Marriage in The Resurrection

I shall have to set up some context before getting to the passage I really intend to explain here.

First, what passage of Genesis ordains Marriage?  

If you have a positive view of marriage as a mutual co-equal partnership you are likely to answer Genesis chapter 2 verses 18, 23 and 24.  Where the word for “help meet” or Helper is a word also used of God in his relationship with Humanity in Exodus 18:4 and Deuteronomy 33:7-26-29 (I've seen it argued Rescuer would be a better translation then Helper) and where how the union happens is if anything seemingly Matrilocal.

But if you have a more cynical view, if the marriage you mean is the marriage that Marx and Engels wanted to abolish, you are likely to answer Genesis 3:16 where Patriarchy began.

In Hosea 2:16 we read “And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali”.  

Both of these are Hebrew words for Husband, but with different connotations.  Ishi is the word for Husband (or man in the KJV) used in Genesis 2:23 which is based on the same root as the word for Wife/Woman while Baali also means Lord or Sovereign or Ruler.  

The levirate marriage was an ancient custom explained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where if a husband died before producing an heir the wife would marry a near kinsman (brother preferably if available) and the son conceived would be considered legally a son of the dead husband in addition to his biological father.  This concept is relevant to Genesis 38, The Book of Ruth and explaining apparent genealogical contradictions involving Zerubbabel.

What fascinates me about this law is how while there are no references to Polyandry in The Hebrew Bible the logic behind this law can certainly open the door to it.  What if a husband becomes unable to reproduce but is still alive?  But in the time of Jesus the Pharisees were still dominated by the Shammai school for whom such a permissive reading would have been unthinkable, and the Sadducees were no doubt the same.

And so with those at first seemingly barely related subjects laid out I shall now interpret what Jesus said in Matthew 22:23-30 and Mark 12:18-25, and more different from the others Luke 20:26-37.

The Sadducees seek to discredit the promised future Bodily Resurrection of The Dead by bringing up the Levirate Marriage and implying that would result in Polyandry.

Jesus first says “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The Greek word translated Power here is Dunamis/Dynamis which gets translated a number of ways including “abundance”.  Jesus is identifying their core error as an underestimation of God not an overestimation of the long term existence of marriage.

Next Jesus says “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. “Given in marriage” is one word in the Greek, Jesus uses two related verbs not the actual word for marriage itself.  

Who the “they” means in the context of what the Sadducees were talking about is key to understand here, they are thinking in the framework of marriage being a means by which a woman is possessed by her husband “whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her”.  It is women who Jesus is saying will no longer be passed around from one family or husband to another like a possession.

Luke’s version has a part about the Resurrected being “children of God” but that’s the same Gospel that called Adam the Son of God.  In Luke 17:27 Jesus also refers to marrying and “given in marriage” as part of what the people drowned in the Flood of Noah were doing.  Genesis 6 described their core Sin as Violence.

None of what Jesus said here can be interpreted as saying the Marriage of Genesis 2 where it was never about one party owning the other is discontinued.  In my view the “angels in heaven” are life forms living a Genesis 2 existence not the immaterial sexless phantoms Platonist Christian want them to be.

In the KJV the word Paradise only appears in the New Testament, that's because that Greek word is used for the Garden of Eden in the LXX and Revelation 2:7 confirms that’s still what it refers to.  That Paradise is in “Heaven” currently according to 2 Corinthians 12:4 but in Revelation 21-22 it returns to Earth as part of the New Jerusalem in the New Creation, which is also called The Lamb’s Wife. 

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in the Resurrection because the Body of Christ is a Communistic Polycule.

The Sign of The Son of Man

So I recently encountered a Full Preterist arguing that because Jesus called his Resurrection a Sign in Matthew 16:1-4 the General Resurrection isn’t materially the same because it’s not a Sign of something else.

This is one of those arguments I find kind of silly, but I want to respond to it anyway.

First of all I have argued that the “Sign of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:30 is the General Resurrection of that Dead because of how Jesus used that language back in chapter 16 to refute Pre-Tibbers who argue Matthew 24’s Parousia can’t be the same event as “The Rapture” of 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 because there appears to be no Resurrection there.

But more importantly Jesus does not call His Resurrection a Sign to define it as merely a Sign, the only Sign that generation received is Him doing exactly what He came to do, He’s not doing anything JUST to prove Himself.

I could also get semantical about how the Sign of the Prophet Jonah here is strictly speaking not the Resurrection itself but the time period between death and resurrection being three days.

The entire point of 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus' Resurrection is NOT a mere Sign but exactly what The Gospel is.  What makes it a true Evangelion, true Good News, is that it’s not just Jesus, as Jesus was risen so will all those who are Christ’s at his Parousia and ultimately absolutely everyone.

Corporate Body View of the Resurrection

This is a view I’ve seen held by Full Preterists as an alternative way to explain how the General Resurrection of The Dead promised by 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20 and other Passages is already Fulfilled.

Now it seems from those I’ve looked at so far to still functionally lead to the exact same Metaphysical conclusion, that our Individual promise of Immortality is as “Spirits” in “Heaven” not our current Fleshy Bodies being made Immortal.  However I could see the exact same Tactic being used by modern Sadducees to deny any kind of After Life at all.

