Paul’s Desire to Depart and to be with Christ
June 26th, 2010 by Ron S.
Going way WAY back into some old-school literature this week with a pamphlet that is 65 YEARS OLD! This one-time radio sermon was broadcast just a few months after the close of World War II in November of 1945! I thought I would bring this sermon tract into the digital age and give it new life as it is a great explanation of how Paul’s famous expression is NOT a support for the immortal soul belief - but is instead a Resurrection truth like all of Paul’s other writings.
Enjoy!
PAUL’S DESIRE TO DEPART AND TO BE WITH CHRIST
by
VICTOR L. HARRISON
Radio Pastor and Evangelist
Program of “The Advent Christian Church of the Air”
Station WAYS, Charlotte, N. C.
November 24, 1945
The Scriptures to be considered are Phil. 1:20-23.
“According to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed; but with all confidence, as at all times, also now Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. “Therefore, for me to live is for Christ, and to die again. But if to live in the flesh, this is to me a fruit of labor; and what I should choose I do not exactly know. I am indeed hard pressed by the two things (I have an earnest desire for the returning, and being with Christ since it is very much to be preferred”) (Emphatic Diaglott Translation).
This is a good word for word translation of the original Greek text. Now let me give you the King James translation of the last verse, the 23rd verse, and notice the difference: “For I am in a sad straights betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better.”
In this translation we get the idea that Paul desired to DEPART and be with Christ, while in the other translation we are told that he “had an earnest desiring for the R E T U R N I N G, and being with Christ.” This brings the text into perfect harmony with all the rest of the great Apostle’s teaching concerning the time and manner of his departure to be with Christ.
From the King James translation one may infer that Paul would depart at death as a “disembodied spirit,” or an “immortal soul,” to be with Christ, and that he desired thus to depart.
But when we compare this translation with other translations, and consider the three texts together (Phil. 1:20-23), and compare them in the light of and in harmony with the rest of the great Apostle’s teaching, we will understand that Paul is telling the Philippians that, “For me to live will be gain to the cause of Christ; for Christ will, at all events, be magnified in my body, whether by my life or by my death. And for me to die is gain to the cause of Christ, for Christ will be magnified in my body, whether I die or whether I live. But there is a THIRD thing that I desire and this third thing I desire most of all more than living in this present mortal state, more than dying to sleep the sleep of death - it is for the RETURNING of our blessed Redeemer to deliver us from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.’” “When this corruption shall be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal shall be clothed with immortality,” when “our vile bodies shall be changed and fashioned like unto His Glorious Body” (Rom. 8:21; 1 Cor. 15-51-58; Phil. 3:20, 21).
If theologians would throw away their untenable, un-scriptural doctrines and theories of the “double or triple entity of man” and believe (as the Bible teaches) that Paul spoke of himself as an inseparable unit, and that only AT the Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection could he hope to depart and to be with Christ, they would at once become disentangled from their otherwise inextricable difficulties, and the way might be opened for the glorious doctrine of LIFE ONLY IN CHRIST.
In this same Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 3, verses 20-21, Paul says: “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” So we see in this Epistle, as in all the others, he points out to the coming of Christ as the time when he expected to be with Christ. In the tenth verse of the same chapter he points the Philippians to “the day of Christ” as the time when he prayed that they might be found “without offense” and receive their reward. To the sorrowing Thessalonians who mourned the loss of their loved ones and were troubled as to WHEN and HOW they would be reunited with them, he sends these words of comfort and hope: “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. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him (that is he will bring them again from the dead). 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 (or precede) them which are asleep. 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 (or before the living saints are caught up). hence 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 Thes. 4:13-18). Not one word is said about DEPARTING and being with Christ at death, or any time before his second coming and the resurrection.
Then, if we turn to 2 Cor. 5:5-10, we find that Paul uses the term body in the sense of a person as at present constituted: as “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.” Paul was desirous that his connection with his corruptible nature might cease, “that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” God had given him the “earnest of the Spirit,” and he knew that “if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelt in him, He that raised up Christ from the dead could quicken (or re-enliven) his mortal body on account of His spirit that dwelt in him, and deliver him from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:11-25).
