Last reply here. Since the resurrection body became so prominent in our discussion, essentially becoming a debate about the resurrection body instead of the kingdom, I’ll be addressing these points first and under one subheading rather than addressing everything point by point, so as to not make a needlessly long final reply.

Resurrection-Body

In regard to 2 Cor. 5:1-9, we are still hashing out whether the phrase “in the heavens” is a description of the future body as is “not made with hands” or “eternal”, or whether it is just a reference to where the body resides in a proleptic sense, coming FROM heaven.

Had Paul stated that we are now wearing the new body in a fully proleptic sense, then “in the heavens” would indeed point to the body being in heaven and us wearing it there. Thus your argument would be legitimate. However, that is not what Paul says. He says we have it and that it is reserved in heaven at present so that the proleptic aspect is only in us ‘having’ it.

As has been shown in 1 Thessalonians 4 the resurrection occurs on earth and only then are Christians taken into air to meet the Lord.  As the body is first given to Christians on the earth there is no way to read the text to mean the body is eternally in heaven.

One thing I have noticed though is that I could not find a commentary that interprets this passage as you do. They all see this as an indication that this body from God will be eternally in the heavens. Even those that agree with the insertion of the comma still view it as a reference to where the body will be in the future. Do you have a commentator or scholar available that describes your view explicitly? If so, then maybe we can agree to disagree and leave this particular aspect of the passages, in the heavens, waiting in the wings until other passages either confirm or deny one view or the other.

Most commentators usually take 2 Corinthians 5 as evidence of an intermediate state that occurs upon death, which supports neither position. But be that as it may, to answer your question, I can think of two off the top of my head: Anthony Buzzard and (deceased) Samuele Bacchiocchi.

Which confirms exactly what I have been saying. The new body is not the old body, so the existence of the new body does not constitute a resurrection of the old body. The SEED is the object of the resurrection, that “memory” which establishes the continuity between the old and the new.

You say that what I said confirms what you’ve been saying about the resurrection body. What I said was this:

This is why what is sown, our corruptible body, is not the same corruptible body raised, but an incorruptible one.

I explicitly said that what is “sown” is the corruptible body which is not what you’ve been saying, so how it “confirms” your view is beyond me. You say the object of the resurrection is the “memory” which is evidently what you believe is sown. Yet, 1 Corinthians 15:44 explicitly tells us what is sown: a natural body. This text blatantly contracts what it is you say is sown. Indeed, on May 4^th (2012) in your 6^th reply to me you stated emphatically:

Paul’s argument specifically states that the old body is not SOWN.

Yet, consider 1 Corinthians 15:44 again: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (NASB)

Rotherham: old body is not SOWN
Paul: natural body is sown

Unless the “old body” is not the “natural body,” Paul’s teaching is exactly the opposite of what you claim he is saying.   The text does not say “it is sown in a natural body.”

This would have been a great argument had you actually addressed the right word under question. Paul uses the word “allasso” in 1 Cor. 15:50, 51. The primary lexical meaning is given as “to cause one thing to cease and another thing to take its place”, to “exchange”. It also gives the meaning of transform which tells us that one way something can transform is through an exchange. You see the soul in the sense of the personality remains the same, but the body changes. That way the “person” transforms via an exchange of bodies. Paul supports the very notion of “exchange” via the word “allosso. This is further confirmed when he says that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom. Flesh and blood is just a reference to the human organism according to Biblical precedent.

That “exchange” is not in view is clear from verses 53-54 where “this which is corruptible,” that is, the “natural body” he has been speaking about, “puts on in corruption” and “immortality.” There’s nothing to “put on” over that which is “corruptible” if the body has been exchanged and done away with.   The same verb appears in Hebrews 1:12 for the heavens and the earth, yet you do not believe these will be swapped with a new heavens and a new planet earth.   BDAG includes the meaning “to make someth. other or different, change, alter,” in complete agreement with my position.

You claim Paul’s mention of “flesh and blood” not inheriting the kingdom supports this position but yet ignore the fact that Paul parallels this expression, in typical Hebrew fashion, with “neither does corruption inherit incorruption,” explaining what he meant.   Had Paul intended to mean human he had every reason to just have said “human,” but instead he focused upon characteristics associated with corruptibility in our present bodies.   That this isn’t what he intended is evident in only a few verses prior when it was this very term he used to describe the resurrected Jesus.

Power is the opposite of weakness. Glory is the opposite of dishonor. Incorruptible is the opposite of corruptible. Likewise, if we stick with the pattern here presented, the physical would be the opposite of the spiritual. In each case, either in the sense of those things being done away with or the sense of those things being opposites, you must break the contextual pattern that is established within the passage in order to say that the physical is not the opposite of spiritual or that it is not done away with as are the other things. The Biblical pattern of thought expressed demands that the physical is done away, just like every other thing in that list.

These are descriptions that are antithetical to the current condition of the body. If the body is now weak, it will be powerful. If it is corruptible, it will be incorruptible. And so on. The point is not that everything is the opposite therefore the body must be the opposite but that the conditions of the body will be done away with, replaced with qualities/conditions our current body doesn’t have.

If everything were opposite then the opposite of a “physical body” would be not “spiritual body” but “disembodied spirit.” This would accurately describe the opposite: opposite “substance” and opposite corporate make up (having no body).

You claim that Adam in his perfect state was corruptible in the sense he would decay at death. Only death would present the potential for the corruption in this sense. But in his perfect state, Adam would never die. IN his perfect state, death and corruption did not exist for Adam. Only sin brought that about, so to say he was corruptible in his perfect state before God is not accurate.

Adam was corruptible in that he had the potential to sin, rebel, and die even in his “perfect state.” Adam was not created immortal but was to achieve it.

The thing I don’t understand with you is that Paul did not say that Jesus became SPIRITUAL in contrast with the “soulical”, he said he became a SPIRIT. We all know what a SPIRIT is, don’t we? Why did Paul say that Jesus became a SPIRIT if he did not become a SPIRIT? He didn’t say SPIRITUAL, he said SPIRIT, solidifying the argument that the physical and the spiritual were opposites, just like everything else in that list.

Jesus did become a spirit, but by “spirit” you take this to mean immaterial, angelic. Yet, I have repeated instances in Paul where Christians are not in the flesh but in the spirit. In John 3 we have Jesus saying that which is born of spirit is spirit. There is nothing describing ontology in those texts. Unless 1 Corinthians 15:45 teaches that Adam was made/composed of “soul,” I see no reason why Jesus needs to be ontologically “spirit,” as if it were an actual substance.

As far as the bodies he refers to verses 39-41, he is simply making analogies that demonstrate that even from a human standpoint, there are different kinds of bodies. For the sake of humans, he only has human things to draw from to make analogies. It’s just logical for him to approach it that way. Beside, when he speaks of sun and moon and stars, he is speaking of things that from the perception of humans are simply lights in the sky, and that is a very good analogy to represent things immaterial, for lights are immaterial, especially from the standpoint of a first century human.

I’m not sure I understand the argument. Paul likens the celestial bodies to the differing sorts of glories in the natural order. Everything which he spoke about was physical in nature. To then say that Paul is alluding to physical things to make a point about an immaterial existence is nonsensical.

You state that Paul “only has human things to draw from,” but that is patently not true. As has been pointed out, he could have easily used angels as analogies even as Jesus did in Luke 20:36 for describing certain aspects of the resurrection. That Paul didn’t even mention angels, seraphs, or any other type of celestial being in relation to the nature of the resurrection bodies is telling.

The genitive doesn’t require the understanding that both bodies mentioned have to have the same substance. That is purely conjecture. First you say it is “implied” and then you say it HAS to be. Which is it? If it is a definite grammatical requirement please produce for me the rule of grammar that would dictate this to be true. I think I need to see that one. Otherwise this is just meaningless rhetoric.

I never said it “HAS” to be of the same nature. In fact, I twice made it clear that it is “Implied.” The only difference Paul describes between our bodies and Jesus’ is the condition, that is, humiliated vs glorious. The implication, then, is that both bodies are of the same kind. (Which makes sense since humans can only have bodies according to our kind. [1 Cor 15:38])  Beyond this, Jesus himself said he had flesh, (Luke 24:39) for which there is no reason to assume he took this only to appear.   Such is entirely speculative and not supported by any clear evidence.

But let’s look at Philippians 3:21 again: who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things to himself.

According to Paul what is that which will be refashioned/transformed? The “soul”/memory? No. The “person”? No. He unambiguously tells us the object of the transformation is “our humiliated body.”

Your answer to Galatians 1:1 where Paul said he did not receive his apostleship from a man, but from God and Jesus is that Paul was not referring to nature, but to the source of his apostleship, but the result is exactly the same. If Jesus was a man, and Jesus is the one who appointed Paul to his apostleship, how could he possibly say that the source did not involve a man without directly misrepresenting what Jesus was when he became an Apostle? His contrast is directly made between his apostleship being by Jesus Christ and not by man. Paul would in affect be lying about how he became an apostle.

Paul in Galatians 1:1 nowhere indicates he is referring to Jesus’ resurrection nature. To read it as such is to abuse Paul’s writings. Galatians 1:1 simply means that the source of Paul’s apostleship is not merely human. To say that he did not receive his apostleship from man does not mean that Jesus is not now human.

Using similar logic, the “apostles” in Galatians 1:17 are not “flesh and blood” (1:16) because Paul differentiates between them with “neither”. Yet, you would not accept this logic as valid but do so when it involves Galatians 1:1.

To give another example, following your logic on Jesus being distinguished from men you would also have to believe that Jesus never came into existence because nothing came into existence part from him (John 1:3).

Jesus, as man, GAVE himself as that man, yet lives as Jesus Christ now in heaven. Both Galatians and Timothy can be seen tense-wise to be referring to what Jesus, as man, did, which was GIVE himself as that man.

The problem is that in Galatians 1 Paul is sending grace and peace from the same one who gave himself. You claim that Jesus as a man gave himself so that now the man Jesus doesn’t exist. Yet, Galatians 1 explicitly counters this. The same one who gave himself sends grace.

Response to other non-Resurrection Arguments

the point made about there being ‘princes in the earth” should also help resolve this conflict. Think about it, the verse says that in place of his forefathers there will come to be his sons. Are we somehow to think that the forefathers won’t be there when it says in PLACE OF his forefathers? Surely the forefathers will be there too, won’t they? There’s really only one way that sons would take the PLACE OF forefathers and that is through HIM resurrecting his forefathers. That way they actually replace the forefathers by becoming his sons via resurrection. Surely you think that they are going to be in the new earth, right?  By him giving them life again, they become his sons. At the time of the resurrection, none of Christ’s brothers are ever referred to as HIS sons. It is these resurrected forefathers, one could specifically say through the line of David, that he says he will make them “princes” in the earth. That is another distinction between these ones and the holy ones. The holy ones are “kings” over the earth, these resurrected forefathers are princes, who are under the jurisdiction and authority of kings. Now, whether or not you agree or accept this understanding of these verses, the interpretation is valid and certainly works well within the framework of scriptures throughout. So, if your argument continues that the kingdom, those ruling that is, have to be on earth in some fashion, then this is the answer that would establish that common ground between our views. So maybe we can dispense with this aspect of the discussion and move on. It’s really pointless now. We can agree to a degree by saying that the heavenly seat of the government will be represented ON EARTH, PHYSICALLY via the princes that are appointed that used to be the forefathers of the Messiah and are now his sons. Princes are naturally SONS, not BROTHERS. Hebrews 2:13 doesn’t call the children there “the children of Christ”. They could clearly be God’s children. God gave Christ His children which became Christ brothers. See verses 11and 12 right before and this should be obvious.

The fact that they are princes, however, doesn’t merely show the seat of the government is represented on earth but is actually on it. And again, the distinction between “children”/”sons” and forefathers is not all that significant in this context as Hebrews 2:13 shows. It doesn’t need to call them “children of Christ” to make the point these are Christ’s children but also his brothers.

Further, Christians within the kingdom covenant will be in positions of rulership “in place of” the kings of Israel and Judah in the Messianic line.  The distinction between king and prince should not be looked to as significant, for it is applied perhaps to Jesus (Isaiah 9:6) and even Jehovah. (Daniel 8:25)

Similarly, the source of the quote in Isaiah 8 shows that these children are Isaiah’s.  Since this text is applied to Jesus, there’s no reason why the “children” in Hebrews 2:13 would not also be Jesus’.

As far as Math 25 goes, the sheep are not equated with the brothers in this parable. In fact, they could be seen as a separate group, and that is how we view them. The sheep ask, just as did the goats, “When did we see you?” And his answer is “When you did these things to my brothers”. Clearly then, the “brothers” can be seen as separate from the sheep in that exchange. You claim that he actually calls the sheep his “brothers’ but that is not what the verse says. It is easy to see that there could be two identified parties in this context, the “sheep” and the “brothers”. If we take the brothers as separate from the sheep, which is entirely feasible, then the “sheep” are a different group of Christians that obtain a kingdom prepared for them.

I’m afraid you did not address the argument presented and have paraphrased Jesus’ response in such a way that dismisses the argument. Jesus does not merely say “to my brothers” but to “THESE my brothers.” The pronoun must necessarily be referring to an identified group. As noted previously there are only 3 groups identified: sheep, goats, and angels. Angels and goats can easily be ruled out, leaving only the sheep to be identified as Christ’s “brothers” contextually.

Could you address how the “these” can point to an unidentified party given the context?

Sure, Abraham and other earthly ones will be in the kingdom of heaven as I have described before. The point is it is consistently referred to as “of heaven”, indicating that the source of its rulership is from heaven. If that’s its source, then naturally, that’s where its seat would be located.

Well, you quoted Jesus as saying kingdom of heaven, emphasizing the “of,” as if this meant the kingdom was in heaven. When it was pointed out that Abraham will be in the kingdom of the heavens, you then switched the argument to mean rulership “from heaven.” But again, the sheep inherit the kingdom on earth. This shows without a doubt where the kingdom will be established. This is why Christians can pray “your kingdom come.” The question is, where to?   Further, why would the apostles pray for that kingdom to come when it was their hope to go to it rather than to have it come to them?

Just in passing, is it my understanding the official view of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not actually be in the kingdom so interpret Matthew 8:11 allegorically/symbolically, so that Abraham and his sons are only representational of those believed to go to heaven.

Can you verify this?  If so, how do you account for the inclusion of “all the prophets” in the parallel account at Luke 13:28?

What God said to Abraham and his seed is “I am going to give you this land”. Abraham and his natural seed can certainly be given this land in the resurrection, but since the true seed of Abraham is Christ and the church, made up of gentiles and Jews, and no longer the physical nation of Israel or his physical, natural seed, they will be given this land by means of inheriting the entire earth. These spiritual Jews, which include Christ as that PRIMARY seed, get possession of that land just as was promised to the true seed of Abraham, which is the church and Christ. Nothing demands a physical occupancy of that land by the true seed of Abraham. God said he would “give” it to them, he didn’t say they had to live upon it, and the church, both Jews and Gentiles, receive it through the inheritance of the earth.

Why do you switch the meanings of how Abraham will inherit the world in contrast to his seed? Romans 4:13-16 makes no such qualification, and in fact, precludes it.

(Romans 4:13-16) For it was not through law that Abraham or his seed had the promise that he should be heir of a world, but it was through the righteousness by faith. For if those who adhere to law are heirs, faith has been made useless and the promise has been abolished. In reality the Law produces wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there any transgression. On this account it was as a result of faith, that it might be according to undeserved kindness, in order for the promise to be sure to all his seed, not only to that which adheres to the Law, but also to that which adheres to the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Abraham and his seed will “inherit the world.” To say Abraham inherits one way, but his seed another—is nothing short of eisegesis.  Same goes for switching the meaning of “inherit” to mean one thing for Abraham and another for his seed.

(Romans 15:8) For I say that Christ actually became a minister of those who are circumcised in behalf of God’s truthfulness, so as to verify the promises He made to their forefathers,

Christ came to “verify the promises [that God had] made to [the] forefathers.” We know which promises these included, namely, the promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the world/land. He did not come to change the promises, which is what you would have to believe since according to your belief, Abraham’s offspring will go to heaven (in contradiction to Genesis and the entire OT). But rather than changing them, Jesus came to verify them and so Paul is able to say Christians are Abraham’s “seed” (Gal 3:29).

We know how Abraham’s seed was to inherit the land in the OT, why then change the meaning in the NT when the only change to the “seed” is the incorporation of Gentiles into Abraham’s family? When were the promises changed?

Whatever one would think the “air” to be, it couldn’t possibly be a reference to something on earth because clouds and air are consistently referring to things not on the earth and often to heavenly things. So whereas there is precedent for referring to heavenly things, there is clearly no precedent for it to refer to things on the earth.

It is quite shocking that you say there is no precedent for viewing “air” as referring to things of the earth! In no other instance is “air” even equated with an other-worldly dimension. Even in the passages you quote, namely, Psalm 104 and Daniel 7, there is no mention of “air.” Further, Psalm 104 is clearly poetic in nature while Daniel 7 is apocalyptic. 1 Thessalonians 4 does not fit any of those genres so as to make those two texts parallels.

“Air” in the NT never refers to heaven, so you are truly left without basis for this conclusion.   Were “air” to mean “heaven” there would be no descent in view where they would “meet” Jesus, but the text says Jesus will “descend.”  So the significant issues with your position highlighted in my last response remain.

As far as the martyrs in chapter 6 are concerned, this is represented as happening after Christ receives his crown and goes forth to conquer his enemies. That is represented by the first horse. So this symbol is indeed represented at/during the parousia of Christ. The fact that they receive their white robe and are directly spoken to with instructions on what to do shows that they are clearly in a resurrected state at that point.

To be spoken of as slain souls who have been decapitated (Rev 20:4) and who are under an alter means they have been resurrected? Hardly… It is until Revelation 20 that they are resurrected and are said to sit on thrones, not remain slain under altars.

True, the souls are given white robes but how does that signal they have been resurrected? Are the saints in Revelation 7:9ff also in a resurrected state because they have white robes?

 And my point IN REGARD TO Revelation 5:9 is simply this. There is no reason to think that US could not have been in the original verse 9. Again, only one manuscript does not contain it, the being the Alexandrine. Yes, verse 10 is different, but this is likely not even a point that we have to debate, as third person references, especially in a song, are entirely precedented as I have demonstrated. Therefore, third person reference doesn’t prove anything in regard to the identity of the 24 elders. That was the point.

There’s no reason to think “us” is original. All the major bible translations, critical texts, textual commentaries, etc have already been cited and there’s no need to go over this again. I’m not here to contradict every opinion, but when we have a mountain of evidence versus a grain of sand, there’s really no need to go any further.

The fact that the angel in Revelation 8 is performing the duties of a high priest proves that this angel is none other than Jesus Christ. Many commentators and scholars acknowledge this. Ordinary angels would not be permitted to perform such actions. Anyone performing priestly actions in the Most Holy by the commandment of God, must be priests. Angels are not priests. Only Jesus and the church have that privilege and assignment before God.

What good reason is there to identify the angelic creature in Revelation 8 as Jesus? Jesus’ identity in Revelation is the son of man, the root of David, the slain lamb, the lion of Judah, but nowhere an angel. Not only does Revelation 8:3 show that an angel performs the duties of the 24 elders, thus showing the elders are angelic, but it completely rules out the elders being Christians. A similar priestly duty is carried out in God’s heavenly temple by an angel, a seraph, in Isaiah 6. Angels do in fact have unique priesthoods, as evidenced by Isaiah and Revelation.

Your appeal to 2 Enoch 4:1 is a little hard to believe. These are the uninspired words of men. If you have to resort to the apocrypha for “precedent” and then pretend that establishes BIBLICAL precedent, that should tell you something. Biblical precedent should certainly trump anything of this nature.

The New Testament was written in a socially, politically, and religiously condition environment which is reflected not only in the teachings of the New Testament but also in other areas of Christian practice. It is fine if you wish to reject the Intertestamental writings as not inspired, but you cannot reject its historical value and the notions NT authors borrowed from them (e.g. Paul’s reflection of a Jewish tradition in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

Historically there were Jews who called angels “elders.” This cannot be denied no matter how hard you may try. That John calls angels elders in Revelation is not without historical precedent.

Moreover, Jude, an early Christian and probably Jesus’ blood-relative, had no problems quoting from the Book of Enoch in Jude 14-15.

Again, for the 24 elders, it is the COMPOSITE imagery that makes this unmistakable. We have beings performing priestly duties who are referred to as both elders and existing in relation to the number 24. There is only one match that fits that composite Biblical image, that being priests. Their crowns clearly represent kingship. The combination of kings and priests is a clear reference to the church. Nothing contextually or otherwise refutes that and there is no other Biblical precedent that matches the complete imagery presented.

These are not a composite image.   As shown in my previous response one of these elders directly interacts with John, which would be nonsensical were this a composite image.   This interaction is parallel to that of angels.

Notice that Paul says their HOPE is what enters within the curtain. This proves they are not there yet or it would be inappropriate to speak of their hope as being inside the curtain. If they were already inside the curtain, there would be no need for such a hope, as it would already be realized. Once something is realized, there is no need for hope. Jesus, as their forerunner who enters IN THEIR BEHALF as the HIGH PRIEST, did not enter in THIS capacity until his resurrection to heaven when he presented before God the value of his sacrifice. This has to be a reference to Jesus actually entering heaven as the word “forerunner” is directly connected to the entering. The context clearly works against your view.

A couple of points: Jesus was not resurrected to heaven. He was resurrected on earth and even remained on earth for 40 days after his resurrection. This is why in John 20:17 he tells Mary that he has not yet ascended to the Father.

As for the hope entering behind the curtain, I don’t see that as a problem. Regardless of what you may want to make of it, this is speaking of a present reality as is noted by the use of the present.  As I noted previously, Paul uses this same “boldness” elsewhere to express the present reality of our access to God.  (Ephesians 3:12)

Our “hope” is anchored there because of the access we have at present.   The anchor imagery represents our ability to have continued access even in the midst of turmoil (as waves would toss about a boat), where the anchor fixes the position of the boat so the access it has to land is not lost.

As far as the word until goes, all one needs to present, whether or not a list of scholars agree with the sense preferred in THAT PARTICULAR verse, is that the word can mean that in any given context. I have presented that unmistakably.

“Until” can’t mean whatever in any given context. It must mean one thing in one context. As you elsewhere stated, that Jesus leaves heaven to the vicinity of the earth, pretty much seals up the case that “until” cannot mean what you had earlier argued. If Jesus leaves heaven in any capacity, then he is no longer in heaven and thus showing your argument about “until” invalid.

So, there is a couple of ways this would be seen that would harmonize with our view. Either UNTIL means what I suggest, or the word “receive” means to be held in a loving fashion until a certain point would arrive where he would go forth to conquer his enemies and come to the vicinity of the earth with his armies to do so. That certainly doesn’t mean that after that conquest he could not return to heaven.

The “receiving” into heaven is literarily linked to his being “received” by heaven in Acts 1:11. In other words, it is his return that is in view not a “receiving” in such a way that he is able to remain where he is and never leave.

Surely you must see the contradiction here between your view and the Bible when it comes to being a Christian. The lexicons simply define it as “a follower of Christ” The scriptures supply no such definition of “Christian” as something TIME based. You set up this arbitrary definition for Christian based upon time, which is frankly a ridiculous distinction. The scriptures clearly say that everyone who will live must accept Christ, must bow to him and acknowledge him as their Lord. It is only by means of an invented definition that you would hope to escape this. I’ll stick with what the scriptures actually say and refer to those who acknowledge Jesus as their LORD, to be Christian. You have no Biblical support for that definition or that false division as to meaning. This should be obvious any one.

You want to posthumously make everyone Christian because you believe this supports “two destinies” for Christians, but the way you use Christian is not a biblically based usage.

What I am referring to is there is no basis for saying someone who is Christian in their lifetime is not also Abraham’s seed. (Gal 3:29) As such, there are not two destinies but one.

Well, I whittled it down to 14 pages from about 30.

You can tell by the activity chart that people are losing interest in our exchange so I think it is time we do something to alleviate the length of our posts. I think they perceive that there is a lot of wheel spinning and needless repetition of points.

We need to make a determination of which topics are simply “wheel-spinning” and which ones still have relevance by way of what we perceive as “proof” toward one position or another. I think there may be a number of places that we can agree to disagree and move on. I don’t know about you, but I think we have deviated from our original intent to not pile passage upon passage upon passage. We should really try our best from here on out to try and wrap up some of these passages as “indeterminative” or as still containing what we would regard as proof within. Naturally, it is acceptable to draw from other passages to explain the current passage by way of word meaning or phraseology, but to introduce new passages that have stand alone arguments within is really not the way to go UNTIL we resolve the passages we are on as best we can.

I will break down this latest response of yours into categories of that we are discussing and see whether we are ready to agree to disagree and move on if possible. If we still think there are “proofs” within the passage, then we should continue to hash it out, but if the opposing view can be established as “possible”, then we should move on rather than continue to try and prove something from a passage that is not absolute. Remember, the absolutes should guide the non-absolutes as I am sure you know. I don’t know about you, but I believe that Biblical precedent and pattern should carry the weight of proof if the data is sufficient to establish the meaning of a phrase or word. To us, undeniable Biblical precedent or pattern is the same as proof.

I hope this is agreeable to you. I am sure the readers would appreciate it.

2 COR. 5:1-9

In regard to 2 Cor. 5:1-9, we are still hashing out whether the phrase “in the heavens” is a description of the future body as is “not made with hands” or “eternal”, or whether it is just a reference to where the body resides in a proleptic sense, coming FROM heaven.

I can see where scholars are split on the use of the comma between eternal and in the heavens. If the comma is there, your view could be seen as possible. If it’s not, eternal would then be connected to in the heavens which would establish our view as the correct one. One thing I have noticed though is that I could not find a commentary that interprets this passage as you do. They all see this as an indication that this body from God will be eternally in the heavens. Even those that agree with the insertion of the comma still view it as a reference to where the body will be in the future. Do you have a commentator or scholar available that describes your view explicitly? If so, then maybe we can agree to disagree and leave this particular aspect of the passages, in the heavens, waiting in the wings until other passages either confirm or deny one view or the other.

Now the other issue with this passage is the phrase “not made with hands”. To claim that it just refers to something that is put together by God doesn’t work, because our present body and all of present creation is also a result of God’s handiwork. If that view of that phrase is correct, then there is no contrast in what Paul is trying to say because then both the earthly tent and the heavenly house are both from God. And it is more than obvious that he is drawing a contrast between the earthly tent and the one “not made with hands”.

It is true that the data that we have to determine the meaning of this phrase is limited to one other passage which is found in Hebrews which defines it as “not of this creation”, but then this is a Biblical definition supplied for us here and should be sufficient. The context reveals that what was being described was something that was spiritual, not physical. Since this is the only precedent we have, and Paul was clearly establishing a contrast between the earthly tent and the heavenly house, then the Christian should default to what it describes as the proper definition. This is what I will do regardless of what other meaning is forced upon it by another man’s understanding. In the sense of Biblical precedent, that view cannot be refuted and that is what we will stand by as a definition, which is from God himself, and not from a man. If you do not wish to follow the Biblical precedent that we have for this definition, that is your choice.

You refer to the “new creation” as an example of something that is not of this creation. I see no support for your definition in this. Just because something is a new creation doesn’t mean that it is “not of this creation”. Everything God created was “new” at one point. Being a new creation doesn’t bear upon nor affect the Biblical definition already given in Hebrews.

So the way I see it, regardless of where the phrase “in the heavens” ends up in our discussion, we have the support of Biblical precedent when it comes to the phrase “not made with hands” which means “not of this creation” which was a phrase in reference to something that was “spirit” in nature and not physical. Other than that, trying to make it mean something else is man’s conjecture. We’ll stick with God’s definition on this one.

As far as verse 4 goes, Paul wasn’t expressing an everlasting wish to not die. He was speaking presently. He was in no hurry to experience death in the flesh, even if he would love to have that new body.

DANIEL 2 AND OTHER “KINGDOM” REFERENCES FOR THE EARTH

The point about establishing the meaning of a word via the immediate and the greater context has been repeated so any times I don’t think we need to keep spending time on something that you surely have to know the response that I am going to give before I give it. If a word carries more than one meaning, which both “kingdom” and “inherit” carry, context must be the guide. Do you or do you not agree with that? Plus, do you agree that there is also a greater context than the immediate one and that both contexts carry ample weight when determining the meaning of multi-faceted words? This is really elementary stuff when it comes to doing a word study.

Each and every definition that I have appealed to is supported by the lexicons and scriptures. One who would deny lexicon and primarily Biblical precedent is the one who should be questioned as to motive.

The action of wiping out the other kingdoms can be done by means of heavenly hosts and armies, like the ones we see in Rev 19 coming to destroy the kings of earth from heaven, with the Lamb and his heavenly armies behind him. Once gone, the dominion, the rulership exercised by that kingdom, will include heaven and earth. The fact that it includes heaven should make it just as feasible for the holy ones to be in heaven as it is for them to be on earth. Location has nothing to do with whether they effectively rule or not. As I said, we already have the examples of God and Christ, currently exercising authority and power over the earth from heaven.

the point made about there being ‘princes in the earth” should also help resolve this conflict. Think about it, the verse says that in place of his forefathers there will come to be his sons. Are we somehow to think that the forefathers won’t be there when it says in PLACE OF his forefathers? Surely the forefathers will be there too, won’t they? There’s really only one way that sons would take the PLACE OF forefathers and that is through HIM resurrecting his forefathers. That way they actually replace the forefathers by becoming his sons via resurrection. Surely you think that they are going to be in the new earth, right?  By him giving them life again, they become his sons. At the time of the resurrection, none of Christ’s brothers are ever referred to as HIS sons. It is these resurrected forefathers, one could specifically say through the line of David, that he says he will make them “princes” in the earth. That is another distinction between these ones and the holy ones. The holy ones are “kings” over the earth, these resurrected forefathers are princes, who are under the jurisdiction and authority of kings.

Now, whether or not you agree or accept this understanding of these verses, the interpretation is valid and certainly works well within the framework of scriptures throughout. So, if your argument continues that the kingdom, those ruling that is, have to be on earth in some fashion, then this is the answer that would establish that common ground between our views. So maybe we can dispense with this aspect of the discussion and move on. It’s really pointless now. We can agree to a degree by saying that the heavenly seat of the government will be represented ON EARTH, PHYSICALLY via the princes that are appointed that used to be the forefathers of the Messiah and are now his sons. Princes are naturally SONS, not BROTHERS.

Hebrews 2:13 doesn’t call the children there “the children of Christ”. They could clearly be God’s children. God gave Christ His children which became Christ brothers. See verses 11and 12 right before and this should be obvious.

