Because one mentions flesh and blood, not flesh and bone, the flesh part of the equations become irrelevant? Nonsense!

And no, the body will not be "animated" by pneuma, it will BE pneuma as evidenced by 1 Cor. 15:45. It comes down to this:

What you would like 1 Cor. 15:45 to say:
"The last Adam became [a fleshy body animated by] a life giving spirit."

What 1 Cor. 15:45 actually says:
"The last Adam became a life giving spirit."

vs.

"a spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have" (Luke 24:39). What is important here is not only that "Luke's" Jesus says he has flesh and bone, but that he denies that he is a spirit (pneuma) in direct contradiction with 1 Cor. 15:45.

Flesh and blood represent the mortal. They cannot inherit the kingdom of God because they are mortal.

Paul sets up two different realms of existence. "The first man is from out of the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthly, so are those who are earthly, as is the heavenly, so are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. 15:47-49). Since sarx is, by its definition something on earth, and the second man is from heaven and bears the image of "the heavenly," no "flesh" (to quote Tertullian "that has been killed") which by its very definition is earthly will be resurrected according to Paul. Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. As much as you would like to take the "flesh" part out of that, it just won't work.

In Ephesians 6:12, Paul contrasts "flesh and blood" with "heavenly," "pneumatic" forces. Eph 6:12 shows that flesh and blood are earthly things, NOT heavenly things. Therefore, when Paul says the second man is from heaven and discusses "heavenly bodies" it cannot mean anything with flesh and blood—because flesh and blood are associated with the earthly.

The useage of "flesh" by the church fathers does refer to the resurrected body, BUT it is a reference to the fact that the resurrected body will be the same one that people have when they are on earth, and as is obvious from 1 Cor. 14:45, that is different than Paul's concept. And yes, Tertullian does mention flesh and blood. He says, "To the flesh, therefore, applies everything which is declared respecting the blood, for without the flesh there cannot be blood. The flesh will be raised up in order that the blood may be punished." Tertullian does not say that pneuma will replace blood, it says that "without flesh there can be no blood."

And there is a specific reason to be suspicious of Acts 17--namely other evidence. So I know you would like to think that I am being hypocritical, but it just won't work. I do not have to accept Acts 17 (something written for the sole purpose of propugating Luke's agenda) as factual. For all we know, this is a propagandistic fable and the part about the Athenians sneering or the part about them worshipping Paul and Barnabas as gods was for literary effect. Also, just because they sneered doesn't mean that they had never heard of it before--just that they thought the idea was ridiculous.

Do people read the English translations of the Bible and all come to the same or accurate conclusions? Would you say that the Catholic Church is 100% right in their reading of the Bible?


[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 10, 2001).]

I don't know how much more can be said on this subject, and to be honest, I think I have at least come to a basic understanding of your point le pede.

On that basis, I will offer my closing comments, and unless you have some specific questions for me to answer, I will grant you the final word on the thread.

No, you misunderstood my point. Luke is very careful not to use the expression "flesh and blood" in his depiction of the Resurrected Jesus, because such an expression would confuse the (ancient) reader into thinking that Jesus had not only risen from the dead (like Jairus' daughter, or Lazarus for example), but that He had also been transformed.

Thus, Jesus retains a physical form (and why Jesus assures His disciples that He has flesh and bones), but His power is far beyond anything normal flesh and blood can achieve. In fact, Jesus demonstrates powers and abilities far beyond anything even He could do before the Resurrection. In Luke alone, see as examples:

1) He either looks different, or can mask His identity from those who knew Him before (Luke 24:15-16),
2) He reveals Himself to these same people (v. 31),
3) He appears out of thin air (v. 36) so that He is mistaken for a ghost (v. 37), but
4) He proves that He is physical being of flesh and bones, and He ascends to Heaven (v. 51, Acts 1:9).

All of these new attributes are demonstrations that Jesus has a new body, born of Heaven if you will, and animated by the Spirit. In other words, Luke is talking about the kind of body that we will have when we are resurrected, no longer carnal and animated by mere blood (of the earth), but by God, through His Spirit.

This is why you are still being caught up in the semantics of this question. For Paul there is no question that our bodies will undergo a transformation, but the same is true of the Gospels. Paul's concern is more to explain how this will come about, while the Gospel writers are more interested in assuring us that our humanity will not be lost to us, but rather, that it will be perfected.

This was why I quoted from 1 Corinthians 3 in my last post. Paul wants to assure us of the same message.

First, do not presume to say what you think I want. I read the text plainly. Jesus is God. The Spirit is God. Jesus is the source of our life, and through our resurrection He will make us immortal.

In other words, Jesus has become our life giving spirit.

You are confusing "a spirit" with "The Spirit", two very different things. The former is a ghost (see v. 37), the latter is God Himself, the source of all life.

John does a much better job of explaining this point

[i]John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;

My hope here is to simply help you to see how the Spirit is crucial to the resurrection both of Jesus, and of all of us.

Yes.

Luke 9:24 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.

We cannot enter the Kingdom of God if we want to do it with this life. That is the Gospel.

Yes. Very true.

Le pede, in this exact thread you have noticed that sarx (body) can be earthly or celestial. You are still caught up in definitional difficulties here.

Interestingly, your argument here was first put forward by the heresy that claimed that Jesus never came to earth as a physical human being at all. Clearly neither the Gospels nor Paul believed this.

I don't believe that flesh and blood will inherit the Kingdom of God. That is why we must be transformed and perfected by God, and also why we must pass through death, losing this life, so that we might gain the new one in Christ.

Yes, flesh AND blood is of this earth and carnal. The body alone, or flesh alone is not.

Here you would have to prove that Paul did not believe that Jesus was human at all, and I assure you, you cannot do that. See Layman's original post on this topic, as well as that of others on the thread.

These men knew Paul's writings, and they lived and breathed in Greek, the same language as the NT was written. Paul knew that Jesus was human (Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, 1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 1:1, 19, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 4:14), and so did the Gospels. The transformation of His body by the Resurrection is undeniable of course, but is represented in both accounts.

Yes he does mention the "flesh and blood", and notice how he is using it. The flesh contains the blood, and by the same token, the resurrected flesh will contain the Spirit.

I'm going to drop this one. I think we have both presented out case sufficiently here, and since you feel free to reject this passage as pure propaganda, I don't see any means to convince you otherwise. I also cannot help feeling you have not understood my point in relating Acts 14 and 17 here, but such is life.

I will ask however, how you treat a Christian that merely disregards those parts of the Bible that he finds troublesome and claims that they are merely symbolic or devices. You challenge Acts historicity on this point only because it contradicts your central thesis, and in typical fashion, it is easy to denounce evidence than to address it.

If you could offer a reason to explain why they thought it was ridiculous (especially given the context of Acts 14) I would love to hear it.

You see, le pede, I am not really interested in your opinions. If you refuse to address Acts 17 such is your right, but don't think you can get off the hook by simply telling us that it was not historical. That is far to easy of a cop out in my view.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: Quick question please. Do you read Koine Greek as well as the Father's did?

Interestingly enough, no. Do people read ANYTHING in English and come to exactly the same conclusions? Such appears to be our nature to disagree on these things. If I can achieve nothing else but to help others to see that the Christian interpretation is reasonable (even as they might disagree with it), then I am content.