The core argument is taking the Body of Christ Doctrine, particularly how it's expressed in 1 Corinthians 12, and insisting the “Body” discussed in 1 Corinthians 15 is only that Body not individual Bodies.

First of all it is a Lexical Fallacy to insist the word Body must still only refer to the same thing it did earlier, Paul is focusing on a different topic in Chapter 15.

But regardless of that what Paul means by all Believers being the Body of Christ is specifically our Physical Bodies, our Flesh.  That’s why his argument against Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 is that the Members of Christ should not be joined to a Harlot.  Each individual Body is a Member of the Body of Christ the same way our Limbs are Members of our individual bodies.  Romans 12:4-5 says the same thing.

The Body of Christ Doctrine is derived from the Bride of Christ Doctrine, we are One Flesh with Christ the same way Husband and Wife are One Flesh.

And it’s also tied to us being The Temple of God which Paul starts laying out in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and returns to in Chapter 6:19-20.  In John 2:21 the individual Incarnate Body of Jesus is called “the Temple of His Body”.  In Paul both each Individual body is the Temple of God and all of our Bodies are Collectively The Temple of God.  2 Peter 1:13-14 also refers to each individual body as a Tabernacle as does Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4.

So The Corporate Body of Christ can only be said to be risen if Each and Every Individual Body is Risen.

They also focus on the fact that the word Body is only ever used in a singular form in 1 Corinthians 15.  This is a misunderstanding of how Language works, Paul is keeping most of the language Singular so each individual can feel like they are being individually spoken to on some level.  It is a message for everyone which means each individual.

To simply read 1 Corinthians 15 and try to force it to only be using the word Body in some legal sense and not about carnal bodies being buried and then risen is absurd.  That is not the natural impression any of this Language gives no matter how Paul used the word Body earlier.

Flesh Will Inherit The Kingdom of Heaven Actually

Luke 3:6 says that all Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.

I know many of you are thinking I just explicitly disagreed with 1 Corinthians 15:50.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

But that's a verse that is commonly misunderstood because of people proof texting it out of context.  Starting with how they even drop the last part of that verse about Corruption and Incorruption.

The next verse talks about how we will be Changed at the General Resurrection, and the verse after that says we'll be raised Incorruptible and Changed.

Verses 53-54 say.

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.  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."

So placing verse 50 in the context of all that, what is clearly meant is that bodies of MERE Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.  The difference between our future Resurrected Bodies and how our Bodies are now is entirely a matter of what will be added we currently lack not anything being taken away or abandoned.

This is also why II Corinthians 5:2-3 refers to us as currently Naked because we lack our true Spiritual clothing.  We are not Spirits trapped in Bodies but Bodies that lack Spirit.

That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom is the problem the Incarnation is meant to solve.

People will also use selective quotations of verses 35-38 and 42-46 to say "the Body raised isn't the same Body that was buried", ignoring how Paul is saying all of this in the context of an allegory of planting a Seed or Grain in the Earth and then a much larger Plant growing out of it.  It is being called a different body because of how it' has changed, not because there is no material biological continuity between them.  The fact is if it's a completely new body being created from scratch there is no reason to use the word "raised".

Also Paul's use of "Celestial" in this Chapter means "Heavenly" as in the Sky and Outer Space, no one in Paul's time used the word "Heaven" to mean some non-material world of forms, Pre-Christian Platonists called that "a place beyond Heaven".  Same with Spirit, it did not mean "non Material" to any first Century Greek speakers.

Again a good visual metaphor for how I think our bodies change at the Resurrection is a Transformation sequence from a Magical Girl Anime.

Passion Week Chronology Completely Rethought

Some alternate Torah calendars have become popular online lately, in particular I’ve been skeptical of those that try to synchronize the weeks to the months or at least year, like the Lunar Sabbath Calendar or the Jubilees Calendar.

Neither of those actually make the first day of the first month the first day of the week, they come up with excuses for starting the year on the same day of the week every year yet not choosing the first day.

Christians of course aren’t inclined to support a calendar that does always start Aviv on a Sunday because then the 14th of Aviv would always fall on the Sabbath, and placing the Crucifixion on the Sabbath is virtually the most impossible model. 

But I have been rethinking some things.

For starters I am making this theory in the context of my prior arguing against the Torah using a Lunar Calendar as well as for starting the day at Sunrise rather than Sunset. So my mind is presuming that as I think about all this, but it could still be compatible with more traditional assumptions about those two issues.

I’ve been thinking about the flexibility of the usage of the name Peshach/Pascha.  (Commonly translated Passover but I've seen some Hebrew scholars say it really means Protection or Protector.)  Christians debating Friday, Thursday or Wednesday Crucifixion models are often focusing mostly on the rather strict use of the term in Exodus 12, Leviticus 23 and some other passages for the 14th.  But by NT times common Jewish usage was treating it as synonymous with the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread which is largely how modern Rabbinic Jews still use the word.  Acts 12 clearly has it still Pascha during Unleavened Bread.  

The Hebrew Bible itself actually started that expansion of Peshach’s application in Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45:21-24.  Of the Five Books in the Pentateuch Jesus quoted Deuteronomy more than any other, the same is true of the New Testament as a whole, so maybe their definitions for Pascha are based on that book more so than Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers?

