No, what I wrote is conceptually Pauline rather than Wilsonian, flowing directly from the logic of ~1 Corinthians 1:29–31, ~2 Corinthians 10:17–18, and ~Galatians 6:14, where all boasting is tightly constrained to the work of God in Christ and explicitly denied to the autonomous self.
I will cite my sources whenever something is not my own.
J.
Got it. Thanx for the clarification.
KP
@Johann Did you notice how very different your last post is from the others?
Please refer to all of 2 Cor 9th chapter, and especially verses:
“24. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.”
My question is, who is making Paul’s decisions for him? When he decides to run the race, who made that decision? When he decides to strike a blow to his body, who is making that decision, and why does he do that? Who is going to receive the prize for running his race well?
Paul made those decisions, because he believes God, God’s word, and the Spirit of God. He runs the race to win the prize because he knows that’s what’s best for him. That’s what he believes. He wants the prize.
The passage in Galatians says that we can be proud of ourselves when we follow that example. Paul actually does quite a bit of boasting, which I’m not advocating. Nor did I ever.
Most of your objections are not against anything I wrote. It’s a self-defeating practice. Just saying. Maybe you could try to stick to the actual argument a bit more.
Your brother
@johann said “Join another forum, I don’t “yelp” friend.”
You also don’t seem to have much of a sense of humor. I do have a sense of humor (very proud of that), exceeded only by my astonishing good looks.
I kinda like this forum. Think I’ll stay.
Your brother
I can’t vouch for your “astonishngly good looks” but I do appreciate your sense of humor. Glad you’re staying.
KP
Oh believe it brother. Everyone is astonished when they see me.
No doubt, I believe you are surely handsome, but, in reference to the topic, no one can be proud of their astonishingly good looks. You are not responsible for your physical features. Physical appearance is a gift, an accident of genetics that for-the-moment happens to coorespond to the fickle vogue of the popular masses. Some very strange things have been deemed attractive in other times and by other cultures like blackened teeth, unibrows, large bottoms (think bustles), hairy armpits, powdered wigs, knickers, mullets, the list goes on and on…
I like to think I’m attractive, maybe just not to this time or culture, but surly somewhere or sometime; at least to my mother.
KP
@kpuff @johann. Actually the astonishment is how I manage to keep this bowling ball head balanced on the broomstick neck ha ha.
As you say, we’re not responsible for our physical context (our looks, size, gender, etc). We also can’t do a thing about the year we were born, or our parentage, or the place of our birth. We might be born in a palace or the back of a greyhound bus rolling down hwy 41. Genius or dunce cap - it’s out of our control.
What we all share as humans is the impulse to be great, to be respectable and respected, to be significant to others, to be missed when we are gone.
These things, along with dozens of others, are part of the fundamental constitution of human beings, created for His glory. Relationship with Him.
The paradox is that we can’t achieve anything that’s real or valuable unless/until ALL is surrendered to Him. Everything that we are. Take no confidence in the slightest bit of flesh, or power, or position. Surrender everything to Him.
Above all, believe Jesus, believe in God, believe every word, be grateful for His salvation. Humble ourselves and become a servant to servants. As I mentioned earlier, God judges based not on our looks or status etc. but on what we do with what we are given.
All that said, it’s a good idea to not take ourselves too seriously. I’m not right about everything, nor do I have to be. I don’t know everything but I know we have to love each other with the love of Christ, if our goal is to glorify God.
Your brother
God works through many members with different callings, temperaments, and responsibilities, Scripture is explicit that the body is not one member but many, each appointed by God, ~1 Corinthians 12.18 KJV “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him,” so differences in tone or personality are not a defect, they are part of God’s design.
I appreciate being tagged, but I’m not going to continue an exchange built on assumptions about my character. Scripture condemns bearing false witness and judging motives without evidence, ~Proverbs 18.13 KJV “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him,” and ~James 4.11 KJV warns against speaking evil of one another, because such speech steps outside righteous judgment.
I take life seriously, and I take my conduct before God seriously. Scripture repeatedly calls believers to sobriety, self control, and integrity, ~1 Peter 5.8 KJV “Be sober, be vigilant,” and ~Titus 2.7 KJV “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works,” so dismissing someone’s character with caricature language is not consistent with biblical exhortation.
If we are going to interact, let it be on the basis of truth, charity, and what is actually written, ~Ephesians 4.15 KJV “Speaking the truth in love,” and ~Colossians 4.6 KJV “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt,” because Scripture does not commend mockery or misrepresentation, but clarity, honesty, and restraint.
