There are certain phrases that are meant to put us at ease by some Bible teachers, and disarm us from being too critical of a particular interpretation in terms of how faithful it is. Some phrases exist to sneak in ideas that ultimately reject the teaching of the Bible while at the same time explicitly affirming a faithfulness to what the Bible teaches. Let's talk about one of these today.
The phrase, "the Bible interprets the Bible" is something I hear quite a bit these days, and like most bumper sticker theology, it's an idea that is widely misunderstood. What most people think this means is that we just harmonize all texts together, as though the entire Bible is the context for a particular word or phrase. But that, in my estimation, skips a vital step in being linguistically responsible with language and letting context speak for itself.
The canon certainly is the context of the books therein, but the immediate contexts have to be considered first and then branched out from there. Otherwise, one can, and often does, replace the actual context of something that is said with a foreign context, making it say something completely different than what was intended by the individual author of that particular book in the Bible.
Context is king when understood to grow out from the smaller contexts to the larger. So, for instance, I understand that John uses the word pneuma in John 3:8 in two different ways, precisely, because I start at the micro-context before placing it within its macro-context of the entire canon, or even the Gospel of John as a whole. At the clausal and paragraph level, I can see that one use of pneuma refers to the Spirit of God/Holy Spirit, and the other refers to the wind. The other words that form its context in the sentence (e.g., blows, hear the sound, where it comes from, where it goes, etc.) informs the reader that literal wind is in view. But the larger subject at the paragraph level informs the reader that the other use of pneuma here speaks of the Holy Spirit who causes a spiritual rebirth by which men who are now born of Him speak and conduct their lives.
Indeed, this then connects to the larger theology of John in his Gospel that teaches us about the necessity of the regeneration of the Spirit and that such cannot be seen physically, since true worshipers are those who worship God through the Spirit and truth, rather than through their physical ethnicity.
We can then apply this teaching to the larger teaching concerning the Holy Spirit and regeneration throughout the Bible as its larger context that shows us the Word and witness of those born of Him.
But what if I looked at all of the texts that deal with wind in the Bible and concluded that these must be the immediate context for the word pneuma? I would see that the word is often used for the wind of God that looks much like a storm. I would have to conclude that this refers to a storm, and that this is really talking about being born from the storms of life, which are trials. Now I just turned what was a theology of unconditional election and the regenerating (monergistic) work of the Holy Spirit into a works-based reward system for those who persevere through trials in life and yet still obey God.
This is what happens when one ignores how language works. The "Bible interprets the Bible" credo does not mean one rips two passages out of context, strings them together to provide a totally new context for each, and suddenly we get what God meant by all of it. What it does mean is that we interpret each text within its own context, then look at the larger section of the book, then the larger book, then the group of books by that author, then other books of that genre, then section of the canon, then the canon, all passages being taken within their own contexts first and then brought together to complement and often restrict our thinking concerning the subject matter.
That takes language seriously, and we ought to take it seriously because God used it to communicate to us His truth.
You can do this with anything, and people often do. Cults do this all the time. Try and get a JW to stay on one passage at a time. Good luck. If he does that, he loses the debate. By ignoring the immediate context one can make a passage say anything by using other Bible verses as their context, and so cults love doing this because they can support whatever heretical theology they desire by such a faulty methodology. Liberals go the other way and never bring the actual teachings of the passages and books together--this largely due to their presuppositions concerning what the Bible is as a human book about God rather than a divine book written through humans. But this does not justify a sloppy reading where we mesh everything together while ignoring the actual context in which it is said.
Try this with the word "world" in John's writings. By the end of it, one will have God loving the wicked practices and thinking that is hostile to Him. Try it with the word "flesh" in Paul's writings. By the end of that reading, one will have to conclude that Paul lives in the flesh by faith in the Son of God, which he tells us that those who live in the flesh must die and do not know Christ.
Absurdities are multiplied when we ignore how language works. In fact, I would change the phrase completely. The Bible does not interpret the Bible. An interpreter interprets the Bible using either a good or bad methodology of understanding the language used in context, along with understanding what contexts need to be considered primary. But the Bible does not interpret individual passages or books for us. The Bible teaches us the whole counsel of God on a subject and it does so by teaching us individual elements of that subject in every context first. It teaches us a larger theology and ethic through the books that then can be put together in a display of the continuity it has with itself. But one part of the Bible does not interpret another part. The immediate context of the passage and book provides what is needed for interpretation. The Bible supplies the missing elements of the whole counsel of God that an individual passage or book does not possess within itself, and so must be joined to the rest in order to fill out the bigger picture.
So no more of this sloppy prooftexting, where one runs around the Bible when a context doesn't provide the interpretation he wants. It is simply another way of rejecting the Bible, even while explicitly affirming one's faith in it.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Is Preterism Heresy?
There are many ways to answer that question: biblically, theologically, historically, and socially. I'll attempt to come at it at every angle mentioned above in reverse order.
1. Socially we must speak of "heresy" as division, since that is really from whence the term comes. Preterism certainly has caused major divisions in its aggressiveness to undermine all other eschatological systems. In this way, it seems as though it cannot tolerate other systems well, and indeed, must continually assert itself over more important matters of faith. Indeed, it seems to become a core doctrine of the faith for many Preterists as it consumes much of their time and energy. Often, Preterists would rather end whole churches than cease and desist from making it an issue. For this reason, it can be a social heresy (but, of course, many things can be in this sense).
2. Historically, all eschatological positions are in line with what Christians have declared in the creeds. All except one that is: Preterism. Because of its denial of the Second Coming of Christ in the flesh, the bodily resurrection (i.e., that this earthly body will be redeemed and transformed), the future judgment, etc., it sets itself up against the creeds and what "all Christians everywhere" have believed within the historic orthodox Christian Church. It flies in the face, in fact, of the early Apostle's Creed upon which almost all subsequent creeds are based. For this reason, it is a historical heresy.
3. Theologically, Preterism undermines core doctrines of the Christian faith that have to do with the nature of man and sometimes even that of Christ. It must posit the gnostic idea that man is merely a spirit clothed in flesh rather than an inspirited physical creature made up of body and spirit intermingled. This distorts all humans, what is saved by Christ, and Christ's nature as well, since Christ's body would merely be a shell as well, and not make up a major element of who He is (i.e., a denial of His human nature in terms of what makes up the human nature). It also denies what the gospel accomplishes (what Christ gains for Himself is gained for us, but what is not gained for Himself cannot be obtained by us, i.e., a different body or a state of existence as spirits). There is simply a profound misunderstanding of the gospel in Preterism. One might say that Preterism only denies these by a logical entailment that is only sometimes, but not always, pursued to the fullest by Preterists; but this would merely be walking the line much like other heretical views that are rejected by the church more for what they imply than what is explicitly affirmed. For this reason, Preterism is a theological heresy.
Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, we come to whether it is a biblical heresy. Apart from what can be inferred from above, there are two key passages that may help us answer this question.
The first is a commonly discussed passage by both sides:
2 Timothy 2:16-19:
But stand clear of godless foolish talk, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [men] who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness."
Some observations here:
a. Paul calls this ungodly and cancer.
b. He states that those who teach this have gone astray from the truth.
c. He seems to suggest that those who teach this do not belong to God in contrast to those who are known by the Lord.
Now, what is this teaching that states the resurrection had already occurred?
Preterists like to argue that this proves that the resurrection must have been seen as a spiritual event, since the heretics are able to argue this way and convince people that it had already taken place.
Whereas this is an interesting deflection, what seems to escape their notice is that the more likely interpretation in a proto-gnostic context is that these heretics were spiritualizing the physical resurrection and arguing that it had already taken place. This follows the pattern of those who deny that Jesus is coming in the flesh, which brings me to the other passage that is not so well discussed.
2 John 1:7:
Many translations simply get this text wrong, and thus, it is widely unknown to most Preterists. The assumption seems to be that John is talking about the same thing he was talking about in 1 John, i.e., that Jesus had come in the flesh (i.e., physically as opposed to spiritually in the way the Docetic Gnostics argued).
However, one must remember that these letters don't provide the context for one another, as they are different written works. They may provide some context to the author's overall thinking, but they need to be read as distinct works first.
This brings us to an important point. In 1 John, John uses the Perfect or Aorist to refer to Christ's incarnation and earthly ministry, never the Present.
