It's Full Preterism, A Damnable Heresy, Part 4. We're going to complete looking at 1 Corinthians 15. And it's a critical chapter because Paul is refuting those who deny the resurrection of the body, physical bodies. And in doing that, of course, Paul is refuting full preterism because they deny the resurrection of physical bodies. They completely deny it. So this is important. I'll deal with, Lord willing, Revelation 20 next week. I started on it, but we had a rough week. We had some storms here, some fences blew over. But we'll get to that. But this is very helpful. Maybe in reading of verse 35. But someone will say, how are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come? Okay, so they're talking about a real resurrection of a real body. Foolish one. What you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain, perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as he pleases, and to each seed its own body. All flesh is not the same flesh. But there is one kind of flesh of man, another of flesh of animals, another of fish, another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies. But the glory of the celestial is one, the glory of the terrestrial is another. There's one glory of the sun, another of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, but raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There's a natural body and there's a spiritual body. It is also written, the first man became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first but the natural. The afterword, the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust. And as the heavenly man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have been born in the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. And I'll stop there. Although if we get to it, we'll consider the latter parts. Paul's not arguing. that our resurrected bodies are irrelevant, like garbage, and they're to be discarded forever, and we're just gonna get a spirit. That doesn't make any sense at all. He's talking about a body of flesh that is put in the ground like a seed, sown in the ground, it was corruptible, it dies, it suffers, it can get sick and it dies, and then it's gonna be raised, that same body's gonna be raised, incorruptible, it's gonna be a spiritual body, not a spirit, but a spiritual body. Now, we've been looking carefully at the heresy of full preterism, And by the way, I watched some videos by Full Preterist on YouTube, and very unimpressive. I watched probably their most popular modern guy, and I was not, I didn't find their arguments convincing at all. Everything has to be fit into the paradigm of Matthew 24, and that's just bad exegesis. You look at the context. We've been reviewing the crucial fundamental teachings regarding the second coming of Christ. It is a literal bodily coming. It is still future. The resurrection of the body, it is also literal. It is still future. And today we'll look more closely at the final judgment. Well, actually, we won't get to Revelation, but we'll look more, we'll complete our exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15. The Bible's very clear that at the time of death, believer souls go to heaven, unbeliever souls go directly to hell. And the Bible teaches a future universal public final judgment of all men at the resurrection of the bodies of all men where Christ, the theanthropic mediator, as a reward for his perfect atoning work, sits on the white throne to judge the living and the dead, those who have died and risen. And of course, this is the final stage of exaltation. We're going to look at Revelation 20 next week because I began studying it. and we had a big storm and it just it amazes me how it contradicts explicitly the teachings where they try to collapse everything is a parallel passage to them Thessalonians 4 everything to them is a parallel passage of Matthew 24 everything must be because they have to believe everything took place and it just doesn't work it doesn't work at all. Now they completely redefine and deny the resurrection and the second bodily coming, even though it has always been the position of the Orthodox Historic Christian Church and all the ecumenical creeds. Now the one guy who I was watching responds to this by saying, well, they've all been wrong about Matthew 24 all these years. Well, that's not really true. There are partial preterists. John Gill is a partial preterist every bit as much as Ken Gentry. There have been partial preterists throughout the history of the Church. as far as Matthew 24 goes. So this idea that, well, they've all been wrong about Matthew 24, so they could all be wrong about the literal resurrection of the body. That's nonsense. That's just simply not true. You just don't know your history. Read John Gill, who's a Reformed Baptist about, I think, what, 1715 or so, 1710 it came out as commentaries, and read what he says about Matthew 24. He sounds like Ken Gentry. These creeds were not only accepted by all the post-apostolic churches, but also by all the Reformed, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Baptist churches. The Apostles' Creed says this, Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. This is written after AD 70, by the way, so it hasn't happened yet. The Nicene Creed. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. whose kingdom shall have no end. So, the universal, apostolic, holy Christian church has always required belief in and profession of the resurrection of real bodies, the bodily, literal second coming of Christ from heaven, and the last judgment of all men at the end of the pre-consummate history. And to the ecumenical creeds and to all the reformed symbols, it's still future. Christ came in judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That may be a foretaste of the Second Coming, showing judgment, but it is not the Second Coming. Thus the Athenician Creed makes this clear. Quote, He ascended into heaven. He sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. That means those who are alive and those who are dead already. At whose coming all men shall rise again. with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, Catholic meaning universal. This is the universal position of the Christian church in both the East and the West. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. That's the position of Luther. That's the position of Calvin. That's the position of John Knox. That's the position of Rutherford, Gillespie, all the Puritans. That's the position of the medieval church. That's the position of the post-apostolic church. That's the position of the apostolic fathers. So this is an important issue. And like I said, if you don't care one bit about full preterism, that's fine. You're going to learn a lot about the resurrection of the body today. Let's return to 1 Corinthians 15, we'll finish that up. We were on point number two. In verses 20 to 28, Paul argues from the opposite direction and points out that since Jesus has been raised from the dead, the bodily resurrection of believers must also take place. Remember he had earlier said, hey, if you deny the resurrection of real physical bodies, if you deny that, by implication you're denying the real bodily resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is the captain of our salvation. He's the lead climber. His bodily resurrection with a real body is proof that we'll have a real bodily resurrection. Full Preterists deny that. In fact, I've read full Preterists that say