Your First Love

In this episode Brother Jonathan talks about "losing your first love" as the Ephesians did. He also gives some reasons why he is taking a break from the podcast.

Here's our new episode:

Do Women have to Wear Headcoverings?

In this episode, Brother Jonathan goes over the context of 1 Corinthians, the cultural customs of the day, and a brief exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Much thanks to Kevin Moore for his Master's Thesis on this subject.

 

S2EP10

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Introduction
   1. I learned a lot in studying for this episode. This passage is a greatly disputed passage by some people. One of the big problems that contributes to the confusion over this passage is that most of us do only a little bit of research and study: and that’s it. As a result, there are a lot of articles, books, Youtube channels and videos, etc., that are completely contradictory. It is pervasive. I’m not joking. People will appeal to the exact same things and teach the exact opposite things. On top of that, some people just assert some things that are completely false. When you only reference one source, and don’t examine the arguments to the contrary, you will guarantee that you’ll come to a false conclusion a lot of the time. Especially over this issue. People are very invested in how they interpret this passage on all sides of it. There is a lot of hard-heartedness, and self-righteousness, built up from the abuse of this passage of scripture. That should never be the case.
   2. I would encourage you to listen to this whole episode, because no matter which side you are coming from—from the side of “coverings are necessary” or the side of “they aren’t necessary at all”—I believe that you’ll learn something.
2. Plead for truth
   1. I’m not going to tell you at the beginning of this episode what conclusion I came to because most people who disagree will just turn it off without even examining themselves.
   2. The question is, “Do you want what is true?” When you come to the scriptures you have to be willing to accept what it says as authoritative. If you are not willing to accept whatever the scriptures command us—whatever it is—then you will find every excuse to believe that it says something else. Usually, that’s the case when people have a line in the sand that they don’t want to cross. People get confronted with the possibility that the Bible commands something they don’t like and they think, “Well, it just can’t mean that…I mean, God wouldn’t expect that from me.” There’s almost an indignation about it.
   3. In saying that, you have to be willing to accept that your denomination, or group, may be completely wrong. That’s for any time you examine something from the scriptures and not just in this case. If you are not willing to accept that, which is certainly possible because people are not infallible, then you are just wasting your time even reading the Bible. If you love your denomination, or Church brethren, or anyone, more than the truth of Christ then He says that you’re not worthy of Him in Luke 14:26. Just go accept what your pastor says if that’s the way you feel—and that’s just idolatry. God’s Word is the authority: not you, or your church, or your denomination, or the person who discipled you. I don’t care how special a group of people are to you: they aren’t God. You’re accountable to God. So let Him have that rightful authority over your life that you claim He has if you profess to be a Christian.
   4. But I know that there are sincere people on both sides of this issue. There are people who sincerely believe that the scripture says that you don’t have to wear a headcovering, and there are people who sincerely believe that you do. If you’re sincere in your beliefs on the matter, then you ought to believe it because you believe it to be the true interpretation of scripture. You should believe what you believe solely because you believe it is true to scripture. So it’s the truth that you should want. So if evidence comes that shows that your understanding of the passage is flawed you should be willing to change your practice because you just want the truth. I only ask that you consider what I’m going to go over, and keep that in mind.

• Background from in the Book
  1. There are some things to consider before going through the passage:
     1. By the time of this writing Paul had already spent 18 months teaching the Corinthians in person (Acts 18:11). After that, he wrote a letter instructing them to not company with fornicators or sexually immoral people (1 Cor. 5:9). Then he sent Timothy to remind them of his teachings (1 Cor. 4:17). Paul received some reports that there were “contentions” or divisions among them (1:11). He had also received three of them (Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus), where he probably then received their letter and questions that are mentioned in 7:1.
     2. The Corinthians had been taught and instructed for quite a long time in person, through a letter, and indirectly through Timothy without the issue of headcoverings being an issue.
  2. Any time you come to a passage you have to understand the context. Whatever someone wants to say about this passage, it was originally written to a group of people living at Corinth in the first century. Paul was not expecting that people 1,950 years later were going to be reading this letter and scrutinizing every single aspect of his content, form, and language. He was expecting these average Corinthian citizens, who were believers, to understand what he was saying. Seeing that they were first century Corinthians, you must understand the background of the social, cultural, and religious setting of the city of Corinth.
  3. The believers at Corinth lived in Corinth most likely when they were converted. This means they came from that background. Paul says to them:
     1. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
  4. This description fit some of them in the congregation. They were those things themselves. Paul adds also:
     1. “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.” (1Cor. 12:2)
  5. They, or at least it least it seems a majority of them, were previously pagans. There is very little in this epistle to suggest a large background in Judaism. There are a few mentioned by name, but the majority seem to have been Gentile converts from idolatry.
  6. We get a glimpse of the social demographic of the congregation from what Paul says in 1:26:
     1. “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:” (1 Cor. 1:26)
  7. The fact that Paul says “not many” implies that there were at least some who were converted from these groups. Those wise after the world, those mighty in power and influence, and those noble. It’s been estimated that nine out of the seventeen persons and groups mentioned in the epistle are of a relatively high social status. Although we contrast this with Paul’s comments later:
     1. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:13)
     2. “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” (1 Cor. 7:20-24)
  8. Paul’s addressing the idea of servants and slaves twice in the epistle indicates that there was probably a portion of them in the congregation. This fits with what we know historically that the majority of Christians early on were of the lower ranks of society. It was a source of mocking to outsiders.
  9. So in the Corinthian congregation there were various social ranks of all kinds, from slaves to chief men such as Crispus. There were some Jews, but mostly Gentiles. There were educated and uneducated.

1. Cultural Customs
   1. Now, the cultural customs of the day cannot be ignored. In his master’s thesis on this passage, Kevin L. Moore had a lot of good things to point out about this. I was studying for this episode and I found his thesis was much more developed than what I was preparing. I also agree with his conclusion. In fact, out of all the treatments of the subject that I found, Moore’s thesis was probably the most fair and extensive. I’m going by a lot of his outline and points in this episode—so I’ll give credit to where it is due. I encourage you to read it yourself if this topic is important to you personally. I’ll put the PDF for download above the episode on the podcast page at remnantbiblefellowship.com. But Moore had some excellent points to bring out regarding the cultural customs issue.
      1. Cultural customs change over time. The Bible itself spans several thousand years from beginning to end. It is inappropriate, and misleading, to refer to how things are done in “Bible times” without being more specific to which age.
      2. If possible, the geographical location of a given practice needs to be clarified. The same ethnic group often had different practices in different regions. Moore cites Cheyne and Black, mentioning the example of the Jewish women in various places ordinarily not covering their faces while the Jewesses in Arabia did. Customs and practices changed sometimes depending on the location even when the ethnic group had the same heritage.

• You can’t put too much stock on evidence from paintings, sculptures, and other representations. Sometimes artists don’t depict reality. Sometimes it is depicting a classical style and not a modern one. Is it depicting a moral person or an immoral person? What class of society is the person? In the end, even if it is shown that a moral person in the first century did do something as a habitual custom it still doesn’t prove that all people across all social classes in all regions did it. Though many people try to argue that way.

1. What is an author’s source for teaching what they do? Gordon Fee well said, “it seems to be the case of one scholar’s guess becoming a second scholar’s footnote and a third scholar’s assumption.” What is the writer’s method for arriving at his conclusion? What is the quality of his source? Books and articles are written all the time by all sorts of people. That doesn’t make them reliable or true.
2. We have to understand a text in its original context. Only then can we ascertain whether or not it is meant for us today. If the original recipients of the writing of Paul understood it to be setting forth a custom to be perpetually observed only then can we expect it of us today. If they did not understand that to be the case then we cannot force it upon anyone today. We cannot make the mistakes of forcing the present to be bound to past customs falsely, or reading the present into the past. Both are errors.

1. When it comes to reference works on the subject of relevant customs in ancient times it’s just a mess. If you begin looking at stuff you can get a number of scholars on your side to quote from regardless of what your view is. There is no doubt that this is a contributing factor to the confusion of people’s understanding of this topic today. Depending on who or what you read first, you may get a different understanding everyday of the week. However, when you eliminate outdated reference works and try to get down to primary sources—while acknowledging the closeness of the geographical location of the practice to Corinth—you can eliminate a lot of the conflicting evidence.
2. Plutarch, who was a contemporary with Paul the Apostle, stated in his work An Enquiry into the Fashions and Customs of Rome that it was normal for the Roman men to have their heads uncovered and for their women to be covered except in special situations such as funerals. Plutarch is writing from the Greek perspective in his writing. The fact that he explains to the Greeks that the practice of Roman men to wear coverings and the Roman women to be uncovered under those special circumstances was unusual shows that the Greeks regularly had the men uncovered and the women covered. Plutarch himself lived in Rome for a time, and had done much research. He quoted from a number of Roman authorities directly. (Roman Questions 14)
3. Dio Chrysostom, who lived from about 40 AD to 120 AD, also a contemporary of Paul, writes that in Tarsus, a Greek city in a Roman province of Asia minor—the hometown of Paul the Apostle—had such strict customs that women who lived there were expected to cover their head, body, and even their faces. (33:48)
4. The Jewish Encyclopedia records that from 450 BC to the early third century AD it was considered an immoral practice for a woman to walk about with her head uncovered. It was considered a form of nakedness. It was actually a distinction of a married woman. (The Jewish Encyclopedia 2:530-1; cf. 6:158)
5. Alfred Edersheim’s comments that it was considered disrespect for a man to pass by another with “bared head” is actually in conflict with what is recorded about how the custom came from a rabbi who died in the early fifth century, as recorded in the Jewish Encyclopedia. (2:532; cf. 6:493)
6. Clement of Alexandria, one of the more commonly quoted references on the matter, who lived from about 153 AD to 220 AD, was a Christian teacher in northern Africa. In his work The Instructor, book 3 chapter 12, he states that women ought to pray veiled. While Alexandria is different than Corinth, it is noted by some that Apollos was from Alexandria. Apollos had influence among the Corinthians as is recorded by Luke in the book of Acts 18:24-19:1, and Apollos is mentioned by name in 1 Corinthians 1:12.
7. Tertullian is probably one of the most referenced in regards to this custom by many people. He wrote a book on “the veiling of virgins,” and another on prayer where the custom is mentioned. He stated that is becoming for women to be veiled when praying or prophesying. He also states that the woman of his congregation, the Montanists in Carthage, that it was to be done in public and not just in Christian assemblies.
8. John Chrysostom, who lived from 347 AD to 407AD, confirms the same in his twenty-sixth Homily on 1 Corinthians 11. He states that women were veiled all the time and not just in assemblies, and that it was a common custom and not limited to the church.
9. There are a lot of other references that could be cited, and especially if we include the topic of women having long hair, but that’s pretty good for our discussion as being the most relevant.
10. When looking at all the evidence, many people’s assertions are wrong. Some assert that it was normal for Jewish men to cover their heads in prayer, but the Jewish Encyclopedia says that this was not the custom until after the first century in response to the Christian practice. Also, the common view that Romans of both sexes not covering their heads is misleading. There is art and references depicting both genders covered and uncovered in various religious and everyday situations. It is not clear what “all” Romans did.
11. When all the quality primary sources are put together though we begin to get an accurate picture. You have to have a uniform testimony from different sources and witnesses to establish what would’ve been a normal custom. I’ll cite what Kevin Moore said in summary of the matter:
    1. “While it may not be possible to be absolutely certain about the customs of Corinth in the mid-first century AD, the evidence in Paul’s writings and the above information provide a reasonably clear picture. Apparently it was the general practice among nearly all cultures, especially Roman, Greek, and Jewish, for respectable women to have long hair and to regularly keep their heads covered in public. That was particularly expected of married women, in order to show their faithfulness to their husbands. Virgins and prostitutes, on the other hand, in trying to attract men, did not always follow this practice. Men ordinarily kept their hair short and did not routinely cover their heads. For a woman to have short hair or for a man to have long hair was generally considered inappropriate, for various reasons, and was often the cause of derision. Some pagan religious practices appear to have deviated from the normal standards of decency, but this was not as universal as is sometimes argued. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the discourse in 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 seems to be consistent with the general social customs of the time.” (Moore 26)
12. Before we begin to go through the passage it’s important to remember that Paul is writing to them plainly. When we write letters or emails to people today we expect them to get certain cultural references without us explaining everything to them. The same goes for Paul. Paul is not writing a dissertation on the history and role of headcoverings, why they have them, and who wears them. He is addressing a particular matter for them specifically. To press the matter any further than that is to go beyond the scope of the text unless it is otherwise stated. He is writing with the expectation that his audience will understand what is being said.
13. So, now we’ll go through the text, and then at the end I’ll address some things.

1. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
   1. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” (1Cor. 11:2)
      1. Paul praises the Corinthian believers in the beginning of the passage. He praises them for the specific reason that they “remembered” him in all things. That means that they were keeping in mind how he had instructed them. He continues to say that they “keep the ordinances”. The word “ordinances” here is “paradosis,” which BDAG—BDAG is the abbreviated term used to refer to Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature—defines as, “the content of instruction that has been handed down, tradition, of teachings, commandments, narratives, et al.” BDAG is the most up-to-date lexicon there is…at least that I’m aware of. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with Strong’s lexicon at the back of his concordance, or Young’s at the back of his, but BDAG is much more extensive in its entries. Though I would recommend you stay away from Vine’s because his methodology leaned a lot on etymology in a way that was in vogue for his time, but has since been shown to be flawed. So, the “ordinances” are those things that Paul had already instructed them in previously—those teachings that had been “handed down” from him to them.
      2. Now this is very important to note: Paul says that they were keeping them. He specifically states that they were keeping them “as [he] delivered them” to them. That is very important to take notice of because it shows that the issue of headcoverings was not an ordinance. Paul had taught them the ordinances, and they were keeping them. Yes, he had to correct a few things about how they were doing them, but they hadn’t perverted baptism, they hadn’t perverted communion, etc. They weren’t exercising discernment about some things, but that’s not a doctrinal issue. He specifically states here that they were keeping the ordinances, all of them, as he delivered them to them. Keep that in mind. This is strengthened as we get to v.3.
   2. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” (1Cor. 11:3-4)
      1. The Greek word underlying “but” here is the particle “de.” It is adversative here. That means that Paul is introducing a new subject to the Corinthians. This contradicts what some people teach saying that the headcoverings issue is part of the ordinances that he previously spoke of. People such as Kerrigan Skelly have made that mistake in their talks about this subject. I’m not attacking him either. I think that he does some good teaching. Paul is not rebuking them for something that he previously had told them. If the Corinthians were observing headcoverings as an ordinance, like that connection would mean, then Paul would not be able to say that the Corinthians were keeping the ordinances as he delivered them to them. They were confused about the matter, and that’s why Paul has to address it. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians he has to correct them about how they are conducting certain ordinances, such as communion, but that is very different than there being contention about whether or not something is needed. Paul mentions that there was contention about this issue. That could not be the case if they were simply “keeping the ordinances” and they included headcoverings as an ordinance. No, Paul is addressing a new topic here.
      2. If you read Dan Wallace’s article about the headcoverings issue, you’ll see that he dismisses the entire “no applicability view” by several flimsy assumptions. He interprets v.2 fairly well, but then assumes that the “de”, translated usually as “but”, is transitional and not adversative. He gives no reasons why. That means that he believes that the “ordinances” that Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping includes artificial headcoverings—which doesn’t fit the passage. Based on this assumption he uses v.2 to reinterpret v.16. He also then incorrectly connects the use of “epainoo” in both v.2 and v.17 to say that the passages are talking along the same lines—again, based on his assumption that “de” is transitional and not adversative. In the end, based on his assumption that he doesn’t justify in the article, he says that the passage is still applicable today. What I find funny, though, is that he ends the article by saying that we don’t have to do it. As much as appreciate Dan Wallace’s Greek scholarship—I have his intermediate/advanced grammar on my shelf—I continually find his reasoning lacking it what he does.

• Paul continues by stating that the “head of every man is Christ…” etc. He introduces a theological principle, a doctrinal point, which will be the basis for his discussion about their practice. This would not have been a new concept to the Corinthians. He is merely stating the principle upon which his practical instruction is based. The issue is headship and subjection. Who is subject to who? Woman is subject to man, Man is subject to Christ, and Christ is subject to the Father. That’s the theological principle underlying the point of the practical instruction that Paul gives.

1. When we get into v.4 we start getting into the point of our discussion. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” We’re going to couch the discussion of praying or prophesying for a while. Let’s focus on the actual reason people consider this passage. It’s about covering. The concept presented in this passage is that of being covered or not covered. There is not middle-ground or a third option. There is covered or not covered. But, as we look at v.4-6 I have to mention that most people miss the point of them entirely. Paul is speaking culturally. Remember what I said at the beginning, you have to look at the cultural setting first. First and foremost, Paul wrote this to the Corinthians in the first century AD. If you want to understand this passage correctly, and apply it correctly, then you need to know how they understood it first in the context of when they actually received it from Paul. You can’t just look at the Greek. You can’t just look at the text. You have to look at the culture, the Greek, and the text. If you don’t, you are going to screw up this passage. That’s why there is so much controversy over this passage. Not everyone is doing their homework.
2. The words “his head covered” in the Greek are “kata kephales.” “Kata” is a preposition and “kephales” is in the genitive, which means that it should be understood in the sense of “down from.” There is no object here for the word. I mean that in the sense that there is nothing said here that tells us what the head is being covered with. When that’s the case it is usually because it is implied in the text and understood. Remember, Paul is writing with the understanding that the Corinthians know to what he is referring.
3. Now “dishonoureth” is the Greek word “kataischuno”. It means the same as it’s translated, but also has the sense of shame. It’s in the present active tense. That means that as long as the action continues the dishonor, the shame, continues. In the context, it’s as long as the man prays or prophesies with his head covered that he dishonors his head. Now the word “covered” is how it’s translated in the KJV. Most Bible versions translate “kata kephales echon” as either “having his head covered” or “having something on his head.” I believe that’s a little misleading. “Kata” has here the sense of “down from”, not “covered.” Covered has a specific connotation in English to us today. I think to translate it that way is very misleading, but I understand why scholars choose it. So just remember through this passage that this verse is only emphasizing that a man should not have something “down from” his head while praying or prophesying.

• Another important thing to note is that there is nothing in the phrase to emphasize cloth either. It does not tell us with what the head is not to be covered. At least, not in this verse. Sometimes though we come to the passage with certain things already assumed because we see the English word “covering” or “covered” and we automatically assume a veil or cloth. Well, let’s let the passage instruct us and not insert things into it. When the passage says veil or cloth then we’ll take it, but we shouldn’t bring it up until the passage does.

1. “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” (1Cor. 11:5-6)
   1. The woman is set in contrast to the man. If she does the same thing as the man then she dishonors her head.
   2. Now in this verse the Greek word underlying covered/uncovered is different than in the last part. It is the word “akatakalupto”. Now, the only part of this word that means “covered” is “kaluptos”. The alpha at the beginning meaning “not”, and “kata” is hard to nail down. We may assume it carries the same meaning throughout the passage. You do have to be careful though in emphasizing too much the parts that make up compound Greek words for the same reason that our English word “butterfly” says nothing about butter moving through the air. A word is not necessarily the sum of its parts. In this passage though, I think it is safe to say that it does carry that same sense throughout the passage for the reason that “kata” was used independently just preceding this verse. So we may understand “akatakalupto” as meaning, “not down covered.” So as long as a woman’s head is not “down covered” she dishonors her head. The dishonor lasts as long as the action does.

• Now, Paul nowhere in the passage addresses the setting of the practice. He merely condemns the practice. It doesn’t matter where it is being done. The point is that it is being done. Kevin Moore in his thesis said:
  1. “In the church of the first century AD, women, as well as men, were endowed with the miraculous gift of prophecy (Acts 2:17; 21:9). They were expected to be teachers (Tit. 2:3-4) and workers in the Christian community (Rom. 16:1; Phil. 4:2-3). It stands to reason that if God had given these gifts and responsibilities to women, he would have expected them to be utilized. At the same time, however, there were certain restrictions placed upon Christian women. They were not permitted to teach or to have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-12), nor were they allowed to speak as to lead the public assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35).” (Moore, p.50)

1. In fact, Paul had specifically addressed several times in the epistle things being done in the assembly. Again, Moore comments:
   1. “Notice that in 11:2-16 Paul does not use the words “come together” (11:17), “when you assemble in a congregation” (11:18), “come together in the same place” (11:20), “the whole congregation has come together” (14:23), or “you come together” (14:26). Because no particular setting is specified in 11:2-16, these instructions would apply generally to any situation in which praying or prophesying was done.” (Moore, p.51)
2. Moore goes on to note how that in the early church congregations often met in homes as Paul mentions in Romans 16:23. Artificial headcoverings, according to Clement of Alexandria, (3.12), says that they were not typically worn when the woman was at home. This would raise several legitimate questions. What about all female gatherings when no male was present? Would they have to wear them then? Again, it is the general practice that Paul addresses and not the setting.
3. Now, Paul’s statement that if a woman was uncovered that it “is even all one as if she were shaven,” strongly implies that what is being discussed is an artificial headcovering and not her hair. Both the internal evidence of the text and the external evidence of the culture indicate that an artificial headcovering is what is meant. If long hair was meant as the covering in v.5, then Paul would essentially be saying, “If a woman prays or prophesies without long hair then it’s the same as her not having long hair.” That’s redundant. It’s not what Paul is saying. Also, v.6 would then go on to say, “For if the woman does not have long hair, then let her cut it off.” If her hair is not long, then how could she cut it short? It would already be short…which is the issue. Paul here says that if the woman does not wear an artificial headcovering then she should cut off her hair. Obviously, then, the covering cannot be long hair, and it obviously wasn’t okay culturally for a woman to not wear an artificial covering even if she had long hair. Paul says in v.6 that if she refuses to be covered then she should cut off her hair.

• Now, some have pointed out the the “kalupto” words, the ones translated the various forms of “covered”, do not include in them a requirement of cloth. That’s true. But the culture in which the Corinthians lived dictates that it must be, in addition to the textual reasons that I just gave. Some have also tried to say that because different words such as “shorn” and “shaven” are used that there are three different hair lengths mentioned. This actually doesn’t fix the problems with the long hair covering view. “Shorn” and “shaven” are equated in the text as being inappropriate. Also, culturally, a woman was looked down on for having a shaved head uncovered, a short hairstyle uncovered, and if they have long hair uncovered. All three were seen as inappropriate.
• The cultural norm at the time required certain things of women. Across the ethnic lines was the idea that short hair on a woman was a shame. It was almost unanimously considered shameful. It was a punishment for adulterers, and some historians have noted that it was customary for slaves and harlots to cut their hair short. Another historian notes that a lesbian, by the name of Demonassa of Corinth, had the skin of her head shaved close. The custom of the time was that respectable women wore their hair long and had it covered in public. Paul is saying that if a woman was to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered it bears the same shame as if she were the same cultural pariah. It was unfitting for a professing Christian woman to be seen like a harlot, homosexual, or adulterer. Paul is directly appealing to the shame that a woman had culturally if she chose to go about uncovered, but especially praying or prophesying in the context.

