1
Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, and IKOS
and INOS
(Greek Suffix proves Physical Resurrection to come!)
The Greek term
translated as "spiritual" in the New
Testament is πνευματικοìς
(pneumatikos). Natural
is
translated from
ψυχικοìς
(psuchikos). Notice the IKOS suffix used in both Greek terms.
I find it of
utmost importance to ensure we do not unintentionally
twist or distort the scriptures in order to retain our belief in a
subject that is related to the verses we are reading. I
propose that
no full preterist would ever read 1 Corinthians 15, before believing
full preterism, and walk away with the concept of a
non-physical
resurrection that occurs upon each of our individuals deaths.
The text
plainly indicates a physical resurrection that entails the mortal
bodies we presently possess being changed or altered, to become
immortal and yet still physical.
The people whom I personally know and have discussed the issue with,
who propose full preterism, have seemingly stepped into the full
preterist category before having analyzed the implications of that
belief. One such implication is the idea that 1 Corinthians
15 must be
read in way that causes us to believe in an invisible,
non-physical
resurrection. Their doctrine demands this! If they
propose that a
resurrection occurred in AD70, due to believing all prophecy was
fulfilled by that date, including prophecy of 1 Thessalonians
4 and 1
Corinthians 15, they have to grapple with the fact that a visible form
of that resurrection simply did not occur. Had a visible
resurrection
of dead bodies occurred in AD70, the world would have been filled with
books describing the event! They know it is folly to think a
physical
resurrection occurred at that time. However, this means that
a
resurrection of saints occurred that was simply different from the
manner Jesus Christ resurrected from the grave in about AD33.
So, a
doctrine must be composed to deal with and answer such an issue, for it
would be the first thing people would question when faced with the
concept of an AD70 resurrection.
So, one has to weigh the two sides of the issue:
1) Whether or not accept the plain reading of 1 Cor 15 and 1
Thess 4 to say that relates a physical resurrection to us
or
2) Whether or not to hold to the belief that 1 Thess 4 and 1
Cor 15 must have been fulfilled in AD70, mostly due to the use of personal pronouns and whom they described.
One cannot have it both ways! Those who chose to
stick with full
preterism have decided that the latter choice was more important.
The full preterists insist that the personal pronouns used in 1 Cor 15
and 1 Thessalonians 4, in relation to who would experience the
resurrection, spoke of the first century believers alone, and do not
apply to every believer since then. They correctly claim this
is the
case in Matthew 24, where Jesus told the people standing there that
they would see all those events listed in Matthew 24 come to pass
before their generation passed away, using the personal pronouns "ye"
and "you". Full preterists claim that we must be
"consistent" with
the use of personal pronouns and do the same with
their use in 1 Cor 15
and 1 Thess 4, where Paul says "we."
1
Thessalonians 4:15-17 KJV (15) For this we say unto
you by the word
of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (16)
For the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise
first: (17) Then we
which are alive and remain
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
They take this to the extent that Paul was actually including himself
as being one who would be alive and remaining when the Lord would come.
They believe Lord indeed did come in AD70, and I agree!
He came in
localized judgment against Jerusalem. However, I propose that
the
coming of the Lord in 1 Thess 4 is not the one and the same coming.
I claim that the plain reading of the passage simply states that there
will be a physical resurrection of the body of the church members.
When you notice that there are elements mentioned in 1 Thess
4 that
are found in 1 Cor. 15, you realize both chapters are speaking about
the same event.
Compare:
1
Thessalonians 4:15-17 KJV (15) For this we say unto
you by the word
of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (16)
For the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God: and the
dead in Christ shall rise first:
(17) Then
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1
Corinthians 15:51-52 KJV (51) Behold, I shew you a
mystery; We
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Both passages speak of people who physically died and were Christians,
and Christians who would not be physically dead when the Lord comes.
When Paul said, "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed,"
he meant that some will die, and some will not die. But those
who die and
those who do not die will both experience a change. 1 Thess 4
said the
same thing when it mentioned that the dead in Christ will rise and be
followed by those who are alive and remain who shall be caught up.
Both chapters speak of the saints who died and the saints
alive. This
is called the resurrection.
My personal inquiry about this choice of the two I listed
earlier was
to determine which position was more clearly laid out in scripture.
I
personally found that the use of the personal pronoun "we" does not
have to be limited to the people who wrote the words and those alive at
that time. Paul used the same personal pronoun "we" in
reference to an
event that even full preterists agree shall be experienced by anyone of
any century of the church, as follows:
2
Corinthians 5:1-4 KJV (1) For we
know that if our
earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we
have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens. (2) For in this we
groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is
from heaven: (3) If so be that being clothed we
shall not be found naked. (4) For we
that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we
would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed
up of life.
