Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Hi everybody, a new member with the same old questions here. I have been aware of preterism for a couple of years now and though I find much of it appealing I however have challenges with primarily 2 issues, one being the resurrection and the other being the end of the old covenant. These may even be the same question. Searching for discussions about these issues has led me here, Im sure it will be beneficial, so just bear with me guy.

 

How is 1 Cor 15:12-13 " Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised" to be understood 

Views: 7490

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Doug,

Do you believe in a future physical resurrection?

Hi Jefrey… with regards to given understandings on ‘the lake of fire’ I’ve laid one out at this link HERE taking a more pantelist perspective.

Davo,

Thanks for the link. I dont have a problem with understanding the lake of fire as the casting away of non Christian Jews from covenant life/covenant community. But the problem is, this definition only encompasses Israel. What of pagans, what of post AD70?

If I got you correctly, you are saying there is no more death after AD70 (since death was cast into the lake of fire and since the lake of fire served it purpose and God did not simply replace one death with a new one). Did I get you correctly?

However, in Revelation there are dogs outside the city, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations and there is an invitation to drink of the water of life, the gates of the city are not closed. Does this not imply that there are some people outside of the city who can enter the city? But does that not mean there still is death i.e. being cut off from the presence of God?

Jefrey: I dont have a problem with understanding the lake of fire as the casting away of non Christian Jews from covenant life/covenant community. But the problem is, this definition only encompasses Israel. What of pagans, what of post AD70?

 

Jefrey, if you take into consideration Doug’s previous words… “It is SO important to be consistent when talking about this topic. Proper exegesis demands that one not go beyond what the scripture meant to the original audience” and then with consistency stick with that then it becomes apparent that historic Israel is indeed the primary focus of the LOF.

 

What of pagans post Ad70? – the pantelist understanding is that fullness of Israel’s redemption [Ad70] secured the reconciliation of those beyond, as per Paul’s words here:

 

Rom 11:12, 15 Now if their [Israel's] fall is riches for the world [humanity], and their [Israel's] failure riches for the Gentiles [firstfruit saints Acts 13:48; 15:14, 17], how much more their [Israel's] fullness! … For if their [Israel] being cast away [by God] is the reconciling of the world [humanity], what will their [Israel's] acceptance [by God] be but life [redemptive resurrection] from the dead?

 

Or to paraphrase Paul: Now if Israel's fall is riches for humanity, and Israel's failure riches for the Gentile firstfruit saints, how much more Israel's redemptive fullness! … For if Israel being cast away by God is the reconciling of humanity, what will Israel's acceptance by God be but redemptive resurrection, that is, life from the dead?

 

IOW… Israel’s covenant renewal i.e., restoration or resurrection, through Christ and his firstfruit saints was the means to God’s ends… the reconciliation of man.

 

Jefrey: If I got you correctly, you are saying there is no more death after AD70 (since death was cast into the lake of fire and since the lake of fire served it purpose and God did not simply replace one death with a new one). Did I get you correctly?

 

Correct :) Go back HERE to page 5 and read down where I explain about “no more death” and its logical consequence in relation to man and God and thus what that means from a consistent fulfilled position.

 

Jefrey: However, in Revelation there are dogs outside the city, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations and there is an invitation to drink of the water of life, the gates of the city are not closed. Does this not imply that there are some people outside of the city who can enter the city? But does that not mean there still is death i.e. being cut off from the presence of God?

 

Remember Jefery… my approach is to understand this scenario in terms of “audience relevance” and so to see this as directly applicable to those to whom it was sent. The City and thus those entering it is relevant to new covenant Israel, i.e., the righteous in Christ. Those “outside” is NOT a reference to mankind in general, BUT rather is specific of disobedient Israel in particular.

 

Israel as a whole were constituted as the covenant people… they were EITHER faithful, obedient and just OR unfaithful, disobedient and unjust… aka “the wicked”. As I understand this is the primary meaning of ‘the wicked’ of scripture, example:

 

Eze 33:11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?

 

These then were [past tense] those “outside” – I more to say on this HERE. As always however, what happened to Israel had its flow-on affect to those beyond as Israel was always to be the world’s Light because Israel was God’s firstfruits ON BEHALF OF the rest of humanity, as per:

 

Jer 2:3a Israel was holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of his harvest.