1. Some have tried to argue that there is nothing in the passage that appeals to custom or culture. This is where some such as David Bercot have made mistakes. Again, I’m not attacking the man, but his teachings on this matter are wrong. He too blindly follows the Ante-Nicene Fathers. They are not an infallible commentary on the scriptures. They are just men. The ones who wrote on the topic of headcoverings were not in the same geographical location as Corinth, or were in the same century as when it was written.
2. In this verse, v.6, Paul himself appeals to the cultural expectations. He says, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” My question is, “If it’s a shame to who?” To whose judgment is Paul appealing? God’s? No, because he would then assert it because he is an Apostle. The church’s? Not here at least. He is appealing to the church’s judgment about whether or not it is a shame to the culture around them. He is saying, “If she refuses to wear a headcovering while praying or prophesying, then let her cut her hair and cast off the whole principle. But if it’s a shame for her to be like that in people’s eyes, then just let her wear a headcovering.” The entire point of what Paul is saying is what is appropriate to not bring a reproach upon the church in the sight of the world. This is where the analogy of a Christian woman being topless while praying or prophesying came from. It would be the same cultural shame. Paul is directly appealing to culture. Now, he is basing it on a doctrinal principle of course, but the doctrine is that of the subjection of the woman to the man. The doctrine is not artificial headcoverings.
3. So if you take anything away from this, at least take this away: Paul is not formulating a command for women to wear artificial headcoverings. He is merely stating that a woman who ordinarily has her head covered in public should also cover her head while praying or prophesying. That is the simplicity of the matter.

• There are two conditional statements in v.6 that reinforce this interpretation of v.5. In essence, Paul is saying, if the latter is shameful (having the hair cut off), so too is the former (having her head uncovered).
• Another note before moving on, the word “also” here in v.6 is the Greek word “kai”. It is cumulative and carries with it the sense of “in addition to”. “If you are going to continue to pray or prophesy with your head uncovered, then in addition to that you might as well cut off your hair.” He is trying to impress upon them the shame of it.

1. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1Cor. 11:7)
   1. The glory of God is reflected in man’s demeanor. The glory of man is reflected in woman’s demeanor. The glory of the woman is reflected in her hair—as we’ll see later.
2. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (1Cor. 11:8-9)
   11. Paul goes back to creation to give a reason why woman is the glory of man. She was created for man. There is nothing to suggest that Paul is appealing to creation to say that headcoverings are binding today. There is no mention of Eve having an artificial headcovering. Neither is there anything mentioned in the Law of Moses—which would be expected if artificial headcoverings were binding on women from creation until the present day. Even in the New Testament, there is no mention of artificial headcoverings outside of this one passage in 1 Corinthians 11. Unless you include Paul’s recounting of Moses wearing a veil when he came down from Mt. Sinai in 2 Corinthians.
3. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” (1Cor. 11:10)
   1. Some have asserted that due to the ancient practice of rhetoric, and the chiastic structure of 11:2-16, that this is the focal point of the passage. Though, to be certain, and there is a general consensus among scholars, that this is one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament to exegete with great certainty. In my opinion, the most weight comes to the view that Paul is appealing to the angels of God willfully subjecting themselves to God as an example to women for themselves to willfully subject themselves to men after the appropriate manner. The interpretation that this is referring to the Nephilim in any way causes many more problems that it helps to solve.
   2. But, the certain part is that Paul says that the woman ought to have “power” on her head. The word underlying “power” is “exousia,” which usually denotes, “authority, right, power.” The basic sense that is carried in this word is “freedom of choice or right.” When we think about someone having authority over us we understand that it means that they have a certain right, or freedom of choice, over us. That’s consistent with the way the word is used in 1 Corinthians up to this point (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12). If we are to understand the word in this way then Paul is saying that the woman has the freedom of choice in this matter to willfully submit herself after the same manner that the angels willfully submit themselves to God.
4. “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” (1Cor. 11:11-12)
   1. “Nevertheless”, Greek word underlying is “plen”. Paul breaks off where he was at before to emphasize something important. He goes out of his way to emphasize that men, in another way, are dependent on women by means of procreation. The only man who didn’t come from a woman in that sense is Adam. Paul was most likely trying to head off any ideas of abusing women because they were subject to man.
5. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (1Cor. 11:13)
   1. Paul has the Corinthians make a personal judgment for the second time. This shows that women were used to covering their heads as a custom. If that wasn’t the case, then the Corinthians could not have judged it to be improper in any way for them to not cover their heads. If someone asked you to judge for yourself whether or not a red squiggly line was appropriate or not you would have no way of judging it appropriate or not unless you had some normal customary context to go by. Again, Paul shows that this is custom that he is talking about. It was cultural custom for women to go about in public with their heads covered, regardless of how long their hair was, which is why Paul can tell them to judge in themselves about the matter.
6. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” (1Cor. 11:14-15)
   1. God, having made man, has bore witness to this principle in nature. A man naturally desires short hair and a woman naturally desires long hair. To switch them seems off. A man is generally considered feminine to have long hair, and a woman is generally considered masculine to have short hair.
   2. The Greek word underlying “given her” is “dedotai”. It is in the perfect passive indicative, which means that it cannot be saying that God has given the woman long hair only. The main reason for this being that God has made it so that both men and women can grow long hair. God has given both men and women the same exact kind of hair essentially. Both genders are equally capable of long or short hair. What is being said goes back to the “exousia”, or the “power”, of the woman to do so. The woman has been given the liberty to wear her hair long, in contrast to the man. She has the freedom of choice to do so. Men have not been given the option for long hair in the same sense as women.

• We come to the most debated part of this verse, possibly of this passage, and there are competing views. The latter part of the verse, “for a covering,” The Greek word underlying “for” is “anti.” Depending on who you ask, it means different things here. The definition I use is, “(BDAG) “indicating that one thing is equivalent to another, for, as, in place of…hair as a covering.” There are differing opinions about how to interpret this though.
  1. The first view is that the equivalence of a woman’s long hair with a covering (Gr. Indicates a mantle or garment) is merely analogous. They say that Paul is merely setting the two up against one another to show the appropriateness of the artificial covering. That Paul is using the fact that God has given the woman a natural covering to bear witness to the practice of an artificial covering.
  2. The second view is that Paul is stating that the woman’s long hair has been given her in the place of an artificial headcovering. Those who hold this view say that Paul is telling us that if a woman has long hair then she doesn’t have to wear an artificial covering.

1. There are arguments for both views that seem to make sense. Personally, I lean towards the first view, but I understand why people hold to the second also. Notwithstanding, the view that long hair is given to replace or stand in the place of an artificial covering, I believe, has insurmountable problems that we’ve gone over already. Either way, you’ll see that it’s beside the point when we consider the next verse.

1. “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” (1Cor. 11:16)
   1. “But” here is the Greek word “de” again, adversative. Paul cuts through the whole matter to make a new point.
   2. “if any man seem to be contentious,” this would seem to indicate that there were some people who being contentious. Otherwise, why would Paul say this?

• “we have no such custom,”—“We” indicates Paul and the other Apostles. This is understood because in the latter part of the verse it is distinct from “the churches of God.” The Greek word underlying “custom” is “sunetheia,” which means, “(2) a usage or practice that has become established or standard, custom…(b) objectively custom, habit, usage” (BDAG). The Greek word underlying “such” is “toiauten”, meaning, “of such a kind, such as this.” Some have questionably translated this as “other.” Two facts are opposed to this: it’s never translated as other anywhere else in the NT, and there are at least seven other Greek words for “other” and none of those were chosen by Paul. So, Paul says, “the apostles and I have no such habitual practice.”

1. There are several views that have been set forth as to what custom is being referred to:
   1. Some have said that Paul is telling them that there is no such custom of being contentious in the church of God. Those who put this forth mainly do so because it is the view of Tertullian, and his disciple Cyprian. For this reason, those who are heavily influenced by the Ante-Nicene Fathers usually hold to this interpretation. I must emphasize this: the Ante-Nicene Fathers are not some infallible commentary on the scriptures. They contradict themselves and the scriptures occasionally. At best, they are good for a historical look at what a teacher in ancient times taught. They are no more infallible than your Pastor. Regarding this interpretation, there are some problems. A custom, according to how Paul uses it, is a habitual practice that has come to be accepted because of its regular usage. Why would contentiousness fit that description? Being contentious cannot be considered a custom. Also, this interpretation is unnatural to the Greek. This is usually the interpretation chosen by those who want to assert that artificial headcoverings are supposed to be in effect today. It is lacking in support though, and it ignores the context of the passage culturally.
   2. Uncovered Women. Some have said that Paul is telling them that the church of God has no such custom as uncovered women praying or prophesying. However, there is no indication that this had become a custom, or habitual practice, among the Corinthians. If it had become a custom, and was regularly practiced, and it was considered shameful by cultural standards, we would expect Paul to give a much stronger rebuke. In addition to that, if women praying or prophesying uncovered had become customary for them, then why does Paul appeal to the Corinthians to “judge in themselves” the dishonor and unfitting nature of it if that very practice was their own custom? He would be telling them to discern for themselves, based upon their own judgment, whether or not it was fitting, when that was what they are doing and had already approved. The passage does not support this interpretation. It seems forced, and has no support from the text or outside the scriptures by cultural standards. This is again a normal interpretation chosen by those who want to assert that artificial headcoverings are in effect today.
   3. Covered Women. Given the evidence of the text and the cultural customs outside of the text, the only interpretation that fits is that Paul is telling them that the Apostles had no such custom of women praying with their heads covered. It was a cultural custom that they didn’t start. Moore sums it up thus:
      1. “The evident custom, suggested in the immediate and historical contexts of this passage, is the convention of women covering their heads. Many commentators argue that Paul is here affirming the universal practice of the churches,…, but this is just the opposite of what he actually says. He is not appealing to something the churches do, but rather to something the churches do not have. It is a matter of what was practiced or not practiced in other congregations, but the point is that the head-covering custom was not a Christian dogma. It did not originate with the apostles or the churches. It was not bound by the apostles on the churches. The head-covering was likely worn by Christian ladies in many different regions, but this was part of their culture, not part of their religion. There were things which Paul taught and appointed in every congregation (4:17; 7:17), but this was obviously not one of them. It is wrong to say that human custom is never mentioned in this passage. Paul makes a distinction between the inspired precepts he had delivered to them (v.2) and “no such custom” (v.16).” (Moore, p.83)
   4. I will simply quote Moore’s summary of his conclusion, since I agree with him:
      1. “In an indirect and tactful manner, the apostle tries to assist the Corinthians in making their own decision. He complements them and introduces the underlying principle of God’s hierarchical design (v.1-2). He appeals to social disgrace (v.4-6) and to female subordination (v.7-9), while affirming the woman’s liberty (v.10) and male-female mutuality (v.11-12). He then calls for their own judgment based on propriety (v.13-15). In the end, however, Paul cannot make a binding law, so he concedes that this is neither an apostolic nor a congregational custom (v.16). This does not negate anything he has said, but it emphasizes that this matter is not a religious custom and should therefore not be an issue for congregational disputes (cf. Titus 3:9).” (Moore, p.84)
   5. Testimony

• Closing
  1. Now, I believe that I addressed a lot of questions that people have. I also tried to address some of the most common defenses or arguments that come up regarding this passage. In the process of my studying for this episode I came across Kevin Moore’s thesis and he honestly just had the same basic arguments that I was going to put forth, albeit, in a much more developed way. So, a lot of credit to him and his paper on this issue. I will put a tab on the podcast page, www.remnantbiblefellowship.com, above this episode so that you can download it and read it for yourself.
  2. I hope that I helped some of you to have a better understanding of this passage and issue. As always, I’m available for email, or through the facebook page, facebook.com/rbfellowship. My email is given at the end of every episode.

Here's our new episode:

Defending the Resurrection of Jesus

In this episode, Brother Jonathan finishes the last of a three part defense of Christianity; discussing the minimal facts method, the nature of facts and evidence, the verifying claim of Christianity, five historical principles, did Jesus predict His death and resurrection, the minimal facts, and answering several arguments against the resurrection hypothesis.

 

 

Here's our new episode:

From "god" to God

In this episode, Brother Jonathan talks about "god" concepts, special revelation, has God revealed Himself, how are we to verify world religions, and the linchpin question on which it all hangs.

