Monday, June 30
Hillary Clinton remarked that, as laboratories of democracy, states should be able to decide the legalization of recreational drugs on their own. Does she intend to make a similar policy pronouncement regarding gay marriage and decry the federal judicial intervention jamming this unnatural cohabitational arrangement down the throats of jurisdictions not wanting to approve it?
On an episode of Issues Etc defending marriage, it was said that there is nothing wrong in getting married and not going to college or getting a big important job beforehand. Shouldn’t it have also been emphasized that, if that is the path you decide to take, be prepared to paddle it yourself and not expect everyone else to float your boat financially. Not my kids, not my financial duty no matter how allegedly large my apparently invisible pile of single person money.
Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office
Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over his Episcopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity's most spineless forms) insinuated that one's position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does not enthusiastically embrace Darwinism. Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician's political philosophy.
Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and bolts issues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse. These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you are from ACLU types.
Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believing the world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given the worthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.
On the national level, it's not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenched technocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.
If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?
After all, aren't these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strap sticks of dynamite to their chests.
Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world came into existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian that actually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.
Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one's approach to one of life's most fundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable's most highly rated news program, perhaps we should examine these assumptions a little more closely.
Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are no unaltering realities or lasting principles.
For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700's, but those provisions aren't meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivist would argue.
Rights are not something we are endowed with by our Creator as individuals made in his image. Rather these protections are statutory provisions that can be extended and contracted for the benefit of the elite ruling any given society.
The contrasting perspective holds that every detail in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be taken literally. Such an assumption produces a number of worldview implications.
For example, the theist holding to the Genesis account generally believes that the individual is created in the image of God. This doctrine is taught in Genesis 1:26.
As such, the individual possesses an innate dignity and worth. The person is not some random conglomeration of cells to be manipulated, reconfigured, and even obliterated for no valid reason. Thus, those principles viewed as outdated and obsolete are often the only things that prevent us from being obliterated by those so deluded that they can remake the entire world in their own warped image.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, June 28
Friday, June 27
Radical homeschooler Kevin Swanson said that, because public libraries stock books sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, he likely will not allow his children to visit such facilities. So given the increasing number of pastors that can’t seem to keep their hands off minors below the age of consent, does that mean Christians should stop attending church?
Thursday, June 26
Interesting. Apparently the White House invites to receptions those that flout Southern Baptist beliefs as in the case of a pastor that altered his congregations stance on homosexuality in support of his morally deficient son but the White House persecutes those challenging the assumptions of Islam in the case of the filmmaker that administration propagandists went out of their way to blame for the Benghazi uprising and kept him in prison as long as possible on unrelated charges.
Evolutionists More Insistent Than Ever About Being A Monkey's Uncle
Even Darwin himself is alleged to have relented that his theory would ultimately be proven or discarded on the basis of such geological evidence.
For well over a century now, those wanting to extol what passes for education over and above commonsense have attempted to elaborate any number of conceptual bypasses around the 800 pound subhuman hominid in the room.
An article in the May 2011 edition of Discover Magazine makes such an attempt by positioning that we ourselves are the transitional forms or at least what's left over of them in terms of primate evolution.
No longer are we to think of ourselves in terms of being exclusively modern homo sapiens. Rather we are to view ourselves as the genetic composites of previous ancestors such as Neanderthals and those other creatures reminiscent of Chaka from Land of the Lost.
This theory is put forward as an attempt to silence the critics of naturalistic evolution.
Yet the hypothesis ends up raising a number of questions that reveal just what one has to ignore and overlook in order to accept this particular narrative's attempt to account for the origins of man.
Foremost, if other higher order hominids were eventually wiped out or disappeared because they interbred increasingly with what we would recognize as human beings, why wouldn't these alleged ancestors we are more reluctant to embrace as part of our own kind, if they are able to produce a fecund offspring as a result of copulation through mating, be considered fellow human beings?
For is not the history of Anthropology literally littered with the corpses of people thought to be of the status of less than fully human? I recall Ken Ham one time claiming that at one point in the 1800's Australian Aborigines were harvested as research specimens.
Even when these remains are uncovered as part of legitimate research and excavation, it must be asked if a number of these conclusions arrived at are really inherent to the evidence or are active imaginations reading back into the data what these researchers instead intensely want to see.
