Post by king neb on Apr 11, 2006 12:39:16 GMT -5
Jesus’ Body: Super Body or Same Body?
By Samuel Frost, M.A.R., of www.thercm.org
It has been conjectured that in the resurrection of Jesus, he obtained a “glorified body.” That is, he obtained a new body that was not entirely the same as the body he had during his death and burial. You have heard the sermons that talk about Jesus being able to “walk through walls” and “appear” and “disappear” after his resurrection. Therefore, since Jesus’ resurrection is likened to our resurrection, so the tradition goes, we also will have glorified bodies at the resurrection of the dead.
Now, the Preterist position has been divided on this very subject, and it is here that perhaps critics of Preterism make their case most felt. If Jesus’ resurrection is like ours, then, clearly, to say that our bodies are not to be raised from the caskets like his was is to plainly deny the biblical teaching. This is, indeed, a strong argument, bolstered from the fact of tradition and theological systematics.
However, semper reformanda (always reforming) allows us the freedom to question the basis of this view, and if our investigation yields the same results as our forefathers have, then all the more is the view strengthened. Truth has no fear of investigation and God invites us to reason together with Him. I, for one, investigated the Trinitarian doctrine while in seminary and found it to be exactly as that position found in the so-called Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon. I am a Trinitarian, in locked step with “the fathers” on this matter.
But, here, for our present subject, we run into logical problems. The first proposition I would like to tackle is that Jesus’ physical body was somehow “different” or “transformed” or “glorified” at his resurrection. I maintain that the ‘self-same body’ of Christ that was laid in the tomb was the very one to come out of the tomb in exact same-ness.
First, we will begin with Mark. In 16.12 (a post resurrection passage) it says that Jesus “appeared in different form” (hetera morphe). Others verses say this as well. Therefore, tradition has assumed, that he was, well, “different.” But, in Mark 9.2 ( a pre-resurrection passage), Jesus was metamorphized (metamorphoomai). Whether one says ‘metamorphosis’ or ‘heteromorphos’ makes little difference. One can say ‘feline’ and ‘cat’ and mean the same thing. In Mark 6.49 Jesus was thought to be a ghost. Jesus had to tell them, ‘It is I’ (6.50) because they could not recognize him. The other gospel writers relay the same information. In Matthew’s version, Peter still questions whether or not it is Jesus, even after he tells him that it is (Mt 14.28). Jesus could walk on water, appear as a ghost, transform himself into a glorious white brilliance (the Transfiguration), and he did all of this and more before he was raised.
What about Jesus appearing ‘in the midst of them’ in Luke 24.36 (post resurrection)? In 24.37 they were startled and ‘thought he was a ghost.’ Sound familiar? Nothing new here. As for Jesus appearing in their midst let us look further. This passage is where you will hear sermons on Jesus’ ability to “walk through walls.” The text does not say he “walked through walls.” It simply says he appeared in their midst. Does Jesus have to ‘walk’ in order to ‘appear’? Think of Nightcrawler of the X-Men who could simply vanish and reappear without walking through anything. But, in Luke 4.30, using the same word (mesos – midst) Jesus apparently walked ‘through the midst’ of a crowd that had him cornered on a cliff! How did he do that? Imagine yourself standing on the ‘brow of the hill’ (4.29) with a cliff behind you. In front of you is an angry mob bent on pushing you off that cliff. Could you, a mere mortal, just pass right on ‘through them’ without a scratch? I thought not. But Jesus did. And he did things like this before he was raised from the dead.
The only diference between Jesus before the resurrection and after was that his ‘appearances’ are much more frequent. But, that they indicate anything about his physical body having been changed is a logically false inference, based on the texts we have looked at.
Luke, John and Matthew, especially Luke and John, go out of their way to state that Jesus ate and that he was not ‘a ghost’ because a ‘ghost (gr. spirit) hath not flesh and bone as you see’ (Luke 24.39). Now, some have thought, “Aha! See, he was flesh and bone, not flesh and blood.” A little exegesis, however, can easily show that these are synonymous phrases and mean the same thing. Flesh has blood or it would not be flesh.
I remember having this debate with Ed Stevens awhile back, and he asked how could Jesus have walked if in fact his body was the same. I asked back, “How could Lazarus walk after being dead for four days?” Rigor mortis would have set in the first day. By the fourth day, Lazarus “stunketh.” Jesus was in for three days, but Lazarus was in for four.
