- Jul 21, 2019
- 607
- 193
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.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.
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!
Upvote
0