Exegetical Eschatology: The Unexpected "First Going"

In "The Coming(s) of the Son of Man" and "Parousia and the Definite Article" we identified some of the presuppositions we tend to read into the texts which speak of Christ's "coming." We discovered that there are several "comings" of Jesus, and that the Greek word for "coming" does not demand a single coming.

Related to assumptions made concerning Christ's "second coming," there is another assumption often made when we read mention of His "coming" prior to His death, namely that they expected a "first going" to begin with! After all, if prior to the crucifixion the disciples didn't really understand that He was going to "go" in the first place, then when they spoke of His "coming" it could not have been His final return at the end of time that they had in mind.

As we will see, not only does this assumption lack any warrant as was the case with the previous assumptions we've examined, but it goes contrary to the biblical evidence which strongly suggests they had no idea Jesus was going anywhere.

In the Beginning: Evening and Morning—Days Not Ages

Christians' beliefs concerning the age of the universe typically fall somewhere under one of two broad categories. One view, popularly called "Old-Earth Creationism"—hereafter abbreviated OEC—holds that the universe is approximately as old as the majority of scientists in the modern era insist it is, billions of years in age. This view, by and large, is the result of interpreting the biblical data in such a way as to be consistent with modern scientific interpretations of natural evidence. The alternate view, popularly called "Young-Earth Creationism"—hereafter abbreviated YEC—is that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. In contrast with the former view, proponents of YEC generally interpret the natural evidence in such a way as to be consistent with a seemingly straightforward interpretation of the biblical data.

It is important to keep a couple of things in mind when entering into a discussion or study of this issue. First, proponents of both broader categories listed above vary widely within those categories when it comes to their beliefs concerning the particulars. For example, some OECs believe in evolution whereas others do not, and YECs differ in how they explain the natural evidence, such as distant starlight suggesting the universe is very old. As such, one cannot assume much about what any given adherent to one of these views believes beyond the age of the universe. Second, despite rhetoric to the contrary coming from both sides, adherents to both views often take both Scripture and science very seriously. It is not as though one views the Bible as authoritative and the other views science as authoritative. Instead, both groups highly value both God's special revelation and His natural revelation.

With this introduction out of the way, I wish to begin this series in earnest by arguing against one particular view held by many OECs.

WHERE DO YOU FIND THE TIME?

When we want to know how someone with a hectic schedule manages to squeeze in time for certain activities, we'll often ask, "Where do you find the time?" This is, in essence, one of the first questions I'm interested in answering when examining any particular OEC position: Where in the opening chapters of the Bible (or thereafter) does one see the alleged millions of years of cosmic history fitting in?

There are two main camps into which most OEC proponents I've met can be grouped. One of the two positions is that the seven "days" of creation in the first chapter of Genesis are not 24-hour periods of time, but rather long "ages" or "epochs" of determinate but indeterminable time, perhaps spanning millions of years each. The Genesis creation "week," then, actually comprised of millions upon millions of years, is where one often sees the bulk of the universe's history. I'll address the other view in the future, but I'd like to first spend several posts arguing against this position.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

I have a few objections to this understanding of the so-called "days of creation." Today we'll look at the first of my objections. The Hebrew word rendered "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, where we read "the first day," "the second day" and so forth, is the word יוֹם (yom). It has various meanings throughout Scripture, including the idea of a long period of time. Proponents of OEC claim that since yom can carry this meaning, it is valid to understand it this way here in "the first day" and so on. However, it is the word's context that determines its meaning.

This article correctly points out that there are many different ways in which yom is used throughout Scripture, and that even in the text in question it is used in a few different ways. However, when one looks at the ways in which the word is used, one sees that the context determines its proper translation. For example, in Genesis 4:3 we’re told Cain’s offering of fruit came after the “process of time [yom],” something we know man hasn’t the ability to do in 24 hours. In Isaiah 30:8 we’re told God’s words were to be inscribed on a scroll to serve “as a witness forever,” thereby defining the “time [yom] to come.” Similarly, we’re given the context with the days of creation as well: evening and morning. The explicit inclusion of evening and morning I think clearly defines the period of time represented by the word yom in each case: 24 hours.

EVENING AND MORNING

The article attempts to refute this argument, but does so very poorly. It claims that evening and morning require “a sunrise and sunset,” and since “the Sun was not created until Day Four…they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.” This is incredibly silly. Isn’t it in Alaska, among other places, where there are periods of days and days when the sun never sets, and other periods of days and days when the sun never rises? The author(s) of this article would seem to suggest that during these periods of times, these places in Alaska do not have evenings and mornings. This is ludicrous! Of course evenings and mornings exist whether the sun appears to set and rise or not. The article’s subsequent claim, then, falls utterly flat when it says, “The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise [sic] and sunsets.” Total nonsense.

It goes on to claim that “Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6.” Oh really? First of all, 3 isolated verses in the poetic writings of the psalms constitutes a “pattern” set for us to interpret Genesis 1 in this way? That is ridiculous in and of itself, but I don’t think these verses make the case the author(s) intend to make anyway. They do use the picture of a 24-hour day, comprised of evening and morning, to symbolically represent a longer period of time. However, in each case evening and morning still mean a half of a 24-hour day, and the context tells us what evening and morning symbolize within that symbolic day. In the first passage, the weeping in an evening explicitly symbolizes God’s momentary anger, and the shout of joy in the morning God’s lasting favor. In the second passage, morning doesn't symbolize a period of time at all but an instant in time, so it's irrelevant. And in the third passage, the brief watch in the evening explicitly symbolizes the brevity of a thousand years to the Lord. The point is, whenever evening and morning symbolize larger periods of time, the fact that they are being used as symbols is made explicit in the text. In the days of Genesis, however, there is no such indication whatsoever.

Quite the contrary, there appears to be utterly no contextual purpose of including evening and morning apart from defining the length of the yom! Think about it—as we've seen, in other passages there are expressed purposes behind using evening and morning symbolically, explicit realities symbolized by those pictures. In the days of Genesis, on the other hand, there is nothing described which evening and morning are intended to symbolize. There is nothing about an evening or morning depicted as being analogous to the first and second halves of the creative period. Try reading those verses without "the first day" or "day one" or whatever at the end. "And there was evening and there was morning," and don't mention the day. It becomes totally disconnected from anything else in the text. Its presence becomes utterly jarring and meaningless. Only when "the first day" or whatever is included does evening and morning have any relevance in the text. Thus, its presence pretty clearly is intended to define a "day."

AN EXCEPTION IN DANIEL?

I recently happened upon one objection to my "evening and morning" argument which at first blush seemed to have some validity. This article makes the following claim:

"Evening and morning" is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase "evening and morning" can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the "evening and morning" phrase in just such a way. In Daniel 8 we read the account of Daniel's ram and goat vision and the interpretation given by Gabriel. The vision covers many years; some commentators believe the time has not yet been completed. Daniel 8:26 says, "The vision of the evenings and the mornings that have been given to you is true, but seal up the vision for it concerns the distant future" (RSV). In Hebrew manuscripts, "the evenings and mornings," is not in the plural but in the singular, identical to the expression we find in Genesis 1. Translated literally, the verse would red, "And the vision of the evening and the morning that has been given you" Here we have a clear indication from scriptural usage that this phrase does not demand a 24-hour-day interpretation and can refer to an indefinite epoch.

It is true that in verse 26 the words ערב ('ereb, "evening") and בקר (boqer, "morning") are in the singular, rather than in the plural. However, what is not mentioned in this article is that the same words are used in their singular forms shortly before this verse but are explicitly numbered! Verse 14 reads, "He said to me, 'For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.'" In this verse, 'ereb and 'boqer again appear in the singular, and yet are numbered in the thousands. Clearly, despite the author's use of the singular, the plural is intended, and as such every major translation renders it accordingly.

So when we come to verse 26, then, how are we to understand 'ereb and boqer when used in the singular? The author already used the singular forms of these words to refer to many evenings and mornings, so the only valid understanding of their use here is likewise. Besides, as we've seen, evenings and mornings are only used symbolically elsewhere in Scripture when explicitly said to symbolize something, which they are not here. Therefore, the NIV, NASB, Amplified, NLT, ESV, CEV and NKJV versions are all justified in rendering verse 26, "evenings and mornings." The author clearly has in mind the same 2,300 evenings and mornings referred to earlier. As the NLT renders it, "This vision about the 2,300 evenings and mornings is true."

Daniel's use of evenings and mornings is clearly intended to communicate a length of time in number of days. The KJV renders verse 14, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days" (and the NKJV renders it similarly). Therefore, far from lending support to the particular OEC position which views the evenings and mornings of creation as long periods of time, this passage in Daniel actually undermines it. Just as evening and morning are used in Genesis 1 to specify the length of time comprising each "day," so, too, are they used in this fashion by Daniel.

O LORD What is Man? Absent from the Body (It's Not What You Think)

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote that "while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord" and that we "prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). Most assume this is a reference to the "intermediate state" in which, upon dying, the disembodied spirits of saints go to be with God in heaven, awaiting the resurrection. John Gill, for example, explained it this way:

The interval between death, and the resurrection, is a state of absence from the body, during which time the soul is disembodied, and exists in a separate state; not in a state of inactivity and sleep, for that would not be desirable, but of happiness and glory, enjoying the presence of God, and praising of him, believing and waiting for the resurrection of the body, when both will be united together again; and after that there will be no more absence, neither from the body, nor from the Lord. (Gill, John. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:8". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible")

On the surface, the text does seem to suggest something along these lines. Upon digging more deeply, however, I have concluded that this is not the case, and that Paul is instead speaking of the resurrection itself. I'll explain why shortly, but first some background into what prompted me to write this.

THE VIEW FROM THE FENCE

A month or so ago, in "The View from the Fence," I blogged that I had recently shifted, from being firmly in the camp of the traditional Christian view that humans are comprised of both body and "spirit" or "soul," to precariously perched atop the fence between that view and an extreme minority view within the Church. That view, called "physicalism" (among a couple of other labels), holds that man has no soul separate from his body which resides with God in heaven after death. Instead, when the body dies, the man ceases to exist until the resurrection.

I remain on the fence, yet unconvinced of physicalism. However, I recently left my friend, Dee Dee Warren, host of The Preterist Podcast and owner of The Preterist Blog, with the impression that I had become convinced. She is currently reading (among other things) Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant, in which the author addresses physicalism and attempts to refute it. She posted an excerpt in which the author attempts to refute the physicalist's opinion that when Paul says we "prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 5, he is not speaking of being disembodied in heaven, awaiting the resurrection, but is instead speaking of being absent from this body, present in our resurrection body.

Dee Dee had posted this excerpt at my request. I had spoken with her on the phone not long before, expressing my discomfort at the prospect of accepting a view held by a tiny minority of the Church for nearly 2,000 years, asking her for resources that might support the traditional view. Unfortunately, after reading the author's argument, I was left dissatisifed and unconvinced, and I jumped at the opportunity to explain why. I jumped so quickly, in fact, that it led Dee Dee to respond as follows:

You are coming across as already having your mind made up...I am concerned that you don’t have a healthly enough dose of supsicion with the zeal with which you attacked his statements. That took me a bit aback quite honestly. A very short period of time elapsed between my post and your response, and you were on it like a piranha on a corndog.

I love the analogy, incidentally. I explained in turn that no, I honestly have not made my mind up about physicalism, but that I am convinced that this particular passage in 2 Corinthians 5 is irrelevant. That it doesn't speak of the so-called "intermediate state" in which we reside in heaven, disembodied, awaiting the resurrection. The traditional view may, in fact, be correct, but I think its historically misinterpreted this passage.

Excuse the lengthy introduction and allow me to explain why.

ABSENT FROM THE BODY

Here is the passage in question:

6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord--7 for we walk by faith, not by sight--8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8, emphasis mine)

Now, on the surface, these verses do seem to suggest that we are courageous in the face of death, knowing that at death our spirits reside with the Lord in heaven, "absent from the body." A couple of other interesting statements in this chapter seem to lend support to this interpretation. In verse 3 Paul says that upon being given our resurrection bodies, we "will not be found naked." In verse 4 he says we "do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life." Why, the traditionalist might ask, does Paul use imagery like this if we can't, in fact, be "naked" and "unclothed?"

I'll come back to that question later. First, however, we need to take a closer, more careful look at this passage, extending further back into the previous chapter.

AFFLICTED IN EVERY WAY -- 4:8-13

About halfway into chapter 4, Paul begins to speak of preaching the gospel with courage in the face of death. He writes,

8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you. 13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE," we also believe, therefore we also speak (2 Corinthians 4:8-13, emphasis mine)

Paul and the Apostles faced immense persecution and even impending death for the gospel they preached. In what does Paul say they were "always carrying about...the dying of Jesus?" ἐν τῷ σώματι, or "in the body." And in case "in the body" isn't clear enough, he goes on to define it as "in our mortal flesh." This will become important when we get to the passage in question.

HE WILL RAISE US ALSO WITH JESUS -- 4:14

But why, one might ask, does Paul want to live out the death of Jesus in his body? What faith does Paul have that leads him to face death at every turn in order to advance the gospel? He tells us in verse 14:

14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you (2 Corinthians 4:14, emphasis mine)

Paul exhibited courage in the face of death because he knew that just as Jesus rose from the grave, so too would he rise from the dead. What was Paul's faith and hope in the face of affliction? The resurrection body. This is the context of Paul's curious words later in his letter.

OUR INNER MAN IS BEING RENEWED -- 4:15-16

At this point, Paul speaks of something very interesting, saying,

15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. (2 Corinthians 4:15-16, emphasis mine)

What is our "inner man?" If in the next chapter Paul likens the body unto a house (which he does), and if the decaying body is here called our "outer man," doesn't it stand to reason that our "inner man" is our soul, inhabiting the body? No, I don't think that's a warranted assumption.
 
The Greek word "inner" here is ἔσωθεν (esothen) and is never connected with a soul inhabiting the body. Rather, it is used metaphorically to speak of a man's true, inward motives, desires, nature or condition. Consider how this word is used elsewhere:
 

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly [ἔσωθεν] are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
 
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside [ἔσωθεν] they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. (Matthew 23:25; see also Luke 11:39-40)
 
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside [ἔσωθεν] they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27)
 
So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly [ἔσωθεν] you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:28)
 
21 For from within [ἔσωθεν], out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within [ἔσωθεν] and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

While the "inner man" might be a reference to one's soul, there's no justification for reading that into the text. These uses of the word ἔσωθεν make it clear that all that's intended by the word is a reference to one's inward desires and thoughts. False prophets aren't inhabited by the spirits of hungry wolves. Rather, their thoughts and motives inwardly are contrary to their outer appearances. The hypocritical Pharisees appeared to be pure on the outside, but were in fact unclean in their heart, in their inner desires.

Consider a similar Greek phrase rendered "inner man" which uses the word ἔσω (eso) and which appears in a couple of other places:

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner [ἔσω] man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:21-23, emphasis mine)

14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father...16 that He would grant you...to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner [ἔσω] man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:14-19)

We see again no suggested reference to a man's soul. There is no warrant for reading that into the text here. The "inner man" is where a born again follower of Christ's love for God and for others originates, yes. But there is no hint of an ethereal soul here. Instead, he equates the "inner man" with the "heart" to the Ephesians, and with the "mind" to the Romans. He speaks of the "inner man" being empowered in order that Christ would dwell in our hearts through faith. He also describes the result of being empowered by the Holy Spirit in the "inner man" as being able to "comprehend" and "know" the love of Christ.

This is important, because while some would attribute desire and godliness (or lack thereof) to one's spirit/soul, these passages seem to connect the "inner man" more with comprehension and understanding. Notice that to the Romans Paul likens his "inner man" to his "mind." He uses the same Greek word as is found later in his letter where he urges the Romans to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). And the word "renewing" here is the same Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 4:16 (the passage we're examining) where Paul writes that "our inner man is being renewed day by day."

The link, then, does not appear to be between the "inner man" and one's soul. Instead, the link appears to be between the "inner man" and one's mind. The Greek word for mind is νοῦς (nous), and it refers to one's intellectual faculty for perceiving, for understanding, for judging, for determining, for reasoning, for considering. After His resurrection, He appeared to the disciples and "opened their minds [νοῦς] to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45). The word is believed to be the root of the Greek word γινώσκω (ginosko) which means "to learn" or "to come to know." One's "mind" doesn't just feel, it understands, it judges, it discerns.

Coming back to these verses in 2 Corinthians 4, here's the point. Paul's contrast does not appear to be between one's body and one's spirit, but between one's body and one's knowledge, one's understanding, one's faith. The body is decaying away, but we are being "transformed by the renewing of our mind," growing in our knowledge of and trust in Christ. While some attribute these faculties to the soul, there's no justification for doing so.

A HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS -- 4:17-5:1

Paul goes on, saying,

17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (2 Corinthians 4:17-5:1)

Now, I've included the first verse of chapter 5 with the end of chapter 4. After all, in the original there were no chapters, just one continuous letter. Paul says that in the midst of affliction, our mind is being renewed day after day as we focus our attention on the eternal and not the temporary. He goes on to give an example of this contrast which gives us hope in the midst of suffering: the resurrection.

Remember that back in verse 14 of chapter 4, Paul says that knowledge of his future resurrection encourages him to suffer for Jesus. After explaining that our minds are being renewed in the midst of affliction by looking toward the eternal rather than the temporary, chapter 5 begins with Paul returning to the resurrection. That which is visible and temporary is our "earthly tent," our "mortal flesh" as he called it back in verse 14 of chapter 4. In contrast, that which is yet unseen but eternal, is our future "house not made with hands," our resurrection bodies.

James Burton Coffman wrote, "Paul made tents with his hands; but the glorious resurrection body is far above and beyond anything that human hands might contrive" (Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament"). A. R. Fausset wrote, "This "house" can only be the resurrection body, in contrast to the "earthly house of the tabernacle," our present body" (Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5."). Chuck Smith wrote, "The mansion that the Lord is talking about is the new body He's got for me. I'm living in this tent, but one day I'm going to move into a mansion" (Smith, Chuck. "2 Corinthians 5." The Word for Today.).

It should be noted, too, that the Greek word for "house" in this verse is οἰκία (oikia), and doesn't just mean a building of some sort. It refers to an inhabited dwelling, one's home. This will prove important shortly. In the meantime, the point is that beginning in the middle of chapter 4 and extending now into chapter 5, the context is the contrast between two homes: our current, mortal body and our future resurrection body.

CLOTHED WITH OUR DWELLING FROM HEAVEN -- 5:2-4

Paul continues with this contrast, saying,

2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. (2 Corinthians 5:2-4)

The contrast which Paul began back in verse 14 of chapter 4 is the same contrast he's giving here; the context hasn't changed from the contrast between the mortal body and the resurrection body. We groan in our mortal bodies longing for what? Our resurrection bodies. But Paul adds an analogy into the mix, likening the body not just to a house but to clothes, saying that having put it on we "will not be found naked."
 
Now, some take the language in these verses as supporting the notion that the human spirit becomes disembodied at death, "naked" as it were. However, it is worth noting that Paul never says we will be "naked." Quite the contrary; he says we won't be "naked." Furthermore, he explicitly says that our hope is not to be "unclothed," but rather it is to be "clothed" with our immortal, resurrection bodies.
 
Why even use this language, then, if being "naked" and "unclothed" were not something to be expected prior to the resurrection? Well, first we should ask, does "naked" and "unclothed" refer to being disembodied in the first place? It's interesting that the analogy of clothing is only applied to the resurrection body, and not our current body. In other words, there is no indication from the text that we are not already "naked." In fact, the word "naked" here is γυμνός (gymnos) and Paul uses it in his first letter to this congregation in likening the present body to a seed. He had previously written to them,
 

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare [γυμνός] grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38)

Notice Paul likens the present, mortal body which is buried unto a "naked" grain. We know it's the body, not the spirit, which he likens unto a "naked" seed because he then says it is "sown a perishable body" and "sown a natural body" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). He says that God gives this "naked" grain a body unique to it. This would seem to suggest that in our present bodies we are "naked" now, insofar as we are not yet clothed by our glorified, resurrection bodies. This may be what Paul has in mind here in his second letter when he says that upon donning our future bodies, we will no longer be "naked" and "unclothed."

On the other hand, if the language of being "naked" and "unclothed" does mean to be disembodied, I believe its presence here is precisely because it is not to be expected. Paul's readers were Greeks and struggled with belief in the resurrection, instead believing in the "immortality of the soul ... that after death the soul escaped from the body to be absorbed into the divine or continue a shadowy existence in the underworld" (Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1071, quoted by Coffman). Paul's readers came from a background which taught that upon death we would be "naked" and "unclothed," and it seems to me Paul is telling them, "No! We won't be naked! We won't be unclothed!"

Regardless, the point is there is no indication here that Paul is saying our disembodied spirits will be with God in heaven after the death of the body. He never says that will happen, and continuing with his ongoing contrast between the mortal body and the resurrection body, he says our hope is to be clothed upon by our immortal, glorified bodies.

PREPARED FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE -- 5:5-7

Having just gone to great lengths--beginning even earlier than this chapter, as we've seen--to explain that our hope is in the resurrection, Paul tells us this:

5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight-- (2 Corinthians 5:5-7, emphasis mine)

Paul says God prepared us for a purpose and gave us the Spirit as a pledge. What is the purpose for which we have been prepared? The resurrection, as Paul has made clear! And we have the Spirit as a pledge, or promise, that this will happen! Paul tells us that this promise of the resurrection gives us courage while "at home in the body" as we walk by faith and not by sight, harkening back to the end of the previous chapter where we're told our minds are renewed as we focus on the unseen, eternal things. The context is still the resurrection, hope in which gives courage in the midst of suffering.

Now, two things are worth pointing out in the original Greek here. First, earlier when discussing verses 8 through 13 in chapter 4, I pointed out that Paul says we are carrying out the death of Jesus "in the body," ἐν τῷ σώματι. He uses the phrase twice, and then calls it specifically "our mortal flesh." Here, Paul uses the same phrase, ἐν τῷ σώματι. Those who insist the upcoming verse is proof of the intermediate state claim that reading "in the body" as "in this body," one's current body specifically, is unjustified. Yet, it is Paul who tells us that's precisely what he has in mind when he uses the phrase ἐν τῷ σώματι, which he earlied called "our mortal flesh."

At this point, one might object saying that just as Paul had said that we carry about the death of Jesus ἐν τῷ σώματι, he also says the life of Jesus will be manifested ἐν τῷ σώματι. If one understands the manifesting of the life of Jesus as referring to the resurrection, then ἐν τῷ σώματι would appear to be a reference to just one body, mortal prior to the resurrection, made immortal thereafter. This is certainly true, but at the same time he speaks of two bodies in this chapter: a body which will be torn down--our mortal body--and another body from God which we will put on in the resurrection.

The testimony of Scripture is that yes, the body that is buried is raised unto glorification. Yet, it is transformed in such a way that it can be legitimately called a different body. In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul says that in the resurrection God "gives [us] a body" and that "if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:35-44). In the same way, Paul says here that there are two "houses;" the current mortal body and the future immortal body. So when the life of Jesus is manifested ἐν τῷ σώματι ("in the body"), it is transformed from the "earthly tent" to the "building from God."

Second, recall that Paul earlier contrasts the mortal body and the resurrection body by likening them to "dwellings" or "homes" using the Greek word οἰκία. Here, "at home" is the Greek verb ἐνδημέω (endemeo) which means to "dwell in one's own country" or "stay at home." And "absent" is the verb ἐκδημέω (ekdemeo) which means "to be or live abroad;" that is, away from home. If Paul's contrast earlier is between two "homes," it follows that his contrast here between being "at home" and "away from home" is a contrast between the same two states: the mortal body and the resurrection body. This body and that body. While "at home" in this body we are "away from home" in the future body with the Lord.

WE PREFER TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY -- 5:8

This brings us to the verse in question:

8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8)

At the beginning I said that on the surface this verse does seem to suggest that upon death we are disembodied in heaven with the Lord. But now that we've walked through the passage in its context, it no longer seems to support that notion. Recall that

1. In the previous chapter Paul begins to explain that we carry about the death of Jesus in our bodies, ἐν τῷ σώματι, which he calls "our mortal flesh."
2. He says we do so because we know that just as Jesus rose from the dead, so too will we.
3. In transitioning into this chapter, he says that through affliction our minds are renewed as we look not toward the visible, temporary things but the unseen, eternal things, knowing that though our current bodies will die, our resurrection bodies await us.
4. To begin this chapter he contrasts our current bodies and resurrection bodies by likening them unto "homes." He then likens only the resurrection body unto clothing, specifically saying we will not be "naked" or "unclothed" but will be "clothed upon" by resurrection bodies.
5. He says the very purpose for which we are prepared is the resurrection, and that the Spirit is our guarantee that we will rise and put on our resurrection bodies.
6. He says this promise gives us courage while "at home" ἐν τῷ σώματι, "in the body" which earlier he called "our mortal flesh," using verbs harkening back to the analogy of "homes" with which he began the chapter.

So when we get to verse 8, with all the above in mind, what indication is there that "absent from the body" means absent any body, disembodied in heaven? Paul has gone on and on about the hope of the resurrection that gives us courage in the face of suffering, and specifically says we won't be found "naked," that we don't want to be "unclothed"--which probably doesn't mean disembodied anyway. What contextual or grammatical justification is there, then, for reading this verse as suddenly and very briefly referring to something else? There is none.

As I've said, I am still on the fence when it comes to physicalism. Scripture may, in fact, teach that humans are comprised both of a physical body and a non-physical spirit or soul which is disembodied at death and goes to dwell with God in heaven awaiting the resurrection. This passage does not rule that out, but neither does it teach that. The "intermediate state" is utterly foreign to this text, wherein Paul is merely reaffirming the hope he expressed in the previous chapter, that though the "home" that is our present body will one day be "torn down," when we are "away from home" in the present body we will be "at home" in our "building from God," the immortal, glorified, resurrection body.

OBJECTIONS?

If after reading through the text with me and carefully considering my exegesis you disagree, and still insist "absent from the body" here is a reference to disembodiment in the intermediate state, please feel free to explain why in a comment or email me. I am aware of maybe a couple of objections to my exegesis, and will post them in a follow-up to this in a few days. However, it is possible that I've missed something, and I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong.

Exegetical Eschatology: Millennial Misunderstandings

In "The Coming(s) of the Son of Man" and "Parousia and the Definite Article" we identified some of the presuppositions we tend to read into the texts which speak of Christ's "coming." First, we discovered that there are several "comings" of Jesus, and so we cannot assume that every reference to His "coming" promises His final return. Second, we learned that the manner in which the Greek word παρουσία (parousia)--"coming, presence, appearance"--is used does not demand a single παρουσία, but instead merely assigns ownership thereof to Christ. It is His παρουσία. Therefore, we must examine each "coming" in Scripture independently and determine based on the context that to which it refers.

Today we'll look at a few assumptions we tend to make when we discuss Jesus' "Millennial Reign." For those who are not terribly versed when it comes to biblical eschatology, the modern dispensational view (taught, for example, in the Left Behind series of books) teaches something along these lines: Jesus will come to "rapture" His Church--dead and living--at the beginning or in the middle of the "Great Tribulation," a 7-year period of time following which Jesus and His saints will return and reign for precisely one thousand years on earth. During this time, called Jesus' "Millennial Reign," there will be peace on earth as Satan is bound, unable to have any influence in the world, and as Jesus and believers in their glorified bodies reign, physically present. (If any of my readers disagree to any extent with this summary, please let me know and I will try and correct it if appropriate.)

God So Loved the World: Debating Baptismal Regeneration--Put On Hold

Last time I posted what seemed like the beginning of an email debate over the necessity of baptism when it comes to salvation. After the response I posted, my friend suggested we meet in person with his pastor to discuss the matter. Initially I agreed; however, after a couple of probing questions I have decided I cannot in good conscience discuss baptism or any other doctrinal matters face-to-face until we come to an agreement on what I think is a more fundamental matter. Here is how I came to that conclusion.

After a couple of emails back and forth, my friend wrote,

[Jim] I understand that what God wants for us is to be saved and join him in Heaven...How we are to get to be with God in Heaven is written down in a manner for us to understand. I seek the truth that leads to Heaven...I want to be sure that I am teaching myself and my family that they have a way to get to Heaven.

This emphasis on "heaven" at first didn't strike me as all that serious. Many Christians refer to the resurrection as "heaven," or don't readily think of the resurrection, but at least acknowledge it. I responded,

[Theopologetics] Also, I'm assuming you mean that you "want to be sure that [you are] teaching [yourself] and [your] family that they have a way to [be resurrected]." I just want to make sure that your hope is in the resurrection, ultimately, not "heaven." If not, that's another important discussion we need to have.

You see, at this point I just figured "going to heaven" was a euphamism for the resurrection. My friend responded,

[Jim] You use the word resurrection, which I understand to mean return to physical life from physical death. I don't use this term in talking of "life in Heaven" for this would be a spiritual life and in order to get there we (people) must die physically.

Now for some reason, at this point I still didn't suspect anything. I don't know if I initially misread his words or what, but I still thought we were just disagreeing on terminology. I responded,

[Theopologetics] Scripture teaches that our hope is in the final, bodily resurrection from the dead, which for many Christians is merely an afterthought. When you said you want to teach your family what they need to "have a way to get to Heaven," I just wanted to make sure that you recognize that "heaven" is a temporary, less-than-ideal state, and that your ultimate hope is in the resurrection.

I've left some things out, as I don't want to get off topic in this mini-series. But suffice it to say that we were discussing another issue or two as well, and at this point my friend decided we should table any further discussion on those other topics until we met in person. I was fine with this, except I noticed that he didn't address what I had said about the resurrection. This is where alarm bells started to go off, and I wrote this:

[Theopologetics] I still need to know that you acknowledge that all the dead will one day in the future be bodily resurrected from the dead--after our time in heaven. If you do, great, we can meet and discuss baptism. If you do not, I'm not comfortable meeting to discuss baptism until we discuss the resurrection, and I'll explain why if you'd like.

I honestly wrote this with nearly 100% certainty that he would respond in agreement. To my surprise, this is how he responded:

[Jim] I don't agree with that, but that can be added to the list of things to study the scriptures to understand.

To anybody familiar with the debate between preterists and hyperpreterists, you'll know, now, why I am not comfortable discussing any other doctrinal matters until we can agree on the resurrection. Here is how I responded to him:

[Theopologetics] I appreciate your honesty. Honestly =). Yes, we can discuss that too, then.

However, when we get together face-to-face, I do not think I can in good conscience discuss baptism until we've discussed the resurrection. The centrality of the future, bodily resurrection is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15, particularly verses 12 to 19. And in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, the teaching of those who deny the future resurrection is likened unto gangrene, and that their heresies were destroying the faith of some. I hope you'll understand--even if you don't agree--that I cannot subject myself to the risk of having my faith destroyed by discussing baptism or any other topic with someone who denies the resurrection. Not until we agree on the future bodily resurrection can I in good faith discuss any other doctrine with you and your pastor in person.

So yes, we can plan on meeting with the plan to discuss a) the resurrection, and b) baptism, among anything else you would like. But I'm sorry that I will not be comfortable moving onto baptism, etc., until we've agreed on the resurrection. Are you comfortable, then, with the possibility that we might not ever get to the topic you primarily desire to discuss?

It wasn't until after I sent this a couple of hours ago that it dawned on me that my friend might be a hyperpreterist. I assumed that he just didn't believe in the resurrection, which of course is serious enough. However, I got to wondering, are there professing Christians who deny the resurrection but who aren't hyperpreterists?

Please keep my friend and me in your prayers. I'm not sure if he will be willing to meet to discuss the resurrection if there's the possibility we may not get to baptism. I hope he understands--and indeed I hope you, my readers, understand--why I cannot comfortably discuss other doctrinal matters in person with him until we agree on this essential of the historic Christian faith. Stay tuned for updates.

God So Loved the World: Debating Baptismal Regeneration--Day One

Sorry I haven't been posting much lately. I've got so many things I want to continue posting about: the bibliology series I promised my old friend I would continue; my evolution debate (which hasn't continued in earnest since I last posted); my evidence for the Trinity; and so on and so forth. But all in its due time. Those of you who enjoy my blog--as few of you as there might be--please don't give up on me.

I recently began a discussion over email with an old friend concerning the relationship between baptism and salvation. His claim is that salvation is a requirement for salvation, whereas my contention is that salvation is a free gift given by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. In case any of my readers might find the discussion edifying, I figured I'd reproduce the relevant points here at my blog. For the sake of anonymity, I'll call my friend "Jim." Jim, if I misquote you or misrepresent your position, please let me know. Do continue to respond via email, however, rather than in comments in response to this post; I think the discussion will be clearer as individual blog posts rather than as a ridiculously long thread of comments with limited formatting options.

DAY ONE: BAPTISM AND THE GOSPEL

My friend saw a comment I had made in which I mentioned that "that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone." This proved to be the catalyst for the discussion which I'll be reproducing here. My friend saw this comment and contacted me via email. Here is how he began:

[Jim] The teaching of baptism must be taken from the understanding of the teaching of the gospel. This is my understanding.

Beginning in Matt 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Mark 16:15 "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Acts 1:3-8 "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Acts 16:10 "After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."

Romans 1:16-17 "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

These scriptures give weight to the understanding of the teaching from Acts 2:38 in that they explain the gospel of Christ and when looking into these scriptures the message is therefore clarified to mean that everyone who wants to be saved MUST believe AND be baptized into Christ.

Here was my response to him:

[Theopologetics] I'm going to break up my argument into discernible points:
 
1. SALVATION NOT BY WORKS

First, the Protestant Reformers recognized what the Catholic Church had largely lost, namely (and among other things) that Scripture teaches that salvation is a free gift of God through faith, not dependent upon ANY works. As Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). If salvation is in any part dependent upon any work--including baptism--then some may boast. Those who are saved can boast, saying, "I was more obedient than you, so I was baptized, so I was saved."

The jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" How did they respond? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:30-31). He didn't tell him to be baptized, he said merely to believe.

Paul wrote to the Romans, "apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested...through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Romans 3:21-22). No mention of baptism, only belief. He also said to them, "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). No mention of baptism, only faith.

Of particular importance is what Paul said to the Romans in Romans 4:1-12. There, he explains that Abraham was saved before he was circumcised, and that the faith he had before this ceremony was credited to him as righteousness. Paul goes on to say that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised. And this faith he had which was credited to him as righteousness before the sign which signified it is the same kind of faith believers in Christ have.

Paul also wrote to Titus, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Our salvation is not on the basis of any deed--including baptism. (I'll come back to this verse in a bit.)

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). No mention of baptism. And, "He who believes in Him is not judged" (verse 18). No mention of baptism. And, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life" (verse 36). No mention of baptism.

He said to Martha, "he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die" (John 11:25-25). No mention of baptism.

John wrote, "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1). No mention of baptism.

The whole point of the gospel is that salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. If it is given only if you perform some deed or work, then you are in some sense earning your salvation. When we look at verses that connect baptism with salvation, since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, we must interpret them in such a way as to be consistent with those verses which clearly communicate that salvation is not dependent upon any work.

2. IN THE BIBLE, SOME WERE SAVED BEFORE BAPTISM

In Acts 10:44-48, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message...Peter answered, 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." These Gentiles believed first, and were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and were baptized after their salvation.

3. VERSES WHICH ARE STRANGE IF BAPTISM IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" (1 Corinthians 1:14). Really?!?! He goes on to say, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17). Really?!?! If baptism is necessary for salvation, these statements would be ludicrous. Yes, his point in this passage is that he doesn't want to encourage division (verse 15), but if baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would basically be saying, "I thank God that I helped you believe but left you unsaved until someone else baptized you." Or, "Christ sent me only to preach, but not to take new believers to the next step of baptism which is required to be saved." That'd be utterly ridiculous.

Also, you said, "the teaching of baptism must be taken from the understanding of the teaching of the gospel." Okay, but then Paul's summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is strangely devoid of this essential requirement. Not only does he leave baptism out of it altogether, but he also says that we're saved by it "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (verse 2). He doesn’t say, "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you and are baptized." If baptism is such a requirement, it is strange that Paul leaves it out of both the gospel summary and that which is required to be saved.

4. HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS WHICH ARE PROBLEMATIC IF BAPTISM IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION

An old man, an unbeliever, is at a church service to witness his granddaughter's baptism. Moved to belief, in tears he stands up and begs to be baptized. Asked if he believes he is a sinner and that Jesus died and rose again for his salvation, he says he does, and as he walks toward the stage he has a heart attack and dies.

A woman has recently become a believer and is scheduled to be baptized this afternoon. She's overflowing with newfound love for her Savior, and she's excited to be baptized. She parks across the street, and as she crosses the street to the church, she's hit by a bus and dies.

And on and on it goes. The point is, it is the height of absurdity to think that genuine believers are not saved simply because they died moments before their opportunity to be baptized. And yet that's precisely what this idea requires.

5. HOW DO WORKS RELATE TO SALVATION?

Works are an outward manifestation of inward salvation. James wrote, "I will show you my faith by my works," and "faith without works is dead." A genuine faith, he tells us, is one which produces works. Without works, a faith is an inanimate, false, dead faith. The problem, he tells us, is not with the lack of works, but with the lack of real faith.

Paul told the Galatians that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). As "fruit," works are manifestations of faith, not that upon which faith is dependent.

What Scripture tells us is the relationship between salvation and works is that one who is genuinely saved naturally produces works. They are evidence of, not requirements for, salvation. As John wrote, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

6. SOME PROOF TEXTS LEVELED AGAINST GRACE-ALONE

Remember as we look at these that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. As we've already seen, the consistent message of the gospel is that it is a free gift from God not based on works/deeds. We must keep this in mind as we look at these verses.

Titus 3:5: I mentioned earlier that I'd come back to this one. What of "the washing of regeneration" mentioned here? This cannot mean that we are saved only if we are baptized, for then Paul would be contradicting himself; remember, he just said our salvation is not on the basis of any deed. What, then, does Paul mean? One of two things. Some commentators have simply understood Paul as including the outward sign with the inward change that saves. Matthew Henry wrote, "Here is the outward sign and seal thereof in baptism, called therefore the washing of regeneration. The work itself is inward and spiritual; but it is outwardly signified and sealed in this ordinance. Water is of a cleansing and purifying nature, does away the filth of the flesh, and so was apt to signify the doing away of the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ" Calvin wrote, "The apostles are wont to draw an argument from the sacraments to prove the thing therein signified, because it ought to be a recognized principle among the godly, that God does not mark us with empty signs, but by His power inwardly makes good what He demonstrates by the outward sign." Another possibility is that the "washing" here is not baptism. No Greek word for "baptism" is included here, and the "washing of regeneration" here may refer to the washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us.

Mark 16:15-16: It is likely this was not a part of the original Scriptures. The earliest manuscripts do not contain anything past verse 8, and only later manuscripts contains verses 9 through 20. For more information, see http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html. Still, let's assume for a moment that it was in the original. Then Jesus does say, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved," but look what He goes on to say: "but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." Note He doesn't say, "he who has disbelieved or has not been baptized shall be condemned." Thus, even if these verses weren't added later, as the evidence suggests, they still don't prove your point. I explained above that deeds are produced by a genuine faith, so all Jesus is saying--again, if these words even belong in Scripture--is that if one's faith is genuine and thus produces adherence to His commands, he will be saved.

Acts 2:38: You can't use this verse in support of your position without it backfiring on you. It reads, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Note what it leaves out: Belief! Faith! Trust! If this verse is a "formula" for salvation, then you must conclude that faith isn't required; any unbeliever could repent of his sins and be baptized in Christ's name without truly believing. Clearly that's not the case. No, repentance and baptism are fruits of genuine faith, and what this verse says is that if we have genuine faith--one which leads to repentance and to baptism--we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I'll address other texts as you bring them up.

SUMMARY

To summarize, the consistent message of the gospel is that salvation is a free gift given to those who did not deserve it nor earn it in any way, shape or form. It is given by God's grace alone, through faith alone, not on the basis of works or deeds. Christians are commanded to be baptized, yes, but it is merely an outward sign of a change which has taken place inwardly already. Furthermore, like any work, it is the fruit of, not the basis for, our salvation. We should not resist the command to be baptized, but neither should we resist the command to resist all sorts of temptations into which we give from time to time. Thank God that it is not our ability to perfectly obey God's command that determines whether or not we are saved! If it were, well I'm, excuse my language, frankly screwed.

That's it for now. Stay tuned, I'll post tomorrow with any responses which take place before then.