So if we study Leviticus 23 under the assumption that for the first month the days numbered a multiple of seven are the Sabbaths.  That would make two of the days that are important observances of that month fall on the weekly Sabbath, the 14th which is YHWH’s Peshach, and the 21st which is the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread.  

For Unleavened Bread both the first and seventh days are defined as a Holy Convocation in which no servile work shall be done, obviously they both can’t be the actual weekly Sabbath at the same time, and neither is directly called a Sabbath the way the Holy Convocation days of the 7th month are later, but the last day of Unleavened Bread is defined in the text by it’s Seventhness rather then it’s Lastness which I think can be seen as implying it.  And Deuteronomy 16:8 places special emphasis on the Seventh Day of the Feast as a day of rest repeating the Sabbath like characteristics only for it not the 15th.

Leviticus 23:9-15 describes the first day of the Omer.  Which is commonly called by Christians interested in this stuff "First Fruits", however that can be confusing because in English Bibles that term is also associated with Pentecost, but the Hebrew words are different and at least the one used in this section isn’t in it’s etymology referencing fruit.  I like to call it Aparche, the equivalent Greek word which is used for The Resurrection of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, it rolls off the tongue easier then the Hebrew.  The Aparche is NOT part of Numbers 28, the word for Firstfruits there is the one used in Leviticus 23 of Pentecost.

The timing of the Aparche is defined as the day after the Sabbath, in context the Sabbath that follows Peshach is implicit.  I in the past and others opposing Sabbath synchronized calendars have argued it being described this way instead of simply the 16th or some other date shows that day won’t always be the same day of the month. However the Seventh day of Unleavened Bread isn’t defined as the 21st in Leviticus 23 either.  The Spring Holy Days are directly connected to each other more so then the Fall Holy Days.  The context of this section following the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread being a Holy Convocation in which no servile work is to be done I now feel reasonably implies that day is the Sabbath being referred to in verse 11.  So in the model I'm proposing the Aparche offering is the 22nd of the first month.

And then in verse 14 we are told that bread, parched corn and green ears are things we are to not eat until this Aparche offering is made. During Unleavened Bread you absolutely are supposed to be eating Matzah (unleavened bread), some argue Lehem always means specifically leavened bread, I’m unsure on that as a general rule but in context it certainly does here.  So verse 14 basically defined this day as the day we return to eating what we were restricted from eating during Unleavened Bread in Exodus 12:20.

Leviticus 23:13 is also the only time the word "wine" appears in the KJV of this chapter.  The Hebrew is Yayin which of the Hebrew words translated Wine is definitely one that refers specifically to fermented Wine.  In Exodus 12:20 the word the KJV translated "leavened" the Young's Literal Translation renders "fermented", some Karaites believe this refers to more then just Unleavened Bread, my interpretation of the Aparche here agrees with that.  Also Yeast is used in Fermenting Wine which I didn't even originally know.  Numbers 28:24 confirms that Drink Offerings are part of the days of Unleavened Bread, so "fruit of the vine" can be drank during those days, just not fermented Wine.  

Deuteronomy 16:9 identified the first day of the counting of the Omer as the day they first put the Sickle to the Corn.  In the context of that Chapter that can only be after the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread are over because those days are a pilgrimage festival, everyone is gathered together at the Tabernacle and are not attending their Farms.

In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He hasn’t ascended to The Father yet, since later in the same day the disciples are allowed to touch him, that implies some brief ascension happened, and people studying the Feast Days have argued this was him as our High Priest making the Aparche offering. Leviticus 23:12 refers to a Lamb being offered at this time, but doesn’t say the Lamb was killed that day.  Now don’t get me wrong I’m sure literal Lambs offered that day were probably killed that morning, but the wording here gives us room to typologically view this Lamb as the Risen Jesus presenting Himself to The Father.  1 Peter 1:19 could have a lot of Torah Scriptures in mind, but in the KJV wording it’s arguably most directly quoting Leviticus 23:12 "lamb without blemish".  

In Deuteronomy 16 it is contextually Peshach as a name for Unleavened Bread that is required to be observed in Jerusalem with animals killed in The Tabernacle/Temple, probably the same Sacrifices as Numbers 28:17-25, because the establishment of the Pilgrimage Festivals in Exodus 23:14-17 includes Unleavened Bread but not Peshach.  The 14th of Aviv Peshach was a family matter not a Levitical Sacrifice, it did not have to be in the same city as The Mishkan and was killed by the head of the Household not a Kohen.  I think that is the Supper being eaten in Bethany at the start of John 12, and then the 15th is the Day of the Triumphal Entry aka Palm Sunday.

“How does the 10th of Aviv’s significance from Exodus 12 fit in then?” You may ask. Well that is not one of the ordained to be repeated observances of Leviticus 23, there are only two other references in all of The Hebrew Bible to the 10th day of the first month being a day where something happened.  Ezekiel 40:1 where that is the date of the day Ezekiel had the vision the rest of that book is describing.  And Joshua 4:19 where it’s the day The Israelites encamped at Gilgal.  Gilgal could be related to the place called Ephraim in John 11, but speaking of John 11 it’s clear in John 11-12 that the raising of Lazarus really spiked Jesus’s popularity, in a very real sense that is the day He was chosen by the people.