As for Jesus eating, some have told me, and some have written in detailed theological treatises on this subject (like Murray J. Harris), that it only appeared that Jesus ate. He really did not digest his food! I am not kidding, folks. Secondly, as for Thomas shoving his finger into Jesus’ still well opened holes, it only appeared to Thomas that the same flesh that was during his death was not yet glorified! Jesus played an illusionist’s game! Rather, the Thomas narrative in John’s gospel proves for me that the same nail holed, sword gashed, thorn crowned body that Jesus had before his resurrection was the exact same when it came out.
But, this last point really causes confusion. Here we have been taught that “glorified bodies” will not have any of the deficiencies of the ‘earthy body.’ If you were born without an arm, your glorified body will have an arm. But, clearly, Jesus’ earthy body had scars. And he came out with those same scars. The Bible is clear on this point.
The objection against this is that Jesus’ scars were not ‘real.’ They were only made to appear in order to identify himself as the same Jesus. The text does not say this, mind you. This is an explanation for the apparent problem we face here. Another answer given is that Jesus is the exception to the rule. But, this is circular reasoning in that it assumes the rule that Jesus must be the exception to! I am saying that Jesus
establishes the rule as to what the resurrection of the dead meant, both for the “living” and “the dead.”
Now, let us assume that the gospel meant to teach that the same body Jesus had was the same body that was raised, with no physical changes to it, except those that were in keeping with making a dead body walk again like the other resurrection stories (Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, etc). Obviously, God had to perform a miracle to make Lazarus walk again. Let us say that the same miracle was produced for Jesus. In short, Jesus’ physical resurrection looked nothing different from Lazarus’. What, then, was the difference? Paul tells us that Jesus was the ‘firstborn from the dead.’
Second, Paul said that Jesus was ‘the first to rise out from among the dead’ (Acts 26.23). I thought Lazarus beat him to it? In the text of Matthew 27.52 “many saints” rose from the dead before Jesus’ resurrection. They rose before he was raised, as Matthew plainly asserted. How can this be? Were these saints “glorified” before Jesus was? Did they have new “bodies,” too? The problem for some Preterists, who hold that we get a “new body” when we die, is that this does not fit any model whatsoever. Jesus’ body was the body that came out of the tomb, was it not? I mean, he did not have two bodies, did he? One would have to posit either that Jesus was raised with the exact same body he had, or he was raised with a glorified body, but only appeared to have physical scars and the ability to eat, or, like Hodge, was raised with the same body and for forty days dwelt in that body until it was glorified at the Ascension. The exception rule is played again by these adherents. This is a massive inconsistency in that view that critics have pounced upon time and time again, rightly so.
I hold dearly that the same body Jesus had in the tomb was the same body that was raised from the tomb, but that Jesus’ resurrection was the first (not the last) of its kind. I can posit that the resurrection of Jesus and those of his followers was exactly the same.
First, Jesus was raised while still in his physical body. When were believers raised with Christ? Was it while they, too, were still in their physical bodies? Does not Paul say that we have been raised with Christ? How? Spiritually, or ‘by the Spirit.’ Jesus’ resurrection demonstrated to the living that one need not shed his physical body in order to be raised from the dead. Jesus was raised from the dead and the believers were ‘raised in his likeness’ while they, too, were in physical bodies. This was meant to demonstrate the nature of the resurrection. The nature of resurrection life was that one need not physically die anymore to obtain eternal life, resurrection life. Jesus DIED for you, so that YOU could obtain eternal life WITHOUT HA VING TO DIE. Indeed, “ye shall NEVER EVER DIE.” That is the force of what Christ died for me means. Christ physically expired, but was raised from the clutches of ‘the death the entered in through the sin.’ He was the FIRST, the 120 in the upper room were the next ones. Then, the “three thousand.” Now there were 3,121 persons raised from the dead, Jesus being the FIRSTBORN of “many brothers.” These were the “second born” and the “third and fourth and fifth and so on born.”
