appears to be discussing a future sense of raising all physical bodies from their graves/tombs—righteous or otherwise. (I believe the same would happen to those not buried in tombs as well.)

Many good points here. But this does not change the fact that the body that is to be is NOT the same as the body that is sown.

In keeping with Paul's analogy, it is not the seed that rises after being sown, but the plant. Therefore, it is not the natural body that rises, but the spiritual body.

I'm going to stop this post earlier than expected, as I'm running out of time today, but as for the at hand statements, I do think it's interesting that Thayer and HELPS don't give a "certainty" definition to eggus/eggizo. That said, I feel there's a parallel to what we see in the OT. We know that what's prophesied in the OT references I cited weren't fulfilled soon after the prophecies were made. Looking at the nature of what's prophesied, in this case judgment, makes it clear such wasn't fulfilled for a while.

Correct, neither Thayer's nor HELPS provides a definition of "certainty" in regards to eggus/eggizo. Eggus/eggizo is only defined as literal nearness in regards to place and/or time.

Correct, the OT references you cited weren't fulfilled in literal chronological nearness after the prophecies were made.

Therefore, in order for "near" to maintain its definition of literal closeness in place or time, then the passages you cited should be understood in the prophetic perfect/present.

With this in mind, could the same be said for the New Testament prophecies? Since we know, as you said, that no physical bodies were raised in A.D. 70, and since the passages I cited seem clear that this would happen one day, isn't it clear that such is yet to come? Assuming the prophetic perfect/present is how we should explain the at hand statements elsewhere when we don't see an immediate fulfillment, could we do the same in the NT when we don't see an immediate fulfillment?

The prophetic perfect/present consists of oracles/prophecies about the future, written as if they have already happened or are currently happening. The OT is full of these.

Do you have any examples of NT prophetic perfect/present, where "near" is used, that you would like to discuss?

Two more things before I head out: I was interested to hear you're not a full preterist; are there prophecies in Scripture you believe to have a post-70 fulfillment? Also, do you believe that Christians were still under the Old Testament during the period after Jesus' resurrection but before Jerusalem's fall? Thanks!

1.) I believe the destruction of Jerusalem was a coming of Christ. I do not believe this precludes a future coming of Christ.

2.) I believe the dead were raised to heaven in 70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future resurrection.

3.) I believe Christ came in judgment upon Israel in 66-70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future judgment.

Hope that helps!

 

[claninja]

Also, do you believe that Christians were still under the Old Testament during the period after Jesus' resurrection but before Jerusalem's fall? Thanks!

1.) The old covenant was made obsolete for God's people at the 1st advent, through Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.

a.)The old covenant was "made obsolete" for those in Christ, at the 1st advent.
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

b.)Christ "did away" with the first covenant at the 1st advent in order to establish the new covenant.
Hebrews 10:9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

c.)The law was a guardian for God's people "until" the coming of Christ.
galatians 3:24-25 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

d.)He set aside and nailed "to the cross", the record of debt and legal demands of the law.
colossians 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

2.)This obsolete old covenant was fading away and was soon to vanish in the 1st century.

a.) the old covenant was growing old and ready to vanish away, when Hebrews was written
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

b.) the old covenant was fading away when 2 corinthians was written
2 corinthians 3:11 For if what is fading away came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

3.) Jewish Christian and Non-Christian Jews still partook in the the old obsolete covenant during the time it was fading away and growing old and ready to soon vanish.

a.) Christian Jews were zealous for the Law of Moses, long after the cross
acts 21:20-24 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

b.) Paul preached the gospel to the Jews, who were under the law, long after the cross
1 corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

c.) The Jerusalem council seemed fit, under the guidance of the Spirit, not to burden the gentile Christians with all the Laws of Moses. There is no mention of the council of Jerusalem lifting the the burden for Jewish Christians.
acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

d.) The Jews that remained under the old obsolete covenant allegorically related to slaves in "present" earthly Jerusalem.
galatians 4:24-25 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children

e.) the curse of the old obsolete covenant would fall on those who rejected Christ
acts 3:22-23 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

In Summation:

IMHO, the righteous standards of God are eternal and never changing. What changes is the agreement (covenant) between God and mankind. The old covenant was a temporal agreement between God and the nation of Israel, in place until the time of Christ. This agreement was simply an instructor pointing to the reality in Christ. In this agreement, Israel would obey all of God's righteous standards in order to receive blessings. If they disobeyed, they would receive curses.

When Christ came, He fulfilled the old covenant agreement, not only in perfect obedience, but also as the body that the shadow of the law pointed to. This action by Christ effectively superseded the old covenant with the new covenant agreement. Under the new covenant, all of the shadows/types and righteous standards of law of moses are now fulfilled in Christ, and thus fulfilled in those who are in Christ. We now strive to love God and our neighbor, not bound in slavery by the law in order to earn blessings or standing before God, but in freedom.

The old covenant agreement became obsolete at the cross. Those that attempted to partake in the obsolete old covenant agreement could only do so until 66-70ad, when it was permanently removed.

edit:

I think this is a good comparison

On mount Sinai, God entered into the old covenant agreement with the nation of Israel. Following this, Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years prior to entering the promised land. During this wandering many wanted to return to slavery in Egypt. Ultimately, Israel wandered until the disobedient generation died out, and the "faithful" entered the promised land.

So too, the new covenant was established at the cross. The following 40 years, many Jews returned to the slavery of the old obsolete covenant, and ultimately the generation that rejected Christ, was utterly destroyed in the Jewish Roman war from 66-70ad.