Paul clearly meant any Christian who ever lived, whether they lived
before AD70 or not, will receive a body which is from heaven.
And he
used the personal pronoun "we" to say that. Why cannot this
be the
case in 1 Thess 4?
This makes the strongest choice from the two options of
(1) plain
reading versus (2) First Century reference for the use of the pronoun
"we," to be option No. 1. When the "we" in 1 thess
4 is used
elsewhere in speaking of resurrection, and includes anyone in the
church from any century, then it can certainly apply to the same in 1
Thess 4.
Before we get into the details of the Greek suffix IKOS, and its
implications in determining whether or not the resurrection of the
church believers shall be physical, let me say one more thing about 1
Thess 4.
Some have argued that 1 Thess. 4 is a word to the church in
Thessalonica concerning whether or not the Lord had already come.
They
ask that if Paul spoke about a physical resurrection and
physical
lifting up from the earth of the church members, both dead and alive,
when the Lord would come, would not the Thessalonians require no
explanation if they saw that they still stood on the earth, and that
none of them had indeed been caught up physically into the air?
By
sheer virtue of the fact that the Thessalonians to whom Paul wrote were
still standing on the earth, and had not been caught up into the sky,
the full preterists claim that we should understand
the passage cannot
be speaking about such a physical catching away.
However, there is a major flaw in such reasoning. Paul was
not
comforting them about the nature of the coming of the Lord when he
introduced that information to the Thessalonians. He wrote to
them
about not sorrowing after their dead loved ones in Christ, as though
they have no hope as heathens have no hope after his life.
1
Thessalonians 4:13 KJV (13)
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them
which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
Paul only mentioned the Lord's coming to inform these believers that
there is going to be a resurrection of those dead saints!
How would
they be able to look at their feet and ask Paul why he was talking
about the fact that the Lord had not come yet, if they did not
even
know their dead loved ones would experience a resurrection?
They did
not know the dead would rise, let alone how they would rise!
Even if they did know the dead would rise, we must understand
that when
Paul spoke the same truth to the Corinthians in the fifteenth
chapter
the first epistle to their church, he informed that that he was
sharing a "mystery."
1
Corinthians 15:51 KJV (51) Behold, I
shew you a mystery; We
shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed,
A mystery is a truth that is hidden to people. When someone
shows us a
mystery, they are revealing something to us that we formerly did not
know. When Paul wrote the Corinthians, those people had not
heard
about such a revelation before. They only knew there was a
resurrection in store for the church. They did not know the
details
about how it would occur, and when the dead would rise in contrast to
the living saints. The New testament was not completed at
that time of
writing yet. They were still receiving revelation from the
apostles.
The mystery of the change for the dead in Christ and those
still alive
was not known by any of them until Paul wrote and showed them the
mystery!
Since the same truth was related to the Thessalonians, and the plain
reading of the words definitely lends itself to the thought of
a
physical resurrection, then it is obvious that Paul was relating
details about the resurrection that the Thessalonians had not known
before, This means that they did not know about a catching up
into the
air of the Church at the Lord's coming, but only knew the Lord was
coming and a resurrection of some sort would occur. To hear
Paul write
of the dead in Christ rising and being caught up into the air before
the living saints were caught up was a new revelation to them,
informing them that they need not sorrow as though the dead
saints had
no hope!
Again, Paul's actual information regarded this point:
1
Thessalonians 4:13 KJV (13) But
I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which
are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
Paul was telling them they had no need of sorrowing over their departed
loved ones in Christ. The reason for this was the information
Paul
then spoke in this next verse:
1
Thessalonians 4:14 KJV (14)
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also
which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
They would not have to sorrow over the dead saints in Christ because
God would bring them with Him. How would
God bring them with Him?
Paul went on to explain:
1
Thessalonians 4:15-16 KJV
(15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that
we which
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them
which are asleep. (16) For the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of
God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
The Lord would bring the dead saints with Him, because the dead would
resurrect to life again! The time of the Lord's coming would not see
the living saints meet the Lord in the air before the dead in Christ
arise to meet Him. The original issue was not actually the
Lord's
coming. It was sorrow for the dead in Christ. The
issue was something to do with having no hope for the dead
saints whatsoever. It
was not whether or not the Lord had come. It was whether or
not the
dead saints have perished with no hope of a resurrection!
Look at the Greek
language and use of suffixes to also
prove that there is indeed a physical resurrection to come, and there
was no mass resurrection of the church members of any kind in AD70.
In the study below,
I italicize the words in blue to indicate reference
material I researched from other sources to prove this point.
