How do full preterists interpret these passages?

Davy · Feb 20, 2021

Ed Parenteau said:
The following well respected scholars all believed the Apostles were full preterists even though they didn't call them that.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (1877)
Romans 811-14) The Apostle now gives a reason for enforcing this and other duties upon his readers. The end of the world itself is near.
St. Paul, like the other Apostles (comp. 1Peter 4:7; Revelation 22:20, et al.), certainly believed that the Parousia, or Second Coming of Christ, was near at hand.

Meyers New Testament Commentary (1844)
Romans 8: 11-14Ἡ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ] the Messianic salvation, namely, in its completion, as introduced by the Parousia, which Paul, along with the whole apostolical church, regarded as near, always drawing nearer, and setting in even before the decease of the generation.

MacLaren's Expositions (11 February 1826 – 5 May 1910)
Romans
LOVE AND THE DAY
SALVATION NEARER
Romans 8:11.There is no doubt, I suppose, that the Apostle, in common with the whole of the early Church, entertained more or less consistently the expectation of living to witness the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Pulpit Commentary (The Pulpit Commentary is a homiletic commentary on the Bible created during the nineteenth century under the direction of Rev. Joseph S. Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones)
Romans 8:Verses 11-14. - There is now interposed among the particular admonitions a call to watchfulness, with a view to holiness in all relations of life, on the ground that the day is at hand. There can be little, if any, doubt that the apostle had in view the second coming of Christ, which he with others supposed might be close at hand,

Vincent's Word Studies
And that knowing the time - now
Referring to the injunction of Romans 13:8. Knowing, seeing that ye know. The time (τὸν καιρόν), the particular season or juncture. Rev., season. See on Matthew 12:1. Now (ἤδη), better, already.
Our salvation (ἡμῶν ἡ σωτηρία)Others, however, and better, as Rev., construe ἡμῶν of us (salvation of us, i.e., our) with nearer, and render salvation is nearer to us. This is favored by the order of the Greek words. The other rendering would lay an unwarranted emphasis on our. The reference is apparently to the Lord's second coming, rather than to future glory.

Based on the following verses, when does the church age end?
Ephesians 3: 20Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

So basically, you just insert the term 'Full Preterist' into the definition of what the 1st century Church fathers believed, which is evidence of poor, poor scholarship.

The early Church fathers were definitely NOT... on the Full Preterist doctrine of men.

The early Church fathers recognized Christ Jesus' future return to be a bodily physical return back to this earth as written in Acts 1 and Zechariah 14. They did not treat Jesus' appearing to His disciples after His resurrection for 40 days as that future return. Full Preterism does. So what you have presented is fallacy.

FulfilledInHim · Feb 20, 2021

Do you honestly believe Christians have eternal life BECAUSE the angels are not flesh and blood??

I would hope Not! We have eternal life (are children of the Resurrection) BECAUSE we are justified by our faith in Jesus Christ.

So, are you that hyper literal in your hermeneutics that really believe that you have eternal Life BECAUSE the angels are not flesh and blood?? Certainly that would place you in a heretical place in your dogma.

Kilk1 said:
I'll try to clarify. What's confusing me is this statement of yours: "But it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death, but their faith in Jesus gave them everlasting life so they won’t die the second death. Being like angels just compares us to them" (emphasis mine). Doesn't Luke 20:36 explicitly say the reason they can't "die anymore" is "for [because] they are equal to the angels ..."?

DO you honestly

Kilk1 · Feb 20, 2021

FulfilledInHim said:
Do you honestly believe Christians have eternal life BECAUSE the angels are not flesh and blood??

I would hope Not! We have eternal life (are children of the Resurrection) BECAUSE we are justified by our faith in Jesus Christ.

So, are you that hyper literal in your hermeneutics that really believe that you have eternal Life BECAUSE the angels are not flesh and blood?? Certainly that would place you in a heretical place in your dogma.

DO you honestly

I'm not saying that we have eternal life because of angels. I'm questioning if the death spoken of in Luke 20:36 is spiritual death. Jesus explicitly says the reason they can't "die anymore" is "for [because] they are equal to the angels ...," right? Becoming "equal to the angels" would explain how the saved can't die physically anymore, so that seems a more natural understanding of "die" in the verse. I don't see how it could be connected to them not dying spiritually, as it seems angels can die spiritually (2 Peter 2:4). Do you see what I'm saying?

