Noah and the "Animals"

[Micah Martin]

I am on my way out the door for Sunday Worship, but I got to thinking about this last night. I am not sure if there is anything there but I figured I would throw it out there.

Noah was commanded to bring the "animals" on the Ark, I know some take that as other human beings (Gentile nations perhaps). I am not convinced of this interpretation but I do see the argument.

If Noah was to bring these other "Gentiles" on board before judgment, then you could possibly take that story as prophetic of the way things would work before the destruction of the old world in AD 70. The righteous would bring in the Gentiles (to salvation) before Covenant Judgment began.

I am still working on where this would lead, but I would love to hear any thoughts or comments. I would also like to get some links or material on the idea that the "animals" were other humans. I have only studied that argument from the surface. I would like to study that idea more in depth.

Blessings, and Happy Valentines Day.

Micah Martin

[Doug]

John,

I did find the article helpful Thank you.

[Doug]

Tami,

When I said "But for eternity to commence, I have to shed this body and take on a new, eternal body." I was referring to "eternity" as in a something that is no longer temporal. That is, it is no longer ruled by time.

The one thing that is missing from my physical life now is the inability to stop the decay of my body. Likewise, all of the [physical] creation that exists now does decay, and IS subject to temporal laws of decay. There is no intrinsic permanence to anything physical.

Therefore, the eternity I was referring to was not referring to the QUALITATIVE part of the future, but to the temporal and QUANTITATIVE part of eternity.

I think when this discussion of the afterlife happens, we ought to be more careful what is meant by eternity, eternal, forever, etc. Those terms are loaded with meaning, and can be misconstrued.

I did NOT mean to imply that we aren't already immortal, in the sense of immortality that has been granted us upon our redemption. But it is easy when we use a word like immortal to imagine it meaning several different things. Indeed it DOES mean different things to different people. I reject the kind of immortality that many think of as where just being born grants a person an "immortal soul", because immortality is a gift.

All that being said, I do agree that "eternity has commenced" as you meant the word. My meaning was, as I said, about the commencement of eternity being an "incorruptible" eternity. That is, some kind of existence that is not subject to any kind of corruption. Wasn't this the kind of "heaven" Jesus was referring to when He talked about the place where rust or moth cannot corrupt? Or do think that description was also qualitative, and not descriptive of a post-mortem existence? Furthermore, what do you do with the description of the afterlife that says in Mk.12:25

"For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

I don't take this to mean a description of OUR resurrection of our spiritual deadness which we preterists understand. I understand it to be about a physical resurrection when we shall have some kind of an existence different from our bodies and existence now.

How do you see it?

[Tami]

Hi Doug,

I meant eternity in *both* the qualitative and the quantitative sense. I believe we have that eternal life now. Not only is the physical resurrection you are throwing into the mix not taught in Scripture, but it is not compatible with a fulfilled view of redemption. This view in fact denies that we have been forgiven of sin, because forgiveness of sin and resurrection are equated in Scripture. (I am not saying *you* are denying forgiveness, but rather that you are unaware of the contradictions and inconsistencies of what you are proposing.)

It is interesting that you mention "corruption," because according to 1 Corinthians 15, if this "mortal" has not yet "put on immortality," and if this "corruptible" has not yet put on incorruption, then the saying "death is swallowed up in victory" has not yet come to pass, and therefore the faithful old covenant body of Israel remains under sin's curse (Abraham et al, are still dead, separated from God). And since *our* salvation is wrapped up in what was promised to *them*, we would have nothing, and nothing to hope for. Mark Chiacchira made this point on our recent BAT program, and I would encourage you to ponder it carefully.

I asked you to point to an old testament prophecy which supports your view of a physical bodily resurrection. You didn't bring one, but went on to say:

"I don't take this to mean a description of OUR resurrection of our spiritual deadness which we preterists understand. I understand it to be about a physical resurrection..."

And so I ask you again, where in the old testament is this physical resurrection prophesied?

No one would deny that our *experience* of life in Christ will be different after we are no longer in a physical body. But acknowledging this different experience (which the Scripture doesn't give us details about) is a far cry from presuming a "bodily resurrection" which is nowhere taught in Scripture. And again, this presumption is in fact in conflict with what Scripture teaches about the nature of the kingdom and our salvation.