Several
years ago in a discussion contrasting Kingdom Eschatology from Full Preterism, I made this proposition:
Natural
is
ψυχικοìς
(psuchikos).
Spiritual
is
πνευματικοìς
(pneumatikos)
Greek
words that end in “inos” speak of compositional
material.
Greek
words that end in “ikos” speak of characteristics.
The term translated as SPIRITUAL in the King James version, in 1 Cor 15, is the Greek word PNEUMATIKOS. Some Full Preterists insist this demands us understand a non-physical nature of the concept of a "spiritual body". They do this from sheer assumption that SPIRITUAL means non-physical, and NATURAL means physical, and that is simply not the case. Those with whom I personally tried discussing this refused to so much as even consider the evidence I proposed that I include in this study below. They simply believed SPIRITUAL means NOT PHYSICAL, regardless. But the Greek suffix IKOS is sued to denote something about the term SPIRITUAL that is not speaking about compositional material whatsoever. This means that the "spiritual body" is not a spirit, but is the physical body that is
DRIVEN by Spirit for purposes of never dying and being eternity-related
and Holy Ghost-controlled, as opposed to animal appetites of our
present bodies.
1
Cor 15 is not speaking about physical vs. immaterial bodies.
1
Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
Perishable
vs. imperishable.
Weakness
vs. power (v. 43).
Dishonour
vs. glory (v. 43).
To
add to this information, the following information is provided by the
website
http://www.ffgreenville.org/notes/books/1co_2007/2007-10-28-1Cor-015-035.htm.
5)
It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body
a)
"Natural" (psychikos) means "that which pertains to the soul."
b)
"Spiritual" (pneumatikos) means "that which pertains to the spirit."
c)
Some have misunderstood Paul to be referring to a non-physical
resurrection body.
i)
However, when Paul referred to the "spiritual man" in 1 Cor
2:15,
he meant a human being empowered by the spirit of God not an immaterial
entity.
ii)
Adjectives of "material" tend to form in -inos; those which end in
-ikos indicate what something is "like", giving an ethical or dynamic
relation as opposed to a material one."
(a)
Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (ca. 90-20 BC) writes of a machine "moved by
wind (pneumatikos)."[4]
(b)
The adjective describes, not what something is composed of, but what it
is animated by.
We
have this evidence as well from http://worldofsven.co.uk/theology/postentry_34.php?w=theology_and_biblical_studies
Hebrew
thought however, psyche is just as subject to corruption as
the sarx in their natural states[19]. Indeed Paul uses both psychikos
and sarkikos indifferently to mean “natural”[20] in
his language about
the make-up of humanity. Sōma on the other hand is used to refer to the
“whole psycho-physical unity”, and embraces both
the psyche and the
sarx. Thus it follows that a resurrection sōma is not compatible with
the dualistic thought of the day, and that it embraces the whole nature
of a person, not just their immortal soul[21].
2.3
Psychikon and Pneumatikon – natural and spiritual bodies
contrasted
In
15:44-49, Paul stresses the difference between the natural body and
the spiritual one[31]. In English, the terms
‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’
sound like antitheses, and lend themselves easily to dualistic thought.
The Corinthians may similarly have had the understanding that the
natural and spiritual bodies were antitheses, and given the dualistic
thought in the Corinthian mindset, it seems unlikely that they would
have not considered that the destination of a pneumatikos was to be
raised to new bodily life[Wright, N T The Resurrection Of The Son Of
God (London: SPCK, 2003)]
The
context of the verses should help clarify the differences between
the two terms. Psychikos and pneumatikos are placed in contrast to each
other in precisely the same way as the perishable/imperishable,
dishonor/glory and weakness/power are. As we have already seen, these
contrasting differences highlight the transformation that the body will
undergo at resurrection. They
are not contrasts in the matter-spirit mould of Platonism, but rather
they are eschatological contrasts. Fee
suggests that psychikos suggests a body in the present age, subject to
decay, humiliation and weakness,[Fee, G D NICNT: The First Epistle to
the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 1987)] whereas the
pneumatikos body is “the new body, animated by the Spirit of
God, with
which the same man will be equipped in the age to come.”[34]
Having
established that psychikon and pneumatikon are not eternally opposite,
but describe two eschatological phases in humanity.
