Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven

[godsdozer]

It is true that the Bible teaches that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. However, we find the kingdom being inherited by those who “biologically speaking” are flesh and blood!
How is this possible?
It is a blatant contradiction, if and only if, by “flesh and blood” in 1 Corinthians 15:50, we mean biological cells and DNA. However, that is not what is meant. But before we address that point, let us note that some were inheriting the kingdom.
Flesh and Blood Does in Fact Receive the Kingdom

In Hebrews 12:28, the Bible says, “For we receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.”
Several points should be noted here.


The receiving of the kingdom represents one continuous process for the saints, from the inception of their salvation to its consummation. See the parable in Mark 4:26-29, where the kingdom is shown to be one continuous process of growing from the sowing until the harvest.


Secondly, the receiving of the kingdom equates with the inheriting of the kingdom. They mean one and the same. One who is receiving the kingdom is inheriting the kingdom. One who inherited the kingdom has received it. Can there be an inheriting without receiving? If not, neither can there be a receiving without inheriting.
In Luke 19:12, the Bible speaks of the nobleman’s son, who went into a far country to “receive” for himself a kingdom and to return. This is a parable taken from a real world example but which Christ applies to himself. In the parable the Bible clearly teaches that Christ, as did Archelaus, inherited the kingdom.


Thirdly, Abraham receives the inheritance. “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance….”(Heb. 11:8)


Fourthly, the saints who are receiving the kingdom, [an ongoing present action pointing to a consummation], are simultaneously inheriting the kingdom. But these saints are “flesh and blood” biologically speaking. Thus, when “flesh and blood” is made to refer to biology, it forces the Bible to teach the very opposite of 1 Corinthians 15, thereby making the texts contradict with a 180 degree spin!
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15:50. But flesh and blood was at that very time inheriting the kingdom, Hebrews 12:28. How does that work with the Individual Body at Death view (IBD) who take ‘flesh and blood’ in the Corinthians text to mean the physical body?
Flesh and Blood is Covenantal Terminology

To the contrary, not only is “flesh and blood” per Hebrews 12:28, used in the covenantal sense of receiving/inheriting/entering the kingdom of God, the saints begin receiving it in advance of the parousia or with a view to its arrival upon the shaken of the Old Covenant heaven and earth! This further identifies this transition as covenantal, spiritual and progressively consummating the eschatological event.


In like manner, we are certain that “flesh and blood” in 1 Corinthians 15:50 cannot be interpreted to mean biology, but must be understood in a soteriological context. For example, Paul writes in Romans 8:9, but you are not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in you.
Did Paul mean these saints were not “flesh and blood” biologically speaking? No, that would be absurd. But, he certainly meant they were not flesh and blood in some sense. If they were not “in the flesh” how could they be “flesh and blood in the “sense” Paul meant?”
Jesus on Flesh and Blood in the Gospel of John

Jesus defines the term “flesh and blood” from a covenantal perspective. He says of those born of God that they are not born of flesh and blood.

“But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)
Jesus is speaking of becoming a son of God. Sons of God are sons of the resurrection. This is true both from the inaugural, (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27), the interim (Romans 8:14; Eph. 2:5-6) and consummate viewpoint, (Luke 20:35).


Therefore, Jesus is speaking of the resurrection and says plainly; those who believe in him are not born of the flesh, or of blood or of the will of man but are born of God. His words are to be understood in the light of his expanded discussion on this point with Nicodemus in John chapter 3.
“‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'” (John 3:3). Nicodemus asked Jesus directly, how could he be born of “flesh and blood”, that is how could he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? That is a flesh and blood birth, but it is not the birth Jesus had in mind.
Jesus made it very clear stating emphatically, that Nicodemus and Israel had to be born of the Spirit. He said, “‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'” (John 3:6) The observant reader will note that in John 3:3-8, Jesus is speaking of the birth of two respective covenants, i.e. the Old Covenant birth is being contrasted with the new covenant birth.