This is why I object so much to the Preterist view that states that not until we physically die do we “get to heaven” and “get a new body.” Jesus DIED so that I would not have to die. Jesus DIED in order to obtain ETERNAL LIFE for you and me. Jesus DIED so that I would not have to WAIT and DIE in order to get “everything that pertains to life and godliness.” If I have to DIE in order to get eternal life, then Jesus did not DIE for me at all. But, if he physically died on my behalf, and by the “same Spirit that raised Christ Jesus from the dead” is the one that is “in me,” then, clearly, I have been raised with Christ as well, and I am still in my physical body. I have been engrafted into the BODY OF CHRIST, put to death in that body, and raised in that body, so that there is only “one body.”
To sum up, Christ died “for our sins” and was raised from the dead as the “firstborn of many brothers.” Christ physically died on my behalf so that I, in order to have eternal life (resurrection life) did not have to “die” for my sins. If physical death is the punishment for the sin of Adam, then clearly, you will die for Adam’s sin. You are still in the punishment. Death still has a hold on you, and when you give your last breath of air, death will claim you. See, Jesus circumvented this. He died in my place. His physical death became my physical death by substitution. Jesus’ death and burial substituted for mine so that I could have resurrection life apart from physical death and a funeral. His death became my death. His burial became my burial. His resurrection became my resurrection. “I am the Resurrection and the Life.” So, let us do away with this nonsense about “getting new bodies” when we physically die. I gain nothing “in Christ” when I expire, because right now I have “all things.”
Let me run this by one more time. If your physical demise, which will happen one day, is punishment for your sin (Adam’s), then, clearly, he has not taken all of your punishment, yet. As you get old and frail, you are only suffering the results of the sin of Adam and ‘the death that entered in through the sin.’ What Jesus gave you is only a downpayment. It is not until you physically die that you will not be under Adam’s curse and judgment. If this is Preterism, then it sounds much like the stuff I grew up with in church. Same ole’ song and dance. There is nothing radical about this at all. And those that hold to this view are actually surrendering to the critics, because their view is that we are STILL under the curse of Adam until the resurrection of the dead. Thus, you can hear them laughing when they hear that Preterism holds that the resurrection of the dead happened in A.D. 70, but we are still under the curse of Adam! This view is what they say it is: nonsense. Those in heaven are fine, but we here on earth are still in some sense under the original curse until we die.
Hodge and the Resurrection:
“The identity of the body in which Christ rose with that whtch expired upon the cross, was proved by indubitable evidence. It retained even the print of the nails which had pierced his hands and his feet. Nevertheless it was changed. To what extent, however, is not clearly made known. The facts recorded in the sacred history bearing on the nature of the Lord's body during the period between his resurrection and ascension are, (a.) That it was not at first clearly recognized as the same. Mary Magdalene mistook Him for the gardener. (John xx. 15.) The two disciples whom He joined on their way to Emmaus, did not recognize Hun until He was made known to them in the breaking of bread. (Luke xxiv. 31.) When He appeared to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias they did not know who He was, until the miraculous draft of fishes taken at his command revealed Him. (John xxi. 7.) (b.) It appeared suddenly in the midst of his disciples in a room of which the doors were shut. (John xx. 19, and Luke xxiv. 36.) (c.) Nevertheless it was the same material body having "flesh and bones." That the appearance recorded in Luke xxiv. 36 was preternatural may be inferred from the effect which it produced upon the disciples: "They were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Our Lord reassured them saying, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It appears from the transfiguration of Christ that his body while here on earth, was capable of passing from one state to another without losing its identity.
2. Such was the state of our Lord's body during the forty days subsequent to his resurrection. It then passed into its glorified state. What that state is we know only so far as may be learned from what the Apostle teaches from the nature of the bodies with which believers are to be invested after the resurrection. Those bodies, we are told, are to be like Christ's "glorious body." (Phil. iii. 21.) A description of the one is therefore a description of the other. That description is found in the contrast between the present body and that which the believer is to inhabit after the resurrection. The one is a sw/ma yuciko,n, and the other a sw/ma pneumatiko,n. The one is adapted to the yuch, (principle of animal life) and to the present state of existence; the other to the pneu/ma (the rational and immortal principle) and to the future state of existence. The change which the "natural body" is to undergo in becoming a "spiritual body" is thus described. "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:" in one word, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. xv. 42-44.) It is still a body and therefore material, retaining all the essential properties of matter. It is extended. It occupies space. It has a definite form, and that a human form. It was seen by Paul on his way to Damascus and upon other occasions, and by John as recorded in the Apocalypse, as well as by the dying martyr Stephen. Nevertheless it is no longer "flesh and blood, " for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Flesh and blood are from their nature corruptible; and so the apostle adds, "neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Hence "this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Cor. xv. 50-53.) The future body will not be subject to the wants, the infirmities, or the passions which belong to the present state of existence. "In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. xxii. 30.) The saints are to the like angels, not in being incorporeal, but as being immortal, and not needing reproduction for the continuance of their race.