Well, if I did, I would become Catholic. At the same time, I do respect, and carefully consider the opinions of those who lived around the same time, and spoke the same language as the Gospel writers and Paul.

Look at it this way, if I was reading Japanese history of philosophy, and had access to later Japanese philosophers, I would not hesitate to make us of, and consider their opinions about such writings. In fact, I would consider it to be very odd if I were to refuse to do such a thing.

In other words, I do believe that others can teach us about the Bible, and what it says to us, even if those others have been dead for a very long time.

Nomad

I, like Nomad am growing tired of the post, so I will present a summary. Viewers can decide which is more likely.

Paul's Resurrection

Flesh (sarx) is out of place in the heavens

To Paul, flesh (which is used in the expression sarx kai haima) is associated with things "earthly" (1 Cor. 15:50; Eph. 12:6) and has no place in a celestial realm. Nomad seemed to be suggesting that Paul was just arguing that unchanged flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God; but that flesh, once purified and sustained by the Holy Spirit could inherit a celestial kingdom. I am suggesting that to Paul flesh itself cannot inherit the kingdom of God and that he did not have the idea that the flesh will be "animated" by the spirit in mind. I do not think that it is justified to read "flesh and blood [itself and without spiritual animation] cannot inherit the kingdom of God." I think it is better to just take it at its face value--"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Therefore anything with flesh--which is associated with the corruptible, cannot be from heaven.

Nomad in the last post tried to lump "flesh and blood" into one group, but the fact of the matter is that when Paul says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" or when he compares "flesh and blood" with the heavenly, "flesh" is still a part of the equation. I found Nomad's answer above inadequate. If "flesh" cannot inherit the kingdom of God when grouped with "blood," it cannot inherit the kingdom of God when grouped with "bones." Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom simply because they are flesh and blood. They are representatives of mortality when together, and when separate.

If I say "drugs and alcohol are not allowed in my house" and someone just brings alcohol, the person can't say, "But you said drugs AND alcohol are not allowed, I just brought alcohol..." If "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither "flesh" nor "blood" can inherit it.

Also consider the metaphor Paul uses in response to the question "in what kind of body do [the dead] come?" Paul uses a plant and seed to describe this. That which grows after a seed is planted is a completely different entity than the seed. Not only does the plant that grows look different than the seed, but the seed (which represents the body) is shed to become the plant. In the same way, Paul believes that the resurrected body (represented by the plant) will SHED the mortal body and become a completely different one--a pneumatic one. Are seeds raised? No, they become plants. For someone to argue that Paul presented a bodily resurrection is to argue that with a plant, the "seed" itself is restored to life. But no, the seed is not restored to life, it grows into something NEW. Notice also that the theme of "sown" is used throughout the 1 Cor. 15 to describe the natural bodies.

Life Giving Pneuma

Paul's resurrection is also different from "Luke's" because Paul says that 'the last Adam' has become a life giving spirit (pneuma) (1 Cor. 15:45). In response to this, Nomad argued:

He goes on to say:

Since in the text, Paul does not relate the "life giving pneuma" to the resurrected body in this passage and only states that Jesus became one, it is best to read v.45 as a general statement regarding Jesus' resurrection. This is, after all, a chapter devoted to explaining the resurrection of the body, and this passage does not associate the life giving pneuma that Jesus became with the resurrected body at all. It is unlikely that Paul would have just glossed over the idea that Jesus' life-giving pneuma gives life to the "flesh" in a chapter that has gone through great lengths to describe the resurrected body. It is for this reason that v.45 should just be taken as a declaration of the nature of Jesus' resurrected body.

Also, for Paul, Jesus is the prototype for for the future resurrection--he is the "firstfruits." Therefore, to stick something in chapter 15 that is not related to that central argument doesn't flow.

Side note: Acts 17

I don't take anything in the Bible as factual unless there is reason to. On this thread, have done a comparative analysis of the theology of Paul and the Gospels. And because I have looked at Paul's theology and compared it with the Gospels' theology but not taken all of Acts alleged history at face value, Nomad wants to turn that into some kind of hypocrisy.

I am suspicious of Acts 17 because I know for a fact that the idea of a resurrection of the flesh and blood body was common in Greek folklore. It is in the myth of Alcestis, it is in the myth of Asclepius--a very famous Greek myth. Apollonius of Tyana was also said to have raised the dead. Some magical papyrii contain the idea that there was belief in raising the dead. Herodotus blasts simpletons for believing that a man came back to life. Plutarch says that stories such as Romulus being killed and brought back to life were told among the general population. The point I was making (and it was a minor point, but Nomad was trying to argue that I was a "dogmatist" and just picked and chose which parts of the Bible I'd take at face value to fit my argument) was that Paul's followers could have confused his resurrection with the raising of the dead in other Greek folklore. Nomad insisted that the idea of a raising of the dead was not widespread. When I pointed out that the idea was in Greek folklore, he tried to pull out Acts 17. And because I didn't accept Acts 17 a as a historical representation of the Greeks' views, considering what I know about Greek folklore, Nomad inaccurately accused me of hypocrisy probably to reassure himself that the only opponents to Christianity are dogmatists.



[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 11, 2001).]

You know le pede, until this last sentence, I was happy to let you have the last word.

But I do wish to address this point.

Perhaps you are new to this discussion forum, so all you have seen are my exchanges from the last couple of weeks. And yes, I have been up to my neck in dogmatic sceptical bullshit in several threads.

That said, do not mistake my reactions and responses on these specific threads to these specific individuals for how I will respond to all posts or threads. I make a serious effort to engage in serious dialogue with people of all persuasions, and if they show any kind of an openess to the idea that others can disagree with them on rational grounds, then I am content.

At the same time, when I see obvious double standards and hypocracy at work, I point it out so that others reading these threads will know where I stand. You have arbitrarily rejected two stories in the book of Acts on no more grounds than that they disagree with your arguments, and substantially reduce the credibility of the ideas you have put forward. Obviously you are free to tell us that anything is a fictional creation created from whole cloth by some ancient (or modern) apologist. But when you do it, and I am involved in the discussion, expect to be called on it.

I have not drawn a final conclusion as to whether or not you are a dogmatist. Thus far you have been relatively polite, and you have not dismissed my arguments out of hand. So from that standpoint, that is cool. But if you continue to offer selective readings of the evidence, then things could very well get nasty.

You have dismissed Acts 17 (and presumably Acts 14) as fictional. This is a common technique employed by sceptics who do not like to have to confront evidence from the Bible. I do not like that they do it. I have grown accustomed to the tactic. I will continue to insist that these same sceptics do better in their argumentation.

All of that said, thank you for the discussion Le pede. I found it interesting.

Peace,

Nomad

This is just plain wrong and a willful misrepresentation of my statements. Nomad would like to think that I "arbitrarily" reject Acts 17. But I specifically said I rejected Acts 17 (or Nomad's reading of it) because there is reason to. When Greek literature is full of stories of people's bodies being resurrected from the dead, it is ridiculous to argue that resurrection of a body was inconceivable to a Greek.

And if Nomad wants to take every story about the supernatural of the time at face value, he is free to do so--because that is the logical conclusion of taking the biblical records at face value. Looking at the theology presented by the stories and words of the Bible and rejecting the history is selective, but it makes sense. No good historian accepts any history at face value, but weighs probabilites. When I see Greek folklore and other sources talking about resurrection of the dead, it is more probable that the Greeks knew about it than that they didn't. All Nomad did was cite two stories in Acts and tried to extrapolate that into a case (based on his reading of it) that Greeks had no idea of resurrection of a body.

