1 Cor. 15 - Part I

The following is a response to my former pastor concerning my preterist stance. He has not condemned me as a heretic…yet anyways. He has stated that all scripture can lead to a preterist position…with the exception of course of 1 Cor. 15. He’s asked for my views on it and this is what I presented.

Part I

1 Cor. 15? Yes...I wrestled with this passage for about a year. I read as much as I could read on it and I'm still reading. I think Max King and Sam Frost did the most to persuade me.

First, I presuppose Adonai's prophecy in Matt. 24 and other areas of the Gospel to have been fulfilled in 70 AD. I believe all of Matt. 24 and 25 are fulfilled...as do men like Gentry and DeMar. In these texts we have the tribulation, abomination of desolation, destruction of Jerusalem, coming of the Son of Man, the Great Throne Judgment and the Resurrection. I cannot with them claim a "prophetic idiom" or "double fulfillment". The scriptures don't speak of this as double fulfillment, nor do the writers imply double fulfillment. It is my opinion that here is where we read into the text something which they did not mean. Scripture was not written to us, but for us. So it is with this lens that I read the rest of scripture.

Second, I presuppose that whatever understanding of the resurrection that we must have must be the understanding of the Apostles. Paul said that he preached nothing but what the Law and the Prophets had to say about the resurrection in Acts. He said multiple times that he was on trial, or accused by the Jews because of his preaching on the resurrection of the dead.

"Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial." (Acts 23:5-7)

"…other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: 'It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day." (Acts 24:20-21)

“And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?” (Acts 26.6-8)

He called this preaching the Hope of Israel (Acts 28:20). So, if his understanding of the resurrection, which was the hope of Israel, is found in the OT, then we need to look to the OT for our understanding. I find no references of a bodily resurrection (which in fact is a term never used in Scripture) appearing in the OT. Paul appeals to Hosea 13, Isaiah 25, Daniel 12 and Ezekiel 37 when referencing the resurrection of the dead. When referencing the OT, Paul was not just using isolated texts, but the entire context as you well know. It appears from these texts that he was saying something totally different than what the Pharisees were saying. The Sadducees had brought charges to Paul as well. Why? The Pharisees spoke of a resurrection (more than likely a bodily resurrection), but they never brought charges to them. My question becomes then, what was Paul's understanding of the OT texts that the Pharisees missed? As you well know the Jews thinking was carnal, focused on earthly things. They had an earthly temple, and earthly sacrifices, worshiped on an earthly mountain, and longed for an earthly land, to be ruled by an earthly kingdom. Even the disciples had this understanding in Acts when they asked Adonai if He was going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time. They were wrong in their understanding. The Kingdom would not be physical, but spiritual. The time came when we wouldn’t worship on a mountain, but in spirit and truth. We don't need a temple, for we are a temple, being built up into a house (Eph. 2:19-23;1 Peter 2:4-6) We no longer offer physical sacrifices, for one being that Adonai was our propitiation, and the fact that we now offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:4-6). We no longer look for an earthly fulfillment of the land promise, but we inherit the earth. There is to be no earthly New Jerusalem, but one made without hands (Hebrews 11:8-10). This New Jerusalem is said to come down from above (Heb. 12:22). Think about the account of John 3. Adonai told Niccodemus that in order to be in His kingdom one had to be born "from above". Mashiach told Him that one had to be born of water and spirit. We know that he was speaking of Jeremiah, but also of Ezekiel. Niccodemus was the representative of Israel, the teacher of Israel and he did not know the scriptures (Derrick Oliff does a masterful job explaining what Yeshua was getting at, you can find that here: The Eschatology of Being Born Again). Niccodemus could not grasp what Yeshua was saying. Because Yeshua was speaking of Heavenly things, while the Jews spoke of earthly things. The resurrection of the dead was a heavenly thing as shown by the context of Ezekiel 37. Ezekiel 37 speaks of the Restoration of Israel. That was their hope! In fact, Ezekiel 37 is the gospel. This was the good news. Israel would be restored (resurrection)[vv. 1-14), and YHWH would be their King and rule forever (vv. 22-27), and the mystery would be that the Nations (Gentiles) would know Him as well (v28). They would be restored to the land, both tribes would be united again (and so all Israel shall be saved), Mashiach would atone for their sins, and He would reign in the everlasting New Covenant. Note: If Yeshua is said to have brought the New Covenant, a covenant that would last forever, how is that some believe that He is coming to end the covenant which He came to establish?

So, it is with this framework that I look to 1 Cor. 15.