 

From “god” to God

S2EP8

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Introduction
   1. In this episode, we’re building off what I had talked about in the episode “One Good Reason to Believe” a few episodes back. We took a couple of weeks off to go over the general resurrection, and now we’re returning back to our 3-part series. I will restate what that was going to consist of:
      1. From origins to God. By “origins” I meant the discussion of how we got here, and by “God” I simply meant a general understanding of a god concept. I argued this point in the last episode mainly using logical and philosophical arguments. I mainly argued from the Biblical Creationist worldview: that which belongs to a Christian.
      2. From “god” to the God of the Bible. In this episode I’m going to argue that it is the God of the Bible who distinguishes Himself apart from all other god concepts in the world in a way that makes belief in the God of the Bible justifiable. This is going to be pretty short because I believe the definitive point for deciding this issue will be in the third episode.

• Defending the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. “the Gospel”. In the next episode I will argue for the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event, and therefore making it justifiable to believe it. I will plan to argue this point using the minimal facts. That is, I will mainly use the data/evidence that is accepted by critical scholars. By scholars, I mean those that have degrees in the appropriate field to speak about the subject matter. If someone has a degree in biology, then they don’t have the authority to be a source in the discussion of God. It’s outside their field unless they cite someone who has studied it. Using the minimal facts method I will take the evidence that is accepted even by atheistic and agnostic New Testament scholars and show that even with the limited evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ should be considered a historical event.

1. It’s important to emphasize that if you haven’t listened to the first episode I did—“One Good Reason to Believe—then you shouldn’t listen to this one yet. I’m going to be talking with the assumption that you have listened to that one. I’m going to be referring to terms and ideas that I first talked about there. We’re building off of that episode in this one, and it’s not really going to make sense independent of that one unless you are familiar with the subject matter already.
2. Some people are not going to like how I deal with things in this episode. That’s inevitable. But you have no right to assert something to the contrary unless you can answer the problems that I point out and refute the reasons and data that I give in support my arguments. Sometimes people want to reject a conclusion without dealing with the evidence and arguments that support it. All this shows is that, contrary to what they may claim, they really don’t care about evidence at all. A lot of people have made an a priori commitment to something and there’s nothing that can dissuade them of it.
3. In the preceding episode, I argued for the impossibility of the opposing worldviews. I’ll be using the same standards at some point in this episode.

1. The Three Criteria from Last Episode
   1. Let me reiterate the three criteria that we used to examine worldviews last episode.
      1. Arbitrariness
         1. If a worldview is arbitrary, or it gives no reason to believe it, then you literally have no reason to believe it. It is just someone’s opinion and nothing more. The problem question for something that is arbitrarily stated is, “why?” Something that is arbitrary cannot give a justifiable reason to believe it.
      2. Internal Consistency
         1. If a system of thought, a worldview, which includes religions, is internally inconsistent, then it cannot be true. Now we’re not talking about apparent contradictions. I’m talking about actual contradictions. Reality bears witness to consistency and therefore if a system of thought doesn’t then it cannot be true.

• The Preconditions of Intelligibility
  1. These are those things that are necessary for knowledge to exist. It is a great long list, but we only focused on a few things in the last episode. These are things like the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle, the reliability of memory, the reliability of our senses, etc.

1. These points were described and elaborated on in detail in the previous episode. That’s why you need to have listened to that one first.

• God Concepts
  1. There are many different concepts of “god”. Some say that He is an impersonal force. Some say that He is a man who ascended to be enlightened. Others say that He is a she who is synonymous with nature. There are a whole bunch of ideas that people have about “god”. How is it that we break them down?
  2. I believe that we can ultimately break all concepts of “god” down into groups:
     1. Those that claim to be based on special revelation.
     2. Those not claiming to be based on special revelation.
  3. Special revelation is what it is referred to when God directly communicates with, or reveals Himself to, mankind. It could be a vision, or the communicating of scriptures. Any of that falls under the category of special revelation.
  4. There is a question that comes up about this issue though. Can we count on God having revealed Himself? Some try to make this a big, long, drawn-out issue, but I think that that is a needless discussion. The fact of the matter is this: If God hadn’t revealed Himself then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If God had not intentionally put something of Himself in the created universe to be discovered, then it never would’ve occurred to us that He existed. Since there are so many different “god” concepts in the world, it stands to reason that God has put plenty of stuff out there for people to find Him. You really don’t have to think too hard about it to come to that conclusion. I basically pass over this issue and leave you one challenge: when you absolutely refute all already established “god” concepts, while meeting the three criteria of being non-arbitrary, internally consistent, and providing the preconditions of intelligibility, then we can have that discussion. Unless someone has disproven all world religions they have no basis to even ask the question.

1. Those not based on Special Revelation
   1. So let’s discuss the first group of “god” concepts. There are those that are not based on a special revelation. In these there is no founder who had “god” reveal himself in some special way to them. There is no beginning vision or inspired writing to base them on.
   2. What you should immediately realize about this group is that they are purely arbitrary. If a concept of “god” is not based on some form of evidence, or objectively verifiable argument of some kind, then it is by definition arbitrary. It then gives you no reason to believe it.
   3. Deism falls under this category. Deism is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as, “the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) Pretty much, deism is saying, “Yeah, I believe in God. I just don’t believe in organized religion.” Or, it could also be stated, “I believe in a god, but I don’t believe that we can know him or that he has revealed himself to us in any way.”
   4. The question that naturally follows that statement is, how do you know that? Deism is purely arbitrary. How is it that you can assert what “god” has or has not done unless he has revealed himself to man? It is conjecture, speculation, and opinion: and nothing else. What most people don’t realize is that deists are usually naturalists or empiricists. Neither of which concept is logically defensible. In my experience, deists are practical atheists or agnostics who don’t want to have to defend their beliefs. They side-step the issue of higher accountability by denying that it is knowable for no reason at all. The same people cannot usually accurately describe Christianity at all. When they do, it usually comes with the same arguments that you get from atheists: which shows where their belief system is actually rooted.
   5. Deism is sometimes touted as an argument against the presuppositional argument from our last episode. The argument goes like this, “You don’t need the Bible to describe God to you in order to meet the logical needs of internal consistency, non-arbitrariness, and providing the preconditions of intelligibility. All you have to do is fill in the gaps with a “god” concept.” This “god of the gaps” mindset, and this whole rebuttal to the presuppositional argument, is completely arbitrary. In essence it says, “Make up what you need to in order to account for things.” That’s the definition of arbitrariness. In reality, it’s actually idolatry. You make up a god to suit your own needs. That’s the same mindset of evolutionists who use the blind watchmaker analogy. If they have a need to explain something, they say evolution did it. It’s actually a fallacy also. It’s the fallacy of reification. Evolution can’t “do” anything because it is a concept. They apply a concrete to an abstraction. That’s a separate matter though.
2. Those based on Special Revelation
   1. When we begin to look at the second group—those based on a claim of special revelation—it’s important to realize that we don’t have to exhaustively discuss them here. We’ll go over a couple of examples, some of the more prominent ones, and you will get the idea of how to start breaking them down yourself. Though, to be honest, you’ll come to find that it’s not necessary to do so.
   2. I want to emphasize also that these are only those that claim a special revelation. It doesn’t mean that there actually is one. People can spout all sorts of stuff and claim anything, but that doesn’t make it true. Saying something without justifying the claim in some way is arbitrary, remember?
   3. It’s important to remember though that we can’t just throw out evidence. Evidence is interpreted—we talked about this last episode. It absolutely has its place and is very important. But we have to establish the presuppositions first. That’s what we did last time, but it’s by those standards that we can step inside of worldview or religious systems and examine them. Some people make the mistake of using the argument that because some of the Bible is true the whole thing must be true. The same argument can be used for other religious texts. Islam references some things externally correctly, but does that verify ALL of its content? Do you see why that line of argumentation is not very wise for people to use? We’re going to just use our three criteria from last episode here.
   4. Let’s very briefly look at some examples of major world religions and apply our 3 criteria (non-arbitrary, internally consistent, provides the preconditions of intelligibility) to see if they measure up.
   5. Islam
      1. Islam, regardless of what is claimed by its apologists sometimes, is based on the Bible. Islam claims the writings of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the writings of David, and the gospel of Jesus. They redefine the gospel of Jesus, but they claim those themselves. Now, pay attention to this, there is no major world religion that predates Christianity that was founded on special revelation. Christianity is unique in this respect. Islam was 500 years after the completion of the canon of the Bible. It relies on the person of Moses, it calls Jesus a prophet, it mentions Mary, Miriam, and other Biblical personages and events. The problem for them comes when they simultaneously deny it. That’s internal inconsistency. They claim to be based on the Law of Moses, which is filled with redemptive analogies and blood sacrifices for the atoning of sins. Islam though does not allow for that type of forgiveness. There is no such thing as blood sacrifices for sin in Islam. This is a complete contradiction for Islam. They claim the writings of Moses, but then say that they have been changed. When asked for objective proof, they can’t give it. There is an a priori commitment to their philosophy. There is a lot that can be said about Islam, but we’ll confine ourselves to this simple point for now. It is internally inconsistent. It cannot be true. The apologetics that are used to defend Islam are ad hoc at best. They have a “plug the leaks” mentality.
   6. Mormonism
      1. Mormonism, like Islam, would not exist if the Bible didn’t exist first. Both Islam and Mormonism claim to be third testaments of the God of the Bible: but both completely contradict the first two. In the Bible, the first testament (the OT) spoke of the coming second testament (the NT). Neither the first nor the second speak of a coming third testament. This is inconsistency with both Islam and Mormonism.
      2. The major problem with Mormonism is that it is polytheistic. Polytheism is indefensible. Which god is the absolute? Which god’s standards is the rule of law? It’s relativism really. You cannot have a different god on every planet that has its own rules. Also, the Mormon gods change with time. They teach that God the Father is flesh, and that He ascended to deity over time. If God’s nature changes, then the laws of logic, which reflect the way God thinks, could change too. This undoes the preconditions of intelligibility. The polytheism and relativism negates any absolute morality. There is a whole host of problems with Mormonism.
   7. Catholicism
      1. Catholicism is a system that develops and changes over time. It is not based on a fixed standard, such as the Bible, because their doctrine changes any time the College of Cardinals votes on something or the Pope speaks. They have continuously changed their doctrine for 1500 years. They claim the Bible, and continuously contradict it. I really don’t need to say very much about Catholicism.
   8. Christianity
      1. For a detailed layout of how Christianity meets the criteria listen to our last episode, “One Good Reason to Believe”.
   9. What do religions set forth as the way to verify them?
      1. Islam
         1. In my copy of the Qur’an, the ‘Abdullah Yusef ‘Ali translation, tenth edition circa 1999 from Amana publications, we have certain verses in certain surahs (chapters) that tell us very specifically how to know if the claims of the Qur’an are true:
            1. “And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, Then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah, if your doubts are true.” (Surah 2:23)
               1. Pretty much, its words are so nice that it must be from god. It offers no objectively verifiable point. In case you accuse me of misinterpreting it, the commentary in my edition says this:
               2. “How do we know that there is revelation, and that it is from Allah? Here is a concrete test. The Teacher of Allah’s Truth has placed before you many Surahs. Can you produce one like it.” (footnote no. 42)
               3. The evidence is completely subjective. It’s based on whether or not you can write something prettier than it. The same thing is said again in Surah 10:37-38 and 11:13. Then, in Surah 17:88 it says that even if all the world banded together and helped each other it could not do so. Apparently simple poetry is enough to prove who is the real god. The whole thing is completely subjective.
            2. Mormonism
               1. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Mormon Church, does not fair any better than Islam.
                  1. “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:4-5)
                     1. How do you know that they claims of the Mormon church are true? Just ask God and he’ll tell you by the spirit. This is completely subjective. In case you think that I’m twisting something then go ask a Mormon missionary yourself. I’ve had them come to my door before—they never seem to want to come back—and that’s where I got my copy of the Book of Mormon. They tell you to pray, just like this verse in their book says, and they say that they Holy Spirit will put a “burning in your bosom”. You’ll know because you’ll have a feeling that makes you all warm and tingly. Again, it’s completely subjective.
                  2. Catholicism
                     1. A lot of people think that Catholicism is the same as Christianity, and it’s not. If you just read the Bible and take it at face value then you will never come to Catholicism. But how can we tell if Catholicism is true? If you Google that question, you will find the website “Thecatholicthing.org”. There is an article entitled “Why Catholicism is the true religion” by David G. Bonagura jr. He teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary in New York. This is what he said:
                        1. “I recently met a man, about sixty-five years old, who, after I told him what I do, related this story: “When I was in Catholic high school, I asked one of the brothers, ‘How do we know that of all the religions in the world Catholicism is the right one?’ This question had been bugging me, and I was anxious to hear his answer. He replied, ‘We don’t know. We have to take it on faith.’ His response completely deflated me.”
                        2. After we parted, I wondered how I would have answered that question. Of course, there is no external, rational standard by which we can assess religions, or many other claims that are not empirically verifiable. But that does not mean that we cannot judge religions or determine their truth. What we need is a “first principle,” an agreed upon foundation and starting point, from which we can evaluate the truth of religions. This principle ought to be intrinsic to the nature and purpose of religions themselves.
                        3. For this first principle, I propose that we judge religions by how well – or not – they promote human flourishing. This approach does not exclude God nor reduce religion to a this-worldly, self-help modus operandi. Rather, if we can agree on the Judeo-Christian doctrine that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, then, as St. Irenaeus put it, we can say that “the glory of God is man fully alive” – and acting according to his true purpose.
                        4. On this foundation – one that people of all creeds can agree on – I state that Catholicism is the true religion because it most truly protects, nourishes, and develops the human being in his fullness. We can substantiate this claim by looking at Catholicism in three dimensions that are common to all religions: what it is, what it commands, and what it promises.”
                           1. So this seminary professor of Catholicism says literally “there is no external, rational standard by which we can assess religions”—which is completely false; and then proceeds to say that we need a “first principle” to judge all religions. The best thing he can think of is whether or not it promotes human flourishing. He then sums it up in one statement, and then follows this line of reasoning the rest of the article, “I state that Catholicism is the true religion because it most truly protects, nourishes, and develops the human being in his fullness.”
                           2. What you should notice is that it is an arbitrary standard. How do we define what is good for humans? To what objective standard do we run? In essence, what he says is, “By what we know to be good for humans, Catholicism is good for humans.” It ultimately makes man’s own thoughts the standard for whether or not it is true. This is completely arbitrary and subjective. What if I disagree with your standards of what is good to promote human flourishing? What if I disagree with your definition of the nature and purpose of religion? It’s not only arbitrary and subjective, it’s relative as well.
                        5. New Age Movement
                           1. Many would not count the New Age Movement in the group of claiming to have special revelation, but I do because at the heart of the movement is a core set of beliefs that unify the entire thing. I asked Warren Smith, who has been speaking on the New Age Movement for about 30 years now, I believe, what the “litmus test” is for verifying the claims of the NAM. This is what he said to me:
                              1. “The litmus test is simple. If you ‘awaken’ to the understanding and ‘get it’ that you are God you save yourself and then others with that understanding.”
                                 1. Pretty much it becomes verified to you because you get it. There is nothing objective about it. Some have tried since the ‘70s I believe to verify the notion that god is “in everyone” by appealing to quantum physics. Today you have people like Rob Bell—who is a heretic—going around to colleges with the same message that “everything is spiritual”. Physicists who have critiqued these presentations have laughed them off as not knowing what they’re talking about. But the fact of the matter is that they are trying to appeal to it. Again though, it’s an inner light subjective scenario. “You’ll see it is true when you see it is true.” It’s completely subjective.
                              2. Christianity
                                 1. Christianity is unique. It’s unique in its apologetics, it’s unique in its beliefs, and it’s unique in its proof. Jesus set forth an amazingly objective standard for how to verify it. Let me give you a couple of verses to show you:
                                    1. “Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matt. 12:38-40)
                                    2. “Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:18-21)
                                 2. Michael Licona summed the issue up this way:
                                    1. “When someone makes such a lofty claim, critics rightly ask for the evidence. Jesus’ critics asked him for a sign, and he said he would give them one—his resurrection. It is the test by which we could know that he was telling the truth. Such a historical test of truth is unique to Christianity. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, he was a false prophet and a charlatan whom no rational person should follow. Conversely, if he did rise from the dead, this event confirmed his radical claim.” (Licona and Habermas, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (2004), p. 27)