As far as Math 25 goes, the sheep are not equated with the brothers in this parable. In fact, they could be seen as a separate group, and that is how we view them. The sheep ask, just as did the goats, “When did we see you?” And his answer is “When you did these things to my brothers”. Clearly then, the “brothers” can be seen as separate from the sheep in that exchange. You claim that he actually calls the sheep his “brothers’ but that is not what the verse says. It is easy to see that there could be two identified parties in this context, the “sheep” and the “brothers”. If we take the brothers as separate from the sheep, which is entirely feasible, then the “sheep” are a different group of Christians that obtain a kingdom prepared for them.

Sure, Abraham and other earthly ones will be in the kingdom of heaven as I have described before. The point is it is consistently referred to as “of heaven”, indicating that the source of its rulership is from heaven. If that’s its source, then naturally, that’s where its seat would be located.

ABRAHAMIC COVENANT REFERENCES

What God said to Abraham and his seed is “I am going to give you this land”. Abraham and his natural seed can certainly be given this land in the resurrection, but since the true seed of Abraham is Christ and the church, made up of gentiles and Jews, and no longer the physical nation of Israel or his physical, natural seed, they will be given this land by means of inheriting the entire earth. Paul is quite clear in establishing that true Jews are not those on the outside but those on the inside, spiritual Jews. See Romans 2:28,29 and Romans 9:7, 8. These spiritual Jews, which include Christ as that PRIMARY seed, get possession of that land just as was promised to the true seed of Abraham, which is the church and Christ. Nothing demands a physical occupancy of that land by the true seed of Abraham. God said he would “give” it to them, he didn’t say they had to live upon it, and the church, both Jews and Gentiles, receive it through the inheritance of the earth. The stipulations of that phrase are then satisfied.

CHRISTIAN

Surely you must see the contradiction here between your view and the Bible when it comes to being a Christian. The lexicons simply define it as “a follower of Christ” The scriptures supply no such definition of “Christian” as something TIME based. You set up this arbitrary definition for Christian based upon time, which is frankly a ridiculous distinction. The scriptures clearly say that everyone who will live must accept Christ, must bow to him and acknowledge him as their Lord. It is only by means of an invented definition that you would hope to escape this. I’ll stick with what the scriptures actually say and refer to those who acknowledge Jesus as their LORD, to be Christian. You have no Biblical support for that definition or that false division as to meaning. This should be obvious any one.

NEW JERUSALEM

So regardless of other details about where and when this “coming down” happens, you agree that there are others, referred to here as nations, or referred to Rev 21 as mankind, that are not of the church. That was the point. Two destinies for, shall we say “believers” since you have an odd aversion to the word “Christian” in reference to these nations.

What I wanted to know was YOUR view. I am fine with the WT view. But don’t YOU believe that this “coming down” is after the judgment day or not?  This could be significant in the discussion so if you see this as after the judgment day, because why THEN is it pictured this way and not before?

1 THES. 4

Clouds and the air are often times in symbolic reference to heavenly things. For instance:

Psa 104:1Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Psa 104:2   Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psa 104:3   Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

Daniel 7:13

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Clouds are many times used to represent the invisible presence of God in the scriptures.

The composite imagery presented here cannot be mistaken. Whatever one would think the “air” to be, it couldn’t possibly be a reference to something on earth because clouds and air are consistently referring to things not on the earth and often to heavenly things. So whereas there is precedent for referring to heavenly things, there is clearly no precedent for it to refer to things on the earth.

So, please tell me what is meant by them meeting the Lord in the clouds and the air, and THEN “ever” being with the Lord “in that manner”? This is another case where Biblical precedent stands clearly against your view.

Also, “at the same time” does not have to mean “simultaneously”. I can say that we are all living on this earth at the same time and be referring to a time period rather than a puncticular event. The parousia is a time period. At that time, the Parousia, they will be taken up in clouds and meet the Lord in the air, all of them. They all receive the same action at the same time, which is the Parousia. Simultaneous is your addition. If the parousia is a puncticular event, then you would be right, but the fact that it is presented as of long duration, you would not be right.

I see that you hint in your response that they might be in the “air” for a while, but that denies what Paul said, because he said SO, which means IN THIS MANNER DESCRIBED they will EVER be with the Lord. How will they then EVER be with the Lord in the manner described, which was caught away in clouds and meeting him in the air?

As far as Paul saying “DURING” the parousia, that is exactly what Paul would have said at 1 Cor. 15:23. The word rendered “at”, as I mentioned, also carries the meaning of “during”, so the precedent is certainly there.

Paul explains very well what happens during the last trumpet, the same trumpet that is mentioned here. He explains thoroughly in 1 Cor 15 where he says that they will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. Remember the word there is “exchanged”(more on the meaning of that Greek word below). They do not sleep in death but are immediately exchanged via resurrection. Caught away in clouds and meeting the Lord in the air alludes to their resurrection because that is how they get to heaven, the same way Jesus ascended to heaven. The manner is parallel to Christ’s at his ascension into heaven. They can’t take their flesh and blood bodies to heaven according to Paul. Flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God. (More on that too, below)

REVELATION IMAGERY ; TRUMPETS, ETC.

It is your misunderstanding of how we see the book of Revelation unfolding that is contributing to the problem of you grasping this. As mentioned before, the different visions unfold in front of a constant backdrop of the heavenly vision that was described starting in chapter four. Chapter four and five establishes God, four living creatures, 24 elders, the Lamb and the glassy sea as that backdrop. Then, the other visions unfold in front of this backdrop and each vision is a particular aspect of the same time period being presented throughout Revelation.

They are not in chronological order. If you think so, I think it would present some real interpretational problems for you. Each bowl, each trumpet is another aspect of the same time period. It’s much like when you overlay colors onto a picture until it is complete. Each vision is like another color until the complete picture has been presented, so speaking of this in strict chronological order we would not see as relevant or even accurate.

The last trumpet according to Thessalonians is blown by Christ just as the one in Revelation 4 is for John to come up to heaven. The seventh trumpet was not blown by Christ but was by an angel showing that this trumpet does not have the same significance as the one in Revelation chapter 4, and would not be in regard to resurrection. It is Jesus who has the trumpet of God which signals the resurrection, not an ordinary angel. So the seventh trumpet in this vision is not the one blown by Christ for the resurrection.

The fact that John is invited to heaven at the sound of a trumpet, which is clearly Jesus Christ per the description, (the voice of a trumpet as seen in Revelation 1:10), it is a very fitting symbol of the resurrection of the holy ones in this vision since John was one of them. It would then be no surprise to see the church represented in heaven at the very same time. The fact that Revelation is not in strict chronological order would not necessitate this 7^th trumpet to be the trumpet of resurrection by Christ.

As far as the martyrs in chapter 6 are concerned, this is represented as happening after Christ receives his crown and goes forth to conquer his enemies. That is represented by the first horse. So this symbol is indeed represented at/during the parousia of Christ. The fact that they receive their white robe and are directly spoken to with instructions on what to do shows that they are clearly in a resurrected state at that point.

(Revelation 3:5) ⁵ He that conquers will thus be arrayed in white outer garments; and I will by no means blot out his name from the book of life, but I will make acknowledgment of his name before my Father and before his angels. . .

God didn’t speak to Abel’s blood as if it was a person, but here he specifically speaks to these martyrs. They are therefore depicted as truly alive. The altar of course was IN the Most Holy, which we know is a depiction of heaven itself according to Hebrews.

And my point IN REGARD TO Revelation 5:9 is simply this. There is no reason to think that US could not have been in the original verse 9. Again, only one manuscript does not contain it, the being the Alexandrine. Yes, verse 10 is different, but this is likely not even a point that we have to debate, as third person references, especially in a song, are entirely precedented as I have demonstrated. Therefore, third person reference doesn’t prove anything in regard to the identity of the 24 elders. That was the point.

As far as the grammatical point in regard to the gender of the participle in Revelation 5:8, you are correct in saying that it is not grammatically incorrect to have reference to the 4 living creatures. But the gender of the participle could be to show that it refers to just the 24 elders, which given the composite imagery of the 24 elders, it would be inappropriate for angels to be spoken of this way.

The fact that the angel in Revelation 8 is performing the duties of a high priest proves that this angel is none other than Jesus Christ. Many commentators and scholars acknowledge this. Ordinary angels would not be permitted to perform such actions. Anyone performing priestly actions in the Most Holy by the commandment of God, must be priests. Angels are not priests. Only Jesus and the church have that privilege and assignment before God.

As far as the description given to the 24 elders, the strong composite imagery of one who is a priest is really quite undeniable and cannot be refuted. There is every valid reason to see these ones as representing the church and no valid reason to see them as angels.

Your appeal to 2 Enoch 4:1 is a little hard to believe. These are the uninspired words of men. If you have to resort to the apocrypha for “precedent” and then pretend that establishes BIBLICAL precedent, that should tell you something. Biblical precedent should certainly trump anything of this nature.

Your appeal to Revelation 9:7 doesn’t work either. If you think these are demonic beings in their rebellion, it would not go to prove that FAITHFUL angels would ever elevate themselves to the status of kings. It is unheard of.

The ones with the harps in Revelation 14 are the ones singing the new song which only the 144,000 could sing. As far as them being before the elders, I have addressed this more than once. It has to do with the way the visions unfold. See above where the same thing is addressed. Angels aren’t depicted with harps. The question isn’t whether they would know how to play one or whether they could, they point is they aren’t spoken of as doing so.

Again, for the 24 elders, it is the COMPOSITE imagery that makes this unmistakable. We have beings performing priestly duties who are referred to as both elders and existing in relation to the number 24. There is only one match that fits that composite Biblical image, that being priests. Their crowns clearly represent kingship. The combination of kings and priests is a clear reference to the church. Nothing contextually or otherwise refutes that and there is no other Biblical precedent that matches the complete imagery presented.

The 24 elders are shown to have golden crowns which are the same thing that Christ is said to wear. It’s not proof of anything but my point is that it is interesting that their crown, is the same kind of crown, “golden stephanos”, referred to as being worn by Christ, which would be a fitting symbol for the shared kingship between them and Chrsit.

COLOSSIANS 1:15,16

Although it is completely possible that Paul did switch back and forth between visible and invisible things, “thronos” in heaven, in the sense of a seat of authority as it is otherwise used, could easily refer to angels. Again, see the reference to the court in Daniel 7. But this in no way necessitates a crown on their head. That was the point. So “thronos” proves nothing in regard to any angel actually having a crown.

HEBREWS AND THE MOST HOLY

I have to say I think to argue that the present tense of “we have boldness” means they are currently in the Most Holy is a goofy argument. The present tense applies to verbs, not nouns. All it has to mean is that they currently have “boldness” to enter the Most Holy. It in no way necessitates that they have actually entered. They merely have boldness to do so.

I can’t find a single place where the meaning of approach is to ENTER something. It means to draw near to. If Paul wanted to put them in the Most Holy in that context he could easily have said let’s ENTER instead of let’s DRAW NEAR.

Hebrews 6 also needs a closer look, too. It says:

(Hebrews 6:19-20) ¹⁹ This [hope] we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, ²⁰ where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek forever.

Notice that Paul says their HOPE is what enters within the curtain. This proves they are not there yet or it would be inappropriate to speak of their hope as being inside the curtain. If they were already inside the curtain, there would be no need for such a hope, as it would already be realized. Once something is realized, there is no need for hope. Jesus, as their forerunner who enters IN THEIR BEHALF as the HIGH PRIEST, did not enter in THIS capacity until his resurrection to heaven when he presented before God the value of his sacrifice. This has to be a reference to Jesus actually entering heaven as the word “forerunner” is directly connected to the entering. The context clearly works against your view.

ACTS 13:20-21

As far as the word until goes, all one needs to present, whether or not a list of scholars agree with the sense preferred in THAT PARTICULAR verse, is that the word can mean that in any given context. I have presented that unmistakably.

I have no problem to think that Christ would temporarily leave heaven to accomplish his conquest over the earth. Rev 19 depicts that very thing. So yes, he would be retained, lovingly, by heaven UNTIL he is sent to destroy his enemies. But nothing indicates he would have to permanently leave heaven. He’s certainly not omnipresent and nothing here indicates that he has to do it in the flesh and not the spirit.

The argument I presented about the word “receive” was another way of understanding this passage if one insisted on seeing “until” as you want to see it. They are presented as either/or arguments. One or the other would work.

So, there is a couple of ways this would be seen that would harmonize with our view. Either UNTIL means what I suggest, or the word “receive” means to be held in a loving fashion until a certain point would arrive where he would go forth to conquer his enemies and come to the vicinity of the earth with his armies to do so. That certainly doesn’t mean that after that conquest he could not return to heaven.

ACTS 1:8,9

It said he was lifted up and then a cloud caught him up from their vision. They couldn’t see him leave. All they saw was a cloud. That’s the manner in which he left. Likewise, the same manner could mean exactly that, unseen by the naked eye. The fact that the angels discouraged them from looking into the sky, is clear indication that they would not recognize his return in that fashion. This is really the very same thing that 1 Thes. 4 speaks of as happening to Christians, caught up in clouds into the air. Just as Jesus ascended to heaven at that time, unseen, the imagery at 1 Thes. 4 could clearly be a reference to the same thing for Christians. That’s the Biblical precedent. There is no precedent for this to mean something that will be on earth. Just the opposite in fact.

JOHN 12:24,25

No one is saying anything about a soul existing apart from a body. One’s soul, in the sense of your personality, at death, just like the “person” of Jesus, is retained in God’s “memory” until the point of resurrection. Yes, in order to be a “living” soul and not a dead one, he would need a body, which God prepared for him in order to become a living “person” once again. A spirit body according to Paul.

Just as Jesus’ soul being resurrected bore much fruit by reaching his glorification in heaven, verse 25 points out that it applies as well to anyone who loves or hates his soul in this world, and the glorification that we receive is everlasting life, just as Jesus’ received. This doesn’t change the fact that the grain that dies in this instance is indeed the soul. That’s the point you are missing.

Isaiah 53:12 tells us that Jesus poured out his soul to the death.

1 COR. 15-THE SEED AND THE BODY

I think we need to break this down a bit as I feel you keep missing the intent of the analogy.

You acknowledged that what was sown is not the same thing raised. You said: This is why what is sown, our corruptible body, is not the same corruptible body raised, but an incorruptible one.

Which confirms exactly what I have been saying. The new body is not the old body, so the existence of the new body does not constitute a resurrection of the old body. The SEED is the object of the resurrection, that “memory” which establishes the continuity between the old and the new.

Let me just ask you these two questions and have you answer.

1. Do you agree that it is the SEED that is resurrected?
2. Do you agree that the body that develops is not the seed?

1 COR. 15-THE BODY EXCHANGED

This would have been a great argument had you actually addressed the right word under question. Paul uses the word “allasso” in 1 Cor. 15:50, 51. The primary lexical meaning is given as “to cause one thing to cease and another thing to take its place”, to “exchange”. It also gives the meaning of transform which tells us that one way something can transform is through an exchange. You see the soul in the sense of the personality remains the same, but the body changes. That way the “person” transforms via an exchange of bodies. Paul supports the very notion of “exchange” via the word “allosso. This is further confirmed when he says that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom. Flesh and blood is just a reference to the human organism according to Biblical precedent.

1 COR. 15-THE CONTRAST BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL

Since you clearly missed much of what I was arguing in my last post, I am going to try once again to narrow this down to the relevant points.

As has been mentioned, the weakness, the dishonor and the corruption are all done away with via this resurrection. They do not remain. It is inconsistent then to say that the PHYSICAL remains. Besides, if PHYSICAL just means CORRUPTIBLE, it is a complete tautology because Paul already addresses CORRUPTIBLE right before he addresses PHYSICAL. Clearly, the PHYSICAL has to represent something other than simply CORRUPTIBLE.

Plus, if we notice those things that are listed, they are complete opposites. Power is the opposite of weakness. Glory is the opposite of dishonor. Incorruptible is the opposite of corruptible. Likewise, if we stick with the pattern here presented, the physical would be the opposite of the spiritual. In each case, either in the sense of those things being done away with or the sense of those things being opposites, you must break the contextual pattern that is established within the passage in order to say that the physical is not the opposite of spiritual or that it is not done away with as are the other things. The Biblical pattern of thought expressed demands that the physical is done away, just like every other thing in that list.

You claim that Adam in his perfect state was corruptible in  the sense he would decay at death. Only death would present the potential for the corruption in this sense. But in his perfect state, Adam would never die. IN his perfect state, death and corruption did not exist for Adam. Only sin brought that about, so to say he was corruptible in his perfect state before God is not accurate.

The thing I don’t understand with you is that Paul did not say that Jesus became SPIRITUAL in contrast with the “soulical”, he said he became a SPIRIT. We all know what a SPIRIT is, don’t we? Why did Paul say that Jesus became a SPIRIT if he did not become a SPIRIT? He didn’t say SPIRITUAL, he said SPIRIT, solidifying the argument that the physical and the spiritual were opposites, just like everything else in that list.

As far as the bodies he refers to verses 39-41, he is simply making analogies that demonstrate that even from a human standpoint, there are different kinds of bodies. For the sake of humans, he only has human things to draw from to make analogies. It’s just logical for him to approach it that way. Beside, when he speaks of sun and moon and stars, he is speaking of things that from the perception of humans are simply lights in the sky, and that is a very good analogy to represent things immaterial, for lights are immaterial, especially from the standpoint of a first century human.

PHIL. 3:21

The genitive doesn’t require the understanding that both bodies mentioned have to have the same substance. That is purely conjecture. First you say it is “implied” and then you say it HAS to be. Which is it? If it is a definite grammatical requirement please produce for me the rule of grammar that would dictate this to be true. I think I need to see that one. Otherwise this is just meaningless rhetoric.

I have mentioned many times that the way the humiliated body is transformed into the glorious body is by means of an exchange. That is what Paul teaches us in 1 Cor. 15. See above with the word allosso.

JOHN 2:19-21

John 2:19-21 doesn’t prove what you are saying either because once you tear something down, you don’t use the rubble to rebuild a new one. You use new materials. Paul shows the new material is SPIRIT, not FLESH for Christ. Besides, this raising he mentions may refer to his post-resurrection manifestations and not the resurrection itself.

 JESUS STILL A MAN?

Your answer to Galatians 1:1 where Paul said he did not receive his apostleship from a man, but from God and Jesus is that Paul was not referring to nature, but to the source of his apostleship, but the result is exactly the same. If Jesus was a man, and Jesus is the one who appointed Paul to his apostleship, how could he possibly say that the source did not involve a man without directly misrepresenting what Jesus was when he became an Apostle? His contrast is directly made between his apostleship being by Jesus Christ and not by man. Paul would in affect be lying about how he became an apostle.

Jesus, as man, GAVE himself as that man, yet lives as Jesus Christ now in heaven. Both Galatians and Timothy can be seen tense-wise to be referring to what Jesus, as man, did, which was GIVE himself as that man.

Other verses demonstrate that he cannot still be a man, so that is the necessary view that is to be put upon the references of him being man who GAVE himself. For instance, as I have asked before, the Bible says that no man can see God and yet live. Is that a true statement or not? In fact it says long after Jesus went to heaven that no man has seen God at anytime. Now, John could have easily said except Christ, but he didn’t. He said no man has seen God at any time. Why doesn’t that include Christ if he was a man in heaven at the time this was written? Why did John misrepresent the truth if Jesus, a man, had clearly seen God by this time? You have to deny the truth of John’s statement in order to believe that Jesus is still a man.

Our view then that Jesus, as a man, GAVE himself, is the only one that works in view of the above.

ROMANS 8:11 AND CONTEXT

The thrust of you argument relies on the future tense of the verb “quicken” but this future tense doesn’t have to refer to resurrection.  If he wanted to refer to the actual resurrection, the perfect phrase to use would have been the words he just used in reference to Christ resurrection, that being “raised up from the dead”. The difference in terminology could refer to a difference in how Christians are made alive in this context. Some of the meanings given to “quicken” are as follows:

1.      by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate

2.      of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life

For instance, we see that Christians are PRESENTLY quickened by the spirit while they are still alive in the flesh at 2 Cor. 3:6. Quicken is there in the present tense and is not therefore a reference to resurrection.

This way the preceding context of Roman 8:1-10, which is clearly referring to the things that are presently occurring, harmonizes perfectly with the fact that God’s spirit, will continue into the future to QUICKEN their mortal bodies IF God’s spirit remains in them, which is dependent upon their resisting the flesh. This was presented as a conditional thing so the future tense would be a natural occurrence here without having to refer to the resurrection. So Romans 8:11 could simply be a reference to the fact that God’s spirit, if they allow it to remain in them, would invigorate their flesh, their mortal bodies to be able to accomplish his will and to continue to be “alive” to God as they continue to combat the flesh as is described in the surrounding context both before and after verse 11.

This also helps with the awkward and unprecedented statement of saying that the mortal body will be immortal. It is a contradiction of terms and is not how the Bible elsewhere describes the mortal body in connection with resurrection. It doesn’t say the mortal body will be immortal, it says the mortal body would be swallowed, which means it would be gone.

As far as the releasing OF the body as opposed to FROM the body, this is a “you say potayto, I say potaughto” situation. You have described one thing that it COULD mean, not what it HAS to mean. I have described another. Neither view would overrule the other. I am sure you have heard of the “genitive of separation”:

Matt 10:14 Shake the dust from your feet.

Eph 2:12 having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.

THE SACRIFICE AND THE RANSOM PAYMENT

Jesus retained his “soul” in the sense of is “personality” as I have explained. The soul he sacrificed was in reference to his HUMAN soul which is what soul most often refers to. Remember, soul is a word that has different meanings. It is better to refer to the different meanings of a word then to take a view that contradicts the antitypical patterns. In fact, the way we have it is the only way it works in order not to break the antitypical patterns.

You still have not identified exactly what he sacrificed. And remember, in order for it to be true to the antitypical patterns and to the meaning of “sacrifice”, it has to be something he actually gave up permanently. Otherwise, there is no true sacrifice, the ransom has not been paid, and we are dead in our sins.

The fact that Jesus, the personality, lives, in no way invalidates the argument because he MUST sacrifice SOMETHING, something that he once possessed that he no longer possesses in order to have paid the ransom that was absolutely necessary to be paid. The scriptures plainly state that he sacrificed his body and his blood. That doesn’t affect his “personality”, his life as a person, only the body that God prepared for him to sacrifice. Again, otherwise, there is no sacrifice and all of the antitypes are completely null and void. John 10:17 does not use the word soul, and for a good reason. It simply uses “life”. Jesus the “person” lives via becoming a SPIRIT as Paul plainly states, but Jesus the man was GIVEN, sacrificed as Paul also plainly states.

Adam lost the opportunity for perfect human life for himself and his offspring. He sold, by sinning, his perfect humanity into sin and death.  Jesus, as Paul tells us, was a “corresponding” ransom. (1 Ti. 2:6-antelutron) What Jesus sacrificed therefore had to correspond to what was lost. Adam lost perfect humanity through the selling of himself into sin and death. Jesus, possessing perfect humanity, and being sinless, could therefore sacrifice that perfect human life to pay what Adam lost so that we could once again have perfect human life. If Jesus did not pay this “corresponding” ransom, then we are lost in sin and death. Romans 5:12 tells us the formula that through one man sin and death entered the world, and through one man it will be rectified. In harmony with God’s perfect standard, soul for a soul, there had to be a paying of a perfect human soul for a perfect human soul, a corresponding sacrifice to Adam.

In a sentence, Jesus could not take back what he sacrificed. If you don’t want to accept that, it is your choice, but then you are the one who is once again standing against Biblical patterns and precedent. We won’t do that.

MORE ARGUMENTS

There are other scriptures to be presented that can be offered to support our view but I will refrain from presenting them and I would ask that you do the same until we eliminate some of the material that is already on the table. Whatever you can see in your response to “agree to disagree” over, and let the readers decide, would be welcome.

Regards,

Rotherham

Your responses will be in bold, mine in normal font. At this point you may notice, as I’m sure the readers will, that these responses are getting mighty long. This one is about 10,000 words (including your quotes). Not sure how prudent it will become to continue these long response if these interactions continue in the same manner. With that said, here is my response:

Both the word “kingdom” and “inherit” carry different meanings. Context, either the immediate context or the greater context must be considered to derive the proper meaning and understanding

The problem is that in a single instance of the word you must redefine the term to suit what you’ve been arguing for for theological reasons, not exegetical ones. With reference to the Abrahamic Covenant, both in Genesis 13 and as articulated at Romans 4:13, you must redefine give and  inherit for the various subjects.   For example, for Abraham you must see it as meaning one thing, for his physical seed the same thing, but when the seed is identified as Christ primarily and Christians secondarily, you then change the definition completely.   This is not exegetically deduced but clearly theologically motivated.

This does not necessitate then the understanding that these sheep are “heirs”. All that is necessitated by this understanding is that they receive or obtain a kingdom, a realm that has been assigned to them to receive.

What does require the definition which you seek to deny for these sheep is the fact that they are the “brothers” of Christ.   Jesus refers to the sheep on his right as “these my brothers.” Contextually, the “these” must refer to an already identified party. In Matthew 25:34 these are either the sheep, goats, or angels.  Demonstrably, these are not the goats nor are they angels for when did the sheep provide angelic creatures with hospitality? Clearly, the “brothers” of Jesus are the sheep, thus indeed necessitating the understanding that these are the heirs.

But again, this does not necessitate the holy ones to be located on the earth. The stone represents that subsidiary of God’s universal kingdom which came from HEAVEN, from God, who is still its ultimate authority. He rules just fine over the earth FROM heaven. The fact that God is in heaven, and so is Christ, and they both presently can be said to have, at the very least, authority and power over the earth, it is silly to think that someone has to BE on earth to exercise authority and power over it. Christ as the Prince of God’s kingdom (until he became the King) had all authority over heaven and earth. This should tell you that by no means is it necessary for the church to be located on earth when it takes possession of the kingdom. Yes the dominion and the domain, the rulership of that kingdom will fill the whole earth, but that no way necessitates the rulers themselves being on earth. If it did, then so would Christ and God have to be on the earth in order to possess power and authority over it. This really should be an obvious thing and not in need of debate.

This sidesteps the actual argument. The stone does not represent mere subjects of the kingdom and it does not refer to simple territory.  The stone is the very thing which wipes out the other earthly kingdoms, so this must include the seat of the government.   Therefore the government itself fills the earth, not only the subjects.

Jesus Christ consistently referred to the kingdom to come as the kingdom OF heaven.

Which is not to say “the kingdom IN heaven.”   Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be in the “kingdom OF heaven.” (Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28) Otherwise, by your own argument Abraham would be in heaven.

In this messianic prophecy, these “sons” of the Messiah cannot be the church, since they are his brothers, but Jesus as the new father of the human race, the second Adam as it were, will come to have sons in the earth in place of forefathers, some of whom will be appointed as “princes”. These princes are logically an extension of the church’s dominion on earth because they would surely not be independent. Is it possible that Daniel 2 refers to these “sons” as part of the mountain filling the entire earth? Sure. It’s possible. That stone therefore, as representing the dominion of the Messianic kingdom, could include those “princes” in the earth. But again, these princes would have to be different than Christ’s brothers, the church, for these are referred to as “sons” of the Messiah.

The princes are obviously in a governmental position, thus they rule.  I’m not sure how it helps your case, it actually hurts it. Further, the distinction you try to make between “sons” and brothers is not at all a valid distinction in this context.  In fact, Jesus’ “brothers” are also called his “children.” (Hebrews 2:13) Christians are now Jesus’ brothers because they share the same Father and do his will (Matt 12:50), but are also his children, even his “sons,” in the age to come when Jesus as the “eternal Father” (Isa 9:6) and as the Last Adam, which he became at his resurrection, begins the new human race through the resurrection and renewal of the cosmos.

But isn’t it simply a fact that if the holy ones, via that kingdom, have dominion over the entire earth as an inheritance, that they inherit that land as well as everything else on the earth? In other words, they inherit the land that Abraham was promised plus far more than that. They can do this from heaven just as easily as they can do it from earth. The earth becomes their domain so they inherit the same land, only in a different fashion, than Abraham will inherit it. Abraham inherits it by physically living there. The holy ones can inherit it by it being part of their domain. Whether they are in heaven or earth, they inherit that land. It doesn’t mean they have to physically live there.

You once again redefine terms not in between contexts as before, but this time within a single context and in fact within a single instance of the term.  One cannot redefine a single term to give that term one meaning for one subject and a different meaning for another subject when the term is singularly applied to both.  When Romans 4:13 says “heirs” you want us to have one meaning for Abraham and another for his seed, but the word appears only once with only one meaning!  Whatever it means for Abraham it must therefore mean the same for his seed.  You can’t have it both ways.

The Abrahamic Covenant was a covenant with specific promises, which extended to Abraham and his seed.   If the promise of the Covenant was to have the land for dwelling in it (Gen 12:1-4; 13; 28), then it is this promise that extends to both.   If the Covenant was to have them rule, this it is this promise that extends to both.   If the Covenant was for both then the promise extends to both. You cannot have Abraham dwelling in the land as heir but then have his seed in heaven.

Ivan, will not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and anyone else who is resurrected to life in that kingdom, will they not have to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and live by his tenants? If that is not becoming a Christian, what is? There is nothing “loose” about that description. It clearly creates a secondary group of Christians regardless of where you put them in time. They have a DIFFERENT DESTINY AND ASSIGNMENT than those of the first resurrection. That’s my point.

In the resurrection there is not anyone raised whom the bible calls “Christian.”   This is not a biblical application of the term, for it is applied and accepted for those who accept the Gospel, now.  As stated previously, however, I have no problem with this definition, but it is loose, because it is outside of the Biblical sense of the term, which is of those who follow Christ now, before the end. To call those raised “Christian” posthumously is not an application made in biblical literature for the actual term—hence, it’s a loose definition. So a person who is posthumously “Christian” doesn’t prove two hopes or destinies for Christians.

It is clearly a different entity then the mankind that it comes down to be with. It is clearly different than the nations that NEED healing in chapter 22. I am surprised as to why you would not see this since you believe that there will be others alive forever on earth that are not a part of the ruling class. But one question is, in your estimation, why is it said to come down out of heaven at this particular juncture and not before?

As you like to point out these nations will have to accept and acknowledge Christ as their savior.   In Revelation this is symbolized in the end times by washing their robes. (Revelation 7:14)  All who do this “may enter by the gates into the city.” (Revelation 22:14) So the nations too may enter into the city.

As for the coming down, even the official Witness understanding takes this figurative. Don’t know if you agree or not with the official Witness stance, but regardless the coming down need not be literal. Every time the New Jerusalem is said to come down from heaven it is also said to be “from God,” so this appears symbolic of divine origin.