This is evident from his statement where he says, Marvel not that I said to you [soi, singular meaning Nicodemus], that you [humas, plural] meaning the nation of Israel, must be born again. In light of these statements, how can one refer to believers as being in the flesh or being born of “flesh and blood” in their covenantal relationship as sons of God?
Summary of Flesh and Blood Study

Further, from Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus and the text in John 1:11-13, we have the same contextual setting for understanding the term “flesh and blood” as used in the above-mentioned texts. It is clearly a contrast between the life in the Old Covenant in contrast to that of the New Covenant.
When Jesus says he came to his own, [Israel] but his own received him not, he speaks of those under the Law. But, to those who received him and to whom he gave the authority to become sons of God ‘not by blood, or by flesh or by the will of man’ (human power & authority) he is contrasting life under the old covenant, i.e. “flesh and blood” with life under the new covenant being “born of the Spirit” for the terms “born of God, and born of the Spirit of equal.
This is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:50 otherwise, we have flagrant contradictions of the scriptures that says those who, biologically speaking were “flesh and blood” were in fact receiving or inheriting the kingdom. However, as we have shown by Christ’s own words that “flesh and blood” referred to those under the Old Covenant Law of Moses, it becomes clear that they as such, cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

[godsdozer]

The statement “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” appears to be problematic in the study of eschatology. Especially for those who believe resurrection is yet future involving the rising of biological bodies from the ground or some post 70 A.D. ongoing individual body resurrection.


Once it is granted that “flesh and blood” refers to biology, it is easy to continue such reasoning and impose it upon the text. Readers should be reminded that Paul does not cite physical death as the starting point of his resurrection thesis. His starting point is Hosea 6, an Old Covenant referent to sin-death.
Readers who believe that full preterists are forcing sin death upon the context should begin there to understand what and how we are presenting our line of argumentation. It’s that simple. Hosea speaks of the death of Ephraim, i.e. the 10 tribes whom God would tear apart as a lion tears his prey.
God says he will leave them (abandoned, cutoff, excommunicated as covenant-breakers), and no one would rescue them. However, he gave them a glimmer of hope that made rescue possible. He promised to return to His place, till they acknowledge their offense. Then they could seek his face, i.e. return to his Covenant presence.
The plea in Chapter 6 is that they do repent and return to the Lord. In so doing, they would be healed, their wounds bound up and they revive from death. Hosea did not write to physically dead people. He wrote to those who were dead because of sin.


When Paul picks up that conversation in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, he yet focuses on the nature of that death saying Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead according to the scriptures.
This establishes a link between the context of Hosea and 1 Corinthians 15.
Sin Death Establishes the Need for New Birth

The problem of sin-death is not remedied in Hosea. In chapter 13, Ephraim’s woes deepen through Baal worship resulting in death and rather than repenting, they sin more and more. They are left with the promise of resurrection. “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction!. Pity is hidden from My Eyes.
Israel, because of sin in breaking the covenant cannot enter the kingdom. This Jesus made clear in John 3 where he informs Nicodemus that Israel must be born again. This sets up the “fork in the road” where many go down the wrong path toward resurrection.


Nicodemus gets confused upon hearing Jesus’ words of the new birth. His limited paradigm can only focus upon the covenant world in which he was born and how he got there in the first place. Nicodemus was born into his covenant relationship with God by physical birth. This, physical birth for Israel was equated to entrance into the covenant.
Given this paradigm it makes sense how it could be said that those outside of the covenant do not exist. Natural birth and covenant membership were inseparable for Israel. Jesus being fully aware of this addressed it not only here, but elsewhere in John, namely, chapter 6:44-45:
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” This is just the opposite of what occurred in the Old Covenant. They were born into it and taught of God after becoming members of it. This is why Deuteronomy 6, and the command to teach the children is so central to their orientation into covenant life.


Jeremiah said, God would make a new covenant, with Israel and Judah, but not according to the old where everyman was required to teach his brother and his neighbor to “know the Lord.” To the contrary, in the new covenant all would know him because of the words of Christ cited above. They would hear, learn and then enter the kingdom. That is a radical change from the existing covenant life of Israel to which Nicodemus was accustomed.
Understanding Flesh and Blood Covenantally Versus Biologically

It is admitted that the Bible speaks of flesh and blood from a biological viewpoint. Passages such as Matthew 16:17; Eph. 6:12 and Heb. 2:14 are good examples. However, the fact that such texts speak of flesh and blood in a biological sense, does not rule out the possibility that the terms can be used in a covenantal sense. Those who only see physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 are reluctant to entertain this view. They appear to use circular reasoning by such statements as, “since we know the resurrection hasn’t happened yet, or since we know Paul is talking about an individual physical body, and since we know that other texts in the Bible (such as those above) refer to the biology, then this text must mean the same. It sounds good, but it’s flawed reasoning.