In 2 Cor. 5:2-4 he says: “For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven not for that would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” This present mortal corruptible state does not cease until the “author of life” or “the life giver” shall return.
“Our lives are now hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory”
(Col. 3:3, 4).
“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the Sons of God . . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:19-25).
Then when we turn to the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians we find that Paul’s only hope of life beyond death, his only hope of ever being with Christ, WAS CENTERED IN THE RESURRECTION AT THE SECOND COMING OF HIS SAVIOUR.
In verses 12-18 he declares solemnly and emphatically that “if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. And if Christ be not raised, your faith ìs vain; ye are yet in your sins. ‘Then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”
According to Paul, the only basis or foundation upon which the hope of the church can rest is IN CHRIST AND THE RESURRECTION
Then he closes this great chapter by revealing the great mystery-H0W THE DEAD AND LIVING SAINTS ARE TO BE CHANGED, AND MADE LIKE THEIR RISEN LIVING SAVIOUR.
“BEHOLD, I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written (over in Isa.), death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory? But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 15:51-58).
So we find that in writing to the Philippian Church, Paul was perplexed and hard pressed to decide which of the two things he would choose, LIFE OR DEATH. For in either case it would be a gain to the cause of Christ. If he lived on, he would go on preaching Christ and His Gospel, establishing churches, etc., and this would be GAIN to the cause of Christ. If he died, if he gave his life for the cause of Christ, if he suffered marytrdom (as indeed he did finally), this would also be GAIN to the cause of Christ for his work and the cause for which he would die would live on and on, as indeed it has.
But there was a THIRD thing that he possessed an earnest desire for and this THIRD thing was far better than life (in the present mortal state), far better than death (the unconscious sleep of death) – IT WAS FOR THE “RETURNING AND BEING WITH CHRIST,” WHICH WAS FAR BETTER THAN EITHER LIFE OR DEATH.
It was on the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead that the great Apostle rested his hope of immortality and of being with Christ in His kingdom. “When this corruptible will put on incorruption, and this mortal will put on immortality.” When “death shall be swallowed up in victory.” When “our vile bodies shall be changed and fashioned like unto the glorious body of our Lord.”
It was this light of resurrection hope that shined so brightly “through the valley of the shadow of death” when he said: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me AT THAT DAY: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6-10).
Dear listener, do you have this “Blessed Hope?” Can you say with Paul “there is laid up for ME a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day?” If not, will you turn to Jesus in repentance and faith, that you may be washed in his blood, saved by his grace, and be ready for translation when he comes?
Goodbye and God bless you till we meet again. AMEN.
Paul departed from this earth by the spirit of God which was in him.
It was that eternal life that gave him his hope in Christ, a thing that was lively and brought him into the presence of Christ immediately upon the death of his mortal body.
This was not the resurrection which is yet to come.
He is now a part of the great assembly of the saints of God in heaven. We who have receive the same hope of God have the same future glory waiting for us if we hold that assurance we have of God firm to the end.
Indeed, when we die this present earthly (mortal) body is “destroyed” (v. 1). That in itself is not what Paul desires. That condition is likened to being unclothed” and “naked” (having nothing). To the contrary, Paul desires the opposite of “unclothed ” and “naked” (literally dead!). He desires to be “clothed”, dressed up, so to speak, in our “heavenly dwelling”.
http://www.focusonthekingdomagazine.com/2010/06/absent-from-body.html
Ray,
The Apostle Paul is not currently alive in heaven nor are any of the “saints”. They will not be conscious, alive, beings until they are physically resurrected AT the return of Christ. That is the point of the whole tract/article.
Did you miss this part?
God ALONE has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16) and the only human being ever to receive it from God was Jesus (as the first fruits of them that sleep – 1 Cor. 15:20) then those that belong to Christ will gain eternal life AT his 2nd coming (1 Cor. 15:23).
Not only did the apostle Paul hope for the resurrection of his body,
one of his other hopes was that upon his departure from this earth he would be in the presence of the Lord. Both of these were very real to him. I trust he received the one and is waiting for the other.
I read this verse today from Acts 8.