• This is the definition of objective and verifiable. A teacher says, “I’m going to die, and when I rise from the dead you’ll know that I’m correct.” What more could someone ask for to verify a religion? There isn’t any other religion that stakes so much on something so objective. Christianity is completely unique in this respect. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then Christianity—in its entirety—is absolutely true.

• Legend Theory: Based on other religions
  1. Some people have asserted that the claims for Jesus’ resurrection developed over time and were based on other early resurrection claims from other religions. Commonly cited examples are Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, and Marduk. Here are some reasons why that is not true.
     1. The accounts in these other religions are often unclear and ambiguous.
        1. Today’s scholars actually don’t consider these parallels by today’s standards. They are also unlike Jesus’ resurrection accounts.
        2. Often, such as with Osiris, there are contradictory accounts of what happened to him, and it’s unclear if he rose from the dead at all.
        3. In addition to those points, the earliest clear parallel account is over 100 years after the time of Jesus death. This was the Greek mythological character Adonis in 150 AD.
     2. The accounts lack evidence and can easily be accounted for by opposing theories.

• Finally, none of these can explain the evidence that exists for the resurrection of Jesus.

• The Linchpin
  1. It’s been said that there is a one-two punch for defending Christianity on an apologetic level: First, you have fulfilled prophecy; second, it accurately describes the universe the way it is. We could talk about the Hittite empire being rediscovered after over 1,000 years or so and verifying the Bible when skeptics said it didn’t exist. We can talk about the science that verifies how the scriptures explain the universe’s operation. We can talk about all that, but we would just be insinuating that problematic line of reasoning I mentioned earlier if we say, “Because parts of the Bible are true, then all of it is true.” I don’t want to do that.
  2. The linchpin of the whole God thing comes down to one point essentially: Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead? Jesus said that He was the only way to God the Father. He said that if He rose from the dead that it would verify His claims and teachings. The question then is, “Did He?” It really is the only question that matters when you get the discussion going about God. That’s why next episode that’s what we’re talking about. Defending the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.
  3. That’s also why this episode is pretty short and succinct. The entire issue is cleared up with whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. If you have that, then you have all of Christianity as the Bible teaches it. You might not have any validation for what goes on at that church on your corner, but you will have every reason to follow Jesus Christ as the Bible teaches it. I encourage you to tune in for the next episode. I have really enjoyed getting it ready.

1. Close
   1. I know this episode was brief compared to others, but hopefully I at least provoked some new thoughts about some things; and I hope that you are primed to think about the resurrection of Christ.

Here's our new episode:

Resurrection of Believers Part 2

In this episode Brother Jonathan finishes talking about the resurrection. Also, the "misplaced comma" argument of Luke 23:43, a walk through 1 Corinthians 15, when the Kingdom is delivered to the Father by Christ, the timeline of the resurrection, a brief discussion of the return of Christ, the two resurrections, and the resurrection body.

 

Resurrection of Believers Part 2

S2EP7

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Intro
   1. We’ll be finishing up talking about the resurrection today, and, ironically, in a couple of weeks (Lord willing) we’ll be talking about the resurrection of Christ. Specifically, we’ll be considering it from an apologetics viewpoint. I’m ashamed to say it, but for most of my Christian life I never had to defend the resurrection of Christ. It honestly never came up with people. Perhaps it is because I live in the so-called “Bible belt” where everyone thinks they’re a Christian. But in doing the reading to talk about that, and listening to certain lectures and so forth, I was amazed at how much historical evidence there is for the resurrection of Christ. So if you have never dove into that area of apologetics I would encourage you to listen to that episode when it comes up in a few weeks.
   2. Today though we’re talking about the resurrection of the dead in general; but before we get into that I want to talk about something else.
2. Luke 23:43
   1. Last episode I talked for a while indirectly about why the idea of “soul sleep” is incorrect. One argument that is brought up sometimes as a rebuttal to quoting Luke 23:43 in support of the traditional view is the argument about the use of a comma. The verse in question says:
      1. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
   2. The contention is that the word “today” is supposed to be with the preceding clause “Verily I say unto thee” so that it should read “Verily I say unto thee today.” They say that a comma has been placed in the wrong spot. The point being that it separates the time aspect of when the thief on the cross would be with Christ. Essentially making the verse to mean that Christ is only saying, “I’m telling you this today that you will be with me in Paradise some day.” If this argument were true then they would have a basis for saying that this verse does not teach the separation of the soul from the body—which would support the idea of soul sleep. What you have to understand is that even if that were the case this verse cannot be used to support soul sleep. The best thing that this argument would accomplish is to say that Luke 23:43 could not be used to support the opposing viewpoint. So the main thrust of the matter is whether or not Luke 23:43 supports the traditional view of the soul separating from the body in physical death.
   3. There is one thing that is correct that is asserted by this argument: there are no commas in the oldest Greek manuscripts. That’s true. The conclusion of this argument is not though. Let me give you a couple of reasons why:
      1. If the argument simply rests on the fact that there are no commas in the oldest Greek manuscripts, then to say either placement is wrong is arbitrary. If we just stop there at least. If you’re just arguing about commas in the original Greek then you’re going to not be allowed to assert any placement of commas along those lines. Let me emphasize this: if there are no commas in the original manuscripts then you cannot say that any placement of one is wrong. It would be like saying that an answer to a test is wrong if you don’t have the answer key to tell you why. It would be completely arbitrary to say that one placement of a comma is incorrect over another JUST BASED on whether or not there was a comma in the original manuscript. When you take grammar into account though it’s a different story altogether.
      2. If we pressed for grammatical accuracy—remember commas are a part of grammar—then we can accurately place one. The Oxford dictionary says, “A comma marks a slight break between different parts of a sentence. Used properly, commas make the meaning of sentences clear by grouping and separating words, phrases, and clauses.” So different phrases and clauses of sentences are grouped together. Most people don’t understand that Greek is very different than English. Word order means almost nothing in Greek. You identify the function of nouns or adjectives in a sentence by what their case ending is (a case ending is an additional letter or letters to the stem of the word). Prepositions are never declined, but their object is always declined (which means its form is changed) based upon its intended meaning. Certain words, such as “hoti”, identify subordinate clauses—which lets you know that the main verb and subject are not in that clause. Greek is actually a very specific language. Yes, there are some times when it is not as specific as we would like it to be, but most of the problems with translation are not on the Greek side. English is usually the problem. English is great for poets, but difficult for translators really. If you were to pick up a good thesaurus, you would see why. English might have 100 words that are “synonyms” with the word “shine”. English is very different than Greek. Regarding Luke 23:43, the phrase, “amen lego soi,” which means, “verily [or “truly”] I say to thee [second person pronoun],” is used around 100 times in the gospels with only slight variation—sometimes with a plural pronoun instead of a singular one [“you” instead of “thee”]. I don’t see anyone arguing about it anywhere else but here. In fact, if you look at the other occurrences of the phrase you see that it’s not vague at all. If you tried to say the same thing about another occurrence of the phrase you would get some absurdities. To argue about it here just shows that someone is arbitrarily picking one out of a hundred instances of this phrase because they don’t like the implications of what is said. That’s just a philosophical bias.

• The early Gnostics were the ones to first have a problem with this verse. Marcion and the Manicheans had assembled their own “Gnostic Bible” as-it-were. In their copy of the gospel of Luke (the only gospel that they included I believe) they removed this verse because it taught the immateriality of the soul—that the soul was not synonymous with the body. Historically, the only people who have sided with the view of the “misplaced comma” have been those who were naturalistic in their thinking and denied that the soul was immaterial. The way that they chose to defend it was to remove the verse, or to just say that a comma is misplaced.