Also
from
Pearson, B A, The
Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology In 1 Corinthians
(Missoula: Scholars’ Press,1968) p15
Greek
thought held that the material, the bodily and the corporeal were
bad and must be destroyed (Cullmann, O Immortality Of The Soul Or The
Resurrection Of The Dead? (London: Epworth Press, 1958) p26). The body
was in sharp contrast to the realm of the soul, which was immortal,
and was released from the body at the point of death. As T W Manson
summarises:
“[In
Greek thought] Man is essentially a soul attached to, even
imprisoned in, a body. That soul is akin to God and, when set free from
its bodily prison-house […] can achieve its natural divinity
or
immortality.” (Manson, T W The Bible and Personal Immortality
in
Duthie, C S Resurrection and Immortality (London: Samuel Bagster
&
Sons Ltd., 1979) p38)
The
dead then, are those who have superseded mundane physicality, and
for whom the body had no further relevance. The superiority of the
spirit or soul to the body was demonstrated in the behaviour of the
Corinthians, who engaged in both licentious the case, then the
Corinthians would have understood salvation as being some kind of
spiritual escape from their dead bodies, not a resurrection of it. This
causes soteriological difficulties, because the body is omitted from
the salvific process and ultimately death would still prevail, far from
being completely swallowed up in victory. As Paul makes clear, this is
unthinkable for those whose faith is based on the historical reality of
the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As he was raised, so they too
shall be raised, and there is no room for a soteriological split
between body and spirit. Both are saved, and one is not to be
emphasised at the expense of the other. This of course highlights the
radical differences between the Greek thought of the Corinthians and
the Jewish thought of Paul. C K Barrett notes that “Greek
intellectuals
developed the notion of immortality; Jewish mystics and apocalyptists
looked for the resurrection of dead bodies.” This is the
cultural and
religious gap in
thinking
that Paul has to bridge.
As
shall become clear shortly, it is particularly the bodily aspect of
the resurrection that Paul has to deal with, and so it shall be
necessary to examine his understanding as to precisely what he meant by
‘body’. Paul uses the word sōma to refer to the
body, though sōma means
more than just the physical body. The sōma contains the psyche and
sarx, with psyche referring to the mind or soul and sarx to the
natural, fleshly
part of the body. In Platonic thought, the psyche paralleled
closely with the divine nature, over and against the lowly sarx. In
Hebrew thought however, psyche is just as subject to corruption as the
sarx in their natural states. Indeed Paul uses both psychikos and
sarkikos indifferently to mean “natural” in his
language about the
make-up of humanity. Sōma on the other hand is used to refer to the
“whole psycho-physical
unity”, and embraces both the psyche and the sarx. Thus it
follows that a resurrection sōma is not compatible with the dualistic
thought of the day, and that it embraces the whole nature of a person,
not just their immortal soul.
...
Having
laid a Christological foundation, Paul then answers some of the
Corinthian objections to the doctrine of bodily resurrection. He
anticipates them in 15:35: “But someone will ask,
“How are the dead
raised? With what kind of body do they come?” Paul uses the
example of
a seed buried in the soil that dies and in time yields a full- grown
plant. This helps give clarity to Pauline resurrection thought by
introducing the concept of continuity and discontinuity is the
resurrection body. In the illustration, it is the same seed that dies
and is turned into a plant, just as God wills. The lesson to be drawn
from this is that resurrection is similarly a miraculous event brought
about as God wills it, just as God causes the crops to grow, but that
the divide between a natural body and a resurrection one is not a
divide between the physical and the immortal soul, but an
eschatological one between the current natural
‘seed’ and the
resurrection ‘wheat’ that God will bring about in
due time. The
resurrection body is not simply a ‘resuscitation’,
or a dug-up seed,
but a new creation brought about by God and in keeping with the
Christological parallel.
...
That
pneumatikos derives from the root word pneuma suggests that the
resurrection body will go beyond the ‘physical life
principle’ of Adam,
and instead will be animated and constituted by the Spirit of God.
Paul’s concern in this passage is not to answer ontological
curiosities
but to assert the reality and importance of the resurrection body, and
its superiority over the psychikos body of Adam. The –ikos
endings of
psychikos-pneumatikos terminology denote that the words have ethical or
functional meanings rather than referring to the substance of which
something is composed, and so will have implications for praxis and
hope now, rather than simply establishing a resurrection theology
without context.
And
then there is this evidence:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html
"Paul
could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual
body'." Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial,
or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may
find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of
substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a
tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig
prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek
terminology:
152.
pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e.
(humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit
(concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate,
religious:--spiritual.
Harris
points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a
functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. (Wright [351n] adds that
adjectives of material end in -inos.) Consider there sample verses
where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to
something immaterial:
Rom. 1:11
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to
make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some
"luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)
Gal. 6:1
Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should
restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is
Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance"
or are immaterial?)
