Our Rule and Reign

[Paidion]

Whatever the final fulfillment may be, i think the rule we currently share in is over our sin. and that is first and foremost only a consequence of being in Christ. just as breath sustains our life, so too without Christ in us we have no power of ourselves to sustain real righteousness. but as his disciples, i think we can "cease to do evil, and learn to do good."

Thanks for that, Jeremiah. I couldn't agree more!

[Othniel]

paidion,

whatever the final fulfillment may be, i think the rule we currently share in is over our sin. and that is first and foremost only a consequence of being in Christ. just as breath sustains our life, so too without Christ in us we have no power of ourselves to sustain real righteousness. but as his disciples, i think we can "cease to do evil, and learn to do good."

consider what God said to cain in Genesis 4:7:

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it. nkjv
If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it. nasb

paul told us to not let sin reign in our mortal body. i think as Christ reigns over me i get to share in that reign, learning by him to master the sin that i could have just as easily chosen to be owned by.

I have heard this before. This could well be the answer. Given the information we have about our current reign with Christ, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the battle of sin is in fact a grand part of our current rule.

i don't for a second consider this summary to be some kind of trump card to either the premillennial ideas of what the rule and reign is, or the more conventional amillennial view of it. this is just what i think i'm starting to understand about how exactly we are currently a "royal priesthood". as i don't at all agree with the idea that this current reign has anything to do with the saints who have died and are thought to be in heaven. i have to get to work, but look forward to any further discussion.

grace and peace.

I would agree that this doesn't disprove anything, though it may give clarity on our situation. I myself am currently an amillennialist and find that your thoughts on our "royal priesthood" would fit an amillennial eschatology. How do you know that our reign doesn't have anything to do with the saints in heaven? If they are in Christ and with Him now, I'm not sure we can throw out the possibility that they are also ruling and reigning in some unseen way.

[jeremiah]

hello othniel,

I myself am currently an amillennialist and find that your thoughts on our "royal priesthood" would fit an amillennial eschatology.

yes, i consider myself an amillennialist.

How do you know that our reign doesn't have anything to do with the saints in heaven? If they are in Christ and with Him now

as the question is written, i wouldn't say i know in a strong sense of the word, but that's why i said i disagree with the idea. unlike many conventional amillennialists i don't take for granted that the scriptures assume body/soul dualism with regard to the nature of the human person. no ghost in the machine as it were. i don't think we are two parts or three parts, but one whole thing, with out any immaterial substance to be found.

so i see the resurrection as our only hope of life beyond the grave, because without that promise we are of all men most miserable if in this life only we have hope in Christ. i think the convention of going to heaven when we die is mistakenly read into the scriptures, not drawn from them.

grace and peace.

[Othniel]

yes, i consider myself an amillennialist.

I knew more were out there somewhere hahaha

as the question is written, i wouldn't say i know in a strong sense of the word, but that's why i said i disagree with the idea. unlike many conventional amillennialists i don't take for granted that the scriptures assume body/soul dualism with regard to the nature of the human person. no ghost in the machine as it were. i don't think we are two parts or three parts, but one whole thing, with out any immaterial substance to be found.

so i see the resurrection as our only hope of life beyond the grave, because without that promise we are of all men most miserable if in this life only we have hope in Christ. i think the convention of going to heaven when we die is mistakenly read into the scriptures, not drawn from them.

grace and peace.

This is an interesting conclusion. I will have to think on this for sure. I certainly don't want to read in a concept of heaven if it is not to be found. I am aware of the faulty logic found in many of the verses thought to teach a future "heaven" when we die, so I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of it not being present. I also agree with your thoughts on our oneness. I too think we are one whole thing, although I can't be certain that there isn't an immaterial part of us. We know there is an immaterial realm and that not everything that is can be seen, felt, or heard. Logic is a perfect example of that. So are thoughts. Logic and thoughts exist, but they are in no way physical. I'll have to re-examine the phylosophical opinions on this matter.

I do have questions though that you may be able to answer.

Firstly, If you don't believe in an immediate heaven when we die, do you believe in soul sleep? If so, how do you explain "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?"

Secondly, given that you are a fellow amillennialist, how do you reconcile that those people who came out of the tribulation (which in my view happened in A.D. 70) were standing before God with no head (Rev 20)? If you believe that we are living in the Millennium right now, just like those saints who were beheaded, where were they if not heaven? They were standing before God and the thrones just like in Rev 6. How could disembodied saints cry out for vindication during this age? After all, this can't be a picture of future resurrected saints because Death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire at the same time as the resurrection. All evil will have been justly dealt with, and so their cries would be ambiguous. Thoughts?

