On the Resurrection
By Larry Siegle
The IBD view steps backwards and seeks to find a physical
application to that which God intended to be spiritual in nature.
Although I have not studied
all of the material presented by
Ed Stevens regarding the IBD view, I
would comment that in the context of the discussion, the comment of Ed is based
upon the following:
A distinction is being made
between the state of the "dead ones"--physically (I Corinthians
15:51ff) and "we who are alive and remain"--physically I Thessalonians
The act of being
"raised" would be applied to the "dead ones" (physically)
while the act of being "changed" would apply to those living
(physically) who were "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air" (I Thessalonians
The problem I have with
this concept is that it detracts from the covenantal significance of the
resurrection, and makes a physical transformation the focus of attention.
Whether one accepts the IBD
concept or that of the change of modes of existence--the hermeneutic used to
arrive at the conclusion one draws must remain consistent.
Is the apostle Paul dealing
with matters related to the individual destiny of believers as it relates to
their biological existence? Or, is he addressing various misconceptions
believers had about the transition period they were in at the time the letter
was written to them?
I believe the NT writers
had as the center of focus, the redemptive implications of what was occurring
in their midst at the time--the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises.
Ed goes to great lengths in
his explanation to define the difference between "the dead ones in
Hades" to whom he applies the term, "raised." No death. No
resurrection. Those "who are alive and remain" are not resurrected
because they have not died. No death. No resurrection.
The problem is resolved if
one understands that the primary meaning of the Greek word "raised"
is 'to cause to stand.' From God's perspective, a person's stance spiritually
before Him is the eternal issue at hand. From a redemptive perspective,
everyone needed a "resurrection" out of the realm of sin-death. From
the standpoint of the apostle Paul, the resurrection was already in process,
and therefore, those who were "alive and remain" would simply
complete the work of being "transformed into the same image from glory to
glory" at the time of the Parousia (II Corinthians
The covenantal time of
"change" was in progress--the resurrection had begun with Christ and
the "first fruits" (I Corinthians
The IBD view (as I
understand it) steps backwards and seeks to find a physical application to that
which God intended to be spiritual in nature. The scriptures are silent about
specifics related to our biological (physical) existence (Deut. 29:29). The
scriptures speak volumes about our soteriological (salvation) existence.
God created the environment
in which we live and we have all of the tools to sustain continued physical
bodily existence. God has also created the environment beyond the realm of the
physical and will. at the time of our biological demise, provide all of the
tools to sustain continued existence. Has He described every detail in His
word? No. Would I like to know what life beyond this realm has in store? Yes.
It is only natural.
However, since God has not
seen the need to describe such matters in the pages of His word, why waste our
time and effort debating it?
When a person dies today,
and his body is planted, does he receive another body, or is his body also
changed? If so, have many "bodies" does a person have, and how do
they differ from each other? The singular use of the "it" in the seed
analogy precludes the possibility of multiple "bodies" "IT"
is sown an natural body, "IT" is raised a
spiritual body (I Corinthians If I understand the IBD concept, there must of
necessity be TWO bodies. The one sown (in physical death) and the other raised from physical death.
Please correct me if I
misunderstand. Thanks
Larry Siegle