FulfilledInHim · Feb 20, 2021

No I don’t follow. It seems you are just confusing a pretty simple comparison that Christ is making with our resurrected spiritual bodies and the angels, since the resurrection was something his audience was having trouble understanding.

QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75761294, member: 421182"]I'm not saying that we have eternal life because of angels. I'm questioning if the death spoken of in Luke 20:36 is spiritual death. Jesus explicitly says the reason they can't "die anymore" is "for [because] they are equal to the angels ...," right? Becoming "equal to the angels" would explain how the saved can't die physically anymore, so that seems a more natural understanding of "die" in the verse. I don't see how it could be connected to them not dying spiritually, as it seems angels can die spiritually (2 Peter 2:4). Do you see what I'm saying?[/QUOTE]

claninja · Feb 21, 2021

Kilk1 said:
1 Corinthians 15:42-44

You're right that in this passage, pronouns are not explicitly present in the Greek. You're also right that verse 44's nouns are in the nominative case, and I'll concede your statement that, "A noun in the nominative case can serve as the subject of the verb, even if it comes after the verb." However, the nouns in verses 42-43 are not in the nominative case but rather are in the dative case. And while the pronouns aren't explicitly present in the Greek, they're implicitly present via the verbs, explaining why they appear in the English. (My translation, the New King James Version, doesn't even put "it" in italics due to how strongly connected it is. By contrast, it does put "The body" in italics, since that's supplied for clarity.)

The verb for "sown" (4687 speiró) means, "I sow, spread, scatter." (Greek verbs can imply a pronoun this way.) And since it's in the present passive indicative and 3rd person singular in verses 42-44, the meaning would be, "It is sown." The same goes for the verb for "raised" (1453 egeiró), which means, "(a) I wake, arouse, (b) I raise up." It's also in the present passive indicative and 3rd person singular here, so the meaning is, "It is raised." (In and of itself, the verb in this form could also be rendered, "It is awoken," but the context favors the other rendering, obviously.) Thus, taking verses 42-44 as a whole, the point stands that the same "it" that's sown is the same that's raised, a conclusion that's also consistent with Philippians 3:21, "who will transform our lowly body that it [i.e., our lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body..."

Correct, the nouns in verses 42-43 are in the dative case, which means that they can be indirect objects or means by which something is accomplished. As the preposition "en", which can mean "in, by, with", is found between the verbs and dative nouns, I would argue the dative case is representing the means by which something is accomplished.

In addition, verse 44 provides 2 distinct nouns: a "natural" body and a "spiritual" body, which are in the nominative case, and thus the subjects of the verbs "sown" and "raised".

Therefore, based on verse 44, I would argue verses 42-43 should be understood as:

It is by means of corruption that the natural body is sown. It is by means of incorruption that the spiritual body is raised. It is by means of dishonor that the natural body is sown. It is by means of glory that the spiritual body is raised. It is by means of weakness that the natural body is sown. It is by means of power that the spiritual body is raised.

Kilk1 said:
1 Corinthians 15:37
Does this verse contradict everything above? We should be careful not to pit the passages against each other and re-interpret one to "agree with" the other. Both passages, as commonly translated, already are in agreement. If the baby/adult parallel isn't the best, here's a mythological example: If someone said a werewolf in the night is not what he shall be in the day, I'd agree. (Obviously, werewolfs aren't real, but given the definition of the term, a werewolf in the night isn't what he will be in the day.) If the same person would later say, "He goes to sleep as a ravenous wolf; he awakes as a rational man," I'd also agree. Would you say there's a contradiction?

In one sense, a werewolf in the night is not the same as a werewolf in the day; obviously, a wolf (what a werewolf is at night) and a man (what a werewolf is in the day) are different, not the same. In another sense, however the werewolf in the night is the same as the werewolf in the day since both are the same "he"; they're the same werewolf but in different forms. (And if you'd prefer to call this mythological being an "it" rather than a "he," that works just as well, if not better.)

If you can see how an individual werewolf can go to sleep as one thing and awake as a different thing but still be the same werewolf, then you can see how an individual body can be sown as one thing (e.g., "a natural body," "in weakness," etc.) and be raised as a different thing ("a spiritual body," "in power," etc.) but still be the same body.

Does the human body die in order for the werewolf to come forth?