that a time will come when Jesus' resurrected body will be discarded. That's Gnostic. That's Neoplatonism. It's horrible. The Apostle uses the perfect tense. Egegeti, verse 20, which means that Christ rose from the dead, in the past, and He continues permanently in His character as the risen and glorified Savior. The covenantal union of believers with the Redeemer in His death and resurrection established a necessary connection between Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of all those who are redeemed. Verse 20, Paul speaks of our Lord's resurrection as the first fruits of those, that is, Christians, who have fallen asleep, that is, have died physically. You can't say this refers to regeneration or something, some spiritual, mystical thing, because it's talking about people who have died. Christians don't die spiritually. They're alive. They're regenerated. The Savior's resurrection is the pledge and guarantee that there will be a full harvest of all Christians out of their graves unto glorified, immortal life. Paul is asserting by way of metaphor that the resurrection of the believing dead is absolutely inevitable and is guaranteed by God himself. As Adam is the covenant head of all those who die, that his death is inevitable because of the imputation of Adam's sin and our own sins, Jesus is the covenantal head of all those who will be made alive. All the elect will rise from the dead. And it didn't happen in AD 70 because most of the elect weren't even born yet. Although it is indeed true that union with Christ results in regeneration in spiritual life, Ephesians 2.5-6, Colossians 2.11-13, the main thought of Paul in this context is on the physical resurrection of believers at the parousia, the coming of Christ. The resurrection is in the future, the physical resurrection is in the future, and Paul is writing to Christians who have already been raised spiritually in the past. So if you want to make it regeneration or something spiritual, it just doesn't work. The section of chapter 15 refutes a number of full preterist errors. First, to deny that here Paul is speaking about a future bodily resurrection of believers, to deny that, one must completely ignore the context, which is the bodily resurrection of physically dead believers. There's people in the church denying the physical resurrection. Paul's refuting that. And there's no way to get around that. So you can't say it's something else. That's what he's refuting. This is what Paul is setting out to prove. To ignore this fact and pretend that the apostle is discussing regeneration, or a release of souls from Haiti, that's one position. Full preterists will say, well, no, it refers to a release of souls from Haiti in AD 70. Where do they get that from? They just made that up. Or a revival of ethnic Israel, like what was prophesied in Ezekiel. That's complete nonsense. They're just grasping at straw. Full preterists must do great violence to the plain meaning of scripture to maintain their paradigm, their heresy. Second, verse 33, I mean 23. But each in his own order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christed as coming. Completely disproves the full preterist concept of progressive resurrections throughout history for believers living after 80, 70. That's a very popular position among preterists. Oh, well, it's referring to progressive resurrections. You get a spirit body when you die, when you go to heaven. Of course, the Bible doesn't teach that anywhere, but they have to believe something. They have to say this teaches something, and they made that up. The word tegmati, from tegma, translated order is a military metaphor and refers to a company or a troop, a band or a body of troops. The point of this passage is that when Jesus returns the whole body of believers, For throughout human history, we'll come forth in the resurrection like troops coming out together to assume their proper position and order around their leader. It's not progressive, it's complete. The expression those who are Christ, who to Christu is comprehensive, refers to the whole body of the elect. As Paul has just said in verse 22, in Christ all shall be made alive. The resurrection of the saints is to occur at His coming. At His coming makes it clear that Paul is referring to the Second Advent. Did everybody rise out of their tombs in AD 70? No, there was no resurrection of the body in AD 70. Moreover, Most Christians who exist were born after AD 70. So what do you do with those people? Their position doesn't make any sense. They're cramming everything into the paradigm of Matthew 24, and it simply does not work. It doesn't work exegetically. It doesn't work logically. It's nonsense. The word he uses is parousia, which basically means no more than coming or presence. But it came to be used among Christians as the technical term for our Lord's return in certain contexts. I'm talking about the second coming. Each in his own order means exactly two and not three or three million. So it can't be progressive. Resurrection of Christ, number one. Resurrection of all believers, the company, number two. Can't refer to millions. There are not five, six, or millions of separate harvests. Here's what David Brown writes on this. Anyone who even glances at the sublime chapter will see that the burden of it is the resurrection of believers in general, of them that are Christ, considered as the second Adam. As our death is deduced from the federal relation to first Adam, so the resurrection is argued from the federal connection to the second. As in Adam, they all die, even so in Christ, they all shall be made alive. And it is immediately after this that the apostle says, but each party in his own order, that is the federal head and those federal related to him. Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ, the full harvest at his coming. It's a full harvest, do you understand? It's not a progressive thing throughout history. Can anything be more decisive than this? What commentator explains it otherwise? What unbiased reader ever understood it otherwise? Is it not then a very bold liberty with the word of God to say that it is only a fractional part of them that are Christ is here spoken of? That it means only such of them that have lived before the millennium? that there shall be millions of them that are Christ's that will not be made alive at His coming, according to that view. Here, on the contrary, we find the whole federal offspring of the second Adam made alive together at His coming. As surely as Christ the firstfruits hath espoused them to one husband, that he might present them paratessai, as a chaste virgin to Christ, 2 Corinthians 11, 2. There can be no doubt, I think, that they are right. Well then, when is this to be? Clearly, at His coming." End of quote. And that's just unavoidable. If you take seriously the context, what is Paul refuting and what are the meaning of these words grammatically? What is the meaning of the words? What is the grammar? This verse completely concurs with 1 Thessalonians 4.16-17 where we are told that Christ will descend from heaven and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then the believers who are still alive when Christ returns will be transformed and glorified and all the saints will meet the Savior in the earth's atmosphere, the air. Our Lord is the firstfruits because his victorious resurrection results in and guarantees the full harvest at his second coming. Paul only mentions two categories. Jesus and