For if Neanderthals could interbreed with run of the mill human beings to the point where certain evolutionary theorists are insisting that we ourselves are partially Neanderthal, aren't Neanderthals just anther racial or ethnic group?
Researcher Jack Cuozzo hypothesized in “Buried Alive:The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man” that Neanderthals may have been the extremely aged or the diseased suffering from degenerative bone conditions similar to arthritis. For daring to proffer such a conjecture foremost proponents of inquiry and knowledge resorted to intimidation and threats of violence for presenting such an unconventional perspective.
By downplaying distinctions between human beings and what were at one time categorized as species preceding us along the chain of primatology obviously nothing more than glorified apes, radical evolutionists hope to further erode the preconceived boundaries between the species for the purposes of biological manipulative amalgamation.
Several years ago, I posted a column about Darwinistic propaganda speculating that in prehistoric times that the genetic boundaries might not have been as set in stone with jungle fever taking on a connotation that might shock those of us entrapped by a morality that frowns upon transpecies romance.
Sophisticates of the scientific establishment easily dismiss bloggers for being out of touch and not playing with a full deck. However, seldom will they speak out against media mouthpieces allied in the cause of foisting a revolutionary secularism upon the nation such as The New Republic.
On the cover of the April 23, 2008 issue was a photo that bordered on the creepy. Depicted was a chimpanzee gazing dreamily off into the sky. However, that was not the truly disturbing aspect.
For as the chimp looked to the sky, tucked beneath his arm was a human female. However, this was not the embrace of a zookeeper showing a little affection to one of her charges or like one would share with a pet. Rather, from the depiction, one gets more of the impression that these two are somehow lovers.
The look on the woman's face with head tilted back with her eyes shut and her hand intertwined with the paw of the chimp causes one to wonder if the duo might go swinging in the trees together a bit later if one gets the drift.
Some might dismiss such shock as the rantings of a prude with too much time on their hands. However, numerous credentialed scientists have come out speculating as to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid as mankind's technical expertise continues to advance while moral expertise among the overly educated continues to atrophy.
According to an article in Wired Magazine titled “Science Without Limits”, such a primate hybridization program was suggested by renowned evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. Categorizing the experiment as “the most potentially interesting and ethically unacceptable experiment I could imagine”, Gould speculated such a hybrid would theoretically shed light on how the retention of juvenile characteristics in chimpanzees led to the rise of human beings. That is if one believes in that sort of hooey.
The Wired article insists such an endeavor would not be as outlandish as it sounds. Research conducted with baboons and rhesus monkeys suggests that given genetic similarities such an undertaking might be biologically feasible. Such a creature could be brought into existence through the techniques of invitrofertilization and placed within a human surrogate.
Proverbs 8:36 teaches that those that hate God love death. That not only applies to the individual existential death that comes to mind when contemplating that term horrid to all people of goodwill. It also applies to the broader obliteration of our species that will result from the failure to properly recognize those distinctions that set mankind above his fellow creatures in the natural order below.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, June 25
In a Youtube video on introductory Lutheranism, the viewer was assured that Martin Luther was no saint. Foremost among the flaws listed was nothing more than that he irritated people. But is that necessarily a flaw in itself without context or elaboration? Did not Christ, the sinless Lamb of God, so irritate people that He was crucified in part because of that character trait?
Pastor Preaches Superman-Themed Sermons In Connection With Smallville Festival
Tuesday, June 24
Cosmos Promotes Universal Deception
That famous catchphrase is itself non-scientific at best and pseudoscientific at worst.
Even if one grants that the universe is billions and billions of years old (to employ rhetoric of nearly that many parodies of Sagan), on what grounds can one state such an absolute conclusion from the basis of observational science?
For example, in the worldview espoused by Cosmos, it is held that the cosmos began at the moment of the Big Bang.
Thus, if one cannot peek back beyond that point, on what grounds apart from a faith as deeply held by the most adamant of theist does one conjecture that something else did not exist to bring the something into existence?
One can make the case of the cosmos being all there is all one wants.