[Paidion]

so i see the resurrection as our only hope of life beyond the grave, because without that promise we are of all men most miserable if in this life only we have hope in Christ. i think the convention of going to heaven when we die is mistakenly read into the scriptures, not drawn from them.

Jeremiah, I wholeheartedly agree.

Firstly, If you don't believe in an immediate heaven when we die, do you believe in soul sleep? If so, how do you explain "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?"

Othniel, I know you addressed these questions to Jeremiah, and I am sure he will post his reply. But I hope you don't mind if I offer my take on the question also, since my belief concerning the afterlife and man being a unified rather than tripartite being, seems to be identical to his.

It seems to be an almost universal idea of those who think people's "souls" or "spirits" go somewhere immediately at death, to suppose that those who don't hold that view believe in "soul sleep." It's true, that the dead are often referred to as "sleeping" in the New Testament. Even Jesus said that one girl who had died was "sleeping". I think this is a figurative way of describing death because the dead body is still and unmoving as is that of a sleeping person. When God created Adam, He created a physical body. When He breathed the breath of life (or "spirit") into that body it became a living being (unfortunately translated as "soul" in the AV.) Your "soul" is YOU! When that spirit of life departs from a person, it returns to the God that gave it, and only a dead body remains. That spirit of life is not you. You do not exist. In the resurrection, God will raise you up to life again — your whole being, a complete person, not a disembodied "soul" or "spirit".

As for your second question, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" is one of the most misquoted scriptures in the entire Bible. Paul didn't write that! Here is what Paul actually wrote:

We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV)

Now when we look at the verse in context, we may see that Paul is not writing about going to heaven at death at all. Let's examine it closely:

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Paul is describing our resurrection body, the immortal body we shall have when we are raised to life, as "a building from God", one which is "lasting (or "eternal" if you insist) in the heavens".

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,

Paul describe this as our being "clothed." This seems to fit the idea of a tripartite being more than that of a unified being. But I think Paul writes in terms he thinks his readers will better understand. He was writing to the Corinthians, Greeks, who had always heard from the philosophers that people had "souls" separate from their bodies, who were reincarnated as other people, if they were good, but reincarnated as animals if they lived bad lives.

3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.

Naked. In other words we will not be found as disembodied spirits, but as complete people.

4 for we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Not as we were when we lived on earth, for then we were mortal. We don't want to be unclothed as a disembodied spirit. We want to be further clothed, that is, raised immortal.
But now after we have been raised, "Mortality will have been swallowed up by immortality."

5 now he who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the spirit as a guarantee.
6 so we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.

With the Spirit of God as a guarantee, we are confident thath while we are at home in this present mortal body, we are absent from the Lord with whom we shall be when we are raised, when Jesus returns, in our future immortal bodies.

[jeremiah]

hello othniel,
cool man, it's always nice to connect words with a face.
I'm working on my response , but it's taking awhile because I want to address all your questions. hopefully it won't be too lengthy . it just takes me forever to type my thoughts out.

paidion,
thanks for your reply,I agree. it hadn't really occurred to me about how that verse is often quoted as it's taught instead of how it was said. the bit about some teaching a form of reincarnation is new to me. not surprisingly though. neither greek, persian, or hebrew schools of thought were monoliths regarding this question. though as I'm sure you know, monists were present among all three.

grace and peace.

[jeremiah]

hello othniel,

... We know there is an immaterial realm and that not everything that is can be seen, felt, or heard.

yes, i agree totally. i must stress i am not advocating materialism as a general theory of reality. i would not say that matter is all there is. God is not material, neither is the light in which he dwells.

Logic is a perfect example of that. So are thoughts. Logic and thoughts exist, but they are in no way physical.

i would agree God's thoughts are not physical, but i can't be sure that our thoughts are not in any way physical. i think they are indeed physically generated. is gravity physical? or the light generated by the sun? it seems just a matter of the way we reckon things to be. or maybe better stated: through what body we define the nature of things.(to use body as i believe paul does in romans 7:24, as in a framework, or system)

If you don't believe in an immediate heaven when we die, do you believe in soul sleep?

basically yes, but as paidion explained above, this term isn't really all that helpful. i imagine this is because "soul sleep" is generally defined within the matrix of substance dualism(of body and soul), which invariably results in misrepresentation of what i might call "soul sleep". in their defense though, i will admit that from uncertain past to present it has been a minority view of death and might be much more diverse in definition than i'm aware of. if by soul sleep someone means to ask if i think our "souls" or a "real" immaterial me exists somewhere asleep after death, then no.

how do you explain "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?"