everyone purchased by His blood. Jesus alone, who is the captain of our salvation, is in the first category and all believers are in the second category. This means that if the resurrection of the dead saints and the rapture of the living saints occurred in A.D. 70, then there will be no resurrection for people living after A.D. 70. That's a big problem. Obviously, the Second Coming can only occur at the end of human history and not at the end of covenant Israel's history. Note also that if we accept the full preterist contention that all believers after A.D. 70 simply receive their resurrected bodies at death, and the general resurrection is a progressive instead of a punctiliar event, then 1 Thessalonians 4.17 doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If the resurrection is what normally happens at death, as many full preterists assert, then why would believers who were alive at Christ's coming need to have their bodies transformed into glorified spiritual bodies, which are raptured into the air to meet Jesus as he descends? Of course, they deny that. They interpret that as some spiritual experience, which is ridiculous, because if you're a Christian, you're already regenerated, you're already made alive spiritually, and you already have the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So what more would there be? What more would there be if it's not a real resurrection? The saints who were alive at that time could simply wait their turn and die a natural death just like everyone else after 8070. The only explanation of 1 Corinthians 15.23, 1 Thessalonians 4.17, and many other passages that does not contradict the plain meaning of scripture is that there is one resurrection of all the saints at the end of history, and we're going to look at Revelation 20, Lord willing, next week, and not an endless series of separate resurrections throughout history. Most of the New Testament passages on the Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection are not difficult passages. They are not what expositors call problem passages or difficult passages. They're very clear. The comments of Greek scholars and exegetes on these passages are virtually in complete harmony. They only become exceptionally difficult when a person attempts to fit them into an A.D. 70 paradigm. What does the resurrection of all the saints mean if it applies to A.D. 70? Well, they scramble and try to figure something out that they can put in there. Well, it means that the souls in Hades were released. First of all, that's bunk. And if there was a release of souls from Hades, it would have happened at the resurrection of Christ, not in AD 70. So that's bunk. When confronted with such clear passages, full preterists can only fall back on their time indicators and ignore what these passages actually say. Or they can equivocate and twist the obvious meaning of the text of Scripture, or both. I was rereading Russell, who's probably the best of the preterists, the full preterists. And he gets to a problem passage and what he essentially does is he just simply doesn't try to interpret it and says, well, this somehow must fit with Matthew 24. Some of them, they're so difficult he doesn't even try to interpret them, which is probably the wise thing to do. Third, for somebody who's a heretic, third, Verses 24 to 28 connect the resurrection of the saints, not with the destruction of Jerusalem, but with Christ's complete and final victory over all powers or forces that are against his throne. Complete victory. This section is very important because Paul is elaborating on the extent of the victory of Christ's resurrection. Because of Adam's fall, sin and death, in the most comprehensive sense of the word, spread to all men. Romans 5 and many other places. In fact, the whole creation was affected by sin in the fall and it groans waiting for its deliverance. But by dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus has conquered death. Not simply spiritually, but in every sense of the word. Even though our Lord has achieved a complete victory over death, believers will still die physically and their bodies decay. Consequently, for salvation in the most comprehensive sense of the term to be complete, All those who are united to the Savior in His resurrection must arise because His victory was their victory. Remember, if Adam had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, he would have lived forever. If he would have obeyed the covenant of works, he would have not died physically. So according to the full predisposition, Christ's victory leaves men in a worse state than Adam had, when the Bible teaches the opposite. It's a better state. We not only get glorified bodies that can't get sick or die, but we can't be tempted by sin, we can never sin. Only then will the last enemy, Paul says, which is death, will be finally and completely subdued. And there are a number of things to note about this section of scripture that refute the full predisposition number one. Once again, the context of this passage is the resurrection of Christ and the bodily resurrection of believers. Paul is still setting forth reasons as to why a bodily resurrection of Christians must take place. to ignore that Paul is discussing, to ignore that and say Paul is discussing regeneration or deliverance from spiritual death or some deliverance of Christians against Israel in AD 70 is purely arbitrary. That's not the topic. What is the topic of the passage? What is the context? What does Paul say? He's arguing against people at Corinth who believe there is no bodily resurrection. So to bring Israel into that is, protection from Israel doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's imposed upon the text. They're imposing their own preconceived ideas onto the text. Moreover, since believers have already been regenerated and justified before God and baptized with the Holy Spirit, Paul's use of the word death must refer to a type of death that believers still experience, which is physical death. Remember when Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, John chapter 11. He talks about those who believe in me shall never die. In other words, they possess eternal life. And then he says, he talks about, yeah, but those who do die, and it obviously must refer to physical death, I will raise them up again. And if you don't believe in a physical, literal resurrection, that passage makes no sense whatsoever. Number two. Paul very clicks in the bodily resurrection with the end of the world. After Paul sets forth the order of the resurrections, Christ the firstfruits, then the full harvest of the saints of the second coming, he says, then comes the end. Ieta ta telos. Although the word ieta then does not necessarily mean immediately after, in this context it almost certainly connects the final resurrection with Christ's total victory and the consummation of all things. That's the only way to read it grammatically. Because the word yeta can either mean what is subsequent or what is immediately consequent, premillennialists see the 1,000 year gap between the resurrection of the saints of the Parisian and the end of the millennium, 1,000 years later. The problem with that premillennial view and the full preterist view, which is far worse, because at least the premillennialist believes in a final bodily resurrection, they believe in a full victory, they believe in an end of history, pre-consummate history. The full preterist doesn't believe in that. or if