In this verse, however, John uses the Present Participle ἐρχόμενον. In a colossal mistake, most translations translate them the same, likely due to confusing the phrase with the Perfect Participle in 1 John 4:2 and 5:6, but in fact, they are not the same. The Present Participle is used to refer to Christ's Coming in the Synoptics, i.e., "is coming" (Matt 16:28; 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27).
Hence, in the Greek, the text reads:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into [your] house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Notice, the one who denies that Christ is coming in the flesh is a deceiver and antichrist, one who will not receive a full reward, and who does not have God. He is not to be received into the church or even greeted. So whatever this is, it is an example of heresy, and it has to do with not confessing that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh.
To bring back a statement from 1 John, "when He appears we will be like Him," Christ must actually appear (a word that describes one making oneself physically visible) in order for us to be made like Him (and as I argued before, this refers to our physical bodies).
Hence, it is probable that John is saying that a failure to confess that Jesus is coming in the flesh/physically, and to argue that He returns spiritually in some way, not merely in micro-events that foreshadow the macro, but as the only macro event itself, is to be of the deceiver and antichrist (i.e., replacing Christ and His work with another christ and another work). For this reason, Preterism is a biblical heresy.
The issue at this point becomes one where we discuss how we deal with individuals who have fallen into this, or any, heresy in love. A thorough effort to teach the teachable should be made with blood, sweat, and tears. Lots of prayer for the individuals and lots of conversations to make sure that they are not simply deceived sheep who need to be led to less polluted waters. Love for God, the purity of His flock, and then the individuals who have gone astray should be our motivating influence in that order.
The charge of heresy also should not replace a thoughtful dialogue in seeking this reconciliation, as many have sought to use it as an ad hominem rather than engage in serious conversation.
However, once it is evident that they are dug in and not going to be teachable anymore, it is then that John's instruction becomes relevant, and we, sadly, must move on from them and withdraw the hand of fellowship, as the Apostle commands.
1. Socially we must speak of "heresy" as division, since that is really from whence the term comes. Preterism certainly has caused major divisions in its aggressiveness to undermine all other eschatological systems. In this way, it seems as though it cannot tolerate other systems well, and indeed, must continually assert itself over more important matters of faith. Indeed, it seems to become a core doctrine of the faith for many Preterists as it consumes much of their time and energy. Often, Preterists would rather end whole churches than cease and desist from making it an issue. For this reason, it can be a social heresy (but, of course, many things can be in this sense).
2. Historically, all eschatological positions are in line with what Christians have declared in the creeds. All except one that is: Preterism. Because of its denial of the Second Coming of Christ in the flesh, the bodily resurrection (i.e., that this earthly body will be redeemed and transformed), the future judgment, etc., it sets itself up against the creeds and what "all Christians everywhere" have believed within the historic orthodox Christian Church. It flies in the face, in fact, of the early Apostle's Creed upon which almost all subsequent creeds are based. For this reason, it is a historical heresy.
3. Theologically, Preterism undermines core doctrines of the Christian faith that have to do with the nature of man and sometimes even that of Christ. It must posit the gnostic idea that man is merely a spirit clothed in flesh rather than an inspirited physical creature made up of body and spirit intermingled. This distorts all humans, what is saved by Christ, and Christ's nature as well, since Christ's body would merely be a shell as well, and not make up a major element of who He is (i.e., a denial of His human nature in terms of what makes up the human nature). It also denies what the gospel accomplishes (what Christ gains for Himself is gained for us, but what is not gained for Himself cannot be obtained by us, i.e., a different body or a state of existence as spirits). There is simply a profound misunderstanding of the gospel in Preterism. One might say that Preterism only denies these by a logical entailment that is only sometimes, but not always, pursued to the fullest by Preterists; but this would merely be walking the line much like other heretical views that are rejected by the church more for what they imply than what is explicitly affirmed. For this reason, Preterism is a theological heresy.
Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, we come to whether it is a biblical heresy. Apart from what can be inferred from above, there are two key passages that may help us answer this question.
The first is a commonly discussed passage by both sides:
2 Timothy 2:16-19:
But stand clear of godless foolish talk, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [men] who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness."
Some observations here:
a. Paul calls this ungodly and cancer.
b. He states that those who teach this have gone astray from the truth.
c. He seems to suggest that those who teach this do not belong to God in contrast to those who are known by the Lord.
Now, what is this teaching that states the resurrection had already occurred?
Preterists like to argue that this proves that the resurrection must have been seen as a spiritual event, since the heretics are able to argue this way and convince people that it had already taken place.
Whereas this is an interesting deflection, what seems to escape their notice is that the more likely interpretation in a proto-gnostic context is that these heretics were spiritualizing the physical resurrection and arguing that it had already taken place. This follows the pattern of those who deny that Jesus is coming in the flesh, which brings me to the other passage that is not so well discussed.
2 John 1:7:
Many translations simply get this text wrong, and thus, it is widely unknown to most Preterists. The assumption seems to be that John is talking about the same thing he was talking about in 1 John, i.e., that Jesus had come in the flesh (i.e., physically as opposed to spiritually in the way the Docetic Gnostics argued).
However, one must remember that these letters don't provide the context for one another, as they are different written works. They may provide some context to the author's overall thinking, but they need to be read as distinct works first.
This brings us to an important point. In 1 John, John uses the Perfect or Aorist to refer to Christ's incarnation and earthly ministry, never the Present.
In this verse, however, John uses the Present Participle ἐρχόμενον. In a colossal mistake, most translations translate them the same, likely due to confusing the phrase with the Perfect Participle in 1 John 4:2 and 5:6, but in fact, they are not the same. The Present Participle is used to refer to Christ's Coming in the Synoptics, i.e., "is coming" (Matt 16:28; 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27).
Hence, in the Greek, the text reads:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into [your] house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Notice, the one who denies that Christ is coming in the flesh is a deceiver and antichrist, one who will not receive a full reward, and who does not have God. He is not to be received into the church or even greeted. So whatever this is, it is an example of heresy, and it has to do with not confessing that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh.
To bring back a statement from 1 John, "when He appears we will be like Him," Christ must actually appear (a word that describes one making oneself physically visible) in order for us to be made like Him (and as I argued before, this refers to our physical bodies).
Hence, it is probable that John is saying that a failure to confess that Jesus is coming in the flesh/physically, and to argue that He returns spiritually in some way, not merely in micro-events that foreshadow the macro, but as the only macro event itself, is to be of the deceiver and antichrist (i.e., replacing Christ and His work with another christ and another work). For this reason, Preterism is a biblical heresy.
The issue at this point becomes one where we discuss how we deal with individuals who have fallen into this, or any, heresy in love. A thorough effort to teach the teachable should be made with blood, sweat, and tears. Lots of prayer for the individuals and lots of conversations to make sure that they are not simply deceived sheep who need to be led to less polluted waters. Love for God, the purity of His flock, and then the individuals who have gone astray should be our motivating influence in that order.
The charge of heresy also should not replace a thoughtful dialogue in seeking this reconciliation, as many have sought to use it as an ad hominem rather than engage in serious conversation.
However, once it is evident that they are dug in and not going to be teachable anymore, it is then that John's instruction becomes relevant, and we, sadly, must move on from them and withdraw the hand of fellowship, as the Apostle commands.
On the Resurrection, PART VI
I wanted to address what is probably a more popular Preterist view that interprets the "body" in resurrection passages to refer to the church, i.e., the corporate body. The exegesis, as we have seen already, refutes this idea. The resurrection is based in Christ's resurrection, which is of a physical nature, not a spiritual one. Christ isn't spiritually raised from the dead, and His resurrection corresponds to ours in terms of a transformation of this earthly, mortal body into a spiritual, immortal body.
What Preterists seem to do is to ignore that this argument in Scripture is not an analogy, but a result of how Christ saves us. What He obtains for Himself, He obtains for us. If Christ obtains the kingdom, we obtain the kingdom. If Christ obtains all things, we obtain all things. If Christ is saved, we are saved. If Christ dies, we die. If Christ is raised bodily, we are raised bodily.
This isn't an analogy. An analogy can merely intersect at a single point. Hence, we do have what could be construed as an analogy with the resurrection in Romans 6 (i.e., because Christ was raised, our spirits can be given life and we can then walk in that new life), but even this is meant to argue that resurrection has two phases to it (one where the spirit must be given life and then the body that follows). In fact, that is Paul's entire argument when one considers the whole of Romans 1-8, and does not take Chapter 6 out of context. But the argument Paul makes in this and other passages, such as in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 4-5, Philippians3:20-21, etc. is not an analogy between the physical and the spirit in these contexts, but rather a correspondence between what Christ receives and what we, as those who are unified as one in Him, will receive as a result of that unification. Hence, it cannot be construed as an analogy or metaphor.