Acts 8:33
In his humilation his judgement was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
So I ask these questions:
1. Where did the Lord’s judgement go? (for Acts 8:33 says that it was taken away)
I trust that his judgment was in heaven, for on this earth it was taken away.
2. Where did the Lord’s life go?
I trust it went into heaven to be with the Father. Isn’t the soul of Jesus a life giving spirit? He certainly gave us life through the sacrifice of it. His soul and the spirit of God were as one were they not? Don’t we have such benefits of having our souls in Christ because of the new birth? Are not our souls also connected with the spirit of God in similar manner because of Jesus?
I trust that Paul maintained a strong soul connection with the spirit of God that was given to him by faith in Christ Jesus and that by it
he came into the presence of God upon his departure from this earth, though the resurrection of the dead is still future.
Hi Ron S.,
you mention above
what do you mean with physically resurrectedy? Are you proposing that the resurrected body is a physical body?
Cp. 1Co 15 … where the bodies we now have are described as “physical” and the body a person will have after the resurrection is said to be a “spiritual” body. Would the contrast in this description given by Paul not rather be indicative of the resurrected person NOT being “physically” resurrected and having a “physical” body?
In 2Co 5, Paul further compares the “earthly house of this tabernacle” (our current body) with “building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” and “house which is from heaven” (the clothing after the resurrection) … now, are heavenly things “physical” in nature or spiritual ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Ray,
You’ve been coming to this site for a long time, yet you seem to refuse to accept the true Scriptural view of death and eternal life. We don’t have a “soul”. We ARE a soul. The soul is not some immaterial, immortal center of human consciousness. That type of belief comes from Greek philosophy – NOT the Hebrew Scriptures.
Where does Paul EVER say he would be leaving this EARTH? You’re reading your own immortal soul misconceptions into Paul. Yes Paul’s preaching centered on the fact that he did indeed expect to be with Jesus the next moment after his death. But you are mistaken on the timing of it. The instant aspect of “being with Christ” would be the very next moment after death TO HIM because the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly say that the dead “know nothing” and that they are “asleep”. Paul knew this and also knew that Jesus would wake him from death when he returned and when he would be resurrected to eternal life. And from Paul’s viewpoint that would be an instant to him. Everyone who dies is like that. They are “off” until at The Resurrection they are turned back “on”. The very next moment of consciousness will be “waking up” at the resurrection.
Ray let’s now answer your questions about Acts 8. This is the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch. The verse (33) you listed is a quote of Isaiah 53:8 – what the Eunuch was reading. Phillip told him it was about Jesus. Jesus’ judgment wasn’t “taken away” as in taken off somewhere literally – transferred to another place physically. That doesn’t make any sense. No, the meaning is that he was DENIED JUSTICE. Jesus was sinless. He didn’t deserve crucifixion. They put him to death UN-justly. The NIV shows this by translating it “he was DEPRIVED of justice”.
Now “Where did the Lord’s life go?” is a question that is more open ended. If you’re talking about God’s animating Spirit that is inside all living things and departs at death/ruin, then that did go to God – as we’re told in Eccl 12:7. But if you’re talking about Jesus’ consciousness, then that was gone, “off” for the three days that Jesus was dead. That’s what Biblical death is – no consciousness, no activity, nothing.
Jesus didn’t come into the actual presence of God until his ascension into heaven (now sitting at the right hand of God). Paul won’t be in either of their presence until he is called forth from his tomb at Jesus 2nd coming (John 5:28, 1 Cor 15:23).
Wolfgang,
Um…Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection.
Luke 24:39:
“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Don’t you think that’s pretty good evidence?
Hi Ron S.,
now, the physical body Jesus had after his resurrection, was that his new resurrection glorious spiritual body, or was that his old physical body (which had not corrupted in the grave, note the various references in Scripture to this special situation !) in the state just prior to his death in which “he showed himself” at various times during the time after his resurrection and prior to his ascension (cp. the mention of the wounds in his hands and his side) ??
If that indeed was his “resurrection spiritual body”, do you think that this precedence means that a person’s resurrection spiritual body will also be in the state just prior to their death? If not, why not? If that glorious resurrection body is to be a “perfect body”, how come the body in which Jesus’ appeared after his resurrection looked exactly like his body when he died?