And
Wright adds these classical uses, showing that the word is used not
for what something is made of, but what it is "animated by": Aristotle
speaks of wombs "swollen with air" (hysterai pnumatikai) and Vitruvius
refers to a machine "moved by wind" (pneumatikon organon). The point,
then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was
dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit.
"Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a
status of existence.
Carrier
[129] attempts to get around this difficulty by claiming that
the distinction between -inos and -ikos is "not so clear-cut" as, he
says, "Wright admits" (though in fact, Wright is not so firm as that;
he does say it is "dangerous to generalize in so widespread and
pluriform a language as Koine Greek" yet the distinction remains
"generally true"; Carrier also ignores Wright's point that Paul was
perfectly capable of coining a word like psychinos if needed) and while
he gives us an alleged set of examples of words with dual meanings, he
does not offer specific citations as to where they appear. He would
further need to show that these examples were not potential cases of
scribal error or poor spelling/usage, or occurred often enough to make
this suggestion unlikely.
Pushback:
But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his
earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit?
Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn
between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And
to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised"
is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...
Here
our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul
"imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and
directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul,
teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a
woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The
post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to
weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel
between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the
believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body:
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being
in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be
grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law
was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God
did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin
offering." - Rom. 8:3.
The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the
RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit -
or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in
either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea
that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the
idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit
on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!
Wright
(Resurrection of the Son of God, 315) adds the pertinent point
that as it happens, the pagan philosophers of the day DID hold a
"Mormon" view of spirit as "composed of material, albeit in finer
particles." Thus indeed if Paul was teaching the sort of "spirit body"
resurrection supposed, "his argument would be unnecessary, since many
people in Corinth believed in that anyway." A "spiritual rez" thesis
makes 1 Cor. 15
an argument for something that the Corinthians would have already
believed in!
Spiritual
(4152) (pneumatikos from pneuma = spirit + -ikos = speaks of
the willingness to do that which the spirit stands for. -Ikos means
adapted to or fitted for the spirit. It conveys idea of pertaining to
the spirit or with the characteristics of the Spirit) relates to the
human spirit, as the part of man which is akin to God and serves as his
instrument or organ. It refers to that which belongs to the
supernatural world as distinguished from what belongs to the natural
world.
Here
are the 26 uses of pneumatikos in the NT - Rom. 1:11;
7:14; 15:27; 1 Co. 2:13, 15; 3:1; 9:11; 10:3f; 12:1; 14:1, 37; 15:44,
46; Gal. 6:1;
Eph. 1:3;
5:19; 6:12; Col. 1:9;
3:16; 1 Pet.
2:5
Another
website reads:
Paul
employs shock therapy against these pneumatics: "It is sown a
natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural
body, there is also a spiritual body" (1 Cor.
15:44).
His point appears to be that not only should they not denigrate the
present material order (which they have done, chs. 6-7), but he informs
them that they will be resurrected in a "spiritual body" in the
eschatological order! And here is where the hyper-preterist's
theological naiveté causes him to stumble so badly.
Hyper-preterists
believe Paul's reference to the "spiritual body" speaks of the
substance of the body, its compositional makeup. Consequently, they are
emboldened to employ this verse for discounting a physical
resurrection. Of course, this is as wrong-headed as to say a Coca-Cola
bottle is made of Coca-Cola. Note the following evidences supporting
the orthodox approach to Paul's argument (to name but a few):
This
"spiritual (pneumatikos) body" is no more immaterial than the
"natural (psuchikos) body," even though both "spirit" (pneuma) and
"soul" (psuche) often refer to the immaterial element within the
creature. Here Paul uses these (usually spiritual) terms to describe
the body, and we know that our present natural (psuchikos) body is
material. In 1
Corinthians 2:14
these adjectives distinguish the believer and the unbeliever. Rather
than distinguishing their body materials, the terms focus on their
driving forces: spiritual (Holy Spirit driven) concerns over against
animal appetites.
To
Paul, the semantic domain for pneuma overwhelmingly means "pertaining
to the Holy Spirit" (e.g., 1 Cor.
2:13;
3:1; 12:1; Rom. 1:11;
Eph. 1:3;
5:19). That is, it means governed by the Spirit of God. The adjectives
psuchikos and pneumatikos describe, therefore, the essential governing
characteristic of each body: the present, unresurrected, fallen body
over against the future, resurrected, redeemed body. That is, they
speak of the earth-related, animal-appetite-controlled condition of the
present order (the totality of man in his earthly estate) over against
the eternity-related, Holy Spirit-controlled condition of the
resurrected estate (the totality of man in his eternal estate). The
glory of the eschatological state entered into by the eschatological
resurrection involves the full dominance of the Holy Spirit and all
that that entails (including the body's imperishable condition and its
moral control). And contextually, Paul designs his response to confront
the prideful Corinthian pneumatics who think they have arrived at full
spiritual glory. (Later Paul notes that the natural is first, not the
spiritual, showing that the Corinthians must first live out their
present lives before attaining the fullness of the Spirit, v. 46).
