At 05:34 PM 4/20/2006, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>While I pretty much fit in thepartial preterist camp, I'm with Jack
>on the resurrection of the body. I think the body that is
>resurrected is a spiritual body -- which shouldn't be interpreted in
>the modern sense (spiritual = ethereal)
@ I was under the impression that Jack believes that the body that is
resurrected is a "spirit body". If so, that's not true. You are
right, it is a "spiritual (glorified) body".
"...There is no room or place for the idea of a "spiritual
resurrection", which is an unknown concept in this context, an
oxymoron like "square circle" or "concrete rubber".
http://tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html
We may begin our survey with relevant material from the OT:
Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the
brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness
as the stars for ever and ever.
Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out
in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley
which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about:
and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they
were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live?
And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me,
Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear
the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones;
Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And
I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and
cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye
shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded:
and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the
bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the
sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them
above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me,
Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and
breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he
commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and
stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto
me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold,
they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off
for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you
to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
[snip]
From the NT: [snip]
* Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a
physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word
used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical
is intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of
soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to
the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that
we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who
are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to
passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it
is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the
"whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested).
Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with
their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato
refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma.
Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by
Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.
* Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body.
Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the
dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer
to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of
existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This
is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied
"resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1
Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive
and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that
of the believer. [Gundry, 172]
* The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection. This word
is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode:
"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no
resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that
have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to
Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise
again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to
explain what happened to Jesus. "But when Paul perceived that the one
part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the
council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of
the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."; "And
have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."
* Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus
(Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a
physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.
* Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews
meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so
easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily
resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.
* 2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view. "Now we know
that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building
from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling,
because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we
are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish
to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that
what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has
made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a
deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."
* Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e.,
temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a
"building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the
verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over
another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a
"deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and
material do we need?
* Phil. 3:21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working
whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is
clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a
"glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.
* A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one
makes no sense in the social context.
* In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how
an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place.
* The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially,
as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature
zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied
spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to
"physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly
counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:
Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as
misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.
This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded
thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting
life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as
worse than dung'".
Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies
to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no
bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this
basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the
immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73]
There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred
before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they
entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again
eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection
of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in
the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)
Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of
asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those
who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems.
Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of
emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of
disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are
right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that
should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical
reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.
----------
Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the
counter-arguments? ...Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the
whole lot: [snip]
Click here to continue: http://tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html Let's
Get Physical Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body James
Patrick Holding
~ Janice
Received on Fri Apr 21 17:02:24 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 21 2006 - 17:02:24 EDT