I am simply sticking with Biblical precedent as my guide. The Bible paralleled “not of this creation” with things that were spirit. Anything beyond that is man’s conjecture to have it mean something other than that. You have no precedent otherwise. Paul did not say they were “not of this creation”, he said they were a “new creation”. It is true that those who are a “new creation” will be “not of this creation” come their resurrection, but the two phrases are not equated in the scriptures. That equation was yours.

Going by a single instance in Hebrews is hardly a “Biblical precedent”.    Every other example of new creation, which would be not of this creation because it is new, is physical.  If new creation is really this creation how is it “new”? Please do explain.

“At the same time” is “during” the parousia which the scriptures will fully support as a long period of time. The word means “presence” which is indicative of a duration, not some puncticular action 1 Thes. clearly presents an order of things, first those who were dead in Christ, then those who survive and REMAIN during the parousia. The word “AT” in most translations is easily rendered “during”. But you didn’t describe what was meant by them meeting him in the air. You said it wasn’t heaven but you didn’t say what it meant and why they have to meet him in the air if he is coming down to the earth to be with them?

Given your view of when you believe the resurrection began, you would have everyone hanging around “in the air” for the past century or so?   They don’t meet Jesus in heaven, they meet him in the air.  There is not one time when “air” (aera) is used for “heaven,” the invisible realm where God dwells, in the New Testament.

It is the act of being “caught up” that occurs “at the same time” which means a simultaneous action, not one in duration during an extended period of time.

The meanings you have argued for thus far are so loose that you are beginning to empty terms of their meanings.  You tried doing this to the word “kingdom,” now you have attempted this with “inherit,” the prepositions “at” and “until,” and what it means to be “Christian.” When one has to qualify so many terms and give them unlikely connotations in their respective contexts in order to make a theological system work, it raises serious questions.

The word “SO” in this verse is very important. The word houto means “in this manner” or “in the manner described”. So, in the manner described, meeting him in the air, is where they will ever be with the Lord. How will they ever be with the Lord in the air?

So you really believe they are going to just remain in the air?  If you identify the air with heaven, on what basis do you do so? In which texts is the word “air” a substitute or even a synonym for “heaven,” the invisible dwelling place?

Parousia, of course, in its Greco-Roman context, specifically in the context that Gentile Christians living in Thessalonica would understand, would make it abundantly clear that they would not remain in the air forever.  When the Roman emperor would visit a colony or province, the citizens of that colony or province would meet the emperor at some distance from the city, and then escort him back to where they came from, namely, the city/colony. Just as loyal citizens went out of the city to escort Caesar home after a visit to the colonies, believers will go out to meet Jesus at his parousia and return with him to earth.

What makes you think the trumpets later in Revelation are the trumpet in connection with resurrection? What about the trumpet in chapter 4 verse 1? John, as a member of the church, was symbolically asked to come up to heaven at the sound of a trumpet. It was like a symbolic resurrection to heaven. How fitting then it was accompanied by a trumpet blast which would in the future, bring the whole church to heaven. The imagery is then very fitting.

Paul says “the last trumpet,” not the first.  How unfitting would it be for Paul to speak of the last of something when he really meant the first? Satan is not cast down until the 12^th chapter, well along into the events of Revelation, and well after the 24 elders are presented on the scene (Revelation 4).  You would have to believe the resurrection occurred or was occurring well before that.

Chapter 6 clearly demonstrates that part of the church is already in heaven when they ask:

Rev. 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 6:11   And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

The scene is certainly symbolic, for there is not a literal altar in heaven with souls underneath.   The scene recalls both the outcry of Abel’s blood and the draining of a sacrifice’s blood down an altar.  Since this is well before the last trumpet it could not be a literal description of resurrected Christians.

Moreover, the “souls” are clearly of martyrs. The meaning, then, is that the death and suffering of martyrs on earth are viewed as sacrificial in heaven. They, like Abel’s blood, cry out for vengeance. (Gen 4:10; Hebrews 12:24) So not only is this a personification of the blood of martyrs, it is also a symbolic personification of their significance.

This also demonstrates that the entire church does not go to heaven simultaneously. It’s spread out over a period of time, which, if we want to harmonize it with 1 Thes. 4, is DURING the PRESENCE of Christ, an extended period of time.

If this is what Paul meant then he could have said Christians will be resurrected “during the presence of Christ,” and yet he said just the opposite.   Jesus descends, the dead are raised and the living are then taken up with the raised dead “at the same time.”

This is good data in reference to the problem here. It appears that you are likely right about which is the original reading, at least in verse 10, which is probably why so many do the flip in verse 9 in order to match. However, the flip flop in verse 9 is not necessary. If we are going to go with THEM in verse 10 due to manuscript evidence, we should have the right to go with US in verse 9. As we shall see, that within the context of a “song”, such a thing is entirely possible and scripturally precedented. I’ll address this more below though.

The manuscript evidence does not support “us” in verse 9, however.   As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, your argument is essentially universally rejected by modern scholarship, including that which was behind the NWT and textual critics of all sorts.   Your only claim of support is a Majority reading, but this is not demonstrative proof.   The majority reading is available in the Majority Text, but do you use this?   If so 1 Timothy 3:16 says “God was manifest in the flesh,” for this is in the majority as well.

To argue based on manuscript count is to severely misunderstand and miscomprehend textual criticism. I’ve already pointed the readings of the critical texts, modern bible translations including the NWT, textual commentaries, textual critical principles, etc. There’s simply nothing left to say about the original reading of this verse.

I find this a rather ridiculous thing to have to defend. Sorry Ivan, no one should narrow Biblical precedent down to one book when it comes to grammar and syntax. I think that should be a given. Your desire to narrow the precedent down to one book is entirely transparent as to motive. Revelation’s uniqueness in no way would mean that it can’t use references in the third person. More below about this.

Another universally acknowledged fact is that every author has unique grammar and syntax and Revelation is especially unique.  For example, take the phrase “coming down out of heaven from God.” This appears nowhere else in the NT but only twice in Revelation and only in relation to the New Jerusalem.

The Bible, as a unit, does not have anything unique in and of itself when it comes to language so we should never treat it in isolation. This being said, you’re quite right that it cannot be said Revelation does not use third person references, but unless it can be thoroughly demonstrated that this is what is going on in Revelation 5:9, there is no real reason to believe such is the case.

I wasn’t intending it to have it both ways. It was an alternative thought as to what is going on but I think further considerations show that this could not be the case. The participle “each one” is in the masculine gender and matches with “elders” in the masculine gender. It doesn’t match with “creatures” which is neutral in gender, so this suggestion of an alternative understanding that I made doesn’t fit grammatically, so just strike all of that. However, consider this in regard to the 24 elders:

There is no grammatical rule requiring the gender to match, especially when multiple groups are involved with various grammatical genders.    At worst case this could be a matter of what is called construction according to sense, where the real gender of the subject overrules grammatical gender.   This very same thing occurs in verses 11-12 where angels, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders are depicted speaking with the masculine participle.

Take another close look at these 24 elders. They are shown to be carrying bowls of incense.  The carrying of bowls of incense into the Most Holy was only a job performed by “priests”. Common angels cannot perform the duties of the priest. It would be unlawful. This further confirms that these 24 elders are the church, since common angels would not be allowed to perform priestly duties. In ancient Israel, entry into the Most Holy before the symbolic presence of God could not be obtained without the priest carrying incense. Carrying the incense was a life-or-death matter. Therefore, the elders, carrying this incense in heaven must represent “priests” and we know who that narrows it down to.

Yes, it narrows it down to angels, because this exact task is elsewhere specifically identified as the work of an angel.   Please note Revelation 8:3-4 below:

And another angel arrived and stood at the altar, having a golden incense vessel; and a large quantity of incense was given him to offer it with the prayers of all the holy ones upon the golden altar that was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense ascended from the hand of the angel with the prayers of the holy ones before God.

If US was not the original in verse 9 it is of no consequence since speaking of something in the third person is a common literary device used within the inspired words of God and certainly within songs. If the inspired writers use it in other places, it is ridiculous to think that he could not use it in book of Revelation, especially within the context of a song being sung. Remember, the 24 elders are quoting the song. One question might be; “Who wrote the song?” It would not be unusual for a song to refer to things in the third person. In singing it then, they would simply be true to the words as it was written. Songs are often like that. For example:

If “us” is not the original reading there is simply no reason to identify Christians with the 24 elders.   Simply because they could speak in the third person does not mean they did, and in fact needs to be proved since you are making the argument.   The burden of proof rests upon you as the claimant.  This is especially true in that the four creatures are most likely to be included amongst those singing.

They are performing a priestly function by carrying incense in the Most Holy of God, heaven itself. Only priests were authorized to do so.

Your first point is demonstrably untrue. The very same task is performed only elsewhere in Revelation by an angel. Note Revelation 8:3-4.

They are spoken of as elders, a word consistently used for those who were humans with authority. There is no scriptural example where angels are spoken of as elders without straining the context beyond its natural meaning.

You may be right in saying, “there is no scriptural example where angels are spoke of as elders.” (though many commentators are split on Isaiah 24:23) However, the Bible does not exist in a vacuum and if Second Temple Judaism called angels “elders,” it is certainly possible that the title was appropriate, for the New Testament and its authors were children of Second Temple thought. Here is one such example from the late 1^st century AD, around the same time as Revelation.

2 Enoch 4:1 They brought before my face the elders and rulers of the stellar orders, and showed me two hundred angels, who rule the stars and their…

They are shown to wear crowns, golden crowns, which is the same kind of crown worn by Christ in Revelation. They share the same kind of crown that Christ has. This will only be shared by the church, not angels. In fact, no where do we find angels wearing crowns.

Never in the book of Revelation is the church depicted wearing actual crowns.   They are spoken of as having crowns (Revelation 3:11), but this is “the crown of life”. (Revelation 2:10).   Otherwise, the ones that are depicted as having crowns are demons, celestial beings. (Revelation 9:7)

The 24 elders cannot be used as evidence, since their very identification is in dispute.

They have HARPS. Angels are not depicted as playing harps but the church clearly is in both Revelation 14 and 15:2.

The church is not those with harps in Revelation 14, rather those unidentified ones singing the new song from heaven have them.   These harpists are not identified with the church and are in fact distinguished.    The ones in Revelation 14 are not the elders because they are “before… the elders”. (Revelation 14:3)   As the angels are able to use other instruments (trumpets) there is no reason they would not also use harps.

All symbols in the book of Revelation draw from scriptural examples established in the Bible. Where do we find a parallel for the number 24 which would fit elders and those carrying incense into the Most Holy? The only parallel we can find is with the 24 priestly divisions in the nation of Israel. Based on this composite imagery, there can be no doubt who these 24 elders represent.

This argument is circular.   You assume the elders are a “symbol” and not actual entities, but not everything in Revelation is symbolic.  That one of the elders speaks to John, in the same way only angels do throughout Revelation, is a strong indicator that the elders are actual entities and not merely symbols, but also that they are not human.  (Revelation 5:5)

Thrones in this sentence does not have to be limited to heavenly things, nor does it even have to apply to heavenly things at all. All that really needs to happen is for one or more of those things in that list to refer to something heavenly, then the list would include things both visible and invisible. Nothing in that sentence requires us to have to think of each thing listed as both visible and invisible. One thing mentioned could be invisible while the other thing mentioned is visible.

They are not limited to heaven, but neither are they excluded from it.  It is hardly reasonable to believe Paul was switching back and forth, listing one thing on earth, then one in heaven, and then another upon the earth and so on. For what reason do you argue or on what basis do you claim the thrones are not in heaven?

We also have to remember that this word for throne, “thronos”, was also given to judges and elders. A judge and an elder would certainly not require a crown, so simply because one sits on a “thronos”, it doesn’t require a crown. Just because one possesses a seat of authority does not mean he has to be wearing a crown. In Daniel 7, the “court’ took its place in heaven. This would likely refer to angels as part of the court. But this on no way necessitates a crown.

But neither does it exclude it.   The point is that there is good biblical precedent for suggesting that in heaven there are thrones others reside upon in heaven.    The depiction of the twenty four elders brings clarity to this very point, portraying them as actual distinct beings who even interact with John, showing them in heaven before the resurrection, and depicting them doing an act otherwise only done by angels in Revelation. It further depicts them as angelic authorities, those of which Jesus is said to have in his subjection. It is no wonder, then, why they cast their crowns toward God and the Lamb in Revelation 5 and are said to worship Jesus in Hebrews 1:6.

Because angels have authority in one fashion or another does not put a crown on their head. See the above information. Remember, the 24 elders have golden crowns which match the crown of Jesus Christ.

You’ll need to further define “match the crown of Jesus Christ.”   No Christian has a crown matching the crown of Jesus Christ, for he is king of us all and has a unique position within the kingdom.  To simply have a golden crown is not to make it a parallel to one belonging to Jesus.

The present tense of “have” only needs to apply to the boldness, not to the Most Holy. Also, “approaching” doesn’t mean entering. It actually means to “draw near to”. Drawing near to does not mean that you have entered.  In fact, it would not mean that at all. If I approach your house, that doesn’t mean I’m in it, I’m simply drawing near to it. We obviously can likewise draw near to God.

This is simply wrong, for the present verb “have” applies to the entire expression, namely, “boldness into the holy.”  Approaching my house does not place you inside of it, but to get inside of it you must approach. The term, as used in the NT, regularly has the sense of “going [in]to completely,” not approaching without completing the journey. (Matthew 28:2; Luke 8:24)

Contextually, the Most Holy is identified as heaven itself. Jesus is stated to be the FORERUNNER of those entering beyond the curtain. This is undeniably a reference to his entering heaven itself. If Jesus is the FORERUNNER then there will have to be others who go in beyond the curtain as did Jesus. The word carries the definition of “one who comes in advance to a place where the rest are to follow”.

As with the rest of Hebrews we must consider the context.   The subject of discussion is salvation.    God had promised it and Jesus, as our forerunner, received it.   Jesus has gone ahead as a “forerunner” on behalf of those who will also suffer and be vindicated for his sake. It is thus how he is our forerunner.  This is not about entering heaven as our forerunner, for he “entered [heaven] in our behalf,” but about being the forerunner of those saved and vindicated for their suffering.

Seriously Ivan, I think any one should be able to see that if the written word of God obviously supplies this meaning to the word “until” we should have no issue with it being used that way in a given context. Are you denying that in the places I showed you it had to mean duration and/or constancy and not a ceasing? The answer to that question should settle the issue.

In question is what the word means in Acts 3:20-21, and you’ve failed to provide a single reference work supporting your definition in this text.   Many Greek words have various shades of meaning along with various connotations, but those shades and connotations are not equally possible in any given text.  We both know this. Were any shade of meaning acceptable in any given text the Bible would be gibberish, impossible to accurately translate or even understand.   With all we know some texts have questionable meanings based upon shades of meaning for words. (like, e. g., Hebrews 1:3’s apaugasma) However, you’ve failed to produce a single scholar who even hints at the sense you have argued for in this text.

As I’ve pointed out multiple times, there are key indicators in this text that refute the sense you’ve argued for.   In fact your own argument for “sent” demonstrates the meaning of “until” you insist upon is not the actual meaning.   Let me demonstrate. You said:

The word received can also refer to the idea of being held. Not in the sense of restraint or bonds, but simply being held, lovingly, like a child could be held. Heaven will hold him in the sense that he is waiting until his enemies are placed as a stool for his feet before he takes action. He will be sent in the sense that he will certainly come to the vicinity of the earth as he goes forth to put his enemies under his feet, to destroy them, such as what is depicted in Revelation 19. But that can all easily be done while remaining a spirit being.

Unless the vicinity of the earth is still in heaven (in which case he isn’t sent anywhere because he never leaves), he leaves heaven and so is no longer there.    He is in heaven “until” he is sent, meaning that the ending ends the duration he is held in heaven, so that heaven is no longer where he exists.

So even by your own argumentation, Jesus leaves heaven while approaching the vicinity of the earth. He certainly leaves it when he descends from heaven (how more explicit can it be?) in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. Viewing Acts 1:11, 3:20-21 along with 1 Thessalonians 4:16 should settle the issue: Jesus leaves heaven and is so “sent” from there, meaning that the meaning for “until” that you argue for is impossible in this text.

If he was coming back visibly, the angels would not have scolded them for looking into the sky. They would have commended them for recognizing he would return visibly. As it is, the verses clearly demonstrate that ONLY his Apostles seen him leave, and he left “caught up from their vision”. That is the “like manner” in which he will return.

There is no reason to believe they were scolded.  Nothing truly indicates that.   Jesus certainly didn’t leave invisibly either.    First, he was seen going into the sky, but then he was covered by the clouds because of the very fact he was visible.    In this instance the clouds literally obstructed their view of him; the clouds did not make him invisible.   Similarly, on his return he will do the same thing, obstructed from our view but then visible. This is why the bible regularly refers to the manifestation of Jesus. A visible coming.

As mentioned, you have no precedent to see “in the heavens” as only proleptic when we know that the other two phrases would not only be proleptic, but a future description of the new body. Do you deny that “not made with hands” and “everlasting” are descriptions of the new body? Please answer that. Then how can you say that “in the heavens” is not a description as well? Sure it’s proleptic, but it is describing what that body WILL BE. If you acknowledge that it is a description of what that body will be, then you can’t create an unwarranted division between those two phrases and “in the heavens”. To do so is simply an arbitrary, unprecedented and unwarranted interpretation.

The difference that I’ve already pointed out and you didn’t address is that we are not spoken of as existing in the body.    Had Paul spoke of us existing in that body in heaven, which would be a fully proleptic thought and expression, you would have more basis for argumentation; but the body is instead spoken of as held in waiting, so that it is so held in heaven is not relevant because we are not spoken of as (yet) wearing it.

Of course you’ve still yet to address that this point is entirely refuted in 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. 18 Consequently keep comforting one another with these words.

The dead rise and only then are brought into the air, with the living.  They are not made alive in heaven, so the body must exist upon the earth. Therefore, not only is your interpretation of 2 Corinthians not necessary, it is impossible.  Indeed, the very fact that the saints go upward necessitates their bodies be changed on earth.

As far as verse 4 goes, when Paul says he does not desire to put it off, he is referring to the dissolving in verse one, which is death. He’s not anxious to die but he does ultimately desire the new body from heaven. In other words, the unfortunate part about getting the body from heaven is that you have to die in the flesh, which nobody is anxious to do. Paul wasn’t anxious to die.

You are correct, Paul is referring to death when saying he doesn’t desire to put it off, however, in your theology, at least from what you’ve argued thus far, he must put it off either way.   Paul relates that instead of losing his current body, it “will be swallowed up by life.”   The meaning, then, is not that he desired to never leave the current body, but to have the mortality of the current body “swallowed up.”

In the case of Christ, he says it was his soul that was not left in Hades. Soul, which can refer to simply the person, the personality, is what was raised from the dead by the preparation of a body, a spirit body, like the one from heaven that Paul will receive.

If there is not an immaterial soul then there is no person or personality apart from the body.

This completely denies that Jesus applied the GRAIN to the SOUL in verse 25. He explains verse 24 in verse 25. The SOUL dies and is raised. You seem to be ignoring verse 25.

Not only is there no reason to assume what you here do, the language Jesus uses is not supportive of your conclusion.   Jesus speaks of a grain going into the ground, which does well fit soul language in this context, however that it “bears much fruit” is not analogous to the soul being ‘safeguarded for everlasting life.’  The fruit would represent many lives, which encompasses the glorification spoken of in the previous verse, as has been pointed out. Rather than verse 24 being explained in verse 25, 24 is an illustration of the glorification in verse 23.   Thus in verse 32 his being “lifted up” (his death, represented by the grain going into the ground) results in him ‘drawing all sorts of men to him’ (bearing much fruit).

If the seed is the old body as you say, then it is the OLD body that would have to come back in order to constitute a resurrection. It is clear that the OLD body does NOT come back because a body, the one that develops, has to be GIVEN to a bare grain, which is the SEED, not the old plant body.

When a seed is planted in the ground, what is “raised” is derived from the seed, it is not independent of it.    A completely distinct body has no basis in the original body and is not at all analogous to a sown/raised seed.   The body that comes develops from the presently sown body, and so it is “transformed.” (Philippians 3:21)

Here Philippians 3:21 is extremely relevant. In Philippians 3:21 Paul talks about the transformation of our current body to a body similar to Christ’s glorious one. The only difference in “bodies” is the genitive nouns qualifying them: humiliated vs glorious.  The parallel in this verse implies that both genitives must have the same nature/substance. Body of humiliation is obviously not a body made of humiliation and similarly, Christ’s glorious body is not a body made of glory. The contrast, then, is not a flesh and blood body vs an angelic body as you believe but rather a body in a state of humiliation vs a body in a state of glory. All implied is that the body is of the same nature; hence the transformation is in condition not substance.

Why do you think that Paul ridiculed these ones as unreasonable for asking what kind of body they would be raised with? From your standpoint, that would have been a completely reasonable question. Why did he tell them that there question was unreasonable?

Paul’s argument stems from his attack on those denying the resurrection, presumably because they believed it already happened. (cf 2 Timothy 2:18) Having affirmed the resurrection he now addresses how it takes place.  The body now is corruptible, so to say that being resurrected as we are now is very unreasonable.  We would only die again. This is why what is sown, our corruptible body, is not the same corruptible body raised, but an incorruptible one.

Again, the word transformed simply means “to change”. Paul tells us how they are changed in 1 Cor. 15 where the word there is specifically the word for “exchanged”. They change via an exchange.

This is patently false.   It does not mean “to change” in the sense of change a tire, but change in the sense of a caterpillar to a butterfly.   The body itself is what is changed, not the person with an exchange of bodies as if personality could at all be thought of as apart from the body.

The word metaschematisei appears only five times (in various forms) in the New Testament, including Philippians 3:21.  At 2 Corinthians 11:13 there are wicked people “transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”   At 2 Corinthians 11:14 Satan is “transformed in an angel of light.”   The term is again used in verse 15 with the same connotation.    The last occurrence is at 1 Corinthians 4:6 with the figurative application of “apply.”      Not one of these examples supports the use you require, and they in fact each speak against it.

Additionally, I consulted the major lexicons (BDAG, Thayer, Louw and Nida, Lidell-Scott and Friberg), none of which support your definition, and each of which speak directly against it.    In each we find that the body itself is transformed or changed, not in the sense of an exchange but in the sense most akin to a metamorphosis.  So BDAG clarifies the sense of “change” as this, “to change the form of someth., transform, change.”   This cannot and does not encompass the idea of exchange.

Well, let’s stay away from opinion and conjecture for now. We are still discussing whether or not the holy ones and Jesus are spirit beings and we are nowhere near being done.

It’s not conjecture. As I’ve shown above, Philippians 3:21 is unambiguous to such a point, as is John 2:19-21.The change is in condition not substance.

The use of the word “physical” at 2 Cor. 2 is not the same context as is borne out in 1 Cor. 15.

I disagree.  BDAG glosses the two passages the same.   It makes good sense for Paul to have used the same language earlier and here to do so again, providing necessary clarification to his meaning.

Let’s look again at how Paul’s argument progresses. In verse 44 he says: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

But then notice exactly what he next says: And so it is written. By saying that Paul is about to give a scriptural example of what he just said. So whatever Paul brings up now in the next statement is exactly what he meant in verse 44. Otherwise, to say, IT IS EVEN SO WRITTEN would make no sense.

So, how does Paul explain verse 44? He explains it by saying that the first man Adam was a living soul. This obviously parallels to verse 44 and the NATURAL body, because soul primarily refers to NATURAL beings.

THEN, in contrast and obviously paralleling the SPIRITUAL body of verse 44, he says Jesus became a life giving SPIRIT. Notice, it did not say that Jesus became SPIRITUAL, but that he became a SPIRIT. SPIRIT then according to Paul’s own scriptural explanation, parallels the SPIRITUAL body of verse 44. The contrast then in verse 44 is clearly between NATURAL and SPIRIT. But he’s not done with his explanation of verse 44. He further clarifies the intended contrast between Adam and Jesus.

The contrast is between “natural” and “spiritual,” the former of which is “a living soul” in Adam, the latter of which is “a life giving spirit” in Jesus.   As “living soul” is not telling the substance of the body, it is contrary to Paul’s argument to suggest “life giving spirit” is telling of the substance of the resurrection body.    The antithesis between the two natures and then Adam and Jesus does not allow for substance to be in view unless “living soul” is a substance. So you do have a bit of a dilemma going into an actual exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15.

Verse 46 is also important because it clarifies that the first thing was NATURAL, not SPIRITUAL. This is important because if SPIRITUAL means a condition of the flesh then ADAM would have truly been SPIRITUAL, since he was created perfect in God’s eyes. This is clearly a contrast between the substances, not a condition before God. Adam, when created by God, would have indeed been SPIRITUAL before God, so verse 46 further clarifies this is speaking purely of substance.

The condition is not strictly of sin, it is corruptibility. Adam’s body was capable of death and decay, even before the fall. So it would still have been natural not spiritual. But once again, unless “living soul” is a substance, it is impossible for the contrast to be of substance.

Paul continues with his explanation in verse 47 where he clearly makes a distinction to substance once again. He says the first man was MADE OF DUST. This is obviously the parallel again of NATURAL in verse 44. The second man was out of heaven, and this obviously is a reference to what Jesus WAS, not what he is, because as Paul stated, he is now a life-giving spirit. and there is no verb in this verse and the reference to Adam was clearly about what he was, not what he is.

Since you appealed to the comments a few posts back, I’ll do the same here. As Heks has noted in his discussion with Tony, “out of heaven” does not reflect Jesus’ substance, and neither does “out of the earth” for Adam.    Substance is only spoken of with the statement “made of dust.”   It is very interesting and indeed quite telling that Paul makes this argument but doesn’t follow through saying, “made of spirit,” as you yourself believe. Indeed, Paul never actually says what you claim he does; never does he say the spiritual body is “made of spirit.”  Paul does not identify the substance of the body in the resurrection as anything different,  but does make a point where origin is concerned, because it has been transformed, not from the earth but from heaven, providing a wonderful parallel with Philippians 3:21 and 2 Corinthians 5:1.

How Paul chose to state the situation is not really relevant. He stated it the way he stated it and the result is the same. Surely, he wanted to explain how humans could be exchanged into spirit beings and that’s why the long explanation. It’s obviously not an easy concept and of course he was talking to doubters so an extended explanation would have been a normal choice for Paul.

The result is not the same and such language would have plainly articulated your position.   His use of the same terminology already used elsewhere in 1 Corinthians speaks a different story.  In fact, the only words you have to cling to for substance is “spirit,” which could not be substance because of being antithetical to “living soul,” and dust, which is not contrasted with any substance of the resurrection body, again, an ideal place for “spirit” to be used, though it is not. How easy could it have been for Paul to merely contrast resurrected humans with angels? Yet, he never does so.

Everything Paul draws from in illustration of the resurrection body was physical in nature, including the “heavenly bodies” which are clearly identified in verse 41.   How little sense would it make for Paul to use all physical things to illustrate the various types of bodies and then use this to argue that Jesus’ “heavenly” body is immaterial or ethereal?

And once again, Paul explicitly calls Jesus a “man” in the resurrection, something you have not a shred of basis for redefining as “experientially man,” this being not a biblical expression or concept.   You present a classic example of redefining terms with definitions that do not exist because the explicit statement is completely contrary to the doctrine you seek to defend.    The audience should here ask, is a theological position really sound when it is necessary to create definitions for words and concepts that do not even exist, biblically?   The Bible might say, “Jesus is flesh in the resurrection,” and you’d need to only redefine flesh to mean “experientially flesh,” which is to say that he experienced a body of flesh so he can fully relate to having one.

See above where it is obvious that Paul used the word soul here as a parallel to the NATURAL body in verse 44, made of dust. Adam’s body was not made of soul, but was NATURAL, made of dust. That’s what he meant by “soulical”, because soul predominantly refers to HUMAN beings. Jesus body was a life giving spirit. Notice it just doesn’t say it was SPIRITUAL, but was SPIRIT. The whole context here is one of substance, not condition. As I said, if it was condition, then the comparison to Adam would have been inappropriate, since he would have been SPIRITUAL at his creation, in perfect condition before God.

Just the opposite is the case. The entire context is primarily about condition, not substance.  Dishonor vs glory, weakness vs power, and perishable vs imperishable.  The only substances mentioned are dust (not placed antithetically to anything), the different types of flesh (used to illustrate how the resurrection body will be different) and the heavenly bodies (all of which are physical).   Flesh and blood is used, but as is evident by the fact that Jesus is still identified as a man and that Paul didn’t just say “man,” the emphasis is on the corruptibility of these things at present, and does not refer to substance.

They are alive in a particular sense, in regard to the spirit that dwells within them. It makes them alive before God rather than dead in their sins in his view. Look at what is said prior to this:

(Romans 8:1-2) 8 Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation. ² For the law of that spirit which gives life in union with Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

This is clearly happening in the present.

(Romans 8:6-8) ⁶ For the minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life and peace; ⁷ because the minding of the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. ⁸ So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God.

This is clearly present tense. They are alive to God, via the spirit, rather than dead.

(Romans 8:9-10) ⁹ However, YOU are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in YOU. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this one does not belong to him. ¹⁰ But if Christ is in union with YOU, the body indeed is dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness.

Verse 9 and 10 carry that same present context.

The same idea is addressed earlier in the same book.

Rom 6:10   For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11   LIKEWISE reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12   Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.                                                                                                                                                         Rom 6:13   Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God

We are so alive in the present, as were those whom Paul wrote in Romans.  However, the mortal body was not alive yet and this was held out as a future prospect, so he said God “will make” our bodies alive, not that he has already.    As a result this must be in reference to the resurrection. Not only does the future aspect reference the resurrection, but it is obvious from 8:11. The first two lines are incontrovertible statements of fact that they refer to the resurrection. The third line, which speaks of mortal bodies, must be also. Having raised Jesus from the dead, Paul says, God will give life to your mortal bodies.

Ephesians and Colossians speak of the same thing as Romans. They are speaking of being alive in the spirit while still in the flesh. If this “alive” is a reference to immortality as you think, isn’t this a contradiction of terms to say that MORTAL bodies would be IMMORTAL? When referring to actual resurrection the terminology is different. Immortality “swallows up” mortality. Mortality is gone. How then can a mortal body be immortal with a reference to resurrection? The terminology fits better with the immediate context and the often made point that the holy ones were no longer dead in their sins but alive before God due to his spirit dwelling within them.