The "analogy" between the bodily resurrection and the spirit merely exists because Paul makes the "already/not yet" distinction that Christ makes between regeneration and resurrection. His argument is essentially that of Christ's in the Gospel of John that says that whoever will partake in the resurrection tomorrow must first partake of regeneration today (see John 5:25-29). There is no resurrection (a regeneration and transformation of the body), then, without first being regenerated (a coming to life of the spirit), and this is why the analogy of resurrection can be used to represent the spiritual enlivening. However, the NT is also careful to never call the spiritual "resurrection" a resurrection (anastasis). Instead, resurrection language is used for regeneration (e.g., "we may walk in newness of life [Rom 6:4], "made us alive together in Christ" [Eph 2:4; Col 2:13], "raised together with Him" [Col 2:12], although note that these passages reflect what is positionally done for us, not necessarily what has been full realized by us), but this displays only that such is a prerequisite using language trading on the analogous imagery of our future bodily resurrection and not the thing itself.
However, if one notices, even in these contexts, the referent is the individual, not the corporate body. The attempt to argue that plurals are used has no force to it, as simply because the apostle addresses the group as a plural does not prove one way or the other that he is merely speaking of what is true of the group as a whole. In fact, such language most often addresses the individuals within a collective, not the collective as a singular entity, which would actually be addressed more with the pronominal "it." If anything, then, the use of the plural "we," or "you" would indicate that individuals within the group are being addressed and not the group as a whole entity (cf. Israel or the Church being referred to as a singular masculine or feminine pronoun, singular demonstrative, or a 3ms verbal form). Hence, if the plural pronouns lean in any direction, it is the direction of taking these statements as directed at the individuals of the corporate group as individuals, not as something that happens to the collective as a singular entity. In other words, what is true concerning X is true of each and every individual of Group Y. What this means is that each individual must be bodily raised from the dead, as the corporate group has no physical body to be raised, nor is it being addressed.
Now, what is attempted by some Preterists is to argue that the "body" in resurrection texts is actually the corporate body of the Church, as in "the body of Christ" metaphor that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 and Ephesians 2:15, 3:6, and 4:4, 12.
Hence, when passages like Romans 8 or Philippians 3 or 1 Corinthians 15 use the word "body" these texts are merely continuing this metaphor.
There are a few major problems with this view that make it an eisegetical error rather than an exegetically valid interpretation.
1. It's linguistically fallacious to transfer a contextual referent from one passage to another. Nowhere in the contexts of texts like 1 Cor 15, Phil 3, or Rom 8 does Paul use the body of Christ metaphor as the collective church. The context of these passages is the individual.
2. The Body of Christ is never referred to as "our body." Yet, in these texts, the body being raised is ours, not Christ's. This seems obvious. The Body of Christ, or Christ's Body, can refer to His actual physical body or the church in certain contexts, but the term "our body," "your bodies," etc. isn't the metaphor that Paul uses elsewhere.
3. In Romans 8:11, the term is "our bodies," a plural, which is not only never used to refer to the singular body of Christ, but wouldn't be, as Christ does not have multiple "bodies," but rather we are told in the analogy of Ephesians 4:4 that there is, in fact, only one body when it comes to the body of Christ.
4. The body that is raised is also called things like "mortal/dead," "corruptible," "perishing," "without honor," etc. Yet, this cannot be true of Christ's Church, which has been brought to life, purified, eternal, seated in the heavenly places with Christ in exaltation, etc.
5. The body of Christ analogy also trades on the idea that we are one with Christ right now. We were joined to Him when we believed. Hence, what is true of Christ right now is also true of His body right now. Since this is the case, the resurrection could not be a future event of the collective spiritual body, since what is true of Christ now is already true of the spiritual collective body of Christ. What is not a realized experience of those in the body of Christ is the future resurrection, even though Christ has already been raised in His own physical body. It is, instead, our bodies that have not entered into Christ and been redeemed yet, and hence, we await this hope as a promise from God verified by the fact that He has given life to His Church through Christ already. But Preterism requires a future resurrection from the time that Paul wrote these things, since Paul himself speaks of the resurrection as a future event (the aspect of expectation) from himself. In other words, the spiritual work of bringing to life the one new man, the body of Christ, through the Spirit has already occurred at the time Paul writes. There is nothing left, therefore, to raise but the individual bodies of believers.
6. From a historical-redemptive view, if Christ does not redeem our bodies, then what was lost is not redeemed, as redemption holds the idea of buying back something in order to restore it. This is where the gnostic tendencies within Preterism come into play. The human is just a spirit in a body, not an ensouled body, as Genesis 2 tells us. What we have in Preterism is a loose end, where a person's body, which I will argue is a huge part of what makes up that person, is lost and never saved. Hence, only part of a person is saved, not the whole human being. The goal of God's salvific plan to redeem and restore the humans He made is never realized, as He must now throw away a huge part of what makes them up. Humans, as the Bible defines them, therefore, are never really saved. This is why Preterism must believe in a non-biblical view of humanity and alternate plan of redemption in order to say that God saves people. I think it is related somewhat to the failure to distinguish between ordo and historia salutis (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycX2TTNnZms). If we understand that Christ is fulfilling a redemptive history of the humanity, body and soul, that was lost in terms of the historia salutis, then we understand that this is what has been, and will be, applied to us in terms of the ordo salutis, i.e., a complete restoration of humanity as existing in the ensouled body. This is why even the physical creation groans/longs for redemption of God's children so that it will be restored as well (note that the word κτίσις is used both in Romans, and everywhere else in the New Testament, to refer to the created cosmos when not speaking of a believer as a creation, which it obviously does not here- I would even include here the 2d Century ending of Mark where the disciples are to proclaim the gospel to all of creation). Thus, the entire physical world under redeemed humanity will be redeemed because they have been, not merely spiritually redeemed, but physically redeemed as well.
7. If resurrection is merely a corporate spiritual event, and the body is to be discarded, why is our work in sanctification always wrapped around the body? God sanctifies His people when they are saved (1 Cor 1:2; 6:11). This refers to the regeneration of the spirit/conscience when it has been cleansed and set apart for God to walk in newness of life. That's why the Corinthians can be addressed as "sanctified ones," and those who were "washed" and "cleansed," yet they are in need of sanctification as immature and corrupt. Yet, sanctification is still needed of the body because it too will enter life. If it is not going to enter into life, and the spirit is already sanctified, what exactly is the point of sanctifying the body? The proto-gnostics were correct to conclude that if the body is just going to be discarded in the end, then one ought to just eat and drink for tomorrow we die. Paul agrees with this assessment in 1 Cor 15:32.
I realize there may be avenues out of this particular conundrum, but I offer it up merely as something to be considered, since the idea that one needs to sanctify his body is consistent with a view toward a bodily resurrection, but not necessarily in view of a bodiless resurrection.
In any case, I wish to now summarize the argument in Romans1-8 in order to show that, contextually speaking, it is simply implausible to take the body referred to in Romans 8 as the corporate body of the Church.
Romans 1-3: All men are corrupt and under the judgment of God.
Romans 3-4: Hence, faith has always been necessary for us to be forgiven.
Romans 5: Our sin problem, however, must be dealt with, so Paul begins a discussion concerning its roots in Adam.
Romans 6: God takes us out of Adam when we have faith in Christ, unites us to Christ, puts the old man to death, and gives life to our spirits.
Romans 6-7: However, even though the spirit has been given new life, the body is still unredeemed and carries the old man with it. Hence, a war breaks out between the desire of the flesh, evidenced in the parts of one's body, that desires to be a slave to sin, and the desire of the spirit that wishes to be a slave to righteousness.
Romans 7: Paul explains that the law only increases the problem because it expresses a desire for righteousness that is external and adversarial to the nature of the flesh, causing Paul to enter into despair and to cry out, saying, "Who will save me from this body of death?"
Romans 8: The answer is that Christ has already saved us in an already-not yet framework, so that we can seek to live and take victorious refuge in the spirit He has regenerated while we eagerly await, along with the rest of creation, the redemption of our body in glorification (a process described as the goal of God from our predestination on forward, a divinely set destiny from which nothing can separate us; and thus, we may take comfort and hope in that).