The risen body of Christ, therefore, as it now exists in heaven, although retaining its identity with his body while here on earth, is glorious, incorruptible, immortal, and spiritual. It still occupies a definite portion of space, and retains all the essential properties of a body.” (Page 627-628, Systematic Theology, Volume I).
From this it can be seen that numerous problems arise. First, Hodge must posit that Jesus was not glorified until he ascended. The flesh and blood of Jesus was transformed into a spiritual body, but the same “identity” remains, whatever that is (he does not define it).
However, in our view, with our definitions, we can state the last sentence: “The risen body of Christ, therefore, as it now exists in heaven, although retaining its identity with his body while here on earth, is glorious, incorruptible, immortal, and spiritual. It still occupies a definite portion of space, and retains all the essential properties of a body.” That is, The collective risen body of Christ (all believers as members of that single body) as it now exists in heaven, although retaining its identity with His Body (the Body of Christ on earth, that is, all believers) is glorious, incorruptible, immortal and spiritual. Yes, we, as believers, as the single Body of Christ, still occupy space and we retain the properties of a collective body of membership here on earth. All the essential identical elements of Jesus’ physical body while on earth are identical to the collective body of individuals since we still exist on earth as a physical entity.
I believe that Jesus was “rasied incorruptible” whereas Hodge believes that Jesus was raised still corrupted in form – still awaiting glorification at the Ascension. This is another problem for Hodge. However, if Jesus was “raised incorruptible” and yet still retained his self-same physical body, subject to corruptible scars and the like, then our thesis has merit. Jesus demonstrated that a living human being could dwell in his physical body, and yet be glorified and have eternal life at the same time without having to die, since Jesus would never die again. Believers, in this sense, never die, ever again, since His physical death has been substituted for theirs once and for all. Therefore, their physical death is only that. It is not a “death” at all in the sense salvation and redemption. You do not die, “ever.” This is eternal life.
By Samuel Frost, M.A.R., of www.thercm.org
It has been conjectured that in the resurrection of Jesus, he obtained a “glorified body.” That is, he obtained a new body that was not entirely the same as the body he had during his death and burial. You have heard the sermons that talk about Jesus being able to “walk through walls” and “appear” and “disappear” after his resurrection. Therefore, since Jesus’ resurrection is likened to our resurrection, so the tradition goes, we also will have glorified bodies at the resurrection of the dead.
Now, the Preterist position has been divided on this very subject, and it is here that perhaps critics of Preterism make their case most felt. If Jesus’ resurrection is like ours, then, clearly, to say that our bodies are not to be raised from the caskets like his was is to plainly deny the biblical teaching. This is, indeed, a strong argument, bolstered from the fact of tradition and theological systematics.
However, semper reformanda (always reforming) allows us the freedom to question the basis of this view, and if our investigation yields the same results as our forefathers have, then all the more is the view strengthened. Truth has no fear of investigation and God invites us to reason together with Him. I, for one, investigated the Trinitarian doctrine while in seminary and found it to be exactly as that position found in the so-called Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon. I am a Trinitarian, in locked step with “the fathers” on this matter.
But, here, for our present subject, we run into logical problems. The first proposition I would like to tackle is that Jesus’ physical body was somehow “different” or “transformed” or “glorified” at his resurrection. I maintain that the ‘self-same body’ of Christ that was laid in the tomb was the very one to come out of the tomb in exact same-ness.
First, we will begin with Mark. In 16.12 (a post resurrection passage) it says that Jesus “appeared in different form” (hetera morphe). Others verses say this as well. Therefore, tradition has assumed, that he was, well, “different.” But, in Mark 9.2 ( a pre-resurrection passage), Jesus was metamorphized (metamorphoomai). Whether one says ‘metamorphosis’ or ‘heteromorphos’ makes little difference. One can say ‘feline’ and ‘cat’ and mean the same thing. In Mark 6.49 Jesus was thought to be a ghost. Jesus had to tell them, ‘It is I’ (6.50) because they could not recognize him. The other gospel writers relay the same information. In Matthew’s version, Peter still questions whether or not it is Jesus, even after he tells him that it is (Mt 14.28). Jesus could walk on water, appear as a ghost, transform himself into a glorious white brilliance (the Transfiguration), and he did all of this and more before he was raised.