Davo,

Thanks for the thoughts. The challenge I see is that of the development of the whole doctrine. You are aware that with David Green we had started with the definitions e.g. Body of sin etc and were building on that. I am not too sure how much you agree with those definitions because those definitions have "logical conclusions" they impose and explanations they demand.

I agree with most of the questions (that demand answers) you raise which is why I have been asking about the second death, pagans etc. It could very well be that the reason these questions cannot be answered is because the paradigm is flawed i.e. there are some i's we are not dotting and some t's we are not crossing.

I however have not read into covenant creation and I think that may be why I cannot fully comprehend some issues.

However, I need to know: When do you believe the city in Revelation came on Earth? When do you believe "disobedient Israel" was cast out of covenant community i.e. when were they cast into the LOF? When would the nations receiving healing from the leaves of the tree of life? Up till when are people invited to drink from the River of Life?

Does the statement that the gates of the city are not closed imply people outside the city can enter in?

Is being outside the city (like the dogs) death?

Is everyone post AD70 in the city?

How do you understand the resurrection unto condemnation?

Jefrey: However, I need to know: When do you believe the city in Revelation came on Earth?

 

In its fullness… @ Ad70. It worked this way… what was inaugurated in Christ's Ministry and ratified through Christ's Cross was subsequently consummated at Christ's Coming of AD70.

 

Jefrey: When do you believe "disobedient Israel" was cast out of covenant community i.e. when were they cast into the LOF?

 

Again ultimately @ Ad66-70.

 

Jefrey: When would the nations receiving healing from the leaves of the tree of life?

 

Beginning and burgeoning from Ad30 on up until finding full measure in Ad70, with the then ongoing affect ad infinitum. The “monthly yielding fruit” being indicative of such continuity.

 

Jefrey: Up till when are people invited to drink from the River of Life?

 

This invitation was specific and pertinent to the “this generation” upon whom “the ends of the ages have come”, and yet it is likewise open to all beyond being if you will a perpetual invitation to drink and see that the Lord is good.

 

Put it like this Jefrey… the “consummation” of a marriage is not its end but rather the most glorious of beginnings. That’s what Christ’s consummation of the ages was/is.

 

Jefrey: Does the statement that the gates of the city are not closed imply people outside the city can enter in?

 

Yes… as per Rev 21:24b with “the kings of the earth” being the emissaries of God.

 

Jefrey: Is being outside the city (like the dogs) death?

 

With regards to the context of “the dogs” YES, as per what I explain in that article I referred you to. However, being “outside” in general NO. To that degree people are in the darkness of ignorance.

 

Jefrey: Is everyone post AD70 in the city?

 

No they’re not, but I explain that this way…

 

The KINGDOM is the DOMAIN of God – is there anywhere beyond the reach of God's sovereign reign? [Psa 139:7-8; Jer 23:24]


The CITY / TEMPLE is the SPIRITUAL HUB of the kingdom – wherein the priests of God dwell. [Rev 5:9-10; 22:2]

The COVENANT is the LANGUAGE of the kingdom – that which communicates best the Divine intents of the kingdom i.e., love God by loving thy neighbour. [Mk 12:33; Rom 13:8-10; Jas 2:8]


There are many non-citizens in His Kingdom – naturalised citizens [believers] are mandated to minister God's message of reconciling grace through witness and worship and works to those lacking this knowledge. Evangelism per se is about bringing those "outside" into the blessedness of citizenry in this life [Rom 5:17]. The essence then of the Gospel is NOT about the avoidance of some supposed post death calamity [the goal of BOTH Exclusivism and Universalism]; no, the essence of the Gospel is about coming into the blessedness or fullness of LIFE in Christ in this life [Jn 10:10].

 

Jefrey: How do you understand the resurrection unto condemnation?

 

As I understand it… John’s “resurrection unto condemnation” spoke to the shame and condemnation those of the “this generation” were to experience, who refusing to have ears to hear their Messiah would suffer the indignation of Israel’s/Jerusalem’s fiery end; not dissimilar in reality to Jesus’ words found in Lk 13:3-5. This shame and condemnation would include those former believers, who having once confessed Christ and tasted of the good age to come but having then turned back to the weak and beggarly elements of law righteousness.