Not all the Corinthians believed that there wasn't a resurrection of the dead, however, some of them did. Who were the some? It appears that there was division. It’s not as though this hadn’t been going on already. We see it in Acts, Romans, Galatians and Colossians. We already know that from 3rd chapter of Corinthians that some were claiming to follow Paul, some Apollos, and others Cephas. Weren't they all being taught by Paul and Peter the same Resurrection? So...some believed...while others didn't. Who were the some that believed? Who were the some that didn't? I think that this could be found in their division? Peter was sent to the Jews while Paul was sent to the Gentiles? There was a division, once again, amongst the Jews and the Gentiles. Perhaps this plays out in who was denying the "resurrection from the dead". When Paul is speaking about "the dead" here he is not speaking about dead bodies. He's speaking about Israel. In Ezekiel 37, it's written that Israel were the "dried up bones". They were the dead. Israel was under the law of sin and death in the Mosaic Economy. The Law was the ministration of "the death" (2 Cor. 3:7). Who is it that was under the law? It was not the gentiles who were under the law, but the house of Israel. It was to them that the Mosaic Covenant was extended (they received their covenant curse in 70 AD).
Throughout the establishment of the Early Church we find that there is division between the Jews and the Gentiles. This is during the transition of covenantal ages. The age they were in was "this age". They were looking for the consummating time of "the age to come". This is where the "already" and "not yet" are clearly seen. The writer to the Hebrews clearly expresses in Heb. 8:13- In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
It had not fully vanished. They saw in a mirror dimly and were waiting for that which was perfect, that which they could see face to face (1 Cor 13:12). There was constant friction between the Jews and the Gentiles, between the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. They hadn't figured it out yet. The mystery hadn't caught them yet. This is what Rom. 9-11 was about. The Gentiles were the "some" that were denying the "resurrection of the dead". They were more than likely teaching what dispensationals call "replacement theology". They thought Israel had been cut off. They see this Jewish Apostle, who was sent to the Gentiles preaching that circumcision means nothing, and that dietary laws are done away with and the Mosaic Economy is being done away with. Paul and the others were preaching that the destruction of Israel was soon upon them. They called their synagogues, synagogues of Satan. Surely these Gentiles thought that YHWH was done with Israel. And He was...but not All Israel was Israel. This is why Paul says that the calling and election of YHWH is irrevocable. YHWH had promised that He would redeem Israel through Mashiach. This is the Corinthian denial. They denied that YHWH was going to restore Israel. This restoration is the resurrection. Yeshua...is the resurrection. Martha looked to a resurrection on the last day...Mashiach told her that He was "THE resurrection". He is the representative head of the body of Israel. It seems to me that all of the earthly promises and talk of the OT find their physical fulfillment in Mashiach, yet are applied to us spiritually.

Paul in 1 Cor. 15 (btw way, he calls the "some" brothers, not heretics) says that Mashiach “was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” Where does it say this in scripture that He was raised on the third day? The only reference to a 3rd day resurrection is Hosea 6-1-3. But this resurrection speaks of Old Covenant Israel, not of Mashiach. But Paul says it speaks of Yeshua, so then it must speak of both of them. He does it again in vv. 55-56 referencing Hosea 13:14.In fact, 1 Cor. 15 is just a big commentary on the book of Hosea. Sowing or planting of Israel, God’s seed (in 1.4, Hosea’s first child was named Jezreel, lit, “God sows,” in the earth (2.23); Israel died (1.5); harvest appointed for Judah (6.11) at the resurrection (13.14, quoted as fulfilled in I Cor.15.55); David ruling on his throne (3.4-5); Adam’s death/transgressing the covenant (6.7; 13.1); Israel the first-fruits (9.10); and, God becomes their king (13.10). This is the gospel. Paul is using Logic to prove his point. It's an argument known as "modus tollens". To deny the resurrection from the dead would be to deny Christ is raised, to affirm that their faith is futile, and they are still in their sins. The Corinthians didn't believe that. They affirmed that Christ had risen, they did not believe in vain, and they believed that Christ had atoned for their sins. The Resurrection of the dead (Israel) was so intrinsically tied to Mashiach's resurrection that to deny one was to deny the other. And to deny either was to leave the Gentiles in their sins. The Restoration of Israel would bring about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Jewish rejection meant salvation for the Gentiles. Paul then argues, what would it mean for their inclusion?

In v. 18 of 1 Cor. 15 Paul says that if the resurrection of the dead does not happen, then those who have fallen asleep have perished. Those who would have fallen asleep include both Jews and Gentiles. Given that the "resurrection of the dead" was tied to the Gentile's resurrection, to deny the former would be to deny the latter. We know that the "some" who were denying the former believed in the latter. Paul in 1 Cor. 1:7 shows that they "eagerly waited" for it at the revealing of our Lord. If they flat out denied the resurrection, then how could they be said to be waiting for their own resurrection? They denied something else...and that is the resurrection of the Old Covenant Saints...of Israel. They denied the harvest. This harvest was to be at the end of the Mosaic Age (Matt. 13:39-43 ), not at the end of the time, nor was it supposed to be separated some 2000 years from its first-fruits. Lev. 23 knows of no such understanding. We find in Daniel 12 that the resurrection was to be at the end of the age. Yeshua alluded to Dan. 12:1-11 and said it would be fulfilled in "that generation". YHWH tells Daniel that he would rise "at the end of the days". The end of the days, or the end of the age had fallen on 1st Century Believers (1 Cor. 10:11).