Furthermore, since Nomad likes to harmonize, my reading into the text earlier should have deflated the argument about Acts 17. As he well knows, sources don't always get all the details (Mark's resurrection for instance). Since Acts is the ONLY source of this story, in the harmonizing tradition, it is possible that Acts did not have had all the details about this story.



[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 11, 2001).]

Nomad: Perhaps you are new to this discussion forum, so all you have seen are my exchanges from the last couple of weeks. And yes, I have been up to my neck in dogmatic sceptical bullshit in several threads.

ALL readers who have been around here for awhile KNOW that Nomad is a man of little patience. And some of us can see through him and his act like we can a clean plate glass window.

Nomad: I have not drawn a final conclusion as to whether or not you are a dogmatist. Thus far you have been relatively polite, and you have not dismissed my arguments out of hand. So from that standpoint, that is cool. But if you continue to offer selective readings of the evidence, then things could very well get nasty.

This sounds like a threat.

Hmm... responding to posts in a defensive manner when they are not even addressed to you. How interesting.

Like I said before penatis, you are an amusing fellow. And don't worry, I won't threaten you. I promise.

Nomad

THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY


Ah...Bodily res. thread back from the dead...

First I'd like to say that it is a pleasure to converse with you, Le Pede. Our discussion thus far has inspired me to do further research, and though we disagree on nearly everything ;-), its definitely helped me to look at the debate from a different and helpful angle. Onto the issues…

Le Pede does not seem to be arguing against Paul seeing continuity between Jesus' body and his resurrection body (at least not thus far), OR against the physical nature of Jesus' resurrection (he says "pneuma" can be conceived of as a physical substance - and though I might agree, I see no sources from him demonstrating this, or several of his other claims [i.e., that "Pharisees disagreed on the physical nature of the resurrected bodies", on which I requested a source]).

Instead, Le Pede takes the line that Paul's conception of the resurrection body and Luke's conception of it are contradictory.

I'll start off by addressing Le Pede's last point, which was made in response to my first critique in this thread asserting that his argument was "dead from the start". It is, I think, the most important issue. In response to my argument that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection APPEARANCES need not be normative or representative of the immediate or ultimate nature of the resurrection body, Le Pede tells us:

"SecWebLurker suggested that the gospels just described "apperances" of Jesus. The problem is that these appearances indicate that Jesus' resurrection was "fleshy" and that it is the only thing we have to go by to know of the gospel writers' concept of the resurrection. For someone to suggest that these passages do not reflect the gospel writers' beliefs about the resurrection is an after the fact rationalization."

Again, the gospels do not speak of the nature of Jesus' resurrection in ANY WAY whatsoever. Not once do they say how Jesus was resurrected. They merely assert that He was risen and that the tomb was left empty. That they only recount APPEARANCES of Jesus is not a "suggestion" of mine, it is simply a fact. To show that there is no necessary contradiction between Luke and Paul, I present the following argument that indeed renders Le Pede's point about "pneuma" and "flesh" completely irrelevant.


I. ANGELS AND IRRELEVANCY


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus' appearance to Paul was purely spiritual, and that Paul envisions the resurrection body of Christ as consisting of pure pneuma. Does this entail that they cannot be reconciled with Luke's account of Christ's post-resurrection appearances in terms of bodily "flesh and bone" - undoubtedly NOT pure pneuma?

Not at all.


A. Paul does not claim that the way in which Christ manifested Himself to him is normative for all the disciples. Indeed he hints at quite the opposite.


Clearly Paul recognizes that his "seeing" the risen Christ is an anomaly. His own appearance account was obviously tacked on to the tradition he 'received' and he acknowledges that he is "untimely born", that is, born after the ascension or born outside of the period in which others saw the resurrection. He refers to himself as "the least of the apostles" who does not "even deserve to be called an apostle" (vs. 9).

Concerning verse 8, "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.", N.T. Wright explains:

"This is a violent image, invoking the idea of a Caesarian section, in which a baby is ripped from the womb, born before it was ready, blinking in shock at the sudden light, scarcely able to breathe in this new world. We detect here not simply a touch of autobiography as Paul reflects on what it had felt like on the Damascus Road. We trace a clear sense that Paul knew that what had happened to him was precisely not like what had happened to others. What is more, he only just got in as a witness to the resurrection before the appearances stopped; when he says 'last of all,' he means that what one might call the ordinary Christian experience of knowing the risen Jesus within the life of the church, of prayer and faith and the sacraments, was no the same sort of thing that had happened to him. He distinguishes his Damascus Road experience, in other words, both from all pervious seeings of the risen Jesus and from subsequent experience of the church, himself included."[N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus" (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999) p.141.]


B. There is nothing in the Gospels saying that all or any of Christ's appearances are manifestations of His exact nature immediately post-resurrection, OR His ultimate mode of existence.


Indeed, the fact that Luke records the appearance to Paul in the manner he does, proves that he accepts that Christ can manifest in different ways. We have no evidence from Luke as to which manifestation, IF ANY, he thinks is the immediate post-resurrection body, or Christ's current mode of existence. At this point, if Le Pede wants to say that Luke's accounts of Christ's appearances are intended to be paradigmatic of the nature of the resurrection body, then we have to ask "Which one?! Is Christ 'flesh and bone' or is he a light and a voice appearing above Paul?" If Luke is so intent on rendering the resurrection appearances more physical, why is the account of Paul's conversion preserved as it is? The bottom line is that the Gospels don't describe a RESURRECTION. They describe APPEARANCES of Christ, post-resurrection. Paul gives us the closest account of what a resurrection entails (which can easily be interpreted as bodily), while the Gospels only speak of Jesus' subsequent appearances. If the appearances to Paul AND his description of the resurrection body were completely immaterial, this would not at all contradict the record of the Gospels. Furthermore, a related point is that, even if, on top of that, the appearances recorded in the *Gospels* spoke of nothing but an immaterial ghost-like Jesus, this STILL would not contradict the empty tomb account or prove that the resurrection was not a transformation of Jesus' body into that allegedly spiritual/ghost-like form. I quoted Witherington above:

"Observe carefully what Paul says about the timing. The resurrection took place on a very specific occasion--on the third day after burial--but the appearances took place on a variety of occasions to various people in various locations. In short, the resurrection is not the same as the appearances of the risen Lord, never mind subjective visions of the risen Lord. Technically, no one saw or claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead, the later apocryphal Gospels notwithstanding."[John D. Crossan and William L. Craig, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" (Michigan: Baker Books, 1998) p. 134.]


C. If we were to accept for the sake of argument that Paul speaks of Jesus' resurrection body as pure Spirit (pneuma), how could Luke's 'flesh and bone' appearance accounts be reconciled with this?


Quite easily. Consider the fact that angels also consist of "pneuma":

Psalm 104:4 - "Who maketh his angels spirits (pneuma); his ministers a flaming fire."

Hebrews 1:7 - "And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits (pneuma), and his ministers a flame of fire."