they assert that they do, they have no reason, according to their system, to believe in it, is that scripture clearly places the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked on the final day. Daniel 12, 1 to 2, John 5, 28 to 29, Acts 24, 15. And then, of course, John 11, the resurrection of Lazarus. He raises Lazarus from the dead, and then he talks about all who believe in me shall never die. It's talking about spiritual death. They're saved. They have eternal life. They possess it. And then he talks about those who do die, which can only mean physical death, I will raise him again. Now, he just raised Lazarus bodily. What are the people that are going to think? Oh, he's teaching a bodily, literal resurrection from the dead. This happens on the same day as the final judgment of the righteous and the wicked, Matthew 13, 30 to 50, 25, 31 to 46, 2 Thessalonians 1, 7 to 10, and the end of all opposition to God together at the coming of the day of the Lord, 2 Peter 3, 10 to 13, 1 Corinthians 24, 27, Revelation 20, 11 to 15, which you're gonna look at next week, Lord willing. Consequently, unless it can be proved from other sources that events which are clearly foretold as contemporaneous, they happen at the same time, unless that can be proved, we have to believe in, we have to submit to, we have to adhere to, we have to confess the classical Christian position. Now all this raises the question, does the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 comport well with Paul's description of the events in the end, or that must come to pass before the end? Well, Paul says, We're talking about 1 Corinthians 15, that Christ must reign as a theanthropic mediator. It continues until every authority or power that opposes him is subdued. And the last enemy that is destroyed is death itself. Are people still dying today? Yeah. There's probably somebody who dies every minute of every day. The last enemy that is destroyed is death itself. The messianic rule that began of our Lord's resurrection must continue until he has put all his enemies under his feet, including physical death. By subjecting death to himself through the resurrection of the dead, the saints, which is causally related to his being the first fruits, Christ will thus have brought Satan's tyranny to its conclusion. Total, complete victory. As Christians, we should view death as a power that is contrary to God's original intention for the human race. It's caused by the curse. It's caused by the fall. It's not part of the created order. Here's once again where full preterists are total heretics. They teach that God created evil as part of the universe. Death is part of the universe. Death and pain and suffering existed outside of Eden, they teach. And what is their argument? Oh, they say, well, there was the knowledge of the tree of good and evil. Oh, because there was the knowledge of the tree of good and evil, evil had to exist. That's nonsense. God knows what evil is. Does that mean that God is evil or that God does evil? Of course not. When we're resurrected, when the end comes, when we're with Christ in heaven forever, when we have our glorified bodies, will we know what evil is? Yes, we will. Does that mean that evil still exists? Of course it does. Evil will not exist. So it became a triumphant enemy over man when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Adam's disobedience resulted in the death of himself, his wife, and all his descendants. Spiritual, physical, Christ accepted, of course, born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Adam's disobedience resulted in the death of himself, his wife, and all his descendants. But Jesus conquered death through his resurrection and will abolish it in the consummation. Death will be defeated and if you read Revelation chapter 21 it's quite clear because it says there's going to be no more suffering, no more tears, no more death, no more sickness. That's what it says. Now how they can spiritualize that away is beyond me. It should be obvious by now that Paul is not describing the end of Israel as a covenant nation or the end of the Jewish age, but the end of the redemptive process itself. The final victory of Christ, cross and resurrection from the dead. Complete, perfect, total victory. Jesus brings the work of redemption to completion at the second coming and then hands the kingdom over to the Father. As long as there are enemies of Christ in this world, people still sin and Christians still die. Me and my wife are getting older. We've been married almost 40 years. We've been together 39 years. We're getting older. We're not spring chickens. We all get old and die. That's part of the fall. As long as there are enemies of Christ in this world, people still sin and Christians still die physically. The salvation process has not yet been fully realized. The resurrection of the saints cannot be restricted to regeneration, coming out of the spiritual death, or a revival of the Jews. For physical death will be done away in the removal of every power that opposes the will of God. The verb translated destroy, abolish, or put down, kedeo, means to render null and void, make inoperative, render ineffective. At the resurrection of the saints, all unbelievers are judged and cast into the lake of fire with the devil and his angels. From the resurrection to the second coming, Satan was on a leash. Of course, he's let out right before the second coming for a brief period of time to cause a great apostasy worldwide and another persecution of the saints, and then Christ will return and rescue the saints. We'll look at that next week. But after the parousia, he is in a lake of fire with absolutely no influence over this world. In the completely renewed heaven and earth, there will be no more death. Here's Revelation 21.4. No more death, nor sorrow. nor crying. There will be no more pain for the former things have passed away." Now, if you're a Christian and your wife dies and she's a Christian, you know she goes to heaven. But you still cry and you still are sad. Death is not normal and you're going to miss your wife or your husband or whoever, or if a child dies. There is sorrow. They wept at the grave of Lazarus. They were in sorrow. So we're still, the end of the world has not come yet. As long as there's dying, as long as there's death, as long as there's pain and sorrow, you can't say that Christ has returned yet. I'm talking about his literal bodily coming. According to the full preterist concept of the ultimate results of Christ's work, the world was much better off before the fall than it will ever be for according to their system, sin and the enemies of Christ will always be with us. There is no ultimate victory. Now in their view, Adam and Eve in the garden, there was no death in the garden. But if you went outside of the garden, the animals were dying and they were ripping each other apart and there was death and destruction outside. But man didn't have to deal with death. So they posit a system where Adam had it better than Christians after the resurrection. Nonsense! And then we discuss the nature of the resurrected body. After proving that believers are to arise bodily at the Second Coming of Christ, Paul turns his attention to the nature of the saints' resurrected bodies. There is a sense in which this section is still dealing with the objections to the literal bodily resurrection. Because one of their problems is, well, look, you died, you rotted away, you turned to dust, you might