Greg - after my last case of 'verbal diarrhea’ I thought I would share some correspondence that I am having with a fellow that has studied the ancient Greek language and has a Doctorate in Theology or Divinity or whatever it is.
He is a Preterist but maintains a physical resurrection of "a body" but agrees it will not consist of that which has returned to the dust – not that what he believes really matters if his answers are honest then one should not ‘suspect’ an agenda – however we are all human and a man’s presupposed systems will lean him in certain directions.
-----------------------------------
I sent some e-mails to some of my “greek” friends – not to be confused with “geek” friends.
First I sent this:
----------------------------
I tried to call but not sure now how much time change you have between here and there..
I have been discussing the concept of the "physical" second coming of Christ as opposed to a "spiritual" or a "presence" mentality.
Now most people insist that the question is too easily answered and only those with an agenda could possibly miss it. I, however, have no agenda that I am aware of and yet I am brought to sincerely question the widely accepted notion that Acts 1 boldly proclaims such:
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
However, I have been taught that the statement "in like manner" may not have referred to His Physical body leaving the earth up to the cloud - but - rather referred to His leaving in a cloud. Apparently there is not question in the original text. They were looking for a reappearance of his visible body from the cloud when the Angel spoke to them.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
It appears that His physical body became "not visible" but they could only perceive the "cloud" and that it was in this "cloud" form that he would return. Perhaps you can tell if in fact the Greek makes it plain as to which is being referred to. We know that many scriptures speak of Him returning on or as a cloud:
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
We have long been taught and presume that when the scriptures say "every eye shall see" that it refers to His physical body. However the text says not that He returns with a visible body but "with clouds". My understanding of coming "with clouds" in the Old Testament predictions was that of a coming in Judgment and has nothing to do with a physical appearance of God at all other than every eye witnessing the results of that Judgment which can plainly be seen in the historically recorded judgment of Israel within a generation of being foretold by the Lord.
The next verse offered to 'prove' that Christ intends to keep the physical body that was given Him to "become flesh and dwell among us" is this:
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
This is said after the ascension and is used to 'prove' that since Christ had not shed His physical body at that point 62 AD or so that it is plain that Christ intended to return with it and to keep it throughout all eternity. It is a very good and logical argument. One that would seem reasonable and irrefutable. I have a small problem however believing it to be irrefutable proof. The word translated "bodily" is from the root word "soma" but is in a form that appears only in this verse and none other. Strongs said this of that form:
"of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven "
It is at this point that I must defer to someone who has studied the languages and can lend to me their knowledge to discern just how 'irrefutably' this verse proves that Christ yet inhabited a physical form even after having been seated at the right hand of the Father.
Comments or any light you can shed are deeply appreciated.
Brian
--------------------
At this point I received a phone call and we discussed the fact that it was an adverb. This fellow accepted the idea that it was an adverb but them later wrote the following:
---------------------
Say, i did a little more hard looking at this "somatikos" word in Col. 2:9. It is in fact an adverbial adjective. Thing is, it must modify the last verb used in the passage, which is katoikei (dwells-lives). So according to the morphology of "katoikei" (present, active, indoicative) the text would translate as..."For in him, continuously dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (in bodily form)."
---------
Now I have no idea what an “adverbial adjective” is other than a contradiction of termsJ
I have never heard the expression before but I sent this:
_____
You rephrased the verse as "continuously dwells" where do we get the "continuously" in the verse? How do we know that Paul is not referring to the body prior to the resurrection (if in fact he is fighting Gnostics) rather than the "body" Christ then had in heaven when this was written?
Two verses later we have the analogy of Christ being "cut off" as in the "circumcision" - that to me is a past tense statement.
Can you offer any more insight - greatly appreciate the time you have spent already.
-----------------------
He then sent this in response:
Howdy,
The "continuously" part of "dwells" in Col. 2:9, reflects the "present tense" of the greek word there for "dwell" (katoikia). The present tense gives the verb a continuous action. (See ay greek grammar). The reason we know that this is tralking about the person of Christ is the very context. In V. 6...The Colossians had received the historical Christ as Lord and Savior. They were then encouraged to live in him. In V. 8 they were encouraged to follow after the personal teaching of the personal historical Christ. In V.9 he asserts that all the fulness of the Godheafd live's continuously in the personal- historical Christ in his bodily form. V. 10, the personal historial Christ is the head over all earthly and spiritual authorities...
There is nothing that i can see in this context that would indicate that he was talking about the ekklesia or Church (Body) of Christ in that sense. It's a very straight- forward and plain read. I really do think that to take this any other way is to force a pre-conceived notion into the text. This is what we call "eisegesis" : Reading something into the text that is really not there. It's manipulation of the facts of the text as it is presented.
---------------------
I then sent this:
I was not trying to see the verse in the "mystic" sense of the body of believers - but the essence of my inquiry is this.
If this verse prove incidentally or directly the concept that Christ still had a body between the ascension and the second coming then...
When John states in this verse:
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
It could then be asked - is John then telling us that we will in fact have 'physical' albeit 'glorified' bodies - making a certainty of the 'physical nature' of the resurrection of the believes when he came again and thence forth?
It then follows that one must ask why John states that it "doth yet appear"? Why is it not manifest what we shall be like if in fact the 'body' of Christ remains even as John himself had witnessed?
In short - what is it that is "not manifest" in this verse:
1 John 3:2 Beloved! now, are we, children of God; and, not yet, hath it been made manifest, what we shall be,—We know that, if it should be made manifest, like unto him, shall we be, because we shall see him, just as he is.
Again - thanks for your time and help.
------------------------
I am now awaiting a response to that last e-mail but it may be a while as he likely has a sermon to prepare for tomorrow etc.
I thought you might find this correspondence interesting if nothing else. So I am letting you and others here in on it.
Maybe no one cares which would be pretty normal but I am enjoying myself at least :-)
I boldly professed on this thread that I believe a man can know the meaning of any verse with certainty. I stand by that statement.
God is a “rewarder of those who diligently seek”
Most do not extend themselves beyond buying into whatever ‘party line’ their church is pushing.
I want to thank you for bringing forth this particular verse however as I have never spent any meaningful (full of meaning) time on it and it appears it may be a relevant verse concerning the nature of the resurrection.
Still looking into it, however.
Brian |