Their resurrection did not have to be physical. Rom. 6-8 is a parallel of 1 Cor. 15 and I don't know many who interpret that as physical. Romans 6:5 says that we have been united (Lit. planted) in a death like His, and that likewise we will be united in a resurrection like His. We don't expect to literally "die" a death like His, but it says we have. This goes back to what I said earlier about Mashiach rising on the third day being Israel and Him both. Through baptism we have died with Mashiach, and through baptism, we have risen with Mashiach. Through Him, the curse of sin-death (not physical death) has been reversed. I say that because I do not believe that physical death was introduced in the fall of Adam, but sin death being the death that he died "that day". Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:21 that by man came death. Literally it reads, "the death". This was not physical death because there was a "life giving" tree in the garden. If Adam was created immortal, then what need was there for an immortal giving tree in the garden? So, this "death" that came by Adam was Spiritual Death. He was separated from Elohim, being removed from the Garden, out of the grasp of the tree of life and fellowship with Elohim. He returned from whence he came. He was formed from the dust of the earth (outside the garden) and he would return there. The only curse that Elohim gave him was the curse of the ground. If Paul here means physical death then he is not speaking of Adam, but of Abel. Abel was the first recorded person to physically die. V. 22 says "even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive". If in Adam all are dead spiritually, then those who are made alive in Mashiach are made alive spiritually. This is death and resurrection language. Ephesians 2 is one of the most oft quoted verses for Calvinism.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved - and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

It will be said that this has a double fulfillment. But where are we told that it has another meaning? Ezekiel 37:12 states, “I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel.” Paul is saying the same thing Ezekiel is saying. He would raise us up. Ezekiel is using resurrection language. These were not actual dead bodies, but Israel, the dead. Ezekiel writes that they would be brought into the land, but this does not speak of a plot of land in Palestine. The writer of the Hebrews says that we look to a heavenly country. This is the fulfillment of the New Covenant.

1 Cor. 15:24 would be at the end. This is not an end of the global world, or even the end of time. Scripture never uses this language. But it is the end of the Mosaic Economy. The Old Covenant being the Old Heavens and Earth that would pass away, and we would behold all things new in the glorious New Age, the New Heavens and Earth (the age to come). The age which Mashiach came to establish has no end (Isa. 9.6-7; Lk. 1.31-33). Yeshua said that there was to be an end of an age. Therefore there must be two different ages. Yeshua said one of those ages would end in "that generation" (Matt. 24:34). Hebrews refers to it as the Old Covenant that was passing away and becoming obsolete.

Mt. 24.3, 6, 34 – The end – to occur in Jesus’ generation.
Mt. 10.22 – “He that endureth to the end shall be saved.”
Mt. 24.6 – “But the end is not yet.”
Mt. 24.13 – “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
Mt. 24.14 – “Then shall the end come.”
I Cor. 1.8 – “Who shall also confirm you unto the end.”
I Cor. 10.11 – “Upon whom the ends of the ages are come.”
I Cor. 15.24 – “Then cometh the end.”
Heb. 3.6 – “Firm unto the end.”
Heb. 3.14 – “Steadfast unto the end.”
Heb. 6.11 – “Diligence unto the end.”
I Pet. 4.7 – “The end of all things is at hand.”
Rev. 2.26 – “He that keepeth my works unto the end.”
(J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983], pp. 247-250.)

Mashiach has delivered the Kingdom over to Abba in v. 25. This does not mean that His reign ends. How can it? His reign is said to be forever and ever. Joseph was said to not have relations with Mary until the birth of Yeshua. This does not mean that after this time that he would never have relations with her again as we know that they had other children. In Mt. 25.31, Jesus said: “But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.” This was said to be fulfilled in "their" generation. In Rev. 22.3, we see Yeshua and Abba sitting on the throne simultaneously: “And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him.”

The Last enemy to be destroyed is death. Literally it says, “the last enemy that is being destroyed.” It's a present passive tense, not future. Physical death isn’t an enemy to a Christian
Can be shown by Paul in Phil. 1.21: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain”. Also, the Psalmist said, in 116.15: “Precious in the sight of the Lord Is the death of His godly ones”. The death that is destroyed is "the death" that Adam died "that day". We are now made alive in Mashiach. We can now fellowship with Adonai. We are no longer exiled. Israel was restored. And YHWH now reigns. Paul said he preached what the Law and the Prophets had to say. They taught the restoration of Israel, not the restoration of physical bodies from the ground.

I understand that this is a lot and may take you some time to sift through. I also understand that this is not exhaustive of the texts concerning the resurrection of the dead. I know that there will be questions, and maybe some I don’t know how to answer. Like 1 Cor. 15:28 “And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.” I really don’t know what this means or how the Trinity works in detail. I will go over what kind of body will be raised in the next installment. I appreciate your willingness to go through this with me. It really means a lot to me.