2 corinthians ch 5 is indeed considered the strongest scripture in support of an interim in heaven. i disagree that it is, but more importantly i don't believe we have to be in agreement at all about whether we have an immaterial soul or not (or what happens to us at death) to recognize paul's seamless train of thought surrounding that single verse. including chapters 3,4,5,6... broadly stated, something like this. "God's has given us a new ministry, this ministry for you, and nothing in this world can move us from that purpose, because our focus is on what God has promised at the end."

i seems to me too often people come to this chapter and verse with the same fuzzy eyes of the traditional interpretation of isaiah 14. "...how thou art fallen from heaven, o lucifer, son of the morning..." and then think, "oh this is that passage about the fall of satan," immediately forgetting what they just read in v. 4, that the king of baylon is still in view in v. 12. and then fail to recognize isaiah continuing to speak of this same man.

when we are told "we are confident,i say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the lord." why would we chuck the verses before and after these words, break his thought up into a few pieces, and then import our thoughts of heaven into v. 8. it seems plain to me that paul labors to tell us in v2-4 that the state they greatly desire is an immortal one.

at the end of chapter four in v. 14 paul begins to show how the corinthians being presented along with paul and timothy at the resurrection is what drives them forward. even though death works in the ministers but life in those ministered to. and though the outward man perishes, yet still the inward man is being renewed.(v.16) why is it being renewed? because they look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.(v.18) what things not seen? the building we have from God that isn't perishable or made with hands,(ch.5:1) as a tent or tabernacle will always be on this side of the resurrection. so we who are in this tent groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon by this house which is from heaven, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.(v.4)

then he says, he who has wrought us for this selfsame thing is God, (v.5), what selfsame thing? that this corruptible may put on incorruption (1cor 15) and that this mortality may put on immortality (or be swallowed up by life), or as he said still before: that we may be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. and he has given us the earnest of the spirit. whereby we know that we are his, and being God's we don't have to wonder whether we will receive the promise of immortality, which is the state we look forward to, not being left in the grave. romans ch. 8 is another place i believe we can find more about what paul believes about the resurrection. and much of the same language found here can also be found there.

romans 8:22-25
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it].

in both passages we groan because we have not yet been given immortality, which happens only at the resurrection. and i believe that in both passages it is this promise of the resurrection that we walk by faith and not by sight towards.

so then in 2 cor 5:6, what are we always confident in? i believe it is the resurrection, which paul has had in mind the whole time and will continue with it all the way to v. 10. i think there are two vital aspects of vv. 6-8, that in taking seriously, it becomes more clear that the resurrection is indeed what paul sees as the vehicle through which we are "present" with the lord. one, all three verses together form one complete sentence. and second, "at home.." and "present.." are the same word, as are "absent.." and "away from home" translated from the same word. both words speak more to a person's presence or non presence in relation to their homeland or actual abode, then they ever would to a person's physical or spatial presence. as in, "paul is in the boat...or he left the boat, and is now in the water." other greek words were used for that kind of concept. i'm not certain, but i think that 2 cor 5 is the only place in the new testament these two words are found.**

so i believe what paul means in vv. 6-8 is we know that while we are at home in the body, or this tent, we are away from home with the Lord Jesus at the resurrection. for we walk by faith in that which is not seen, the house which is from heaven, though not actually seeing it yet. but we are willing rather to be away from home in the body and to be at home with the lord, at the resurrection clothed in immortality. for why would paul need to repeat what he says they are desiring since he has labored to tell us that already in v. 4.

many say at this point, but in the resurrection we won't be absent from a body, will be in a body. but we must recognize how the scriptures are using this present and absent language. when understood as present at home and absent from home, then it becomes wholly unnecessary to interpolate any notions of disembodiment. taking into account everything paul says about the resurrection, i believe it becomes clear that only by the resurrection will we be glorified together with Christ and only then will the faith become sight. furthermore paul's thought does not stop here, he immediately speaks of jugdment day, which i believe happens after the resurrection.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

apparently in the greek, paul doesn't qualify whether he has this present body in mind or the immortal one. but i think we can rightly conclude he is speaking of this present body, just as paidion and i are suggesting his use of body in vv. 6-8 should be understood.

so i believe ch. 5:1-10 become the full answer to why paul and timothy do not faint at their light affliction. and it is after explaining this that paul again continues on with proving their genuine ministry to the corinthians who are erring.