1. The comma is placed after the word “thee”, or “soi”, before it gets to “today”, or the word “semeron”, because it is ending the clause and beginning a new one. This is grammatically easy to see in the Greek, because the “soi” is in the Dative and is therefore receiving the action of the verb “lego”. That is, the words “unto thee” are the object of the words “I say”. That clause in the sentence is closed there after the object. I know of no translation of the Bible that translates it any other way than to separate the two. To do so would be to make a mess of the grammar and pervert the meaning that was intended by Luke. This is why commentators have openly mocked this argument as being silly. I even took the time to translate the verse myself, and it’s not a hard verse. It’s so simple a first year Greek student could easily translate it, probably off the top of their head:
   1. “και ειπεν αυτω ο ιησους αμην λεγω σοι σημερον μετ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω”
   2. “And Jesus said to him, “Verily I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise.”
2. It’s a very simple verse, and there’s a reason that no one has ever taken this argument seriously. It’s completely unfounded. The comma is exactly where it grammatically should be. Christ was saying that the thief would THAT DAY be with Him in the paradise of God.

• The Importance of the Resurrection of the Dead
  1. To the Apostles, the belief in the resurrection of the dead was a basic Christian belief. It was the hope of believers. It’s not just that Christ is returning to redeem us from this present evil world, but He’s coming back to change us. It’s a fundamental point in Christianity that is greatly neglected in teaching and preaching today. In the book of Acts we see that the Apostles and Paul were regularly teaching about it:
     1. “And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” (Acts 4:1-2)
     2. “But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” (Acts 23:6-8)

• “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” (Acts 24:14-15)

1. “Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” (Acts 24:20-21)

1. The early Christians openly talked about the hope of our resurrection because they saw that it was absolutely was connected to Christ’s resurrection from the dead. We’ll see that in a little bit. We’ll actually be talking about the resurrection of Christ in a few weeks too.
2. What we’ll do is walk through 1 Corinthians 15 and comment about things as we go. It’s probably the longest passage that talks about the resurrection in the Bible by far. It seems like a good place to begin.

1. Walkthrough 1 Corinthians 15
   12. The first part of 1 Corinthians 15 (v3-8) is believed to be an early Creed of Christianity pre-dating any text of the New Testament. It’s structure and language bear witness to the fact that it was a condensed form of early Christian doctrine that was passed on orally—which is why it was simplified for easy oral communication. If we work back from this point in 1 Corinthians (about 51 AD) then we can actually show that the early Christians were teaching the literal and bodily resurrection of Christ right after the resurrection happened. We’ll be covering that in a few weeks when we talk about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. After this, Paul makes some general comments about himself. Then he begins to address the topic of resurrection in v.12.
   13. “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1Cor. 15:12)
       1. Paul begins to address some of the problems at the church in Corinth—as he has done throughout his letter. Some people were teaching that there is no future resurrection for believers. He begins to point this out as a major error. Notice though that Paul directly connects the general resurrection with the resurrection of Christ. He says, “If we’re preaching that Jesus rose from the dead, then how is that some of you are denying the general resurrection from the dead?”
   14. “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:” (1Cor. 15:13)
       1. He makes a very startling statement: if there is no general resurrection, then Christ never rose from the dead either. So Paul again is emphasizing that there is a direct connection between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of everyone else. There can be no separating of the two. If you deny the one, then you deny the other.
   15. “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” (1Cor. 15:14)
       1. Paul says, “Hey, if that’s the case, then we’re just wasting our time with all this Christianity stuff.” This flies in the face of much of liberal Christianity by those on the side of the Emergent church movement like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and all those guys. They deny the literal and bodily resurrection of Christ and the atonement itself. Brian McLaren has quipped before that “We must continually be aware that the ‘old, old, story’ may not be the ‘true, true, story.’” (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 294) The Emergent church movement is nothing more than apostasy masquerading as revival and intelligence. If you have anything to do with a church that encourages the reading of anything emergent, participates in it, or even describes itself as it, then you need to leave that church immediately. You are in a den of wolves. If you’re interested, Claris Van Kuiken has a very detailed book about the Emergent church called “Emergent Revolution.” It’s a very detailed book on the subject. But Paul emphasizes that if you take away the bodily and literal resurrection of Christ, then you don’t have Christianity. You cannot call yourself a Christian if Christ never rose from the dead—no matter what Rob Bell tries to say.
   16. “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” (1Cor. 15:15)
       1. Paul begins to speak hypothetically to show them the foolishness of their error. Indeed, if Christ was never raised from the dead bodily, then Christians are false prophets. Historiographically it is demonstrable that the early Christians started preaching the bodily resurrection of Christ right out of the gate. It’s notable that the ONLY early argument against the resurrection of Christ was that the disciples stole the body. Why is that notable? Because it shows that there was an empty tomb. If the tomb was not empty, then the enemies of the gospel would not have had to say that someone stole the body.
   17. “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” (1Cor. 15:16-18)
       1. Paul continues with this hypothetical point, “If you deny the general resurrection then you deny the resurrection of Christ. If Christ isn’t resurrected, then you are still lost. If that’s true, then those who have labored and died for the name of Christ have done it in vain—they did it for nothing.” He’s showing them the implications of the denial of the general resurrection.
   18. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1Cor. 15:19)
       1. If they had no hope in Christ except in this world presently, then they had been fools. They had suffered the loss of possessions, reputation, endured persecution, etc., and all for nothing if the resurrection is not real.
   19. “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” (1Cor. 15:20)
       1. But, Paul says, Christ is resurrected from the dead. He also is the “firstfruits” of them that slept. Remember, liked we talked about last time, “sleep” is used to speak of the physically dead. I find the word “sleep” to be very applicable because it implies a “waking up”. But Christ is the “firstfruits”. He is the new pattern for man. He is the first man to be born physically, die physically, and to rise from the dead never to die again. Lazarus was raised from the dead, but he died again. The same for every other person who had ever been raised from the dead. Christ was resurrected to a new kind of life. He was raised bodily, and he was not subject to corruption. The “firstfruits” were the first part offered up to God of a harvest. This implies that the harvest was of the same type. If you offered up the firstfruits of you grain to God as an offering, then it was of the same type as the rest of the harvest. In this way, the same type of resurrection body that Christ had believers will have. We’ll see this more clearly later.
   20. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” (1Cor. 15:21)
       1. It was fitting in God’s sight that because by one man, Adam, came sin and death upon all humanity, that by one man, Jesus Christ, would come righteousness and resurrection life to all who would come.
   21. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Cor. 15:22)
       1. This is a more clear way of emphasizing the last verse. If you continue to live after the pattern of Adam, being born of him and in his image, then you will suffer eternal death. If you become born of the spirit, and be renewed after the image of Christ, continuing to live therein, then you will partake of eternal life: which is resurrection life. You are a partaker of eternal life now by your faith in Christ. In the world to come, as it says in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30, you will actually be sealed with eternal life by being changed into the same pattern of Christ’s resurrected body—never to die again. We’ll see this reinforced later in this chapter.
   22. “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.” (1Cor. 15:23)
       1. There is an order given here of the resurrection:
          1. Christ, who is the firstfruits unto God.
          2. “they that are Christ’s at his coming” This is those who are believers at his return. This doesn’t exclude the dead in Christ because the dead in Christ have sealed their testimony. So they are included in this statement. “At his coming” simply referring to the time of His return, and not necessarily only those that return with Him.
       2. Some people have tried to insert another resurrection here where it says “the firstfruits”. The word “aparche” which underlies the word means the first portion, or the first of a kind. It is describing Christ, and it is not separable from Him. You can’t insert another group here to support a doctrine as some do. There are two groups listed here: Christ, and then those that are Christ’s at the time of His second coming. There are two things mentioned here as being raised: Christ, who was raised first, then those that are raised at His second coming. To say anything else is to arbitrarily insert something because of a philosophical bias on your part.
   23. “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” (1Cor. 15:24)
       1. With the beginning of this verse saying, “then cometh the end,” we see that a timeline is being described. First Christ was raised from the dead, then those that are His followers at the time of His return will be raised/changed, and “then cometh the end.” When you see the word “end” you need to be careful to understand what is ending. There is a time when the “end of the world” is referenced, such as in Matthew 24:3, and there is a time when the “end” of time itself is referenced. It’s very easy to confuse things so make sure you are paying very close attention to exactly what is being described. The timing of this “end” in particular is laid out for us.
       2. Paul says that this “end” will occur “when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power.” So this end is when Christ has put down all opposing authorities and powers. This is clarified in the next two verses.
   24. “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (1Cor. 15:25-26)
       24. Paul elaborates on v.24. He says that Christ must reign, which shows that Christ’s kingdom is already set up at this point, until He has subdued all enemies. Then, Paul actually identifies the very last enemy that will be destroyed: death itself. This actually gives us a specific point to identify when this is. Remember, Paul is talking about the resurrection, and he’s giving us markers to identify the timing of things because certain people had perverted it saying that the resurrection was already over. Paul’s showing them that that is not the case, and here’s when it will happen.
       25. So, between 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 we have three things mentioned:
           1. The resurrection of Christ as the firstfruits
           2. The resurrection of Christ’s followers at the time of His return
           3. Then comes the end

• The timeframe of this “end” is made clear if you follow what Paul says. The end comes when Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father. Christ reigns over this kingdom until all enemies are subdued. The last enemy that is subdued is death itself. So, when death is destroyed, Christ is done reigning. When Christ is done reigning, then He gives the kingdom to the Father. The question that should arise in your mind is, where have I heard of death ending before? We’re specifically told when in Revelation:
  1. “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Rev. 20:14)