But if the triumvirate of space, time and matter is all you are going to appeal to, on what grounds do you lodge a complaint should those not wanting such a gospel of nihilistic hopelessness to infect the minds of their children want to blow your brains out?
The last segment of Sagan's trademark mantra dogmatically asserted that the cosmos is all that will ever be.
If we are to exist in an epistemological framework where nothing is certain and there is no purposeful supreme intelligence superintending so that everything continues on a routine path, how do we know some manner of quantum cascade won't take place tonight where one subatomic particle is so knocked off course that all of reality disintegrates back into nothingness?
For did not even the great skeptics such as David Hume concede that, just because the sun rose from time immemorial, that was no guarantee that it would do so tomorrow?
Interestingly, the proponents of the Cosmos invocation might insist that they are providing viewers insight into whatever was or ever will be.
However, what these propagandists are conveniently leaving out are those aspects of the totality they happen to disagree with or cannot flippantly gloss over.
For example, in the premiere episode, an inordinate amount of time was spent badmouthing the adherents of a supposedly non-existent God in the case of Giodarno Bruno who was persecuted for believing that an infinite God could have created additional inhabited planets.
If nothing is to be concealed in the name of approaching a comprehension of the universe as it is rather than how we would like it to be, at any point in this documentary's presentation did Neil deGrasse Tyson --- himself an avowed atheistic humanist --- give an as lengthy presentation about the liberties infringed and abridged by assorted forms of atheism such as Communism in the attempt to maintain a stranglehold on power by preventing the dissemination of not only competing perspectives but as well as facts deemed inconvenient to adherents of that particular ideology?
Thus, if the hallmark of what distinguishes the modern era as supposedly superior to that of the medieval is that by the definition of these terms that we know better and are more enlightened, doesn't that make the atrocities of Communism far greater having been committed by the self-professed adherents of science?
In another episode, Tyson became emotionally discombobulated that if we as a species did not repent of our carbon combusting, global warming ways, we could very well cease to exist.
However, once again, if the only thing that exists is the material totality of the universe and there is no noncontingent intelligence or personality sustaining these complex systems, who is to say existence is superior to nonexistence?
Science writer George Johnson suggested that the tendency to view the universe as designed is an evolutionary holdover that humanity ought to progress beyond.
Then why not this desire for continued existence beyond that of our immediate selves?
For is this for the most part a trait and bias of the human plague infesting the planet?
Swarms of grass hoppers defoliating an area don't reflect if there will be enough to go around decades down the road.
One truism is that any resident of this realm will be subject to some kind of ultimate authority.
One can either settle for that of other flawed human beings that will in the end lead to disappointment and eventually destruction.
Or, one can look to God as the foundation and utilize a number of the tools that He provides such as His word foremostly followed by reason contemplating upon principles derived from that revelation and their operation through the handiwork of His creation.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, June 23
And what about those that feel closer to God in the Cathedral of Nature than in a setting not that appreciably different than a police interrogation where those in attendance are expected to spill their guts in such a sordid and scandalous manner that the men and women need to be cordoned off from one another during the ritual?
In rebuking lack of attendance at prayer meeting as evidence of an individual not dedicating satisfactory time to prayer, isn't that saying that the appearance of prayer is more important than the substance? Unlike Sunday morning service, there is no indication that attendance at a midweek service is a Scriptural mandate.
Has-Been Rocker Compares Jihad To The Beauty Of The Virgin Birth
So if he was mangled by an improvised explosive device filled with shrapnel or his children vaporized in the World Trade Center Attack, would he still be strumming such a blame the victim tune?
Click On The Headline
Friday, June 20
Science journalist George Johnson has written in the New York Times that the sense of design many experience when observing or reflecting upon the intricacies of nature is an evolutionary holdover that we must strive to overcome as a species. Yet, any other time, these very same radical naturalists insist that we must not resist the primitive animalistic impulse to copulate outside of the shackles of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
In an attempt to undermine a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis in conservative Evangelical circles, the argument is being put forward that the scientific implications of the Biblical origins account (especially the consideration of the timeframe involved) should not be considered a major issue. Instead, these texts are to be viewed as a corrective to the Egyptian polytheism from which the ancient Israelites emerged under the leadership of Moses. But if that is the case, just where does the contemporary believer draw the line? If death really didn’t enter into the world through the singular act of Adam, why should we take seriously the Bible’s claim that only Christ provides an escape from this curse? For that matter, if we are to not take seriously as literal the whole seven day time frame because the ancients apparently couldn’t wrap their minds around basic astronomy and geophysics but rather as the allegorical understanding of the Hebrew pastoralists, can we be assured that talk of the risen Christ just wasn’t concocted to mirror the tales of anthropomorphized deities that the Greek and the Romans had a penchant for in a time when the intricacies of biology where still a mystery?