Your argument seems to be that the body that is sown, eventually is not the body that is to be. In other words, you seem to believe that the same natural body that is sown, is raised prior to its transformation into the spiritual body. This does NOT contradict verse 37, as Paul simply states here, that the body that is sown, is not the body that will be.

1 corinthians 15:37 and that which thou dost sow, not the body that shall be dost thou sow, but bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some one of the others,

However, I would argue this does contradict verse 44, as Paul is clear that it is not the natural body that is raised, but the Spiritual.

1 corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;

We agree that the body that is sown is a natural body.
We agree that the body to be is a spiritual body.

Where we disagree, is that you believe the natural body is raised, where I believe the spiritual body is raised.

Kilk1 said:
1 Corinthians 15:35-36
You said of verse 36, "In the resurrection, something HAS to die, according to Paul's theology..." However, this is talking about seeds and plants, not necessarily bodies, as verse 37 shows. (Now the parallel is with bodies, of course, but hear me out.) Paul's point here isn't that bodies must die in order to be raised, but that death doesn't stop resurrection, as could be objected. Someone would ask how it's possible for something dead to rise ("How are the dead raised up?" [1 Corinthians 15:35]). Paul answers this argument in verse 36 by calling the hypothetical objector foolish. Even the grain one sows isn't made alive unless it dies, and yet they couldn't see that what dies can be made alive! So obviously, Paul argues, if death doesn't stop a grain from being made alive (since it actually has to die first), why would death stop God from giving life to us (or more specifically in verses 42-44, our bodies)?

Since Paul's just discussing the possibility of the dead being made alive in verses 35-36, we'd have to go elsewhere to determine if the living experience the same. Verses 51-52 present both the dead (those who "sleep") and the living as 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. Whether it's already corrupted (i.e., dead) or still in the process of corrupting, regardless, our body is "corruptible" but will be transformed into an incorruptible body, Paul foretells.

In summary, our body is sown in corruption and in its present state will die. However, it can be raised as something different, an incorruptible body that will not die. The living and the dead "shall all be changed" (vv. 51-52) so that "this corruptible" (i.e., our natural body) can "put on incorruption" (v. 53).

Maybe you can clarify? So you don't believe the resurrection is necessarily a raising from the dead, but is simply just a transformation of the natural body into the spiritual body, whether the person is dead or alive?

FulfilledInHim · Feb 23, 2021

They “can’t die anymore” BECAUSE they have eternal spiritual bodies like the angels BECAUSE they were granted eternal life from faith in Jesus Christ. They have spiritual bodies in the resurrection NOT BECAUSE they are like angels but BECAUSE they have eternal life through Christ.

We all die the 1st death, which is fleshly. But those justified by faith in Jesus Christ “will not die anymore” ie “ on whom the 2nd Death (spiritual death) has no power”. Because they have eternal spiritual life.
Those who are not justified by faith in Jesus Christ are subject to the 2nd death which is decided by God alone through there works. Revelation 20:12.

Kilk1 said:
I'm not saying that we have eternal life because of angels. I'm questioning if the death spoken of in Luke 20:36 is spiritual death. Jesus explicitly says the reason they can't "die anymore" is "for [because] they are equal to the angels ...," right? Becoming "equal to the angels" would explain how the saved can't die physically anymore, so that seems a more natural understanding of "die" in the verse. I don't see how it could be connected to them not dying spiritually, as it seems angels can die spiritually (2 Peter 2:4). Do you see what I'm saying?

We

Kilk1 · Feb 25, 2021

claninja said:
Correct, the nouns in verses 42-43 are in the dative case, which means that they can be indirect objects or means by which something is accomplished. As the preposition "en", which can mean "in, by, with", is found between the verbs and dative nouns, I would argue the dative case is representing the means by which something is accomplished.

In addition, verse 44 provides 2 distinct nouns: a "natural" body and a "spiritual" body, which are in the nominative case, and thus the subjects of the verbs "sown" and "raised".

Therefore, based on verse 44, I would argue verses 42-43 should be understood as:

It is by means of corruption that the natural body is sown. It is by means of incorruption that the spiritual body is raised. It is by means of dishonor that the natural body is sown. It is by means of glory that the spiritual body is raised. It is by means of weakness that the natural body is sown. It is by means of power that the spiritual body is raised.

Does the human body die in order for the werewolf to come forth?

Your argument seems to be that the body that is sown, eventually is not the body that is to be. In other words, you seem to believe that the same natural body that is sown, is raised prior to its transformation into the spiritual body. This does NOT contradict verse 37, as Paul simply states here, that the body that is sown, is not the body that will be.