In the texts you’ve cited above, you are correct, but in 8:11 Paul is talking about the “body” that still needs to be made alive.   This is not a contradiction of terms because they will be “transformed,” (Philippians 3:21) so that “this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:53)

Release OF the body can mean the same thing as release FROM the body. If the body is released, it is no longer retained.

Release OF the body would mean the body was held captive, release FROM the body would mean the body was the place of captivity. If the body is released it is obviously not transformed nor made alive nor swallowed up by life.

The MAN known as Jesus Christ no longer exists. This is clear from verse 1 in the same chapter of Galatians where Paul says:

(Galatians 1:1) 1 Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,. . .

As has highlighted elsewhere in the comment sections, Paul’s argument has nothing to do with whether Christ is a man.   Paul is addressing the source of his apostleship and knowledge and whether it is from.   Paul was not making a specific argument on the nature of Jesus (something entirely foreign to this context), and this is simply an unnecessary inference. It is trying to find something in the text which is not there nor intends to be there. As Jesus’ nature was not part of Paul’s discussion there is no reason to add meaning not intended, especially when his point was that he receive the revelation directly and not from mediators such as the apostles or other disciples.

The “gave himself” in both Galatians and Timothy is in the aorist tense. Notice what is said of the aorist tense:

Indeed it is, but in Galatians the one who “gave himself” is the one from who the blessings are sent, namely, the resurrected Jesus. The resurrected Jesus is still the one who “gave himself.” This does not preclude that “man” in 1 Timothy not be taken to mean what it most naturally does.  In fact, we should take 1Timothy 2:5 for what it really does say, namely, that Jesus is a man.

One can hardly imagine Paul sending greetings from someone not alive.   Instead, the greetings and blessings come from Jesus, alive now in heaven.    So Jesus is rightly still a “man,” as the Bible expressly identifies him.

Sure he still exists but he could not still exist as the same thing that he sacrificed, otherwise, what exactly did he sacrifice? If he retained EVERYTHING that he was, then he made no sacrifice, and sacrifices are not taken back or they are not sacrifices. To take back a sacrifice would break the antitypical pattern completely.

If your hypothesis is correct, what could he retain?   He gave “himself” and “his soul” and “his body,” so if he could not take back what he gave, he could not in any way now exist.   To have any type of resurrection would also break “the antitypical pattern”.    Your argument precludes Jesus’ resurrection in any form.

Simple question: What exactly did Jesus sacrifice in order to pay the ransom?

Everything in his death, but it was the death of all those things that paid the penalty.   For the penalty to be paid it was not necessary for him to remain dead.   Once he had died he covered the sins of us all.

Another simple question: What does it mean to truly sacrifice something?

It depends upon what you are sacrificing.   In the case of Jesus, he gave up his very life for us, even “himself.”    That life came to a complete end.   Once this act was accomplished the covering of our sins was accomplished.    It was not necessary for him to remain dead. Just as Jesus said, he had the power to lay down his life and to get it back.

The only way he can sacrifice himself and still be himself is if he sacrificed himself in a different form than what he now is. Otherwise, there was no sacrifice and completely violates all of the Old Law parallels where no one ever received back what they sacrificed. It was gone, naturally, never to be taken back. If that is the case with Jesus, that he took back what he sacrificed, then the ransom was not paid and we are dead in our sins without a means of salvation.

By the very fact that Jesus lives now in any sense demonstrates the above argument invalid.

Yes, he sacrificed his SOUL in the sense of that NATURAL body that he possessed, just like Adam’s NATURAL body. Souls are primarily in reference to human beings, so this is a reference to his human soul that he sacrificed. We are assured though that the sacrifice was the body and blood of Christ. That was the part of HIMSELF that was sacrificed.

You qualify the “sense” of his sacrifice with a qualification not biblically provided or supported.  In fact, the Bible teaches just the opposite.  The soul he gave up is the soul he took back.

John 10:17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.

There is no less an ambiguous statement than this.   The soul/life Jesus laid down is the same he took/received back.  Just the same, the body Jesus died in is the one he was raised in. (John 2:19-21)

What did Adam posses that he lost and how would that be bought back for mankind? What Adam lost was the potential for perfect human life for himself and his offspring. What needed to be paid back was someone who could provide that same potential for perfect human life. Adam forfeited that perfect human life. Jesus had to sacrifice a perfect human life in order to pay the price of the ransom. If he didn’t sacrifice that perfect human life, then he did not pay what was needed.

There is no “potential” in the ransom.  It is much simpler and easier to understand.  The sins we have ourselves, as Christians, were paid for in Jesus’ death.  He took our sins upon himself in his death, because he had none to pay for himself. (1 Peter 2:24)

You said:

Conversely, if I can show the kingdom is on earth not merely as to territory, which we both agree on anyway, but as to the “seat,” then it becomes that much more difficult for you to argue for a partite kingdom wherein believers are separated eternally in two distinct metaphysical arenas. As proof I have appealed to Matthew 25:34.

There, the sheep are identified as Christ’s brothers and are said to inherit the kingdom on earth. As Christ’s brothers and joint-heirs with him, these “sheep” rule on, from, and over the earth. (cf Matt 20:23) This not only shows they are in the New Covenant (because they rule) but also that the seat of the government is on earth.

Both the word “kingdom” and “inherit” carry different meanings. Context, either the immediate context or the greater context must be considered to derive the proper meaning and understanding.

The word kingdom has already been discussed and there is not much reason to beat that horse. The word rendered “inherit” does not have to refer to an actual inheritance as a son. Note what the word means according to the lexicons and other references.

1) to receive a lot, receive by lot

a) esp. to receive a part of an inheritance, receive as an inheritance, obtain by right of inheritance

b) to be an heir, to inherit

2) to receive the portion assigned to one, receive an allotted portion, receive as one’s own or as a possession

3) to become partaker of, to obtain

Only the first meaning has reference to being an heir in the absolute sense.

The 2cnd and 3rd meanings assigned to the word do not require one to be an “heir”, but simply refers to receiving a portion that is allotted to them, or simply to obtain via a reward. The word is often used in reference to Christians “inheriting” everlasting life. They “obtain” everlasting life.

This does not necessitate then the understanding that these sheep are “heirs”. All that is necessitated by this understanding is that they receive or obtain a kingdom, a realm that has been assigned to them to receive.

Returning back to a text we had earlier discussed, Daniel 2, we find a similar teaching. In Daniel 2:34-35 a stone exists, which I’m confident we can agree to be God’s kingdom based upon the interpretation provided in 44.   Yet is this the government or the dominion where people dwell?   The stone ends all the kingdoms of the earth, so it must certainly be the government, but then it fills the earth, pointing to the dominion.   In point of fact, the stone represents both the government and the dominion, wherein the stone overtakes the entire earth.     As it includes both the government and dominion it must have both upon the earth.   Hence, when the text says “it will not be passed to any other people,” the “it” is the very same thing that performs the ‘crushing’.

But again, this does not necessitate the holy ones to be located on the earth. The stone represents that subsidiary of God’s universal kingdom which came from HEAVEN, from God, who is still its ultimate authority. He rules just fine over the earth FROM heaven. The fact that God is in heaven, and so is Christ, and they both presently can be said to have, at the very least, authority and power over the earth, it is silly to think that someone has to BE on earth to exercise authority and power over it. Christ as the Prince of God’s kingdom (until he became the King) had all authority over heaven and earth. This should tell you that by no means is it necessary for the church to be located on earth when it takes possession of the kingdom. Yes the dominion and the domain, the rulership of that kingdom will fill the whole earth, but that no way necessitates the rulers themselves being on earth. If it did, then so would Christ and God have to be on the earth in order to possess power and authority over it. This really should be an obvious thing and not in need of debate.

Jesus Christ consistently referred to the kingdom to come as the kingdom OF heaven.

But here is another piece to the picture that might help appease your conflict with this.

(Psalm 45:16) ¹⁶ In place of your forefathers there will come to be your sons, Whom you will appoint as princes in all the earth.

In this messianic prophecy, these “sons” of the Messiah cannot be the church, since they are his brothers, but Jesus as the new father of the human race, the second Adam as it were, will come to have sons in the earth in place of forefathers, some of whom will be appointed as “princes”. These princes are logically an extension of the church’s dominion on earth because they would surely not be independent. Is it possible that Daniel 2 refers to these “sons” as part of the mountain filling the entire earth? Sure. It’s possible. That stone therefore, as representing the dominion of the Messianic kingdom, could include those “princes” in the earth. But again, these princes would have to be different than Christ’s brothers, the church, for these are referred to as “sons” of the Messiah.

I do not deny the promise in Galatians 3 is, in part, the spirit and the nations’ blessing. There’s no need to rehash what we both agree on. Yet, the heart of the issue is Paul’s overarching point: Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant, and there is no escaping that a significant portion of the Abrahamic Covenant was the land inheritance. As Romans says,

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Abraham and his descendants, i. e., his seed, received the promise that they would be heirs of the world. The “seed,” as Galatians 3 tells us, is Jesus primarily and Christians in union with him, secondarily. As such, they must inherit the land/earth in the same way Abraham does.  One cannot say the “seed” inherits the land in one way and Abraham in another without equivocating as to what it means to inherit the world and without ignoring that both fall under the single “promise.”

Just as physical Israel was to inherit the land of Canaan, so the new “Israel of God,” (Gal 6:16) which now includes Gentiles, will inherit that land, but then also the entire globe, alongside Abraham, for it was promised to Abraham that his enemies would be overcome (Genesis  22:17; Psalm 2:8; Daniel 2:44).  Your burden is thus to show how Christians can be Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promises to Abraham (the Abrahamic Covenant) and yet not receive a principle aspect of that covenant.

But isn’t it simply a fact that if the holy ones, via that kingdom, have dominion over the entire earth as an inheritance, that they inherit that land as well as everything else on the earth? In other words, they inherit the land that Abraham was promised plus far more than that. They can do this from heaven just as easily as they can do it from earth. The earth becomes their domain so they inherit the same land, only in a different fashion, than Abraham will inherit it. Abraham inherits it by physically living there. The holy ones can inherit it by it being part of their domain. Whether they are in heaven or earth, they inherit that land. It doesn’t mean they have to physically live there.

They rule over those of the second resurrection and over the nations. Revelation 2:26 states that Christians will have power over them.   The issue is of those who are Christians now, members of the first resurrection.  The Bible never calls anyone else resurrected to life a Christian, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets, yet they will be in the kingdom (Luke 13:28).   Based upon your lose definition of Christian I have no issue with so defining them, but this does not established a secondary group of Christians who exist before Christ’s return and who will not participate in the first resurrection.

Ivan, will not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and anyone else who is resurrected to life in that kingdom, will they not have to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and live by his tenants? If that is not becoming a Christian, what is? There is nothing “loose” about that description. It clearly creates a secondary group of Christians regardless of where you put them in time. They have a DIFFERENT DESTINY AND ASSIGNMENT than those of the first resurrection. That’s my point.

I said:

Again, we see New Jerusalem, the Lamb’s wife coming down out of heaven to be with MANKIND. It then says the TENT of God will be with MANKIND. Clearly in that vision we have two elements, New Jerusalem and MANKIND. They are clearly not the same group. Plus again, when we get to chapter 22 we see New Jerusalem in her final glorified condition, with a river flowing from it for the HEALING of the NATIONS. Once again, clearly two different groups, New Jerusalem and the NATIONS that are being healed.

This misses the metaphor. The New Jerusalem is, as has been pointed out, a city, a temple, and a people. All aspects need to be taken into account. After the New Jerusalem’s descent God “tabernacles” with humankind. The point is not that the New Jerusalem is a separate group of people who are spirits beings as oppose to mankind, but to establish the new communion humans enjoy with God. The Church can be regarded as a spiritual/heavenly temple according to Ephesians 2. That a spiritual descent is in view is clear from Revelation 22 where there are human beings inside the city. So the metaphor switches. If the New Jerusalem is strictly a people, the Church, then you run into problems with it being a city in Revelation 22 and nations gaining entrance into her. Obviously it is a dynamic metaphor.

Of course the great issue here for you is that if one is not within New Jerusalem one is with the wicked who are destined for destruction.   Revelation 22:14-15 leaves no third option.

I wonder who is missing what. New Jerusalem is identified as the bride of Christ, which is comprised of the holy ones who constitute part of the government, the kings, priests and judges who will rule with Christ. The church is here symbolically represented as a city, New Jerusalem, which old Jerusalem was the old seat of government. As a city, it is shown to come down OUT OF heaven and I haven’t actually heard how you explain that aspect of the vision. It is clearly a different entity then the mankind that it comes down to be with. It is clearly different than the nations that NEED healing in chapter 22. I am surprised as to why you would not see this since you believe that there will be others alive forever on earth that are not a part of the ruling class. But one question is, in your estimation, why is it said to come down out of heaven at this particular juncture and not before?

As I mentioned before the problem you pose in relation to Rev. 22 hangs upon what one sees the “gates” as representing. If it represents the limits of the blessing of the church, then those who are blessed, who are not part of the church, are not “outside”. They are within the gates. But I think you contradict yourself here. Where are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob located within this vision if they are not part of New Jerusalem, which is specifically identified as the Lamb’s bride, which are the holy ones?

Physicality is not a prerequisite for something being of this creation. Hebrews only describes something in heaven, so naturally it is not of this creation, but that does not make the meaning exclusive to things in heaven.  This is an unproven assertion on your part and to argue for it as necessary is to move beyond anything defined by the text.  The New Heavens and New Earth are not of this natural order and thus not of this creation. If they were of this creation already, there’s no point in God saying he is creating them for they would already be existing.

Christians are physical beings yet according to Paul, if Christ is in them, they are not of this creation but of new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).

I am simply sticking with Biblical precedent as my guide. The Bible paralleled “not of this creation” with things that were spirit. Anything beyond that is man’s conjecture to have it mean something other than that. You have no precedent otherwise. Paul did not say they were “not of this creation”, he said they were a “new creation”. It is true that those who are a “new creation” will be “not of this creation” come their resurrection, but the two phrases are not equated in the scriptures. That equation was yours.

While I can appreciate your view on what parousia means, I do not share your eschatology. There is simply no evidence that during the parousia Christians are resurrected gradually. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 specifically says that those in Christ are raised first—at his parousia—and those still alive will be caught up in the air, not in heaven (air is not a description of heaven)—“AT THE SAME TIME.” (NWT footnote)

“At the same time” is “during” the parousia which the scriptures will fully support as a long period of time. The word means “presence” which is indicative of a duration, not some puncticular action 1 Thes. clearly presents an order of things, first those who were dead in Christ, then those who survive and REMAIN during the parousia. The word “AT” in most translations is easily rendered “during”. But you didn’t describe what was meant by them meeting him in the air. You said it wasn’t heaven but you didn’t say what it meant and why they have to meet him in the air if he is coming down to the earth to be with them?

The word “SO” in this verse is very important. The word houto means “in this manner” or “in the manner described”. So, in the manner described, meeting him in the air, is where they will ever be with the Lord. How will they ever be with the Lord in the air?

Thus 1 Thessalonians 4 contradicts the view you have articulated by suggesting there are holy ones on earth and some in heaven “during” the parousia. Paul says everyone dead in Christ and those alive in Christ are to be changed “at the same time.”

Right, that “same time” is “during” the parousia. There is no contradiction.

Further, the resurrection occurs at the last trumpet, which is the seventh in Revelation.  The trumpets have not even begun when John is taken to heaven in Revelation 4 and already sees the 24 elders.  Thus, the resurrection had not even taken place and thus also showing the elders cannot be Christians.  More on this below.

What makes you think the trumpets later in Revelation are the trumpet in connection with resurrection? What about the trumpet in chapter 4 verse 1? John, as a member of the church, was symbolically asked to come up to heaven at the sound of a trumpet. It was like a symbolic resurrection to heaven. How fitting then it was accompanied by a trumpet blast which would in the future, bring the whole church to heaven. The imagery is then very fitting.

Chapter 6 clearly demonstrates that part of the church is already in heaven when they ask:

Rev. 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 6:11   And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

This also demonstrates that the entire church does not go to heaven simultaneously. It’s spread out over a period of time, which, if we want to harmonize it with 1 Thes. 4, is DURING the PRESENCE of Christ, an extended period of time.

Any basic training in textual criticism makes clear the harder and shorter readings are to be preferred. Why? Because scribes had the tendencies to smooth out readings by adding to them, harmonizing them, and so on. Further, the harder reading best explains the other readings. Why do some manuscripts include “us”? Because it smoothes out the difficulty.

All major modern bible translations disagree with you on this point including the NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, ASV, ERV, NRSV and even the NWT. Further, the 3 major critical texts disagree with you here as well: NA27, SBL NT, and WH.

There are good reasons why virtually every competent scholar disagrees with the reading you prefer: it’s not original.

Further, in relation to the number of manuscripts with “us” versus “them in verse 10, you’re simply wrong.  The majority read “them.”   The NET footnote says:

“The vast majority of witnesses have αὐτούς (autous, “them”) here, while the Textus Receptus reads ἡμᾶς (Jhmas, “us”) with insignificant support (pc gig vgcl sa Prim Bea). There is no question that the original text read αὐτούς here.”

At this point, I’m really concerned about your willingness to disagree with the entire scholarly community, including your own NWT. Not only does autos in verse 10 disagree with “us,” but “us” is not support by any good reasons as far as textual criticism is concerned.  Quite frankly, based upon your methodology you should abandon the NWT and all leading Bible translations and critical texts and follow the Majority Text, because simple majority is your only basis for argumentation.

This is good data in reference to the problem here. It appears that you are likely right about which is the original reading, at least in verse 10, which is probably why so many do the flip in verse 9 in order to match. However, the flip flop in verse 9 is not necessary. If we are going to go with THEM in verse 10 due to manuscript evidence, we should have the right to go with US in verse 9. As we shall see, that within the context of a “song”, such a thing is entirely possible and scripturally precedented. I’ll address this more below though.

No, narrowing it to the book of Revelation is what any person ought to do if we are to understand this document’s theology.  Further, Revelation is recognized universally by scholars to be highly unique in the use of the Greek language.   If you were to simply acknowledge the truth of “us” not being original, you would not have to argue for something outside of the genre and outside of the document in consideration.

I find this a rather ridiculous thing to have to defend. Sorry Ivan, no one should narrow Biblical precedent down to one book when it comes to grammar and syntax. I think that should be a given. Your desire to narrow the precedent down to one book is entirely transparent as to motive. Revelation’s uniqueness in no way would mean that it can’t use references in the third person. More below about this.

I said:

But here is something else to consider in these verses 9 and 10. It is not just the 24 elders who are singing this sing but also the four living creatures could be seen as doing so, so it would not be unusual, since the 4 living creatures are also singing, to refer to the holy ones in the third person. It would be natural for the four living creatures to refer to the holy ones as “them” in the third person. For the sake of all of them to sing the song, reference in the third person would not then appear unusual.

This argument contradicts your previous one. This is because if your proposed reading “us” is original, then the 4 living creatures are claiming to have been bought by the ransom. Moreover, the “us” would include the 4 living creatures as being taken from the nations and so on. But they’re angels.   Not only can you not have it both ways, but by the very fact that the 4 living creatures are included, the elders cannot be referring to themselves and it is therefore quite conclusive that they are not Christians.

I wasn’t intending it to have it both ways. It was an alternative thought as to what is going on but I think further considerations show that this could not be the case. The participle “each one” is in the masculine gender and matches with “elders” in the masculine gender. It doesn’t match with “creatures” which is neutral in gender, so this suggestion of an alternative understanding that I made doesn’t fit grammatically, so just strike all of that. However, consider this in regard to the 24 elders:

Take another close look at these 24 elders. They are shown to be carrying bowls of incense.  The carrying of bowls of incense into the Most Holy was only a job performed by “priests”. Common angels cannot perform the duties of the priest. It would be unlawful. This further confirms that these 24 elders are the church, since common angels would not be allowed to perform priestly duties. In ancient Israel, entry into the Most Holy before the symbolic presence of God could not be obtained without the priest carrying incense. Carrying the incense was a life-or-death matter. Therefore, the elders, carrying this incense in heaven must represent “priests” and we know who that narrows it down to.

So not only is “us” not supported text critically, but intrinsically it is not. Here Revelation 14 is relevant. Just as the creatures are not the elders and the creatures are not the 144000, so the elders are not the creatures and the elders are not the 144000.

If US was not the original in verse 9 it is of no consequence since speaking of something in the third person is a common literary device used within the inspired words of God and certainly within songs. If the inspired writers use it in other places, it is ridiculous to think that he could not use it in book of Revelation, especially within the context of a song being sung. Remember, the 24 elders are quoting the song. One question might be; “Who wrote the song?” It would not be unusual for a song to refer to things in the third person. In singing it then, they would simply be true to the words as it was written. Songs are often like that. For example:

The song of Moses recorded at Exodus 15 starts out in the first person and then switches reference to the third person. Moses and the sons of Israel all sang this song and referred to themselves initially in the first person, and then later in the same song the y referred to themselves as “them” and “the people”.

(Exodus 15:2)  ² My strength and [my] might is Jah, since he serves for my salvation. This is my God, and I shall laud him; my father’s God, and I shall raise him on high.

(Exodus 15:13) ¹³ You in your loving-kindness have led the people whom you have recovered; You in your strength will certainly conduct them to your holy abiding place.

So it is easily seen that a song being sung can actually switch the singers from first to third person as we have in Exodus 15. There is no reason then to think that the 24 elders can’t switch from first to third person when singing this song.

So there are many things to consider here in regard to the 24 elders that should demonstrate to anyone that they are indeed the priests, the holy ones, the church.

1. They are performing a priestly function by carrying incense in the Most Holy of God, heaven itself. Only priests were authorized to do so.
2. They are spoken of as elders, a word consistently used for those who were humans with authority. There is no scriptural example where angels are spoken of as elders without straining the context beyond its natural meaning.
3. They are shown to wear crowns, golden crowns, which is the same kind of crown worn by Christ in Revelation. They share the same kind of crown that Christ has. This will only be shared by the church, not angels. In fact, no where do we find angels wearing crowns.
4. They have HARPS. Angels are not depicted as playing harps but the church clearly is in both Revelation 14 and 15:2.
5. All symbols in the book of Revelation draw from scriptural examples established in the Bible. Where do we find a parallel for the number 24 which would fit elders and those carrying incense into the Most Holy? The only parallel we can find is with the 24 priestly divisions in the nation of Israel. Based on this composite imagery, there can be no doubt who these 24 elders represent.

I said:

The fact is, angels are never specifically said to have thrones. You claim that is the case in Colossians 1 but it is never stated. You are assuming that the reference to thrones applies to angels when there is nothing there to establish that. It is in fact not only speaking of things invisible but things visible too. Why do you even insist that thrones have to refer to angels when nothing contextually even demands it or states it to be so? A number of things were listed there and nothing states that angels are the ones who had the thrones. The list obviously would refer to things physical as well and nothing demands the reference to thrones to be in connection with angels.

I cited more than Colossians 1, but even this verse suffices. The thrones, governments, rulerships, etc mentioned therein are contextually the things visible AND invisible, AND in heaven. Since Jesus didn’t create God’s throne obviously, he must have created someone else’s. These are the angels’.  If not to whom do they belong?  How can you contextually divorce “invisible” from what is said to be created through Jesus?

Thrones in this sentence does not have to be limited to heavenly things, nor does it even have to apply to heavenly things at all. All that really needs to happen is for one or more of those things in that list to refer to something heavenly, then the list would include things both visible and invisible. Nothing in that sentence requires us to have to think of each thing listed as both visible and invisible. One thing mentioned could be invisible while the other thing mentioned is visible.

We also have to remember that this word for throne, “thronos”, was also given to judges and elders. A judge and an elder would certainly not require a crown, so simply because one sits on a “thronos”, it doesn’t require a crown. Just because one possesses a seat of authority does not mean he has to be wearing a crown. In Daniel 7, the “court’ took its place in heaven. This would likely refer to angels as part of the court. But this on no way necessitates a crown.

I’ll re-list the texts I quoted showing angels occupy thrones:

(Ephesians 3:10) [This was] to the end that now to the governments and the authorities in the heavenly places there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God,

Note the “governments” and “authorities” are “in the heavenly places.”

“For he [Jesus] went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities were made subject to him” (1 Peter 3:22).

Because angels have authority in one fashion or another does not put a crown on their head. See the above information. Remember, the 24 elders have golden crowns which match the crown of Jesus Christ.

I said:

No, it says that they currently possess BOLDNESS for entry into the holy place. Nothing states that they are currently in the holy place. As is incontrovertible, the holy place is heaven. But now they have BOLDNESS to be able to enter, which means that they will enter heaven, just as did Jesus.

The Greek text offers plenty of clarity here.  “Having” is the only verb in the entire verse, translated from echontes.   The boldness is possessed in the present, so we literally “have boldness into the entry of the holy.”   If we have this now it is present access, not a future one.

This being true, and that we are “having a high priest over the house of God, proserchomesa!” (Hebrews 12:21-22)   This verb means, in the present, according to BDAG, “come/go to, approach”.  We are thus encouraged to go into the house of God/ the Holy Place now, with Jesus providing access to God previously unavailable to mankind, as his sons.  Paul thus uses this same language at Ephesians 3:13, “echomen ten parresian” (we are having boldness).

 

The present tense of “have” only needs to apply to the boldness, not to the Most Holy. Also, “approaching” doesn’t mean entering. It actually means to “draw near to”. Drawing near to does not mean that you have entered.  In fact, it would not mean that at all. If I approach your house, that doesn’t mean I’m in it, I’m simply drawing near to it. We obviously can likewise draw near to God.

Contextually, the Most Holy is identified as heaven itself. Jesus is stated to be the FORERUNNER of those entering beyond the curtain. This is undeniably a reference to his entering heaven itself. If Jesus is the FORERUNNER then there will have to be others who go in beyond the curtain as did Jesus. The word carries the definition of “one who comes in advance to a place where the rest are to follow”.

You didn’t provide any reasons for why we should take “until” to mean continued duration in Acts 3:21. Sure, you provided examples where a continued duration is perhaps a possible meaning in other texts and contexts, but we are here dealing with Acts 3. And again I’ll ask: Are there any lexicons in support of your definition for the meaning of “until” which you assert in Acts 3:21?  What about any translations with that rendering?

Seriously Ivan, I think any one should be able to see that if the written word of God obviously supplies this meaning to the word “until” we should have no issue with it being used that way in a given context. Are you denying that in the places I showed you it had to mean duration and/or constancy and not a ceasing? The answer to that question should settle the issue.

I’ve given multiple reasons in the text itself to support my meaning.   Jesus is said to be “sent,” which you would undoubtedly acknowledge in any other context implies departing.  I should here reemphasize the literary link between Acts 3:20-21 and Acts 1:11. The mention of Jesus being received in heaven in Acts 3 is pointing to when heaven received Jesus in Acts 1:11. Meaning, Jesus is received in heaven until he returns.

The word received can also refer to the idea of being held. Not in the sense of restraint or bonds, but simply being held, lovingly, like a child could be held. Heaven will hold him in the sense that he is waiting until his enemies are placed as a stool for his feet before he takes action. He will be sent in the sense that he will certainly come to the vicinity of the earth as he goes forth to put his enemies under his feet, to destroy them, such as what is depicted in Revelation 19. But that can all easily be done while remaining a spirit being.

On what basis do you suggest we ignore the time when Jesus was ascending where he was seen?   Do you believe he just jumped and was immediately covered by a cloud, or was he lifted into the air, carried up and then covered?   As there was a time he was seen, yes, he will initially be unseen, but he will also be seen, just as the apostles saw him.

If he was coming back visibly, the angels would not have scolded them for looking into the sky. They would have commended them for recognizing he would return visibly. As it is, the verses clearly demonstrate that ONLY his Apostles seen him leave, and he left “caught up from their vision”. That is the “like manner” in which he will return.

I said:

That would  just be conjecture on your part to see it that way. In the text, there is no such division. I have to conclude that your view denies the pattern set up by the other two expressions. You have no Biblical precedent to see it that way. However, for us, the precedent is surely there. That should say something.

Paul is merely saying that it’s not that he desires to die, but he certainly does desire the resurrection body.

2 Corinthians 5:1 is fairly simple, I don’t know why this has continued this long.  Paul does not say we are wearing the body today, which is the key difference.   Paul says we have a body that is eternal, which originates from heaven, but not that we exist in that body today, which would be a fully proleptic thought.  When we put it on, which is what Paul wants to do according to verse 4, it won’t be, according to verse 2.

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be dissolved, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. 2 For in this dwelling house we do indeed groan, earnestly desiring to put on the one for us from heaven, 3 so that, having really put it on, we shall not be found naked. 4 In fact, we who are in this tent groan, being weighed down; because we want, not to put it off, but to put on the other, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now he that produced us for this very thing is God, who gave us the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit.

It seems you are not giving verse 4 a close read. Paul says he does not want to put off his current mortal body but to put on another so that his mortal body may be swallowed up by life.  With your position there is no way to put on the new body without taking off the old.  Further, there’s no notion of an immaterial soul being raised.

As mentioned, you have no precedent to see “in the heavens” as only proleptic when we know that the other two phrases would not only be proleptic, but a future description of the new body. Do you deny that “not made with hands” and “everlasting” are descriptions of the new body? Please answer that. Then how can you say that “in the heavens” is not a description as well? Sure it’s proleptic, but it is describing what that body WILL BE. If you acknowledge that it is a description of what that body will be, then you can’t create an unwarranted division between those two phrases and “in the heavens”. To do so is simply an arbitrary, unprecedented and unwarranted interpretation.

As far as verse 4 goes, when Paul says he does not desire to put it off, he is referring to the dissolving in verse one, which is death. He’s not anxious to die but he does ultimately desire the new body from heaven. In other words, the unfortunate part about getting the body from heaven is that you have to die in the flesh, which nobody is anxious to do. Paul wasn’t anxious to die.

In the case of Christ, he says it was his soul that was not left in Hades. Soul, which can refer to simply the person, the personality, is what was raised from the dead by the preparation of a body, a spirit body, like the one from heaven that Paul will receive.

I said:

Jesus interprets for us his own illustration. We don’t have to substitute another explanation since he gives us one right there. The soul that is spoken of here as dying and is clearly the grain when we look at Jesus’ explanation in verse 25 of what he just said. The parallels are abundantly obvious. In verse 24 the grain that dies is the soul that can be safeguarded for everlasting life IN VERSE 25.

The way in which the grain that dies, bears much fruit, is in the fact that if we are willing to forfeit our soul for Christ, then we have safeguarded it for everlasting life. Jesus applies verse 24 to US in verse 25 when he says “He that”.