But going back to my point about Deuteronomy 16.  I think even if Pascha is always used in a singular form, it’s still a meal that is eaten every evening during this week.  That’s how The Last Supper could be a Pascha Meal but there was also a Pascha being prepared while Jesus was on The Cross in John 19:14.

In Matthew 26 I believe the first five verses should be the end of chapter 25, they tell us when the Olivet Discourse happened not anything in the following verses.  Regardless, two days before the Pascha sounds like there is one specific Pascha in mind, as does John 12:1.  It could be that the narrative voice of The Gospels is sometimes using Pascha specifically of the day of the Crucifixion and/or The Last Supper in timing statements like these.  

However for John 12:1 the Peshita reads "before the Six Days of Peshka" which sounds like a direct reference to Deuteronomy 16:8.  

Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 are all chronologically jumping backwards when they talk about Jesus being anointed for burial and the argument with Judas then Judas deciding to betray Jesus over it which we know from John 12 all happened the day prior to the Triumphal entry.  And so likewise the following part about making the arrangements for the Upper Room and Pascha may have also been done that same day or the day of the Triumphal Entry, then it transitions back to the present for the Last Supper.  Meaning Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1 could be referring to two days before the Triumphal Entry.

Now I know the main objection some are going to have is that this weakens the Typology of Jesus as The Lamb which we’ve usually thought of as the Exodus 12 Peshach Lamb first and foremost.  But that Lamb isn’t a Sin Offering as The Lamb of God is clearly defined as being in both John 1 and when Paul says Jesus was made Sin for us in 2 Corinthians 5:21..  No Sin Offering is ordained for the 14th anywhere in The Torah, but Numbers 28 and Ezekiel 45 do have Sin Offerings happening during the Seven Day Festival.  Jesus ultimately fulfills all the Sacrifices not just one.

This also forces me to become a supporter of a Friday Crucifixion model, since now every reference to a Preparation day in The Gospels would have to be Friday, the preparation for The Sabbath.  In the past I’d always been bothered by the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread having no significance to The Gospel narrative, but in this model that day can be identified with the Sabbath being referred to in those passages and called a High Day in John 19:31.  

Friday is the day Adam was created, The Last Adam goes into the Earth the same day the first Adam was formed out of it.  The Torah constantly counts days Inclusively, like how the time for Circumcision is always determined.  The "Three days and three nights" statement is said only once and in the context of referencing Jonah, exactly how long it would be was not the actual point.

That makes the Crucifixion the 20th day of the First Month, that day is never singled out anywhere in The Hebrew Bible.  But I think that’s good actually, I don’t like how often Western Christians make the Crucifixion equal to or even more important then The Resurrection.  The Resurrection is what the Point of all this was, so that being the day the Aviv Holy Days are all building up to is perfect.

The 22nd of The First Month being the first day of the counting of the Omer makes day 40 the first day of the Third Month.  Having Ascension Day by the third Rosh Chodesh of the year could be relevant because of Exodus 19:1, but also 2 Chronicles 15:10 and 31:7.

The rest of this post is more speculative and not vital to the main argument.

Spiritual and Heavenly, what do they actually mean?

This post is kind of a follow up to God and The Universe.

The problem with all this talk from Platonized Christians of various forms about how Scripture is supposed to be interpreted "Spiritually" rather then "Carnally" is that the modern English connotations for words like "Spirit" and "Heaven" don't truly fit the original meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words being used in those verses.

The word "Sky" rarely appears in English translations of The Bible, because the primary Hebrew and Greeks words used to refer what we call the Sky are translated "Heaven", also "Celestial" in the KJV is the same Greek word as Heavenly. The Ancient Platonists referred to the World of Forms where their transcendent God lived not as Heaven but as "A Place Beyond Heaven". Some Bible verses even refer to the Dew as being of Heaven in the same way Fruits are of The Earth, as if the Ancient Hebrews were not entirely ignorant of the Scientific fact that what we are looking at when we look at the Heavens is the same air we inhale when we breath.  

Which leads us to how the words translated "Spirit", "Ghost" and in the Hebrew at least "Soul" are also words for "Breath" and "Air", as is the word for "Life" when Leviticus 17 says the Life is in The Blood.  Leviticus is actually quite literally alluding to the scientific fact that our blood caries the oxygen we inhale from our lungs to other parts of our body chiefly the brain, but translations obscure that to modern readers.  Adam became a living Soul when God breathed the breath of life into him.  And that same imagery describes the future Bodily Resurrection in Ezekiel 37.  The phrase translated "give up the Ghost" really just means to stop breathing, The Bible constantly refers to death as being asleep, not separate from the Body which is built on a misuse of one verse in 2nd Corinthians 5.

Even in Gentile Greek thinking the strict Dualism of Pythagoras was still a minority view in Paul's time, and those who were Pythagoreans or Platonists in the 1st Century didn't use the word Pneuma for the intangible realm they believed it.  In Anaximenes Pneuma is synonymous with the element Air which in his theory was the first element from which all the others were formed.  In Greek medical texts this meaning remains but also became associated with being how the different parts of the body communicate with each other.  In Aristotle the "connate pneuma" was the "air" in the sperm that passes on capacity to the offspring, sounding a lot like what would become the the Christian Doctrine of Traducianism.  The Stoics then greatly developed the concept of Pneuma to refer to "unseen" manifestations of the Divine but still very corporeal.