have been eaten by animals, how are you gonna have a body? For the apostle sets out to answer the common objection to this doctrine. How can a literal bodily resurrection take place when bodies have been consumed by insects, bacteria, plants, or animals that are completely disintegrated into the earth? A modern scientific person would want to know how all the scattered atoms and molecules that once composed our bodies are put back together again. And many Fulpritorists actually think that this is an excellent argument against the traditional Christian view of the resurrection of the body. Well, let's see, that God created the universe with trillions and trillions of galaxies, and yet God can't put a body back together? I mean, come on. As Paul says, that's foolishness. Paul deals with his objection not with a discourse on the power or sovereignty of God or a scientific dissertation on our DNA molecules, but with a strong rebuke for even considering such an argument. Paul's response begins with the word fool, aphron, translated as foolish one or thou fool. The word literally means mindless, senseless, ignorant, or foolish. The point of this word is not to insult the Corinthians who held such a ridiculous idea, but to tell them that they are not thinking correctly, biblically or logically. Don't be a fool. Such thinking is foolishness. They are fools in the Old Testament sense of not taking God or His power into account on this crucial doctrine. After this one-word rebuke, he appeals to the analogy of sowing seed to gather a harvest. The seed is buried in the earth, but then it is raised up with a new, more glorious body. Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive until it dies. You plant a seed. You plant some wheat. You plant some barley. What do you have to do? You have to wait for it to grow and pop out of the soil. It ceases being a seed and becomes something more glorious. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be but mere grain, perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body. All flesh is not the same flesh, for there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, another of birds. There are celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies. But the glory of the celestial is one, the glory of the terrestrial is another. There's one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars, for one star differs from another in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption, it is sown in dishonor. It is raised in glory. The body, when it dies and it's put in the earth, it rots, it stinks, it's disgusting. If you ever see a dead body, somebody is murdered and they're laid out in a field and they're out there for two weeks. They turn green and black and they're full of maggots and they're all bloated and you can smell them from a hundred yards away. It's disgusting. Dishonor. But it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness. It is raised in power. It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body, 1 Corinthians 15, 36-44. Well, this section here contains another of things that simply cannot be answered by full Proverbs. First, note that Paul's argument only makes sense if what is sown into the earth are the dead bodies of believers. Seeds are buried in the earth and Christians' physical bodies are buried in the ground, or they're placed in a tomb. Your soul's not put in the ground. Your spirit's not placed in a tomb. It goes right to be in heaven. They go immediately to be with Christ at death, Philippians 1, 20 to 1 to 23, Luke 23, 43. Moreover, once a Christian is regenerated and saved, his soul cannot die spiritually. So Paul is writing to Christians. Therefore, he cannot be telling them that their regeneration and deliverance from sin death is in the future. Also, any idea that Paul is dealing with some ethnic Israel's death and resurrection is complete nonsense. The context shows that Corinthians were not discussing ethnic Israel at all. Rather, they are denying a literal bodily resurrection of the saints. Look at verse 12. The idea that, oh, it's referring to Israel's sin death and their restoration. Where's that in the context? Show me. Second, that Paul is talking about a real resurrection of physical bodies is proved by verses 38 and 39 where the apostle is talking about bodies made of flesh. The use of the term flesh in this context cannot refer to our corrupt nature or unregenerate state. For Paul is talking about different kinds of bodies that animals, birds, reptiles have in comparison to human bodies. They have flesh. We don't talk about unregenerate birds and lizards. So he's talking about real flesh. You know, your body's made of meat and blood and bone. Animals are not unregenerate. They do not have sinful hearts or souls that are under sin death. Remember, Paul is answering the question, what kinds of bodies do Christians have when they are resurrected, verse 35. And this observation also completely rolls out the idea that Paul is discussing a release of souls from Hades. Souls that are not made of flesh and are never referred to as bodies in scripture. And by the way, their passage about the release of souls from Hades, which they get from Roman Catholicism If you look at my exegesis of Peter, he's talking about something that happens in the days of Noah. He's not talking about Christ died and the souls are trapped in some compartment of hell and he lets them out. That's nonsense. Paul is establishing the point that God has made different kinds of bodies and therefore he has the ability to raise up our dead bodies to a new form of existence that is different and superior to that which was placed in the grave. Third, the main point of Paul's seed analogy is to establish a genuine resurrection as well as a radical transformation. Okay, I just planted seeds and they're starting to pop up because we've had warm weather. Well, that was a real seed that I put in the ground. What's coming up now doesn't look like a seed at all, but it came from that seed. It didn't come from nothing. the dead body which is placed in the tomb, the seed will be raised and transformed into a spiritual glorified body. That's what the seed becomes. Your body becomes this. He's talking about your flesh, your glorified body. The seed that is placed in the ground doesn't simply rot into nothing. Well, God creates a completely new and different plant somewhere else. I was reading another Max King, another full preterist. And when he talks about this kind of stuff, he just reverts to being a Neoplatonist. Why would God care about bodies? Why would God care about this physical stuff? Well, that's totally unbiblical thinking. That's Greek thinking. That's Neoplatonism. Sounds like a Gnostic. The analogy assumes continuity, or it is simply false. Farmers don't plant wheat so that God can create a bushel of grain out of thin air. The planted seed becomes a beautiful field of wheat. Paul is telling us that the resurrection of believers is not simply the resuscitation of a corpse, as happened with Lazarus, and then of course he lived and died again. It rather involves a transformation of dead bodies into something that is spiritual and corruptible, immortal and glorious, can't suffer, can't die, can't be tempted, can't get hurt. That's why premillennialism is so ridiculous. You've got the saints holed up in Jerusalem, and you've got physical people, just regular people that are believers, and you've got all these glorified saints that came