What about Jesus appearing ‘in the midst of them’ in Luke 24.36 (post resurrection)? In 24.37 they were startled and ‘thought he was a ghost.’ Sound familiar? Nothing new here. As for Jesus appearing in their midst let us look further. This passage is where you will hear sermons on Jesus’ ability to “walk through walls.” The text does not say he “walked through walls.” It simply says he appeared in their midst. Does Jesus have to ‘walk’ in order to ‘appear’? Think of Nightcrawler of the X-Men who could simply vanish and reappear without walking through anything. But, in Luke 4.30, using the same word (mesos – midst) Jesus apparently walked ‘through the midst’ of a crowd that had him cornered on a cliff! How did he do that? Imagine yourself standing on the ‘brow of the hill’ (4.29) with a cliff behind you. In front of you is an angry mob bent on pushing you off that cliff. Could you, a mere mortal, just pass right on ‘through them’ without a scratch? I thought not. But Jesus did. And he did things like this before he was raised from the dead.
The only diference between Jesus before the resurrection and after was that his ‘appearances’ are much more frequent. But, that they indicate anything about his physical body having been changed is a logically false inference, based on the texts we have looked at.
Luke, John and Matthew, especially Luke and John, go out of their way to state that Jesus ate and that he was not ‘a ghost’ because a ‘ghost (gr. spirit) hath not flesh and bone as you see’ (Luke 24.39). Now, some have thought, “Aha! See, he was flesh and bone, not flesh and blood.” A little exegesis, however, can easily show that these are synonymous phrases and mean the same thing. Flesh has blood or it would not be flesh.
I remember having this debate with Ed Stevens awhile back, and he asked how could Jesus have walked if in fact his body was the same. I asked back, “How could Lazarus walk after being dead for four days?” Rigor mortis would have set in the first day. By the fourth day, Lazarus “stunketh.” Jesus was in for three days, but Lazarus was in for four.
As for Jesus eating, some have told me, and some have written in detailed theological treatises on this subject (like Murray J. Harris), that it only appeared that Jesus ate. He really did not digest his food! I am not kidding, folks. Secondly, as for Thomas shoving his finger into Jesus’ still well opened holes, it only appeared to Thomas that the same flesh that was during his death was not yet glorified! Jesus played an illusionist’s game! Rather, the Thomas narrative in John’s gospel proves for me that the same nail holed, sword gashed, thorn crowned body that Jesus had before his resurrection was the exact same when it came out.
But, this last point really causes confusion. Here we have been taught that “glorified bodies” will not have any of the deficiencies of the ‘earthy body.’ If you were born without an arm, your glorified body will have an arm. But, clearly, Jesus’ earthy body had scars. And he came out with those same scars. The Bible is clear on this point.
The objection against this is that Jesus’ scars were not ‘real.’ They were only made to appear in order to identify himself as the same Jesus. The text does not say this, mind you. This is an explanation for the apparent problem we face here. Another answer given is that Jesus is the exception to the rule. But, this is circular reasoning in that it assumes the rule that Jesus must be the exception to! I am saying that Jesus
establishes the rule as to what the resurrection of the dead meant, both for the “living” and “the dead.”
Now, let us assume that the gospel meant to teach that the same body Jesus had was the same body that was raised, with no physical changes to it, except those that were in keeping with making a dead body walk again like the other resurrection stories (Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, etc). Obviously, God had to perform a miracle to make Lazarus walk again. Let us say that the same miracle was produced for Jesus. In short, Jesus’ physical resurrection looked nothing different from Lazarus’. What, then, was the difference? Paul tells us that Jesus was the ‘firstborn from the dead.’