Now, this is the context for the word "body." This is the context for the phrase "our bodies" and "our body." Denying this is nothing short of ignoring the context, and committing numerous exegetical fallacies, all in the effort to save a doctrinal position that misunderstands even the central texts (i.e., the Olivet Discourse texts within the Synoptics) with which this text is being reinterpreted in order to harmonize with that misunderstanding.
But let's look at another one. Philippians 3:20-21 states:
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
Notice a few things here. A transformation of the body of our humble state into into σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ a shared physical form with His glorified body. In other words, our body will match His. He can do this because He has the power to subject all things to Himself, and that includes even the wayward body.
Notice, as in Romans 8, we eagerly await for this to occur because we are still at war with our unredeemed bodies. This is in contrast to those who indulge in the flesh and whose appetite is their god (v. 19).
Here, the contrast is between the bodies we have now and Christ's body. How would this refer to Christ's Body as contrasted with Christ's Body if both bodies referred to the same thing? And if there is a distinction to be drawn out, what is it? A spiritual one where we who have already been made like Christ in our spirits will be made like Christ in our spirits, and so we eagerly await what we already have completely?
Again, it makes no sense to take this as anything else but referring to our physical bodies. Hence, it is "our" body, and this body is in a lowly state that must be glorified in the future, as it will be transformed into conformity with His glorified body as an act of Christ causing all things to submit to Him as their Lord.
What Preterists seem to do is to ignore that this argument in Scripture is not an analogy, but a result of how Christ saves us. What He obtains for Himself, He obtains for us. If Christ obtains the kingdom, we obtain the kingdom. If Christ obtains all things, we obtain all things. If Christ is saved, we are saved. If Christ dies, we die. If Christ is raised bodily, we are raised bodily.
This isn't an analogy. An analogy can merely intersect at a single point. Hence, we do have what could be construed as an analogy with the resurrection in Romans 6 (i.e., because Christ was raised, our spirits can be given life and we can then walk in that new life), but even this is meant to argue that resurrection has two phases to it (one where the spirit must be given life and then the body that follows). In fact, that is Paul's entire argument when one considers the whole of Romans 1-8, and does not take Chapter 6 out of context. But the argument Paul makes in this and other passages, such as in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 4-5, Philippians3:20-21, etc. is not an analogy between the physical and the spirit in these contexts, but rather a correspondence between what Christ receives and what we, as those who are unified as one in Him, will receive as a result of that unification. Hence, it cannot be construed as an analogy or metaphor.
The "analogy" between the bodily resurrection and the spirit merely exists because Paul makes the "already/not yet" distinction that Christ makes between regeneration and resurrection. His argument is essentially that of Christ's in the Gospel of John that says that whoever will partake in the resurrection tomorrow must first partake of regeneration today (see John 5:25-29). There is no resurrection (a regeneration and transformation of the body), then, without first being regenerated (a coming to life of the spirit), and this is why the analogy of resurrection can be used to represent the spiritual enlivening. However, the NT is also careful to never call the spiritual "resurrection" a resurrection (anastasis). Instead, resurrection language is used for regeneration (e.g., "we may walk in newness of life [Rom 6:4], "made us alive together in Christ" [Eph 2:4; Col 2:13], "raised together with Him" [Col 2:12], although note that these passages reflect what is positionally done for us, not necessarily what has been full realized by us), but this displays only that such is a prerequisite using language trading on the analogous imagery of our future bodily resurrection and not the thing itself.
However, if one notices, even in these contexts, the referent is the individual, not the corporate body. The attempt to argue that plurals are used has no force to it, as simply because the apostle addresses the group as a plural does not prove one way or the other that he is merely speaking of what is true of the group as a whole. In fact, such language most often addresses the individuals within a collective, not the collective as a singular entity, which would actually be addressed more with the pronominal "it." If anything, then, the use of the plural "we," or "you" would indicate that individuals within the group are being addressed and not the group as a whole entity (cf. Israel or the Church being referred to as a singular masculine or feminine pronoun, singular demonstrative, or a 3ms verbal form). Hence, if the plural pronouns lean in any direction, it is the direction of taking these statements as directed at the individuals of the corporate group as individuals, not as something that happens to the collective as a singular entity. In other words, what is true concerning X is true of each and every individual of Group Y. What this means is that each individual must be bodily raised from the dead, as the corporate group has no physical body to be raised, nor is it being addressed.
Now, what is attempted by some Preterists is to argue that the "body" in resurrection texts is actually the corporate body of the Church, as in "the body of Christ" metaphor that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 and Ephesians 2:15, 3:6, and 4:4, 12.
Hence, when passages like Romans 8 or Philippians 3 or 1 Corinthians 15 use the word "body" these texts are merely continuing this metaphor.
There are a few major problems with this view that make it an eisegetical error rather than an exegetically valid interpretation.
1. It's linguistically fallacious to transfer a contextual referent from one passage to another. Nowhere in the contexts of texts like 1 Cor 15, Phil 3, or Rom 8 does Paul use the body of Christ metaphor as the collective church. The context of these passages is the individual.
2. The Body of Christ is never referred to as "our body." Yet, in these texts, the body being raised is ours, not Christ's. This seems obvious. The Body of Christ, or Christ's Body, can refer to His actual physical body or the church in certain contexts, but the term "our body," "your bodies," etc. isn't the metaphor that Paul uses elsewhere.
3. In Romans 8:11, the term is "our bodies," a plural, which is not only never used to refer to the singular body of Christ, but wouldn't be, as Christ does not have multiple "bodies," but rather we are told in the analogy of Ephesians 4:4 that there is, in fact, only one body when it comes to the body of Christ.
4. The body that is raised is also called things like "mortal/dead," "corruptible," "perishing," "without honor," etc. Yet, this cannot be true of Christ's Church, which has been brought to life, purified, eternal, seated in the heavenly places with Christ in exaltation, etc.
5. The body of Christ analogy also trades on the idea that we are one with Christ right now. We were joined to Him when we believed. Hence, what is true of Christ right now is also true of His body right now. Since this is the case, the resurrection could not be a future event of the collective spiritual body, since what is true of Christ now is already true of the spiritual collective body of Christ. What is not a realized experience of those in the body of Christ is the future resurrection, even though Christ has already been raised in His own physical body. It is, instead, our bodies that have not entered into Christ and been redeemed yet, and hence, we await this hope as a promise from God verified by the fact that He has given life to His Church through Christ already. But Preterism requires a future resurrection from the time that Paul wrote these things, since Paul himself speaks of the resurrection as a future event (the aspect of expectation) from himself. In other words, the spiritual work of bringing to life the one new man, the body of Christ, through the Spirit has already occurred at the time Paul writes. There is nothing left, therefore, to raise but the individual bodies of believers.
6. From a historical-redemptive view, if Christ does not redeem our bodies, then what was lost is not redeemed, as redemption holds the idea of buying back something in order to restore it. This is where the gnostic tendencies within Preterism come into play. The human is just a spirit in a body, not an ensouled body, as Genesis 2 tells us. What we have in Preterism is a loose end, where a person's body, which I will argue is a huge part of what makes up that person, is lost and never saved. Hence, only part of a person is saved, not the whole human being. The goal of God's salvific plan to redeem and restore the humans He made is never realized, as He must now throw away a huge part of what makes them up. Humans, as the Bible defines them, therefore, are never really saved. This is why Preterism must believe in a non-biblical view of humanity and alternate plan of redemption in order to say that God saves people. I think it is related somewhat to the failure to distinguish between ordo and historia salutis (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycX2TTNnZms). If we understand that Christ is fulfilling a redemptive history of the humanity, body and soul, that was lost in terms of the historia salutis, then we understand that this is what has been, and will be, applied to us in terms of the ordo salutis, i.e., a complete restoration of humanity as existing in the ensouled body. This is why even the physical creation groans/longs for redemption of God's children so that it will be restored as well (note that the word κτίσις is used both in Romans, and everywhere else in the New Testament, to refer to the created cosmos when not speaking of a believer as a creation, which it obviously does not here- I would even include here the 2d Century ending of Mark where the disciples are to proclaim the gospel to all of creation). Thus, the entire physical world under redeemed humanity will be redeemed because they have been, not merely spiritually redeemed, but physically redeemed as well.