For example, suppose we take the dream of Joseph, where he says the sun, moon and the stars came and made obedience to him. Now we know that sun, moon and stars refer to heavenly luminaries. Since, other passages in the Bible establish the sun, moon and stars as the heavenly lights, then Joseph must have dreamed about heavenly lights. Is that true? No, for we understand that he spoke figuratively of his father, mother and brothers.
And, because that is the only reference where the sun, moon and stars referred to one’s biological family that we can find in the Bible, it does not lessen its truth or negate the fact that it is used in that manner.
John Defines Flesh and Blood As Covenantal Terms

John addressed the issue of flesh and blood from a covenantal perspective in John 1:12-13. There, he spoke of the new birth. ”

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of he will of man, but of God.”

Observe that those who received Christ were given the right or authority to become children of God. They were not children of God by virtue of their physical birth. They experienced a new birth, however, not one of blood, flesh or will of man, but of God. That means they were no longer “flesh and blood” covenantally speaking. Jesus said that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit, i.e. of God, is spirit.
For this reason, Paul said, those who are in the flesh, cannot please God. Now, let us examine this marvelous concept for a moment.


The Biological View of Flesh and Blood Creates A Contradiction

If we are wedded to the biological concept of “flesh and blood” in 1 Corinthians 15:50, then we have a logical contradiction. Since Paul said those who are “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom, why does he write in Hebrews 12:28, that the saints who were yet in flesh and blood bodies, also were at that very time, inheriting the kingdom?
Doug Wilkinson, on the “Death is Defeated” website suggests I have made a mistake. He says that Hebrews 12:28 speaks of a post 70 A.D. time of inheriting the kingdom. To this we reply, surely, the time of inheritance was future, but 70AD was not in the far distant future. Surely, he does not affirm that all the saints died in 70AD.
Nor does God change kingdom programs. Christ affirmed the time was fulfilled for the kingdom of God to appear. It was at hand. Daniel taught that when Christ, the Ancient of Days, defeated the “little horn” (Israel, more particularly Judah), the time came that the saints “possessed” the kingdom. Israel was defeated in 70 AD.


That harmonizes with the text in Luke 21:20-22, 31-32. Thus, Jesus affirmed all would occur within his generation. We do not have another kingdom program beyond that promised and fulfilled in 70 AD. Either the saints possessed it in 70 AD and all believers now are in it, or it has not arrived. Since we have the kingdom, thereby having inherited it, it must follow, we are not “flesh and blood” from a covenant perspective.
Summary

Flesh and blood is used in a biological sense to refer to normal human experience. It refers to the substance of our bodily makeup. Flesh and blood also can and does refer to opposing covenantal states. It is the only way we can make sense of Paul who says those who are in the flesh cannot please God. If such means biological, all believers are in trouble and must await death to even enter the kingdom.
The new birth was necessary because life under the Old Covenant did not remedy the problem of sin. It was impossible to achieve righteousness through human merit. Hence, Israel had to be born again and become spirit that they might inherit the kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Believers are not born of the flesh, and thus, they do not originate from the flesh (John 1:12-13) but from God.
See the table above for the comparisons between flesh and blood and the spirit born saints. When we understand flesh and blood in 1 Cor. 15:50 covenantally, we avoid the contradiction and conflict with Hebrews 12:28

[digthemup]

Dozer,
By the time I was done reading most of this post you have started, the one thing that seemed to have had much repetition were these words:
'neither can there be a receiving without inheriting'

Inheriting can happen without receiving and receiving without being an heir. To the Hebrew, they were the heirs, the chosen ones, by God. They view themselves that the kingdom of God belonged to them as long as they fulfilled the Law and the sacrifices enlisted thereof. By the grace of Christ and by His sacrifice at the cross, we, who believe in Him, are receiving the kingdom of God without being the direct chosen ones by God, the heirs. This is the promise God makes to everyone in John 3: 16-18.