1. This connection is corroborated for us when just five verses later we read:
   1. “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Rev. 21:4)
2. So this “end” is made clear for us: it is the end of the millennial reign of Christ. This actually makes sense really when you consider all the timing. Now, I don’t want to go off on a tangent, but we have to talk about the return of Christ simply because it’s connected with the resurrection. Let’s put some passages together:
   1. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Mat. 24:29-31)
      1. Christ Himself described His return as being “immediately after the tribulation”. The Son of Man shall be seen in His glory returning to the earth. He says literally, “and they shall see the Son of man coming.” It is not secret. He comes in the clouds of heaven, and then He sends His angels with “a great sound of a trumpet”. The angels gather together all the believers everywhere when this trumpet sounds.
   2. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:” (Mat. 25:31-32)
      1. When Christ returns in his glory he comes with all the holy angels. At this time, the setting up of His throne, He will separate the nations. The word nations is “ethnos” and it just means groups of people. There is a gathering and dividing of the people of the earth.
   3. “As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mat. 13:40-43)
      3. Christ here explains about the end of the world just as His disciples would later ask Him in Matthew 24:3. The Son of man returns, with His angels, and separates the wicked from the just. He separates the people.
   4. “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” (2 The. 1:7-10)
      1. Again here, Christ returns from heaven with His angels, and then He punishes the wicked of the earth with fire.
   5. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 The. 4:14-17)
      31. People try to associate this passage with a completely separate idea and make a mess of the timeline of Revelation. Those that are dead in Christ are said to return with Christ. The Lord Himself descends here, just as in Matthew 24:29-31, with a shout and the voice of the archangel, just as how angels are mentioned in Matthew 24:29-31. The Lord mentions the trumpet of God, just as in Matthew 24:29-31. Then there is a resurrection of the dead in Christ, which we will see in a minute fits the timeline completely. At this time, there is a gathering of all believers together, just like in Matthew 24:29-31. Do you know why 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and Matthew 24:29-31 are so similar? It’s because they’re describing the same event.
          1. I’m going to rant about this for a minute, and I might offend some people—so be it. I was taught a pre-tribulation rapture just like everyone else. I had to learn it at a Bible institute, then at a Bible college, and I was extremely zealous for it. Then I critically examined the scriptures and realized there was absolutely no support for it. There are arbitrary assumptions, superfluous distinctions of the exact same words and language, and you make a mess of New Testament prophecy when you insert it into the text of scripture. The majority of the time people spend teaching a pre-tribulation rapture is spent explaining away the scriptures—just like those proponents do with other things. Errors usually come in groups because you have to start doing apologetics on the rest of scripture to make it fit your preconceived notions. I know because that’s what I did for years. I have never heard a new argument for a pre-trib rapture. I’ve listened to multiple part series, read books, etc., there is nothing new. The same lines of reasoning, and the same hermeneutical methods, that are used to defend it are used to defend cessationism and eternal security. I can say that because I used to believe both of those teachings also.
      32. So, timing-wise, let’s take a look at Revelation.
          1. In chapter 17-18 we see the destruction of Mystery Babylon.
          2. In chapter 19 we see rejoicing in heaven and the marriage supper of the Lamb—the timing of this is hard to be definitive about.
          3. In the latter part of chapter 19, starting in v.11, we see a description of the return of Christ from heaven to the earth.
             1. “And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.” (Rev. 19:14)
          4. We understand that in this army are included the dead in Christ, because in v.8 we had just seen that “fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” Jude even mentions that the Lord is to return with His saints from heaven. “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” (Jude 1:14)
          5. In v.19-21 we see that gathering together of the Beast and his armies to stand against Christ. Remember, Christ Himself said that the inhabitants of the earth would see Him coming. (Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:11) Christ destroys them easily. Now we know that at least this part of chapter 19 follows chronologically before the rest of the book, because 19:20 shows the beast and the false prophet being cast into the lake of fire. Then, in 20:10, we see Satan himself cast into the lake of fire and we’re told that it is “where the beast and the false prophet are.” So, at least from 19:11 onward in the book it is being described close to chronological order.
          6. In 20:1-6 we see described the events that begin the thousand year reign of Christ. This is the setting up of the kingdom of Christ on earth. Satan himself is bound for the thousand years. The first resurrection is said to take place at this point. We’re specifically told in v.5 that the rest of the dead are not going to be raised until after the thousand years are over.
          7. In 20:7-10 we see that after the thousand years are over Satan is loosed from his prison and allowed to go and deceive the nations. The nations come up against the camp of the saints. Christ again destroys them easily.
          8. Then in 20:11-15 we see described the second resurrection and the Judgment. It’s clear in v.12-13 that we’re dealing with a resurrection, and the fact that the first resurrection is so named, being called “the first”, we can infer that there is second—also, it is mentioned elsewhere in scripture as we’ll see. In v.14-15 we see the end of death and hell, and the beginning of the second death—eternal death. At this point, every human being has been judged and separated either unto eternal life or eternal death.
          9. Beginning in chapter 21 we see the new heavens and new earth being made. It is the end of the former things. This is the point of “the end” that was spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24. After this begins what can only be called eternity.

• So, now let’s briefly talk about the two resurrections. Two resurrections are either implied or inferred in other places in the scriptures.
  1. “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” (Dan. 12:1-3)
     1. Daniel here describes that some will rise to “everlasting life” and these are described as shining like stars. Others are said to be raised to “shame and everlasting contempt”. This is kind of an oblique reference that supports the idea of eternal torment. The lost are resurrected to be able to endure eternal punishment, and for no other reason.
  2. “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29)
     1. Here Christ Himself directly states that there is a resurrection of life, the first, and a resurrection of damnation, the second. Notice also that which one you partake in is determined by your works—just like the rest of scripture says. “According to your works be it done unto you.” Christ Himself stated at the end of the Revelation, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Rev. 22:12) Your works bear witness to who you serve. In 1 Corinthians 3 we see that believers are working on the foundation of Jesus Christ. It is the foundation of all that they do. Christ also described the wise man in Matthew 7:24-27 who built upon the rock. That rock He interpreted was His own sayings. That’s another reason that I can’t stand it when people try to say that there is some division between what Christ Himself taught and what we are supposed to be doing now as believers. You’re pretty much shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven when you teach that.
  3. “And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” (Acts 24:15)
     1. Paul is here affirming that there is a resurrection of the just, and a resurrection of the unjust.

• When we put these all together we see that there are two resurrections, and we can get the basic sense of them by how they are described:
  1. First resurrection, everlasting life, called the resurrection of life, the resurrection of the just. Luke adds in Luke 14:14 that it is at this time of the resurrection of the just that believers are rewarded for their good works:
     1. “Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:12-14)
  2. The second resurrection, shame and everlasting contempt, called the resurrection of damnation, the resurrection of the unjust. It is also asserted by John in Revelation 20:13 that this is the time that the lost dead are rewarded for their works: they are cast into the lake of fire.

1. So, back to 1 Corinthians 15, in v.27: “For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor. 15:27-28)
   24. Paul here talks about how even though all things are said to be subject to Christ it is plain that the one exception is God the Father. So when all things are subdued by Christ, then Christ the Son will submit His own kingdom to the Father. This hearkens back to v.24. God being “all in all” is referring to when there is nothing in the universe hindering God’s fellowship. To get an idea of this read Revelation 21.
2. “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1Cor. 15:29)
   1. This verse has been a springboard for the Mormons to teach their version of baptism for the dead. To them, you can go and be baptized in the place of your past relatives that have died. There have been, in times past, those who practiced this. One or two of the early Christian writers noted that this was practiced in some places. I honestly don’t know why there is so much confusion over the meaning of this verse.
   2. Paul’s language is very clear. He is going back to his argument earlier in v.15-18 about the implications if Christ is not raised. In essence, he is simply saying, “Why then are believers baptized in the name of Jesus if He didn’t rise from the dead? Why then are they baptized in His name?” He is pointing out the fact that because they baptize in the name of Jesus there must be something to Him. If He didn’t rise from the dead, then what would be the point in baptizing in His name? What could He do for them? He’s simply showing them the foolishness of trying to say that Jesus rose from the dead and at the same time try to say that there is no general resurrection.
3. “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” (1Cor. 15:30)
   1. If Jesus didn’t rise, then why are we going through all this? What would be the point?
4. “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.” (1Cor. 15:31)
   1. Some have commented that the phrase “by your rejoicing” is meant to refer to the Corinthians boasting against the Apostle Paul. I tend to agree with this point because he goes on to rebuke them it seems. Possibly hearkening back to his points that he brings out in chapters 4 and 14 where he contrasts his and the other apostles suffering with their self-glorying. This seems to fit best to me.
   2. Paul emphasizes his daily death to self when he says, “I die daily.” This is a very important part of the Christian life. Paul has mentioned it elsewhere:
      1. “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.” (2 Cor. 4:10-11)
      2. “As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Rom. 8:36)
      3. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20)

• It is the part of a Christian to give up the “right” to their life. We give up our life to God that we might be partaker of His life. Christ didn’t seek to “do His own thing”. He completely gave Himself up to the will of the Father. He spoke the Father’s words, He did the Father’s works, and He did it all as a man being wholly reliant upon God and His Spirit. This is the pattern to which we are called. We have no right to do our own thing. If it’s your life, then it’s not God’s. Paul had willfully submitted himself to be obedient even unto death. This meant persecution, and it’s the same for us today.

1. “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:32)
   1. Paul had continually dealt with wicked men who were enemies of God. Paul reminds them, “What’s the point if I am not in some way benefited by this persecution?”
   2. The naturalistic worldview is no knew thing. “Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” is the maxim of the unbeliever today. If there is no afterlife, and there is no judgment or resurrection, then why should we worry about morality? There would be no point to worrying about consequences. Paul states that if there is no resurrection, then the logical conclusion is that the only thing that matters is to enjoy the pleasures of this world while you can.
2. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” (1 Cor. 15:33)
   1. Paul here warns the Corinthians because of the logical conclusion of denying that there is a resurrection. If there is no resurrection, and no afterlife or judgment, then pleasure is the goal of life. Paul states very clearly that to say that is an “evil communication”. It’s a proverb and philosophy that can only “corrupt good manners”. It will only lead to immorality. Much like the denial of the ability for a person to lose their salvation only leads to slackness in their walk, and tends to encourage sin because there is no fear of reprisal from the Lord. When there is no fear of consequence believers will almost always fall away—though they may never leave the church pews. This is why Paul emphasizes, saying, “Be not deceived.”
3. “Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.” (1 Cor. 15:34)
   1. This is not a call to evangelism as some think. Paul is warning them about some that are in their midst. He tells them to “awake to righteousness”. “Awake” here is a very strong one that carries the sense of being woken up from a drunken sleep. He’s not just saying “pay attention,” he’s saying, “get a grip on yourself or else.” The phrase “sin not” is actually present tense, and that means that it should be understood in the sense of “be not sinning.” So together Paul is warning them to quickly get a grip on themselves and their behavior and to continue in righteousness without sinning.
   2. He goes on to say that “some have not the knowledge of God.” He is meaning among them, and not out in the world. Some of them by their behavior and actions make it clear that they were not discerning the Lord’s body, and that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14) He intentionally points out that he is trying to make them see that they should be ashamed. So much for not making people feel uncomfortable. Paul puts his finger right on it and bluntly says “you should be ashamed.” I wonder how many preaching appointments Paul would get today?
4. “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:” (1 Cor. 15:35-36)
   1. He begins to address a question that they had concerning the resurrection: How are they raised up, and with what body? These are very naturalistic questions that even people today ask. I have a feeling, and I could be wrong, that these questions were not coming from sincere believers who just wanted to understand the resurrection. I believe that for two reasons: because of Paul’s strong words against the questioner, and because the questions do not include the questioner. By the latter I mean to point out the fact that when a sincere believer asks about something they include themselves in it. They say things like, “How is it that WE will be caught up with the Lord when He returns?” A skeptic words it like this, “So how is it that YOU will be caught up with Jesus?” I find it interesting that the question Paul is addressing does that. It’s worded, as if coming from the person like so, “How are THEY raised up? With what body do THEY come?” This, taken with Paul’s strong words, to me shows that they were not sincere questions, but might have been coming from a divisive person who was being very skeptical of the doctrine. Some have even asserted that it was probably a false apostle who was magnifying himself against the Apostle Paul.
   2. Paul calls the questioner a fool. Literally, the word does mean it with the implication of the person being unwise and ignorant. He continues by using the same metaphor for resurrection that Christ did in the Gospel of John:
      1. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24)

• The illustration being that just as a kernel of grain is put into the ground in order to bring up a new plant, even so our natural bodies are sown into the ground in physical death and will bring forth a new body. This is simply an illustration that Paul uses and it’s not meant to convey an understanding of HOW it is done.