7. If resurrection is merely a corporate spiritual event, and the body is to be discarded, why is our work in sanctification always wrapped around the body? God sanctifies His people when they are saved (1 Cor 1:2; 6:11). This refers to the regeneration of the spirit/conscience when it has been cleansed and set apart for God to walk in newness of life. That's why the Corinthians can be addressed as "sanctified ones," and those who were "washed" and "cleansed," yet they are in need of sanctification as immature and corrupt. Yet, sanctification is still needed of the body because it too will enter life. If it is not going to enter into life, and the spirit is already sanctified, what exactly is the point of sanctifying the body? The proto-gnostics were correct to conclude that if the body is just going to be discarded in the end, then one ought to just eat and drink for tomorrow we die. Paul agrees with this assessment in 1 Cor 15:32.
I realize there may be avenues out of this particular conundrum, but I offer it up merely as something to be considered, since the idea that one needs to sanctify his body is consistent with a view toward a bodily resurrection, but not necessarily in view of a bodiless resurrection.
In any case, I wish to now summarize the argument in Romans1-8 in order to show that, contextually speaking, it is simply implausible to take the body referred to in Romans 8 as the corporate body of the Church.
Romans 1-3: All men are corrupt and under the judgment of God.
Romans 3-4: Hence, faith has always been necessary for us to be forgiven.
Romans 5: Our sin problem, however, must be dealt with, so Paul begins a discussion concerning its roots in Adam.
Romans 6: God takes us out of Adam when we have faith in Christ, unites us to Christ, puts the old man to death, and gives life to our spirits.
Romans 6-7: However, even though the spirit has been given new life, the body is still unredeemed and carries the old man with it. Hence, a war breaks out between the desire of the flesh, evidenced in the parts of one's body, that desires to be a slave to sin, and the desire of the spirit that wishes to be a slave to righteousness.
Romans 7: Paul explains that the law only increases the problem because it expresses a desire for righteousness that is external and adversarial to the nature of the flesh, causing Paul to enter into despair and to cry out, saying, "Who will save me from this body of death?"
Romans 8: The answer is that Christ has already saved us in an already-not yet framework, so that we can seek to live and take victorious refuge in the spirit He has regenerated while we eagerly await, along with the rest of creation, the redemption of our body in glorification (a process described as the goal of God from our predestination on forward, a divinely set destiny from which nothing can separate us; and thus, we may take comfort and hope in that).
Now, this is the context for the word "body." This is the context for the phrase "our bodies" and "our body." Denying this is nothing short of ignoring the context, and committing numerous exegetical fallacies, all in the effort to save a doctrinal position that misunderstands even the central texts (i.e., the Olivet Discourse texts within the Synoptics) with which this text is being reinterpreted in order to harmonize with that misunderstanding.
But let's look at another one. Philippians 3:20-21 states:
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
Notice a few things here. A transformation of the body of our humble state into into σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ a shared physical form with His glorified body. In other words, our body will match His. He can do this because He has the power to subject all things to Himself, and that includes even the wayward body.
Notice, as in Romans 8, we eagerly await for this to occur because we are still at war with our unredeemed bodies. This is in contrast to those who indulge in the flesh and whose appetite is their god (v. 19).
Here, the contrast is between the bodies we have now and Christ's body. How would this refer to Christ's Body as contrasted with Christ's Body if both bodies referred to the same thing? And if there is a distinction to be drawn out, what is it? A spiritual one where we who have already been made like Christ in our spirits will be made like Christ in our spirits, and so we eagerly await what we already have completely?
Again, it makes no sense to take this as anything else but referring to our physical bodies. Hence, it is "our" body, and this body is in a lowly state that must be glorified in the future, as it will be transformed into conformity with His glorified body as an act of Christ causing all things to submit to Him as their Lord.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Friday, July 4, 2014
On the Resurrection, PART V
In this installment, I want to pursue the Preterist argument given by Kelly Birks. Birks believes that the resurrection is one that occurs in heaven with those who have died. Hence, the dead are resurrected in heaven by way of their being given a new body that God has reserved in heaven for them. Subsequently, every believer who dies now receives that resurrected body when they die; but there is no resurrection of this body. The body that one has upon the earth dies and perishes. It is not redeemed.
You can see his argument here and here.
What I want to do is deal specifically with his argument concerning the resurrection, which will center on two arguments Birks makes from 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5, and also assumes from Matthew 24. I'll also look at what he says about John 5:25-29 briefly.
1 Corinthians 15
First, to get the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15, one can look back at this series. What I want to do, however, is show that Birks's argument commits quite a few exegetical fallacies when interpreting this text, and therefore gets this vital text very wrong.
Much of the argument centers on the nature of Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians of the "seed" that goes in the ground. He begins by making an argument from 1 Corinthians 15:38 that, since God gives the body to the believer, it means the believer does not have it already.
Therefore, God reserving something/storing something up for His people doesn’t mean that God literally has storehouses in heaven that are filled with food, riches, and bodies. This text isn’t communicating that there is a closet in heaven with racks of bodies waiting for believers. It isn't giving a literal geographic location of God's blessings. It merely makes reference to the same idea seen throughout Scripture, where God reserves something for believers that cannot be destroyed on earth. What He reserves here is the salvation of the body, whereby He supernaturally transforms a mortal body into an immortal one. But this text says nothing of it being a different body, only that the future body is of a different nature than the current mortal body. The difference, therefore, is between what characteristics make up the present body and the future body. There is no contrast between one body that is located here on earth and a completely different body that is located in heaven. Paul is not talking about the physical location of the body, but it indestructible nature as something that is reserved by the promise of God. In other words, he’s reading a very symbolic text incredibly literally at this point, and it ends up contradicting what Paul is actually saying here with his use of Mark 14:58.
Not Made with Human Hands
You can see his argument here and here.
What I want to do is deal specifically with his argument concerning the resurrection, which will center on two arguments Birks makes from 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5, and also assumes from Matthew 24. I'll also look at what he says about John 5:25-29 briefly.
1 Corinthians 15
First, to get the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15, one can look back at this series. What I want to do, however, is show that Birks's argument commits quite a few exegetical fallacies when interpreting this text, and therefore gets this vital text very wrong.
Much of the argument centers on the nature of Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians of the "seed" that goes in the ground. He begins by making an argument from 1 Corinthians 15:38 that, since God gives the body to the believer, it means the believer does not have it already.
Birks tells us that what leads him to interpret that it
is not this physical body is because the text says that God has to “give it/you a body.”
(15:20-21).
Birks makes two mistakes
here: (1) he simply ignores the antecedent of “it,” and (2) he seems to ignore that the believer not currently being in possession of the future, immortal body says nothing as to whether that future, immortal body is made from this present, mortal one, as Paul indicates by the seed analogy and elsewhere explicitly.
But let's talk about the first thing he misses. To what is God giving a body? In
the context, it’s the seed that is sown in the ground, which represents the
mortal body that has gone into the ground. "It" refers back to the kokkon "kernel," not "believer," which does not even appear in the context. Birks has to make “it” refer to the believer,
which is not the antecedent and nowhere in the context, and then, add his
Gnostic view of what makes a human by understanding "the believer" to primarily
be a spirit (i.e., his true self). The spirit of the believer, then, is given a
body. Quite an exegetical magic trick.
By doing this, he has completely misunderstood the analogy and ignored the grammar
simply because he must maintain a theological position that allows for him to
continue to uphold the Bible as God’s Word. In other words, he’s painted
himself into a corner and now must paint all Scripture into that same corner.
But nowhere in the context can “it” refer to the believer as a spirit. That’s
simply eisegetical to the point of making the text say the exact opposite of
what it does say. So the body is not being given to a spirit, but to the kokkon gumnon "bare seed" that is sown.
Because of this, he ignores what Paul is actually saying in v. 36 as well: "that which is sown does not come to life unless it dies." Notice, what comes to life is what dies. Now, the spirit has already been raised and will never die, according to Pauline theology and Christ's words in John. The spirit, therefore, does not die and come to life. What dies and comes to life is the seed, which represents the body in the analogy.
What Birks does is make the seed the entire believer, body and soul, and then argue that just the outer husk of the seed dies and the inner kernel does not. That inner kernel, then, is the spirit to which God gives a body.