As a matter of truth, consider further that Jesus only appeared after his resurrection in a physical body which resembled his former body at a few occasions … now, if his resurrection body was a physical body, where was he living during most of the time between the resurrection and his ascension, since apparently his disciples could or did not regularly “see him as a physical person”?
Considering the various truths mentioned concerning the resurrection of Jesus, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, the resurrection body, etc. … I would think that what you refer to is NOT “pretty good evidence !!
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
What are you saying here? Do you mean that Jesus had TWO different bodies after his resurrection? Are you proposing that nobody else will be that way? Either you’re being somewhat cryptic there in your reply, or I’m just not getting what you mean.
Ron S-.
I am not cryptic … just asking some questions which arise when one gives these points a bit of thought.
How would you answer those questions? What are the logical conclusions for other believers as regards your idea that all will have a physical resurrection body as you think Jesus’ had?
As far as Jesus after his resurrection, I believe he was raised with a glorious spiritual (NOT physical) body and that he (and he alone !) then “showed himself” (please note the wording used in Acts 1!) in his former body whereby he could and did indeed prove (because thereby he was able to identify himself to others .. cp the wounds in the situation with Thomas) himself to have been risen from the dead. Without showing himself in his former body, he could not have identified himself reliably to any witnesses as having been risen from the dead … in his glorious spiritual resurrection body, nobody could have seen and identified him. Now, that the resurrection from the dead has been proven to be a reality in the case of Jesus (cp Paul’s logical reasoning in the opening passage in 1Co 15 !), there is no need for anyone else to be “showing themselves in their physical body” after being raised from the dead … the reality of the resurrection of the dead has been proven beyond a doubt by what happened with the firstfruits Jesus.
All believers will indeed receive a “spiritual resurrection body” .. just as Jesus did ! BUT the physical body in which Jesus “showed himself” was NOT that spiritual resurrection body, but was the body in which he had lived prior with the wounds and appearance before his death … which was a one person (Jesus) only occurence for the purpose of providing proof for the reality of the resurrection of the dead.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Ron,
a further thought concerning the topic of “resurrection” …
Those who have learned that the Scriptures teach that God is One (and not Two, or Three or more) often wonder how trinitarians for example can come up with all those various “proof text” scriptures that supposedly support their “the One God is Three” idea …
And yet, when it comes to the topic of resurrection, they do exactly what trinitarians do … There is plain and straight forward scripture which teaches that the resurrection body is a SPIRITUAL body, and yet they insist with all kinds of supposed “proof texts” that the resurrection body will be a “PHYSICAL” body suited for life ON EARTH.
In either case, the problem is that those theologies plain contradict rather simple statements of truth in the Scriptures, but the proponents of such theologies find more or less fancy “get around the truth” interpretations of certain scriptures in order to maintain their theology.
Now, why would we want to insist on a physical resurrection and physical resurrection body, when we can read in rather simple terms in 1Co 15 that the resurrection body will be a SPIRITUAL body (in the context, obviously put in contrast to the physical earthly body we have now)? Would we not then also have to insist on the “trinity 3 person Godhead” interpretations being scriptural and refute the simple statements which teach that God is One (a 1 person God)?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I’ll let Ron handle the bulk of your arguments, but I just wanted to point out that the word “spiritual” does not necessarily mean “not physical.” Consider the following:
Ho 9:7 The days of visitation are come, the days of recompence are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.
Ro 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Ga 6:1 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.
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Mark C.,
ever heard the argument that “one” does not mean “not three” ? and then verses are given which supposedly speak about “a {composite} one” or who knows what else is in the mind of the trinitarian theologian ?
Just take 1Pe 2:5 from your above list …. do your really think that the “spiritual house [temple]” spoken of is a “physical house [temple]“? Do you really think that “spiritual sacrifices” are “physical sacrifices” ?
Sounds like the type of argument those who would think that “three” means “one” are using.
I, for one, do not think so …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
No, but it is referring to the Church, the Body of Christ, made up of people. The point of the Church is that we are corporeal beings in whom the spirit may dwell. Do you really think that the spiritual house is a non-corporeal entity? The point is that “spiritual” has more to do with its source than its make-up. Take a few of the other verses above:
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Ga 6:1 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.