'receiving without inheriting'

When my grandmother passed, I received a letter from the court, that my brother and I inherited a house, a small vineyard, and olive grove in Realmonte, Sicilia. I talked with my brother, and as usual, he asked me to handle it, and let him know if I needed any thing from him, since he know very little about Sicilia being many yrs younger than me. At the direction of my attorney, I reached out to a family member over there who put me in contact with the local magistrate. After much discussion, I found out, that even though we are American citizens, Italy still considers us as citizens creating alot of obstacles not worth having to deal with.
At the advice of the magistrate, we had a living relative there in need, and if we would like to donate it to him, he would handle the matter pro bono, which we accepted his offer, and later received a very long letter from the receiver, who had no idea of being a third cousin to us.

The Hebrew were sent their 'inheritance' by God sending Jesus, His Son, the Heir, however, do to their circumstances, they rejected Jesus, who entered into the world as a baby not a king to deliver them. Their rejection became our good fortune, the greatest gift we can every imaging, our Savior and Intercessor. so though we were not heirs, we were made so by the Blood of Christ on the Cross.

Sorry for the long post, and be blessed,
Frank.

[godsdozer]

Dozer,
By the time I was done reading most of this post you have started, the one thing that seemed to have had much repetition were these words:
'neither can there be a receiving without inheriting'

Inheriting can happen without receiving and receiving without being an heir. To the Hebrew, they were the heirs, the chosen ones, by God. They view themselves that the kingdom of God belonged to them as long as they fulfilled the Law and the sacrifices enlisted thereof. By the grace of Christ and by His sacrifice at the cross, we, who believe in Him, are receiving the kingdom of God without being the direct chosen ones by God, the heirs. This is the promise God makes to everyone in John 3: 16-18.

'receiving without inheriting'

When my grandmother passed, I received a letter from the court, that my brother and I inherited a house, a small vineyard, and olive grove in Realmonte, Sicilia. I talked with my brother, and as usual, he asked me to handle it, and let him know if I needed any thing from him, since he know very little about Sicilia being many yrs younger than me. At the direction of my attorney, I reached out to a family member over there who put me in contact with the local magistrate. After much discussion, I found out, that even though we are American citizens, Italy still considers us as citizens creating alot of obstacles not worth having to deal with.
At the advice of the magistrate, we had a living relative there in need, and if we would like to donate it to him, he would handle the matter pro bono, which we accepted his offer, and later received a very long letter from the receiver, who had no idea of being a third cousin to us.

The Hebrew were sent their 'inheritance' by God sending Jesus, His Son, the Heir, however, do to their circumstances, they rejected Jesus, who entered into the world as a baby not a king to deliver them. Their rejection became our good fortune, the greatest gift we can every imaging, our Savior and Intercessor. so though we were not heirs, we were made so by the Blood of Christ on the Cross.

Sorry for the long post, and be blessed,
Frank.

Hey my friend.

I do not think you understood the post/article.

I will be frank with you, (no pun intended LOL).

When I first began to study fulfilled eschatology many years ago, it was very difficult for me trying to understand "what" they were saying, and trying to understand what "definitions" they were using because they were so foreign to my up bringing. When "they would use the term, Resurrection, it was in a complete opposite view of how I grew up using the term "Resurrection"

Get your bible out and follow along with any video I provide here on the Faith Forum, test it, examine it, critique it, but I encourage all not to dismiss it because it doesn't jive with what you have been taught.

A resurrection that does not include an Old Testament understanding simply will not work, unless someone just dismisses what the Old Testament says about resurrection.


When we are reading the New Testament ( and the Old Testament), we are reading someone else mail. The New Testament writers were writing during a "transition period", already but not yet. In other words, between Christ first appearing and his second appearing in A.D.70

Anyways, you be blessed my friend.

[mram10us]

Dig, really cool story about your grandma.
Dozer, did a word search and "resurrection" is only mentioned in the New Testament. Where does the OT give us an understanding?

[digthemup]

Dig, really cool story about your grandma.
Dozer, did a word search and "resurrection" is only mentioned in the New Testament. Where does the OT give us an understanding?

Reality is the coolest in every aspect.