1 corinthians 15:37 and that which thou dost sow, not the body that shall be dost thou sow, but bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some one of the others,

However, I would argue this does contradict verse 44, as Paul is clear that it is not the natural body that is raised, but the Spiritual.

1 corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;

We agree that the body that is sown is a natural body.
We agree that the body to be is a spiritual body.

Where we disagree, is that you believe the natural body is raised, where I believe the spiritual body is raised.

Maybe you can clarify? So you don't believe the resurrection is necessarily a raising from the dead, but is simply just a transformation of the natural body into the spiritual body, whether the person is dead or alive?

Perhaps the better way for me to explain my understanding is that when the resurrection happens, both the dead and living will be changed, having resurrection bodies. I assume we agree on this point. You seem to correctly understand my view that the natural body and spiritual body can be the same in identity but different in kind (i.e., because the natural body transforms into the spiritual body). And I might better understand your argument now. You aren't saying that verse 37 proves that the natural body can't transform into the spiritual; you're saying that verse 44 disproves the view that a natural body is raised and then later (after that) is transformed into a spiritual body. Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, here are some questions:

1. Do you believe that the same body in identity that's sown, is raised? If not, do you believe that verse 37 and/or verse 44 would contradict that idea? (I think you're argument is that verse 44 disproves the same body in kind being raised, not necessarily in identity, but correct me if I'm wrong.)

2. Do you accept the standard translations of verses 42-44 that say of the body, "it is sown" one way, and "it is raised" another, or do you oppose the use of implied pronouns here?

Kilk1 · Feb 25, 2021

FulfilledInHim said:
No I don’t follow. It seems you are just confusing a pretty simple comparison that Christ is making with our resurrected spiritual bodies and the angels, since the resurrection was something his audience was having trouble understanding.

QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75761294, member: 421182"]I'm not saying that we have eternal life because of angels. I'm questioning if the death spoken of in Luke 20:36 is spiritual death. Jesus explicitly says the reason they can't "die anymore" is "for [because] they are equal to the angels ...," right? Becoming "equal to the angels" would explain how the saved can't die physically anymore, so that seems a more natural understanding of "die" in the verse. I don't see how it could be connected to them not dying spiritually, as it seems angels can die spiritually (2 Peter 2:4). Do you see what I'm saying?

FulfilledInHim said:
They “can’t die anymore” BECAUSE they have eternal spiritual bodies like the angels BECAUSE they were granted eternal life from faith in Jesus Christ. They have spiritual bodies in the resurrection NOT BECAUSE they are like angels but BECAUSE they have eternal life through Christ.

We all die the 1st death, which is fleshly. But those justified by faith in Jesus Christ “will not die anymore” ie “ on whom the 2nd Death (spiritual death) has no power”. Because they have eternal spiritual life.
Those who are not justified by faith in Jesus Christ are subject to the 2nd death which is decided by God alone through there works. Revelation 20:12.

We

To make sure I understand, you're saying the reason they can't die anymore (which you understand as referencing spiritual death) is because they're like angels, and the reason they're like angels is due to Jesus giving them eternal life from their faith. Is this correct?

parousia70 · Feb 25, 2021

Kilk1 said:
Perhaps the better way for me to explain my understanding is that when the resurrection happens, both the dead and living will be changed, having resurrection bodies.

Hi.
Hopefully I'm not butting in but I felt compelled to address this statement.

With respect, Scripture does not teach the raising of the dead and the living being caught up in the clouds happens simultaneously.

In fact, it specifically teaches it does NOT.

If it were ordained to take place simultaneously, we would not find Paul going through such pains to say "The dead shall rise FIRST"

There is no indication in the text as to how long after that happens do the Living get caught up.
There is man made tradition only supporting a simultaneous or near simultaneous event, but Paul teaches specifically against it.

I'm with Paul on that.

FulfilledInHim · Feb 25, 2021

Right

Kilk1 said:
To make sure I understand, you're saying the reason they can't die anymore (which you understand as referencing spiritual death) is because they're like angels, and the reason they're like angels is due to Jesus giving them eternal life from their faith. Is this correct?

Right

claninja · Feb 28, 2021

Kilk1 said:
Perhaps the better way for me to explain my understanding is that when the resurrection happens, both the dead and living will be changed, having resurrection bodies. I assume we agree on this point.