Thursday, June 19
Episcopal Tolerancemongers Condemn Catholic Bishop Supporting Traditonal Marriage
Deepak Chopra Peddles Metaphysical Swill
When asked what he thought the meaning of enlightenment was, Chopra responded, "The meaning here is that your real self is not a person, that there is no such thing as a separate self, that a person doesn't really exist...So enlightenment here means transcendence to that level of existence where the personal self becomes the universal self.”
If the separate self and the person does not exist, I wonder what Dr. Chopra would think if some tragedy befell his friends or family members? Is he simply going to brush it off by saying they did not exist anyway? If that is the case, I bet Mrs. Chopra and the children feel loved knowing that, in the eyes of dear old dad, out of sight will be out of mind.
With Christianity on the other hand, while the believer is admonished by I Thessalonians 4:13 not to mourn as the heathen as if there was no hope, the Christian legitimately pines for the departed loved one as one would for any friend or family member that has moved far away that you know you are probably not going to see for quite awhile but whom has nevertheless retained the same degree of distinct individuality as the day you met them.
Though Chopra has manipulated his followers into accepting his teachings and in the process made himself a very wealthy man (so much for desire causing suffering as basic Buddhism postulates), one can't help notice that Chopra doesn't exactly comport himself by the Eastern dictum that the self does not exist. For if the self does not exist, why has Chopra placed his name on the novel? And his photograph in the U.S. News & World Report profile is not of some disheveled lunatic consistently living out the implications of his worldview that appearance is just an allusion but rather of one who poses deliberately with his arm over his knee and his head cocked just so in a statement to the world that he is just a bit better than you.
More importantly, if a person doesn’t really exist since the individual is merely a “transient behavior of the total universe”, is Chopra going to forego the proceeds of what will probably be a bestseller and instead distribute the revenues to every person on the planet equally if “the universal self” and we are all the same person anyway? If Deepak Chopra doesn’t really exist, then why is the name slapped across his Center For Wellness?
But then again, such common sense and logic aren’t an integral part of Chopra’s worldview. When asked in the U.S. News & World Report interview if there is a fundamental tension between spirituality and religion, Chopra responded, “It [spirituality] has very little to do with religious dogma, ideology, or even self-righteous morality.”
Isn’t that itself a dogma? Are those that do not share in such metaphysical open-mindedness in the wrong? Doesn’t saying so imply a morality?
If ultimately morality does not really exist, on what grounds does Chopra have to complain should his publisher abscond with the proceeds of his novel? More importantly, if some horrible crime befell Mrs. Chopra and the kids, would such be wrong beyond the breaking of society’s arbitrarily derived laws? That must really make his family feel special. Some might point out I already made that point. However, if you have no problems with the Eastern worldview espoused by this cultic guru, repetition and second go-arounds float your boat anyway.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, June 18
Tuesday, June 17
An Analysis Of I Corinthians 15
In verse 1, Paul points out that what he is about to teach is not some new doctrine pulled out of the sky but rather a reminder of the fundamental Gospel on which believers in the church have taken their stand often without regard to earthly consequences. In verse 2, Paul makes it known that the Gospel is not just a set of intellectual propositions but rather the message through which the believer is saved if they "hold firmly to the word I have preached to you" outside of which there is no hope.
Sometimes when confronted with the complexities of both daily life and raging religious debates, it is easy to neglect and even forget about the basics upon which our faith rests. Thus, in verses 3 and 4 Paul provides the Corinthians with a recap of the basic Gospel message which he summarized as the following: "that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
Either in an attempt to lull believers into lowering their discernment or, as in the case of the Neo-Orthodox to curry favor with the elites of academic theology, occasionally one will find that the cultured despisers of the old time religion will allow those comforted by traditional religious language to speak of some kind of belief in Christ's Resurrection. However, these propagandists turn around and insist that at best the Resurrection be understood merely as a metaphorical or spiritual event meaning Jesus simply went on living in the memories of those that loved him or in a manner outside of verifiable empirical history.