The grain is not the “soul” inside the person but is a metaphor for what Jesus is going to do: give his life.  The grain that dies and bears much fruit can be illustrated as Jesus dying and being glorified, giving life to many others through his death.   Note the context in the preceding verse, verse 23. The “fruit” is clearly the people that Jesus would draw to himself after the resurrection. (cf John 12:32-33) It is a harvest metaphor.

This completely denies that Jesus applied the GRAIN to the SOUL in verse 25. He explains verse 24 in verse 25. The SOUL dies and is raised. You seem to be ignoring verse 25.

I said:

The thing that is sown has to die first before it can be raised. This tells us that it is the thing that is PLANTED or SOWN that comes back. I think we agree with that. But verse 37 is where you completely miss the point. You see, if the thing SOWN is the old body, he would be saying that the body that will be is not what was SOWN. If the arising body is NOT the old body, then what died did not come back and that doesn’t fit the description of a resurrection given by Paul in verse 36. He said, something DIED and rises, but the body that rises (the body that will be) is NOT what was SOWN. He words are extremely clear.

If the body that rises is NOT what was SOWN, then it can’t possibly be the object of the resurrection, because what was SOWN has to come back to life in order to constitute a resurrection. Therefore, as his argument profoundly demonstrates, something besides the body is the object of the resurrection, because the rising body is not what was sown. What was sown is a bar grain, a seed, which is surely not the same as the old plant body that would have died and decayed in the ground.

That is exactly right, the body that will be is NOT what is sown. What is sown is the present body. As Paul says, first the natural then the spiritual. Indeed! First we plant the seed, our body, then comes the body that will be, the spiritual one.    You complete divorce the two bodies, but if you want to fully follow the seed analogy, in Paul’s mind the new body springs forth from the old, just as a plant springs forth from the seed that is sown in the ground.    There is a direct connection between the two that you’re forced to deny.

You need to think about this further. Paul says that the thing that is sown is what has to come back. You’re clearly ignoring this factor in the imagery presented. If you are acknowledging that the body that develops is not the thing sown, then that body that develops does not constitute a resurrection. It is something different then the thing sown.

Seeds are not plants. The old plant falls and decays in the ground, it is completely dissolved, leaving a seed behind to raise another plant. The seed is not the old plant, and the new plant from the seed is not the old plant. A completely new plant is produced, not by the dead plant, but by the seed. The old plant, which would be the old body, is NOT the seed. That denies the imagery presented.

If the seed is the old body as you say, then it is the OLD body that would have to come back in order to constitute a resurrection. It is clear that the OLD body does NOT come back because a body, the one that develops, has to be GIVEN to a bare grain, which is the SEED, not the old plant body.

Why do you think that Paul ridiculed these ones as unreasonable for asking what kind of body they would be raised with? From your standpoint, that would have been a completely reasonable question. Why did he tell them that there question was unreasonable?

I have to go back to Philippians 3:21, where the present body is the object “transformed.”   How, if the current body is done away with and a new, numerically distinct, body is given, is the current body transformed into the new body?   You cannot have a completely new, replacement body without any connection to the original and have the original body transformed.

Again, the word transformed simply means “to change”. Paul tells us how they are changed in 1 Cor. 15 where the word there is specifically the word for “exchanged”. They change via an exchange.

Nowhere does the bible speak of a “spirit body,” this is a misspoken version of what Paul says. The contrast between the old and new body is in their condition, not their “substance.”   Paul’s use of this same “natural” and “spiritual” language in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 firmly demonstrates he does not view this terminology as something referencing substance.

Well, let’s stay away from opinion and conjecture for now. We are still discussing whether or not the holy ones and Jesus are spirit beings and we are nowhere near being done.

The use of the word “physical” at 2 Cor. 2 is not the same context as is borne out in 1 Cor. 15.

Let’s look again at how Paul’s argument progresses. In verse 44 he says: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

But then notice exactly what he next says: And so it is written. By saying that Paul is about to give a scriptural example of what he just said. So whatever Paul brings up now in the next statement is exactly what he meant in verse 44. Otherwise, to say, IT IS EVEN SO WRITTEN would make no sense.

So, how does Paul explain verse 44? He explains it by saying that the first man Adam was a living soul. This obviously parallels to verse 44 and the NATURAL body, because soul primarily refers to NATURAL beings.

THEN, in contrast and obviously paralleling the SPIRITUAL body of verse 44, he says Jesus became a life giving SPIRIT. Notice, it did not say that Jesus became SPIRITUAL, but that he became a SPIRIT. SPIRIT then according to Paul’s own scriptural explanation, parallels the SPIRITUAL body of verse 44. The contrast then in verse 44 is clearly between NATURAL and SPIRIT. But he’s not done with his explanation of verse 44. He further clarifies the intended contrast between Adam and Jesus.

Verse 46 is also important because it clarifies that the first thing was NATURAL, not SPIRITUAL. This is important because if SPIRITUAL means a condition of the flesh then ADAM would have truly been SPIRITUAL, since he was created perfect in God’s eyes. This is clearly a contrast between the substances, not a condition before God. Adam, when created by God, would have indeed been SPIRITUAL before God, so verse 46 further clarifies this is speaking purely of substance.

Paul continues with his explanation in verse 47 where he clearly makes a distinction to substance once again. He says the first man was MADE OF DUST. This is obviously the parallel again of NATURAL in verse 44. The second man was out of heaven, and this obviously is a reference to what Jesus WAS, not what he is, because as Paul stated, he is now a life-giving spirit. and there is no verb in this verse and the reference to Adam was clearly about what he was, not what he is.

Physical here is clearly JUST a reference to the NATURAL body made of dust, otherwise, Adam would have been SPIRITUAL when he was created by God. He was perfect. To claim that the NATURAL here is in reference to sin or imperfection or the fallen flesh is to completely deny the context and you would have to deny that Adam was made perfect, SPIRITUAL, in God’s eyes.

If Paul’s point was that Christians would become spirits why not just say they’d become or be like angels? The contrast between Jesus and angels has biblical precedent (Heb 1) and so Paul certainly had that comparison at his disposal. It’s a curious omission.  Instead, he compared different types of flesh and then for “heavenly bodies” he made use of all physical bodies.

How Paul chose to state the situation is not really relevant. He stated it the way he stated it and the result is the same. Surely, he wanted to explain how humans could be exchanged into spirit beings and that’s why the long explanation. It’s obviously not an easy concept and of course he was talking to doubters so an extended explanation would have been a normal choice for Paul.

The reason there’s no contrast between resurrection bodies with angel bodies is because that is certainly not Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians. Corinthians tells of two Adams, not one human and the other non-human, but one in his creation and one in his resurrection.  Just as Adam’s body was not made of soul, so Jesus’ body is not made of spirit, and you can’t have Jesus’ made of spirit unless you also have Adam’s made of soul.

See above where it is obvious that Paul used the word soul here as a parallel to the NATURAL body in verse 44, made of dust. Adam’s body was not made of soul, but was NATURAL, made of dust. That’s what he meant by “soulical”, because soul predominantly refers to HUMAN beings. Jesus body was a life giving spirit. Notice it just doesn’t say it was SPIRITUAL, but was SPIRIT. The whole context here is one of substance, not condition. As I said, if it was condition, then the comparison to Adam would have been inappropriate, since he would have been SPIRITUAL at his creation, in perfect condition before God.

I said:

I have to say I do not think you are reading very carefully sometimes what I am writing. You can’t make something absolute if it has exceptions, and you evidently see at least one exception since you acknowledge 10 out of 11. I see other clear exceptions as well. The “spirit of him who raised Jesus” is a reference to God’s spirit. Yes, God’s spirit raised Jesus from the dead. Paul says that SAME spirit, meaning God can even now, enliven our mortal bodies. The preceding context shows how that is happening currently for them. Do you not agree with that preceding context? There is no necessity at all to see this as a reference to resurrection. Again, the context of Ephesians chapter 2 should thoroughly explain how that is possible BEFORE they are actually resurrected. The same is confirmed in Colossians:

You are correct the spirit currently dwells in the body of believers, but verse 11 says while the Spirit is currently dwelling in us our bodies have not been made alive and that this is a future prospect.

Romans 8:11 – oikei… zoopoiesei (is dwelling [present]…. will make alive [future]).
Ephesians 2:5 – sunegeiren (raised us [past])

It’s spoken of as future because of the IF in the sentence. In other words IF that spirit dwells in you, then God will make you alive. It’s a natural way to speak of an IF situation.

Why is the body dead and yet we are alive?   Paul tells us in 10 that “the body is dead on account of sin.”    This does not change during our present life, hence we die.   If Paul was arguing God made the body alive now, we would not die.

They are alive in a particular sense, in regard to the spirit that dwells within them. It makes them alive before God rather than dead in their sins in his view. Look at what is said prior to this:

(Romans 8:1-2) 8 Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation. ² For the law of that spirit which gives life in union with Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

This is clearly happening in the present.

(Romans 8:6-8) ⁶ For the minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life and peace; ⁷ because the minding of the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. ⁸ So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God.

This is clearly present tense. They are alive to God, via the spirit, rather than dead.

(Romans 8:9-10) ⁹ However, YOU are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in YOU. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this one does not belong to him. ¹⁰ But if Christ is in union with YOU, the body indeed is dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness.

Verse 9 and 10 carry that same present context.

The same idea is addressed earlier in the same book.

Rom 6:10   For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11   LIKEWISE reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12   Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.                                                                                                                                                         Rom 6:13   Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.

But even Ephesians does not speak of the body itself in the present, but our inner man.   A future tense verb is also used at Romans 8:13 and also with reference to the resurrection.   If we life according to the flesh, we will die, if we live according to the spirit, we will live, and this will be when God makes our mortal bodies alive, just as he did for Jesus Christ (John 2:19-21).

Ephesians and Colossians speak of the same thing as Romans. They are speaking of being alive in the spirit while still in the flesh. If this “alive” is a reference to immortality as you think, isn’t this a contradiction of terms to say that MORTAL bodies would be IMMORTAL? When referring to actual resurrection the terminology is different. Immortality “swallows up” mortality. Mortality is gone. How then can a mortal body be immortal with a reference to resurrection? The terminology fits better with the immediate context and the often made point that the holy ones were no longer dead in their sins but alive before God due to his spirit dwelling within them.

In regards to Romans 8:23, you have yet to inform us why the New World Translation’s rendition is to be preferred over the other rendition, especially in light of Romans 8:11.  Further, upon what basis do we get “release from the body” rather than “release of the body,” following the basic sense of the genitive.   If Paul really intended the meaning in the NWT why would he not have used the preposition apo, meaning “from” to denote an actual departure from the body?

Release OF the body can mean the same thing as release FROM the body. If the body is released, it is no longer retained.

I said:

But his body is elsewhere defined as a “spirit” body. This doesn’t demonstrate “flesh”.

You mention this in light of my quoting Colossians 2:9.  First, you have yet to demonstrate any type of “spirit body” for a human.   Second, this need not demonstrate flesh, for flesh or spirit was not your objection.   You asked how Jesus could be certain things in light of him being flesh and the point was that he can do so based upon what is “in him,” not based upon external appearance.

Sorry, you lost me there. My point was that you offered Col. 2:9 as a proof that Jesus had a flesh body, and that is in no way resolved there in that verse. It just means he has a body, which elsewhere, which we are still discussing, shows he was a spirit. He could disappear in front of his disciples and appear in locked rooms. That’s nothing a man could do, but spirit beings are the only ones capable of that. Surely you can’t claim that he is now just a man. You must qualify your definition. He dwells in unapproachable light whom NO MAN can see or has seen. How then is he just a man? Can he not see himself? How can he be a man and yet see God when no man can see God and yet live? He has to be something other than a man.

I said:

But the immediate context proves that this is in reference to what he was in the past because after it mentions Jesus as a man, it says in the PAST TENSE, who GAVE himself as a ransom for all. In other words the man referred to GAVE himself. It is not a reference to his current status but is a reference to what he was when he GAVE himself.

Paul uses this very same expression elsewhere, falsifying your argument.

Galatians 1:3 May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ. 4 He gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from the present wicked system of things according to the will of our God and Father,

While the NWT translates this somewhat dynamically, the Greek literally reads “the one giving himself,” much as Timothy reads “the one giving himself.”   Paul did not send ‘grace and peace’ from the dead human Jesus, he sent this from the living Jesus in heaven, along with the living God.   So the point in Timothy is hardly that the man Jesus no longer exists.

The MAN known as Jesus Christ no longer exists. This is clear from verse 1 in the same chapter of Galatians where Paul says:

(Galatians 1:1) 1 Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,. . .

Paul here denies that Jesus would still be a man.

The “gave himself” in both Galatians and Timothy is in the aorist tense. Notice what is said of the aorist tense:

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point (“inceptive aorist”), or having ended at a certain point (“cumulative aorist”), or merely existing at a certain point (“punctiliar aorist”). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.

I said:

Plus, again, if that MAN gave himself as a ransom, his flesh and blood body, then he cannot take it back without nullifying the ransom. It would violate the patterns established in the Law. He had to truly sacrifice it, not just give it up for three days and then take it back. That’s not a sacrifice, nor is it a ransom.

This displays a misunderstanding of the ransom, which was the death itself, not being dead or absent of something.   Hebrews states he “offered himself” in his sacrifice, yet Jesus still exists  (Hebrews 7:27; 9:14).  Further, Jesus says he gave “his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” (Matthew 20:28)  The soul, as a ransom, was given, yet he himself still exists.

Sure he still exists but he could not still exist as the same thing that he sacrificed, otherwise, what exactly did he sacrifice? If he retained EVERYTHING that he was, then he made no sacrifice, and sacrifices are not taken back or they are not sacrifices. To take back a sacrifice would break the antitypical pattern completely.

Simple question: What exactly did Jesus sacrifice in order to pay the ransom?

Another simple question: What does it mean to truly sacrifice something?

The only way he can sacrifice himself and still be himself is if he sacrificed himself in a different form than what he now is. Otherwise, there was no sacrifice and completely violates all of the Old Law parallels where no one ever received back what they sacrificed. It was gone, naturally, never to be taken back. If that is the case with Jesus, that he took back what he sacrificed, then the ransom was not paid and we are dead in our sins without a means of salvation.

Yes, he sacrificed his SOUL in the sense of that NATURAL body that he possessed, just like Adam’s NATURAL body. Souls are primarily in reference to human beings, so this is a reference to his human soul that he sacrificed. We are assured though that the sacrifice was the body and blood of Christ. That was the part of HIMSELF that was sacrificed.

Hbr 10:10   By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Eph 1:7   In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Hbr 9:22   And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

What did Adam posses that he lost and how would that be bought back for mankind? What Adam lost was the potential for perfect human life for himself and his offspring. What needed to be paid back was someone who could provide that same potential for perfect human life. Adam forfeited that perfect human life. Jesus had to sacrifice a perfect human life in order to pay the price of the ransom. If he didn’t sacrifice that perfect human life, then he did not pay what was needed.

Regards,

Rotherham

Before I can respond, I need you to answer the question that has often been asked. I am isolating it in this post so that you will answer it.

Do you believe that Christ is currently ruling as the Messianic king, over heaven and earth, at this time? Plus, if you do, please tell me when you think that started.

Thanks in advance.

Rotherham

It’s a really simple thing. The word kingdom can mean either “government” or realm”. If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the government is definitely located in heaven through other references and contexts in the Bible, then any reference that connects the kingdom with the earth is obviously referring to realm. We are convinced that Biblical precedent and pattern solidly establishes that the church is in heaven, and I believe that in the end of this discussion, that is exactly what will be established with Biblical precedent and pattern as our guide. If any one does not wish to follow that precedent and pattern, that is entirely up to them, but I would state that they are then settling for man’s interpretation rather than God’s, and that puts them on dangerous exegetical ground.

Conversely, if I can show the kingdom is on earth not merely as to territory, which we both agree on anyway, but as to the “seat,” then it becomes that much more difficult for you to argue for a partite kingdom wherein believers are separated eternally in two distinct metaphysical arenas. As proof I have appealed to Matthew 25:34.

There, the sheep are identified as Christ’s brothers and are said to inherit the kingdom on earth. As Christ’s brothers and joint-heirs with him, these “sheep” rule on, from, and over the earth. (cf Matt 20:23) This not only shows they are in the New Covenant (because they rule) but also that the seat of the government is on earth.

Returning back to a text we had earlier discussed, Daniel 2, we find a similar teaching. In Daniel 2:34-35 a stone exists, which I’m confident we can agree to be God’s kingdom based upon the interpretation provided in 44.   Yet is this the government or the dominion where people dwell?   The stone ends all the kingdoms of the earth, so it must certainly be the government, but then it fills the earth, pointing to the dominion.   In point of fact, the stone represents both the government and the dominion, wherein the stone overtakes the entire earth.     As it includes both the government and dominion it must have both upon the earth.   Hence, when the text says “it will not be passed to any other people,” the “it” is the very same thing that performs the ‘crushing’.

OK, let’s take a closer look at these references and see if we can determine what they could be speaking of. Verse 8 of chapter 3 establishes that what is spoken of here about Abraham and the blessing of Abraham is in reference to what was said in the Abrahamic Covenant. In particular the part that states: (Galatians 3:8) . . .“By means of you all the nations will be blessed.” That’s the blessing of Abraham that is being spoken of in this context. It doesn’t have to do with the physical land that Abraham and the nation of Israel were going to possess, which was referring to Promised Land. Surely you don’t think all Christians will exist JUST in the physical area set aside for the natural nation of Israel do you? What is being referred to here as the “blessing” of Abraham is the fact that all nations would be BLESSED by means of Abraham’s seed, which was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ and his spiritual body, his church. Paul goes on to explain exactly what it means then for the nations to receive the blessing of Abraham and it was by means of his sacrifice and the release from the Law. That is what he is talking about in verse 14 when he says:

(Galatians 3:14) 14 The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.

Yes, Abraham was promised a land but the promise being referred to here is identified for us in verse 8 as the promise in reference to the nations being blessed by means of Abraham’s seed. Verse 22 further confirms this understanding:

(Galatians 3:22) 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.

What promise? The promise that by means of Abraham, all nations would bless themselves as is shown by verse 8.

When we come to verse 29 then, the promise that is being referred is to quite plainly understood. It’s the same promise mentioned throughout the chapter which is established in verse 8.

This refers to the fact that adhering to the Law is not what got Abraham the promise of being heir of a world, but it was by faith. Since the promise to Abraham was through faith, performing the Law was of no value for that. Where do you see that the holy ones would inherit Abraham’s land?

I do not deny the promise in Galatians 3 is, in part, the spirit and the nations’ blessing. There’s no need to rehash what we both agree on. Yet, the heart of the issue is Paul’s overarching point: Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant, and there is no escaping that a significant portion of the Abrahamic Covenant was the land inheritance. As Romans says,

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Abraham and his descendants, i. e., his seed, received the promise that they would be heirs of the world. The “seed,” as Galatians 3 tells us, is Jesus primarily and Christians in union with him, secondarily. As such, they must inherit the land/earth in the same way Abraham does.  One cannot say the “seed” inherits the land in one way and Abraham in another without equivocating as to what it means to inherit the world and without ignoring that both fall under the single “promise.”

Just as physical Israel was to inherit the land of Canaan, so the new “Israel of God,” (Gal 6:16) which now includes Gentiles, will inherit that land, but then also the entire globe, alongside Abraham, for it was promised to Abraham that his enemies would be overcome (Genesis  22:17; Psalm 2:8; Daniel 2:44).  Your burden is thus to show how Christians can be Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promises to Abraham (the Abrahamic Covenant) and yet not receive a principle aspect of that covenant.

I have to say this response doesn’t make much sense to me. First, if they ALL rule, what do they rule over? Secondly, what I said was two different destinies. As I said, our difference is location, not destiny. You acknowledge that everyone will have to become Christian, including those outside of the governing element, therefore there will clearly be two different destinies for believers.

They rule over those of the second resurrection and over the nations. Revelation 2:26 states that Christians will have power over them.   The issue is of those who are Christians now, members of the first resurrection.  The Bible never calls anyone else resurrected to life a Christian, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets, yet they will be in the kingdom (Luke 13:28).   Based upon your lose definition of Christian I have no issue with so defining them, but this does not established a secondary group of Christians who exist before Christ’s return and who will not participate in the first resurrection.

Again, we see New Jerusalem, the Lamb’s wife coming down out of heaven to be with MANKIND. It then says the TENT of God will be with MANKIND. Clearly in that vision we have two elements, New Jerusalem and MANKIND. They are clearly not the same group. Plus again, when we get to chapter 22 we see New Jerusalem in her final glorified condition, with a river flowing from it for the HEALING of the NATIONS. Once again, clearly two different groups, New Jerusalem and the NATIONS that are being healed.

This misses the metaphor. The New Jerusalem is, as has been pointed out, a city, a temple, and a people. All aspects need to be taken into account. After the New Jerusalem’s descent God “tabernacles” with humankind. The point is not that the New Jerusalem is a separate group of people who are spirits beings as oppose to mankind, but to establish the new communion humans enjoy with God. The Church can be regarded as a spiritual/heavenly temple according to Ephesians 2. That a spiritual descent is in view is clear from Revelation 22 where there are human beings inside the city. So the metaphor switches. If the New Jerusalem is strictly a people, the Church, then you run into problems with it being a city in Revelation 22 and nations gaining entrance into her. Obviously it is a dynamic metaphor.

Of course the great issue here for you is that if one is not within New Jerusalem one is with the wicked who are destined for destruction.   Revelation 22:14-15 leaves no third option.

You are confusing definitions. “Not made with hands” is defined by Hebrews as “not of this creation” and the example we were given in Hebrews was something that was clearly spirit, not physical. From the Biblically given definition and context, anything material is of this creation, so yes, the new physical heavens and earth are OF this creation. They would then not qualify as “not made with hands” since the two expressions are equated. Hebrews shows us that the expression “not made with hands” was idiomatic for “not of this creation”.

Physicality is not a prerequisite for something being of this creation. Hebrews only describes something in heaven, so naturally it is not of this creation, but that does not make the meaning exclusive to things in heaven.  This is an unproven assertion on your part and to argue for it as necessary is to move beyond anything defined by the text.  The New Heavens and New Earth are not of this natural order and thus not of this creation. If they were of this creation already, there’s no point in God saying he is creating them for they would already be existing.

Christians are physical beings yet according to Paul, if Christ is in them, they are not of this creation but of new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The confusion here comes from the misrendering of “parousia”. These resurrections and the meeting in the air all take place during the parousia, which is an extended period of time, not some puncticular action lasting but a moment. But regardless of that you seemed to ignore the point that they will meet him IN THE AIR and always be with the Lord.

One point that needs to be appreciated which could possibly help resolve this for you is that during the parousia, which is a long event as I mentioned earlier, those who died in Christ were first resurrected to heaven at the beginning of the parousia. During the parousia there are still holy ones on earth who are yet to be sealed and raised to heaven upon their death. It would not be unnatural then for the holy ones in heaven to be represented differently than the holy ones still on earth.

While I can appreciate your view on what parousia means, I do not share your eschatology. There is simply no evidence that during the parousia Christians are resurrected gradually. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 specifically says that those in Christ are raised first—at his parousia—and those still alive will be caught up in the air, not in heaven (air is not a description of heaven)—“AT THE SAME TIME.” (NWT footnote)

Thus 1 Thessalonians 4 contradicts the view you have articulated by suggesting there are holy ones on earth and some in heaven “during” the parousia. Paul says everyone dead in Christ and those alive in Christ are to be changed “at the same time.”

Further, the resurrection occurs at the last trumpet, which is the seventh in Revelation.  The trumpets have not even begun when John is taken to heaven in Revelation 4 and already sees the 24 elders.  Thus, the resurrection had not even taken place and thus also showing the elders cannot be Christians.  More on this below.

You again are missing the point. There is nothing hard about the reading in all the other manuscripts with the inclusion of US in both verses, 9 AND 10. The manuscript which caused the harder reading is A, or Papyrus 115. It is mere assumption to think that A is more reliable simply because it has the harder reading. It could be nothing more than scribal error or corruption. The bulk of the manuscripts are in agreement with the US being included in the text and makes perfect syntactical and grammatical sense. As I said before, otherwise, it wouldn’t.

Any basic training in textual criticism makes clear the harder and shorter readings are to be preferred. Why? Because scribes had the tendencies to smooth out readings by adding to them, harmonizing them, and so on. Further, the harder reading best explains the other readings. Why do some manuscripts include “us”? Because it smoothes out the difficulty.

All major modern bible translations disagree with you on this point including the NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, ASV, ERV, NRSV and even the NWT. Further, the 3 major critical texts disagree with you here as well: NA27, SBL NT, and WH.

There are good reasons why virtually every competent scholar disagrees with the reading you prefer: it’s not original.

Further, in relation to the number of manuscripts with “us” versus “them in verse 10, you’re simply wrong.  The majority read “them.”   The NET footnote says:

“The vast majority of witnesses have αὐτούς (autous, “them”) here, while the Textus Receptus reads ἡμᾶς (Jhmas, “us”) with insignificant support (pc gig vgcl sa Prim Bea). There is no question that the original text read αὐτούς here.”

At this point, I’m really concerned about your willingness to disagree with the entire scholarly community, including your own NWT. Not only does autos in verse 10 disagree with “us,” but “us” is not support by any good reasons as far as textual criticism is concerned.  Quite frankly, based upon your methodology you should abandon the NWT and all leading Bible translations and critical texts and follow the Majority Text, because simple majority is your only basis for argumentation.

Narrowing the Biblical precedent down to the book of Revelation is by design so that you don’t have to acknowledge the other scriptural examples. The scriptures include far more than the book of Revelation. And to say it is UNIVERSALLY rejected is surely a misstatement since there are numerous Bible translations that include it.

No, narrowing it to the book of Revelation is what any person ought to do if we are to understand this document’s theology.  Further, Revelation is recognized universally by scholars to be highly unique in the use of the Greek language.   If you were to simply acknowledge the truth of “us” not being original, you would not have to argue for something outside of the genre and outside of the document in consideration.

But here is something else to consider in these verses 9 and 10. It is not just the 24 elders who are singing this sing but also the four living creatures could be seen as doing so, so it would not be unusual, since the 4 living creatures are also singing, to refer to the holy ones in the third person. It would be natural for the four living creatures to refer to the holy ones as “them” in the third person. For the sake of all of them to sing the song, reference in the third person would not then appear unusual.

This argument contradicts your previous one. This is because if your proposed reading “us” is original, then the 4 living creatures are claiming to have been bought by the ransom. Moreover, the “us” would include the 4 living creatures as being taken from the nations and so on. But they’re angels.   Not only can you not have it both ways, but by the very fact that the 4 living creatures are included, the elders cannot be referring to themselves and it is therefore quite conclusive that they are not Christians.

So not only is “us” not supported text critically, but intrinsically it is not. Here Revelation 14 is relevant. Just as the creatures are not the elders and the creatures are not the 144000, so the elders are not the creatures and the elders are not the 144000.

The fact is, angels are never specifically said to have thrones. You claim that is the case in Colossians 1 but it is never stated. You are assuming that the reference to thrones applies to angels when there is nothing there to establish that. It is in fact not only speaking of things invisible but things visible too. Why do you even insist that thrones have to refer to angels when nothing contextually even demands it or states it to be so? A number of things were listed there and nothing states that angels are the ones who had the thrones. The list obviously would refer to things physical as well and nothing demands the reference to thrones to be in connection with angels.

I cited more than Colossians 1, but even this verse suffices. The thrones, governments, rulerships, etc mentioned therein are contextually the things visible AND invisible, AND in heaven. Since Jesus didn’t create God’s throne obviously, he must have created someone else’s. These are the angels’.  If not to whom do they belong?  How can you contextually divorce “invisible” from what is said to be created through Jesus?

I’ll re-list the texts I quoted showing angels occupy thrones:

(Ephesians 3:10) [This was] to the end that now to the governments and the authorities in the heavenly places there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God,

Note the “governments” and “authorities” are “in the heavenly places.”

“For he [Jesus] went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities were made subject to him” (1 Peter 3:22).

No, it says that they currently possess BOLDNESS for entry into the holy place. Nothing states that they are currently in the holy place. As is incontrovertible, the holy place is heaven. But now they have BOLDNESS to be able to enter, which means that they will enter heaven, just as did Jesus.

The Greek text offers plenty of clarity here.  “Having” is the only verb in the entire verse, translated from echontes.   The boldness is possessed in the present, so we literally “have boldness into the entry of the holy.”   If we have this now it is present access, not a future one.

This being true, and that we are “having a high priest over the house of God, proserchomesa!” (Hebrews 12:21-22)   This verb means, in the present, according to BDAG, “come/go to, approach”.  We are thus encouraged to go into the house of God/ the Holy Place now, with Jesus providing access to God previously unavailable to mankind, as his sons.  Paul thus uses this same language at Ephesians 3:13, “echomen ten parresian” (we are having boldness).

In Ephesians 2 in the context of the Church being built up into a temple, God’s holy place, Paul states, (17-18)

And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace to those near, because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit.

Just as we “have” (not “will have”) the approach, that is, the access, to the Father in/by one spirit, so we have access into the holy place in/by the spirit of Jesus, where the Father is.  As in Hebrews, the thought is that we have access to God now, in the present.

To say you find no support for the definition I gave you is certainly disheartening as I gave you numerous examples where the word HAD TO MEAN CONSTANCY or a CONTINUED DURATION of the action and you evidently completely ignored them. But also, it can be said, in relation to what is described in 1 Thes. 4, that Jesus does descend in a fashion that brings him into the vicinity of the earth, described as the AIR, where the holy ones will meet him and then always be with the Lord.

You didn’t provide any reasons for why we should take “until” to mean continued duration in Acts 3:21. Sure, you provided examples where a continued duration is perhaps a possible meaning in other texts and contexts, but we are here dealing with Acts 3. And again I’ll ask: Are there any lexicons in support of your definition for the meaning of “until” which you assert in Acts 3:21?  What about any translations with that rendering?

I’ve given multiple reasons in the text itself to support my meaning.   Jesus is said to be “sent,” which you would undoubtedly acknowledge in any other context implies departing.  I should here reemphasize the literary link between Acts 3:20-21 and Acts 1:11. The mention of Jesus being received in heaven in Acts 3 is pointing to when heaven received Jesus in Acts 1:11. Meaning, Jesus is received in heaven until he returns.

On what basis do you suggest we ignore the time when Jesus was ascending where he was seen?   Do you believe he just jumped and was immediately covered by a cloud, or was he lifted into the air, carried up and then covered?   As there was a time he was seen, yes, he will initially be unseen, but he will also be seen, just as the apostles saw him.

