Pastor thanks for the reply and the response with Philippians.
This section of Philippians is a wonderful part of the scriptures. I will give you my take on it and perhaps that will give you an idea of why this “resurrection” debate is such an issue with me.
I find it interesting, but expected, that you said:
“Paul speaks so clearly about both Christ’s physical body and the fact that our lowly bodies will be transformed. . .”
You used the plural for “bodies” because of your view of the resurrection rather than using Paul’s word. The text reads:
Phil 3:21 who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory (Young’s Literal Greek Translation)
Paul does not say that “bodies” i.e. a plurality of bodies, will be transformed but that The Body (singular) will be transformed. Now this may not seem like much of a big deal, but when you go beyond a surface reading of the text Paul’s use of the singular body becomes clearer. Paul uses the singular “the body” elsewhere in regards to the resurrection. What is the difference between a transformation of multiple “bodies” and the transformation of “the body”? One emphasizes an individualistic view and the other a corporate view. Paul over and over again throughout his writings always places an emphasis on the corporate condition of man, not the individual condition. In fact the whole bible and the gospel message itself stress a federal/corporate view. To deny this would be to deny the fact that Christ died for the sins of his people. Christ’s representative death is “corporate” otherwise each man would have to die and atone for his own sins…but God deals with man corporately. If it were not so then Christ could not be your representative before God.
It is the singular corporate body (one body) that is to be raised out of its state of humiliation.
A few verses earlier here in Philippians Paul was speaking about his life as a Jew under the Law and how in forsaking the Law way of life (pursuit of righteousness) he was pursuing a life (righteousness) not his own, but of Christ. He then says:
Phil 3:10 to know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death,11 if anyhow I may attain to the resurrection of the dead.
(Again….he says this in the context of his Jewishness, old covenant life, that he was just talking about)
Paul’s being conformed to Christ’s death was a death to the Law life (i.e., the Old Covenant law way of life) so as to attain to “Resurrection” a new mode of life in Christ. (note: As other scriptures teach that Christ was born under the old Covenant Law life but in his death he died to that).
Surely it is not a future physical resurrection of Paul’s dead decayed body that he has in mind, because speaking of the resurrection he says next in Philippians:
Phil 3:12 Not that I did already obtain [the resurrection], or have been already perfected; but I pursue it
Of course Paul had not yet attained the raising of his own dead decayed corpse from the grave (aka, the resurrection) so why would he even have to mention this? Because the resurrection that he was pursuing was a resurrection of transformation; from one mode of existence under the law covenant way of life, to a new mode of existence under the new covenant way of life (which he had not as of yet fully attained)
Speaking of the incarnation the scriptures teach that Christ was born into the old covenant world (born under the law) and into a state of humiliation (phil 2).
Gal 4:4-5 God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law , 5 to redeem those under law , that we might receive the full rights of sons
In Christ’s death and resurrection he died to the old mode of life (that all Israel was under) and rose to a new mode of life. He was born under the old covenant system and was born of a woman, born into the state of humiliation, but by his resurrection from the dead (old life) he was declared to be the Son of God (the state of exaltation).
Rom 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
Note the “the body of our humiliation” in philippians and compare to Christ’s body of humiliation. Both “humiliations” are being born under the law.
Back to the Philippians text that teaches “the resurrection”
Phil 3:21 who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory
“The Body” is a single corporate body that is born under the law, born of the flesh (of woman), and born in a state of humiliation. The body needs to die a cross determined (Christ like) death. A death to the old Covenant mode of existence, and its transformation is a “rasing up” (aka, resurrection) from a lowly position to that of an exalted position (a body of glory). The new covenant mode of life is Life in its fullest sense. This is what Paul strived forward and pressed on towards. Dying to his former mode of life of the flesh (flesh means under the law) and pursuing a new mode of life in Christ. Now Paul, as he said, had not YET attained the resurrection, i.e., this new mode of life/existence in a state of covenantal perfection. Why not? Because the Old Covenant was still binding. In the first century it was in the process of passing away (Heb 8:13), but would not be completed until the Parousia (when Christ destroys the old covenant temple, which happened in 70ad). It is thus the complete destruction of the “administration of death” (2Cor 3:7) that consummates and completes the transformation, from death to life, from old covenant to new covenant. The administration of death, the strength of sin, the power of death, death itslef etc. Paul’s states several times is The Law (i.e., the Law as covenant, or the old covenant way of life). When the old covenant passes away, so does death. This speaks to the “resurrection” and the defeat of death, I.e., the destruction of the ministration of death, the old covenant.
The “Body of death” is a “body” under the Old Covenant way of life, as described in Romans 7. At the resurrection this body is delivered from death to life, from old covenant mode to new covenant mode.
I should probably clarify a little more the corporate aspect of “Body” and why Paul speaks of “the Body” in regards to transformation/resurrection rather than a change of “bodies.”