Do you really think that a “spiritual man” is one that has no physical body?
Hi Mark C.,
your reply starts out with
The church is said to be a “spiritual house” … and it is NOT a physical house.
That we are corporeal beings in whom the spirit may dwell does NOT make the church of which we are members a “physical house”. It is rather simple …
As for your verses in 1Co 2:15, 14:37 and Gal 6:1, in NONE of these does “spiritual” mean “physical” or speak about something “physical”. The term “spiritual” describes in each case something that is “not physical” and also therefore “invisible” … or do you want to tell me that you think that an attitude or thinking is something “physical” that you actually can “see”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
1 Cor. 15:44–47…Paul’s contrast between “natural” and “spiritual” is a contrast between that which is temporally alive and that which has an eternal existence with God (cf. 2:14–3:3).
Starting from Gen. 2:7, Paul explains that God created Adam from the dust and animated him with breath. Christ, however, is the last Adam, and his resurrection gave him a spiritual and therefore imperishable body (cf. Phil. 3:21). By spiritual body Paul does not mean an immaterial body but a body animated and empowered by the Holy Spirit. ESV Study Bible
Xavier,
“temporal” and “eternal” are further aspects which relate as parallel to “physical” and “spiritual”, if you want to add some more, you can do so by including “earthly” and “heavenly” in your considerations.
The comment of the ESV follows the same line of “logic” as is also displayed when commenting on the “trinity” topic … (cp. my comments above re that topic)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
Your missing my point [and theirs], that the “eternal/spiritual” will likewise have a “physical” [bodily] and not “temporal” aspect to them.
Biblical commentaries are not wrong in all things you know.
Xavier,
I am certainly missing yours and their “point” …
But – far more important ! – is the point that one should keep “time” related matters (such as “temporal” / “eternal”) in their category and not mix them up or compare them to matters of a completely different category (such as “physical” / “spiritual”), thereby confusing the issue(s) at hand … such steps are similar to those taken by trinitarians who use plain scriptures to confuse what is taught there in order to “support” or “prove” their wrong theology.
To determine in which points biblical commentaries (or whatever other person or source) are correct or wrong, one needs to compare and determine by Scripture itself whether or not what is stated is in harmony with the Scriptures overall or if a certain theology is used as “base line” and scriptures are twisted to “prove” the “assumed theological position”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
by the way, how would you answer the questions I asked in my initial comments in this thread? Instead of deviating from the issue, why not address the scriptural points raised ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
I am simply addressing a point you made that I do not agree with. That the spiritual is in no way tied to the physical. That is a Gnostic idea.
Xavier,
you are making a point that I was not even talking about …. I did NOT write about whether or not or how “the spiritual IS TIED TO the physical” !! The plain truth remains that “spiritual” is NOT “physical”.
It’s just as simple as “three” is NOT “one” …. but, of course, plenty of people will argue the opposite by using ideas of how “three” and “one” might be TIED to each other …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
So Jesus was just a spirit when he came out of the tomb?
Xavier,
did I write something like that? I don’t think so ….
Again, you are deviating into what you perceive as “conclusions” or whatever of what you think follows from what I wrote …
How would you answer the questions I asked in my initial comments in this thread concerning the resurrection, resurrection body, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. in light of several scriptures, such as 1Co 15?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
oops … I had wanted to mention the following scriptures in regard to your question, but clicked on the “Submit comment” button a little too quickly
1Co 15:44 (KJV)
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
I trust, what is written here is plain, straight forward and sufficient “to tell the story”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
Yep, we will all still have some type of physcial body!
Xavier
to what are you referring with your “Yep, …” ? Seeing that none of what I wrote in the comment to which you replied was indicating what you are stating, you sound confusing with your reply ….
Is it like “Yep, there are Three but they are only One [God] …”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Let me try this once again. You are starting with the assumption that “spiritual” means “not physical” and then reading that into the verses in question. But that is not how the word is used Biblically.
In 1Co 2:15, it says, “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” It doesn’t say, “he who has a spiritual attitude” or “he that thinks spiritually.” It says, “he that IS spiritual.” This an example of the word “spiritual” describing someone and NOT meaning that he is not physical.