 That would  just be conjecture on your part to see it that way. In the text, there is no such division. I have to conclude that your view denies the pattern set up by the other two expressions. You have no Biblical precedent to see it that way. However, for us, the precedent is surely there. That should say something.

Paul is merely saying that it’s not that he desires to die, but he certainly does desire the resurrection body.

2 Corinthians 5:1 is fairly simple, I don’t know why this has continued this long.  Paul does not say we are wearing the body today, which is the key difference.   Paul says we have a body that is eternal, which originates from heaven, but not that we exist in that body today, which would be a fully proleptic thought.  When we put it on, which is what Paul wants to do according to verse 4, it won’t be, according to verse 2.

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be dissolved, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. 2 For in this dwelling house we do indeed groan, earnestly desiring to put on the one for us from heaven, 3 so that, having really put it on, we shall not be found naked. 4 In fact, we who are in this tent groan, being weighed down; because we want, not to put it off, but to put on the other, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now he that produced us for this very thing is God, who gave us the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit.

It seems you are not giving verse 4 a close read. Paul says he does not want to put off his current mortal body but to put on another so that his mortal body may be swallowed up by life.  With your position there is no way to put on the new body without taking off the old.  Further, there’s no notion of an immaterial soul being raised.

Jesus interprets for us his own illustration. We don’t have to substitute another explanation since he gives us one right there. The soul that is spoken of here as dying and is clearly the grain when we look at Jesus’ explanation in verse 25 of what he just said. The parallels are abundantly obvious. In verse 24 the grain that dies is the soul that can be safeguarded for everlasting life IN VERSE 25.

The way in which the grain that dies, bears much fruit, is in the fact that if we are willing to forfeit our soul for Christ, then we have safeguarded it for everlasting life. Jesus applies verse 24 to US in verse 25 when he says “He that”.

The grain is not the “soul” inside the person but is a metaphor for what Jesus is going to do: give his life.  The grain that dies and bears much fruit can be illustrated as Jesus dying and being glorified, giving life to many others through his death.   Note the context in the preceding verse, verse 23. The “fruit” is clearly the people that Jesus would draw to himself after the resurrection. (cf John 12:32-33) It is a harvest metaphor.

The thing that is sown has to die first before it can be raised. This tells us that it is the thing that is PLANTED or SOWN that comes back. I think we agree with that. But verse 37 is where you completely miss the point. You see, if the thing SOWN is the old body, he would be saying that the body that will be is not what was SOWN. If the arising body is NOT the old body, then what died did not come back and that doesn’t fit the description of a resurrection given by Paul in verse 36. He said, something DIED and rises, but the body that rises (the body that will be) is NOT what was SOWN. He words are extremely clear.

If the body that rises is NOT what was SOWN, then it can’t possibly be the object of the resurrection, because what was SOWN has to come back to life in order to constitute a resurrection. Therefore, as his argument profoundly demonstrates, something besides the body is the object of the resurrection, because the rising body is not what was sown. What was sown is a bar grain, a seed, which is surely not the same as the old plant body that would have died and decayed in the ground.

That is exactly right, the body that will be is NOT what is sown. What is sown is the present body. As Paul says, first the natural then the spiritual. Indeed! First we plant the seed, our body, then comes the body that will be, the spiritual one.    You complete divorce the two bodies, but if you want to fully follow the seed analogy, in Paul’s mind the new body springs forth from the old, just as a plant springs forth from the seed that is sown in the ground.    There is a direct connection between the two that you’re forced to deny.

I have to go back to Philippians 3:21, where the present body is the object “transformed.”   How, if the current body is done away with and a new, numerically distinct, body is given, is the current body transformed into the new body?   You cannot have a completely new, replacement body without any connection to the original and have the original body transformed.

But it is confirmed for us in the following context that these ones undergo an exchange. Simply because he mentions all the different bodies that could be supplied in no way necessitates they have to receive the same kind of body they died with. The whole context is demonstrating a change for their bodies, not an alikeness, but a difference from their old bodies to the new ones. Their soul is resurrected and it is given a body as it pleases God. And in this case, it pleases him for them to have a spirit body, as it did with Jesus.

Nowhere does the bible speak of a “spirit body,” this is a misspoken version of what Paul says. The contrast between the old and new body is in their condition, not their “substance.”   Paul’s use of this same “natural” and “spiritual” language in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 firmly demonstrates he does not view this terminology as something referencing substance.

If Paul’s point was that Christians would become spirits why not just say they’d become or be like angels? The contrast between Jesus and angels has biblical precedent (Heb 1) and so Paul certainly had that comparison at his disposal. It’s a curious omission.  Instead, he compared different types of flesh and then for “heavenly bodies” he made use of all physical bodies.

The reason there’s no contrast between resurrection bodies with angel bodies is because that is certainly not Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians. Corinthians tells of two Adams, not one human and the other non-human, but one in his creation and one in his resurrection.  Just as Adam’s body was not made of soul, so Jesus’ body is not made of spirit, and you can’t have Jesus’ made of spirit unless you also have Adam’s made of soul.

I have to say I do not think you are reading very carefully sometimes what I am writing. You can’t make something absolute if it has exceptions, and you evidently see at least one exception since you acknowledge 10 out of 11. I see other clear exceptions as well. The “spirit of him who raised Jesus” is a reference to God’s spirit. Yes, God’s spirit raised Jesus from the dead. Paul says that SAME spirit, meaning God can even now, enliven our mortal bodies. The preceding context shows how that is happening currently for them. Do you not agree with that preceding context? There is no necessity at all to see this as a reference to resurrection. Again, the context of Ephesians chapter 2 should thoroughly explain how that is possible BEFORE they are actually resurrected. The same is confirmed in Colossians:

You are correct the spirit currently dwells in the body of believers, but verse 11 says while the Spirit is currently dwelling in us our bodies have not been made alive and that this is a future prospect.

Romans 8:11 – oikei… zoopoiesei (is dwelling [present]…. will make alive [future]).
Ephesians 2:5 – sunegeiren (raised us [past])

Why is the body dead and yet we are alive?   Paul tells us in 10 that “the body is dead on account of sin.”    This does not change during our present life, hence we die.   If Paul was arguing God made the body alive now, we would not die.    But even Ephesians does not speak of the body itself in the present, but our inner man.   A future tense verb is also used at Romans 8:13 and also with reference to the resurrection.   If we life according to the flesh, we will die, if we live according to the spirit, we will live, and this will be when God makes our mortal bodies alive, just as he did for Jesus Christ (John 2:19-21).

In regards to Romans 8:23, you have yet to inform us why the New World Translation’s rendition is to be preferred over the other rendition, especially in light of Romans 8:11.  Further, upon what basis do we get “release from the body” rather than “release of the body,” following the basic sense of the genitive.   If Paul really intended the meaning in the NWT why would he not have used the preposition apo, meaning “from” to denote an actual departure from the body?

But his body is elsewhere defined as a “spirit” body. This doesn’t demonstrate “flesh”.

You mention this in light of my quoting Colossians 2:9.  First, you have yet to demonstrate any type of “spirit body” for a human.   Second, this need not demonstrate flesh, for flesh or spirit was not your objection.   You asked how Jesus could be certain things in light of him being flesh and the point was that he can do so based upon what is “in him,” not based upon external appearance.

But the immediate context proves that this is in reference to what he was in the past because after it mentions Jesus as a man, it says in the PAST TENSE, who GAVE himself as a ransom for all. In other words the man referred to GAVE himself. It is not a reference to his current status but is a reference to what he was when he GAVE himself.

Paul uses this very same expression elsewhere, falsifying your argument.

Galatians 1:3 May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ. 4 He gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from the present wicked system of things according to the will of our God and Father,

While the NWT translates this somewhat dynamically, the Greek literally reads “the one giving himself,” much as Timothy reads “the one giving himself.”   Paul did not send ‘grace and peace’ from the dead human Jesus, he sent this from the living Jesus in heaven, along with the living God.   So the point in Timothy is hardly that the man Jesus no longer exists.

Plus, again, if that MAN gave himself as a ransom, his flesh and blood body, then he cannot take it back without nullifying the ransom. It would violate the patterns established in the Law. He had to truly sacrifice it, not just give it up for three days and then take it back. That’s not a sacrifice, nor is it a ransom.

This displays a misunderstanding of the ransom, which was the death itself, not being dead or absent of something.   Hebrews states he “offered himself” in his sacrifice, yet Jesus still exists  (Hebrews 7:27; 9:14).  Further, Jesus says he gave “his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” (Matthew 20:28)  The soul, as a ransom, was given, yet he himself still exists.

I’ll try and condense the length of this as much as I can and still cover the points.

I said:

Really, the word “kingdom” doesn’t tell us anything about location. It’s entirely about “rulership” which naturally involves the actual government or the realm of that government. In and of itself it tells us nothing about location. Using it as straightedge to determine location is ineffective and inconclusive.

Indeed, that has been my point since the get-go. Kingdom in and of itself does not tell us the location. This is why I have repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly pressed the issue. In each instance you see kingdom in the Bible, you must prove your definition and then the location. I feel you have not done that thus far. When I brought up Matthew 8:11 you simply assumed this was territory; when I brought up Matthew 25:34 you did the same. This is why I said your view was circular, because you assumed a definition without presenting evidence in its favor. For instance, concerning Matthew 25 you said:

It is stated that the righteous enter the kingdom prepared for them from the founding of the world. This again is the same problem as before when you use the word kingdom as the interpretative tool. Like I stated, the word kingdom is ambiguous. If the earth is part of the kingdom in the sense of territory, I don’t see why we need to dissect this. The reason they are not spirits is because they are not entering the government, they are entering the realm of the government. If the government is heavenly, and the subjects are earthly, the distinction becomes clear.

You here assert the sheep are not entering the government, but provided no argumentation in support of this conclusion. Yet, that the sheep are identified as Christ’s brothers necessitates that the sheep be part of the government, not merely the territory. That all Christians are in the New Covenant also makes it clear the kingdom is the government.

It’s a really simple thing. The word kingdom can mean either “government” or realm”. If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the government is definitely located in heaven through other references and contexts in the Bible, then any reference that connects the kingdom with the earth is obviously referring to realm. We are convinced that Biblical precedent and pattern solidly establishes that the church is in heaven, and I believe that in the end of this discussion, that is exactly what will be established with Biblical precedent and pattern as our guide. If any one does not wish to follow that precedent and pattern, that is entirely up to them, but I would state that they are then settling for man’s interpretation rather than God’s, and that puts them on dangerous exegetical ground.

Yes, you are correct the promise has the spirit in view, but not only that. If you note verse 16, Paul talks about the “promises,” plural. This alone shows more than the spirit is involved. Verse 14 mentions the “blessing of Abraham.” This phrase is a clear allusion to Genesis 28:4 where the land promise is explicitly stated. In Genesis 28:4 and elsewhere in the Old Testament, the land is promised to both Abraham and his seed. It is this land promise to which Christians are heirs. Galatians 3:29 states that if you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s seed and heir of the promises. The spirit is never called our “inheritance” thus showing the promises Paul has in view involve the Abrahamic land inheritance. Christians, then, as Abraham’s seed and as heirs to the promises, inherit the kingdom on earth (Genesis 12:1-4; 28:4; Matthew 5:3-5; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:29)

OK, let’s take a closer look at these references and see if we can determine what they could be speaking of.

Verse 8 of chapter 3 establishes that what is spoken of here about Abraham and the blessing of Abraham is in reference to what was said in the Abrahamic Covenant. In particular the part that states: (Galatians 3:8) . . .“By means of you all the nations will be blessed.”

That’s the blessing of Abraham that is being spoken of in this context. It doesn’t have to do with the physical land that Abraham and the nation of Israel were going to possess, which was referring to Promised Land. Surely you don’t think all Christians will exist JUST in the physical area set aside for the natural nation of Israel do you? What is being referred to here as the “blessing” of Abraham is the fact that all nations would be BLESSED by means of Abraham’s seed, which was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ and his spiritual body, his church.

Paul goes on to explain exactly what it means then for the nations to receive the blessing of Abraham and it was by means of his sacrifice and the release from the Law. That is what he is talking about in verse 14 when he says:

(Galatians 3:14) ¹⁴ The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.

Yes, Abraham was promised a land but the promise being referred to here is identified for us in verse 8 as the promise in reference to the nations being blessed by means of Abraham’s seed. Verse 22 further confirms this understanding:

(Galatians 3:22) ²² But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.

What promise? The promise that by means of Abraham, all nations would bless themselves as is shown by verse 8.

When we come to verse 29 then, the promise that is being referred is to quite plainly understood. It’s the same promise mentioned throughout the chapter which is established in verse 8.

I said:

The very fact that there are rulers and subjects makes it demonstrably clear that there are two destinies for Christians. Some are rulers and some are not. Now, unless you believe that EVERYONE that gets judged by the HOLY ONES gets JUDGED ADVERSELY, then you have to see that for anyone to get a favorable judgment, they must acknowledge Christ as Philippians 2 tells us. So once again, there would have to be Christians who are not judges? I am not sure why this escapes you.

No, the fact that there are rulers and subjects demonstrates order within the kingdom, not two different locations. True, everyone in the kingdom will have to at some point accept Christ but let’s not confuse present believers with future ones. I should also stress that all Christians are in the New Covenant, therefore they all rule.

 

I have to say this response doesn’t make much sense to me. First, if they ALL rule, what do they rule over? Secondly, what I said was two different destinies. As I said, our difference is location, not destiny. You acknowledge that everyone will have to become Christian, including those outside of the governing element, therefore there will clearly be two different destinies for believers.

Again, we see New Jerusalem, the Lamb’s wife coming down out of heaven to be with MANKIND. It then says the TENT of God will be with MANKIND. Clearly in that vision we have two elements, New Jerusalem and MANKIND. They are clearly not the same group. Plus again, when we get to chapter 22 we see New Jerusalem in her final glorified condition, with a river flowing from it for the HEALING of the NATIONS. Once again, clearly two different groups, New Jerusalem and the NATIONS that are being healed.

I said:

The new heavens and the new earth, since the reference is to physical, material things, they would OF this creation. Are you in some way trying to say that the very earth we are standing on right now, is not of this creation?

My point was that Isaiah 65:15 talks about God “creating” a new heavens and new earth. If he must “create” something new, then this must mean that it did not exist in the old creation.

Let me ask again: Are the new heavens and new earth mentioned in Isaiah 65:15 of this creation and so made with hands?

You are confusing definitions. “Not made with hands” is defined by Hebrews as “not of this creation” and the example we were given in Hebrews was something that was clearly spirit, not physical. From the Biblically given definition and context, anything material is of this creation, so yes, the new physical heavens and earth are OF this creation. They would then not qualify as “not made with hands” since the two expressions are equated. Hebrews shows us that the expression “not made with hands” was idiomatic for “not of this creation”.

I said:

I’m not sure how this passage would help you since it says that the holy ones will meet him in the AIR and then states they will always be with the Lord. That sounds exactly what I have been stating. It is also an indication that this descending is not down to the earth, but is in the air, which could mean he descends to within the vicinity of the earth and receives the holy ones to Himself in the air.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 states that when Jesus descends from heaven, the dead in Christ will first rise and those alive will be changed so that they meet the Lord “at the same time.” Since believers alive at Christ’s coming will be “caught up” with those who have died, “at the same time,” this necessarily means the resurrection is upon the earth, and so their new resurrection “spiritual bodies.”

The confusion here comes from the misrendering of “parousia”. These resurrections and the meeting in the air all take place during the parousia, which is an extended period of time, not some puncticular action lasting but a moment. But regardless of that you seemed to ignore the point that they will meet him IN THE AIR and always be with the Lord.

Since believers will be changed, this necessarily means their mortal bodies will be changed. Paul discusses this in Philippians 3:21 where our current lowly bodies will be “transformed.” Note too that Paul expects Jesus to come “from heaven.” If he were to be in heaven forever why is he coming “from heaven”?

I’ve thoroughly addressed how we are transformed via resurrection. More on that below too.  As far as Jesus coming FROM heaven, that is certainly where he would descend from in the context of 1 Thes. 4, right? If he makes a type of descension into the vicinity of the earth, to the AIR, where the holy ones then meet him in the AIR and afterward are always with the Lord, then naturally he comes from heaven.

Three quick points: Verse 20 states Jesus is being ‘sent,’ which implies the cessation of his current occupancy, meaning “until” would refer to the end of the particular condition; second, I have found no support for the definition you have presented nor any arguments in your comments for why we should take “until” as meaning “up to and including.” Is there any lexicon which provides the definition you here asserted and why should we take “until” the way you have suggested in Acts 3:21? Third, that Jesus was “received” in heaven is an allusion back to Acts 1:11. Since Acts 1:11 states Jesus will return in the same manner in which he left, this implies he is going to leave his current occupancy and that we should take “until” to mean the end of his time in heaven.

To say you find no support for the definition I gave you is certainly disheartening as I gave you numerous examples where the word HAD TO MEAN CONSTANCY or a CONTINUED DURATION of the action and you evidently completely ignored them. But also, it can be said, in relation to what is described in 1 Thes. 4, that Jesus does descend in a fashion that brings him into the vicinity of the earth, described as the AIR, where the holy ones will meet him and then always be with the Lord.

It simply does not follow that since Jesus was covered by a cloud that this somehow means he will return unseen. In fact, verse 11 explicitly states that his disciples “beheld,” that is, SAW Jesus “going into the sky.” He’ll return in the same manner by descending.

The verse should be heeded as it actually reads. It says that he will return in the SAME MANNER as they beheld him going into the sky. What was that manner? In a cloud caught up FROM their VISION. That was the manner they beheld him going into the sky.

I said:

You acknowledge that prolepsis does not make a distinction between the present and the future. This is exactly my argument. What is said of the house, the building from God, does not distinguish between now and the future. But this backfires on you. You are the one who is trying to isolate the phrase “in the heavens” as NOT in reference to the future, so whereas you say prolepsis does not distinguish between present and future, YOU are attempting to make a difference between “in the heavens” as only applying to the present hope, not the future. Yet we KNOW, the “not made with hands” and “everlasting” applies without any difference intended between present and future. Why then do you isolate “in the heavens” as ONLY applying to the present?

Because not made with hands and everlasting describe the house itself, not its present location as “in the heavens” does. The proleptic aspect is that we have it presently, nothing more.

That would  just be conjecture on your part to see it that way. In the text, there is no such division. I have to conclude that your view denies the pattern set up by the other two expressions. You have no Biblical precedent to see it that way. However, for us, the precedent is surely there. That should say something.

What is troublesome for your view is what Paul says in verse 4. He states he does not want to “put off” his current human body but “put on another.” There’s no idea of exchange but of “what is mortal (=earthly house, physical body)” being “swallowed up by life.”

Paul is merely saying that it’s not that he desires to die, but he certainly does desire the resurrection body.

I don’t think it is clear the grain is the “soul” nor do I think Jesus is referring to the resurrection of bodies/persons as Paul is, though admittingly, both use similar imagery. Jesus’ point is fairly simple and would have been easily understood by his audience: the new harvest is the result of dying seeds. In other words, Jesus must die to bring new people and give them eschatological life. In the same chapter just a few verses later this is explicit:

(John 12:32-33) And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.” This he was really saying to signify what sort of death he was about to die.

Jesus’ death would draw all sorts of men, just as a dying grain would yield much fruit. Nothing here about the resurrection of the “soul.” It is about what would result from Jesus giving up his own life.

I am a little surprised at how you are seeing this in comparison with what is actually said in the passage. Let’s look at it again.

(John 12:24-25) ²⁴ Most truly I say to YOU, Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains just one [grain]; but if it dies, it then bears much fruit. ²⁵ He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.

Jesus interprets for us his own illustration. We don’t have to substitute another explanation since he gives us one right there. The soul that is spoken of here as dying and is clearly the grain when we look at Jesus’ explanation in verse 25  of what he just said. The parallels are abundantly obvious. In verse 24 the grain that dies is the soul that can be safeguarded for everlasting life IN VERSE 25.

The way in which the grain that dies, bears much fruit, is in the fact that if we are willing to forfeit our soul for Christ, then we have safeguarded it for everlasting life. Jesus applies verse 24 to US in verse 25 when he says “He that”.

And the scriptures confirm many times that the soul dies when we die.

I nowhere acknowledge that we do not sow the old body. To the contrary, we explicitly do sow it. Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15 anew, starting at verse 36:

(36) You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies;

What we plant/bury does not come to life if it first doesn’t die. Straightforward.

(37) and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest;

What we plant/bury is not the body that will be, but only the grain, the seed. In other words, we do not plant/bury an orange tree; we plant/bury the orange seed. We do not plant/bury the resurrection body; we plant/bury our mortal body.

You’re missing the whole point of what Paul is saying. Think about it. He first says:

The thing that is sown has to die first before it can be raised. This tells us that it is the thing that is PLANTED or SOWN that comes back. I think we agree with that. But verse 37 is where you completely miss the point. You see, if the thing SOWN is the old body, he would be saying that the body that will be is not what was SOWN. If the arising body is NOT the old body, then what died did not come back and that doesn’t fit the description of a resurrection given by Paul in verse 36. He said, something DIED and rises, but the body that rises (the body that will be) is NOT what was SOWN. He words are extremely clear.

If the body that rises is NOT what was SOWN, then it can’t possibly be the object of the resurrection, because what was SOWN has to come back to life in order to constitute a resurrection. Therefore, as his argument profoundly demonstrates, something besides the body is the object of the resurrection, because the rising body is not what was sown. What was sown is a bar grain, a seed, which is surely not the same as the old plant body that would have died and decayed in the ground.

Think of it further in this way. If the new body that is given to the seed was never actually dead, it can’t be the object of the resurrection because what is SOWN has to come back to life in order to constitute a resurrection according to verse 36. It appears you are saying that the body that is arising at resurrection is different than the old body that was sown. How could that be a resurrection then? The OLD didn’t come back.

(38) but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and to each of the seeds its own body.

God gives the seed its own body. The NWT rightfully adds Genesis 1:12 as a cross-reference where it states: “And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good.”

This shows that God only gives the seed a body that is according to its kind. Orange seeds yield oranges “bodies”; apple seeds, apple “bodies”; human seed, human “bodies.” Humans receive resurrection bodies according to their kind. Angels/spirits are not our kind.

(39) Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

Straightfoward. Clearly an allusion to Genesis again.

But it is confirmed for us in the following context that these ones undergo an exchange. Simply because he mentions all the different bodies that could be supplied in no way necessitates they have to receive the same kind of body they died with. The whole context is demonstrating a change for their bodies, not an alikeness, but a difference from their old bodies to the new ones. Their soul is resurrected and it is given a body as it pleases God. And in this case, it pleases him for them to have a spirit body, as it did with Jesus.

(40) And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.

The heavenly bodies are clearly a reference to the sun, moon, and stars. This is obvious from verse 41, but even clearer from the fact that Paul has been alluding to Genesis where God created the heavens with all the lights in them.

Body always means physical in Paul.

But Paul does use body in a different sense, in a spiritual sense when he talks about the body of Christ. The church is not literally the body of Christ, but they are so spiritually speaking. It wasn’t something physical he was drawing attention to, but was used as an illustration for unity.

But even in a case where there is strong precedent that would indicate a certain understanding, context can overrule that if it directly addresses the difference of how things are generally understood and that is exactly what we have in 1 Cor. 15. The context is so undeniably strong that there is also a spiritual body in obvious contrast to a material body made of dust, any precedent otherwise could be overruled by the strong context. It specifically states that Jesus, who is the ultimate example of what Paul is talking about, became a spirit in direct contrast to Adam who was made of dust. Again, verses 50-52 use the word for EXCHANGE. They exchange their bodies of dust for a spirit body, just like Jesus did.

I said:

Verse 10 is clearly speaking of a current condition. How could it not be? And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. Verse 11 states: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. This simply tells us that God, who raised Christ from the dead can also make you mortal bodies alive by means of that spirit. Paul is showing how they can currently possess something similar to resurrection of Christ in the flesh by means of God’s spirit putting sin to death, as pointed out in verse 10. Are they not currently enlivened by the spirit in verse 10? The whole context in the beginning of chapter 8 confirms that they are alive by means of the spirit because of their release form sin. Their mortal bodies, similar to Christ’s resurrected body, is alive by the spirit, not dead due to sin. This same imagery is found elsewhere. Notice: (Ephesians 2:1-7) 2 Furthermore, [it is] YOU [God made alive] though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins, 2 in which YOU at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience. 3 Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, doing the things willed by the flesh and the thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath even as the rest. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, 5 made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness YOU have been saved— 6 and he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, 7 that in the coming systems of things there might be demonstrated the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus. Paul clearly shows that they had received a “raising up”, paralleled after Christ’s resurrection, while still in the flesh by means of their mortal bodies being made alive by means of the spirit. Clearly the reference here to being made alive did not refer to an actual resurrection since they were still alive. This was a current condition and is what Paul was describing in Romans 8:11.

Let’s look at this again.

ZWOPOIEW occurs 11 times in the NT and 10 of them in reference to the resurrection. One can only conclude ZWOPOIEW appears in resurrection contexts. Romans 8:11 is such a one. The first two lines, “but if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead” and “he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead,” clearly refer to the resurrection. This is beyond dispute. That the third line (“will also give life to your mortal bodies”) does as well is proved by the conjunction kai, linking the believers’ “mortal bodies” to Jesus’ resurrection. Having raised Jesus from the dead, Paul says God will “also” make your mortal bodies alive.

I have to say I do not think you are reading very carefully sometimes what I am writing. You can’t make something absolute if it has exceptions, and you evidently see at least one exception since you acknowledge 10 out of 11. I see other clear exceptions as well. The “spirit of him who raised Jesus” is a reference to God’s spirit. Yes, God’s spirit raised Jesus from the dead. Paul says that SAME spirit, meaning God can even now, enliven our mortal bodies. The preceding context shows how that is happening currently for them. Do you not agree with that preceding context? There is no necessity at all to see this as a reference to resurrection. Again, the context of Ephesians chapter 2 should thoroughly explain how that is possible BEFORE they are actually resurrected. The same is confirmed in Colossians:

(Colossians 2:11-12) ¹¹ By relationship with him YOU were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands by the stripping off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision that belongs to the Christ, ¹² for YOU were buried with him in [his] baptism, and by relationship with him YOU were also raised up together through [YOUR] faith in the operation of God, who raised him up from the dead.

I said:

Although you expressed some opinion about what you think the verse means, I didn’t see any kind of argument that would have refuted what I presented.

That’s because you didn’t provide an argument. You only listed the NWT’s rendition in favor of your interpretation. It is the context which must determine which translation is more likely. It is here that I stated the context of Romans 8 is of renewal and glorification, which suggests “redemption of our body”, is to be preferred. Paul is not a Gnostic whereby he is trying to escape his body and be released from the material world. Moreover, given Romans 8:11, it is beyond dispute which sense is more likely in Romans 8:23.

But don’t you see this is really just your opinion, your interpretation. Romans 8:11 is most certainly not incontrovertible as I have explained.

If Christians are changed from dust to spirit, would this not mean the body itself is changed? Otherwise, what is “dust”? We both agree we are transformed through the resurrection. But in your view I’m still not certain what exactly it is that is transformed.

Paul tells us that it is the bare grain that is transformed. Soul can refer to the mentality, or the personality of the person. It can be a reference to the mind. In fact, our physical bodies are nearly renewed every 7 years in relation to cellular material yet we remain the same soul, the same personality. Personalities must have bodies to be alive as personalities. Otherwise they are dead souls. The soul dies, the personality dies with the body. But Paul tells us that it is not the body that is the object of the resurrection; it is the bare grain, the personality, which God remembers. It would be their bare grain, their person, their mentality, that exchanges one body for another.

The body dies and decays. The soul is resurrected and given a new body. That’s how they change, that’s how they transform.

So the soul is raised to life disembodied and then subsequently given a body? That’s not a transformation but a re-creation. On top of that, this view clearly expresses dualism something not taught in the Bible. Humans are wholistic beings. There’s no soul apart from the body.

You misunderstand. When it comes to the body it is indeed a recreation, an exchange for something new, which is exactly what Paul talks about. When it comes to the “person”, the “mentality” it is a resurrection. No, souls don’t come back disembodied. What happens is God prepares a body for the person he is resurrecting and places within that body the “personality” that died with all of its memories. This is exactly what he did for Adam when Adam came to be a living SOUL, only in Adam’s case it was a new personality, not one that had died.

Jesus is God’s exact representation because God’s divinity dwells within Jesus corporeally, i. e., bodily. (Col 2:9)

But his body is elsewhere defined as a “spirit” body. This doesn’t demonstrate “flesh”.

But then why not just call him “Jesus Christ” and leave out “man”? “Man” would be superfluous; however, even if Jesus were only experientially human, it would still not be proper to call him “man,” for he wouldn’t be one. Note that in his role as mediator, Jesus is said to represent human beings by virtue of the fact that he is one himself. Thus contextually his being called a human being cannot be circumvented by viewing that description as merely “experiential.” Just as Paul speaks of “one God” as a present reality, so the “one mediator” is a present reality, and that mediator is “the man Christ Jesus,” not a former man.

But the immediate context proves that this is in reference to what he was in the past because after it mentions Jesus as a man, it says in the PAST TENSE, who GAVE himself as a ransom for all. In other words the man referred to GAVE himself. It is not a reference to his current status but is a reference to what he was when he GAVE himself. Plus, again, if that MAN gave himself as a ransom, his flesh and blood body, then he cannot take it back without nullifying the ransom. It would violate the patterns established in the Law. He had to truly sacrifice it, not just give it up for three days and then take it back. That’s not a sacrifice, nor is it a ransom.

I said:

If it doesn’t mean that the church was in heaven then why are they pictured as coming down from heaven after the judgment day in chapter 20?

It must be stated the New Jerusalem has several aspects: it is a “city,” a people, and I would argue, a temple. That the New Jerusalem is a temple is noted by the fact that as a perfect gold cube adorned with precious stones and metals, it recalls the holy of holies. (1 Kings 6) Further, that the people within the New Jerusalem are priests with immediate access to God’s presence points to this conclusion even further. It is not controversial for the Church to be called a temple, even with Jesus as the main stone in Zion. (1 Peter 2:6; Ephesians 2:19-22)

The point being that as a temple, a bride, a people, it comes down from heaven figuratively. God dwells, literally tabernacles (Rev 21:3), with humankind on earth. While God previously tabernacled in his heavenly temple, this has extended to the earth in the New Jerusalem—the new temple of God.

But why is this not depicted this way until AFTER judgment day? What you describe would be true from the beginning of judgment day, but this was after that transpired. Why state it THEN as coming down out of heaven?