**[and as an aside, i suspect that much of the vocabulary of 2cor 5:1-8 is directly related to paul's trade as a tentmaker. that is i suspect the words translated as: tent, naked, clothed, at home, and absent, may have been common to the jargon of his trade. that's only a thought i've had for a while, and haven't actually looked into it yet. but as a woodworker i know there are many words we use for different parts of components. like the heel or toe of a miter. or, ok the bones are done, let's put the skin on it. but still, maybe not.]

Secondly, given that you are a fellow amillennialist, how do you reconcile that those people who came out of the tribulation (which in my view happened in A.D. 70) were standing before God with no head (Rev 20)? If you believe that we are living in the Millennium right now, just like those saints who were beheaded, where were they if not heaven? They were standing before God and the thrones just like in Rev 6. How could disembodied saints cry out for vindication during this age? After all, this can't be a picture of future resurrected saints because Death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire at the same time as the resurrection. All evil will have been justly dealt with, and so their cries would be ambiguous. Thoughts?

i'm not sure i understand exactly what you're asking, so i'll just stick with the, where were they if not in heaven part. i consider the book of revelation to be describing an apocalyptic vision given to john. i think we are mistaken when we speak about parts of john's vision as him actually being in heaven. john never actually went anywhere, he was given a vision revealing things that would come to pass.

so in this vision he saw the souls of them that had been beheaded. john was a jew, and this "souls of" language is a very jewish way to speak of just people. a word search on "soul of" or "souls of" will demonstrate this. even without looking through the many examples in both testaments, there is another example of this same idiomatic way of speaking of people besides chs. 6 and 20. in revelation 18:13 john ends a long list of merchandise contained by ships with "souls of men". i think we would be hard pressed to conclude john wants us to think he is speaking of disembodied souls being on the ship. just as i don't think we should conclude that to be his intention in chapters 6 and 20. but only that, in the vision, he saw the people who were beheaded, and he knows they were beheaded because God is giving him understanding as he sees the vision. just because he sees these people in heaven within his apocalyptic vision does not mean john literally sees anybody actually in heaven. the stuff of this apocalyptic vision is not meant be understood as literally existing in anyway, nor literally being experienced, but is meant to reveal God's plan and purpose to john and beyond him to the hearers or readers.

i think what we get tripped up on is we simply do not recognize the broad domain of greek words like psyche , soma, and pneuma, (or their hebrew equivalents). and then we just assume the biblical writers used these words in the illegitimately precise manner that we as modern westerners often do.

i hope this helps, and look forward to any further discussion.

grace and peace.

[Paidion]

how do you explain "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?"

That has to be about the most frequently misquoted passage in the entire bible! If Paul had written that, it would prove that people go immediately to heaven at death. But he didn't write that.

Let's let's look at what he actually said, and in it's context. This is quite different from the idea of possessing an immaterial "soul" or "spirit" which is separate from the body. That idea is a Greek philosophical concept which was imported into Christendom.

2 Corinthians 5 (NKJV)

1 ... we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Paul speaks of our body as a house or tent in which we live. Since he is writing to Corinthians Christians who had always heard the Greek concept of a "soul" being separate from the body, he used this figure of speech to help them understand.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven...

Paul says that we earnestly desire to be "clothed" with the heavenly house, our resurrection body.

3 If indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.

When we have been "clothed" with the resurrection body, we shall not be found "naked" that is, bodiless.

4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

While we are in this present body, we groan, not because we want to be a disembodied spirit, but that we wish be further "clothed" with the resurrection body.
"That mortality must be swallowed up by life". Paul expresses the same thought in I Corinthians 15, the great resurrection chapter. There he says, "This mortal must put on immortality."

5 Now he who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the spirit as a guarantee.
6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.

While we are in this present mortal body, we are absent from the Lord where we will be in our immortal resurrection body.

7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

We would rather be absent from this present mortal body and be present with the Lord in our immortal, resurrection body.

[Paidion]

I had a senior moment in addressing Othniel's question a second time. (Actually, I forgot that I had already done so.)