There are two problems with this, however:
1. Paul says that which DIES is that which comes to life. The spirit never dies. The body does. It is the body that we put in the ground like a seed. The spirit doesn't go into the ground, so the whole believer is never put into the ground anyway. Only the body that dies, therefore, the actual subject Paul is talking about, can potentially be brought to life. The same that dies is the same that comes to life. If it were merely a husk that dies, then it must be the husk that comes to life (Paul's equation is essentially A does X in order to do Y. A, therefore, is the same that does both X and Y. The spirit does not do X and therefore cannot be that which does Y. Only the body qualifies, and hence, only the body can do Y, since it also does X (cf. Rom 8:11, 23).
2. Birks assumes agrarian knowledge that Paul wouldn't have believed. The ancients thought that the entire seed died, and from that, a plant was formed. Hence, the analogy is of whatever completely dies and is then brought to life and given a new body, not in the sense that the new body is not from the old one, but in the sense that the new body is of a different nature than the new one. Hence, God has given "it," that is, the old body, the dead seed, a new body. But it is clear that this new body is given to the dead seed, i.e., which represents the body.
He
then proceeds on his assumed interpretation here to argue that what is given is
not yet possessed. Since we do not have the spiritual body yet, it cannot be
that the spiritual body is made from the mortal body. Of course, it seems to
have escaped his notice that one with a mortal body does not yet have a
spiritual body, nor is it the spirit to which is being referred as being given
a body, but the bare seed that Paul links by way of analogy to the mortal body.
The bare seed is given a body (whether turning it into wheat or something
else). It is clear then that “giving” here is talking about the formation of
one form from another, as a plant is formed from a seed (hence, it is another
way of talking about what is raised out of the ground from the bare seed that
has been buried in the ground). There is no spirit of the seed that is then
given to a completely disconnected plant that God makes elsewhere. The wheat
branch comes forth from the naked seed, naked until it receives what it will
turn into. The final form of the seed is its divinely given clothing, it’s
body. That is the analogy here that Birks simply ignores. Hence, he argues that
the “seed” is a “disembodied, justified, saved spirit [that] gets a body” (SCS
9:136:07-09) when, in fact, the seed that dies in the text is the very thing
that is raised. This cannot be speaking of the spirit that has already been
resurrected by Christ and will never die.
This is further made clear by the comparisons made between the mortal and immortal bodies. The distinction is in their natures, not their identities as a singular body.
Hence, in vv. 42-44. "It" is sown in decay. "It" is raised in immortality. "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.
Not only does the "it" that exists in each verb grammatically linked by virtue of the logic of the contextual antecedent, but we know they are all linked by virtue of the analogy of the "sowing" that refers back to the seed/body analogy. As the dead seed is put into the ground, so the dead body is put into the ground. As the dead seed is brought to life and given a new form, the dead body is brought to life and given a new form. That is the logic of the grammar and the analogy that Paul is using. Birks has to create foreign referents that are not in the context and ignore the grammar and syntactical antecedents in order to make his eisegetical argument.
2 Corinthians 5
In Heaven
He
then uses this to interpret 2 Cor 5 to be saying that there is another eternal
body, in distinction from this temporal body, that exists currently in the
heavens. He identifies the phrase, "not made with human hands" as something that cannot refer to God making a body out of this body, since this body is natural (a rather odd argument to us, since Paul just argued in 1 Corinthians 15 that God makes the spiritual body from the natural one). He also interprets the phrase, "reserved in heaven" as the literal geographic location of this other body that cannot, therefore, be located on earth, and is therefore some other body than the one which believer's currently have.
One of the many problems with this interpretation is that it
ignores the fact that God sets the eternal prize as something that is reserved
for the believer in His mind in terms
of what He is going to do for the believer in the future. It is a promise made by God of something future, not something literally stored in some closet in heaven.
Let's look at some verses that talk about God having things stored in heaven, or reserved in heaven for His people.
Deut
28:11-12 "The Lord will make you abound in prosperity, in the offspring of
your body and in the offspring of your beast and in the produce of your ground,
in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give you. The Lord will
open for you His good storehouse , the heavens, to give rain to your land in
its season and to bless all the work of your hand; and you shall lend to many
nations, but you shall not borrow.
Job 38:22-23 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of distress, For the day of war and battle?
Psalm 33:7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses .
Jer 10:13 // 51:16 When He utters His voice, [there is] a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He
causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings out the wind from His storehouses .
Neh 10:38 The priest, the son of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes, and the Levites shall bring up the tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the chambers of the storehouse.
Notice that the tabernacle is a replica of heaven, the presence of God, and it has storehouses that are filled with the blessings of God upon Israel that they now have given some back to Him in tithe. These storehouses of blessings correspondingly represent God’s storehouses of blessings in heaven, which are not literal, but a figurative expression of talking about the blessings that God has reserved for the future, not something that is literally located in some closet in heaven.
For instance, in Mal 3:10, it says: 10 "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse , so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the Lord of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.”
Notice that the tabernacle storehouses represent God’s storehouses in heaven that release blessings upon Israel, but these blessings aren’t literally in heaven, but rather things God brings about on earth.
Also, notice the types of things that are reserved are not things that God could even physically put somewhere, or are things that are produced on earth, not in heaven.
“and You have reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as [it is] this day. “ (1 Kin 3:6)
1 Pet 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to [obtain] an inheritance [which is] imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
The inheritance as salvation itself is something that is reserved in heaven, but the person who is saved is actually upon the earth as Peter is speaking this to him. The idea of reservation in heaven is the idea that what God has for His people in terms of blessing is safe from what might destroy it on earth, not because it literally is kept in heaven, but because God has promised it and it is therefore a sure and secure future for the saints. This is in contrast to what believers in persecution may lose here on earth if they obey Christ.
1 Peter 3:7 “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
The word here is thēsaurizō, which means “to store up.” The language does not mean that God has the universe in a cosmic storehouse, but rather that He has declared its judgment and it therefore will come to pass. The same is said of darkness being reserved (here using the synonym tēreō “to keep/guard/reserve/store up”) for the wicked (2 Pet 2:17; Jude 13). How exactly does one store darkness?
This merely, therefore, refers to what God has declared to be given as a promise to either the righteous or the wicked. What God has promised is settled in heaven, and therefore, is spoken of figuratively as being something that is reserved/stored up in heaven (i.e., lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven- how do people literally go to heaven and lay anything there? Rather, they lay up a reward for themselves according to God’s promises).
Ps 119:89-90 Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven . Your faithfulness remains throughout all generations . . .
Hence, the idea that we have bodies literally stored up in heaven, where they are literally located in some closet somewhere is nowhere close to the intent of the idea that God has something in store for us. It merely refers to the fact that what is reserved in heaven is settled and cannot be corrupted, stolen, or taken away. It is a future body that cannot be torn down as the current temporal one can, but this text does not say much about whether the future body is resurrected from the present one. If it says anything at all, it merely points out that we will be raised as Christ was raised, and since 2 Corinthians is to be read in light of 1 Corinthians, we know that this, in fact, is the same body that has now been transformed, since it is the corruptible seed that must die and be raised and given a form that is incorruptible.
Job 38:22-23 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of distress, For the day of war and battle?
Psalm 33:7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses .
Jer 10:13 // 51:16 When He utters His voice, [there is] a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He
causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings out the wind from His storehouses .
Neh 10:38 The priest, the son of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes, and the Levites shall bring up the tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the chambers of the storehouse.
Notice that the tabernacle is a replica of heaven, the presence of God, and it has storehouses that are filled with the blessings of God upon Israel that they now have given some back to Him in tithe. These storehouses of blessings correspondingly represent God’s storehouses of blessings in heaven, which are not literal, but a figurative expression of talking about the blessings that God has reserved for the future, not something that is literally located in some closet in heaven.
For instance, in Mal 3:10, it says: 10 "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse , so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the Lord of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.”
Notice that the tabernacle storehouses represent God’s storehouses in heaven that release blessings upon Israel, but these blessings aren’t literally in heaven, but rather things God brings about on earth.
Also, notice the types of things that are reserved are not things that God could even physically put somewhere, or are things that are produced on earth, not in heaven.
“and You have reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as [it is] this day. “ (1 Kin 3:6)
1 Pet 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to [obtain] an inheritance [which is] imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
The inheritance as salvation itself is something that is reserved in heaven, but the person who is saved is actually upon the earth as Peter is speaking this to him. The idea of reservation in heaven is the idea that what God has for His people in terms of blessing is safe from what might destroy it on earth, not because it literally is kept in heaven, but because God has promised it and it is therefore a sure and secure future for the saints. This is in contrast to what believers in persecution may lose here on earth if they obey Christ.
1 Peter 3:7 “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
The word here is thēsaurizō, which means “to store up.” The language does not mean that God has the universe in a cosmic storehouse, but rather that He has declared its judgment and it therefore will come to pass. The same is said of darkness being reserved (here using the synonym tēreō “to keep/guard/reserve/store up”) for the wicked (2 Pet 2:17; Jude 13). How exactly does one store darkness?
This merely, therefore, refers to what God has declared to be given as a promise to either the righteous or the wicked. What God has promised is settled in heaven, and therefore, is spoken of figuratively as being something that is reserved/stored up in heaven (i.e., lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven- how do people literally go to heaven and lay anything there? Rather, they lay up a reward for themselves according to God’s promises).
Ps 119:89-90 Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven . Your faithfulness remains throughout all generations . . .
Hence, the idea that we have bodies literally stored up in heaven, where they are literally located in some closet somewhere is nowhere close to the intent of the idea that God has something in store for us. It merely refers to the fact that what is reserved in heaven is settled and cannot be corrupted, stolen, or taken away. It is a future body that cannot be torn down as the current temporal one can, but this text does not say much about whether the future body is resurrected from the present one. If it says anything at all, it merely points out that we will be raised as Christ was raised, and since 2 Corinthians is to be read in light of 1 Corinthians, we know that this, in fact, is the same body that has now been transformed, since it is the corruptible seed that must die and be raised and given a form that is incorruptible.
Therefore, God reserving something/storing something up for His people doesn’t mean that God literally has storehouses in heaven that are filled with food, riches, and bodies. This text isn’t communicating that there is a closet in heaven with racks of bodies waiting for believers. It isn't giving a literal geographic location of God's blessings. It merely makes reference to the same idea seen throughout Scripture, where God reserves something for believers that cannot be destroyed on earth. What He reserves here is the salvation of the body, whereby He supernaturally transforms a mortal body into an immortal one. But this text says nothing of it being a different body, only that the future body is of a different nature than the current mortal body. The difference, therefore, is between what characteristics make up the present body and the future body. There is no contrast between one body that is located here on earth and a completely different body that is located in heaven. Paul is not talking about the physical location of the body, but it indestructible nature as something that is reserved by the promise of God. In other words, he’s reading a very symbolic text incredibly literally at this point, and it ends up contradicting what Paul is actually saying here with his use of Mark 14:58.
Not Made with Human Hands
In
fact, Birks, as many people mistakenly believe, thinks that the word ἀχειροποίητον, “not made with
human hands,” refers to this idea that the body is not the same body that we
have here on earth. But what he fails to note is that this same word is used of
another body, but that body is Jesus’ resurrected body (cf. Mark 14:58 with
John 2:18–22), which Birks also notes must be the same mortal human body He had
when He walked upon the earth. In fact, Mark 14:58 has His enemies record His
words from John 2:18–22 in a manner that shows us that the term refers to the
mortal body and the term refers to the immortal body in terms of its nature,
not in terms of whether it is the same body that Jesus had upon the earth. All
agree that it is the same body that is mortal and transformed into an immortal
body. This is likely where the seemingly contradictory passages in 1
Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 meet. Paul is familiar with the Gospel of
Mark, likely, more than any other Gospel. He likely has this distinction in
mind. Jesus had a body “not made with human hands,” but it was still raised
from His body that was “made with human hands.” The two terms simply refer to
what is naturally given through the biological process and what must be
supernaturally given, since dead bodies cannot naturally come to life.
Birks
could always just counter by saying that His enemies made it up, since Mark
says that their testimony was false and inconsistent against Him, but it seems
clear that their testimony was false and inconsistent because Jesus never said
that He was going to destroy the temple. For one, He was speaking of the temple
of His body. Secondly, He said that they would
destroy this temple, but that He would raise it up in three days (John 2:18–22). So the part that was false
testimony was not the wording used concerning that which is made by human hands
and that which is not made by human hands, but instead concerning whether Jesus
was talking about the temple and whether He would be the one to destroy it (cf.
Matt 27:39–40). Both of these are false claims.
There
is nothing, therefore, to think that the term here or in 2 Corinthians 5 means
anything else but something that is built by God without human hands out of
something that is made with human hands (i.e., supernaturally bringing
something to life as opposed to what is naturally brought to life). In fact,
Paul’s use of the building after destroying metaphor, along with the language
of something ἀχειροποίητον indicates that Paul is using this very passage in
Mark to talk about the resurrected body that is of the same nature as Christ’s
resurrected body. Notice that the words are remarkably similar, especially since this word is only used a few times in the NT: In Mark, it refers to Christ's body as tearing down a building that is made with human hands (i.e., natural and mortal) and remade without human hands (not remade natural and mortal). In 2 Cor 5, Paul talks about our bodies being buildings that are torn down and that God has promised us a building not made with human hands (i.e., not remade natural and mortal).
Birks interpretation of the phrase “this house,” then, rather than following the
theology of 2 Corinthians that contrasts the body that is experienced through sight with the
future body experienced through faith, is that
it refers to this present body in contrast to a different body located in
heaven. What Paul is contrasting, however, is this “mortal body” that can be
torn down and that we experience through sight, with the promise of God
giving to this mortal body an immortal form that cannot be torn down because it
is made by God and is reserved for us by His promise, as he also argues in 1
Cor 15 (2 Cor 4:18). The contrast is the mortal body, the body of death, that we experience
now with the immortal body, the body supernaturally risen by God in the future
and given the same qualities that Christ’s body is given ("knowing that the One who raised the Lord Jesus will also raise us up [future aspect of expectation] and will present us with you" 4:14).
John 5:28-29
This passage seems to be a rather difficult one for Preterists. I say that because the amount of interpretive gymnastics that are made to make this passage "fit" the Preterist concept of resurrection is quite extensive. It reads:
I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming – and is now here – when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself, and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.“Do not be surprised at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out – the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.
As I argued before, this passage clearly teaches the already-not yet nature of the resurrection. The Son gives life to the spirit in regeneration, but there is a future aspect to the resurrection that is only "not yet." Jesus tells us that this has to do with our bodies coming out of the tombs.
In Birks's analysis, however, the tomb is transformed into remembering someone
who has died which is then transformed into a more ethereal concept of death
through a linguistically fallacious etymological approach to lexicography and
faulty reasoning (a non sequitur and ad hoc interpretation of death) that dead
people can’t hear a voice so as to come forth (which is probably news to Jesus
who calls forth Lazarus bodily from the tomb with His voice. So he changes the
verse to read “all who have died” and then forces his foreign definition of
“death” into the text. This is all supposedly proven when one “gets into the
Greek.” Unfortunately, it’s simply the case that only when one abuses language,
Greek or otherwise, that this argument can possibly be made. This is probably
the worst argument yet, and that’s saying quite a bit in a mountain of bad
arguments (32:58ff.).
In fact, Birks mocks the idea that a dead body can hear and therefore obey the command to be raised (missing the theology of John that has God the Father, through the Son, call dead men to life, not by their cooperation with God, but by His power and authority alone).
Kelly Birks - “A lifeless body
cannot hear. So it’s talking about someone who has died. Who hears? Well, it’s
the person’s spirit apart from their body, the person’s spirit, which is
cognizant, apart from the physical body. So verse 28 of John 5 is not talking
about a carbon-based body coming out of the grave, is it? It’s not possible”
(SCS 9:36:46-37:17).
What seems to escape Birks's notice is that this same language (Jesus shouting in a loud "voice" to a body in a "tomb" that then "comes out" of the tomb later in John).
John 11:43-44 - When He had said
this, he shouted in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The one who had died
came out, his feet and hands tied up with strips of cloth, and a cloth wrapped
around his face. Jesus said to them, “Unwrap him and let him go.”
All of this, of course, misses the analogy of sleep and waking, and what actually falls asleep and what actually wakes up. The spirit has already been raised, so it does not fall asleep. It never dies, as Christ proclaims to Mary and Martha when Lazarus dies. Instead, the body is described as falling asleep because what falls asleep wakes up. This is Jesus' analogy with Lazarus and Paul's analogy within all of his writings as well.
What is sown is the seed that goes into the ground. What is raised up is this body that is promised by God, a promise reserved in heaven, that God will redeem/restore all of us, not just part of us.
A Gnostic Anthropology
Some of Birks's misunderstanding is garnered from his anthropology. Although he decries being thrown in with Gnostics, he seems to misunderstand in what way he is influenced by the Platonism of Gnosticism. When discussing the nature of the human, he states that the "real you" is your spirit, not your body and spirit.
