The first thing we did was a bit of small talk, and after I mentioned that my mother and her friend from North Ireland are in New York City today, Uriah mentioned the one time when he was eight years old and in the scouts, and in New York City their leader accidentally took a wrong turn and led their troop into a topless bar. I imagine that required quite a bit of explaining to parents! I mentioned how a couple times when I was in NYC, I often walked past Bethel, and he said that he thinks they might eventually actually move their HQ increasingly out of the city to places like Patterson and some other town starting with "W", the precise name of which I forget.
We then got to talking about the convention, which will be from the last day in July to the first two days in August, and he'll be glad to give me a ride if I don't mind being there an hour or so after it ends each day--which is fine with me, because come on, where better for me to hang out than after hours at a JW convention? Also, I mentioned how I'd heard that one of the books released will be a commentary on Acts, and we both agree that that'd be sweet.
Next Uriah mentioned his research into the Sodom and Gomorrah bit, and his conclusion was that some people from Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected, but most will not. He gave me an article from the 15 August 1982 Watchtower, so I'll have to read through it, look up some of the conflicting opinions, and ask him to look into them.We then got to Romans 8:11 and had some fun discussion in circles (which was a pattern that was to mark the remainder of the day). I got him to agree that "make YOUR mortal bodies alive" (Rom 8:11, NWT) has reference to the resurrection, and he agrees that Paul is addressing the anointed. Uriah pointed me to Ephesians 2:4-6, and I then explained how resurrection was historically used both literally and metaphorically--in the Old Testament as a metaphor for Israel's return from exile, and in the New Testament as a metaphor for the current transformation in life that takes place upon acceptance of Christ. I pointed out that Paul talks here in the past tense about our being raised up, which clearly must be metaphorical, and he agreed; so then we returned to Romans 8:11, which I pointed out appears to refer to literal resurrection, not metaphorical. Ultimately, Uriah isn't sure why Paul said "mortal bodies" instead of "mortal lives".
Uriah then asked me to turn to 1 Corinthians 15, esp vv. 35-40, 50-53. (We oddly had no discussion of the "flesh and blood" thing, which is surprising considering how prominent that argument is in JW literature.) So first he asked me my opinion about corruptibility, which he interestingly identifies with physicality--not a mere association, but actually identification. (Note to self: Ask Uriah whether Satan is incorruptible.) We got into a discussion of everlasting life and immortality, and here I sort of fumbled; I opted to defer the question of whether the sinless angels have immortality, and I'll have to look more into that.
We returned to 1 Corinthians 15:53, a verse that was to dominate our discussion for quite a while. I asked him what he thinks "this which is corruptible" means, and he answered the physical body; I asked him what "incorruption" is, and he answered that it's a state of existence as a spirit-being; and I asked him what putting on was, and he pointed me to Paul's description of spiritual armor. So then I asked whether this verse was about literal resurrection, and he said yes; I then asked what it means for the physical body to put on a state of existence as a spirit-being, and here we went for a loooong spirally ride. He kept wanting to explain the passage in terms of 'putting on' God's principles of right living; I pointed out that this would be an apt description of conversion or sanctification, but not of resurrection. He said at several points that a physical body actually cannot put on incorruption, and when asked about the verse in question, where Paul says flatly the opposite, he continually attempted to default to the godly principles explanation, which finally culminated in a statement that the physical body (that is, the person as a physical body) must accept godly principles so that one day the person--not the body itself--can be renewed in the resurrection by putting on incorruption. (But, it will be noted, in this explanation the physical body never itself puts on incorruption, contra Paul--and I will return to this with Uriah sometime in the future to hammer this point home more.)
We then discussed some earlier verses (vv. 43ff.-ish), and Uriah attempted to point me to the metaphor of sowing and reaping. I quickly asked him what "it" is, and he considered for a moment and said the body--specifically, the physical body. So then I read through verse 43 with substitution of "physical body" for "it", and he said that it wasn't the body, it was the "life-force". I then asked if the sowing was burial, and he said yes. I pointed out that we bury bodies, not life-forces; and I believe somewhere in here he attempted to say that "it" changes referent within the verse, which clearly doesn't work. I may be imagining that, though. At any rate, he sorta gave up on this one and then asked me some questions about physical resurrection, like how God can raise up the same body after thousands of years. Thankfully I'd recently glanced at an old Christian document--where somebody used the analogy of iron filings hidden in sand and drawn out by a powerful magnet, so I used that analogy to explain it. I initially thought I might've just read the quote in Robert L. Wilken's The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, but after re-checking my sources, it turns out that I was referencing Abdisho bar Brika's Marganitha 5.7:
But, now, should any doubtingly inquire how bodies can rise again which have been destroyed, and which have mingled with the dust, which have been eaten of wild beasts, or consumed by fire, or drowned in water? we reply : Should a pieceThe conversation never really got controversial again from there. I think I may have thrown some serious wrenches in his exegesis, but I'm not really sure whether he realizes it or not. So next time (which will be July 11th, since he isn't free on the 4th and I'll be lounging on the Atlantic City beach a week from today) we agreed to get into Christ's resurrection and the issue of the anointed and unanointed, and eventually I'd like to start circling back to some of these topics and pick up some pieces. Should be interesting.
of iron be broken into impalpable powder, and be mixed with dust and sand, the hidden power of a magnet will at once separate the atoms from the dust and sand, and from whatever other heterogeneous bodies with which they may have been mixed; and if such virtue resides in the magnet, how much more possible is it for the power of the Creator, in His wisdom, to separate, bring together, and remodel the bodies of men at the resurrection!
Posts
