Read on Twitter
I was slow to accept this view. It went against everything I was taught. But thanks to @deverbovitae and @DominicVenuso, I see things more clearly now.
After you read the article, let me walk you through my journey to a more complete understanding of the resurrection (THREAD) https://twitter.com/deverbovitae/status/1345745011602649090
After you read the article, let me walk you through my journey to a more complete understanding of the resurrection (THREAD) https://twitter.com/deverbovitae/status/1345745011602649090
One of my go to excuses for why this couldn't be true was 2 Peter 3; won't the world be utterly destroyed by fire with nothing left to redeem? But in this passage, Peter uses the flood as an example of what will happen. Yes, utter destruction. After, a NEW EARTH. (2/17)
Also, won't we meet Jesus "in the air?" Well, @DominicVenuso once posted an article about how the word for "meeting" used in 2 Thess. 4:17 was commonly used for those who met dignitaries in order to *bring them back* to the city (3/17)
Idk if this is the exact article, but the points made were similar to the ones made here ( https://openoureyeslord.com/2011/05/25/1-thess-417-meet-the-lord-in-the-air-in-the-original-greek/). (4/17)
But how can one have flesh in the resurrection when "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor. 15:51-53). Well, firstly, when you become familiar with how Paul writes, you notice he often takes an "all or nothing" approach for rhetorical reasons. (5/17)
Notice how his conversation is all one sided when it comes to faith vs. works in Romans 4. If that's all Paul had to ever say about the issue, one might conclude man's participation in his own salvation was utterly relegated to mere mental acquiescence. (6/17)
But as you view Romans 4 in context of the rest of the book, it's clear he takes the "faith over everything" approach in that one moment to prove a point about the abolition of the law and insufficiency of works; otherwise, you'd, have Paul contradicting himself (Romans 6).(7/17)
And so you have Paul using the "all or nothing" rhetorical approach in 1 Cor. 15; he's not really saying there won't be any kind of physical body, because bodies are inherently physical things. (8/17)
Yes, it is a spiritual body, but as @DominicVenuso once pointed out to me, we have to understand how Paul uses the word "spiritual" in 1 Cor. The point is that these bodies won't be the degradable, flesh and blood ones we have now, but ones miraculously upheld by the Spirit(9/17)
You also have Rom 8:18-25, which Ethan talks about in the article. With this view of the resurrection, Rom 8 makes perfect sense. Every preacher I'd ever heard approach this passage beforehand basically said "here's why it can't mean what it seems to mean," which, uh oh. (10/17)
Anytime a passage seems to be teaching something, and then a preacher or pastor tries to explain it away, you need to be on guard. The Bible has its harder to understand moments, but some things are clear and only don't make sense bc of our preconceived notions. (11/17)
Finally, there's this prophecy in Job.
"For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God," (Job 19:25-26, ESV).
(12/17)
"For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God," (Job 19:25-26, ESV).
(12/17)
God spoke to Job in the whirlwind, but Job did not SEE God. This hasn't happened yet, and it can't if we meet Jesus in the air and forever be with Him *elsewhere.* It is still entirely possible--if we meet Him like we'd meet a King to bring back *to the city.* (13/17)
And there are so many other passages that just make a million times more sense with this view. The meek inheriting the earth? All those OT prophecies that seem to imply all the earth will be the children of God's when the Messiah is done conquering? (14/17)
And finally, which makes more sense--that God would sacrifice this amazing, beautiful place that He made as an acceptable loss in the spiritual war, or that at the end, He would redeem it forever along with His redeemed? (15/17)
The first view leaves us saying "the corrupted creation is put out of its misery; at least we're with God now." The second view leaves us saying, "everything God made is made good again; those who rejected love have left a place that is now only love, and all is perfect." (16/17)
The devil doesn't get to win on any fronts. The devil may have mucked up God's creation, but God will redeem it with the snap of His fingers in the end. This amazing place won't be a relic of memory, but rather immortalized for His children to enjoy for all eternity. (END)