I agree with @parousia70 that it is the dead that rise first. I do not believe the dead are resurrected while the living are changed at the exact same time. The living are changed "after" the dead are raised.

Kilk1 said:
You seem to correctly understand my view that the natural body and spiritual body can be the same in identity but different in kind (i.e., because the natural body transforms into the spiritual body).

What do you mean by same in identity? If you simply mean, what makes me, "me", apart from my physical, natural body, then yes.

Kilk1 said:
You aren't saying that verse 37 proves that the natural body can't transform into the spiritual;

Correct

Kilk1 said:
you're saying that verse 44 disproves the view that a natural body is raised and then later (after that) is transformed into a spiritual body.

Correct

Kilk1 said:
1. Do you believe that the same body in identity that's sown, is raised? If not, do you believe that verse 37 and/or verse 44 would contradict that idea? (I think you're argument is that verse 44 disproves the same body in kind being raised, not necessarily in identity, but correct me if I'm wrong.)

Verse 37 does not demonstrate what type of body is raised. It only demonstrates that the future type of body will not be natural, but spiritual.

However, Verse 44 demonstrates that it is not the natural body that is raised, but the spiritual body.

My argument is that What is sown is "me" and what is raised is still "me". However, what is sown and remains in the dust is the natural body. What is is raised to eternal life is the spiritual body.

Kilk1 said:
2. Do you accept the standard translations of verses 42-44 that say of the body, "it is sown" one way, and "it is raised" another, or do you oppose the use of implied pronouns here?

I don't oppose the implied pronouns, as long as it is understood that the implied pronouns are pointing to the correct nominative nouns. The implied "it" of being sown in decay and weakness should understood as the natural body. The implied "it" of being raised in power and glory should be understood as the spiritual body.

Kilk1 · Mar 1, 2021

parousia70 said:
Hi.
Hopefully I'm not butting in but I felt compelled to address this statement.

With respect, Scripture does not teach the raising of the dead and the living being caught up in the clouds happens simultaneously.

In fact, it specifically teaches it does NOT.

If it were ordained to take place simultaneously, we would not find Paul going through such pains to say "The dead shall rise FIRST"

There is no indication in the text as to how long after that happens do the Living get caught up.
There is man made tradition only supporting a simultaneous or near simultaneous event, but Paul teaches specifically against it.

I'm with Paul on that.

Thanks for that clarification. The Scriptures do teach that the dead in Christ rise first and then the living, so that would disprove them happening simultaneously. I would disagree about it disproving a near simultaneous occurrence, however. Having "first ... then" wording gives the order but does not specify if 1) the first happens and then the second right after or 2) the first happens, then there's a gap of time, and finally the second happens.

Don't worry; you're not butting in. In fact, I had a question I was wanting to ask you: If I recall correctly, you said that the "mortal bodies" of Romans 8:11 are equivalent to the "body of sin" in Romans 6:6. (If this misrepresents your understanding, I apologize.) This led me to drop the point, as I didn't think of that. However, after mediating on it further, the body of sin in Romans 6 is crucified, while the "mortal bodies" of Romans 8:11 are given life. Instead of the body of sin that we are to crucify, would it make more sense for "mortal bodies" to be the bodies we dwell in, which will one day die (i.e., our physical bodies)? Thanks!

Kilk1 · Mar 1, 2021

FulfilledInHim said:
Right

Right

Okay, my focus is on the part how "the reason they can't die anymore (which you understand as referencing spiritual death) is because they're like angels," rather than the part how "the reason they're like angels is due to Jesus giving them eternal life from their faith." If it's true that the reason they can't die anymore (which you understand as referencing spiritual death) is because they're like angels, wouldn't this imply that angels can't suffer spiritual death?

Put another way, if being like angels prevents spiritual death, then angels must not experience spiritual death. However, angels do experience spiritual death (2 Peter 2:4), so Luke 20:36 must mean something else (i.e., physical death). That's the argument. I apologize for being confusing, and let me know if any holes are in this argument. Thanks!

Kilk1 · Mar 1, 2021

claninja said:
I agree with @parousia70 that it is the dead that rise first. I do not believe the dead are resurrected while the living are changed at the exact same time. The living are changed "after" the dead are raised.

What do you mean by same in identity? If you simply mean, what makes me, "me", apart from my physical, natural body, then yes.