The Greek word translated Soul is Psyche a word we still use in modern English but with a seemingly completely different meaning to how we use Soul.  Most people aware of this assume it's the Psychological meaning that has no relation to Ancient Greek usage, but I feel the truth is closer to being the opposite.  Plenty of early Christians like Justin Martyr argued against the Immortality of the Soul as taught by Plato, Pythagoras and Origen.

So when in some contexts The Bible calls The Kingdom of which Jesus is King a Kingdom of Heaven rather then Earth, or uses Spiritual as a contrast to the Carnal/Physical/Natural, those are symbolic uses of those words that still derive from what they refer to materially.    

Now in 2nd Corinthians 12 Paul refers to a "Third Heaven", the popular view today is that the first two Heavens are the Sky and Outer Space but the Third Heaven is actually Plato's "Place Beyond Heaven".  I however would argue the Third Heaven is still part of the Universe simply not within the 4 Dimensions we can currently mortally perceive.  According to E. W. Bullinger, the Greek says "caught away", not "caught up" possibly reflecting Jewish beliefs that Paradise was somewhere other than the uppermost heaven.(A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek "2, 14, To this "Third heaven" and " Paradise " Paul was caught away, 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, (not " up," see under " catch,") in "visions and revelations of the Lord," 2 Cor. xii. 1. One catching away – with a double revelation of the New heaven and the ...")

The Dualistic Platonist/Pythagorean senses of these words are maybe in mind in how Paul uses them more then any other NT writers, but Paul while engaging with the Greeks is seeking to deconstruct that dualism.  People take out of context from 1st Corinthians 15 the "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" and the contrasts that are made.  But what they build up to is saying the Bodily will put on the Spiritual, the Mortal will put on the Immortal, the separation between the Material and Divine caused by the Fall is undone in The Resurrection.

So one Full Preterist YT video I watched part of went on about how in John's Gospel the "Jews" kept interpreting what Jesus said "Physically" or "Materially" while the narrative voice informs us Jesus really meant something "Spiritually".  Jesus often used metaphors and symbolism and figures of speech, that doesn't mean those metaphors need to be interpreted in a Spiritual vs Physical paradigm.  

Like when Orgasm is called a "little death", that expression is using one physical event to analogize another physical event. I started writing this thinking it was specifically Male Orgasm called a "Little Death" because visually that analogy instantly makes sense to me while I always thought of Female Orgasm as well the opposite.  Bur upon researching it for this post it seems La petite mort is used pretty gender neutrally.  The expression in it's French origins is mainly supposed to be about the sense of exhaustion, it is after all not uncommon to go to sleep right after.

Likewise when Paul refers to the dead as being asleep, that is one physical state being analogized to another, but the point lies in how the basic difference between death and sleep is that sleep is temporary, Paul is communicating that The Gospel is that Christ has made death temporary.

The quote from John's Gospel about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is obviously meant to be understood in terms of The Eucharist, the Last Supper depicted in the Synoptics and referred to by Paul, where His Body and Blood is symbolized by Bread and Wine.  So there are layers of symbolism there, when He was tempted by Satan He speaks of the true Bread of Life being the Word of God, the Scriptures, which is a part of the Material world.

The beginning of this theme is the Born Again teaching from John 3.  I disagree with most casual usage of the Born Again phrasing, but I'm no longer happy with my prior post on the subject, so I may have to redo it. Point here is the Birth imagery is indeed symbolic, it's symbolic of Resurrection.  Our conversion is merely when we're Begotten again.

And that Birth imagery being associated with Resurrection itself points to a physical Resurrection.  It has it's roots in Isaiah 26:19 in many translations saying "the Earth shall give birth to her dead", terminology that refers to Revelation 20 talking about Hades and the Sea giving up the Dead that are in them.  And those translations of Isaiah 26:19 must be the correct ones because all translations are setting up this birth imagery in verses 17 and 18.

There are three different Hebrew words for "dead" as in words you'd use to refer to dead people, all three are in Isaiah 26:19, as if YHWH through Isaiah really wanted us to get that there is no sense of Death not included in this Resurrection.  One of the words is frequently translated very specifically as  words like Corpse, being the word Leviticus uses when talking about being made unclean by touching a Carcass.

In this Birth metaphor the Earth is the mother, our dead corpse is the seed which enters her after our "big death" and our Resurrected perfected form is The Man Child of Revelation 12.  The Mother is also Israel in that Chapter, but Israel is tied to her Land(Ertetz), Hephzibah and Beulah of Isaiah 62.  I've also proven with Revelation that Sheol/Hades is a physical location of bodies and that Grave is an accurate translation.  If the Earth is the Mother and the dead body is the Seed, then Sheol would be the Earth's Womb.

That is also complimented by the sowing imagery Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:37, our mortal Body is the Seed that is planted in the Earth and from which our future Resurrection Body will sprout.  So yes our current bodies and future bodies are sometimes referred to as separate bodies, but that's not because they are completely separate things, there is still a continuity, just as in a sense I'm not the same person I was 15 years ago.  1 Corinthians 15:44 is clear that the Natural Body and Spiritual Body are the same matter, simply changed.