Paul's
parallels and contrasts show that his concern is not physical
over immaterial, but perishable over imperishable (v. 42), dishonor
over honor (v. 43a), and weakness over power (v. 43b). Our resurrected
condition is so governed by the Holy Spirit that the weaknesses of our
present condition will be totally overcome by the transformational
power of the Spirit. Indeed, he emphasizes the difference of glory as
the key (vv. 40-41).
According
to scholars such as A. T. Robertson, adjectives ending in
-inos generally denote compositional material, whereas those ending
with -ikos signify characteristics. This fits the flow of Paul's
argument regarding the "natural"(psuchikos) and the "spiritual"
(pneumatikos) body as I have presented it — and it supports
the
historic faith of the church regarding the resurrection.
Once
again, Paul brings in the parallel between Adam and Christ as
illustrating the differing circumstances of our estates (vv. 45-48). In
verse 45 he applies Genesis
2:7
in light of his resurrection argument, contrasting the Adamic condition
(the first Adam) with the resurrected Christ (the second Adam). (He
cites the LXX: "the man became a living [psuchen] soul.") Adam's body
was a psuchen body subject to animal weaknesses (hunger, death, and so
forth, Gen. 1:29;
2:17). Once again we have the distinction between the psuche (soul) and
pneuma (spirit): But we know that Adam was not immaterial, nor was
Christ in His resurrection. The idea here is that just as Adam is the
source of our perishable bodies as the "first Adam," so Christ is the
source of our Spirit-powered bodies as the "last Adam" (the man of the
last estate or condition of the redeemed). Thus, Paul is drawing the
parallel between the two material bodies and their consequent
conditions (cp. v. 22), then noting the superiority of the consummate
state represented in Christ's resurrection condition.
And
information is also supplied from:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12232
as
follows
1.
Nowhere does it say we get a different body and leave this one
behind. Also let us see the specific terms in question. For example
Paul says the body is sown in a natural body it is sown in a spiritual
body. Is what Paul talking about here different bodies? Not really.
Here is why. The words that are used is for natural (psychikos) and
spiritual (pneumatikos). But if you look in 1 Cor
2:14-15
“But a natural (psychikos) man does not accept the thing of
the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual
(pneumatikos) appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no
one. Here Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual man, ie one who is
led by his soulish, or fleshly desires to a Christian who is led by the
Holy Spirit. These same words are used in the dying seed analogy as
well. So Paul's point is that concerning our future
bodies, it will
not have a sinful nature/appetites but raised with holy spiritual ones.
2.
In Philippians 3:20-21 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from
which
we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will
transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body,
according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things
to Himself. Notice that in the resurrection, our bodies are not left
behind but transformed. And notice also, our transformed body will be
like His glorious body.
3.
In Romans
8:11
“But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead
dwells in you,
He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal
bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
4.
Colossians
2:9
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Notice the
present tense. Paul is saying that the Godhead presently dwells in
Jesus' body.
5.
In 1 Cor
15:3-5,
after mentioning the death of Jesus, Paul using a creed says
“and that
he was buried and that he was raised. This implies that what was
buried is what was raised. The same thing occurs in v 42-44
“it is
sown¦it is raised¦It is sown¦It is
raised¦. Again what goes down in
burial is raised in resurrection. All the time talking about the same
body.
N.T.
Wright wrote a book entitled Resurrection
Thinking. In
it he
said:
'Spiritual'
doesn't mean 'non-physical'
The
second reason why this is difficult comes in v44, where the NIV RSV
and NRSV make the same mistake in translating 'It is sown a natural
body, it is raised a spiritual body'. (If you want to get inside Paul,
use almost any translation other than the NIV especially in Romans and
Galatians.) The problem is that many writers, teachers and theologians
of the last generation have argued that if it's a spiritual body it
must be a non-physical body. I Cor 15
is the earliest piece of writing we've got about the resurrection (Paul
is writing within 25 years or so whereas the gospels are written down
later). Later they had these rather physical stories about Jesus eating
broiled fish and breaking bread. But (the argument runs) the earliest
Christian belief did not necessitate an empty tomb, because it's just a
spiritual body- therefore it's not physical.