down with the rapture that have glorified bodies, and that were resurrected and have glorified bodies. You can't kill them with bullets and bombs. You can't kill them. They can't die. As Paul says in another place, in this Philippians 3, 20-21, Jesus will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to his glorious body. Once again, what is the paradigm of our resurrection? Jesus' resurrection. Jesus had a real—He was truly a human in every way except without sin. Fully God, fully man. And His resurrected body is not a divine body. It doesn't merge into godhood. That's a heresy. It remains a true human body, but it's glorified. That's the paradigm for what's going to happen to us. The seed analogy assumes that God starts with something, a dead body, and not nothing. Full preterist creation of a resurrected body out of nothing. They just believe it's a spirit. They don't believe it's a body at all. The amazing transformation of the dead body is described using the passive quickened. The seed does not come to life by itself or of itself, but God gives it life. A dead-looking, bare, dry seed is put into the ground, but what comes up is a green plant, vigorous and beautiful. The passive indicates that the seed is acted upon. The full preterist believes the seed is not acted upon, but rather is ignored. It just rots away forever. Well, we must be careful not to make too much out of a simple analogy. The full Preterist teaching ignores a central feature of this analogy. They have to ignore it, because they don't believe in a resurrection of bodies, bodies made of flesh. Full Preterists turn the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians upside down by using the seed analogy as a basis for their idea that believers receive a completely new and totally different body at death. Not a body of flesh, but a spirit. You're just simply a spirit. And this interpretation should be rejected for the following reasons. Number one is noted. The seed analogy assumes both continuity and radical change. Full preterist denies continuity. There is no continuity. Your body just rots away forever. It's trash. It's treated like trash. If a sole preterist teaches that preterist bodies are left in the earth forever and there's no connection between our resurrected body and what is in the tomb, then the seed analogy has nothing to do, the seed has nothing to do with the plan at all. The analogy falls to the ground. It doesn't make any sense. There's no real connection at all. Paul's analogy does not fit the resurrection of the saints at all. What full preterists teach is not a resurrection, but instead an ex nihilo, out of nothing creation. They do not regard the dead bodies of Christians as seeds, but rather as garbage to be discarded like trash. Instead of being redeemed, the body of believers are abandoned to the grave forever. That's exactly what they teach. They all teach this because they deny the resurrection of the body. Number two, the analogy with Jesus as the first roots is also destroyed. The Redeemer is the first roots precisely because he rose first from the dead. He conquered death by his resurrection. And in that, he's the captain of our salvation. Yes, our union with him in his life, death, and resurrection gives us spiritual life, regeneration, baptism of the Holy Spirit, and all that good stuff. Yes, that's true. But it also gives us resurrection of our bodies, our physical bodies. He's the firstfruits precisely because he rose from the dead bodily. He rose as the captain of our salvation because he conquered death in the grave. We rise also, like he did. If we do not conquer death and the grave and Christ, but are left to rot in the grave forever, then the firstfruit analogy breaks down completely. Full Preterists do not believe in a real resurrection of the saints. They believe that Christians receive completely new bodies at death that have no organic connection to their physical bodies that lived and died at all. They deny the seed analogy. They also believe that Christ's resurrection was solely for dramatic apologetical effect. They don't believe it's salvific because they deny the physical resurrection of the saints. You see how I keep telling you when you have one heresy, one serious error, it leads to another serious error that's connected to it? Well, once you deny the bodily resurrection of Christians, then you have to devalue the resurrected body of Christ. It's not really important. God did it for dramatic effect. It's not salvific in their view. So they not only have a heretical view of the pre-fall order, which ascribes evil to God, but they also have a heretical view of Jesus' resurrection. It's just for psychological effect. It's apologetical effect. It's not really important. They must believe this because they view physical death as a natural part of God's pre-fall world. They teach that Jesus rose literally and bodily, but Christians never rise literally and bodily. Therefore, the most that they could say about our Lord's resurrection is that it was a sign that at some point in the future, God would create new spiritual bodies for Christians out of nothing, ex nihilo. But the first fruits of a barley or wheat harvest is some barley or wheat, not a cow or a sheep. You put barley in the ground, you get barley. You put wheat in the ground, you get wheat. You put tomato seeds in the ground, you get tomatoes. Continuity, continuity. It is a sample of what is to come in the future and not a metaphor for a completely different kind of event or thing. Here's what John Gill says, Christ is the first and rose in the first in dignity as well as in time. He rose as the head of the body, as the firstborn in the beginning, that in all things he might have the preeminence. The firstfruits sanctified the rest of the harvest, representing the whole, gave right to an ingathering of it, and ensured it Christ, by lying in the grave and rising out of it, sanctified it for His people, and in His resurrection represented them. They rose with Him and in Him, and their resurrection is secured by His. Because He lives, they shall live also. The firstfruits were only such, and all this to the fruits of the earth, that were of the same kind with them, not to tares and chaff, to briars and thorns. So Christ, in rising from the dead, is only the firstfruits of the saints." You've got to have that historical continuity. The seed goes in, and then in Revelation 20, verse 6, we are told that those who participate in or take part in the first resurrection cannot be affected or suffer under the power of the second death. The first resurrection is Jesus' salvific resurrection on the third day. We are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit in regeneration and the mystical union. Ephesians 2.5-6, see also Colossians 3.1. When we were dead in trespasses and sins, God made us alive together with Christ and raised us up and seated us with Him in the heavenly places. His definitive victorious resurrection on the third day guarantees our spiritual resurrection and conversion in time and saves us from the second death at the final bodily resurrection on the day of the final judgment. And Lord willing, we'll be looking at Revelation. They cannot explain that away, Revelation 20. The teaching of the two resurrections for believers is solidly rooted in Scripture, John 5, 24 to 25, and 28 to 29, where Jesus talks about the two separate resurrections, one being spiritual, one being bodily. The first resurrection is