But all throughout the Bible and other extra-biblical Jewish literature, we ALSO see angels manifest as physical, in many cases indistinguishable from that of humans. Brown reminds us that "in Jewish imagination the angels had a (male) bodily form--they were circumcised; they could beget children, etc."[Raymond E. Brown, "The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 91] In Genesis 6, fallen angels physically impregnate women. In Genesis 32:23-32 Jacob wrestles with an angel described as "some man". Three angels, described as "three men", come to visit Abraham in Genesis 18. They looked like men and spoke Abraham's language, eating bread, veal, milk and butter. Two of them visited Lot in Sodom, ate a meal of unleavened bread, and were asked to spend the night. In 1 Kings 19:5-8, an angel cooks a meal for Elijah after he has escaped from Queen Jezebel. The angel at the empty tomb in Mark 16:5-7 is described simply as a "young man". In Hebrews, the same book that speaks of angels as spirits, Christians are told not to "forget to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares"(13:1). Not only does this show that angels (which have "pneuma" as their primary mode of existence), can manifest in a manner indistinguishable from that of men, but their actions closely parallel those of the risen Christ in the Gospels. Were it so obvious that Paul conceived of the resurrection body as solely composed of "pneuma", the Christian could interpret Jesus' statement that those that are resurrected "live like angels in heaven"(Luke 12:26) as referring to their actual substance, and still maintain that Jesus could manifest as a "man" subsequent to the resurrection. We could further ask why Luke preserved such a saying, which obviously has potential to be interpreted this way (though on my view, this is not the better interpretation), if he was trying to render the resurrection body more physical with his 'flesh and bone' appearance accounts.

I think the above definitely renders the remainder of Le Pede's argumentation completely irrelevant to his point about a contradiction between Luke and Paul. But I still think he's wrong in several other areas that deserve to be addressed.


II. THE SPIRITUAL BODY (SOMA PNEUMATIKON)


Le Pede disagrees with Gundry on soma for the wrong reasons. Gundry's analysis indeed takes such terms as "heavenly bodies" into account, and his statement that 'soma' is "roughly equivalent to the flesh" refers to its use in the context of the body of a person (unless it is used metaphorically, i.e., referring to the Church as the "body of Christ"). I can present support for this, but I will let it wait as I haven't finished digesting his work yet. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the nature of the resurrection body in Paul though.

Le Pede writes: "applying 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 to describe soma pneumatikon is not justified. First of all, we have a very clear verse about Jesus' resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:45. Even if soma pneumatikon could mean "body dominated by the spirit," 1 Corinthians 15:45 is so clear that Jesus became "pneuma" that it should not be read as such."

I've dealt with the issue of "life-giving spirit" or "pneuma" below in part IV.. and found Le Pede's interpretation to be incoherent. So I cannot AT ALL concede the context to Le Pede here. Indeed, I would infer the context from other areas where Paul uses the term "spiritual" (pneumatikon). Throughout Paul's letters, I cannot say I see one clear instance where "spiritual" refers to something MADE out of "pneuma" (Rom 1:11, 7:14, 15:27; Eph 1:3, 5:19, 6:12; 1Cr 2:13, 2:15, 3:1, 9:11, 10:3, 10:4, 12:1, 14:1, 14:37; 1 Pe 2:5; Col 1:9, 3:16; Gal 6:1). It is mostly used to refer to something that is given by, or orientated towards or away from the Holy Spirit. Is the spiritual law of Rom 7:14 made out of "pneuma"? Are the spiritual gifts of 1Cr 12:1, 14:1 & Rom 1:11 made out of "pneuma"? Are the spiritual songs of Eph 5:19 & Col 3:16 made out of "pneuma"? Is the spiritual understanding of Col 1:9 made out of "pneuma"? Are the spiritual men of 1Cr 14:37, Gal 6:1, & 1Cr 2:15 made out of "pneuma"? Is the spiritual wickedness of Eph 6:12 made out of "pneuma"? The answer seems to be "no" to all of these. But it is not just the context that favors my interpretation. It is, just as in part IV. below, that Le Pede's interpretation is incoherent. He attempted to deal with one of my arguments concerning the alternate interpretation of "spiritual", but he ignored my other argument which specifically undercuts his interpretation. I quoted Wright (pay special attention to the bold section):

"He is contrasting the present body, which is a soma psychikon, with the future body, which is a soma pneumatikon. Soma means "body," but what do the two adjectives mean? Here the translations are often quite unhelpful, particularly RSV and NRSV with their misleading rendering of 'physical body' and 'spiritual body.' Since psyche, from which psychikon is derived, is regularly translated 'soul,' we might as well have assumed that Paul thought that the present body too was nonphysical! Since that is clearly out of the question, we are right to take both phrases to refer to an actual physical body, animated by 'soul' on the one hand and 'spirit'--clearly God's spirit--on the other. (We may compare Romans 8:10f., where God's Spirit is the agent in the resurrection of Christians.) The present body, Paul is saying, is "a [physical] body animated by 'soul'"; the future body is "a [transformed physical] body animated by God's Spirit.""[N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus" (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999) p.144.]

So we see that if we are to interpret "spiritual" as implying that the "body" is MADE OUT OF spirit, then we also must interpret "natural", which LITERALLY translates "soulish", as meaning MADE OUT OF soul. This clearly won't do, as Paul obviously does not think Jesus' pre-resurrection body was made out of soul, and hence substance is not the issue here. IMO, that is enough to render Le Pede's interpretation highly implausible.

Witherington adds: "As M.J. Harris and others have pointed out, adjectives and qualifiers ending in ikon almost always carry an ethical or functional meaning. It is unlikely that Paul means a body made out of spiritual substance."[Ben Witherington III, "Jesus, Paul & the End of the World"(Illinois: InterVasity Press, 1992) p.198]

Finally, Le Pede objects that "Jesus' body was already directed by "pneuma" before he died and was resurrected, and so his body would not just be "directed" by pneuma.", but His body is now fully endowed with the properties of the Spirit in the sense that it will never again experience death or decay.


III. FLESH, BLOOD, AND BONES


I interpret the saying "flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" in 1 Cor 15:50 as referring simply to the perishable, sinful, corruptible nature of man, and I agree with Paul that this cannot inherit the Kingdom - it must first be changed. I agree with Blomberg, Wright, Craig, Witherington, Kistermaker, Erickson, Gundry, Kuhn, Sevenster, Unnik, Moule, Sand, O'Collins, Gillman, and many others that this is an idiomatic semetic expression that simply denotes man's mortal nature, and that's all. I think its obvious from the other places in which this word-pair is employed (I give the references above), that it is a synecdoche (i.e., it refers to MORE than just flesh and blood), and I doubt Le Pede would dispute this. But apparently, Le Pede wants to say that, not only does it refer to man and his mortal nature in general, but we must also interpret it atomistically as well, and say that Paul means that the specific substances of "flesh" and of "blood" will not inherit the kingdom. This seems arbitrary because where it is used elsewhere, substance does not seem to be even partially what it is employed to describe. When Paul tells us he did not "consult with flesh and blood" in Galatians 1:16, he's just saying he did not consult mortal men. He's not telling us DOUBLY that he did not talk with those specific SUBSTANCES. We could also say that there is no contradiction between Paul saying "flesh and BLOOD won't inherit the kingdom" and Jesus affirming that he is "flesh and BONE…" in Luke, as the former is just simply not the same type of totality as the latter.