Our
culture is still so soaked in Platonism that we assume 'spiritual'
means 'non-physical' - it has left behind this world of shadows and
illusions, and things you can touch and see and put into test tubes,
and it's gone into the realm of pure spirit. That's not what Paul is
saying. The two adjectives he uses, here translated 'natural' and
'spiritual', are psychikos and pneumatikos. Psychikos actually means
'soulish', in other words it is 'natural' in the sense that this is the
ordinary human life. It certainly doesn't mean 'physical' as opposed to
'spiritual', which is what the RSV says.
Not
what it's made of, but what it's animated by
Now
for a fact of Greek grammar. These adjectives are the type ending
in -ikos, which tell you not what something is made of but what it is
animated by. To ask 'Is the boat you bought last week a sailboat or a
motorboat?' is asking what's driving this boat, what it is animated by
- as opposed to asking whether it is made of fibreglass or wood. These
adjectives are not telling you what the new body is made of, but what
is animating it. Paul's point is this: the body we currently have,
which is decaying and will die, is presently animated by what we can
loosely call the psyche, the life, the soul, the inner person that we
currently are. But the new body will be animated by pneuma, by God's
Spirit: as Paul says clearly in Romans
8:11,
'If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
then the one who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to
your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells within you.'
Resurrection
means bodies
In
other words, the gift of the Holy Spirit in the present is the
guarantee of our resurrection in the future. There's the continuity.
Yes, Paul says it's a spiritual body - it's a transformed body animated
and driven by the Spirit - yet it is still physical, and if it wasn't,
nobody in the ancient world would ever have used the word
'resurrection' to describe what was going on. Resurrection meant
bodies, that's just the way it was and is. So this generates a
worldview which is frustratingly different from the one that many
Christians implicitly slide into, where the question is simply 'How do
you get to go to heaven when you die?' So they find in Matthew's gospel
(which they read when they open the New Testament) 'Do this and that
and the other so that you may enter the kingdom of heaven', and they
assume that this means going to a place called heaven which is the
place where God's people live with him after they die. It's not what
that means at all. We are called to pray that the kingdom of heaven
(which is a periphrasis for the kingdom of God in the New Testament)
will come on earth as it is in heaven.
http://www.eureca-online.org/en/arti...htArticle.html
Now
for a fact of Greek grammar. These adjectives are the type
ending in -ikos, which tell you not what something is made of but what
it is animated by. To ask 'Is the boat you bought last week a sailboat
or a motorboat?' is asking what's driving this boat, what it is
animated by - as opposed to asking whether it is made of fibreglass or
wood. These adjectives are not telling you what the new body is made
of, but what is animating it. Paul's point is this: the body we
currently have, which is decaying and will die, is presently animated
by what we can loosely call the psyche, the life, the soul, the inner
person that we currently are. But the new body will be animated by
pneuma, by God's Spirit: as Paul says clearly in Romans
8:11,
'If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
then the one who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to
your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells within you.'
Resurrection
means bodies
In
other words, the gift of the Holy Spirit in the present is the
guarantee of our resurrection in the future. There's the continuity.
Yes, Paul says it's a spiritual body - it's a transformed body animated
and driven by the Spirit - yet it is still physical, and if it wasn't,
nobody in the ancient world would ever have used the word
'resurrection' to describe what was going on. Resurrection meant
bodies, that's just the way it was and is. So this generates a
worldview which is frustratingly different from the one that many
Christians implicitly slide into, where the question is simply 'How do
you get to go to heaven when you die?' So they find in Matthew's gospel
(which they read when they open the New Testament) 'Do this and that
and the other so that you may enter the kingdom of heaven', and they
assume that this means going to a place called heaven which is the
place where God's people live with him after they die. It's not what
that means at all. We are called to pray that the kingdom of heaven
(which is a periphrasis for the kingdom of God in the New Testament)
will come on earth as it is in heaven.
See:
http://www.eureca-online.org/en/articles/TomWrightArticle.html
It
is incredibly enlightening to notice that the Greek word used in 1 Cor
15 to describe a spiritual body, PNEUMATIKOS, was used
to speak about a machine controlled
by WIND in the writings of Marcus
Vitruvius Pollio (ca. 90-20 BC).
Notice the term PNEUMA term is Greek for AIR or SPIRIT or
WIND.
Putting IKOS on the end of this word that describes a machine operated
by wind in Marcus
Vitruvius Pollio's writings. This
is
obviously informing us as to what DRIVES the machine, and
not what the machine is made of. It is not made of WIND. It is DRIVEN
by wind. So it is with the Spiritual body. It is
not made of Spirit, and hence non-physical, but is driven or motivated
by Spirit. This means it is simply a supernatural body.