“They receive their spirits, their saved
spirits. You have a body, soul, and a spirit here. The body helps you, uh,
causes you, to be able to interact here on the earth. Your soul is that which
gives your body animation in life. But it’s your spirit that is the real you.
It’s your spirit that is your personality . . . so then, since the resurrection
took place in AD 70, that unclothed spirit, when you die, has to be clothed
upon; and I’m going to show you in the text of Scripture, where Scripture
teaches that your . . . spirit is clothed upon with a body that comes to you
from out of heaven. It is located in heaven, and it comes to you and clothes
you from outside of heaven. This idea of this body being raised has to be
forced into the text of Scripture” (Kelly
Birks, SCS 9:17:21).
The Bible, of course, never presents humans this way. Humans are bodies brought up from the dust that come a living nephesh "being." They do not have a soul, but become a soul. Birk believes in a trichotomy, so he sees the spirit as the true you, and the rest as just something that helps you function in the physical world. Why we would need any body at all in heaven, however, becomes unclear if this is true.
When humans, righteous or wicked, are resurrected, however, it is body and soul (the soul is actually interchangeable with spirit in Scripture, but we'll save that argument for another day). The redemption of a human is the redemption of the spirit and the body (Rom 8:22-23). Hence, our sanctification is directly linked to our bodies, not just our spirits. Hence, Christ became flesh because humans, those who He would redeem, are flesh. As He must become whatever He redeems, so what He redeems is redeemed by Him. That includes the body.
In any case, I might have a more exhaustive post on that later. For right now, it is interesting that this anthropology stems from a need to maintain a particular Preterist theology of resurrection, not from the Bible itself. In an Gnostic anthropology, the body is not needed at all, but Preterists adopt it in order to argue that there is no need for this body. What they seem to miss is that this understanding makes all bodies, even a different heavenly one, unnecessary.
The Olivet Discourse and Ancient Apocalyptic Language
What I found interesting is that Birk admits that passages like Philippians 3:21, seems to teach a resurrection of this earthly body that is transformed into a spiritual body; but then he backtracks to argue that such is impossible because we know that the resurrection is tied to the parousia, and based on the Olivet Discourse placing both at the time of the destruction of the temple, it must be that the resurrection is something different than this body, since we all know that the bodies of Christians have not, in fact, been resurrected yet. He states:
“You
look at this text carefully, and what you’ve got here is a statement of fact.
You’ve got a resurrection stated as fact. In this case, it has to do with
transformation. He says that Jesus will transform the body of our humble state
into conformity with the body of His glory. Metaschimatizo . . . It’s simple.
It just means to transform the form of a thing. It doesn’t say how it’s going
to happen. Does this say how it’s going to happen? He will transform the body.
Doesn’t say how. How’s He going to do it? How does that take place? . . . Now, if this is all the Bible had to say
on this subject, if this is all we had, Philippians 3:21, if this is all we had
on this subject, then I would have to say, “Yeah, this body, this physical body
is going to go through its transformation, but we have more. We are required to
compare Scripture with Scripture in order to elucidate the meaning of any
doctrine in order to get the full picture of it. You can’t just cherry-pick
here and there . . .”
“If
the nature of the believer’s resurrection body is these carbon-based bodies
that get raised, then the parousia never happened, the AD 70 parousia never
happened” (Kelly Birks, SCS 9:104:37-50).
The driving force of this hermeneutic can be seen in the following quote:
“Now
a bunch of you out there might be going, “Well, that’s right, that’s what I’ve
been sayin’ all along.” Yeah, but see, here’s the problem with that: If that’s
the case, then the Bible’s a lie. The Bible’s wrong. Jesus was wrong. The
apostles were wrong. Because you not only cannot produce any Scripture that has
the Second Coming happening anywhere else outside of the First Century. You
can’t produce a Scripture that says anything but that the parousia would happen
within the First Century because that’s all that’s being taught . . . so if
you’re holding onto a point of view that says that the resurrection, the nature
of the resurrection body, is this carbon-based earthly body, basically you’re
tossing the Bible into the toilet” (Kelly Birks, SCS 9:104:51-105:20, 106:30-42).
Here
is the entire assumption that has locked in the Preterist argument that he is
making whereby he must reinterpret
the nature of the resurrection and all other passages to meet a Preterist
criteria. He has set up a false dichotomy that either Preterism is true or the
Bible is false. Since he believes the Bible is true, Preterism must be true.
Hence, even though these texts seem to teach a resurrection of the body, they
must be understood in some other way.
At
this point, therefore, he has shown his hand. He is forcing interpretations
onto the text in order to maintain what he thinks would otherwise be a cause to
reject the Bible as God’s Word. Hence, we are not getting exegesis here, but
eisegesis demanded by the false dichotomy that has been created by
misinterpreting the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, as though Matthew 24 was
attempting to place the parousia happening at the time of the destruction of
the temple in AD 70, when, in fact, this is merely the way the ancients viewed
the world and spoke of disasters (i.e., as a micro-event painting a picture of
the macro-event, and thus, spoken of
as a single event, even though the two do not necessarily happen at the same
time—cf. the texts that speak of the exodus and return from the exile in the
creation language of Genesis and ask the question, “Are these things [i.e., the
macro-creation and the exodus/exile events] happening at the same time, or does
the micro-event merely recall and picture the macro-event that occurs at
another time?”).
Most of Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic is rooted in Enochian traditions, and it is interesting to find the same thing within that tradition when the author mixes his speech about the flood with the end of the world by saying that he is actually talking about two different times, even though you would never know that when viewing the way he speaks about the two events as one single event (we'll take this all up in a later post in this series).
In any case, however, my charge against this hermeneutic is twofold:
1. That Scripture interpreting Scripture does not mean you ignore the context of a bunch of Scripture and then replace context with other scriptures. It means you interpret everything in its context and then relate it to other passages to give a larger picture of the whole truth. That's not what Birk is doing when he ignores the context to argue that the Olivet Discourse tells us that a passage, word, etc. must mean X instead of Y, as the context indicates, simply because it would make my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse wrong if I consider the immediate context.
2. The driving force of the hermeneutic is the premise that because the resurrection and parousia are spoken of as one event with the destruction of the temple in AD 70, that means they happened at that same time. This premise is completely false. The micro-event is seen as a smaller bubble from the larger bubble of the macro-event, and so spoken as they are one single event, not because they happen at the same time, but because the smaller is viewed as linked in some way to the larger.
In
any case, it becomes a dishonest hermeneutic that ignores the grammar (e.g.,
ignores the objects of verbs, the contextual referents of words, relies upon
the importing of foreign contexts in an illegitimate transference of contextual
referents, uses false dichotomies, strawmen, credulity of the interpreter, and
a Gnostic presupposition of what constitutes a human being (i.e., one’s true
self is his spirit), etc. all to maintain a harmonious narrative between two
conflicting elements of data that, if read in light of OT and Second Temple
apocalyptic and prophetic literature, were never in conflict in the first
place. Preterism seems merely to be a piece of bad exegesis that has snowballed
into a massive conglomeration of texts that are now driven with further bad
exegesis to support the original application of bad exegesis to Matthew 24. And
these comments that Birks makes above prove that out. This isn’t an
exegetically honest system, but one that must maintain a particular theology at
all costs, lest the Bible be denied as God’s Word and Jesus be made a liar.
Hence, this is the grid through which all of these resurrection texts must be
pulled, even though they seem to be saying something very different, something
that even Birks recognizes as different, but then back-peddles to his
rationalization that it must mean something else though, since the parousia,
per his non-sequitur drawn from Matthew 24 that the parousia and destruction of
the temple must happen simultaneously since they are mentioned together,
happened in AD 70.
Conclusion
If I were to sum up all of the errors made in Birks's interpretation of Scripture, it would be that he commits logical fallacies (non sequitur, equivocation, etc.) and these lead into his linguistic fallacies (ignoring the antecedents, illegitimate referential transference, etymological and cognate lexical fallacies, etc.). Without these, he simply cannot make the case he needs to make if his Preterism is to survive. Unfortunately, it shows, in fact, that it hasn't survived responsible exegesis, and this is why Preterism should be rejected. If the resurrection has not yet taken place, the parousia has not yet taken place (on that, Birks and I agree), but this, according to a responsible reading of the text, therefore, suggests that Preterism is false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)