spiritual, takes place throughout history, as the ascended Christ sends a spirit into the hearts of the elect over time. It is progressive. The second resurrection is bodily and takes place all at once when Christ returns from heaven to the earth at the second coming. It is never presented in scripture as progressive. It is universal. It is public. The second death is when believers are cast into the lake of unbelievers, excuse me, the unbelievers, Revelation 20, I think it's verse 9 or 10. The second death is after verse 11, when unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire at the final judgment. All resurrected believers are free of the second death. Christians are blessed, holy, and the second death has no power over them. That's what we're told. And what did Jesus say? We looked at this before. Don't fear them that can kill you through persecution, you Christians. You're my people. They can kill you. They can destroy your body. They can't kill your soul. Your soul goes directly to be in heaven, in paradise. Fear Him, God, who can cast both soul and body into hell. Well, if you don't believe in a bodily resurrection, what is he saying? Who can cast both soul and soul into hell? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And then fourth, we're kind of running out of time. Just have a little bit next week here. A proper interpretation of the transformed bodies of Christian rules out the first preterist, the full preterist interpretation. Paul gives a full deal of contrast between our bodies which are sown in corruption and the resurrected body that we are to receive. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in honor. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown in natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There's a natural body and there's a spiritual body, 1 Corinthians 15, 42 to 44. Now using the figure of a seed once again, Paul says that the bodies of believers are placed in the grave at the appointed time, and at the appointed time they are to arise in a state that is radically different and superior to what was before. The expression spirti, it is sown, is out of place and completely irrelevant if it does not refer to the human body that was put in the grave. What is sown? If it's not a human body, what is sown? They can't explain these things away. Likewise, it is raised. Egertai refers to the same body that was sown, or Paul is speaking nonsense. Paul notes four differences between the body before and after the resurrection. The body before the resurrection is a corruptible body. In this mortal life, our physical bodies, they wear out, they get sick, they get diseases, they die, they rot because we are fallen and polluted creatures. The death and putrefaction of the body is a great humiliation for man who is created to rule over God's creation. Paul speaks about the sting of death. Even Christians have to experience the sting of death. It's not pleasant to get old and get cancer or whatever and suffer and die. It's not pleasant. It's a sting. But your soul goes to be with Christ. The word corruption, thora, which means that something is destructible or perishable. We talk about perishable fruit. Paul is obviously discussing the human body, which is liable to decay. Consequently, the Christian physical body that was committed to the tomb to rot and turn to dust will arise without the ability to die or decay. It cannot be destroyed, and corruption is the opposite of corruption or decay. The fact that our new bodies will be imperishable means that they will never wear out or grow old or they will never be subject to any kind of sickness or disease. They will be completely healthy and strong forever. Moreover, since the gradual process of aging is part of the process by which our bodies now are subject to corruption, it is appropriate to think that our resurrected bodies will have no sign of aging at all, but will have the characteristics of youthful but mature manhood or womanhood forever. Take yourself in your prime, then make it a hundred times better. There you are at the resurrection. There will be no evidence of decay or injury, for all will be made perfect. Our resurrected bodies will show the fulfillment of God's perfect wisdom in creating us as human beings who are the pinnacle of His creation and the appropriate bearers of His likeness and image. In these resurrected bodies we will clearly see humanity as God intended it to be. Remember the covenant works with Adam. If Adam had obeyed, what would happen? He never would have died. He would have been glorified. Then he wouldn't be able to be tempted or sin. Well, that's going to happen due to what Christ did. In fact, our new state will be superior to Adam in that we will be unable to fall, we will not be dependent on food for nourishment, 1 Corinthians 6.13, and it is the only state that is truly the opposite of corruption or decay. Our bodies will be immortal. A body free of all moral and physical corruption awaits all of those who believe in Christ. One of the central features of the human body, its corruptibility that caused Greeks to view it as defective and lesser on a scale of being, will not be a characteristic of the saints' resurrected bodies. The Greeks thought the human body was disgusting. It could stink. It could get sickness. It could die. And then when it died, it was putrid. You got to bury it six feet under or people might get a disease. They thought that was disgusting. How could that be something good? Well, God will make it something good that is incorruptible. Before the resurrection, Believers' bodies are sown in dishonor that is subject to humiliation. The moment our bodies die, they begin to rot and degrade. The funeral home can pump in embalming fluid to slow the process. They can put makeup on you to make you look kind of nice, make the corpse look nice. They can mask the effect of death, but soon the body becomes discolored, bloated, and begins to stink. The body is enveloped in dishonor and must be removed from sight and entombed to remove its stench from the community. It must be buried deep because this putrefying mass is a danger to public health. The sight of a decomposing body causes people to recoil in horror. But the resurrected body comes forth in glory. It comes out of the grave perfect, without blemish or defect. Our bodies will be changed into a thing of great beauty and radiance, transformed and fashioned like the glorious body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15.49 And as we are born in the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man. If you were born with a birth defect, perhaps you were born very homely, very ugly, misshapen, that'll all be gone. You'll have a glorious body. Jesus will transform a body that may be conformed to his glorious body, Philippians 3.21. And I better stop there. I thought I would get through this. I only got a little bit left. I better stop. Let me just deal with an objection here by a full preterist. Kurt Simons, and this is an internetical. The term spiritual in 1 Corinthians 15.44 he says is substantive, not qualitative. Now what he means by that is when God says sing spiritual songs, the songs are not spirits, the songs are from the Holy Spirit. When he says it's substantive, not qualitative, he means that we're going to be pure spirit beings, no flesh at all, no bodies at all. And that's a common view among full preterists. Continuing, quote, and that the body of the resurrection will be