In 1Co 14:37, it says, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual…” Again, a person is described as “spiritual” and it does NOT mean “not physical.”
In Gal. 6:1, we have, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness…” Again people are described as “spiritual” and it has to do with certain QUALITIES as well as the SOURCE of such qualities, and the ORIENTATION of their thinking. It has NOTHING to do with being “not physical” or “non-corporeal.”
Do you see this? The word “spiritual” does NOT carry “non-corporeal” as part of its definition. Therefore, when I Cor. 15 speaks of a “spiritual body” it does not automatically mean a non-physical, or non-corporeal body.
MarK C.
Yep.
Mark C.,
you don’t seem to notice that the matter is just 180° opposite …
You wrongly interpret certain scriptures on the assumption that “spiritual” doesn’t mean what the term not only per definition but also in its biblical usage means. Thus you arrive at such “twisted” understandings of passages as you display above regarding those verses you quote.
Now, perhaps you could tell us how the term “spiritual” here describes a person? What physical aspect of the person is it that is “spiritual”? Can you see the “spiritual physical” of a person? How does the term “spiritual” here refer to something “physical”?
Or does the verse itself in its immediate context teach that the expression “is spiritual” in Paul’s statement is not describing any “physical” aspect of the person, but rather is referring to his attitude, his thinking pattern, his judging ability which are directed by, determined by (not physical, temporal, earthly) but spiritual (and thus, divine, heavenly) direction ?
Yes, the term “spiritual” is used in reference to a person … BUT what is it that is “spiritual” about the person? Is the person itself “a spirit”? Of course not … BUT, can you see “the spiritual” of that person because that “spiritual” is somehow in your opinion not “not physical”? NO … whatever the term “spiritual” refers to regarding the person is still “not physical” and as such also “invisible”.
Again, does the verse itself in its immediate context not already rather clearly state that the “spiritual” is in reference to the person’s thinking and attitude (cp If any man THINK himself to be a prophet or {think himself to be} spiritual ….”)?
It would be appropriate if you would carefully read the verses themselves, ponder what is stated and observe the immediate context more closely … The context will tell, how the term “spiritual” is used and what it describes and/or defines.
Btw, since you say that “spiritual, spirit, etc.” does not mean “not physical”, I suppose that God Himself (since He is said to be SPIRIT) is also a somehow “physical” Being?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I didn’t say that “spiritual, spirit, etc.” does not mean “not physical.” I only said that the adjective “spiritual” does not necessarily mean “not physical.” Of course a spirit being such as God or an angel are not physical.
Mark C.,
so you are claiming that sometimes “spiritual” may mean “physical” ?
The various scriptures in which the term “spiritual” is used, clearly use the word with the meaning of “not physical” (that is, what is described as “spiritual” is NOT physical, as well as invisible –> even aspects described as spiritual in reference to a person who of course has a physical body)
Cp. those scriptures you mentioned above … they prove exactly my point (and do NOT indicate that “spiritual” in those statements could mean “in some way physical” ..
As I mentioned before, such argumentation as you propose reminds me those folks who try to tell us that “one” does not always mean “not three”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
Paul states that Jesus became a “heavenly/spiritual” man at his resurrection [1Cor 15.42-49].
In this context both terms, spiritual/physical, seemed to be tied together. So why can’t they in your mind mean both unless you hold some type of Gnostic view when it comes to the physical versus the spiritual?
Wolfgang
If your interested to see our point, try reading Dunn’s section on the Pauline phrase translated “body” [soma] in his Theology of Paul, the Apostle, 3.5, pp55f. Free online, search Google Books.
It seems clear to me that Paul, upon his death went into the presence of God to be with Jesus and all the saints that are there.
Yet, Paul is dead in the sense that his earthly body became lifeless,
his brain knowing nothing, being as a dead man is.
Paul was not a natural man without the spirit of God. He was in Christ Jesus being apprehended of him, called to be his apostle,
and found to be abiding in him through faith in him, his soul being connected to the spirit of God through the mystery of Christ.