1. “And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.” (1 Cor. 15:37-38)
   1. The physical body that is put in the ground is not the same as the one that will be raised up. Just like how a bare kernel is put into the ground, but a new plant that is different looking grows out of the ground. Paul emphasizes that God is the one who does the work. God is the one who changes the body. He also emphasizes that the resurrection is done on an individual level. Every man and woman will be raised individually and receive a new body.
2. “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” (1 Cor. 15:39-41)
   1. Paul points out the differences in the natural universe. Things differ from each other in how they are fashioned by God.
3. “So also is the resurrection of the dead. 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: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:42-44)
   1. After pointing out the differences in nature, Paul says, “so also is the resurrection of the dead.” If there is all this difference in how God has fashioned the natural things of the universe, should it be too hard to think that there is at least as much a difference between the earthly and the spiritual body?
   2. The earthly body is dishonorable, weak, and natural. While the spiritual resurrection body is glorious, powerful, and spiritual. They are worlds different. Paul emphasizes the plain fact that “there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.” The two are different.
4. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” (1 Cor. 15:45)
   1. Adam was an earthly man formed of the dust of the ground. We are born of the same image as his descendents, and we are modeled after the same earthly image. Christ, the last Adam, is made a quickening spirit. He is one who is able to give new life to the soul that Adam could not.
5. “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” (1 Cor. 15:46)
   1. Every man can only be born physically and naturally first. The nature of the new birth is one that requires the man to make a decision, and so it must follow after. Throughout the Old Testament you see the pattern of the first and the second. Ishmael was born before Isaac. Esau was born before Jacob. The Covenant of Law (called the first in the book of Hebrews) came before the Covenant of Grace (called the second in Hebrews). The first is not the greater, the second is.
6. “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” (1 Cor. 15:47)
   1. Adam is a man who is made of the earth. Christ is the Lord from heaven. Another reference to the deity of Christ.
7. “As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” (1 Cor. 15:48-49)
   1. Those who are after the pattern of Adam, natural in their life, will continue to do so until their judgment. Those who give themselves to be born after the image of Christ, and continue to grow up into Him in all things, will be changed to be conformed to the image of Christ’s resurrection body. This is stated elsewhere in the New Testament also:
      1. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 Jn. 3:2)
      2. “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29)
      3. “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:” (Rom. 6:5)
      4. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” (Php. 3:20-21)
   2. That last verse, Philippians 3:21, states very clearly that in the resurrection our bodies will be like unto His glorious body. Christ’s resurrection body shows us at least a glimpse of what the spiritual bodies of the resurrection will be like. Let’s consider some things from the gospel accounts about what it was like.
      1. We know that the spiritual resurrection body of Christ was not confined to physical traveling. Christ disappeared out of the sight of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:31, and He appeared in the middle of a room with locked doors as is recorded in Luke 24:36 and John 20:19. Perhaps this is best seen when He ascended in Acts 1 to heaven bodily.
      2. Christ’s resurrection body was physical, as He Himself stated:
         1. “And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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.” (Luke 24:38-39)
      3. Christ was able to eat and drink.
         1. “And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” (Luke 24:41-43)
      4. Christ had the same knowledge that He did before His death. He recalls things that He told them before in Luke 24:44. We know that at a certain time God will take away our memories from our former lives. Given the timeline in Revelation 20-21, I don’t believe that occurs—at least as it is stated scripturally—until after the millennial reign of Christ is over and eternity begins.

• So this gives us an idea of what the resurrection body that we will receive will be like. Christ Himself also mentioned the resurrection in the gospels.
  1. “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.” (Mat. 22:23-34)
     1. Christ states that those who are partakers of the first resurrection are like unto the angels. He specifically says that they do not marry. If we were to look at the way that angels are described throughout the scriptures we would see a similar description to what we see with Christ’s resurrection body. Luke’s parallel account of this passage gives a little more detail.
  2. “And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:34-36)
     36. Christ mentions that those who are partakers of the first resurrection, and the world to come, are partakers because they are accounted worthy to do so. This is why the Apostle said, “So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:” (2 The. 1:4-5) It’s stated more than a few times in the NT that believers ought to be careful to walk worthy of their calling for this reason. Christ Himself mentions it in Luke 21:36. In the Revelation Christ says, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.” (Rev. 3:4) The reason that these believers would walk in white with Christ was because they had not defiled the garments of their salvation: for they were worthy He says. All these things show the conditionality of our salvation.
  3. “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Cor. 15:50)
     1. This then is the point of the resurrection: to make you fit for eternity. Both the saved and the lost will be resurrected. The saved will receive glorified bodies to fit them for eternal fellowship in the presence of God. The lost will be raised only to make them fit for eternal torment. Paul states that a natural body, which he refers to as “flesh and blood”, cannot inherit the eternal kingdom of God. It must be changed to do so. This leads in to what he says next.
  4. “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” (1 Cor. 15:51-52)
     1. The “mystery” that is spoken of here is the fact that “we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” The mystery that is meant is that not all believers will physically die before the resurrection. There is nothing else said here than that.
     2. Much has been said about “the last trump” in error. The word is not speaking of a particular blast of a trump. It is a literal trumpet—the Greek word “salpigx” making it clear. I get particularly annoyed by how much is inserted into this verse that is not there. This verse has been used to extrapolate a complex idea of a pre-tribulation rapture when there is nothing in this verse that lends itself to that idea.

• If we look at this verse, we see that it corresponds directly with both 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Matthew 24:31. The only argument that is usually set forth to distinguish between those two respective passages is the absence of a resurrecting of dead believers in Matthew’s passage. This, it should be obvious, is an appeal to silence. It’s a fallacy. Where there is nothing contradictory mentioned it cannot be said that the two are not in agreement. The absence of something is not contradiction. If we were to apply this same hermeneutic to the rest of scripture then we would find a great many doctrines undone. The resurrection of Christ itself would become undone if you applied this same line of reasoning to all four gospel accounts of it. By the same reasoning, because of the different things that are mentioned in all four gospels, you would have to consider it as two or three crucifixions of Christ and two or three resurrections of Christ because of things mentioned or not mentioned in those passages between them. No one does that but critical skeptical scholars. The fact that those who defend their arbitrary distinction between the events described in Matthew 24:29-31 from the events described by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 shows that they are merely exercising an unargued philosophical bias. They want it to be there, and so they make sure they find it. I know, from experience, that most people do this unintentionally; but the best thing to do in overcoming your bias is to admit that you have one.

1. There is one thing particularly I want to point out about those who do apologetics for a pre-tribulation rapture. What you will find is that a lot is rested on typology. Two things come to mind in particular that I know are common: the illustration of the Jewish practice of the wedding, and the illustration of Enoch and Noah.
   1. Some assert that the common wedding practices of the Jewish, which is alluded to by Christ in the parable of the ten virgins, supports a pre-tribulation rapture. The idea being that the bride of Christ is secretly taken by the bridegroom. Nowhere in all of scripture is there anything stated about Christ returning secretly and then running off again. People misinterpret the phrase “as a thief in the night” sometimes, but there is no mention of a secret return of Christ. Apparently it’s so secret that it is completely absent from scripture.
   2. The illustration of Enoch and Noah goes on this wise: “Enoch was taken up into heaven before the judgment, and Noah was preserved through the judgment. This pictures the church being raptured before the tribulation and physical Israel being preserved through the tribulation.” Much is wanting in this assumption. There is literally nothing to support this but the assumption of a pre-tribulation rapture. People assume it, and then go looking through scripture to support it. The foolishness of this application, because it’s not interpretation, is shown when you ask, “why does it picture that?” There is nothing to say to defend it but to appeal to your interpretation of the NT. Typology is not support for doctrine because it is asserted on the basis of doctrine.
2. The main error of this type of arguing is that it is begging the question. How do we find a type in the Old Testament? We look for what is clearly stated in the New Testament. How then can we use OT typology to support a NT teaching, if we determine that OT type from the NT teaching? It is arguing in a circle. In essence it says, “The rapture is true because it is supported by OT types, the OT types support a pre-tribulation rapture because of the NT rapture, and the NT rapture is true because of the OT types.” It is circular reasoning. If you were to apply this to any real OT type you be called silly. Also, regarding Jewish marriage customs, how could Jewish custom, which was not sanctioned by God, be used to dictate how God was going to send His Son? There are certain allusions made by Christ of particular things, such as there being a wedding feast, but it is a very different thing to say that BECAUSE the Jews did weddings a certain way Christ will return a certain way.
3. Not to mention the fact that a pre-tribulation rapture is completely at odds with what the angels said to the disciples immediately after His ascension.
   1. “And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

• It is impossible to say that Christ will come “in like manner”—simply going up—if He comes again to the earth, mysteriously halfway somehow, without touching the ground—because that’s important—takes believers back to heaven, then later brings them back. None of that, except the actual part of Him returning in general, is mentioned in the scriptures. The result is that you spend the majority of your time doing apologetics to make the book of Revelation fit. It is nowhere mentioned. The first place that Christ is mentioned to leave heaven is in Revelation chapter 19. People try to say that John going up in chapter 4:1 is the church, but that doesn’t fit. Christ comes down in a pre-tribulation rapture, not the Church goes all the way up by itself—at least if you’re going to appeal to 1 Thessalonians 4. Also, the other main argument is that the word “church” is not mentioned after chapter 4:1 until a certain point. Again, this is an appeal to silence, and is a fallacy. In so doing these types of things, and butchering the book of Revelation, you are left to explain how the gospel spreads at all during the tribulation when the tribulation supposedly begins without a single Christian on earth. This leads to an apologetic of who the 144,000 are. Let’s make them do everything! That fits our theory right? Sure!
• I’m sure people might be wondering why I am so frustrated about this, but it’s because I believed it all. When you humble yourself, and go back and do the first works like when you were a simple child in faith, you simply get back to the scriptures. If they don’t DIRECTLY say it, then it’s not there. I truly believe that many people are going to fall away in the tribulation because the majority of Christianity is screaming that the antichrist will not come until after a pre-tribulation rapture. When that doesn’t happen, people aren’t going to be looking for deception. “This can’t be the antichrist or the mark of the beast because the rapture hasn’t happened yet.” The majority of professing Christians who hold to a pre-trib rapture aren’t watching anyways…do you think this is gonna help? Do they actually live like they believe He can return at any moment? Consider the fact that this interpretation was not even mentioned for the first 1,000 years of Christianity at least; and it wasn’t popular until the Plymouth brethren, Clarence Larkin’s “Dispensational Truth” (from about 1910 I believe), and the Scofield Reference Bible (1912). For almost the entire time of Christianity, with the exception of the last 150 years, the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture was not a Christian concept. To me, just based upon that, it sounds more like end times deception.

1. Okay, I’m done.

1. “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (1 Cor. 15:53)
   1. Paul goes on talking about the point of the resurrection: a changed body. Our corruptible bodies must be made to where they cannot decay. Our temporal and mortal bodies must be changed to where they will last for eternity.
2. “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Cor. 15:54-55)
   1. Paul identifies when certain passages from Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8 are fulfilled. When our bodies are changed at the resurrection we are no more subject to death. We will never have to think about the grave again.
   2. It’s important to note that this is not the same time as was mentioned by Paul in v.24-26. That passage was referring to when death itself was ended. Here, Paul is only speaking of when believers are no more subject to death because they have received their new bodies. The difference in time between the two is, at least, 1,000 years.
3. “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.” (1 Cor. 15:56)
   1. Death was brought in because of sin. It was the sentence that was pronounced for those who commit it. (Rom. 6:23; Eze. 18:4) The strength of sin’s hold is the Law of God, because God is unchanging and must punish all sin. As long as God exists and is unchanging He will punish all sin. When all sin is dealt with, then God can undo death.
4. “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 15:57-58)
   1. Paul points out again that Christ is the one through whom the resurrection comes. Because He lives, we can live also. If we live and suffer with Him now, in this present world, then we shall live with Him, and reign with Him, in the world to come.
   2. He encourages them towards this end. The resurrection is the hope of the believer where his works are ended. Every good work will be rewarded by the Lord to His faithful servants. Paul encourages them to be “steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain.” This is the same thing that we should encourage ourselves in: this world and its ways have an end. We labor for what comes afterwards, and that which, when it comes, cannot be taken from us. Peter said:
      1. “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.” (2 Pet. 3:11-14)

• We ought to let the certainty of coming judgment and of coming reward both stir us up to greater love and holiness, and fill us with the expectation of hope. When you get weary, remember that it’s not in vain if it’s for the Lord. Even the mundane things of everyday can be done in service to God. Paul said, “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” (Gal. 6:9) So when you get weary, remind yourself of the coming resurrection, and press forward.

1. Closing
   1. I believe that I covered the most common questions that people have. I enjoyed doing this episode and the last episode. I learned a lot myself in the process of studying. Be looking for the next episode, or episodes. I’ll be going back to apologetics to finish that up. I really encourage you to listen to the one coming up about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. I’ve really enjoyed studying for that one. There’s just such a wealth of data that shows that the resurrection of Christ is a historical even and not just a belief. I honestly can’t wait to do that episode. It might be a good one to give to others, Lord willing.

Here's our new episode: