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

“Sam Frost says he debunks Max King’s corporate body premise”

I’m hoping someone can clue me in on how Frost has defeated Max King’s “seed” explanation in his most recent article.  Article here

Here are some excerpts and a follow up post so you don’t have to wade through the whole episode of Sam’s. What I’m having a problem with is that Frost says that half of King’s book is devoted to 1 Cor 15 yet he doesn’t interface with John 12:24 … “King nowhere mentions this verse when dealing with I
Co 15!”
.  However I found that King indeed does interface fully with John 12:24 and 1 Cor 15 concerning the
seed analogy on pages 169, 171 [extensively] and 225-226. All one had to do was check the index in the back of King’s book the “Cross and the Parousia” to find that out.

Again if someone could make some coherence out of what Frost point is below in the excerpts I am quoting I would appreciate it.  It seems at first glance that Frost has invented another straw man argument that doesn’t make a lick of sense like he did on the infinity issue so that he can dispose of all things full Preterist
and especially now the corporate body view which he used to heavily defend.

It appears that Frost has now completely misapplied the context of John 12:24 and 1 Cor 15 concerning the “seed” analogy to the point of non-recognition.  Give me your thoughts on his take.

Begin Frost excerpts … “Through a series of arguments
concerning the “time texts” (“near” “at hand” “about to be” “this generation” et
) the Full Preterist believes that all things relating to the resurrection
of the dead were fulfilled. The dead were raised in AD 70. Obviously, the
traditional notion of the “self-same body” of individual believers being
transformed into a glorified body did not happen. But, since the AD 70 event is
the terminus, and since the Bible nowhere, ever speaks about the end of
time (Preston, op. cit., 2-3), then one must, by design of the
framework, come up with how the dead were raised, and how those
“who are alive and remain” were changed. A huge task.

The given of the AD 70 terminus demands that
such a task be undertaken. This is one of the key arguments this series will
interact with later on
. King impressively undertakes this task and produced
his tome as a result. Half of the 784 pages of his book is devoted to chapter
15 of I Co. There King interacts with the traditional view as well as
various commentaries noting their inconsistency in the text itself. This
is another key argument
. One must consistently keep the definition of “the
dead” intact through all 58 verses. Showing how the commentaries do not, in
fact, do this, disarms the objections a bit. For me, it disarmed it enough in
order to start to see that maybe, just maybe, it was possible that, given
the presuppositions above, a 70 AD resurrection was in view. Since I was
already fully committed to the AD 70 terminus, then I had no other
choice but to look.

Exegetically Disarmed

The first argument, though it may appear that I am going out
of order, that I want to tackle is exegetical (actually, there are at least
two, but I will deal with the others later on in the series). King does not say
this in his book, but when I heard him speak for the first time, he spoke of
the “seed analogy” of Paul in I Co 15.35-44. It was somewhat comical,
intentionally. The seed, in Paul’s analogy, is first sown, and then
dies. If the seed is taken as a metaphor for the individual human body, the
analogy fails. I paraphrase King, “Make sure I am dead before you bury
me!” Lots of laughter. On a more serious note, King wrote, “One does not sow
that which is dead already. Paul’s point is not, “that which is dead is not quickened
unless it is sown,” but, “that which you sow is not quickened, except it
die”" (King, 543). I nearly fell off the pew.

I had been taught, and never questioned up to this point,
that the seed represented the dead body going down into the ground and one day
being raised back up again. Never questioned it. My undergraduate work never
questioned it since I went to a traditional Bible College. This was when I
knew, simply from hearing this and reading it, that there was more than a
possibility. Something was truly going on here with the way I heard all of my
life in church, and now
. I mean, there it was: a seed goes into the ground first,
and then it dies. That can’t be talking about individual corpses!
From that moment, 19 years ago, I never questioned this retort.

This was strengthened by the fact that when King quoted some
commentaries (he does not interact with a ton of material here like one would
find in a technical commentary. King rarely appealed to the Greek text) which,
more or less, saw the analogical comparison as faulty, but urged that we
“cannot press Paul’s analogy here.” When I consulted other commentaries,
including some of my favorites, they all basically said the same thing.
And here came another strength in the King approach: King’s exegesis CAN
press the analogy perfectly
. For his approach, the seed does die after
it is sown and at the same time (concurrently) was being made alive at
the same time. My further research (noted in my book Exegetical Essays)
discovered that Paul consistently used the present tense-aspect in the
indicative mood in the Greek text (I had seminary Greek training under my
belt). We will discuss these arguments later in the series.