Paul can be referred to as a soul, as men sometimes are, even as men have souls which are meant to be occupied by God through
Christ Jesus.
He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. In heaven there is one and that one is a great mystery of God. The one new man in heaven is Jesus, in whom God dwells.
I do not believe Paul is waiting on earth to be raised again, but rather is in heaven with the Lord and all the household of God who are there. I trust they are waiting for the resurrection of the dead and a certain day of the judgment of God.
It seems to me that Paul is in heaven by the spirit of God. He is not there by his physical body which was left on this earth at his departure. Paul spoke of this departure which happens at the time of one’s death.
Xavier,
you wrote above
Paul sets forth truths concerning the resurrection and in the context actually does NOT “tie together” the terms “spiritual / natural (physical), etc.” but rather CONTRASTS these! And by means of the contrast, he emphasizes that one IS NOT the other, but rather is totally DIFFERENT from the other. The heavenly / spiritual IS NOT similar to or same as the earthly / physical!
Btw, did you notice that Paul nowhere in 1Co 15 in the context of the resurrection from the dead mentions that those who are resurrected will again be “earthy / natural / physical”, but instead he puts man after the resurrection from the dead into the heavenly realm ?
Why is it, that many folks somehow seem to want to contradict these rather plain truths by constructing even extensive “theological buildings” about an earthly kingdom, earthly political future rule of Christ on earth, life into the ages being lived on earth, etc ???? Sure reminds me – as I have mentioned a few times – of those who insist on a “3 person Godhead” (which they too support by large self-constructed theological buildings) while the Bible is as plain as day that God is not a “3 person Being” but is a 1 single person Being.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
you mention above
I know your and the others’ point rather well … had been taught and used to understand things the same way for a long time.
But then, some years back already I did have a “wake up” as I reconsidered much previously received teaching and which had open questions for me that had remained answered despite quite extensive attempts at explaining things to fit “the received theology” ….
What helped me was the realization that what I had experienced years before when recognizing the error of the “trinity doctrine” and experiencing the difficult road to leave behind such error was not confined to the trinity doctrine … rather, that there were other topics where theological tradition in Christianity’s teaching had covered up completely the biblical truths concerning the matters. And, sure enough, as had been the case with the trinity, plenty of folks (even friends) became rather unhappy and upset because some of their beloved teaching was being questioned … and, although they had taken the needed steps to discover the truth and leave behind the error in the case of the trinity doctrine, they were (yet?) unwilling and/or unable to take those very same steps in regards to other topics.
Have a good day
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
The contrast lies in the simple fact that Paul is applying a physical reality to both forms of existence: the present “natural body” and the “spiritual body” of the age to come.
If this is wrong, are you suggesting that Jesus presently exists in the form of some immaterial, incorporeal body?
Xavier,
I do think that the ESV Study Bible comment disregards the rather plain context of the passage and the meaning of the word “spiritual” The idea that the “spiritual body” spoken of in the passage must mean “a material body” (or as they express it, “does not mean an immaterial body”) is non existing in the text itself and nothing but the assumption on which a whole theological building is then constructed.
Yes, I am suggesting that Jesus in his resurrected state does have a spiritual body as the Scriptures indicate … and since “heaven” is this context is a term designating the “spiritual sphere” where God resides (and not the physical space with atmosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, etc), I would say it is only logical that he now exists as a spiritual being.
Btw, have you noticed that 1Co 15 does clearly state that “FLESH and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (cp 1Co 15:50)? Why therefore would folks insist that the resurrection body of believers is “a flesh” (physical) body (using the argument given in one of the first comments here that Jesus’ body after the resurrection was of “flesh and bone” and was the “model” for believers’ resurrection body) ???
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Ray,
in accordance with your comment above, are you of the opinion that Paul was “alive in heaven” after his death and prior to the resurrection having taken place (the resurrection had not happened as of yet at the time Paul died) ? from what you write, it seems as if the resurrection from the dead was unnecessary for believers like Paul, because they already had eternal life immediately after they died? or was Paul alive in heaven but that life was not yet eternal life which would come later with the resurrection from the dead?
Perhaps you can clarify your understanding further in light of these questions?
Cheers,
Wolfgang