Note, too, that according to Revelation 22:15, either you’re in the New Jerusalem or you’re outside its gates with the dogs, fornicators, murderers, etc. There’s no other hope, no secondary hope, other than to be within the walls of this temple-city. The exclusion of these persons is temple-related: nothing unclean can enter the New Jerusalem.

The MANKIND that New Jerusalem comes down to be with will be under their tent, their jurisdiction and protection, just like the nations who are being healed by the river flowing from the temple within the city. So they are clearly referenced as different than the church itself, although allowed to be within its gates via the blessings that it receives from the church. Gates could simply refer to the extent of its blessings upon mankind and the nations. Surely no one wicked would receive its river of healing or waters of life. It basically comes down to what do the gates symbolize?

I am not claiming the 24 elders are angels based on the fact they have crowns. My point is that their wearing crowns do not preclude them from being angels, which is the argument that you are advocating. I have shown that in the NT angels are depicted as occupying thrones, principalities, and authorities. You seem to not allow for angels whom are worthy enough to occupy thrones in a heavenly government, to wear crowns. Yet, this point is so basic that I feel the need to not even have to argue that thrones imply crowns.

The fact is, angels are never specifically said to have thrones. You claim that is the case in Colossians 1 but it is never stated. You are assuming that the reference to thrones applies to angels when there is nothing there to establish that. It is in fact not only speaking of things invisible but things visible too. Why do you even insist that thrones have to refer to angels when nothing contextually even demands it or states it to be so? A number of things were listed there and nothing states that angels are the ones who had the thrones. The list obviously would refer to things physical as well and nothing demands the reference to thrones to be in connection with angels.

So once again, the point is that angels are never depicted with crowns. The Biblical precedent would be against looking at these 24 elders then as angels. Jesus, as I stated, was not just any angel but was the archangel. He is often contrasted with angels as the one who is the Son, so he is isolated as different then the rest of the angels.

I said:

This is the same case as angels with crowns. Nowhere do we find angels referred to as “elders”. Surely Isaiah 24:23 is not referring to elders in heaven since the preceding words refer to Mount Zion and Jerusalem. It is clearly a reference to Jews as every commentary I consulted confirmed.

May want to consult the Word Biblical Commentary on Isaiah 24:23.

One commentary? I would ask the same question of them. If Mount Zion and Jerusalem are earthly references, what makes you think that the “ancient” ones here were angels? The immediate references in the same sentence are against it. So, again, the precedent remains uncontested with any good reference to the contrary. In order to overturn a clear precedent you would need something far stronger than a strained context to do it. The clear precedent is that angels are not referred to as elders.

I said:

When Metzger stated there was no direct object, he was in reference only to the Alexandrine manuscript which did not include US. It’s entirely arbitrary conjecture to say it wasn’t there because the A didn’t have it. The word “us” IS the direct object. The very fact that all the other manuscripts had US and the very fact that it is the very direct object that is stated to be NEEDED, that should tell us that it was the actual original reading. It makes perfect grammatical and syntactical sense. To claim the original text didn’t have a direct object, based upon ONE manuscript, and leaving the sentence syntactically awkward, is clearly a position that can’t be defended without presupposition and conjecture. Why Bruce so strongly defaults to the Alexandrine in this case is a bit of a mystery. Why would one assume that the Alexandrine is the BEST witness for Revelation?

A few comments: according to the principles of textual criticism, the harder reading is to be preferred for two reasons: (1) A scribe is more likely to make a reading smoother and easier than harder and (2) the harder reading best explains the other readings.

You again are missing the point. There is nothing hard about the reading in all the other manuscripts with the inclusion of US in both verses, 9 AND 10. The manuscript which caused the harder reading is A, or Papyrus 115. It is mere assumption to think that A is more reliable simply because it has the harder reading. It could be nothing more than scribal error or corruption. The bulk of the manuscripts are in agreement with the US being included in the text and makes perfect syntactical and grammatical sense. As I said before, otherwise, it wouldn’t.

I said:

Also, whether or not Revelation demonstrates someone speaking in the third person is hardly the issue. It is a literary device that is found elsewhere in the Bible and therefore has precedence. Again, we have the examples of Jesus doing so.

To the contrary. It is very much the issue because you are claiming something that is nowhere present in Revelation, expect for a reading that has been universally rejected.

Narrowing the Biblical precedent down to the book of Revelation is by design so that you don’t have to acknowledge the other scriptural examples. The scriptures include far more than the book of Revelation. And to say it is UNIVERSALLY rejected is surely a misstatement since there are numerous Bible translations that include it.

I said:

Also the only way that the 24 elders would be referring to themselves in the third person is by presupposing that the pronoun US was not there and that PERSONS was the actual original rendering. If US was there, which the preponderance of the evidence shows, then they weren’t referring to themselves in the third person, so unless you are thinking of another example, this third person argument would be contingent upon proving that US wasn’t there and PERSONS was, wouldn’t it?

Not exactly. Let me highlight some points from Revelation 5, again:

(8) And when he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense, and the [incense] means the prayers of the holy ones.

The 24 elders have bowls full of the prayers of the holy ones. The holy ones are not present in heaven, only the elders are when John enters heaven. (Rev 4) Thus, they are spoken of as different groups.

One point that needs to be appreciated which could possibly help resolve this for you is that during the parousia, which is a long event as I mentioned earlier, those who died in Christ were first resurrected to heaven at the beginning of the parousia. During the parousia there are still holy ones on earth who are yet to be sealed and raised to heaven upon their death. It would not be unnatural then for the holy ones in heaven to be represented differently than the holy ones still on earth.

(9) And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

As the 24 elders sing to the lamb, they explicitly say Jesus has “bought persons for God.” As defended above, this reading has been adopted by all reputable bible translations for good reasons.

This has already been addressed above. The preponderance of manuscript evidence is in favor of US.

(10) and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”

Here the 24 elders, while still singing, speak of the holy ones in the third person: “them” and “they.”

This the same problem as verse 9. The manuscript evidence is in favor of US being there, not them or they. Those are admitted additions.

But here is something else to consider in these verses 9 and 10. It is not just the 24 elders who are singing this sing but also the four living creatures could be seen as doing so, so it would not be unusual, since the 4 living creatures are also singing, to refer to the holy ones in the third person. It would be natural for the four living creatures to refer to the holy ones as “them” in the third person. For the sake of all of them to sing the song, reference in the third person would not then appear unusual.

Since the elders are not Christians, they are most likely angels. Further, since in Revelation 4 John had been taken up to heaven and encountered these elders already there by God’s throne, this shows they are not Christian for the resurrection had not yet taken place.

That doesn’t show anything about the timing of the resurrection. Why are you supposing that this could not have already happened within the timing of the vision? This vision in chapter one obviously refers to the “revelation” of Jesus Christ which we know is in connection with his parousia and we know the holy ones are resurrected at the parousia. The resurrection would have naturally taken place since these would be parousiac visions.

As I pointed out earlier, in the OT God is pictured as surrounded by a council of divinities. The 24 elders are just these ones.

Those divinities are not called elders nor do they have crowns. This doesn’t establish the precedent that you need.

I said:

(Hebrews 9:11-12) 11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].

(Hebrews 9:24) 24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.

(Hebrews 10:19) 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

It is unmistakable that the “holy place” in this context is heaven itself. As we see, the holy ones now have boldness to be able to enter the “holy place”, which is heaven.

Absolutely, but I’m not sure what you are arguing? I assume that your argument is that since Jesus enters into heaven, specifically, the holy place, that the holy ones will therefore enter heaven too?

If this is the case, it must be noted that verse 19 talks about having a present boldness and that Christians now enter the holy place. It is a spiritual condition that gives them access to the Father. The same is true in Hebrews 12:22 where Christians have now approached heavenly Mount Zion.

No, it says that they currently possess BOLDNESS for entry into the holy place. Nothing states that they are currently in the holy place. As is incontrovertible, the holy place is heaven. But now they have BOLDNESS to be able to enter, which means that they will enter heaven, just as did Jesus.

Question: If Christians, Abraham’s seed, go to heaven, then how can they inherit the world/land alongside Abraham? (Romans 4:13)

Not sure what you think you are seeing here but it states:

(Romans 4:13-15) ¹³ For it was not through law that Abraham or his seed had the promise that he should be heir of a world, but it was through the righteousness by faith. ¹⁴ For if those who adhere to law are heirs, faith has been made useless and the promise has been abolished. ¹⁵ In reality the Law produces wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there any transgression.

This refers to the fact that adhering to the Law is not what got Abraham the promise of being heir of a world, but it was by faith. Since the promise to Abraham was through faith, performing the Law was of no value for that. Where do you see that the holy ones would inherit Abraham’s land?

Are you ever going to answer the question about Jesus Christ and whether he is currently ruling in heaven over the earth? This feels like it is becoming a glaring omission in your responses.

Regards,

Rotherham

Sorry for the delayed reply. Also, the post is not as long as it looks. It’s the block quotes and formatting.

Really, the word “kingdom” doesn’t tell us anything about location. It’s entirely about “rulership” which naturally involves the actual government or the realm of that government. In and of itself it tells us nothing about location. Using it as straightedge to determine location is ineffective and inconclusive.

Indeed, that has been my point since the get-go. Kingdom in and of itself does not tell us the location. This is why I have repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly pressed the issue. In each instance you see kingdom in the Bible, you must prove your definition and then the location. I feel you have not done that thus far. When I brought up Matthew 8:11 you simply assumed this was territory; when I brought up Matthew 25:34 you did the same. This is why I said your view was circular, because you assumed a definition without presenting evidence in its favor. For instance, concerning Matthew 25 you said:

It is stated that the righteous enter the kingdom prepared for them from the founding of the world. This again is the same problem as before when you use the word kingdom as the interpretative tool. Like I stated, the word kingdom is ambiguous. If the earth is part of the kingdom in the sense of territory, I don’t see why we need to dissect this. The reason they are not spirits is because they are not entering the government, they are entering the realm of the government. If the government is heavenly, and the subjects are earthly, the distinction becomes clear.

You here assert the sheep are not entering the government, but provided no argumentation in support of this conclusion. Yet, that the sheep are identified as Christ’s brothers necessitates that the sheep be part of the government, not merely the territory. That all Christians are in the New Covenant also makes it clear the kingdom is the government.

As far as Christians receiving the promises, according to the context of Galatians 3, this wasn’t about the land that was promised. As verse 14 tells us it was about the promise of the “spirit through faith”.

“that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Just as Abraham’s seed was received via holy spirit and a promise, concerning Isaac, likewise, Christians receive the holy spirit, for it was the spirit through a promise that gave birth to Isaac, just as it is for spiritual Israel, including Gentiles, they become Abraham’s children via the promise of the spirit.

Yes, you are correct the promise has the spirit in view, but not only that. If you note verse 16, Paul talks about the “promises,” plural. This alone shows more than the spirit is involved. Verse 14 mentions the “blessing of Abraham.” This phrase is a clear allusion to Genesis 28:4 where the land promise is explicitly stated. In Genesis 28:4 and elsewhere in the Old Testament, the land is promised to both Abraham and his seed. It is this land promise to which Christians are heirs. Galatians 3:29 states that if you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s seed and heir of the promises. The spirit is never called our “inheritance” thus showing the promises Paul has in view involve the Abrahamic land inheritance. Christians, then, as Abraham’s seed and as heirs to the promises, inherit the kingdom on earth (Genesis 12:1-4; 28:4; Matthew 5:3-5; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:29)

The very fact that there are rulers and subjects makes it demonstrably clear that there are two destinies for Christians. Some are rulers and some are not. Now, unless you believe that EVERYONE that gets judged by the HOLY ONES gets JUDGED ADVERSELY, then you have to see that for anyone to get a favorable judgment, they must acknowledge Christ as Philippians 2 tells us. So once again, there would have to be Christians who are not judges? I am not sure why this escapes you.

No, the fact that there are rulers and subjects demonstrates order within the kingdom, not two different locations. True, everyone in the kingdom will have to at some point accept Christ but let’s not confuse present believers with future ones. I should also stress that all Christians are in the New Covenant, therefore they all rule.

The new heavens and the new earth, since the reference is to physical, material things, they would OF this creation. Are you in some way trying to say that the very earth we are standing on right now, is not of this creation?

My point was that Isaiah 65:15 talks about God “creating” a new heavens and new earth. If he must “create” something new, then this must mean that it did not exist in the old creation.

Let me ask again: Are the new heavens and new earth mentioned in Isaiah 65:15 of this creation and so made with hands?

I’m not sure how this passage would help you since it says that the holy ones will meet him in the AIR and then states they will always be with the Lord. That sounds exactly what I have been stating. It is also an indication that this descending is not down to the earth, but is in the air, which could mean he descends to within the vicinity of the earth and receives the holy ones to Himself in the air.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 states that when Jesus descends from heaven, the dead in Christ will first rise and those alive will be changed so that they meet the Lord “at the same time.” Since believers alive at Christ’s coming will be “caught up” with those who have died, “at the same time,” this necessarily means the resurrection is upon the earth, and so their new resurrection “spiritual bodies.”

Since believers will be changed, this necessarily means their mortal bodies will be changed. Paul discusses this in Philippians 3:21 where our current lowly bodies will be “transformed.” Note too that Paul expects Jesus to come “from heaven.” If he were to be in heaven forever why is he coming “from heaven”?

The word rendered “until” does not always require the end of a particular condition. It often refers to “continued duration” or CONSTANCY.Act 2:29 Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto(same word) this day. Obviously, David continued to remain in the grave. Often, Luke uses the word to mean “up to and including” what follows. It wasn’t always used as an indication of the end of something. It was simply an indication of a continued duration. Act 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto (same word) Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name [was] Barjesus: This was not used to indicate the terminus of something but of continued duration. Act 20:4 And there accompanied him into (same word) Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. Notice this reference is rendered as INTO, not UNTIL. Act 23:1 ¶ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Obviously Paul’s good conscience didn’t end that day. It was an expression of continued duration and of constancy. Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto (same word)this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: Again, another expression of CONSTANCY, not terminus. Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Another expression of CONSTANCY, not terminus. I think you likely get the point as to why Acts 3:20,21 would not require Jesus to leave heaven at the restitution of all things.

Three quick points: Verse 20 states Jesus is being ‘sent,’ which implies the cessation of his current occupancy, meaning “until” would refer to the end of the particular condition; second, I have found no support for the definition you have presented nor any arguments in your comments for why we should take “until” as meaning “up to and including.” Is there any lexicon which provides the definition you here asserted and why should we take “until” the way you have suggested in Acts 3:21? Third, that Jesus was “received” in heaven is an allusion back to Acts 1:11. Since Acts 1:11 states Jesus will return in the same manner in which he left, this implies he is going to leave his current occupancy and that we should take “until” to mean the end of his time in heaven.

Actually verse 9 shows that his return would be unseen since it states he was caught away from the vision by means of a cloud. That’s why the angel’s question was so appropriate. Why keep looking at the sky as if they would see him coming back?

It simply does not follow that since Jesus was covered by a cloud that this somehow means he will return unseen. In fact, verse 11 explicitly states that his disciples “beheld,” that is, SAW Jesus “going into the sky.” He’ll return in the same manner by descending.

You acknowledge that prolepsis does not make a distinction between the present and the future. This is exactly my argument. What is said of the house, the building from God, does not distinguish between now and the future. But this backfires on you. You are the one who is trying to isolate the phrase “in the heavens” as NOT in reference to the future, so whereas you say prolepsis does not distinguish between present and future, YOU are attempting to make a difference between “in the heavens” as only applying to the present hope, not the future. Yet we KNOW, the “not made with hands” and “everlasting” applies without any difference intended between present and future. Why then do you isolate “in the heavens” as ONLY applying to the present?

Because not made with hands and everlasting describe the house itself, not its present location as “in the heavens” does. The proleptic aspect is that we have it presently, nothing more.

What is troublesome for your view is what Paul says in verse 4. He states he does not want to “put off” his current human body but “put on another.” There’s no idea of exchange but of “what is mortal (=earthly house, physical body)” being “swallowed up by life.”

You ask what is raised if it is not the body. Jesus answers this question that employs the same imagery at John 12

(John 12:24-25) 24 Most truly I say to YOU, Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains just one [grain]; but if it dies, it then bears much fruit. 25 He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.

It is the soul that dies and is resurrected, which is clearly represented by Christ as the “grain, the seed.

I don’t think it is clear the grain is the “soul” nor do I think Jesus is referring to the resurrection of bodies/persons as Paul is, though admittingly, both use similar imagery. Jesus’ point is fairly simple and would have been easily understood by his audience: the new harvest is the result of dying seeds. In other words, Jesus must die to bring new people and give them eschatological life. In the same chapter just a few verses later this is explicit:

(John 12:32-33) And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.” This he was really saying to signify what sort of death he was about to die.

Jesus’ death would draw all sorts of men, just as a dying grain would yield much fruit. Nothing here about the resurrection of the “soul.” It is about what would result from Jesus giving up his own life.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul makes a sharp distinction between the bare grain and the body. If, as you acknowledge, that we do not SOW the old body, then it can’t be the thing that is resurrected. Paul’s argument specifically states that the old body is not SOWN. He tells us that it is the thing that is SOWN that come s back. If it is not the old body, then it is something else, the bare grain, which he specifically separates from the body. Jesus’ illustration confirms for us that it is the soul that is the “bare grain. Paul presents this illustration in hopes of answering the objection in verse 35. He hopes via the illustration that they will come to appreciate why asking about the body was unreasonable. He is showing conclusively that the body is not the object of the resurrection. Verse 38 doesn’t damage our position at all, because the SEED is not the body, it is numerically different.

I nowhere acknowledge that we do not sow the old body. To the contrary, we explicitly do sow it. Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15 anew, starting at verse 36:

(36) You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies;

What we plant/bury does not come to life if it first doesn’t die. Straightforward.

(37) and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest;

What we plant/bury is not the body that will be, but only the grain, the seed. In other words, we do not plant/bury an orange tree; we plant/bury the orange seed. We do not plant/bury the resurrection body; we plant/bury our mortal body.

(38) but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and to each of the seeds its own body.

God gives the seed its own body. The NWT rightfully adds Genesis 1:12 as a cross-reference where it states: “And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good.”

This shows that God only gives the seed a body that is according to its kind. Orange seeds yield oranges “bodies”; apple seeds, apple “bodies”; human seed, human “bodies.” Humans receive resurrection bodies according to their kind. Angels/spirits are not our kind.

(39) Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

Straightfoward. Clearly an allusion to Genesis again.

(40) And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.

The heavenly bodies are clearly a reference to the sun, moon, and stars. This is obvious from verse 41, but even clearer from the fact that Paul has been alluding to Genesis where God created the heavens with all the lights in them.

Body always means physical in Paul.

Verse 10 is clearly speaking of a current condition. How could it not be? And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. Verse 11 states: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. This simply tells us that God, who raised Christ from the dead can also make you mortal bodies alive by means of that spirit. Paul is showing how they can currently possess something similar to resurrection of Christ in the flesh by means of God’s spirit putting sin to death, as pointed out in verse 10. Are they not currently enlivened by the spirit in verse 10? The whole context in the beginning of chapter 8 confirms that they are alive by means of the spirit because of their release form sin. Their mortal bodies, similar to Christ’s resurrected body, is alive by the spirit, not dead due to sin. This same imagery is found elsewhere. Notice: (Ephesians 2:1-7) 2 Furthermore, [it is] YOU [God made alive] though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins, 2 in which YOU at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience. 3 Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, doing the things willed by the flesh and the thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath even as the rest. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, 5 made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness YOU have been saved— 6 and he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, 7 that in the coming systems of things there might be demonstrated the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus. Paul clearly shows that they had received a “raising up”, paralleled after Christ’s resurrection, while still in the flesh by means of their mortal bodies being made alive by means of the spirit. Clearly the reference here to being made alive did not refer to an actual resurrection since they were still alive. This was a current condition and is what Paul was describing in Romans 8:11.

Let’s look at this again.

ZWOPOIEW occurs 11 times in the NT and 10 of them in reference to the resurrection. One can only conclude ZWOPOIEW appears in resurrection contexts. Romans 8:11 is such a one. The first two lines, “but if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead” and “he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead,” clearly refer to the resurrection. This is beyond dispute. That the third line (“will also give life to your mortal bodies”) does as well is proved by the conjunction kai, linking the believers’ “mortal bodies” to Jesus’ resurrection. Having raised Jesus from the dead, Paul says God will “also” make your mortal bodies alive.

Although you expressed some opinion about what you think the verse means, I didn’t see any kind of argument that would have refuted what I presented.

That’s because you didn’t provide an argument. You only listed the NWT’s rendition in favor of your interpretation. It is the context which must determine which translation is more likely. It is here that I stated the context of Romans 8 is of renewal and glorification, which suggests “redemption of our body”, is to be preferred. Paul is not a Gnostic whereby he is trying to escape his body and be released from the material world. Moreover, given Romans 8:11, it is beyond dispute which sense is more likely in Romans 8:23.

You ask again how our bodies can be transformed if they are not raised. I have answered this before. The resurrection is the mechanism of the transformation. In other words, their current mortal bodies would be transformed BY MEANS OF resurrection. The resurrection would change them from dust to spirit.

If Christians are changed from dust to spirit, would this not mean the body itself is changed? Otherwise, what is “dust”? We both agree we are transformed through the resurrection. But in your view I’m still not certain what exactly it is that is transformed.

The body dies and decays. The soul is resurrected and given a new body. That’s how they change, that’s how they transform.

So the soul is raised to life disembodied and then subsequently given a body? That’s not a transformation but a re-creation. On top of that, this view clearly expresses dualism something not taught in the Bible. Humans are wholistic beings. There’s no soul apart from the body.

You didn’t address why he would be called the image of the INVISIBLE God. Why or even HOW could he be called the exact representation of his very being if he were a human.

Jesus is God’s exact representation because God’s divinity dwells within Jesus corporeally, i. e., bodily. (Col 2:9)

Being a man experientially means that within one’s experience of life they lived as that thing. Jesus lived as a man, partook of flesh and blood and was tempted just as we are tempted… This has to be a reference to his “experience” which makes him mentally a man, He remembers perfectly what it to be a man

But then why not just call him “Jesus Christ” and leave out “man”? “Man” would be superfluous; however, even if Jesus were only experientially human, it would still not be proper to call him “man,” for he wouldn’t be one. Note that in his role as mediator, Jesus is said to represent human beings by virtue of the fact that he is one himself. Thus contextually his being called a human being cannot be circumvented by viewing that description as merely “experiential.” Just as Paul speaks of “one God” as a present reality, so the “one mediator” is a present reality, and that mediator is “the man Christ Jesus,” not a former man.

If it doesn’t mean that the church was in heaven then why are they pictured as coming down from heaven after the judgment day in chapter 20?

It must be stated the New Jerusalem has several aspects: it is a “city,” a people, and I would argue, a temple. That the New Jerusalem is a temple is noted by the fact that as a perfect gold cube adorned with precious stones and metals, it recalls the holy of holies. (1 Kings 6) Further, that the people within the New Jerusalem are priests with immediate access to God’s presence points to this conclusion even further. It is not controversial for the Church to be called a temple, even with Jesus as the main stone in Zion. (1 Peter 2:6; Ephesians 2:19-22)

The point being that as a temple, a bride, a people, it comes down from heaven figuratively. God dwells, literally tabernacles (Rev 21:3), with humankind on earth. While God previously tabernacled in his heavenly temple, this has extended to the earth in the New Jerusalem—the new temple of God.

Note, too, that according to Revelation 22:15, either you’re in the New Jerusalem or you’re outside its gates with the dogs, fornicators, murderers, etc. There’s no other hope, no secondary hope, other than to be within the walls of this temple-city. The exclusion of these persons is temple-related: nothing unclean can enter the New Jerusalem.

Jesus Christ is far more than just an angel. He would in fact be the archangel. So, my point is that unless you can find an actual reference that shows angels with crowns, then there is no Biblical precedent for you to claim that the 24 elders are angels based on that. You can claim it you want, but you can’t expect someone to accept it. They should choose to rather go with the Biblical precedent.

I am not claiming the 24 elders are angels based on the fact they have crowns. My point is that their wearing crowns do not preclude them from being angels, which is the argument that you are advocating. I have shown that in the NT angels are depicted as occupying thrones, principalities, and authorities. You seem to not allow for angels whom are worthy enough to occupy thrones in a heavenly government, to wear crowns. Yet, this point is so basic that I feel the need to not even have to argue that thrones imply crowns.

I have further pointed out that if Jesus is an angel, which he is in your view, that this is further evidence for angels wearing crowns. You did not address this and you did not address the fact that angels occupy thrones, you simply dismissed it.

This is the same case as angels with crowns. Nowhere do we find angels referred to as “elders”. Surely Isaiah 24:23 is not referring to elders in heaven since the preceding words refer to Mount Zion and Jerusalem. It is clearly a reference to Jews as every commentary I consulted confirmed.

May want to consult the Word Biblical Commentary on Isaiah 24:23.

When Metzger stated there was no direct object, he was in reference only to the Alexandrine manuscript which did not include US. It’s entirely arbitrary conjecture to say it wasn’t there because the A didn’t have it. The word “us” IS the direct object. The very fact that all the other manuscripts had US and the very fact that it is the very direct object that is stated to be NEEDED, that should tell us that it was the actual original reading. It makes perfect grammatical and syntactical sense. To claim the original text didn’t have a direct object, based upon ONE manuscript, and leaving the sentence syntactically awkward, is clearly a position that can’t be defended without presupposition and conjecture. Why Bruce so strongly defaults to the Alexandrine in this case is a bit of a mystery. Why would one assume that the Alexandrine is the BEST witness for Revelation?

A few comments: according to the principles of textual criticism, the harder reading is to be preferred for two reasons: (1) A scribe is more likely to make a reading smoother and easier than harder and (2) the harder reading best explains the other readings.

There are good reasons why the NA27 and virtually all major reputable bible translations, including the New World Translation, have gone with the reading in A. And, again, it is not only A but Papyrus 115.

Also, whether or not Revelation demonstrates someone speaking in the third person is hardly the issue. It is a literary device that is found elsewhere in the Bible and therefore has precedence. Again, we have the examples of Jesus doing so.

To the contrary. It is very much the issue because you are claiming something that is nowhere present in Revelation, expect for a reading that has been universally rejected.

Also the only way that the 24 elders would be referring to themselves in the third person is by presupposing that the pronoun US was not there and that PERSONS was the actual original rendering. If US was there, which the preponderance of the evidence shows, then they weren’t referring to themselves in the third person, so unless you are thinking of another example, this third person argument would be contingent upon proving that US wasn’t there and PERSONS was, wouldn’t it?

Not exactly. Let me highlight some points from Revelation 5, again:

(8) And when he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense, and the [incense] means the prayers of the holy ones.

The 24 elders have bowls full of the prayers of the holy ones. The holy ones are not present in heaven, only the elders are when John enters heaven. (Rev 4) Thus, they are spoken of as different groups.

(9) And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

As the 24 elders sing to the lamb, they explicitly say Jesus has “bought persons for God.” As defended above, this reading has been adopted by all reputable bible translations for good reasons.

(10) and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”

Here the 24 elders, while still singing, speak of the holy ones in the third person: “them” and “they.”

Since the elders are not Christians, they are most likely angels. Further, since in Revelation 4 John had been taken up to heaven and encountered these elders already there by God’s throne, this shows they are not Christian for the resurrection had not yet taken place.

As I pointed out earlier, in the OT God is pictured as surrounded by a council of divinities. The 24 elders are just these ones.

(Hebrews 9:11-12) 11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].

(Hebrews 9:24) 24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.

(Hebrews 10:19) 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

It is unmistakable that the “holy place” in this context is heaven itself. As we see, the holy ones now have boldness to be able to enter the “holy place”, which is heaven.

Absolutely, but I’m not sure what you are arguing? I assume that your argument is that since Jesus enters into heaven, specifically, the holy place, that the holy ones will therefore enter heaven too?

If this is the case, it must be noted that verse 19 talks about having a present boldness and that Christians now enter the holy place. It is a spiritual condition that gives them access to the Father. The same is true in Hebrews 12:22 where Christians have now approached heavenly Mount Zion.

Question: If Christians, Abraham’s seed, go to heaven, then how can they inherit the world/land alongside Abraham? (Romans 4:13)

I thought I would categorize the different verses and the surrounding arguments so it might be easier to follow for those who are reading along. I hope you realize that the more verses we pull in to support our views the longer this exchange will become. I am afraid we have drifted from our original aim to keep as simple as possible, but then again, with an expansive topic like this, maybe this is actually as simple as it can be. This discussion involves almost every aspect of eschatology, so any hopes of this being simple are obviously lost. But, be that as it may, let’s proceed.

Kingdom verses Kingdom:

Your constant objection and my constant defense to that objection are centered around the meaning of kingdom in any given immediate context. This keeps coming up time and again. You keep insisting that I prove the definition of the word kingdom by means of the immediate context. I keep reminding you that the immediate context in the references that you have given for your point are not conclusive. That’s why we must consider the greater context and intrinsically related points to help us determine which definition of “kingdom” in any of those references is proper.

If, it can be shown beyond any reasonable doubt, and I thoroughly believe that it can be by the time we are done, that the church is in heaven, then naturally, that’s where they will rule from. If that becomes an absolute beyond reasonable doubt, then the references about the kingdom on earth, must refer then to the “realm of its control”.

What we are involved in and what I am trying to establish is that the greater context will reveal beyond any reasonable doubt that the church will rule from heaven, not earth. To constantly use the word “kingdom” as the straightedge for your argument is not conclusive. That’s why we have to go elsewhere to make the determination. Really, the word “kingdom” doesn’t tell us anything about location. It’s entirely about “rulership” which naturally involves the actual government or the realm of that government. In and of itself it tells us nothing about location. Using it as straightedge to determine location is ineffective and inconclusive.

You claim that it is circular to keep switching the definition of kingdom to either the “government” or the “territory”, but IF the greater context will prove where they rule from, that being heaven, THEN it would not be circular to see the “earth” as the territory rather than the “government”. I hope that you can see the point I am making here because it could save time and space in our future exchanges.

Daniel 7:

Once again, we are dealing with ambiguity as to where the actual seat of the kingdom is located. Verse 27 doesn’t do anything for us in an absolute manner for establishing where the kingdom will be. “See the above point as to why “under the heavens” does not have to refer to the location of kingdom, but rather the realm of the kingdom.

As far as the holy ones in Daniel 7 being Jews, I could agree, but since this application shoots far past the first century down to the resurrection of the holy ones there is a qualification that has to be made. We know that GOD’S holy ones, includes not just natural Jews but Gentiles as SPIRITUAL Israel as well, spiritual Jews. In fact the reference to the holy ones in this context does not take place until the “conspicuous horn” arises after the fourth beast, which is Rome. These holy ones then are completely within the time period of the Christian church.

