O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
I have gotten some exposure (following Davo's suggestion) on the Individual Body view (IBD) of the resurrection opposed to the Corporate Body view (CBV).
What I have figured is that all preterists agree that in some way there indeed was a covenantal change in the resurrection but what is not clear is whether that exhaustively descibes the resurrection.
In my opinion if there is a resurrection passage that rules out individual bodies, that would imply there is some error in the IBD veiw and if there was a passage that demands individual bodies that such a passage would imply that there could be some error in the CBV.
While I havent studied all this out, I hope I can get some thoughts from others and perhaps quickly grasp these issues.
My smoking gun against the IBD is 1 Thes 4. I hope those who do not agree with my reading of this passage my provide alternative readings.
As I read 1 Thes 4, it completely rules out an individual resurrection altogether and here is how:
1) We know that the Thessalonians had hope, this is evident from verse 13
2) But the hope that they had was an eschatological hope, which came from the gospel
3) The hope of the gospel is righteousness, forgiveness of sin, the presence of God etc and this was termed and summarised as “resurrection”. Again the hope of the gospel was termed resurrection, you cannot have a hope birthed by the gospel and it not be termed resurrection.
4) If indeed the Thessalonians had a hope birthed by the gospel and if indeed the hope given by the gospel is termed resurrection then surely the resurrection hope is NOT rising of souls from Sheol! For if the hope given by the gospel is that people are to rise from Hades, and the Thessalonians had this hope (which we know from verse 13 they did) then they surely would not have been worried about the end of the dead, for by definition resurrection (which is the Christian hope) is about dead people. So whatever hope the Thessalonians had, which hope was brought by the gospel was surely NOT about dead people rising from Hades else they would not have had any concern about those who died (but we know they did).
5) So the Thessalonians were looking forward to the parousia, but they could not clearly see how the dead would participate in that parousia thus whatever they expected to happen at the parousia was not seen to affect the status of one from being physically dead to being alive. Physical death was not involved in the achievements of the parousia except in that it could hinder someone’s participation in the parousia. Yet the Thessalonians had hope for “resurrection” as promised by the gospel.
For these reasons I can only conclude that 1 Thes 4 not only teaches a corporate resurrection but outright excludes release from physical death or Hades as being the hope held out by the gospel (the hope for resurrection). As per definition of resurrection, only the dead can resurrect, thus to have concern over the physically dead’s portion in the parousia shows that the parousia and accompanying resurrection is not concerned with physical death (else there would be no concern for the dead as they would automatically be covered by the definition of resurrection). True that there was the release of souls from Hades, but that was secondary not essential to the hope and benefits of the parousia.
Against the CBV I have come across two passage which I am not clear about.
The first is Romans 8 where the plural "bodies" is used. How does this fit into the idea of a corporate body?
The last passage is Phil 3 where two things are puzzling to me: 1) what is transformed is termed "our body". The point raised being that the Church is "His" body, not our body. 2) If a "body" is a covenantal standing and Jesus was joined to the Adamic body, how could Jesus have a glorius body yet the Adamic body was still standing? How could Jesus have one body and the church another?