Another
website offers more evidence:
The
Greek words for “natural” and
“spiritual” here are psuchikos and pneumatikos,
respectively, the same words used in 1
Corinthians 15
when talking about the present natural body and the future spiritual
body. Notice that the Apostle Paul is talking about living people in 1
Corinthians 2.
What is the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man?
Is one physical, and the other immaterial? This is clearly not what is
meant. But if this is so, why should we assume that
“spiritual” means
“immaterial” when it comes to the resurrection?
The
contrast in 1
Corinthians 15
is not one of physical and immaterial. It is one of
“mortal” and
“immortal.” “Corrupt” and
“incorruptible.” Spirituality is about being
right relation with your creator, not about being made of different
stuff.
The
above is from
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/a-non-material-body/
More
proof that SPIRITUAL does not mean non-physical, but rather
non-naturally-driven, or non-naturally-natured:
1
Corinthians 2:15 KJV But he
that is spiritual
judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
When
a person is called "spiritual" does that mean that person is not
physical? Do we need a GHOST to restore someone?
1
Corinthians 10:3-4 KJV (3) And
did all eat the same spiritual
meat;
(4) And did all drink the same spiritual
drink:
for they drank of that spiritual
Rock
that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Was
the spiritual meat and drink non-physical meat and
non-physical drink? Of course not. It was not called spiritual because
it was not physical, but rather because it was no supplied naturally,
and was also a foreshadow giving a message about something quite
spiritual to come -- Christ. Was Christ not physical? Of course not!
Galatians
6:1 KJV Brethren, if a man be
overtaken in a fault, ye
which are spiritual,
restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself,
lest thou also be tempted.
Does
this above verse mean only people who are not physical can restore
someone in a fault? Only ghosts?
Ephesians
5:19 KJV Speaking to yourselves
in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs,
singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Spiritual
songs. Are these somehow not physically sung or
are they more immaterial than a regular song? Think compositionally,
because full preterists believe spiritual means NOT COMPOSED OF
PHYSICAL MATTER.
Colossians
1:9 KJV
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray
for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of
his will in all wisdom and spiritual
understanding;
Is
this "understanding" that is somehow non-physically
composed as opposed to physically composed understanding? Can an
understanding even be physical like full preterists think a
non-spiritual body is physical?
These
are some of the uses of the Greek word translated as SPIRITUAL
which show the term CANNOT be used to describe something as not being
composed of physical matter as full preterists assume it means.
The
rest of the bible, aside from 1 Cor 15 and
1 Cor 2,
makes mention of spiritual and natural in several places, and indicates
the idea that SPIRITUAL does not mean NON-PHYSICAL, but
non-naturally-motivated or driven.
The
following passage shows the actual meaning of the term SPIRITUAL as it
is top be understood when applying it to a body.
Romans
8:1-7 KJV
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (2) For the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the
law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was
weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they
that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
but they
that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
(6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for
it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
A
mind that is "after the flesh" is a fleshly mind. It is
not a physical mind as though you can pick up this mind like a physical
object, as opposed to a spiritual mind that is immaterial. A spiritual
mind is just what is written above -- a mind that thinks after
the things of the Spirit.
Full preterism's argument of what a spiritual body is and is not in 1 Cor 15
goes against their very own understandings of what a SPIRITUAL MIND is
in 1 Cor 2 and
Romans 8.
They all know a mind cannot be material or immaterial. A mind or
thought or understanding is always incorporeal. But if the full
preterists were correct about SPIRITUAL meaning NOT PHYSICAL, they are
forced to apply the same definition to the thought of a SPIRITUAL MIND
or SPIRITUAL MAN.
As Romans 8
shows us, a spiritual mind is simply a mind that is motivated and
dwells upon things of the Spirit. A spiritual body is a physical mind
that is likewise motivated or empowered by the Spirit. As much as a
spiritual mind and a natural mind are both intangible, the spiritual
body and natural body are tangible. As far as composition of matter is
concerned, the Greek linguistic contrast between the two is not
speaking of matter versus non-matter. As a spiritual and natural mind
are not contrasted from each other by what compositionally makes them
up, a spiritual and natural body are not contrasted by what
compositionally makes them up. You do
not need to know the Greek language in order to see that.
All
that a person needs to know about the Greek is that the same GREEK
WORD translated as "SPIRITUAL" when describing a body is the same Greek
word Translated as "SPIRITUAL" when used to describe a mind in 1 Cor 2.
And after noticing that a "spiritual" mind is not a mind that is
immaterial and non-physical in contrast to a physically composed
"natural" mind, the same rule is applied to the issue of bodies. The
issue of spiritual versus natural bodies is not saying anything about
an immaterial body versus a physical one.
That
is called common sense.