Le Pede tells us that "the entire discourse from 1 Cor. 15:35 is a description of the physical nature of the resurrected body."

With this I agree.

He continues: "…sarx indeed has associations with sin, but it does not change the fact that sarx and pneuma are still physical entities--these words don't all of a sudden lose their physical qualities. To Paul they were still physical realities. Paul has a dualistic view of humanity's makeup. The "sarx" part of humanity's makeup is associated with lusts and sin, and the "pneumatic" part with things of heaven. So it is not just a metaphorical distinction between sarx and pneuma that Paul employs, but a physical one. Also, the entire reason that the term "sarx kai haima" is used to describe mortality is becaue of the mortal nature of those two things!"

To clarify, I don't argue that Paul's use of "sarx" or "flesh" HERE is metaphorical, but that the entire phrase "flesh and blood" is an idiom. I did present evidence that Paul uses "flesh" in ways that merely denote a state of rebellion towards God, (there are about 5 other ways Paul uses "flesh"- most don't refer to human skin), and I did this just to demonstrate that Paul uses physical terminology in certain ways, merely to represent a certain disposition or nature of man.

I think Le Pede's comment above is a serious misreading of "sarx" as metaphor though. The INDIVIDUAL WORD "sarx" of course rarely loses its physical connotation. This does not mean however, that when it is used as a metaphor, and compared with something that is pneumatic, the emphasis of the comparison is the difference in physicality! As an example, using Pauline terminology, I might say that Playboy magazine is of the flesh, and the Bible is a spiritual book. This however does not denote any particular comparison of actual substance. "Sarx", when used as a metaphor, need not have ANY physical connotation at all actually. For instance, see Ephesians 5: 30 - "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."

Le Pede concludes that "There has been no evidence presented by SecWebLurker that sarx is a reference to anything but physical flesh except a nebulous quote by Gundry arguing that soma has to refer to flesh--which (if I understand the argument) is just plain wrong."

But this is false. First, see the Ephesians quote above. Second, I already quoted E.P. Sanders on this:

"...Sin is a 'law' which lurks in one's members and prevents the fulfilling of the law of God (Romans 7:17-23). The only escape is to leave 'the Flesh' (8:8), the domain of Sin, by sharing Christ's death. Christians have died with Christ and thus to Sin (6:2-11), and they have thereby escaped not only Sin but also the law (which condemns) and the 'Flesh', the state of enmity towards God (7:4-6)...[H]ere a few words are required in explanation of the term 'the flesh'...In this section of Romans it often refers to the state of humanity when it opposes God. Thus, strikingly, Romans 7:5: 'while we were living in the Flesh...But now we are discharged from the law...so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.' The 'we' refers to Paul and other Christians. They are no longer 'in the Flesh', though they are still in their skins with their body tissue intact. As Paul puts it in Romans 8:9, 'You are not in the Flesh, you are in the Spirit,' and the contrast of Flesh and Spirit continues (8:9-13)."[E.P. Sanders, "Paul" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) p. 36.]

According to Sanders, "we see here the explanation of why Paul uses 'Flesh' to mean 'humanity in the state of opposition to God': it is simply the word which is opposite 'Spirit', which in turn denotes the divine power. This is, at any rate, the best way to decide when to capitalize Flesh, so that it points not to humanity as physical, but to humanity under an enemy power."[Ibid. p. 36]

If "Flesh" is to be construed in terms of physical substance AT ALL in Romans 8, then we would be forced to draw the ridiculous conclusion that Paul feels Christians no longer consist of physical substance. It is a metaphor for a STATE of rebelliousness. That's all.


IV. LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT AS REFERENCE TO SUBSTANCE?


A. Presentation of both interpretations

Le Pede interprets the reference in 1 Cor 15:45 to Christ as "life-giving spirit" ontologically…He sees it as implying that Christ is pure spirit, that "pneuma" here refers to SUBSTANCE.

I interpret it differently. I see it as a reference to an aspect of the risen Christ - particularly one through which the Church experiences Him - his newly acquired eschatological function as the regenerating spirit within the Church, as a result of His resurrection and exhaltation. The Spirit is "the bridge between believers and Christ on this earth."[Ben Witherington III, Christology, "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) p. 108] Paige gives a good analogy: "…the Spirit might be compared to the lines connecting our homes to electricity or to telecommunication networks. These make possible the presence in our homes of power or of communication with other people, without actually having those people or the electricity plant physically present."[T. Paige, Holy Spirit, "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) p. 408] From here it is easy to see how Christ is equated with the Spirit (but not absolutely), as this is how the Church experiences Christ's presence. Paul "occasionally links Christ with the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:10; 1 Cor 15:45; probably Col 3:11…). Yet there is no absolute identification of the two (e.g., Rom 8:11). The statements rather represent metonymy: the Spirit is spoken of as Christ, because the Spirit is the means by which Christ's lordship is effected in believers (e.g. 1 Cor 12:3)."[M.A. Seifrid, In Christ, " Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) p. 435] I wrote that "to refer to Christ as a life-giving spirit, is not to say that that is ALL Christ is." And I quoted Chamblin: "Like the OT, Paul presents the human being as a fully integrated whole, in which psychological and physical functions are joined inextricably together but remain distinct. Terms for a corporeal or incorporeal function (such as soma or pneuma) may be applied by synecdoche to the whole person; but what represents the whole is not equated with the whole."[J.K. Chamblin, Psychology "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993)p. 767].

Barrett concludes: "It is certainly true that for Paul, Christ the Lord, and the Spirit, were two very closely related terms, each of which was unthinkable apart from the other, since the objective status of being in Christ carried with it the subjective accompaniment of receiving the Spirit, who was manifested in particular gifts…;he was however capable of distinguishing them, as for example in the phrase 'Spirit of Christ' (Rom. Viii.9) [see also Rom. 8:2-"The Spirit is IN Christ Jesus"]. It is in the realm of action…rather than of person…that the terms Lord and Spirit are identified."[C.K. Barrett, "A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row 1973) p.123]

Similarly Witherington speaks of the "identity in function and effect": "In any case, Paul speaks of 'the Spirit of the Lord,' which seems to imply a distinction between 'Spirit' and 'Lord.' More clearly in Romans 8:9 the two seem to be distinguished in the phrase 'the Spirit of Christ.' Thus for Paul the 'Spirit of Christ' = 'Spirit of God' (cf. Rom 8:8) = 'Spirit of the Lord.' We must conclude then that the Spirit is Christ's agent, and he functions for Christ, one might almost say, as Christ, here on earth during the church age.…Nevertheless, so far as their being is concerned, Christ and the Spirit are not to be equated and may even be distinguished in some of their activities. It was Christ, not the Spirit, who will return and judge (1 Cor 4:5). It was Christ, not the Spirit, who came in the flesh…To summarize: in the church age Christ and Spirit are not one but two in identity, but they are one in function because the Spirit is Christ's agent on earth (recalling the Rabbinic adage, 'a person's agent [saliah] is as their self'). This also implies that receiving Christ and receiving the Spirit are simultaneous events."[Ben Witherington III, Christology, "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) p. 108]

In his discussion of the relationship Paul portrays between Christ and the Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 and 2 Cor 3:17, R. B. Gaffin concludes that "This equation [Christ = The Spirit] does not miss or deny the personal distinction between Christ and the Spirit; eternal, inner-trinitarian relationships are outside Paul's purview in these statements. The identification is functional or eschatological, not ontological; it describes what happened to Christ, as 'the last Adam' (1 Cor 15:45), in history. In being glorified he has been so thoroughly transformed by the Spirit (Rom 1:4; 8:11) and come into such full and permanent possession of the Spirit (Rom 8:9; 2 Cor3:17) that they are now inseparably one in the activity of giving eschatological life."[R.B. Gaffin, Glory, Glorification, "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) p. 349]

To clarify on the eschatological aspect: "Jewish eschatology traditionally associated the dawn of the age to come with the bestowal of the Spirit of God. Paul carries through this idea, knitting together his doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ as experienced by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer."[L.J. Kreitzer, Eschatology, "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) p.263]

It might be objected that such an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:45 in terms of eschatological function rather than ontological substance is not in line with the overall context of verses 35-54, which is really the substance of the resurrection body. But I think, rather, that not only is the immediate context the typological comparison between Adam and Christ, but also, Paul is trying to make a Christological and soteriological point about Jesus. Furthermore, I would say that the overall context of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is the NATURE of the body, not the substance. In fact, Paul seems to recoil from discussing the substance. Craig makes a good point:

"There is something conspicuously missing in this parallel between...["natural"]...and ["spiritual"]...(v 46): the first Adam is from the earth, made of dust; the second Adam is from heaven, but made of-- ? Clearly Paul recoils from saying the second Adam is made of heavenly substance. The contrast between the two Adams is their origin, not their substance. Thus, the doctrine of the two Adams confirms the philological analysis."[William L. Craig, "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980.]

To further demonstrate that the focus of the statement "…was MADE a life-giving Spirit" is the function of "life-giving", and that "a life-giving spirit" is more than JUST a reference to Jesus as Spirit, I would argue that, were the focus and intent of the statement that Christ had become the substance of "Spirit", then there really would be no substantial "change" and the "natural" would not be said to precede the "spiritual" (v. 46), because Paul ALREADY equates the pre-incarnate Christ with the Spirit (compare Psalm 33:6 where the world is said to have been created by the Spirit, with Colossians 1:16 where this is predicated of Christ)!


B. Incoherency of Le Pede's Interpretation


My interpretation is obviously possible, but is it more probable than his? I think it is because his is incoherent. Le Pede writes:

"1 Corinthians 15:45 says nothing about "aspects" or "domination." It simply says, that 'the last Adam' became life-giving pneuma. It is a point blank declaration with no qualifications. Reading "aspects" into this verse is not justified--it is a verse that stands on its own."

Is that all the verse refers to though? Nope. It also says that the "first Adam became a living soul (psuche)". Now, if we read the latter half of 15:45 as referring to substance, then we should surely read the first part of this contrast this way as well. This of course would make NO sense, as we know Paul does not think the "first Adam" was merely MADE OUT OF SOUL. This renders my interpretation of the next half of the verse, as merely referring to an aspect/function of the risen Christ, more probable.


C. Later experience of the Spirit is NOT equated with resurrection appearances


A.J.M. Wedderburn, who does interpret Paul's res. spiritually, admits that there is a problem with such an ontological interpretation of 1 Cor 15:45 as Le Pede's:

"It would also help to explain why Paul can on occasions speak of the risen Jesus in such a way that he seems to identify him, qua risen, with the Spirit: this can be seen most clearly in 1 Cor. 15.45, where Paul describes Jesus, the 'Adam' or human being of the end-time, as having 'become a life-giving spirit' or having 'become life-giving Spirit. However, this identification is never complete, for Spirit had not died on a cross and thus had not needed to be raised from the dead; for Paul, the Spirit was indeed God's agent in that raising, as he presumably implies in Rom. 8.11.

"The more one allows the resurrection appearances to be assimilated to experiences of the Spirit, the more one comes up against a problem which Grass has articulated more clearly than most, even if he has not solved it altogether satisfactorily: what then distinguished what were regarded as appearances of the risen Jesus from other ecstatic experiences (which were evidently plentiful in the church), and why were the former considered to have come to an end at a particular point in time?"[A.J.M. Wedderburn, "Beyond Resurrection" (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1999) p. 77-8]

The fact that Paul feels the appearances have ended, and that later writers like that of the Book of Revelation don't interpret their spiritual visions as resurrection appearances, argues that there is something significantly different about an actual appearance. Paul has many "visions and revelations" of the Lord in later years but never equates them with a resurrection appearance. We don't see all of the later Christians claiming to have "seen" the
risen Christ in the same sense as the apostles, even though they too have similar experiences.


D. Seeing a mere "spirit" would simply not inspire use of the term 'resurrection'


Seeing a mere "Spirit" in itself, without an empty tomb, would not at all lead a former Pharisee to conclude that God's plan for Israel was being brought to its climax in a crucified man, and the eschatological resurrection that Jews expected had begun with this man as the "first fruits." We see visions of Moses, and Elijah in the NT, Ananias and Stephen see visions of Christ, we see a spirit conjured up for Saul by the witch of Endor in the OT, and we see visions of the souls of the martyrs in Revelation, but none of these visions lead to the conclusion that any of these people are actually resurrected from the dead. After seeing a vision of Christ as "spirit", he would have thought it was a mere ghostly apparition, as there were already OT categories for such things. At most, if he could get past all of his problems with referring to a man who had died a death deemed accursed in Deuteronomy, he might have concluded that Jesus was a prophet who had been persecuted unjustly and exhalted to heaven. The idea that Jesus' became Spirit, without leaving an empty tomb behind, is simply immortality of the soul. And as Witherington notes, "where the Greek idea of immortality of the soul had penetrated early Judaism, early Jews did not call this idea resurrection, rather immortality."[Ben Witherington III, "Jesus, Paul & the End of the World"(Illinois: InterVasity Press, 1992) p.284, n. 5] To call what basically amounts to the immortality of the soul, a "resurrection", is all the more unlikely due to the fact that we know Pharisees, and any Jews who believed in a resurrection, had the background belief of a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age, not a singular resurrection within history.


E. Paul sees a purely spiritual state as nakedness, and ultimately undesirable


Paul, himself, believes in the immortality of the soul, at least for believers (see Phil. 1:21-13; 2 Cor. 5:1-10), but he does NOT speak of this as "resurrection". God is always said to have actively raised Jesus from the dead, but when the spirits of Christians go to be with God, this is not their resurrection, but they AWAIT the resurrection. This implies that a resurrection body is more than just spiritual existence. Paul sees the spirits of the dead Christians as going to BE with Christ UNTIL the final resurrection, when they will then be CHANGED, and he considers this intermediate disembodied state as inadequate! 1 Cor. 15 describes the Parousia, when the resurrection of all the saints will finally take place. But what will happen to those who are not alive at that time?