Second, Paul said that Jesus was ‘the first to rise out from among the dead’ (Acts 26.23). I thought Lazarus beat him to it? In the text of Matthew 27.52 “many saints” rose from the dead before Jesus’ resurrection. They rose before he was raised, as Matthew plainly asserted. How can this be? Were these saints “glorified” before Jesus was? Did they have new “bodies,” too? The problem for some Preterists, who hold that we get a “new body” when we die, is that this does not fit any model whatsoever. Jesus’ body was the body that came out of the tomb, was it not? I mean, he did not have two bodies, did he? One would have to posit either that Jesus was raised with the exact same body he had, or he was raised with a glorified body, but only appeared to have physical scars and the ability to eat, or, like Hodge, was raised with the same body and for forty days dwelt in that body until it was glorified at the Ascension. The exception rule is played again by these adherents. This is a massive inconsistency in that view that critics have pounced upon time and time again, rightly so.
I hold dearly that the same body Jesus had in the tomb was the same body that was raised from the tomb, but that Jesus’ resurrection was the first (not the last) of its kind. I can posit that the resurrection of Jesus and those of his followers was exactly the same.
First, Jesus was raised while still in his physical body. When were believers raised with Christ? Was it while they, too, were still in their physical bodies? Does not Paul say that we have been raised with Christ? How? Spiritually, or ‘by the Spirit.’ Jesus’ resurrection demonstrated to the living that one need not shed his physical body in order to be raised from the dead. Jesus was raised from the dead and the believers were ‘raised in his likeness’ while they, too, were in physical bodies. This was meant to demonstrate the nature of the resurrection. The nature of resurrection life was that one need not physically die anymore to obtain eternal life, resurrection life. Jesus DIED for you, so that YOU could obtain eternal life WITHOUT HA VING TO DIE. Indeed, “ye shall NEVER EVER DIE.” That is the force of what Christ died for me means. Christ physically expired, but was raised from the clutches of ‘the death the entered in through the sin.’ He was the FIRST, the 120 in the upper room were the next ones. Then, the “three thousand.” Now there were 3,121 persons raised from the dead, Jesus being the FIRSTBORN of “many brothers.” These were the “second born” and the “third and fourth and fifth and so on born.”
This is why I object so much to the Preterist view that states that not until we physically die do we “get to heaven” and “get a new body.” Jesus DIED so that I would not have to die. Jesus DIED in order to obtain ETERNAL LIFE for you and me. Jesus DIED so that I would not have to WAIT and DIE in order to get “everything that pertains to life and godliness.” If I have to DIE in order to get eternal life, then Jesus did not DIE for me at all. But, if he physically died on my behalf, and by the “same Spirit that raised Christ Jesus from the dead” is the one that is “in me,” then, clearly, I have been raised with Christ as well, and I am still in my physical body. I have been engrafted into the BODY OF CHRIST, put to death in that body, and raised in that body, so that there is only “one body.”
To sum up, Christ died “for our sins” and was raised from the dead as the “firstborn of many brothers.” Christ physically died on my behalf so that I, in order to have eternal life (resurrection life) did not have to “die” for my sins. If physical death is the punishment for the sin of Adam, then clearly, you will die for Adam’s sin. You are still in the punishment. Death still has a hold on you, and when you give your last breath of air, death will claim you. See, Jesus circumvented this. He died in my place. His physical death became my physical death by substitution. Jesus’ death and burial substituted for mine so that I could have resurrection life apart from physical death and a funeral. His death became my death. His burial became my burial. His resurrection became my resurrection. “I am the Resurrection and the Life.” So, let us do away with this nonsense about “getting new bodies” when we physically die. I gain nothing “in Christ” when I expire, because right now I have “all things.”
Let me run this by one more time. If your physical demise, which will happen one day, is punishment for your sin (Adam’s), then, clearly, he has not taken all of your punishment, yet. As you get old and frail, you are only suffering the results of the sin of Adam and ‘the death that entered in through the sin.’ What Jesus gave you is only a downpayment. It is not until you physically die that you will not be under Adam’s curse and judgment. If this is Preterism, then it sounds much like the stuff I grew up with in church. Same ole’ song and dance. There is nothing radical about this at all. And those that hold to this view are actually surrendering to the critics, because their view is that we are STILL under the curse of Adam until the resurrection of the dead. Thus, you can hear them laughing when they hear that Preterism holds that the resurrection of the dead happened in A.D. 70, but we are still under the curse of Adam! This view is what they say it is: nonsense. Those in heaven are fine, but we here on earth are still in some sense under the original curse until we die.