Correct

Correct

Verse 37 does not demonstrate what type of body is raised. It only demonstrates that the future type of body will not be natural, but spiritual.

However, Verse 44 demonstrates that it is not the natural body that is raised, but the spiritual body.

My argument is that What is sown is "me" and what is raised is still "me". However, what is sown and remains in the dust is the natural body. What is is raised to eternal life is the spiritual body.

I don't oppose the implied pronouns, as long as it is understood that the implied pronouns are pointing to the correct nominative nouns. The implied "it" of being sown in decay and weakness should understood as the natural body. The implied "it" of being raised in power and glory should be understood as the spiritual body.

Okay, I think I understand your position better. I would say the implied pronouns of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 is simply our body. It's sown in corruption, but then it's raised to heaven in incorruption. Why else would the dead come forth from their graves/tombs (John 5:28-29)? It seems they should go from Hades straight to heaven if the resurrection has nothing to do with their entombed bodies.

The "it" in Phil. 3:20-21 is present in the Greek (846 autos) as well as the English and is said to be transformed in order to be "conformed to His glorious body." Would you agree that "it" here refers to the lowly body?

claninja · Mar 1, 2021

Kilk1 said:
Okay, I think I understand your position better. I would say the implied pronouns of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 is simply our body. It's sown in corruption, but then it's raised to heaven in incorruption. Why else would the dead come forth from their graves/tombs (John 5:28-29)? It seems they should go from Hades straight to heaven if the resurrection has nothing to do with their entombed bodies.

But what is the body that is raised? Is it the natural body?

No, according vs 44, it is the spiritual body.

Therefore, I would argue it is the spiritual body that it is raised from the tombs/dust of the earth while the natural body remains, just as seed remains in the earth but the plant grows forth.

Kilk1 said:
The "it" in Phil. 3:20-21 is present in the Greek (846 autos) as well as the English and is said to be transformed in order to be "conformed to His glorious body." Would you agree that "it" here refers to the lowly body?

I can’t seem to find autos in vs 20-21. I see auton and autou, but they are translated as “him”.

parousia70 · Mar 1, 2021

Kilk1 said:
Thanks for that clarification. The Scriptures do teach that the dead in Christ rise first and then the living, so that would disprove them happening simultaneously. I would disagree about it disproving a near simultaneous occurrence, however. Having "first ... then" wording gives the order but does not specify if 1) the first happens and then the second right after or 2) the first happens, then there's a gap of time, and finally the second happens.

David Curtis explains how the wording DOES indeed specify, better than I can.

Berean Bible Church: Up, Up and Away - the Rapture: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

This is the verse that the physical rapture theory comes from. A little time spent looking at the Greek words should quickly dispel many false notions.

Let's start with the first word in the verses -the word "then." This is the Greek word epeita. Normally, when a sequence of events is described, the simple word eita "then" is used. Eita is best translated as "at that time" or "next". Eita is used to indicate an immediate sequence. We see this in:

John 19:26-27 (NKJV) When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then (eita)He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
This is a series of events - one immediately after the other.

But in our text, the Greek word is not eita but epeita, which is essentially the same Greek word with an "epi" prefix. This has the effect of affixing the word "after" to the word "then", and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time",and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.

Let's look at some other uses of epeita to get a clearer idea of its meaning:

Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.

Galatians 1:21 (NKJV) Afterward (epeita) I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Paul probably went first to the main seaport, Caesarea, and sailed from there to Tarsus, his birthplace (Acts 9:30). He probably then went from Tarsus, in the region of Cilicia, to Syria. It was a while after he left Jerusalem that he got to Syria and Cilicia.

Galatians 2:1 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
Epeita here involves fourteen years.

1 Corinthians 15:23 (NKJV) But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward (epeita) those who are Christ's at His coming.
Epeita here is referring to a period of forty years. The idea is: "what came at some time afterwards, after that time, not at that time."

Now look at 1 Cor 15:5-8:

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.

The point is, that the form of the word for "then"used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (after that time) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
What would be the point of saying "the dead in Christ will rise first," if the living were to be also caught up and changed at almost the same time? Paul is saying that at the return of Christ the dead in Christ will be resurrected, after that time the living will be "caught up" with them in the clouds at their physical death.

Kilk1 · Mar 4, 2021

claninja said:
But what is the body that is raised? Is it the natural body?

No, according vs 44, it is the spiritual body.