2 Corinthians 5 doesn't in any translation say "to be absent from the body is to be present with The Lord".  But either way in the context of what's set up at the start of the Chapter and what Paul had earlier taught to this same community in 1 Corinthians 15, "the Body" being spoken of just means our body in it's current mortal state before we put on immortality.  Nothing Paul says implies we are absent from the body when we Die, instead Paul consistently refers to physical death as being asleep.

The word translated "Naked" in Genesis 2:25 is not the same as the word being translated Naked repeatedly in Genesis 3, they are arguably similar but not the same.  The word used in Genesis 2 is the same as a word translated Cunning, Crafty and Subtle, in Genesis 3:1 that word is used to describe what The Serpent is more of then any other beast of the field. When Jesus says believers should be "wise as serpents" the Greek word for "wise" being used there is an equivalent to this Hebrew word. Likewise the word for "ashamed" in 2:25 is elsewhere translated "confounded".  The irony is the West has spent centuries acting like the sense in which Adam and Eve were "Naked and unashamed" in Genesis 2 symbolizes childish innocence and naivety when the actual etymology of the words used says the opposite.  Later Hebrew Scripture definitely does use this word for "naked" as in not wearing clothing, but never in the Pentateuch, that I believe was a development of the word's usage in later Hebrew.

The word for "naked" used in Genesis 3 is the more proper word for Naked, and based on 2 Corinthians 5's discussion of how we are currently Spiritually Naked until we are clothed in The Resurrection, I believe the reason Adam and Eve didn't "know" they were Naked before was because they weren't really, they might have seemed to be Naked to how we in our current state perceive that concept, but that's because they were clothed in this Immortal Oiketerion.

When we Put On Immortality at The Resurrection, it's not us ceasing to be Material, it's the Material being upgraded, improved, perfected.  Some may find this weird, but I think a good visual analogy would be like a Transformation in a Magical Girl Anime.

The Sects of First Century Judaism

This is what Josephus has to say in Antiquities of the Jews Book 18 Chapter 1.

2. The Jews had, for a great while, had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves. The sect of the Essens; and the sect of the Sadducees; and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees. Of which sects although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish war;¹ yet will I a little touch upon them now.

3. Now for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the contract of reason: and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do: and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years: nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced. And when they determine that all things are done by fate,² they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit: since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament; whereby what he wills is done; but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them: and that under the earth there will be rewards, or punishments; according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life: and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison; but that the former shall have power to revive and live again. On account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people: and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction. Insomuch, that the cities give great attestations to them, on account of their intire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also.

4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. But this doctrine is received but by a few: yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves. For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.

5. The doctrine of the Essens is this; that all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls: and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for. And when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices: (3) because they have more pure lustrations of their own. On which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple: but offer their sacrifices themselves. Yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they intirely addict themselves to husbandry. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness: and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor Barbarians, no not for a little time: so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common: so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth, than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way: and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants: as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust; and the former gives the handle to domestick quarrels. But as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men, and priests: who are to get their corn, and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from others of the Essens in their way of living: but do the most resemble those Dacæ, who are called Polistæ. [Dwellers in cities.] (4)

6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaick notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only ruler and lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death; nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends: nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immoveable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no farther about that matter. Nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved: but rather fear that what I have said is beneath the resolution they shew when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper; who was our procurator; and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it, by the abuse of his authority; and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

Based on the Metaphysics it's clear that the sect of Judaism to which the Early Christians at least nominally belonged was basically the Pharisees.  That can be difficult for a moderner to wrap their head around given how much the word "Pharisee" is colloquially treated as synonymous with being the "Bad Guys" of the Gospels.

Often people who clearly qualify as Christians but exist outside the mainstream will simply refer to what they oppose as "Christianity", I personally try not to do that even though I have greater disagreement with the mainstream Church then some who do, but it is a thing.  

Josephus also tells us here that most of the common people were basically with the Pharisees, so those mass crowds of people Jesus attracted must have been made up of lots of Pharisees. And then Josephus suggests a lot of people in positions of power were really Sadducees merely pretending to follow the popular religion.

There are hints in The Gospel narrative itself that Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees are really criticisms from within directed at their leadership.  

In the first three verses of Matthew 23 Jesus tells us two things about the leaders of the Pharisees.  The seat they sit in makes them legitimate heirs of Moses, this to me confirms that the Sanhedrin of the Greco-Roman period as an institution does have unbroken continuity with the Council of Seventy Elders ordained in Numbers 11:16-25.  

The other appears to be that what they preach is correct, they simply don't practice what they preach.  Other things Jesus says about them may seem inconsistent with that, seem absolutely about what they teach.  But I think "from a certain point of view" how you practice what you preach can include how you teach it and interpret it.  The point is Jesus couldn't have said that if He disagreed with the core definition of being a Pharisee.

Luke 7:36-50 features a Pharisee named Simon who Jesus is on pretty good terms with.

In Acts 23:6 Paul identifies himself as still a Pharisee on simply the grounds that He believes in The Resurrection of The Dead.  So likewise all of Christianity can claim the same.

According to the timeline that can be inferred from The Talmud, Shammai was head of the Sanhedrin from about 20-30 AD.  Some have observed similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Hillel the Elder, the head of the School that Shammai opposed.  This particular internal disagreement within the Pharisees doesn't come up in Josephus, possibly because in his time the Shammai school was already mostly defunct.  But the time period I and many others place the ministry of Jesus is at the height of Shammai's influence, so the Pharisees who are the bad guys of the Gospels could be mainly him and his followers.  I do think certain people online overstate the similarities between Jesus teachings and Hillel's to suit various misguided agendas of their own.  But it's interesting because modern Rabbinic Judaism also descends not only from the Pharisees but specifically Hillel's school.  Perhaps Shammai should have filled the role of the made up Zerah (played by Ian Holm) in the 70s Jesus of Nazareth miniseries.

However even in Josephus's brief description of the Pharisees there is at least one apparent disagreement with The New Testament view of The Resurrection, and that's how it seems ONLY the "Righteous" will be Resurrected.  1 Corinthians 15,  Acts 24:15, Revelation 20 and Jesus in John 5:28-29 are all clear that everyone no exceptions will rise again., and The Hebrew Bible agrees with the NT on this in Daniel 12.  Now as a proponent of Universal Salvation I disagree with most mainstream Christians on exactly what it means that the unjust will face "Judgment" after their Resurrection, but we do all still agree that they will also rise again to a literal bodily Resurrection.

And that last point is key to why I wanted to discus the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the context of 1st Century Judaism.  Some people try really hard to abuse certain details of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 to suggest Paul and other NT writers must mean by "Resurrection" something that is actually functionally the same as what either the Essenes (we live forever as immortal souls without a body) or Sadducees (no real after life at all) believed.  However we see here that people who believed those kinds of things in first century Judaism didn't use the language of Resurrection, so it's silly to think Paul or Peter or Jesus would if that's what they meant.

Another interesting observation I can make from Josephus's description is how there was a familiar debate about Human Free Will vs Divine Sovereignty.  With the Essenes being like Augustine and the Calvinists, while the Sadducees were more like Pelegius or the Arminians.  The Pharisees however have a more nuanced take on that tension that again I feel is closer to what The New Testament is actually saying, but could also be compared to the Stoic position on Free Will vs Fate in Greek Philosophy.  I also feel like the Sadducees are functionally Deists, what we today call Deism began in Greek Philosophy with Aristotle and then the Epicureans.

Many people want to connect the Essenes to the origins of Christianity based on their practicing a voluntary communalism similar to the Early Church in Acts.  But they did it for a different reason, they had inherited a Pythagorean notion of the Immortality of The Soul, and indeed Classical Pagan Pythagoreans also practiced a sort of Voluntary Communalism, but for both it was about viewing the physical world as a Prison they seek liberation from.  Early Christians lived this way to be a light within the world and salt of the earth.  The Early Christians were true Communists, the Pythagoreans were more like Strasserists or NazBols, they were in bed with totalitarian governments in Samos and Crotone, and likewise I have argued that those Josephus called Essenes were those Matthew 22 called Herodians.  Philo's description of the Essenes also repeats that they had the support of many "Great Kings".  I've also talked about the Pythagorean role in the origins of Puritanical Sexual Morality, and the Essenes seem to have been the same way on that too, as well as their Misogyny, I think the Essenes were basically Herod's Proud Boys.  The Zealots were the Revolutionary Anarchists, and they were also originally a sect of the Pharisees.

Update: Of course much Confusion about the Essenes exists because of how they are conflated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Many have questioned that connection for reasons that have little to do with why I'm skeptical of it.

I partly reject it, I don't think the Scrolls all have a common origin.  Even if they did all come from that one settlement called Qumran, maybe the assumption everyone living there was all of the same sect is wrong.  Some Scrolls do seem fairly consistent with how Josephus described the Essenes, but other Scrolls mention the Resurrection, and also clearly have an interest in Eschatology and The Messiah.

Roman A. Montero in All Things In Common says the Pythagoreans weren't like the Essenes or Early Christians because they weren't Messianic or Apocalyptic.  But the thing is from what Josephus tells us, Eschatology was inherently the purview of the Pharisees, people with Essene or Sadducee views on the After Life would be just as uninterested in the Future as most Pagan Greeks were.  He also mentions how the Pythagoreans were a purely upper class phenomena, and again based on the Herodian connection I think the real Essenes were too.  It's possible at Qumran the Essenes were the Bourgeoisie who owned the place while the Pharisees were the Proletariat.

Update: "Everlasting Prison".

The "everlasting prison" in the above translation of Josephus's description of the After Life view of the Pharisees might in some other translations read "eternal prison".  In this case Eternal/Everlasting is Aidios which in a real sense does mean that, not Aionios which never actually means that.

Some of my Universal Salvation allies make much out of the Pharisees here using different language then Jesus who used Aionios and not that particular word for "prison" either, saying Jesus would have used the same word if He also meant a punishment with no end.  But I feel we overstate our case on that one a bit.

First of all Jesus was not speaking in Greek, and what ever main doctrinal statements the Pharisees had that Josephus got this from probably weren't in Greek either, they were either Hebrew or Aramaic. I am also with those who believe Matthew's Gospel was originally written in one of those languages not Greek.  The possibility that Josephus and the New Testament are sometimes translating the same Semitic expression into Greek differently can't be ruled out.

However even the Greek words in question can have nuance to how they are used.  Jude used "Aidios chains" to describe an imprisonment that is clearly defined as having an end.  And in my view those Angels are not Supernatural Angels but those who were swallowed up by the earth with Korah and Dathan.  So the Prison in the Pharisees eschatology could be Aidios in the same way Jude's chains are.

