Friday, December 24, 2010
Both Physical and Spiritual
Is it possible that Christ was indeed raised physically from the grave but that in his ascension he dematerialized and became non-fleshly? In this case, Jesus' statement in Luke about not being a spirit is true. We have no need to try to explain that away. And Paul's statement of Christ being a "spirit" is also true. We have no reason to not take Paul's words at face value. Both statements would be true with respect to the time at which they were said. Believers, then, would have the same sort of body Christ had during the 40 days while he was on earth (Acts 1:3) when they "inherit the earth." (Matt 5:5)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I left a comment a few hours ago on the previous thread, it's not there now. Maybe I didn't submit it :(
ReplyDeleteLet me say first that I don't think it would be true to say that the non-physical view takes "became a life-giving spirit" at face value. I go into this in depth in episode 25 of my podcast,, but suffice it to say in the space I have here that the Greek word rendered "spirit" is πνεῦμα (pneuma), and doesn't "at face value" mean angel, or "spirit" in the sense we might at first think. It also means "wind" or "breath," and is how the LXX at times translated the Hebrew words נשמה (neshamah), or "breath," and רוח (ruwach), "breath" or "wind." In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul quotes Genesis 2:7, and what happens there? God breaths into the nostrils of Adam's inanimate body the "breath" of life; see also Job 27:3 where Job says the "breath" or "wind" of God was in his nostrils. Since Paul appeals to a passage in which the "breath" of life animates or quickens Adam's lifeless body, I think the Greek word πνεῦμα in that verse should be assumed to be referring to the "breath" of life from God. So what Paul is saying is that whereaas Adam was quickened by the breath of God, Jesus became the breath of God which quickens men. In other words, the nature of Jesus' body is not what Paul has in mind in verse 45.
So I don't think we can say what taking Paul's words at "face value" would mean. That said, I don't think this option works. Throughout the whole of the chapter, the contrast is between the nature of the body as it is sown and the nature of the body as it is raised. If I'm right, and if Jesus was raised bodily (physically), then His resurrection body was the "spiritual body" of 1 Corinthians 15, and I don't think we have room to bring in a third state. It seems very awkward to me that throughout the chapter Paul is contrasting the nature of the body as it is sown and the body as it is raised, and then very briefly without contextual support talks about Jesus' nature after *both* the "natural body" and "spiritual body."
Rather, I think either the WT (and theological liberals and certain hyperpreterists) has it right, and Jesus was raised non-physically in a "spiritual body" (although I don't think there's any biblical evidence that that's what that means), or historic Christianity has it right an Jesus was raised physically in the "spiritual body" of 1 Corinthians 15, which He retains to this day.
It still seems to me that, similar to angels, the resurrected Jesus already had the ability to materialize/dematerialize, appear/disapear, before his ascension.
ReplyDeleteEven though, as we all know, Jehovah resurrected/restored Jesus to life, I've always understood that the Ransom would mean Jesus permanently giving up his perfect human life/body he was born with, not retaining it.
-
Apart from the WT, who else, such as theologians, think that Jesus was raised non-physically?
Ivan, i've never really gotten a response to this text from anyone, so I figured i'd run it by you since it relates to this post.
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus is currently an immaterial spirit in heaven, then how can "the man Christ Jesus" be our mediator, per 1 Tim. 2:5?
Mike:
ReplyDeleteI think it is key to quote verses 5 and 6 together (from ESV):
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
I think that the phrase "the man Christ Jesus" and the phrase "gave himself as a ransom" should be viewed together. When Jesus did give himself up as a ransom, he did so as a "man." Thus, I think, it is appropriate that the mediator of the new covenant be a man.
I don't think this is speaking post-resurrection given that the "ransom," which was done "for all people," happened at his execution--as a man.
Chris:
ReplyDeleteI have listened to your podcast; 3 times actually. I agree with about 95% of it.
I, too, agree with you here that pneuma can mean "wind" or "breath," but I don't think that is Paul's point. Paul's emphasis is on that which Adam "became," namely, a soul. A soul is simply a breather. So, whereas Adam became a living being, a soul, Jesus became spirit.
By the way, I think I should note here that it is not my contention, though it is that of my denomination, that Christ was "raised" a spirit. Instead, I think, he "became" a spirit.
I think it is also of interest, on this similar point, to note that in 1 Cor 15:42-44, Paul uses the phrase "raised up." Clearly speaking of the resurrection. However, when he gets to v45 his "raised up" language ceases. Now he speaks of persons that "became" something else. Adam "became" a soul. Jesus "became" a spirit. So, Jesus' 'becoming a life-giving spirit' is not with regards his resurrection. It is post-resurrection. It is what he "became" not how he was "raised." If language has meaning, which I believe it does, the fact that Jesus "became" a spirit suggests, even demands, that he was something else prior to his 'becoming spirit.'
Correct me if I am wrong, Chris, but since you believe Christ is God you have always believed that Jesus has been a "life-giving spirit" in some sense, right?
With respect to your understanding of Genesis 2:7 in association with 1 Corinthians 15:45, I will have to disagree. While it is true that in Genesis 2 the focus seems to be Jehovah's breathing in to Adam's inanimate body, that is, interestingly enough, not the part that Paul quotes or even alludes to. Paul's emphasis seems to be on that which Adam "became" and not on how that process was achieved.
In all, I don't think a fleshly resurrection is incompatible with Jesus' present state. In fact, I think this view harmonizes all the difficult passages that seem to be saying contradictory things.
Thanks, Ivan, for listening! It means a lot, and I hope it wasn't too boring :)
ReplyDeleteAnd please do let me know what you think of any of the other episodes. I welcome feedback, even critical :)
I agree that Paul's point is what Adam and Jesus respectively "became," but that doesn't necessarily speak to the substance (or lack thereof) of the resurrection body. For example, some 10 and a half years ago I "became" a husband. About 9 and a half years ago I "became" a father. A couple of years after that I "became" an employee of the company for which I now work. And so on and so forth. So "became" can refer to something other than one's physical (or lack thereof) makeup. My understanding is that "became" here means, more or less, that whereas Adam "became" animated, Jesus "became" animator.
As for Genesis 2:7, I *do* think that the "breathing" language is precisely what Paul alludes to. Paul contrasts Adam becoming living with Jesus giving life, and in Genesis 2:7 Adam is made alive by the breath of God. So I do absolutely think that Paul is intentionally bringing to the reader's attention the contrast between Adam who was animated by the breath of God, and Jesus who became the breath of God which animates sons of Adam.
(Continued...)
Now, you are right that in verse 45 the language changes somewhat. However, I don't think it changes in favor of your proposal. In the very next verse Paul returns to the contrast between "natural" and "spiritual," and if, as is my contention, Jesus was raised in the "spiritual body" of verse 44, then Paul still has in mind His physical resurrection body. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that Paul would use the same language as he just did when speaking of the resurrection body to then describe Jesus' state after abandoning (not to use that term in a loaded way) that body.
ReplyDeleteNow, as to your question for me, no I don't believe Jesus has been a "life-giving spirit" in the way Paul is using the phrase. Given that the context is resurrection and glorification, I think it's clear that the kind of life being given is eternal life, not earthly life (if you will). The question, then, (for me anyway) is in what sense Jesus "became a life-giving spirit," giving eternal life and the resurrection of the dead? In my podcast I answer that question, explaining that when Jesus ascended He sent the Holy Spirit to the Church, that Holy Spirit being that which, indwelling the believer, brings both spiritual resurrection and, in the future, physical resurrection. Jesus became a life-giving spirit, then, in the sense that having risen Himself and subsequently ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit which quickens men.
As for "all the difficult passages that seem to be saying contradictory things," I don't see any such difficulty or contradictions. As such, and without any biblical evidence in its favor, I'm inclined at this point to reject the idea that Jesus rose in the "spiritual" resurrection body, but then shed that and became non-physical.
Chris:
ReplyDeleteI have no problem adopting your view of Adam becoming "animated" whereas Jesus is the "animator." However, I don't think we should stop there. It appears Paul didn't, either.
Evidently, we depart on what Paul's use of Genesis 2:7 means. You see it as Paul emphasizing the 'animation' aspect; I see it as including your animation view but also including the contrast of substances.
One difficulty that I see, though, is that Paul leaves out the entire 'animation' aspect from his argument. Indeed, he only quoted the result of the 'animation,' not the animation itself. The result was, of course, that Adam became a breather. So, it appears to me that Paul is focusing on that which Adam became (a soul) as opposed to how Adam became that (animation).
If this is correct, which I believe it is, then Jesus becoming "a live-giving spirit" is not solely talking about the animation (or animator) aspect, but of what he actually "became."
What he "became" was not merely that which he was before becoming man, but now he also gives life through holy spirit--something he didn't do before (hence, he is "life-giving").
like I said earlier:
ReplyDelete1 Enoch 70:13= "Then I fell upon my face, while all my flesh was dissolved, and my spirit became changed.
Obviously I do not consider 1 Enoch inspired, but it does inform of us of thought process during the times period, it's even quoted from a time or two in the NT
text at: http://www.qbible.com/enoch/70.html
@Ivan:
ReplyDeleteSorry I haven't responded sooner; it was a busy weekend.
I'll list a few reasons why I don't think your understanding holds up, but first let me respond to what you perceive to be a difficulty in my understanding. You said Paul leaves out the "animation" aspect from his argument. I disagree. In fact, I think that is the very thrust of his argument beginning in verse 45. You are right that when it comes to Adam, what Paul quotes is that part of Genesis 2:7 which describes the result of the animation. However, if Paul were really focusing on the substance of whatever Adam and Jesus respectively became, then his application of the word ζῳοποιέω ("quickening") with respect to Jesus is superfluous and disconnected from the rest of the text.
I think the very contrast in verse 45, then, is between Adam who "became...living," and Jesus who "became...life-giving." One was given life; the other gives life. That is the contrast Paul is focusing on in verse 45, and given that the contrast has to do with becoming animated and becoming animator, the hearkening back to Genesis 2:7 would immediately bring to the mind of the reader the breath of life which animated Adam. Therefore πνεῦμα (pneuma), often used to translate Hebrew words rendered "breath" and "wind" in very similar contexts, is most likely intended by Paul to refer to the "breath" of God, not an immaterial spirit.
And just to be clear, when I contrast animated with animator, I'm not saying Jesus became what He already was in that He brings natural life (yes I believe Jesus is God), I'm saying the specific kind of "quickening" in view, given the context of the whole chapter, is life from the dead. So whereas Adam was given natural life by the breath of God, Jesus became the breath of God which gives new life to the dead.
(Continued...)
Now, here are the reasons I don't think your view holds up:
ReplyDelete1. With the exception of the verse in question, it seems at this point we're in agreement that the rest of the chapter--both before this verse and after it--contrasts only two states: the pre-resurrection body, and the post-resurrection body. It is unlikely Paul introduces an idea not germane to the discussion, that Jesus entered into some third state post-post-resurrection, shedding His physical resurrection body. I say not germane because the idea that Jesus became an immaterial spirit at His ascension is neither contextually nor conceptually necessary for glorified resurrection from the dead. Becoming "quickening," however, most certainly is.
2. Again, assuming we're in agreement that the "spiritual body" Paul has talked about leading up to verse 45 is the physical, albeit glorified, resurrection body, notice that in the verse which immediately follows Paul again applies the word πνευματικός ("spiritual"). So leading up to and including verse 44, Paul has in mind Jesus' physical resurrection body, which continues to be what's in view in verse 46. It is unlikely that in the one verse between them, Paul has in mind some third, immaterial state, going from physical resurrection in verse 44 to immaterial spirit in verse 45 and returning to physical resurrection in verse 46.
3. Once again operating from the assumption I mentioned in points 1 and 2, the body with which Jesus was raised from the dead is called "imperishable" and "immortal" in contrast with "perishable" and "mortal." Although this is not the strongest of my points, it seems to me that these contrasts become less meaningful if Jesus' "imperishable" and "immortal" body ceased to exist when He became an immaterial spirit. Furthermore, this body is said to be glorious in contrast with the dishonor in which it was sown, powerful in contrast with the weakness in which it was sown. Again it seems to me that these contrasts become less meaningful if Jesus' "glorious" and "powerful" body ceased to exist when He became an immaterial spirit.
(Continued...)
(Continued...)
ReplyDelete4. Whereas the Watchtower, some hyperpreterists and some liberals would view Jesus as having been raised in a non-physical body, and thus would view other passages in the New Testament as referring to that, if you and I agree that Jesus was raised in a physical, but glorified, body, then it seems to me that this single, soiltary verse is the only place in Scripture that you could point to in support of the idea that at His ascension Jesus became an immaterial spirit. So whereas we have much Scripture that says Jesus rose bodily, we have one lone disconnected verse which adds a third state of immateriality.
5. Finally, although as a Protestant I hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and thus view only the Bible as being ultimately authoritative, nevertheless I find Church history to be worthwhile, and it seems to me that the Church has historically been united in favor of a bodily resurrection from the dead, but has not taught that Jesus gave up or shed that physical resurrected body at His ascension. I could be wrong about that, and am open to historical commentators who teach that very thing.
So in addition to the "positive case" two comments ago for understanding "quickening spirit" to be intended solely to contrast Adam who was given life with Jesus who gives life, I believe the above 5 points (some of which are admittedly stronger than others, and some of which are only tentative) make the view you've proposed untenable, and thus I don't think we have reason to believe Jesus became an immaterial spirit at the ascension.
Chris:
ReplyDeleteAt this point, all I can say is that I am working on a paper that I will be posting in the next couple weeks. I think that will outline my position and articulate my views more clearly. Surely better than I can do here in the comment section, at least.
Best,
Ivan
Fair enough, Ivan. I look forward to it, and to discussing it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, someone just pointed me to Colossians 2:9 where Paul, writing in the present tense, says the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus in "bodily" form. Putting aside the argument over the Trinity, this seems to suggest Jesus does currently have His physical, resurrection body.
ReplyDeleteChris:
ReplyDeleteThis seems to assume that "bodily" must mean or imply physicality. That's not necessarily the case. See J. A. Zielser's "Soma in the Septuagint."
Is that an article I can read online? What would the alternative understanding be?
ReplyDeleteChris:
ReplyDeleteYes the article is online, however, you've got to pay a hefty price to read it: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1560489
Unfortunately I cannot afford a hefty price :( Can you summarize for me the alternative understanding?
ReplyDeleteChris:
ReplyDeleteSoma can denote a person as a whole, not just a body. A person need not be physical. For instance, angels are persons that can be said to be or have bodies. But simply because they have bodies doesn't mean that they are physical.
Zielser's got some good stuff in that article.
Well as I said, I can't get that article, at least not right now.
ReplyDeleteCan you give me examples where soma is used to refer a being without reference to physicality, and where it's not used metaphorically (as Christians being metaphorically Jesus' hands and feet)? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd like to examine them.