Doug, have you ever listened to any of our podcast studies in Isaiah? You might find them helpful toward seeing how the prophets (and of course Jesus and the apostles who taught nothing other than the Kingdom the prophets said would come) envisioned heaven. Any concept we have about "eternal life" must be subjected to their authority. From what I can see, you have not tested your view by this standard.

[Doug]

Tami,
I will be the first to admit I don't understand all the ramifications of the preterist view.

But the "elephant in the room" (at least to me) is the physical resurrection of Jesus.

I don't understand how, if as you say,

"Not only is the physical resurrection you are throwing into the mix not taught in Scripture, but it is not compatible with a fulfilled view of redemption."

that Jesus was resurrected. After all, He WAS physically resurrected. So then, I can turn your question around the other way and ask...

"What scripture tells me the I WON'T have a physical resurrection" I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying to understand why Christ was resurrected, (physically) but I won't be?

[Tami]

Doug,

Jesus' physical resurrection, according to His own statemens, was "the sign of Jonah." It was a *sign* of the greater, "better resurrection" that the Old Covenant believers hoped for (please see Hebrews 11).

Please consider also (and again) that the resurrection the prophets predicted was fulfilled by the forgiveness of sins. If there ever was an elephant in the middle of the room, there it is, big and pink.

Furthermore, according to Paul, we have *already* been raised *with Christ*. That is proof of 2 things: 1) Our resurrection already happened and 2) It's not physical. So, your question, "What scripture tells me the I WON'T have a physical resurrection?" now becomes irrelevant in light of these facts.

Again, the burden is squarely upon you to show more than one kind of resurrection predicted in the prophets. This isn't about "preterism," it's about understanding the Biblically defined nature of redemption.

This thread is really about the animals on the ark (sorry, Micah) so if you wish to continue a discussion of resurrection, maybe start a new thread? But any suggestion of a physical resurrection should be based on Scripture--"resurrection" passages exegeted in their immediate contexts as well as the larger context of Scripture as a whole.

[Doug]

Tami,

I truly appreciate you taking the time to follow up. I will chew on this for a time, and then start a new thread.

BTW, I really don't want this to be about someone's scripture being a trump of another's (proof texting) That isn't my style. Nor is it good exegesis.

Thank you.

[Tami]

BTW, I really don't want this to be about someone's scripture being a trump of another's (proof texting) That isn't my style. Nor is it good exegesis.

Doug, you are a funny guy!

Have a great day. :)

[Micah Martin]

Tami,

I am thoroughly enjoying this. I love DID, it is like an ongoing BureaunFest!

Micah

[Micah Martin]

Mark,

Wow. That is really helpful and insightful. I really did enjoy your presentations at last years CC conference. I hope you are presenting again this year. I also am looking forward to sitting down and doing a bit of study on the book of Enoch. Growing up in a dispensational and then reformed household, we were never told about these other books that some Christians have considered Scripture. I agree with you 100% that we have for too long read Genesis with a scientific worldview rather than a covenantal worldview. Thanks for your insight. That is why my observation really stuck with me. The parallel to the NT era where the Gentiles are brought in before judgment is so clear to the story of Noah.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

Blessings,
Micah

[Norm]

Micah,

I strongly concur with Mark about Enoch. My embracing of it and the understanding of the animal symbolism has helped me immensenly understanding Genesis, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation and gives a glimpse of how the Hebrew mind understood these symbols theologically. Of course I've been ridiculed to no end by my detractors for understanding such things as they are outside the scriptures and surely cannot bring any bearing upon its understanding. Mark is correct you will find Enoch all throughout the NT especially in Peters writings and the fragments of the dead sea scrolls attest to its popularity as it is second only to Isaiah in fragments found. Study the dream vision and you will have a good overview of the OT story in a readers digest symbolic form.

Norm

[Tim Martin]

Hey Ted,

I'm working on it. We have most everything in order to announce soon.

My problem the last month or so is that my family is making a big move and my wife (Amy) is due with our 7th child on Feb. 24. I think the announcement should be ready early in March.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised at our speaker line-up for this year!

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

[Tim Martin]

Ted,

No one from the Salvation Army.

No worries on travel arrangements.

More soon,

Tim