Therefore, I would argue it is the spiritual body that it is raised from the tombs/dust of the earth while the natural body remains, just as seed remains in the earth but the plant grows forth.

How I would say it is that the physical body is sown and then raised as a spiritual body. This is the natural meaning of the passage. For example, it explains how the body can be "sown in dishonor" but "raised in glory," how it can be "sown in weakness" but "raised in power," etc. What's interesting is that after looking at 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 in all of BibleGateway.com's available versions, all but two use the implied "it," thus connecting the body that's sown with the body that's raised. (In other words, "it" is sown one way, then "it" is raised another way.) And even the two that don't (the HCSB and its virtual sequel, the CSB) still retain the idea, as something clearly is being said to be "Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body." So of all the translations on the site, 100% suggest that something is sown one way and then, after that, is raised another way.

The natural, straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 is that something (our body) is sown one way, and then it is raised another way. And in order for something to be raised as something different than it was when sown, a transformation is implied--a conclusion that's explicitly taught in Philippians 3:21.

claninja said:
I can’t seem to find autos in vs 20-21. I see auton and autou, but they are translated as “him”.

At least that's how it's portrayed here: Philippians 3 KJV + Strong's. Maybe some sources differ. Regardless, all the translations I know of agree that this verse speaks of the humble, lowly body changing to be like Christ's glorious body: Philippians 3:21 - Bible Gateway. I assume you aren't denying this, right?

Kilk1 · Mar 4, 2021

parousia70 said:
David Curtis explains how the wording DOES indeed specify, better than I can.

Berean Bible Church: Up, Up and Away - the Rapture: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

This is the verse that the physical rapture theory comes from. A little time spent looking at the Greek words should quickly dispel many false notions.

Let's start with the first word in the verses -the word "then." This is the Greek word epeita. Normally, when a sequence of events is described, the simple word eita "then" is used. Eita is best translated as "at that time" or "next". Eita is used to indicate an immediate sequence. We see this in:

John 19:26-27 (NKJV) When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then (eita)He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
This is a series of events - one immediately after the other.

But in our text, the Greek word is not eita but epeita, which is essentially the same Greek word with an "epi" prefix. This has the effect of affixing the word "after" to the word "then", and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time",and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.

Let's look at some other uses of epeita to get a clearer idea of its meaning:

Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.

Galatians 1:21 (NKJV) Afterward (epeita) I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Paul probably went first to the main seaport, Caesarea, and sailed from there to Tarsus, his birthplace (Acts 9:30). He probably then went from Tarsus, in the region of Cilicia, to Syria. It was a while after he left Jerusalem that he got to Syria and Cilicia.

Galatians 2:1 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
Epeita here involves fourteen years.

1 Corinthians 15:23 (NKJV) But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward (epeita) those who are Christ's at His coming.
Epeita here is referring to a period of forty years. The idea is: "what came at some time afterwards, after that time, not at that time."

Now look at 1 Cor 15:5-8:

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.

The point is, that the form of the word for "then"used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (after that time) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
What would be the point of saying "the dead in Christ will rise first," if the living were to be also caught up and changed at almost the same time? Paul is saying that at the return of Christ the dead in Christ will be resurrected, after that time the living will be "caught up" with them in the clouds at their physical death.

It's interesting to see the layers of meaning between eita and epeita, and it could be that epeita is more intense. However, I don't think that epeita has to require a long length of time; its main meaning seems to refer to what's next in succession.

Such would appear to be the case in Mark 7:5, "Then [epeita] the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, 'Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?'" The idea of epeita here is simply "next." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the meaning here doesn't seem to be that there's a long gap of time between verse 5 and verses 1-4.

There's also John 11:6-7, "So, when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place where He was. Then [epeita] after this He said to the disciples, 'Let us go to Judea again.'" Here, epeita is used for a two-day time period.

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:28 says, "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that [epeita] miracles, then [eita] gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues." Clearly, epeita has the "next in sucession" meaning here, and I assume we agree that eita does as well.

Hebrews 7:27 discusses how the high priests would daily offer up sacrifices for their own sins "and then [epeita] for the people’s." This doesn't suggest a long gap of time, does it?

With these passages in mind, I'd say the word usage of epeita is broad enough that all it needs to mean in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is "next." It could involve a small gap of time or a large gap in time, but Paul's point is simply "that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep" (1 Thessalonians 4:15). The dead will rise first, then the living will be taken up after.

How do full preterists interpret these passages?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency