In the opening statements of the debate Frost warns us of what is to follow in Preston’s presentation of the Full Preterist framework upon which he builds his case for a non-biological case of Resurrection, namely that Preston would argue from a reference point of differing meaning of words. That was proven true during the second night of the debate.
“Body” is not a literal human body but the “body of Christ”
“The body of humiliation of us” is the old covenant body of Judaism.
“Death” is not physical death, but “spiritual death” or “covenantal death.”
“Resurrection of the dead” is not the standing again of a lifeless corpse but “old covenant Israel” is raised into the new covenant.
Or
“Resurrection of the dead” is the OC saints coming out of Hades/Sheol in AD 33.
“Heaven and Earth” is not the literal creation but a metaphor for Israel living under the old covenant.
“Dust” is used metaphorical only, and never references that man was literally made from the dust of the earth, so to sleep in the dust does not mean it is the dead body turned to dust.
“appearing” (epiphaneia) actually means, to be invisible to the naked eye but intellectually understood of what they are seeing.
The idea is that many terms have to be reconstructed and made to be metaphorical to maintain any type of coherence in the Full Preterist paradigm. Yet we can see how futile this attempt is. In figurative language if the metaphorical words are replaced by the literal concept the sentence should make sense.
It’s raining cats and dogs
It’s raining heavily.
For example in 2 Cor 5 Preston demands that the “body” is the body of Christ just like in I Cor 15.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body of Christ we are away from the Lord,
Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body of Christ and at home with the Lord.
so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body of Christ whether good or evil.
Thus it is proven that the “body” can’t be metaphorically used of all NT passages where the word body has to be interpretated figuratively as the Body of Christ or even of “the old covenant body.” With the insistance of all these meanings being transposed as figurative language where the literal usage is denied, the intended meaning is obfuscated, and profound inconsistencies are created.
In the debate Preston used Hosea 13:14, which Paul quoted in part in I Cor 15, to argue for corporate death, which we understand is not a form of “spiritual death.”
Hosea 13:14 I shall ransom them from the power of Sheol; I shall redeem them from Death. O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion is hidden from my eyes.
I Cor 15 “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
The suggestion then is made by Preston that Paul is using the exact same context as from the Hosea passage in which he is talking about Israel as a nation. It is well understood the prophets spoke of Israel as a nation and the judgment to come upon her for her sin. In a fundamental departure from any type of logical reasoning Preston wants to apply old covenant Israel as a definition for what is the NT church. That everything is about the church, coming out of the old covenant world. This assertion absolutely ignores Paul’s words where the church is in the New Covenant, they were transferred out of the kingdom of darkness and became a brand-new creation in Christ. (The church is made up of believers, not Judaizers.) Where there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Greek in Christ. The Old Covenant world died on the cross. In a NT context Paul is speaking to a church where there is no “corporate body of Israel” but members that make up the body of Christ, the church. (I Cor 12:12-27, Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it, hence Paul says and uses the phrase “the body of us.)
In the opening verses of I Cor 15 and following Paul is indicating the individual person who has “fallen asleep” is being raised in the same manner that Christ himself was raised which was out of the tomb not out of old covenant Israel. Paul is speaking to the Christian church in I Cor 15 and answering questions concerning the resurrection of the dead in which the Greek Christians were denying that such a resurrection will take place of the departed Christians, of those who had died. The first century Corinthian church would never have understood a resurrection to mean the “corporate body” was raised out of the old covenant of death. Nor would Paul be speaking to them so cryptically. Resurrection is about the dead coming back to life. Paul uses the one verse in Hosea to indicate the future promise of God redeeming the people from out of Sheol, which indicates they had died physically, and the body laid in the tomb. Paul is not promising that the Old Covenant Israel would be raised back to life. In the resurrection of the dead, the saints are redeemed from out of sheol. Since Paul is speaking to Christians, not to corporate Israel, or specifically to Ephraim, he is applying the redemption from out of Sheol to these people who had “fallen asleep’” so the context of I Cor 15 is about redemption from biological death. The only way for dead people to come back to life or to be among the living is biological resurrection.
For the record: “OLD COVENANT ISRAEL IS NOT BEING RESURRECTED (being brought back to life).” Preston has also called the emptying of Hades of the saints in AD 33 as a resurrection. Bell, Baisden, and Neubauer all retort this took place in AD 70.
In response Preston asked,
#1– The death in Hosea 13:1-2– as I proved- was a corporate, non-physical death. It was alienation from God due to covenant violation.
When Ephraim sinned in Baal, he died, yet they sin more and more. Tell me, Mr. Whitsett, can biologically dead bodies keep sinning? Yes or No?
If Preston was a real Hebrew scholar and was to carefully exegete the passage, in how the word death is used grammatically in verse 1 of Hosea 13 he would have come to understand that through Baal worship brought about Ephraim’s inevitable death, and he was accounted as being “already dead.” (the already but not yet) Preston who was never educated in Hebrew see’s the word “death” and completely inserts his presuppositions and meaning into the verse where he is claiming that the word is being used metaphorically as a covenantal or corporate death. Preston fails miserable in understanding the use of Hebraic thought in this passage.
Then to answer Preston’s question, Baal worship led to even more sin, which precipitated their inevitable condemnation and death.
In the middle of God’s condemnation of Ephraim he speaks a word of promise,
I shall ransom them from the power of Sheol;
I shall redeem them from Death.
O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion is hidden from my eyes.
The promise is then applied to Paul’s understanding of what Resurrection of the dead is, a promise of redemption of those who had died and were in Sheol. Hence why Paul quoted this verse in I Cor 15.
Preston goes on to cite for his case Isa 27:9 which obviously was the wrong verse…Preston wrote,
The death of Hosea is the death of let’s say, Isaiah 27:9f:
Has he (Israel) been slain … in part by sending it away.” So, Israel was “slain” by being sent into captivity.
Isa 27:9 states,
Therefore by this the guilt of Jacob will be atoned for,
and this will be the full fruit of the removal of his sin:e
when he makes all the stones of the altars
like chalkstones crushed to pieces,
no Asherim or incense altars will remain standing.
Verse 7 is what he meant,
Has he struck them as he struck those who struck them?
Or have they been slain as their slayers were slain?
We see in Verse 6, “In days to come Jacob shall take root,
Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots
and fill the whole world with fruit.)
Which is a promise of removal of sin from covenant Israel. Then in chapter 27 Isaiah says this,
In that day from the river Euphrates to the Brook of Egypt the LORD will thresh out the grain, and you will be gleaned one by one, O people of Israel. 13And in that day a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship the LORD on the holy mountain at Jerusalem.
God makes a promise of a return, a promise of redemption for the people from out of their death.
Preston then points out as the same context, Amos 5:1-2
Hear this word that I take up over you in lamentation, O house of Israel:
2“Fallen, no more to rise,
is the virgin Israel;
forsaken on her land,
with none to raise her up.”
Yet in the next verse is proof of what Frost spoke about as a remnant, even though the people died,
The city that went out a thousand
shall have a hundred left, and that which went out a hundred
shall have ten left to the house of Israel.”
Preston stated very clearly in his response, from Amos 5:1-2,
“The virgin daughter of Zion is fallen and will not rise. She lies forsaken in the land and there is no one to raise her up.”
Hmm, a funeral dirge for Israel, fallen, and no one to raise her (from anastasis- LXX).
Then later in Amos 9:11 God says he will raise her up.
“In that day I will raise up (from anastasis- LXX)
the booth of David that is fallen
and repair its breaches,
and raise (from anastasis- LXX) up its ruins
and rebuild it as in the days of old,
I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,
and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,
and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.
One must wonder how this next verse was fulfilled in AD 70 other than replacement theology.
15I will plant them on their land,
and they shall never again be uprooted
out of the land that I have given them,”
says the LORD your God.
So based on the context of I Cor 15 the “corporate body” is not being spoken about being redeemed from the grave. But the individuals who were “IN Christ” and died (I Thess 4:16) since not all Israel is true Israel. This is again promised in Eze 37. It’s not all of Israel or should I say corporate Israel that is raised but only the righteous of Israel that is raised.
I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. 14And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land.
We know this is a promise concerning Israel after the days of captivity. Where the captivity is metaphorically related to a grave. We know its metaphorical because it’s talking about Israel as a nation. So when graves is used of a person or a people such as Matt 27:52 or John 5:27, 28 it is of individuals since at Christ coming he raises the just not the unjust Israel.
Preston stated,
Your (false) presupposition is that corporate bodies could not be metaphorically spoken of as in sheol. (which demonstrates Preston chooses to use a metaphorical interpretation as a presupposition.) Your false assumption is that only human corpses are in the graves. Yet, Ezekiel 37 has “the whole house of Israel” in captivity referred to as in “the graves.” They were not biologically dead, Mr. Whitsett, and only a gross perversion of the text can make it apply to that.
The difference between me, Dr Whitsett and Mr. Preston, is he chooses to take these passages metaphorically because when they are understood literally they undermine the preterist narrative. So the understanding is based on the language being used. The souls of People are literally in Sheol. Preston stated, “Your false assumption is that only human corpses are in the graves.” Which then he acknowledges that death can be used literally as we both know dead bodies lie in the grave. So if Israel is being called a dead body in the grave then its being used metaphorically, which is also contrasted with the reality of real dead bodies that lie in a grave, so Israel is being compared to the truth, of dead bodies lying in a grave. In Preston’s mind he negates the literal usage of body or death in any other passage when its referenced in the NT, by Paul.
As we read on a promise is made again of redemption so that the “corporate death” of Israel is not the end, even following the events of AD 70. So just as Israel was promised to be redeemed from death so is the Christian saints being promised to be redeemed from the grave.
Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. 22And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. 23They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Then the promise that follows that regathering invalidates the Full Preterist claims, of Israel permanently being cast out.
24“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”
In this verse Preston will redefine Israel to be the church “forevermore.”
The grave mistake is that Preston will continually go to the OT to use the context as the basis for the NT context, where he can justify it as figurative language. Thus destroy the literal intent of Paus words. Preston refuses to accept the context of the NT passage is based on the specific language Paul uses in explaining what is the “Resurrection of the dead.” When Preston applies a blanket figurative use, he destroys the literal intent of a passage that was never meant to be understood as figurative language and thus destroys the consistency, and coherence of scriptures.
The above response is taken from the following FACEBOOK Discussion:
I know when a person is honest he can admit he did poorly..
but then to claim Sam did poorly ..
Let me inform you of three huge giant errors you made…
Hosea 13:14 14I shall ransom them from the power of Sheol; I shall redeem them from Death.
This death cant be “corporate” Israel, why? (or spiritual death) what is in Sheol is the dead those who died.. they are to be redeemed from out of Sheol.. which is redemption of dead people not “Israel”. and you have called that a resurrecting that happened in ad 70 as did Bell Baisden and Neubauer..
Your rendition of 1 John 3:2 where you claim they didn’t know what Jesus looked liked is a gross twist of the scriptures..” John said, “what we will be has not yet appeared.” no where in that verse does it suggest they didn’t know what he was like after he ascended..
and still you never ever provide one scriptures to that proves Jesus Body somehow changed after he ascended into heaven… and claiming he returned to the glory of the father is a sham of an argument.. as God the father never became flesh.. Jesus did..
PHIL 3:21 the body comes from the context of the verse itself..
Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body,
and I have heard you say the carnal body, lowly body, is the nature of the fallen body – the lowly “flesh and blood” body that is weak and subject to weakness
the idea that “put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, ” where you turn “flesh” means walking in the law of Moses is simply false.. on every level (you have no scriptural support where flesh means “the old covenant body..)
seeing a trend here?… everything is turned into the “old covenant body”. Like a broken record.
Stephen N Whitsett And so, typical Whitsett. Ignore what I said in the debate (s) and offer an unrelated and false post.
#1– The death in Hosea 13:1-2– as I proved- was a corporate, non-physical death. It was alienation from God due to covenant violation.
When Ephraim sinned in Baal, he died, yet they sin more and more. Tell me, Mr. Whitsett, can biologically dead bodies keep sinning? Yes or No?
The death of Hosea is the death of let’s say, Isaiah 27:9f:
Has he (Israel) been slain … in part by sending it away.” So, Israel was “slain” by being sent into captivity.
And then, we have Amos 5:1-2– A song of Lament (literally, a funeral song)- The virgin daughter of Zion is fallen and will not rise. She lies forsaken in the land and there is no one to raise her up.” Hmm, a funeral dirge for Israel, fallen, and no one to raise her (from anastasis- LXX).
Corporate death, not biological death, but alienation.
Your (false) presupposition is that corporate bodies could not be metaphorically spoken of as in sheol. Your false assumption is that only human corpses are in the graves. Yet, Ezekiel 37 has “the whole house of Israel” in captivity referred to as in “the graves.” They were not biologically dead, Mr. Whitsett and only a gross perversion of the text can make it apply to that.
The rest as posted her will be addressed in separate papers.
#2– And you claim I am grossly distorting 1 John 3; Well, let’s see:
It does not yet appear what we shall be.
We shall see him as he IS (note the present tense “IS.” Do you know what “IS, IS”?
So, they did not know what they were to be, but they would be like him “as he is.”
Now, if he was at the moment of John’s “IS” the same as he WAS, then they well knew what the “IS” would be, cause they knew him as he was (but not know what he was when he wrote.”
Now, here is what they knew about what he WAS:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
But that “WAS” was not the “IS.” Thus, the WAS and the IS were different. Really simple for anyone not blinded by their presuppositions.
#3 – Well, this is what you offer:
and still you never ever provide one scriptures to that proves Jesus Body somehow changed after he ascended into heaven… and claiming he returned to the glory of the father is a sham of an argument.. as God the father never became flesh.. Jesus did..
Suggestion: read my comment just above. John’s “IS” is not the same as the “WAS.”
And tell me, Mr. Whitsett, is the vision of the Son of Man in Revelation 1:12ff a mere description of Jesus’ mortal Incarnate body? Yes or No? And what about that in Revelation 19, as he is described as coming out of heaven revealed as King of kings and Lord of lords”? Can you show me a text from the Gospels in which there is a description of Jesus’ body “in the days of his flesh” that even remotely resembles that description in Revelation 1 & 19? Will you even try? We know the answer to that, don’t we?
#4 – And then you offer us this little bit:
//and I have heard you say the carnal body, lowly body, is the nature of the fallen body – the lowly “flesh and blood” body that is weak and subject to weakness.//
Response: Well, this is a massive bit of misrepresentation, but that is what I and others have come to expect from you. Show me where I have EVER referred to the human body as a lowly flesh and blood body. Show me where I have ever disparaged the human body. You and your kind are those who refer to the human body as cursed. YOU are the ones who speak of the body of humialation- the “vile body.” It is not me, so you need to clarify your comments or prove with copy and paste where I have ever referred to the human body as the carnal lowly body.
And then, you offer this:
//the idea that “put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, ” where you turn “flesh” means walking in the law of Moses is simply false.. on every level (you have no scriptural support where flesh means “the old covenant body..)//
Response: Seriously?? Wow! For someone that constantly tells us how brilliant you are, for you to make such a comment is rather stunning– stunningly bad. Your failure (read that “refusal) to see that Paul’s reference in Philippians 3 to rejoicing in the flesh (in his former life) is a reference to his reliance on his observance of Torah is just stunning.
But let me offer some additional suggested reading:
Galatians 3: 1ff– O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you [a]that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed [b]among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so [c]many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Now, tell us, Mr. Whitsett, what was Paul referring to when he spoke of the works of the law, and he even referred to them as the works of “the flesh”?
What was Paul’s contrast between the Gospel and “the law”? What did he mean he asked if they were made perfect by the hearing of faith or “the works of the Law” i.e. the flesh?
All in all, if you want to talk about a failure of hermeneutic, Just hold up your post to a mirror and you will see a perfect example of presuppositional arguments, bad logic, misrepresentation, and our right falsehoods.
Leave a Reply