In verse 5, the reader is told that the risen Christ appeared to Peter and then the Twelve. This is also a summation of Gospel accounts such as John 20 where Jesus appeared to His disciples in the Upper Room.
Some skeptics might dismiss such encounters, claiming that the Disciples were so fraught with grief and so beside themselves that they imagined seeing Jesus. However, from verse 6, we learn that Jesus appeared to over 500 believers and it is highly doubtful you could get 500 Jews to agree on anything unless they had witnessed it for themselves. And though it might carry slightly less resonance with us as it did for the Corinthians, at one time one could ask these 500 if what Paul wrote was true or not as at that time most of the witnesses were still alive.
In verse 7, it is pointed out that Jesus appeared to James. While the testimony is powerful that Jesus appeared to over 500 people, the resurrected Christ is further authenticated by appearing before his earthly half-brother who would have been more qualified than the 500 as a family member to expose someone masquerading as Jesus. While this report of what others experienced is sufficient to establish the veracity of Christ's resurrection as a concrete historical event, in court first hand eyewitness testimony is considered a very powerful form of evidence. As such, in verse 8, for that reason Paul claims Christ appeared to him as well.
But whereas most would consider themselves superior to others if they had a tangible firsthand encounter with God, in verse 9 Paul does not consider himself worthy of being an apostle and views himself as the least among them because of his past persecution of the Church. This itself has implications in the life of the average person.
Often, some put off accepting Christ as their personal savior by claiming that Jesus would never accept them because of all the wicked things they have done. However, by accepting Paul into the ranks of apostleship, the average sinner is shown that, if we confess the error of our ways and repent of them under the shed blood of Christ, as I John 1:9 tells us, "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
In verse 10, Paul admits that his turnaround was not the result of pulling himself up by his own sandalstraps but rather as a result of God's own grace. From this, believers realize that what good ultimately comes about in their own lives is not the result of our own efforts but rather a result of God working through us. As it says in Isaiah 64:6, our righteousness is as filthy rags.
Even in our religiously turbulent times, the denial of the Resurrection sounds so foreign to our Christian ears that it is easy to assume that this heresy is a new development. However, it must be remembered that the Greco-Roman world was marked by (to utilize an overused phrase) considerable diversity. Paul writes, "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is not resurrection of the dead?"
Such an inquiry would indicate that, even at this early stage in the history of the church, criticisms of the Resurrection were beginning to creep in doctrinally, possibly in part due to Neo-Platonic or Gnostic influences. For these philosophies tended to downplay the role and need for the body in the quest for spiritual enlightenment. For example, the Docetics believed that Jesus only appeared to have a body and was rather a spirit that could not really die or be resurrected.
In verse 13, Paul begins to expose the implications of just what it would mean if there was no resurrection from the dead. Paul bluntly states, "If there is no resurrection from the dead, then not even Christ has been raised."
Some are so detached from what they believe that they would probably continue plodding along not caring one way or the other whether Jesus rose from the dead. It is not until the implications of certain ideas show up on the doorstep of our own existential predicament that we begin to sit up and take notice.
Thus, in verse 14, Paul draws the conclusion that, if Christ has not been raised, his preaching is useless and so is our faith. We are shown why this is true for a number of reasons.
In verse 15, it is pointed out that, if Christ was not resurrected, the Apostles such as Paul would be false witnesses about God. And if they cannot be trusted in this matter, why should they be trusted in others?
In verse 16, the subject is examined from a slightly different angle. Paul posits that, if the dead in an absolute sense do not rise in the body, then Christ has not been raised either.
In verse 17, Paul applies the issue of the Resurrection to a direct personal application by pointing out that, unless Christ has been risen from the dead, our faith is a waste of time. For as Christ Himself responded in Matthew 12:39-40 when asked for a sign authenticating His authority, “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.”