Argument Defeated

Virtually all the commentaries point to John 12.24:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground
and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” No one
doubts the meaning of this text: Jesus must die and be raised in order to bear
much fruit. He used a “kernel of wheat” (“a seed”) that first falls into
the ground and then dies. Same analogy. Same meaning. Then it hit me:
if the analogy here works, then why can it not work in I Co
Interestingly enough, King nowhere mentions this verse when dealing with I
15! Green does not mention it. Shirks doesn’t. Neither does Kroll. I, in
fact, do mention it (Frost, 63) but completely miss the point of the commentary
I footnoted (Gordon Fee). Is it anymore contradictory here in John? This
single verse exploded what had been perceived as so sound in my mind. Jesus
died before he was “sown” or “fell into the ground”. But, clearly, Jesus said
the kernel of wheat dies after it has been sown into the ground. And
then it hit me again: this is why the commentaries backed off pressing
Paul’s analogy, because they could no more press the same analogy in John 12.24
The analogy was not meant to be pressed. It is merely meant to illustrate
the principle that life comes from death. Period.
Paul’s “seed” does not
“stand for” the human body anymore than Jesus “stood for” the kernel of wheat.
These are not allegorical illustrations at all. They are illustrations
to help give an idea that life can proceed from that which has died.
Simple. If not, and if pressed, we would have to think that Jesus did not die
on the cross. Rather, he died after he was entombed – that is, if we pressed
the analogy.

The structure I had created in my mind began to crumble. For
the first time, my work on this text began to show signs of weakness. All the
times I had repeated the argument of King here were now in doubt. There it was.
Jesus’ own words. And this was just one of the arguments. In this series, I
will show others. A couple more key hooks from King have come into doubt as
well – and the answer was right there in front of me. Of course, I wasn’t
looking for an “answer” – I already had the answer: Full Preterism. My
presuppositions were strong. Like the one that “the Bible nowhere, ever, speaks
of the end of time.” Infinity took care of that one, rooted in the omniscience
of God. Now, I had an “end of time” and even a few texts (as I have noted in my
articles on Infinity, located on this site). But, what to do with I Co 15?
I mean, parousia, “the last trump”, and “the end” are all mentioned
there as they are in Mt 24, and that, I believe, is definitely speaking
of AD 70 even in a wealth of non-Full Preterist works. One of the key arguments
of Full Preterism was logical consistency (except when it came to infinity –
there many of them cried, “Paradox!”). If Mt 24 was fulfilled, then I
15 must also be fulfilled, right?

Stay tuned…….


Sam Frost … “I did want to point this out. I was cleaning up
around my library and found an older work by Jack Scott and Tim King, Covenant
Eschatology: A Comprehensive Overview from Living Presence Ministries (1998).
There, in the section on the seed analogy (I Co 15), John 12.24 is mentioned
(p. 42). They make no mention of King’s point about being dead before being
buried (sown). Jesus is the “inclusive seed body”. “How much clearer could
Jesus be that he is the inclusive seed body that dies, thus producing much
fruit?” (42). And, that’s it. That’s the only point they make. No “analogy”
break-down, no noticing that if Jesus is the seed, he is sown (entombed) before
he dies. I do not wish to judge the intention of anyone here, anymore than
judging my own intention at the time, that I just did not see the point I am
making now. I do not think “sleight of hand” or deliberate deception was going
on. I don’t think that they “saw” this point because they were not “looking”
for it anymore than I was. I do not wish at all to cast any doubts concerning
“motivations” and the like in that I believe that is sinful judgment. I have to
give benefit of the doubt that here are two guys I respected (and still do)
that quote John 12.24 in the context of Paul’s seed analogy and miss the very
point that it blows away Max King’s point about people being buried alive. The
seed analogy here is simply an illustration of moving “from death to life”
(43). That’s it and nothing more. Paul is not breaking down an allegory or
speaking parabolically here. He is not saying “the husk of the seed comes off
and what’s inside the seed comes out, like the physical body breaks off and the
soul comes out and God gives the soul a body as he has pleased”. Nope. That’s
pressing way, way too much, and, if that is pressed here, then there is NO
REASON why not to press it in John 12.24. Jesus’ flesh was not raised. His soul
was given a new body etc., etc. Jesus’ point and Paul’s point were exactly the
same: in God’s creation, we can take a seed for an example: from decay comes

Link here

Views: 232

Comment by Norm on March 28, 2011 at 12:58am
If I get a chance I'll post some excerpts of Max King's articles from the Pages in question tommorow so that one can make comparison.
Comment by Norm on March 28, 2011 at 2:28pm


I mentioned I wanted to bring some of Max Kings thoughts to this subject and so I’ve included them below for context to help evaluate Sam’s contesting.