Thanks for the explanations Davo,

 

You have said that disobedient Israel was cast into the LOF in AD70, and that being outside the city (for the dogs in context) was death. I also understand you as saying that after AD70 there was no more death. What then was the fate of the dogs? Was it death or was it life?

 

If I got you correctly you believe the “healing for the nations” and the “invitation to drink the water of life” is an ongoing process. If that is so, from what do the nations need healing? Why should there be an invitation to drink from the river of life if there is no more death?

 

You find a difference between the CITY and the KINGDOM and called those inside the city “naturalized citizen” Are you implying that there is a time when someone would not be a citizen and then later become a citizen? Would that not be regeneration?

 

I agree that “The essence then of the Gospel is NOT about the avoidance of some supposed post death calamity... no, the essence of the Gospel is about coming into the blessedness or fullness of LIFE in Christ in this life” But is this “fullness of LIFE” only in respect to “God no longer having enemies” or does it consist also in people no longer having “enmity on their minds”? If the gospel is not about life after death how are people who are alienated from God in their thoughts receiving this LIFE? Is not the purpose of mission to bring people to this LIFE (implying apart from the gospel they do not have that LIFE)?

Jefrey: I also understand you as saying that after AD70 there was no more death. What then was the fate of the dogs? Was it death or was it life?

 

It was covenantal death [EXILE] in that they suffered the consequences of not heeding their messiah… thus in terms of this life they were cast away from the Presence of Yahweh which for them was Jerusalem. Let me repeat some of my points I linked you to in my very first post to you:

 

John in ‘The Revelation’ speaks of those who “…shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire…”. The ‘lake of fire/second death’ was much more than a picture of ‘physical death’ – DEATH like in Israel’s former captivity actually meant EXILE. Yes many literally died, but in covenantal terms “death is exile”. Comprehending this helps us to see Paul’s words to the Thessalonians with more clarity, appreciating the historical context as opposed to applying something more ethereal...

 

2Thess 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power…

 

Remember, “eternal destruction” speaks not of longevity but of TOTALITY – this language is qualitative NOT quantitative. History bears witness to the fact that in the aftermath of the Ad70 Judgment aka ‘the Roman-Jewish Wars’ a good portion of Jewish captives were taken back to Rome and paraded as slaves before the conquering Titus as part of the spoils of war. These captives were all still very much alive, yet having had “their part” in the ‘lake of fire’ were now banished forever… permanently exiled [DEATH] away from the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem – their world had come crashing down and they were as dead-men-walking… judged and found wanting.

 

Now, to wrench the ‘lake of fire’ out of its historical context and drag it over into the New Covenant era, as many typically do giving it an ethereal continuance and perpetuity is to burden the New Creation with a death and destruction that has neither place nor purpose. In doing so the logical sequence of events thus becomes: new separation *the death*, new sting *the sin*new power *the law*. Or as the old vernacular has it… "same house, different street". So what, we are in need of a new saviour all over again??

 

Logically then according to this tragic scenario, prophetic recapitulation knows no end and thus becomes an endless loop at the whim of every wind of eschatological fancy and interpretation.

 

Jefrey: If I got you correctly you believe the “healing for the nations” and the “invitation to drink the water of life” is an ongoing process. If that is so, from what do the nations need healing?

 

It is living in the fullness of the healing that has continuity. Not only that but that word translated “healing” also carries the strong connotation of “service” – it is THIS therapeutic [θεραπεία therapi'ah] service kingdom citizens minister to others.

 

Jefrey: Why should there be an invitation to drink from the river of life if there is no more death?

 

In light of you being a believer Jefery THAT sounds like a funny question to ask. Consider this… as a believer I assume you have a realisation that for you there is “no more death” – does THAT knowledge mean you no longer draw from the ‘river of life?’ Of course not. Those that not in the know are simply not aware that such is true for them… hence the invitation [the gospel] to experience such fullness.

 

Jefrey: You find a difference between the CITY and the KINGDOM and called those inside the city “naturalized citizen” Are you implying that there is a time when someone would not be a citizen and then later become a citizen? Would that not be regeneration?

 

Indeed, in fact what you’re calling “regeneration” I’ve been calling “realisation” i.e., grasping the reality of reconciliation. Adam was conned by the serpent when he was told “you will be like God” – he already WAS LIKE God, created in His very image. Religianity has fed people the lie that “God is angry at you, but WE have the solution for you…” etc. No, Jesus resolved that issue once for all, period.