Craig puts forth the following argument:

"…what happens to those Christians who die before the Parousia? Are they simply extinguished until the day of resurrection? The clue to Paul's answer may be found in II Cor 5.1-10. Here the earthly tent = [soma psychikon], and the building from God = [soma pneumatikon]. When do we receive the heavenly dwelling? The language of v 4 is irresistibly reminiscent of I Cor 15.53-54, which we saw referred to the Parousia. This makes it evident that the heavenly dwelling is not received immediately upon death, but at the Parousia. It is unbelievable that had Paul changed his mind on the dead's receiving their resurrection bodies at the Parousia, he would not have told the Corinthians, but continued to use precisely the same language. If the body were received immediately upon death, there would be no reason for the fear of nakedness, and v 8 would become unintelligible…In I Cor 15 Paul did not speak of a state of nakedness; the mortal simply "put on" the immortal. But in II Cor 5 he speaks of the fear of being unclothed and the preference to be further clothed, as by top-clothing. It is evident that Paul is here describing losing the earthly body as being stripped and hence naked. He would rather not quit the body, but simply be transformed at the Parousia without experiencing the nakedness of death."["The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980.]

Witherington writes "The idea of life without a body in the eternal state of affairs, or a disembodied state, was unappealing to Paul (see 2 Cor 5:1-9). It was seen as nakedness and incompleteness, to be remedied with a resurrection body at the Lord's return (1 Cor. 15)." Ben Witherington III, "The Paul Quest" (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998) p. 38]

Similarly, Sevenster writes: "Paul does not consider this 'being found naked' as something desirable, but he shrinks from it. He hopes that it will last as shortly as possible, if he has to go through it at all. In the writings of Plato and Philo the logical consequence from their anthropological starting-point is that the being gumnos is form them a state, for which they long."[J.N. Sevenster, "Some Remarks on the GUMNOS in II Cor. v. 3", in Studia Paulina in Honorem Johannis de Zwann (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), pp. 202-14, here p. 208]


F. Resurrection on the third day


Paul hands on the tradition that Jesus died and rose on the "third day" after His death (1 Cor. 15:4). If Paul, by "resurrection", just means Jesus died and His spirit went to heaven, why did it have to wait until the third day to do so, and how do the apostles know His spirit left the premises on the third day? Furthermore, since Paul apparently believes Jesus' spirit was alive immediately post-crucifixion and "descended into the lower parts of the earth" (Ephesians 4:8-10), then saying He was "resurrected" on the 'third day' does not imply any substantial change in substance at all. If mere exaltation of the spirit to heaven is "resurrection", then we should expect the same language used for the "dead in Christ". But it isn't. Wenham writes, "if Paul was thinking of spiritual survival in spite of bodily death…Jesus could be said to have survived death from the moment of expiry."[John Wenham, "Easter Enigma" (p.53)]

Jesus' being raised speaks of His actual resurrection, not His appearing to others. So, the fact that Paul recites the tradition of Jesus being raised on the 'third day', which correlates with the Gospel's account of the visit to the empty tomb perfectly, implies that something independent of a mere vision of a Spirit occurred.

I am in agreement with Blomberg, who writes: "The 'third day' motif most likely stems from an extremely early tradition of the women's visit to the tomb." Blomberg asks, "Since no one saw Jesus leave the tomb, why did his followers claim that this happened on Sunday morning unless something objective had convinced them that only at this time was the tomb really empty?"[Craig L. Blomberg, "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"(England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987) p. 110]


V. FUTHER DISAGREEMENT


And finally, I skimmed through several more of Le Pede's posts, and I see much I disagree with, but I'd just like to address a few items real quickly...We can get into them in detail at a later date...


A. Flesh in heaven?


Le Pede tells us that "flesh is out of place in the heavens…To Paul, flesh (which is used in the expression sarx kai haima) is associated with things "earthly" (1 Cor. 15:50; Eph. 12:6) and has no place in a celestial realm."

2 Cor. 12:1-3 seems to cause problems for Le Pede's view.


B. Resurrection or Resuscitation?


Le Pede also says "The idea is in Greek mythology and Ascepelus and Apollinus was said to have raised bodies."

Philostratus wrote of Apollonius of Tyana after the Gospels and he doesn't describe a resurrection, which is when someone rises from the dead to ETERNAL life (it should be noted that many scholars think Philostratus borrowed from the Gospels also). Le Pede is thinking of resuscitation, not resurrection. And the same goes for Ascepelus. To the Greeks, resuscitation was not a permanent state of affairs - these people died again and their souls moved onto immortality. This was desirable to them. It wasn't a desirable state of affairs to Paul.


C. Problems at Corinth


He also says "Apparently, there was some dispute over the resurrection of Christ--why did Paul feel the need to write his treatise in 1 Corinthians 15 if there weren't any disputes?"

This is incorrect. Most scholars think that Paul is battling the over-realized eschatology of the Corinthians, who think that salvation/resurrection is a purely temporal spiritual event that is not to be realized in the future. They do not at all doubt the resurrection of Christ. Paul considers them "saved" and refers to them as "brethren" which he SURELY would not do had they disputed Christ's resurrection, considering how he stresses that this is essential to being a Christian elsewhere. His point is to argue FROM Christ's resurrection TO theirs, not FOR Christ's resurrection. He emphasizes that they are lost has Christ not been raised, to draw attention to the fact that Christ is raised, and uses the metaphor of 'first-fruits' to prove that they too will be raised on the basis of what Christ has done. His point in listing the witnesses, himself included, is to flex his apostolic muscles, not to prove the resurrection.


D. Crucified Messiah or "The Highlander"?

And finally, Le Pede says, "Jesus' body had "ghost-like" functions before his resurrection (i.e. walking on water and the disciples thinking they saw a ghost). As a matter of fact, I think that's what the gospels were arguing. Before his resurrection, Jesus' body was immortal. That's why he didn't stay dead."

After such insightful comments from Le Pede, I regret to say that this statement is shockingly absurd. The Gospels say Jesus' body was immortal? He is said to be D-E-A-D, and then RAISED after three days. He doesn't fall asleep and wake up. They have Jesus predicting that He must be 'killed'. I suppose they want us to believe that He was not so good with the prophecy stuff? See the parable of the tenants. Why do they say that Jesus "gave up the spirit" at the crucifixion? Are we to believe His body is alive WITHOUT His spirit? The line about the "ghost-like" qualities I already addressed. He's not said to have "ghost-like" qualities at all. The apostles see him miraculously walking on the water in the middle of the night, they don't even know it is him, so they think it’s a ghost. Walking on water is not a "ghost-like" quality. It says nothing about the constitution of Jesus' body at all. One of the apostles joins him in walking on water in one account. I suppose the author wants us to think at that moment he acquired ghost-like qualities!:^{

SecWebLurker



[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited February 17, 2001).]

Paul's Body

My argument about 1 Corinthians 15 partially rests on the metaphor that Paul uses for the resurrection. He uses a seed/plant metaphor, and I think that all interpretations of the chapter should take this metaphor very seriously when looking at the passages. When a seed is planted, and the plant grows, the seed is not resurrected. When the plant grows, the seed's "flesh" is not reanimated to become something that resembles a seed again. Rather, it is raised a brand new entity. That is the point I was making to Nomad with the church fathers. The church fathers thought that the "seed" would be resurrected as a seed, but no, the seed, to Paul will be resurrected as something entirely different.