Christ is an inclusive Man (or Body) page 169


It is clear in Pauline writings that Christ is an inclusive man, and therefore, He determines the destiny of the many.  He was Israel’s future because He was Israel’s Messiah.  As the promised “seed” He determines the one common destiny of all who were, and are, contained within Him (Gal. 3:16). What happens to “the seed” is decisive for all that is within that seed body. This is where the significance of the cross surfaces. Christ death and resurrection can not be isolated to Himself. They were determinative events for the many. As Christ expressed it, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” 9Jno. 12:24).


The Promised Seed page 170-171


It must be kept in mind that Christ was the “promised seed.” When He was  “made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17), and  “according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:1-3), the promised seed had arrived in Israel.  He had the right “seed body” (the body of flesh), which was inclusive of the many who were of the flesh. The ONE became THE MANY in His Messianic function in order to determine their future, their destiny. But the “seed body” must die in order to bring forth the promised fruit, that is, the destiny of the many (Jno> 12:24).  Thus Paul wrote, “we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all “have died” (2 Cor. 5:14 RSV).  This means that the “body of Christ” which was crucified was an inclusive body, otherwise it could not be said that “all died” in the death of the One.  Furthermore, what Christ became bodily by His resurrection in the realm of the Spirit is not something “new” or “original” in the sense that it was unrelated to His pre-cross mode of being.


But why did Christ die?  Was it accidental, unplanned, unforeseen? Was it contrary to His fulfilling of the promise?  Was the promise to be fulfilled “in the body of his flesh” or in the body of his flesh “through death?” Remember, Christ was the promised seed.  Why must a seed die? Clearly, a seed is not sown in order that it might perish, but that it might yield the intended fruit. Sowing a seed does not postpone what it was designed to bring forth. Rather, the sowing is the preliminary ground work for making a harvest possible.  Hear Paul on this matter: “Though fool, that which thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of grain. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body … so also is the resurrection of the dead … it is sown a natural body;  it is raised a spiritual body.  There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:36-38,42,44).


Paul is not saying that there are two separate, unrelated bodies. There is ONE BODY only, but that one body is identified with two modes of existence by which it is determined either a natural or a spiritual body. The natural, however was the forerunner of the spiritual. IT is sown a natural body; IT 9the body sown) is raised a spiritual body.  The bodily change takes place by death and resurrection, of dying and rising, which are concurrent, not chronological, actions.  The process of dying ministers to the rising of the body.  While the “outward man” perishes, the “inward man” is renewed (2 Cor. 4: 

End of Max King excerpts

Comment by John on March 28, 2011 at 11:18pm

Sam says preterist have to cram everything into AD70...Sam's cramming everything into the creeds and confessions.


I'm just on the edge of my seat to see Sam rewrite his exegesis on the Greek tenses in 1Cor15.

Comment by Phil Naessens on March 29, 2011 at 12:58am

Hi John,


You said;


"Sam says preterist have to cram everything into AD70"


Me here: He's correct about that. I don't think anyone can really deny that's what occurs within the F&HP theological paradigm.


You said;


"I'm just on the edge of my seat to see Sam rewrite his exegesis on the Greek tenses in 1Cor15."


Me: I'm not sitting on the edge of my seat but it will be interesting to see this as well. I think it will serve as a great teaching tool as to how easy it is to make mistakes with the Greek language as well as the humilty to admit their/his mistakes. We'll see.



Comment by davo on March 29, 2011 at 3:24am

Phil IMO... Sam’s and your above type of rhetoric have about as much credibility as for example those who try to 'point score' against Pentecostals by asserting they "cram everything into” the likes of Acts 2 – in their respective areas such sorts of partisan spin can be extruded from across all parts of Christendom. It makes about as much sense as taking a ‘higher than thou’ type jibe at Israel’s 2000+yrs redemptive history being “crammed into” 3yrs of Christ’s ministry etc. IOW, these are but simplistic bursts of hot air.