 

Jefrey: If the gospel is not about life after death how are people who are alienated from God in their thoughts receiving this LIFE?

 

Well that’s half the problem because in large part they’re not “receiving this LIFE”. Again religianity with its so-called knowledge has hindered the gospel message, not unlike how it is described in Lk 11:52 and Acts 15:10.

 

Jefrey: Is not the purpose of mission to bring people to this LIFE (implying apart from the gospel they do not have that LIFE)?

 

Yep that’s true when referring to “this LIFE” in the here and now… remembering that Jesus has already secured the life to come. 

Remember Jefrey, I’m giving you the pantelist perspective as opposed to the prêterist, similar yet distinct from.

Davo,

You said the end for the dogs was death. Now, is this a reference only to those who died in the destruction of Jerusalem or did even those who survived but where not Christian also end in this death?

I also ask, did the unrighteous Jews (who died before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and before Christ) experience the resurrection unto condemnation? If so, what did it entail?

If I got you correctly you are saying that the nations no longer need healing, and that if indeed they needed healing that would challenge your paradigm. Perhaps its just a matter of semantics and probably different understandings of what being in need of healing is contrasted with living in the fullness of the healing.

So it could be that what you call therapeutic services, I see as mission and what you call ignorance I see as death.

Before AD70 would you call those outside the city simply ignorant or would you call them dead (assuming that you believe there were any people outside the city before AD70)? Similarly before AD70 would you understand the leaves of the tree of life being services to help people leave in the "fullness" as opposed to being means to effect healing?

The bottomline of what Im saying being it seems to me you have the same leaves serving somewhat different purposes depending on which side of AD70 we are. I would see them having the same function.

Pertaining to the invitation to drink of the water of life, I see it as an invitation to those outside the city but it appears you find it is an invitation even to those within the city. For me those inside the city are no longer being invited to drink but are actually drinking from it i.e. they have already responded to the invitation. It seems nevertheless that we agree that there are indeed people who are not yet drinking from this water, you call the "not in the know" I understand them as being dead since they are not drinking from the river of life (obviously I believe that the only way to have life is to drink the water of life). Again maybe just semantics.

If Im getting you correctly you understand the gospel message as the means by which people are to attain the fullnes of what is available. I understand the gospel message as the means by which people begin to attain what is available (let alone its fullness). As you adequately put: what [Im] calling “regeneration” [you've] been calling “realisation”

I do agree that the gospel message is: Jesus has paid the debt, God is no longer angry, you can have communion with Him. I however do not believe anyone can have life and communion with God unless they put their faith in Christ and in fact, anyone without Christ will perish (whatever and whenever perish is).

This I believe is the sharp point: they’re not “receiving this LIFE”. Again religianity with its so-called knowledge has hindered the gospel message

I then conclude that people with out LIFE are dead but it seems you are saying that the though they have not received LIFE they are not dead.

You said:Yep that’s true when referring to “this LIFE” in the here and now… remembering that Jesus has already secured the life to come

Just to be clear, are you agreeing that with out "this LIFE" people are dead (yes, in the here and now)?

Davo: Remember Jefrey, I’m giving you the pantelist perspective as opposed to the prêterist, similar yet distinct from.

I not too knowledgeable about both (and hopefully would not have assumed similarity :-)   ) How are they different?

Jefrey: You said the end for the dogs was death. Now, is this a reference only to those who died in the destruction of Jerusalem…

 

Yes. The DoJ was the 2nd death aka the LoF.

 

Jefrey: I also ask, did the unrighteous Jews (who died before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and before Christ) experience the resurrection unto condemnation? If so, what did it entail?

 

I believe they did, however not much is said in terms of specifics.

 

Jefrey: If I got you correctly you are saying that the nations no longer need healing, and that if indeed they needed healing that would challenge your paradigm. Perhaps its just a matter of semantics and probably different understandings of what being in need of healing is contrasted with living in the fullness of the healing.

 

No that’s not quite what I’m saying. If you look at healing in terms of reconciliation then yes that has been established for all. However the healing I see relative to Rev 22:2 is that of the continual blessing of God those called minister on behalf of others.

 

Jefrey: Before AD70 would you call those outside the city simply ignorant or would you call them dead (assuming that you believe there were any people outside the city before AD70)?