2 Cor 5:2 For in this [Body] we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is out of heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed
This “Tent” is singular. It is one “Tent” and one “body” not several tents or bodies. Those who are ‘clothed’ in this one Body/Tent desire to be further clothed with a better (i.e., heavenly) body/tent which is “out of” heaven or “from” heaven. Note: Scripture teaches that it is the New Jerusalem (habitation) which is out of heaven, or the Bride of Christ (one body) which is out of heaven, it is the Corpes Christi which is out of heaven, it is the New covenant which is out of heaven (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.). While it is Paul’s current “house” “tent” “body” which is earthly.
There is a lot more to this then I have time to go into right now. But to just jump right to the point. Paul, in his time frame, is in the “body” and is “clothed in that body” but desires to be further clothed in “the body” which is out of heaven rather than one which is of the earth. This is covenantal language. The earthly is essentially the ‘body of moses’ (the old covenant) and the heavenly is the ‘body of Christ’ (the new covenant) (See Hewbrews 9….the “body” made with hands is the old covenant…the body made without hands is the new covenant and it is this body that comes out of heaven) Both bodies are CLOTHED. Paul does not want to be found naked, i.e., without a covenant/relationship with God. God called Israel “naked” when she was in a state of sin and covenant breaking. Paul does not want to be naked, but further clothed with better clothing, i.e., a better covenant.
It does not take much digging in scripture to show that “clothing” and “nakedness” are covenantal terms.
Ezek 16:8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,”…I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk
When God founded Israel he “covered her nakedness” and “entered into a covenant” with her. This language is all over the OT scriptures. Ever wonder why Adam and Eve were in the garden and were ‘naked’ and not ashamed? They were not ashamed before God. They walked with God. They were without sin and had no need of clothing, i.e., a covenant in order to relate to God. But when they sinned they were ashamed before God and they saw their nakedness. God then clothed them with animal skins. By the shedding of blood their nakedness was covered. Thus, in covenant relationship with God Adam, and his offspring, related to God by animal sacrifice, the shedding of blood. Because of sin no longer could they be naked and not ashamed. The animal skin clothing (covenant) has its fullest meaning in the Old Covenant; relating to God, clothed, in and under the
law. But in the new covenant we are ‘further clothed’ with better clothes and a better covenant in Christ. We relate to (covenant with) God through Christ. The body of Moses is clothed in animal skins and the body of Christ is clothed in ‘white robes’ of righteousness. But in either case we can never go back to being “naked” and not ashamed like Adam and eve because we have all sinned….we have to relate to God in clothing (through a covenant). Adams sin affected all, it was corporate. The body is a single body, a corporate body. The single Tent or tabernacle is the earthly tabernacle and body of the Old Covenant, the Tent from out of heaven is the new body in Christ, the new Jerusalem, the new covenant (which during Pauls life had not yet been consumated….he was waiting for it still. The body of moses, the temple, the law, etc. was still fully functioning and had not yet “died”. In the book of Revelation, when the earthly temple is destroyed in 70ad, what appears from out of heaven? The
new jerusalem, the bride and body of Christ. The destruct ion of the one brings in the manifestation of the other. The destruction of the earthly body (of moses) reveals that which is out of heaven (body of Christ).
In my opinion it is the comparing scripture with scripture that I come to an understanding that Resurrection is COVENANTAL TRANSFORMATION from one body to a new, better and heavenly body. As I said before, I in no way deny a ‘bodily’ resurrection…in fact my understanding is that “the body” is of upmost importance. But being scripturally minded we most see these things as scripture does, corporately and covenantally. It is a single corporate body. This is a quote from an article I wrote:
“Scripture records redemptive history, not world history or profane/secular history. Scriptures terminology (e.g., “age,” “age to come,” “eternal”) must be defined within its context. From beginning to end scripture records the redemptive history of Israel. The Hebrew Moses begins the story and the Hebrew Apostle John ends the story. The bible contains a completed redemptive historical narrative. The narrative is set within a covenantal framework.”
Also, in my opinion seeing only the “fleshly” side of things limits the work of Christ. For example when Christ forgave a paralyzed man’s sins (which is a spiritual thing) the Pharisee’s said that that was not possible. To prove that the spiritual truth was in fact true, Jesus then healed the paralyzed man. But, it is the forgiveness of sins, the spiritual truth, that should be in the forefront. Also, I believe it is this way with Christ’s physical bodily resurrection. That was the one sign given; he calls it the sign of Jonah. But we can’t miss what the sign signifies…it is not just the resurrection of a corpse.
Let me quote a respected conservative bible scholar whose work “the theology of the New Testament” is used in a lot of seminaries and bible schools:
“The NT does not picture the resurrection of Jesus in terms of [only] the resuscitation of a corpse, but as the emergence within time and space of a [whole] new order [mode] of life” G.E. Ladd
This is my understanding, thus far, of the Philippians passages you brought up and perhaps you can see why I don’t see dead decayed corpse(s) coming out of the ground in these passages. Upon further study maybe I will come to that conclusion. I am open and willing to learn.
You said:
I can’t help but think that you might be making this more difficult than it needs to be
Perhaps, but I hope you get an idea from what I wrote above that I am not “kicking against the goads” or simply being “hard headed” against the mainstream view of ‘resurrection’ but that I am sincerely trying to understand resurrection within the framework of the scriptures as a whole.