Maybe my prior assumption that Josephus or the Pharisees he got that from were absolutely precluding the Unrighteous from future Resurrection was mistaken.  Maybe the contrasting language there is like those Bible Verses that seemingly contrast "Life" and "Judgment" at the Resurrection. The Pharisees Jesus was most often in conflict with certainly seem like the kinds of people who wouldn't like Universal Salvation.  But I doubt the very idea was inherently unheard of in Pharisee circles.

In Josephus's description of the Zealots when he says they refuse to "call any man lord" for God is their only Lord, I do think that is a different Greek translation of the same sentiment Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:8-10, one says "Master" the other says "Lord" but the gist of meaning is the same.  

Usually when someone suggests Jesus and the Early Christians were Zealots it goes hand in hand with saying the Pacifist parts of His teachings were a later Romanized white washing.  However I have come to see the Zealot movement as like the Anabaptists of the 16th Century and Secular Anarchists of modern history (and Petr Chelčický could be considered the Pacifist Taborite), they included Violent Rebels like Thomas Muntzer, absolute Pacifist Separatists like those the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish descend from, and many gradients in-between.  With the reputation of the violent rebels often used to justify not believing the pacifists when they claim to be non-violent.

The Resurrection in The Torah.

In Matthew 22:31-32 Jesus proves The Resurrection of The Dead from The Torah to the Sadducces.

"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."

Josephus tells us a few important things about the Sadducees that this part of The Gospel narrative verifies.  They denied The Resurrection, as well as The Afterlife.  And they limited the Canon to just the Torah.  That's why Jesus didn't just prove it by quoting Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 26, Daniel 12, or Psalm 16:10.

While the Sadducees of the First Century were wiped out in 70 AD, there are some just like them around today.  Like the website TheDesertTabernacle.com.  And the YouTube Channel Remember The Commands.

While by definition no Christians can be strictly Torah only, there are some within the Hebrew Roots movement that get pretty close, the gateway drug is Rob Skiba calling the Torah "The Bible of The Bible", but others go further then that, often deciding to do things like reject David as a tyrant.

Since most today don't have The Torah as memorized as Jesus immediate listeners in Matthew 22 did, I want to break down Jesus argument here.  I think there is more then one verse of The Torah being utilized.

Strictly speaking he's directly quoting Exodus 3:6 (as well as 3:15-16 and 4:5), where the voice from the Burning Bush calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  With terminology that is clearly present tense.

However what he says was also bound to bring to mind Deuteronomy 5:26.  The KJV's reading of that verse is.

"For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"

Yahuah being called the "Living God" here could be interpreted as carrying the meaning of "God of the Living" and thus part of the basis of Jesus' argument.

If it was only one of either the Afterlife or Resurrection the Sadducees were denying, Jesus argument here wouldn't quite be so destructive to them.  It's that they denied both that made God proclaiming himself in the present tense to be the God of those three individuals long dead by Moses time, that proves their lives are not simply over and done with.

That was Jesus argument for the Resurrection in The Torah.  The Talmud (composed by descendants of the Hillel Pharisees) has it's own.  Referencing Exodus 15:1, and also possibly Deuteronomy 32.

“Rabbi Meir asked, whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, ‘Then will Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord.’ It is not said ‘sang’ but will sing; hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah” (Sanhedrin 90b).

I'm not sure that argument will hold up under scrutiny as well as Jesus' argument.  But it's interesting to us Christians since Revelation 15:3 seems to refer back to this same Torah subject.

The Samaritans are also a Torah as the only real Canon community, and they affirm The Resurrection based on Deuteronomy 32:39.

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Genesis 22 implies Abraham believed Isaac would be resurrected, God had earlier promised him he'd have many descendants specifically through Isaac.  And in verse 5 he tells the servants that he and Isaac both will be back.

Also the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine is partly built on seeing Moses blessing on Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 as implying Josephus or someone of Joseph will be sacrificed and then resurrected.

I normally talk about the doctrine of the Resurrection on my Prophecy Blog. But I do have an earlier post on this Blog responding to Lex Meyer's book.

Since I tie my belief in The Resurrection to my belief in Universal Salvation, perhaps this is a good time to discus proving Universal Salvation from The Torah.  I made a thread on the subject in a Facebook group recently, so I've gathered some thoughts on that.

In Genesis 12:3 God promises Abraham that in him will "All the Families of the Earth be Blessed", families could be translated peoples.  Genesis 22:18 says in Abraham's Seed shall "all the Nations of the Earth be blessed", nations could also be translated gentiles.

A lot of other arguments are more typological, like the Law of the Jubilee.

There is also an important message to be learned from the Image of the Burning Bush itself.  What caught Moses attention was that it was a bush that was on fire yet the fire did not consume it.

I was suggested an article about the story of Joseph's Brothers being used to make the case for the redemption of Judas, who Jesus defined as more damned then anyone else.  And also a website called God's Kingdom ministries.

And then there is the fact that Dispensationists love to go on and on about how God's promise to Abraham was not dependent on Obedience. Well I do believe God will literally fulfill that Covenant.  But perhaps it's also a picture of God's love for Humanity as a whole and every individual Human.  He intends to Save us regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.