Adding to the personal repercussions if Christ is not raised from the dead, in verse 18 Paul provides an added shock observing that, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, the those asleep in Him (a polite way of referring to the dead) are lost. Anyone that has lost a loved one as a Christian knows that sometimes the only thing that enables you to cope with the big gaping hole in your heart is knowing that one day we will be reunited with them. As I Thessalonians 4:13 instructs, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.” Because of this hope, we don’t cry because those we cherish have passed out of existence but rather in a manner more akin over someone that has moved away that we won’t have any contact with for what to us may seem to be many years or even decades to come.
Finally, to end this litany of despair regarding the ramifications if Christ did not rise from the dead, Paul flat out says in verse 19, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pittied more than all men.” As stated previously, sometimes liberals and progressives think they are doing a magnanimous thing by enunciating an admiration for the so-called “ethics of Jesus”. However, if we simply end up as food for worms as G. Gordon Liddy mused one time on “The Tonight Show” before his own spiritual awakening, then turning the other cheek and putting others before yourself is a rather pathetic way to live if kindly and devout grandmothers end up with the same eternal reward as homicidal serial rapists.
Fortunately, Paul does not leave the reader on a decidedly glum note and in fact becomes markedly more positive with verse 20. Here it is reinforced that Christ has indeed risen from the dead as the firstfruits of those that have fallen asleep.
In verses 21-22, Paul shows how it is only logical that the Resurrection would be provided through Christ. Paul’s argument goes something like this: since death came through one man, the resurrection would also come through one man.
From Genesis 3, we learn that, as the forefather of the human race, as a result of his sin of eating the forbidden fruit, Adam brought death to all those to whom his sin nature was passed on. Therefore, since God the Father sent His Son into the world in the form of a sinless human being to live the sinless life we could not yet have to pay the price of the sins of the world through the shedding of His blood and being raised from the dead, if we acknowledge our sinfulness and what Christ did for us what we could not, then as our newly adopted federal head we are extended the privilege of enjoying our resurrection life in Heaven with Him throughout eternity.
In verses 23-28, Paul provides a rough chronology to the order of events connected to the Resurrection and the ultimate fulfillment of all things. In verse 23, it is pointed out that, as we already know, Christ was risen first as the firstfruits. We will be given our opportunity when He returns.
However, that will not be the sole purpose of Christ's return. For at that time, according to verse 24, Jesus will hand the world over to God the Father after He has destroyed all earthly power and authority.
In verse 25, Paul informs us that Christ must reign until all His enemies are under His feet, the last of which, verse 26 tells us, is death. These verses coincide with Revelation chapter 25, describing the Millennial Kingdom particularly as that period draws to a close when Satan is released from the Pit to foment one last rebellion that is ultimately put down according to verses 7-10. In Revelation 20:14, death is cast into the Lake of Fire, becoming (as I Corinthians 15:26 tells us) the "the last enemy destroyed".
In verses 27-28, the believer is given a glimpse into the distinctions within the Trinitarian Godhead. Verse 27 tells us that, while everything has been put under feet of Christ, that does not include the Father as it was the Father who put everything under Christ. In verse 28, Christ the son willingly subjects Himself to God the Father. This demonstrates that, while Christ is Himself God, He is Himself subject (though in perfect accord) to the will of the Father.
In verses 29-34, Paul returns to the theme of why should anyone even bother with Christianity if the Resurrection is a fiction. In verse 29, Paul asks, "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?" If there is no future hope for the dead, why should we express any formalized concern for them?
Throughout this chapter, Paul has primarily analyzed the logical implications that would result if the Resurrection was not an actual event. However, in verses 30-33, we can easily pick up on the emotion and passion the Apostle feels in connection with the issue.
In verse 30, Paul asks point blank, "And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day...just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord." Paul is asking why should he bother risking his behind if its all for nothing anyway.
Often in Christian circles, it is portrayed that serving in the Lord's will is all sunshine and moonbeams here in this life, forgetting that in this life we will have trouble. Paul makes it known in verse 31 that, even though he found much glory in his labors on behalf of his fellow believers, he died a bit everyday as of a result of these hardships.