Hodge and the Resurrection:
“The identity of the body in which Christ rose with that whtch expired upon the cross, was proved by indubitable evidence. It retained even the print of the nails which had pierced his hands and his feet. Nevertheless it was changed. To what extent, however, is not clearly made known. The facts recorded in the sacred history bearing on the nature of the Lord's body during the period between his resurrection and ascension are, (a.) That it was not at first clearly recognized as the same. Mary Magdalene mistook Him for the gardener. (John xx. 15.) The two disciples whom He joined on their way to Emmaus, did not recognize Hun until He was made known to them in the breaking of bread. (Luke xxiv. 31.) When He appeared to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias they did not know who He was, until the miraculous draft of fishes taken at his command revealed Him. (John xxi. 7.) (b.) It appeared suddenly in the midst of his disciples in a room of which the doors were shut. (John xx. 19, and Luke xxiv. 36.) (c.) Nevertheless it was the same material body having "flesh and bones." That the appearance recorded in Luke xxiv. 36 was preternatural may be inferred from the effect which it produced upon the disciples: "They were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Our Lord reassured them saying, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It appears from the transfiguration of Christ that his body while here on earth, was capable of passing from one state to another without losing its identity.
2. Such was the state of our Lord's body during the forty days subsequent to his resurrection. It then passed into its glorified state. What that state is we know only so far as may be learned from what the Apostle teaches from the nature of the bodies with which believers are to be invested after the resurrection. Those bodies, we are told, are to be like Christ's "glorious body." (Phil. iii. 21.) A description of the one is therefore a description of the other. That description is found in the contrast between the present body and that which the believer is to inhabit after the resurrection. The one is a sw/ma yuciko,n, and the other a sw/ma pneumatiko,n. The one is adapted to the yuch, (principle of animal life) and to the present state of existence; the other to the pneu/ma (the rational and immortal principle) and to the future state of existence. The change which the "natural body" is to undergo in becoming a "spiritual body" is thus described. "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:" in one word, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. xv. 42-44.) It is still a body and therefore material, retaining all the essential properties of matter. It is extended. It occupies space. It has a definite form, and that a human form. It was seen by Paul on his way to Damascus and upon other occasions, and by John as recorded in the Apocalypse, as well as by the dying martyr Stephen. Nevertheless it is no longer "flesh and blood, " for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Flesh and blood are from their nature corruptible; and so the apostle adds, "neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Hence "this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Cor. xv. 50-53.) The future body will not be subject to the wants, the infirmities, or the passions which belong to the present state of existence. "In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. xxii. 30.) The saints are to the like angels, not in being incorporeal, but as being immortal, and not needing reproduction for the continuance of their race.
The risen body of Christ, therefore, as it now exists in heaven, although retaining its identity with his body while here on earth, is glorious, incorruptible, immortal, and spiritual. It still occupies a definite portion of space, and retains all the essential properties of a body.” (Page 627-628, Systematic Theology, Volume I).
From this it can be seen that numerous problems arise. First, Hodge must posit that Jesus was not glorified until he ascended. The flesh and blood of Jesus was transformed into a spiritual body, but the same “identity” remains, whatever that is (he does not define it).
However, in our view, with our definitions, we can state the last sentence: “The risen body of Christ, therefore, as it now exists in heaven, although retaining its identity with his body while here on earth, is glorious, incorruptible, immortal, and spiritual. It still occupies a definite portion of space, and retains all the essential properties of a body.” That is, The collective risen body of Christ (all believers as members of that single body) as it now exists in heaven, although retaining its identity with His Body (the Body of Christ on earth, that is, all believers) is glorious, incorruptible, immortal and spiritual. Yes, we, as believers, as the single Body of Christ, still occupy space and we retain the properties of a collective body of membership here on earth. All the essential identical elements of Jesus’ physical body while on earth are identical to the collective body of individuals since we still exist on earth as a physical entity.
I believe that Jesus was “rasied incorruptible” whereas Hodge believes that Jesus was raised still corrupted in form – still awaiting glorification at the Ascension. This is another problem for Hodge. However, if Jesus was “raised incorruptible” and yet still retained his self-same physical body, subject to corruptible scars and the like, then our thesis has merit. Jesus demonstrated that a living human being could dwell in his physical body, and yet be glorified and have eternal life at the same time without having to die, since Jesus would never die again. Believers, in this sense, never die, ever again, since His physical death has been substituted for theirs once and for all. Therefore, their physical death is only that. It is not a “death” at all in the sense salvation and redemption. You do not die, “ever.” This is eternal life.