Indeed, "spiritual body" is not a concrete term and I don't think my argument really rested on the definition of this. Paul probably had specific theological reasons for employing the term and some have suggested that it was used as a compromise position between those that thought the body would be resusitaed and those that thought the resusitation of a body was ridiculous. But when it says, "the first Adam became a living soul..." I think that's unequivocal. It is a quote of Genesis 2:7, which of course refers to Adam's creation. The word that is translated in the LXX as "psuche" is the Hebrew "nephesh" which means "living being." It is often used to denote "living creatures": "And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature [psuche zoon]" (Gen 1:21, 24). In other words, Adam just became a living being. Verse 45 discusses WHAT the first man became, and consequently discusses WHAT the last Adam became.

Gospels v. Paul

Your first argument was cogent. My argument is that Paul's picture of Jesus' resurrected body is different than Luke (and the gospels') resurrected Jesus. Now, you argued that angels could have a body of flesh (cf. Gen. 6) and this is indeed true. Paul indeed believed that Jesus' body would be like that of the angels' (made of pneuma), so you could argue that this is the case with the gospels, but I think it is an awfully convenient coincidence that Paul has one view of Jesus and the gospel accounts have a different view of Jesus, and the second century church had solified this view that the original flesh of the body would be resurrected (after being made immortal of course), but nonethless the original flesh and composition of the body would be retained. I also think it is suspicious that Luke would go out of his way to show that the body of Jesus is not "pneuma" when, according to your argument, Jesus was just changing the nature of his body temporarily to prove a point to Didymus.

Flesh and Blood

And I stand by my argument that flesh and blood, while used to describe humanity (it is not really a metaphor, but a synechdoche), do not lose their implications. If you say that Playboy is of the flesh, then you mean that Playboy is from mankind, which is made of flesh--in a literal sense. However one uses "flesh," it still ultimately refers to flesh itself. To Paul, there is a body dualism: flesh v. pneuma. So indeed when Paul says one is "in the spirit" does not mean that they are no longer in their flesh (i.e. that they are no longer human). But it also does not mean that flesh becomes some kind of entity that does not have its connotations and relation to human flesh.

And anyway, 1 Corinthians 15 is not talking about moral characteristics, it is talking about physical ones.

SecWebLurker: Zipping through real quick here...boxing is on soon...

Le Pede:

Paul's Body

My argument about 1 Corinthians 15 partially rests on the metaphor that Paul uses for the resurrection. He uses a seed/plant metaphor, and I think that all interpretations of the chapter should take this metaphor very seriously when looking at the passages. When a seed is planted, and the plant grows, the seed is not resurrected. When the plant grows, the seed's "flesh" is not reanimated to become something that resembles a seed again. Rather, it is raised a brand new entity. That is the point I was making to Nomad with the church fathers. The church fathers thought that the "seed" would be resurrected as a seed, but no, the seed, to Paul will be resurrected as something entirely different.

SecWebLurker: I disagree with the church fathers. I agree with you here that the resurrection body is a new entity. The seed/plant metaphor also shows the new res. body has continuity with the body that has died.

Le Pede: Indeed, "spiritual body" is not a concrete term and I don't think my argument really rested on the definition of this. Paul probably had specific theological reasons for employing the term and some have suggested that it was used as a compromise position between those that thought the body would be resusitaed and those that thought the resusitation of a body was ridiculous. But when it says, "the first Adam became a living soul..." I think that's unequivocal. It is a quote of Genesis 2:7, which of course refers to Adam's creation. The word that is translated in the LXX as "psuche" is the Hebrew "nephesh" which means "living being." It is often used to denote "living creatures": "And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature [psuche zoon]" (Gen 1:21, 24). In other words, Adam just became a living being. Verse 45 discusses WHAT the first man became, and consequently discusses WHAT the last Adam became.

SecWebLurker: And if we take the parallelism seriously, and hence, took the verse literally in terms of substance, we'd have to say that Adam was made out of soul.

Gospels v. Paul

Your first argument was cogent.

SecWebLurker: Thanks! ;-) There are many other ways to harmonize here though. That is only one.

Le Pede: My argument is that Paul's picture of Jesus' resurrected body is different than Luke (and the gospels') resurrected Jesus.

SecWebLurker: And I agree. And Luke's account of the appearance to Paul is also different from Luke's account of the earlier appearances to the apostles. So obviously Luke doesn't see any contradiction here. Rather he accepts that Christ can manifest in different forms.

Le Pede: Now, you argued that angels could have a body of flesh (cf. Gen. 6) and this is indeed true. Paul indeed believed that Jesus' body would be like that of the angels' (made of pneuma), so you could argue that this is the case with the gospels, but I think it is an awfully convenient coincidence that Paul has one view of Jesus and the gospel accounts have a different view of Jesus, and the second century church had solified this view that the original flesh of the body would be resurrected (after being made immortal of course), but nonethless the original flesh and composition of the body would be retained.

SecWebLurker: Of course, this doesn't undercut my argument at all. Saying it looks "convenient" is IMO a compliment. It is a great solution. It fits in well with Luke's acceptance of Paul's appearance account and Jewish understanding of manifestations of beings who are essentially made of pneuma. The fact remains that we have no statement as to which body-type LUKE thinks is immediately post-res. or ULTIMATE, and therefore normative. Your statement to the effect that "Luke says the resurrection body is X" is based on this assumption.

Le Pede: I also think it is suspicious that Luke would go out of his way to show that the body of Jesus is not "pneuma" when, according to your argument, Jesus was just changing the nature of his body temporarily to prove a point to Didymus.

SecWebLurker: That works beautifully actually. To show that He was not a ghost, that He was indeed the resurrected Christ, who had formerly been crucified, He manifested in a tangible recognizable, yet glorified, form. And it is an assumption that Luke went out of his way. If what he is recording is accurate, then Jesus went out of His way, to manifest in a form that would reassure the disciples.

Flesh and Blood

And I stand by my argument that flesh and blood, while used to describe humanity (it is not really a metaphor, but a synechdoche), do not lose their implications. If you say that Playboy is of the flesh, then you mean that Playboy is from mankind, which is made of flesh--in a literal sense.

SecWebLurker: Of course it is a given that anything said to be "of the flesh" will be something associated with mortal humans, because sin itself is primarilly committed by humans (barring demonic forces). But IMO, the particular substances of "flesh and blood" are irrelevant to Paul's usage of it as an idiom that denotes mere mortality. I agree with the commentators I cited. We could argue it all year. Either interpretation could be correct. I gave you my reasons for preferring mine, and several reasons for rejecting your's, many unrelated to this particular point.

Le Pede: However one uses "flesh," it still ultimately refers to flesh itself.

SecWebLurker: I refuted this.

Le Pede: To Paul, there is a body dualism: flesh v. pneuma. So indeed when Paul says one is "in the spirit" does not mean that they are no longer in their flesh (i.e. that they are no longer human). But it also does not mean that flesh becomes some kind of entity that does not have its connotations and relation to human flesh.

SecWebLurker: It means that Paul is using the word "flesh" to denote a state of opposition to God, and the term is not referring to the actual substance of "skin".

Le Pede: And anyway, 1 Corinthians 15 is not talking about moral characteristics, it is talking about physical ones.

SecWebLurker: I think its talking about the *nature* of the resurrection body, and saying that it will be dominated by the spirit in the sense that it will no longer be subject to death/decay is a physical point. Like I said, I also think Paul is making a soteriological/christological statement in the Adam/Christ typology in 1 Cor. 15, which was initiated in v.21-22. Adam brought death to man. Christ, the 2nd Adam, brings life.

SecWebLurker