Bringing this line of analysis to a conclusion in verse 32, Paul observes that, if he fought wild animals in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what had he gained and if the dead are not raised one might as well "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." While this quote is from Isaiah 22:13, it is also a summation of the Epicurean philosophy prominent throughout the Greco-Roman world at that time. It was the contention of this perspective that, since this world was all the individual had, the best one could hope for was to maximize pleasure, minimize pain, and look to one's own interests while in pursuit of this goal.
From verse 35 onwards, Paul for the most part examines what the Resurrected and their bodies will be like. In verse 35, the question on everybody's mind is asked: "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"
Since most of us are buried in the ground after we die, in verse 36-40, Paul likens the process of the resurrection to the planting of a seed. As such, our earthly bodies that are subject to decay and death serve as a kind of seed from which God will bring forth our glorified bodies, each after its own kind.
Though there will be similarities between our old bodies and our resurrection bodies, they will also be marked by considerable differences. In verse 42, it is observed, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable." Thus, unlike the old body, the resurrection body is not subject to death.
From verse 43, we learn this is because the resurrected body of the Christian will no longer be marred by the stain of sin. The text reads, "it is sown in dishonor [a reference to original sin passed down through our parents all the way back to Adam and Eve], it is raised in glory." In verse 44, we learn that while the body is sown as a natural body, it is raised as a spiritual body.
In verses 45-49, we learn that the natures of these are derived from the federal heads to whom those possessing them belong. In verse 45, it is stated that the natural body traces back to Adam whereas the incorruptible body comes as a result of the finished work of the last Adam, Jesus, being "a life-giving spirit."
It would be easy from this to dismiss the natural body entirely as was the tendency of certain Gnostic sects of the ancient world. However, as Paul points out in verse 46, the natural body came first before the spiritual. In terms of human beings, one cannot have one without the other.
In verses 47-48, Paul examines a number of the differences derived from the natures of the first and second Adams. Verse 47 informs us that the first man cam from the dust of the earth whereas the second man, Christ, came from Heaven.
Since Adam and Christ are the two respective heads of the human race in terms of representing redemptive states, their respective followers take on a number of their characteristics. Verse 48 says, "As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven." As those, those still in Adam remain in sin and are subject to the penalties of being in such a state. Those found in Christ are no longer subject to the eternal penalty of their sins.
In verse 50, Paul announces that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus, we are provided with the primary reason why we much undergo this transformation from, to the use words found at the end of the verse, from the "perishable" and into the "imperishable".
It is usually assumed that one cannot enter this glorified state without having first partaken of death's bitter taste. However, in verses 51-52, Paul reveals that, for all Christians, such will not be the case. According to the text, in the twinkling of an eye (even quicker than a blink) when the lat trumpet sounds and the dead are raised, those living at that time will be instantaneously changed.
Verse 53 reminds us of the lesson learned in verses 42-44 that this transformation of our very nature signals death's ultimate defeat as it will no longer hold any power in the end over the redeemed child of God. In verse 55, a bit of a taunt is rubbed in the face of death when the passage reads, "Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?"
From verse 56, it is clarified that the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law. However, as is proclaimed in verse 57, God gives the believer victory over these things through Jesus Christ. Since He takes away our sins and takes them as far as the east is from the west according to Psalms 103:12, these transgressions do not leave a lasting stain if we ask for forgiveness.
In verse 58, Paul ends on a note of victorious encouragement. Echoing words similar to the comforting truism of if the Lord is for us, who can be against us, Paul admonishes Christians to stand firm, let nothing move them, and to give ourselves fully to the work of the Lord because of labor is not in vain. Without the Resurrection provided by the work of Christ, the most anyone could hope for is the cold sleep of the grave. However, such physical affliction is ultimately temporary as a result of His triumph.
In “Star Wars”, Obi-Wan Kenobi warns Darth Vader that, should the Sith lord decide to strike him down, the Jedi master would become more powerful than could possibly be imagined. Though a fictionalized scene since as soon as Kenobi was struck down by Vader’s blade Kenobi began to instruct Luke in the ways of the Force from beyond the grave, the sentiment is one echoed in the hope that the Christian has a life beyond this one not subject to the same drawbacks, restraints, and letdowns that plague is the few brief years that we trod this earth.
by Frederick Meekins