Comment by Phil Naessens on March 29, 2011 at 5:07am

Hey Davo,


Before you reached your conclusions regarding AD70 (I don't know what you believe but I'm assuming you adhere to most if not all that is espoused here) where did you place the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, destruction of Satan and second coming of Christ? In the future right? Then when those time texts jumped out at ya you accepted the second coming and then force fed the rest into the "it must have happened in 70AD" timeframe, right? If not you would be the first one I have personally interacted with that didn't cram everything into ad70 to fit their new found beliefs. Maybe it's hot air to you but that doesn't make what Sam has said any less truthful. 

Comment by John on March 29, 2011 at 5:40am


I don't think the word "cram" is a fair description.Let's say the second coming happens tomorrow...wouldn't that mean the resurrection,judgment and destruction of Satan would have happen and become past events? IOW"s our view is no different then yours except we believe it's past.

Granted we different on the nature of the events.But I'm speaking of the timing.Futurist have all three events happening simultaneously just like preterist.So you guys do the same cramming.

It's just that you futurist have been elasticizing the time text (soon,near at hand,at the door) for 2,000 years because your bound by the creeds and confessions.


Here is how Sam Frost put it in his book "Misplaced Hope" 

"One of the hurdles that has stood in the way to a more consistent answer in eschatology is the insistence by the majority view of history in the Christian confessions and creeds, that, Jesus “shall come again” at some future point “to judge the living and the dead.” This simply, in my opinion, does not square with the New Testamentvoice of the apostles who with one accord proclaimed,“the end of all things has drawn near.”

I think Sam was being truthful then.

Comment by Phil Naessens on March 29, 2011 at 6:35am

Hi John,


I think a better word would be re-define and a better question would be what did you redefine in order to fit into your new paradigm? Resurrection of the dead? The Atonement?


Fortunately for me and my consistant theological position (Thanks again Tami) I don't have to re-define the essential aspects of the historic Christian faith and rest in the hope that the promises Christ has made will come true. Some might call that naive. The bible calls it faith (Heb 11:1).


As far as the quote you've presented, well, people change. I do understand why there is questioning and why some believe as you do that something else is behind his sudden change but I saw this coming right after reading HD, and even told someone that posts here that Sam and Jason would be leaving the movement. That was LONG before they left. People change. Sam will tell us why he left and I think its unfair to speculate as to why he left or what his future plans are until we hear it from Sam....




Comment by Wanda Short on March 29, 2011 at 6:51am
Yup.  I can certainly attest to that prediction made by Phil long ago.  I am confused as to the question of why Sam has changed his views tho as it seems he has answered the why even if we don't agree with his conclusions.
Comment by John on March 29, 2011 at 7:15am


Many of us predicted Sam would leave when he was unable to refute Covenant Creation.He got clobbered on 2 Peter and basically bailed out after that.


Wanda i think Phil is referring to what we mentioned earlier about Sam's exegesis on the Greek tenses in 1Cor15.

I'm not that concerned why Sam left.The only thing that I'm concerned with Sam now is making sure he doesn't get away with any flimsy scholarship in his attempt to refute Covenant Eschatology.


That's why I'm glad Norm made this post and we're going to keep pointing out Sam's straw man arguments :)



You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Olivet Discourse Movie

How the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century.
Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21
Riley O'Brien Powell



Delivered from the Law

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 15. 13 Replies

FEAR obviously struck..

Started by Julia A Waldron in Eschatology. Last reply by John Mar 24. 1 Reply

For the Preterist

Started by Julia A Waldron in Eschatology. Last reply by Julia A Waldron Mar 24. 22 Replies

Isaiah 2:2-4 Used to refute preterism

Started by Steve G. in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Aug 13, 2018. 1 Reply

This Site Active?

Started by Doug in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Jul 29, 2018. 28 Replies

Gen 1 vs Isa 51

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 3, 2018. 4 Replies

The sin of the Gentiles

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Brother Les Jan 18, 2018. 3 Replies

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Nov 5, 2017. 9 Replies

Though he dies yet shall he live

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 25, 2017. 8 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6, 2017. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by Judy Peterson Apr 8, 2018. 21 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Judith Ann Maness Aug 4, 2018. 10 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

© 2019   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service