And yes, the natural Jews did think “earthly” about their future acquisition, and they were indeed a holy nation, but that does not necessitate their reference in Daniel 7 since chronologically speaking, it was about the Christian church as holy ones.

As far as Christians receiving the promises, according to the context of Galatians 3, this wasn’t about the land that was promised. As verse 14 tells us it was about the promise of the “spirit through faith”.

“that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Just as Abraham’s seed was received via holy spirit and a promise, concerning Isaac, likewise, Christians receive the holy spirit, for it was the spirit through a promise that gave birth to Isaac, just as it is for spiritual Israel, including Gentiles, they become Abraham’s children via the promise of the spirit.

Acts 1:8 and spiritual understanding:

You claim that because Jesus did not correct them about the location of the kingdom, that he was therefore affirming that they were correct. I have to say that I think such an argument is very weak. He wasn’t under obligation to explain everything at that point. We know their understanding was limited when it came to many things. And besides, the kingdom IS restored to Israel, that being spiritual Israel, New Jerusalem. Jesus would not need to go into the details of how Israel would transcend the physical boundaries of fleshly relationship to Abraham. That perception would come soon enough with the advent of Pentecost and the baptism of the holy spirit.

Two destinies for Christians

The very fact that there are rulers and subjects makes it demonstrably clear that there are two destinies for Christians. Some are rulers and some are not. Now, unless you believe that EVERYONE that gets judged by the HOLY ONES gets JUDGED ADVERSELY, then you have to see that for anyone to get a favorable judgment, they must acknowledge Christ as Philippians 2 tells us. So once again, there would have to be Christians who are not judges? I am not sure why this escapes you.

New Heavens and New Earth

The new heavens and the new earth, since the reference is to physical, material things, they would OF this creation. Are you in some way trying to say that the very earth we are standing on right now, is not of this creation?

2 Cor. 1:5

You acknowledge that prolepsis does not make a distinction between the present and the future. This is exactly my argument. What is said of the house, the building from God, does  not distinguish between now and the future. But this backfires on you. You are the one who is trying to isolate the phrase “in the heavens” as NOT in reference to the future, so whereas you say prolepsis does not distinguish between present and future, YOU are attempting to make a difference between “in the heavens” as only applying to the present hope, not the future. Yet we KNOW, the “not made with hands” and “everlasting” applies without any difference intended between present and future. Why then do you isolate “in the heavens” as ONLY applying to the present?

Acts 3:20-21

The word rendered “until” does not always require the end of a particular condition. It often refers to “continued duration” or CONSTANCY.

Act 2:29   Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto(same word) this day.

Obviously, David continued to remain in the grave.

Often, Luke uses the word to mean “up to and including” what follows. It wasn’t always used as an indication of the end of something. It was simply an indication of a continued duration.

Act 13:6   And when they had gone through the isle unto (same word)  Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name [was] Barjesus:

This was not used to indicate the terminus of something but of continued duration.

Act 20:4   And there accompanied him into (same word) Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.

Notice this reference is rendered as INTO, not UNTIL.

Act 23:1 ¶ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Obviously Paul’s good conscience didn’t end that day. It was an expression of continued duration and of constancy.

Act 26:22   Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto (same word)this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Again, another expression of CONSTANCY, not terminus.

Rom 8:22   For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Another expression of CONSTANCY, not terminus.

I think you likely get the point as to why Acts 3:20,21 would not require Jesus to leave heaven at the restitution of all things.

Acts 1:11

Actually verse 9 shows that his return would be unseen since it states he was caught away from the vision by means of a cloud. That’s why the angel’s question was so appropriate. Why keep looking at the sky as if they would see him coming back?

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

I’m not sure how this passage would help you since it says that the holy ones will meet him in the AIR and then states they will always be with the Lord. That sounds exactly what I have been stating. It is also an indication that this descending is not down to the earth, but is in the air, which could mean he descends to within the vicinity of the earth and receives the holy ones to Himself in the air.

Matthew 25

It is stated that the righteous enter the kingdom prepared for them from the founding of the world. This again is the same problem as before when you use the word kingdom as the interpretative tool. Like I stated, the word kingdom is ambiguous. If the earth is part of the kingdom in the sense of territory, I don’t see why we need to dissect this.

The reason they are not spirits is because they are not entering the government, they are entering the realm of the government. If the government is heavenly, and the subjects are earthly, the distinction becomes clear.

Revelation 5:9,10

When Metzger stated there was no direct object, he was in reference only to the Alexandrine manuscript which did not include US. It’s entirely arbitrary conjecture to say it wasn’t there because the A didn’t have it. The word “us” IS the direct object. The very fact that all the other manuscripts had US and the very fact that it is the very direct object that is stated to be NEEDED, that should tell us that it was the actual original reading. It makes perfect grammatical and syntactical sense. To claim the original text didn’t have a direct object, based upon ONE manuscript, and leaving the sentence syntactically awkward, is clearly a position that can’t be defended without presupposition and conjecture. Why Bruce so strongly defaults to the Alexandrine in this case is a bit of a mystery. Why would one assume that the Alexandrine is the BEST witness for Revelation?

Also, whether or not Revelation demonstrates someone speaking in the third person is hardly the issue. It is a literary device that is found elsewhere in the Bible and therefore has precedence. Again, we have the examples of Jesus doing so.

Also the only way that the 24 elders would be referring to themselves in the third person is by presupposing that the pronoun US was not there and that PERSONS was the actual original rendering. If US was there, which the preponderance of the evidence shows, then they weren’t referring to themselves in the third person, so unless you are thinking of another example, this third person argument would be contingent upon proving that US wasn’t there and PERSONS was, wouldn’t it?

Where do you determine that Revelation 5 is before the resurrection?

Angels with crowns?

Jesus Christ is far more than just an angel. He would in fact be the archangel. So, my point is that unless you can find an actual reference that shows angels with crowns, then there is no Biblical precedent for you to claim that the 24 elders are angels based on that. You can claim it you want, but you can’t expect someone to accept it. They should choose to rather go with the Biblical precedent.

Elders

This is the same case as angels with crowns. Nowhere do we find angels referred to as “elders”. Surely Isaiah 24:23 is not referring to elders in heaven since the preceding words refer to Mount Zion and Jerusalem. It is clearly a reference to Jews as every commentary I consulted confirmed. Therefore, to claim that angels can be referred to as elders has no Biblical precedent. It’s a dangerous road to walk that has no precedent.

1 Cor 15:

You ask what is raised if it is not the body. Jesus answers this question that employs the same imagery at John 12

(John 12:24-25) ²⁴ Most truly I say to YOU, Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains just one [grain]; but if it dies, it then bears much fruit. ²⁵ He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.

It is the soul that dies and is resurrected, which is clearly represented by Christ as the “grain, the seed. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul makes a sharp distinction between the bare grain and the body.

If, as you acknowledge, that we do not SOW the old body, then it can’t be the thing that is resurrected. Paul’s argument specifically states that the old body is not SOWN. He tells us that it is the thing that is SOWN that come s back. If it is not the old body, then it is something else, the bare grain, which he specifically separates from the body. Jesus’ illustration confirms for us that it is the soul that is the “bare grain.

Paul presents this illustration in hopes of answering the objection in verse 35. He hopes via the illustration that they will come to appreciate why asking about the body was unreasonable. He is showing conclusively that the body is not the object of the resurrection. Verse 38 doesn’t damage our position at all, because the SEED is not the body, it is numerically different. Per Jesus, it is the soul. Remember, in regard to Jesus’ resurrection, he said it was his “soul” that would not be left in Hades.

The rest of Paul’s argument completely solidifies that understanding.

As far as the physical reference goes, I demonstrated that Paul went on to explain very clearly what he meant by “physical” because he compares the “physical” to Adam’s creation. Remember, Adam was created as a perfect human, without weakness or dishonor. Paul’s entire point here in this context is one of contrast. Adam’s organism was perfect and God declared it “good”. Paul shows that the “physical” in this context is simply a reference to the body of dust like Adam possessed. It would be inconsistent with the rest of the context to say that the body of dust remains, because we know that when it comes to other things mentioned, corruption, dishonor and weakness, there will not be a vestige of that left for the church. To claim that the word “physical” is not just in reference to the body of dust, would be to miss the very contrast that Paul is making.

Romans 8:11 and related verses

Verse 10 is clearly speaking of a current condition. How could it not be?

And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Verse 11 states: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

This simply tells us that God, who raised Christ from the dead can also make you mortal bodies alive by means of that spirit. Paul is showing how they can currently possess something similar to resurrection of Christ in the flesh by means of God’s spirit putting sin to death, as pointed out in verse 10. Are they not currently enlivened by the spirit in verse 10? The whole context in the beginning of chapter 8 confirms that they are alive by means of the spirit because of their release form sin. Their mortal bodies, similar to Christ’s resurrected body, is alive by the spirit, not dead due to sin.

This same imagery is found elsewhere. Notice:

(Ephesians 2:1-7) 2 Furthermore, [it is] YOU [God made alive] though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins, ² in which YOU at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience. ³ Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, doing the things willed by the flesh and the thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath even as the rest. ⁴ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, ⁵ made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness YOU have been saved— ⁶ and he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, ⁷ that in the coming systems of things there might be demonstrated the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus.

Paul clearly shows that they had received a “raising up”, paralleled after Christ’s resurrection, while still in the flesh by means of their mortal bodies being made alive by means of the spirit. Clearly the reference here to being made alive did not refer to an actual resurrection since they were still alive. This was a current condition and is what Paul was describing in Romans 8:11.

Romans 8:23

Although you expressed some opinion about what you think the verse means, I didn’t see any kind of argument that would have refuted what I presented. You ask again how our bodies can be transformed if they are not raised. I have answered this before. The resurrection is the mechanism of the transformation. In other words, their current mortal bodies would be transformed BY MEANS OF resurrection. The resurrection would change them from dust to spirit.

Remember it was Paul who said that they would all be CHANGED, in the twinkling of an eye. The CHANGING is the same as the transformation. They are CHANGED from dust to spirit. The basic meaning of the English word “transform” is to change into something else. The same is true of the Greek word here used. The idea is to change into something else. Resurrection is what facilitates the change. The body dies and decays. The soul is resurrected and given a new body. That’s how they change, that’s how they transform.

As a confirmation of that, the word used by Paul in verses 51 and 52 in 1 Cor. 15 actually means EXCHANGE.

(1 Corinthians 15:51-52) ⁵¹ Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

John 3

I have no issues with what you are saying about John 3.  I guess I am trying to figure its relevance to your position and if we need to be discussing it.

Jesus a man

Being a man experientially means that within one’s experience of life they lived as that thing. Jesus lived as a man, partook of flesh and blood and was tempted just as we are tempted. By experience, he is indeed a man. I offered a number of scriptural reasons why he could not actually be  man in heaven which you didn’t respond to. You addressed the word “image” only, not the rest. You didn’t address why he would be called the image of the INVISIBLE God. Why or even HOW could he be called the exact representation of his very being if he were a human. How could he survive in the presence of God as a MAN? If he is a MAN, how could even see himself whom not one of MEN can see or has seen? This has to be a reference to his “experience” which makes him mentally a man, He remembers perfectly what it to be a man. Surely you don’t think that he is just a man in heaven. You would have to qualify what it means. We can also be afforded the luxury of qualification here.

1 Cor. 15 simply reminds us that the second man came out of heaven in contrast with Adam who came from the earth. The second man OUT OF heaven would have been a reference to when he was on the earth.

New Jerusalem

If it doesn’t mean that the church was in heaven then why are they pictured as coming down from heaven after the judgment day in chapter 20?

Also, I think there are a couple of other decent points that have been brought up via the comments sections that should be mentioned since appears that we are now adding many other arguments to the mix.

Hebrews 9 and the holy place

(Hebrews 9:11-12) ¹¹ However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, ¹² he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].

(Hebrews 9:24) ²⁴ For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.

(Hebrews 10:19) ¹⁹ Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

It is unmistakable that the “holy place” in this context is heaven itself. As we see, the holy ones now have boldness to be able to enter the “holy place”, which is heaven.

The rulership of Jesus Christ

I have to say I am a bit concerned that you will not answer this question. I have asked more than once if you believe that Christ is now ruling FROM heaven as the Messianic King. Please answer this as it is a very important piece to this discussion.

And also, as was mentioned in the comments, if you believe that Christ is King now of God’s kingdom, he is clearly ruling over the earth as part of his realm. Plus, if he comes back to the earth, will he still not continue to have that kingly authority in heaven? If so, what then does locality have to do with anything as far as ability to rule over something?

Thanks again and take care,

Rotherham

Hello, Rotherham:

As I have stated often times, the word “kingdom” is ambiguous due to the fact that it can refer both to territory or the government itself. I fully acknowledge that it MIGHT mean government here, but I think we are spinning our wheels here with this prophecy when it comes to proof of WHERE the holy ones will rule from. Since we both acknowledge that Daniel 2 is inconclusive in this area, I think we can dispense with a lot of the discussion surrounding it. IN regards to Daniel 7, you once again appeal to the “under the heavens” comment. I addressed this thoroughly in an earlier post but you did not comment on what I said, so I will here repeat it. What the verse says, verse 27, is this:

“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”

It would once again be conjecture to say that this is describing where the holy ones would rule from. Simply because the “greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens” is GIVEN to the holy ones, this in no way has to be a description of where the holy ones rule from. This could clearly be a reference to what is under their domain, a reference to their realm of rulership.

Unfortunately, this response is once again plagued with the same assumptions. Yes, kingdom refers to either the local territory or the seat of the government. This is not in dispute. What I dispute is the seeming subjectivity by which it is determined or not determined if this or that verse means territory or seat. Further, even if it meant “seat” to the exclusion of territory (which, by the way, has not been proven), this still does not place the seat in heaven or even the territory out of heaven.

In every single one of your posts in relation to the kingdom, there has been an assumed definition from which it is argued and counter-argued, yet without providing a basis for this definition. At this point I am afraid it has become circular. You acknowledge that the greater context determines what it means, but have not shown how it supports the definition presented. This has been the case with Daniel 2, 7, Matthew 8, 25, and 1 Corinthians 15. The meaning of “kingdom” can no longer simply be picked and chosen based on theology, but a real hermeneutic/methodology must be presented. Until then, there is no reason to believe kingdom means different things to different people with different bodies in different locations.

Verse 13, in order for the Son of Man to be brought up near to God, is highly indicative of heaven. Nothing from that point forward would require a change of venue in the words of that prophecy.

Verse 13 is part of the apocalyptic vision. The interpretation of this earthly kingdom is given from verse 15 onward.

I’ve not stated that the Jews expected to go to heaven. Their hopes were clearly earthbound. Going to heaven, from our understanding, became a hope for the “holy ones” who were called out for a special purpose, the ecclesia, to be kings, priests and judges. It is our understanding that the promises made to the Jews about their homeland, in a literal sense, can come true in the resurrection.

If Daniel 2 or 7 refers to heaven, then you have indeed inadvertently indicated Jews go to heaven, for the “holy ones” are historically and contextually Jews.

In fact, that the “holy ones” are Jews and we know Jews expected to inherit the land promised to Abraham, only further confirms that the kingdom in Daniel is terrestrial. As you have acknowledged, the Jews’ hope has always been earth bound because of the Abrahamic land covenant. Christians, too, have this hope for as Abraham’s “seed” they inherit the promises. (Galatians 3:29)

I don’t think at this point Jesus would have been under obligation to list all the things they did not understand about the kingdom, location or otherwise. The Apostle mentions that in his time, the “holy ones” still saw things in a fuzzy outline, like a hazy mirror, but would eventually see them clearly.

Of course. But you are assuming what Jesus did not indicate. You are assuming that Jesus’ students were wrong, when their teacher nowhere indicated as such. Jesus only corrected their view of the timing of the kingdom, not the location. It also seems that you are taking “kingdom” here to refer to “heaven-kingdom,” without even arguing for this definition. This is what I’m referring to—assumed definitions of the kingdom.

Right, but the only difference in our view is WHERE the holy ones are located. Don’t you see that the fact that there are both RULERS and SUBJECTS, that there are clearly two different assignments for Christians? Don’t you see then that there is a ruling class and not every believer will be in it? Don’t you believe that those SUBJECTS will be Christian as well? How could they not be? How could some of those SUBJECTS receive everlasting life without being Christian?

Our differences are vastly greater than location. Too much to explain now, but I’m sure it’ll become manifest.

Yes there are rulers and subjects but I fail to see where any Christian is placed in subjection to another “sort” of Christian. In fact, I’m not even sure there has been an argument presented in favor of two classes of Christians? It seems you have here assumed there were, along with an assumed definition of the kingdom to compliment it.

Well, I read the verses and I do not find the phrase “not made with hands” or “not of this creation” in relation to the new earth. Where are you getting this?

If I can be any clearer I have to ask this question: do you believe the “new heavens and new earth” are of this creation and made with hands?

No, you’ve misunderstood what I said somewhere along the line. Yes, the body that they potentially posses is “not made with hands”. Yes it is “eternal”. And yes, it is in “in the heavens? But I believe there is something that you are overlooking. If this is all proleptic as you say, then the phrase “not made with hands” not only describes what the body is now propleptically but ALSO what it will be in the FUTURE. The same is true of the word “eternal”. It would be describing what the body is propleptically but ALSO what it will be in the FUTURE. To say then that “in the heavens” only applies propleptically is out of harmony with how the other two phrases are applied. In other words, there is no precedent to see “in the heavens” any other way than both propleptically and also FUTURE, just like the other two phrases.

A prolepsis really doesn’t make a distinction between present and future the way you have done here. By definition, it is a thing or event which is in reality future, but which is spoken of as existing in the present. The proleptic aspect of Paul’s statement is when he says “we have a building from God.” We have it now, proleptically. It is now in heaven. When we obtain this body in reality, it will no longer be in heaven and nothing in 2 Corinthians 5 indicates that when the body is obtained it will be in heaven, for as you have conceded, eternal describes the body not “in the heavens.”

Further implicit in this discussion is the assumed belief that Jesus will forever remain in heaven. This is not the case. Acts 3:20-21 very plainly states Jesus is only in heaven “until” the restoration of all things. If he is only in heaven “until” a specific point in time, then there is no need to go to heaven to obtain a body. Acts 1:11, too, refers to his physical coming back to earth. Moreover, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 makes clear that Jesus himself descends from heaven, and then the dead are raised first while those alive are “changed” at the same time. The point being that the change occurs at the resurrection which takes place on earth, meaning also that the body is given them on earth.

Well, without getting into the details of the prophecy, which I am sure would be another lengthy exchange, suffice it say that once again, we have to pay attention to the greater context to determine how the word “kingdom” is here used. It’s really the same issue as before. If the greater context demands a different understanding, then that is what we would go with. If you wish to dissect this prophecy then please let me know, I am beginning to worry though about the lengths of our posts and how effective they will be for those looking on. People are generally discouraged when looking at long posts and often lose interest. But I will leave that option to you if you wish to pursue what this prophecy is telling us. Let me say this though, although I see this prophecy as applicable to our position, I do not think that it is what I would call an absolute application, based solely upon the constituents of the prophecy itself. In other words, it works for our view, but it I don’t see it as incontrovertible.

Yes, I would like to get into how it is you came to the conclusion that “sheep” are subjects of the kingdom and not future rulers in Matthew 25. Why too don’t they have spiritual bodies since they are in the kingdom of the heavens?

It seems to me that the above is a little messed up. Let me try and explain further. It is only the Alexandrine that omits HEMAS=US in the text. All of the other manuscripts include it. Bruce claims it was insertion, but that is conjecture since the manuscript evidence would indicate that it was the original. Therefore, “hemas” would serve AS the needed direct object; otherwise, the verb has none. Without a direct object, the syntax is awkward and unlikely.What Bruce was mainly arguing for was the inclusion of “TO GOD” in verse 9, not the exclusion of HEMAS. τῷ θεῷ, which is TO GOD, is not the issue. The issue is the inclusion of HEMAS, which every manuscript, except one, includes in verse 9. I find it highly inordinate to claim then that it is universally rejected. I can find numerous translations that read with US in the text. The preponderance of the manuscript evidence is clearly in favor of US being in the text

It is true “us” is supported by more manuscripts, but manuscript count does not translate to original reading, otherwise we’d all be reading from the Byzantine text. Metzger actually provided a power argument. His point was that since there is no direct object, this resulted in other readings supplying it one, hence the appearance of “us.” Moreover, it is not only A which does not allow for “us” but it is also P115, the manuscript with an early text of Revelation from the 200s. The footnote from the NET bible is here relevant:

27tc The Greek text as it stands above (i.e., the reading τῷ θεῷ [tw qew] alone) is found in codex A. א 2050 2344 Ï sy add the term “us” (ἡμᾶς, Jhmas), either before or after τῷ θεῷ, as an attempt to clarify the object of “purchased” (ἠγόρασας, hgorasa”). A few mss (1 vgms) delete the reference to God altogether and simply replace it with “us” (ἡμᾶς). This too is an attempt to remove ambiguity in the phrase and provide an object for “purchased.” The shorter reading, supported by the best witness for Revelation, best accounts for the other readings.

A as the best witness to the text of Revelation is to be preferred, as it not only provides the best witness but it accounts for the other readings.

This isn’t uncommon, even Jesus Christ spoke of himself in the same manner.

It is uncommon in Revelation. Appealing to Jesus as speaking in the third person is not evidence for the genre is not only different but not relevant for what is done or said in Revelation. As has been stated, the 24 elders are spoken of as distinct from the 144000 in Revelation 5:8-10. This is because they are not the same. The 24 elders throughout revelation are never shown to have come from the earth as are the 144000 and the great multitude. In Revelation 11:16-18 the 24 elders are shown to be separate from the Christian ‘holy ones’ (note verse 18) as they are in Revelation 5.

It should be noted that Revelation 5 is before the resurrection. So the elders must be ones in heaven prior to the resurrection, i. e., ruling out Christians.

What I am referring to here is Biblical PRECECDENT, which should be our INTERPRETATIONAL guide. I should probably tell you that I will always default to the Biblical precedent, as I think any Christian should. Otherwise, are we not relying on our OWN interpretation? It is not a matter of whether YOU think that angels could wear crowns; it is a matter of whether or not GOD’s WORD ever refers to angels as wearing crowns. Since the scriptures NEVER have angels wearing crowns, which represent KINGSHIP, then you are without any scriptural precedent to state that the 24 elders are angels in relation to those crowns.

Angels are explicitly said to occupy thrones, lordships, and governments in heaven. Why would a throne not imply a crown? This is basic. Further, it is your belief that Jesus is an angel and he wears a crown. So here’s an angel with a crown. Regardless, it is an argument from silence to say that since the bible doesn’t explicitly state angels wear crowns therefore it is impossible.

You also did not address the point that angels are NEVER referred to as presbyteros. This is only a word that is applied to those who were human who had authority. So again, you would be without Biblical precedent to claim otherwise.

The bible teaches there is a council of divinities around God in this throne-room. The 24 elders are such ones. As for angels never being called “elders,” this may not be the case. Isaiah 24:23, in a heavenly setting, speaks of their being “elders” in heaven. That heaven is in view is clear from verse 21. Admittingly, Isaiah is not conclusive, though certainly suggestive.Nonetheless, you must remain open to the possibility and as I have argued, its likelihood.

Probably one of the most important points in all of this is the fact that Paul specifically tells us 1 Cor. 15, that the body is NOT the object of resurrection.

If the body is not raised what is?

Verse 15:37: “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.”

How much plainer could it be that the SEED and the BODY are TWO NUMERICALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. Paul clearly establishes here that the thing which is sown is something other than the body which arises. Now, if the body is not SOWN, then according to verse 36, it is NOT THE THING coming BACK to life. Paul clearly establishes here that something OTHER THAN THE BODY that arises is what was sown. Since the thing that dies must be that which rises (according to verse 36) this unmistakably tells us that something other than the BODY is DYING in order to COME TO LIFE AGAIN. But whatever it is that comes to life AGAIN, it can’t be the body–not according to Paul in this analogy.This is an extremely important point to remember because at the very outset of this passage those who promote the resurrection of the fleshly body are met with an immediate and explicit contradiction to their teaching. Since they teach that the body that arises is that body which died, it stands in direct contrast to what Paul here tells us. Paul explicitly states that the thing sown is not that body which arises. In other words, the body that arises at the resurrection is NOT that which was sown.

Yes, the body which we sow is not the body that will be. We do not sow the resurrection body, we sow the present body.

Verse 15:38: “God gives it a body as he has determined. And to each kind of seed he gives its own body.”

Further confirming that the body which arises in the resurrection is not the thing that was sown, Paul tells us that the thing that was sown and comes to life is GIVEN a body. This solidifies the point that the ‘body’ was not that which was sown, for if the body is that which was sown and that body is coming back to life and is arising, there is no need to give THAT body a BODY. It would BE the body. They would in effect have two bodies. Rather, he is telling us that the bare grain, the SEED, which he already established was NOT the BODY that arises, is GIVEN a body.

I think verse 38 is extremely damaging to the view you are here articulating. Consider the verse: God gives each seed a body according to their kind. The NWT rightful adds Genesis 1:12 as a cross-reference for Paul alludes to it. There, the vegetation bears seed according to its kind. In other words, an apple seed only yields apples; orange seeds, oranges and so on. This means that the human “seed,” our body, can only yield another human body. Humans are given bodies according to their kind. “Spirit bodies” are not our kind.

If Paul was really trying to say that Christians would become spirits, angels in essence, why didn’t he just mention them outright? Why not compare angels to humans?

Romans 8:11—This isn’t a reference to resurrection. It is a reference to the fact that God’s spirit makes us alive by providing a means to be released from sin and death. This is amply clear when you read the verses before in that chapter:

This was not speaking of future condition, but was speaking of what Christians currently posses by means of the spirit.

Romans 8 cannot refer to what you have here offered because Jesus is included when it states that the spirit will ALSO make your mortal bodies alive. The antecedent must grammatically include Jesus. Since he was without sin, there was no need for him to be released from it. Moreover, the ‘making alive’ is future, not past or present—so our mortal bodies have not yet been “made alive” with the life from the age to come. So I’m a bit confused how it is you can say this is not a future condition, when Romans 8:11 is explicitly future.

So what does it mean for Jesus’ “mortal body” and believers’ “mortal bodies” to be “made alive”? The Greek word for “will make alive” is ZWOPOIEW and is often found in the NT in relation to the resurrection and always refers to the resurrection when applied to “bodies.”

John 5:21- For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to.

1 Corinthians 15:22, 36, 45- For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive…You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies;… It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

I have listed but 4 occurrences. In all there are 11. I’ll leave those for your own leisure, but the data demands that ZWOPOIEW refer to the resurrection. Thus, we have in Paul an explicit reference to Jesus’ “mortal body” being made alive.

Romans 8:23—NWT– (Romans 8:23) 23 Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.

This of course, presents a completely different idea than the one you are in reference to and is easily warranted by the Greek. The word rendered “redemption” is actually closer to “release by ransom” so there is nothing here that indicates a salvation of the old body.

I do not dispute the NWT’s rendition for it is surely legitimate. However, equally legitimate is the more common “redemption of our bodies.” If the NWT’s rendition be correct, it would simply mean that the release would be from the present corruption of our body, but more specifically from the “pain” mentioned in verse 22. Yet, through context “redemption of our bodies” is to be preferred over the NWT’s rendering because Paul has been discussing the redeeming of creation, the adoption as sons of God, and so on. The context is of renewal not of putting off something to escape the physical world.

And as already noted, our “mortal bodies” will be made alive and ‘redeemed.’ Please note that Paul elsewhere talks about the redemption of our body. In Philippians 3:21 he states that our current, lowly body will be transformed into a glorious one. It is this body that will be transformed. How can our lowly body be transformed if it is not raised?

I’ve already explained John 3 in regard to the TOKEN of the spirit that was given as a reproductive seed leading to full birth upon their resurrection.

Earlier you had cited 1 Peter 1:3 in relation to this very point. But the new birth is something that happens now; note the present tense. John 3:6 has nothing to do with becoming a spirit by nature. It is best to view John 3:6’s “what is born of spirit is spirit” alongside John 1:12-13,

However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name; and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.

Believers “born of spirit,” that is, “from God,” become God’s children in the new birth and hence are able to see the Kingdom. While the Kingdom is future, the new birth is present.

The references to Jesus being a man after his resurrection are due to the fact that he is “experientially” a man, not that he currently exists as one. The descriptions of Jesus in heaven would deny any such idea that he is still a man. You can’t say that he is just a man by the very fact that he lives in heaven and by the very fact that he is sees God constantly. No man can see God and yet live.  It says that he dwells in unapproachable light which no MAN can see or has seen and is the image of the INVISIBLE God. Hebrews goes so far a to say: (Hebrews 1:3) 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being,. . .How could he be the image of the INVISIBLE God, the exact representation of his very being if he is a human? You have to believe that he is certainly far more than a man, so would have to qualify what it means when it says he is a man.

What does it mean to be “experientially a man” and where does the bible define such a concept? Jesus is indeed the image of the invisible God, but so was Adam. In fact, that is Paul’s point. He is contrasting Jesus to Adam. In order for this contrast to work, there needs to be a human to human contrast not a human to an experientially human, one.

I am confident that you will say that when it comes to the corruption, weakness and dishonour, those things will be completely swallowed up by means of resurrection. Therefore, if we want to follow the Biblical precedent that is here established, then that which is physical is swallowed up and GONE by means of the resurrection. Just like there will be no vestige of corruption, weakness or dishonor, there will be no vestige of “physical” left. And then Paul goes on to clearly explain by what he means when he says “physical”. He is simply speaking of being made from the earth and out of DUST, which Adam was made of. And remember, Adam was made PERFECT, so the physical here is not in reference to sinful, fallen flesh. It is in reference to the physical body made of dust, nothing more.

I understand your point, but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding. Physicality does not equal weakness, corruption, and so on. What Paul describes as “soulical” is presently weak, corrupt, etc. But through the resurrection these characteristics will be gone. This does not mean that our physicality will be gone but instead that those malfunctions will be.

And of course, let’s not forget the point that Revelation shows the church coming down out of heaven to be with mankind. The question remains; How do they come down out of heaven if they were never there?

Since the giant golden cube, the New Jerusalem, is not literally a city but the bride, that is, the Church–human beings, this need not be taken literally. Otherwise, in your view, you would have spirit persons coming down from heaven to dwell on earth. This doesn’t sound like a partite kingdom, and moreover, this doesn’t sound like the New Jerusalem is in heaven, since it descended.