intangible, incorporeal, immaterial, having no physical existence at all, immaterial and eternal. That's his view. This is a full preterist view. The spiritual man has a physical body only because he has not yet put it off in death. Upon the death of the body, the inner man lives on clothed upon with the spiritual body of life. The earthly house, 2 Corinthians 5.1, is the fleshy body of this material realm. Upon death, it is replaced by a spiritual and immaterial house from heaven. That's completely neoplatonic. It's completely gnostic. Since it's from heaven, it clearly cannot be the selfsame body put off in death. In the resurrection, we will be spirit beings with spiritual bodies. And then he refers to Hebrews and 1 Corinthians. It's an article called The Resurrection of the Flesh. So what do they assert? They assert the seed analogy is not true. What is put into the ground has nothing to do with what comes out. They deny the seed analogy totally and say you're just a pure spirit, like an angel. And you get a spirit body. Well, if your spirit goes to heaven already, why do you need a spirit body on top of a spirit? That's totally irrational. You're a spirit, but then you're going to be given a spirit body on top of the spirit. What does that mean? Foolishness. Well, there are a number of serious problems with Simon's view, number one. This is the full Preterist view. Why would Christ or Paul describe what Simon describes as even a resurrection? It's not a resurrection. It has nothing to do with a resurrection. You're just simply, you're dead, you have a spirit, and then at some time in the future, God will give you a spirit body. Of course, I think a lot of them believe that happens at death. So your spirit is given a spirit. That makes a lot of sense. It obviously has nothing to do with the resurrection. To describe it as a resurrection is totally illogical. The old body remains in the grave forever and a spiritual shell is created out of nothing to house the person's spirit. So you get a spirit to house your spirit. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Number two, the Corinthians who denied the resurrection of the body would have no problem with Simon's view at all. It was precisely the idea of raising up of the old dead body of flesh that was rejected by the Neoplatonists and Gnostics. Paul is refuting Simon's view in Corinthians. If you don't believe in a resurrection of the body because the body is disgusting and it's made out of flesh, why would you object to Simon's view? There's nothing to object to. The body never rises. 3. If there is nothing physical or material about the resurrection body, then we have the rather absurd notion of a spirit created to house man's disembodied spirit. as Turrington writes, it is said that our bodies will be heavenly, 1 Corinthians 15.48, not in origin, in essence, but in abodance and seat. Spiritual, not in substance and nature, because it implies a contradiction for a body to be made of spirit, for a body to be granted, which is not material, but in qualities and gifts. Okay, you're gonna have a body, a real body, but it'll be spiritual. What does that mean? You're not going to be tempted anymore. You're not going to sin. You'll be completely controlled by the Spirit of God in your glorified state. The flesh will perish as to its moral and qualitative being, but will remain as to its physical being essentially. All defects will be removed from the bodies to which they have been exposed in this mortality, but their essence will not be destroyed. while they will be blessed with immortality, glory, splendor, activity, and similar gifts, which will be to them for an ornament and garments. They will always remain as to substance, material, quantity, visible, extended, standing, together with its own dimensions, commensurate with place. As he will give it, glory will not take it away again." And that makes perfect sense. That's the end of Turrington. That makes perfect sense for The paradigm of our resurrection is Christ's resurrection. We've seen that over and over again. Did Christ rise with a physical body? Touch me, I've got flesh and bones. That's what he told the Israelites? Touch me, I'm not a spirit. I'm not a ghost, I'm not a spirit. Full preterism explicitly denies the explicit teaching of scripture. Here's what Augustine says, the bodies of the just will be spiritual after the resurrection, but not because they cease to be bodies, because they will subsist by the vivified spirit. Number four, Simeon's view presupposes a neoplatonic concept of the human body. Man is saved only when he gets rid of his physical body and becomes a pure spirit being. For Paul, man's problem was the nature of his physical body due to sin, its weakness, perishability, and so on. The resurrection of the physical body will eliminate these bad things without eliminating man's body. Once again, they have to deny the Genesis account where God created Adam and Eve with real bodies and said, this is very good. 5. And as we already noted in our study 1 Corinthians 15, it is very clear that Paul is discussing a real bodily resurrection, not a creation of a spiritual shell, ex nihilo. And then 6. Simon's appeal to 2 Corinthians 5, 1, is a proof text for a completely new spiritual body that has nothing to do with our current body, is fallacious. Paul uses the verb epidysentide, to be covered over, which conveys the idea of covering over that which already exists. The apostle is talking about transformation of our earthly mortal bodies into heavenly spiritual bodies. And this point is proved by verse 2, which is that our present tent, our earthly physical bodies, shall be clothed over with the additional clothing of our heavenly glorified bodies. So the position of full prejudice explicitly contradicts several teachings of Scripture and cannot be supported by exegesis. We'll have to stop there. I thought I wanted to get through Corinthians. We have a little bit left, but Lord willing, I want to discuss Revelation 20, 11 and following. See what they do, and I watched some of their videos this week, what they do, you get a passage that contradicts what they teach. and then they automatically fall back to the position, well, this is a parallel to Matthew 24, so we have to interpret it in light of Matthew 24. We can't let it, we can't interpret it due to its immediate context. We can't interpret it due to the grammar and the meaning of the words. We have to twist it and fit it into Matthew 24. So when there's radical differences between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24, at least up to verse 34, they have to twist. And they twist very poorly. It's easy to disprove, but we'll stop there. Lord, we thank you. What an amazing salvation. We have these weak physical bodies. We have the flesh we have to deal with, the temptations to sin. We grow old. We get sick. We die. We have physical ailments. We get arthritis. We have weakness. And we're going to die and rot. It'll be a stinking mass, which is humiliating. But thank you, Lord, that Jesus went into that tomb, exit in, exit out. He conquered death, and we trust in Him, knowing He conquered death for us. He didn't need to come to earth. He didn't need to live a life of humiliation. He didn't need to die on the cross, for He never sinned. He did it for us. And Lord, we bless you, we thank you, we honor you, knowing that Christ has achieved a full and perfect salvation, both body and soul, for us. We thank you in Jesus' name, amen.