 

You don’t need to make these mutually exclusive terms. However, the coming down of the City was the arrival of the fullness of the NC. Of first order it was primarily Israel-centric with the view to reaching out beyond.

Israel was in covenant, thus those disobedient to it were ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ [not that that didn’t extend beyond Israel, BUT they were key to being the world’s light]. Thus to the degree they were disobedient to the call [NKJV 1Pet 2:8b] to that degree the rest of the world remained in darkness i.e., ignorance.

 

Jefrey: Similarly before AD70 would you understand the leaves of the tree of life being services to help people leave in the "fullness" as opposed to being means to effect healing?

 

They are both aspects of the one thing. I’m not convinced your need for breaking everything down into neat nitty gritty detail fully grasps the big picture however, “IMO”.

 

Jefrey: I however do not believe anyone can have life and communion with God unless they put their faith in Christ and in fact, anyone without Christ will perish (whatever and whenever perish is).

 

How do you hold such a firm view on “perish” BUT then not have a firm grasp on what that might mean???

As for “communion with God”… Melchizedek was such a one who most certainly did, and he was NOT of the Abrahamic faith line.

 

Davo,

Regarding the leaves, ignorance etc, like I said, it seems just a matter of semantics. The difference being that with my understanding I would be left believing that death is not defeated (at the very least outside the covenant community).

You asked: How do you hold such a firm view on “perish” BUT then not have a firm grasp on what that might mean???

Its not that I dont have a firm grasp on what perish is, its just that we could have different definitions and I thought it unnecessary to have to discuss which definition is correct. But, do you believe that people without Christ never perish (even if its only in the here and now)?

We need not venture into issues about Melchizedek or any other, just a simple yes or no regarding whether you believe people without Christ can have communion with God will suffice. I answer in the negative.

There are a few points that I need you to comment on:

You said the end for the dogs was death. Now, is this a reference only to those who died in the destruction of Jerusalem or did even those who survived but were not Christian also end in this death?

It seems nevertheless that we agree that there are indeed people who are not yet drinking from this water, you call them "not in the know" I understand them as being dead since they are not drinking from the river of life (obviously I believe that the only way to have life is to drink the water of life)

You said:Yep that’s true when referring to “this LIFE” in the here and now… remembering that Jesus has already secured the life to come

Just to be clear, are you agreeing that without "this LIFE" people are dead (yes, in the here and now)?

Jefrey: The difference being that with my understanding I would be left believing that death is not defeated (at the very least outside the covenant community).

Yes that would be right. From the pantelist perspective however IF the parousia has occurred then like the moniker of this website declares… “death is defeated”, period.

 

Jefrey: Its not that I dont have a firm grasp on what perish is…

Well I was only responding to what you had posted, as in “anyone without Christ will perish (whatever and whenever perish is).” That sure sounded vague enough to me.

 

Jefrey: But, do you believe that people without Christ never perish (even if its only in the here and now)?

For a pantelist the “whatever and whenever” and “never perish” was relative to Christ’s Ad70 Parousia. Those who clung to the old covenant age were covenantally wound up with that age… for some that equated to the very loss of physical lives in Israel’s and in particular Jerusalem’s end of days Ad66-70 period. The bulk that managed to survive those days died off in captivity in Rome, never again to see their great City.

 

Jefrey: We need not venture into issues about Melchizedek or any other, just a simple yes or no regarding whether you believe people without Christ can have communion with God will suffice. I answer in the negative.

With all due respect Jefrey this response seems a little odd… just because my answer wasn’t according to your “simple yes or no” criteria is no reason to dismiss it, unless of course if what I’ve said creates problems and implications for your position; but then what happens to enquiry?

 

Jefrey: You said the end for the dogs was death. Now, is this a reference only to those who died in the destruction of Jerusalem or did even those who survived but were not Christian also end in this death?

BOTH… as explained above.

 

Jefrey: Just to be clear, are you agreeing that without "this LIFE" people are dead (yes, in the here and now)?

Hmm I’m a bit confused… you’d better qualify what specifically you are meaning by “this LIFE” as I think we may have been talking past each other??

RSS

Events

Forum

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Dustin Curlee 13 hours ago. 15 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Boyardee May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Boyardee Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

The Day of Atonement

Started by K1 in Eschatology. Last reply by K1 Apr 25, 2015. 9 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service