Other than this, I have nothing to say to you.
J.
Just relax man. You are clearly admitting (twice) that this is little more than your wounded pride - something the rest of us already knew, and I understand that.
Because didn’t you say that I was “attempting to undermine the scriptures”? Perfectly false, and a lot worse than whatever you’re mad at me about, which I’m not even positive sure what you’re talking about. So maybe we both have a little wounded pride.
I grew up with 4 brothers, (one is passed), and my Mom said about me that I was born to argue and fight. But I learned something - brothers gotta work it out brother.
God won’t be pleased if we don’t. So let’s hear your grievance - I’ll listen.
Brother, @Pater15, where did you get the idea that we only have our life in this body until death and not beyond? In the resurrection, it will be these physical bodies that will be perfected. It’s a Greek idea that made the Greeks think that their bodies were so horribly evil that their souls had to escape them at death.
The Apostle Paul’s description of our future resurrection assumes that it is these bodies that will be raised from the dead and perfected, as we see in the resurrection chapter, 1 Corinthians 15:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
Then, when he compares these present, frail bodies with our future resurrection bodies, he assumes that there is continuity as well as discontinuity between the two:
1Co 15:35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
1Co 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
1Co 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
1Co 15:39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Sometimes, people assume that the word “spiritual” means an entirely different body, but it really means Holy Spirit-led, -filled, and -controlled. It’s the same body but in a different form like Paul’s metaphor of the seed and the resulting plant.
Also, Paul says in Philippians 3, “Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Php 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”
Our perfected resurrection bodies will shine with divine brightness like Jesus’ glorious body.
A sharp and insightful observation here, @Bruce_Leiter, and another valuable lesson learned: take the time to read slowly and reflect thoughtfully.
J.
Is this not an exact answer to this question:
"But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?”
The straight forward answer is:
Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain–perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.
All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.
The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
And so he says
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I tell 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 trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will 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 has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:35-58)
Here it does not say the spiritual body is a spirt-led body, but a celestial body; a different kind of body. I think this is specifically where the idea that these mortal bodies go into the dirt and return to dust, but God clothes our person with a spiritual body, a celestial body, a body in capable of corruption.
How do you read this passage in light of your understanding?
KP
I guess you read it differently than I do. The only continuity I see is the spiritual continuity.
@kpuff gives an excellent answer with regard to the body, and it’s persistence. So I wil address my intent. And that is, we may all have an understanding of what the Scripture refers to when it points to “the flesh”. I tend to believe that it’s referring primarily to our natural bodies, with its needs, limitations, lusts, cravings, dysfunctions, appearance, gender, capacities (strength, intelligence, talents), attractiveness, and so on. This what we see in the mirror. We thank God for what we’ve been given, or object to Him if we feel we’ve gotten shorted.
Like, why didn’t God make me taller? Why is my sister so pretty and I’m so plain? Why does that cold beer taste soooo good? Why does it take two years of hard work to get into shape, and 2 weeks to get flabby?
Why does sin feel soooo good?
In toto, this body is our natural context, that we basically have to make the best of, for as long as we are on this earth. We have to manage it, direct it, and take care of it. And hopefully use it for God’s glory.
It is different every single day. Starts small, then grows into full size adult, full of energy and strength. But then peters out eventually in sickness and disease. Drives us to distraction trying to reign it in. Control it as best we are able.
So my point is, that our new bodies will have none of those limitations, lusts, or daily changes. As different from our physical body as a seed is from the grown plant.
I honestly don’t understand what you are saying, because it almost sounds like you are saying that the actual physical elements of our bodies will simply be reconstituted into a better body. Okay, but what remains of the old body? I would say nothing remains of the old body. Nothing remains of it’s lusts, it’s requirements for life, it’s weaknesses, it’s diseases.
All will be made new. And not new as in taking the old elements and refashioning them. All new. The seed that remains is the born again spirit within, the soul that loves God and is loved by Him.
Maybe you could clarify how you see it please? Thanks!
Your brother
Brother @Pater15
One question, slightly off topic, but grounded in the text. Since Scripture never exhorts us to take pride in ourselves, but consistently directs all boasting to the Lord alone, as written, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord” ~1 Corinthians 1:31, and again, “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” ~Galatians 6:14, do you believe, on exegetical grounds, that believers, upon death, are immediately present with our Lord Christ Jesus?
Paul seems to address this directly when he writes, “We are confident, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord” ~2 Corinthians 5:8, where “absent” and “present” are set in deliberate contrast, implying no intervening state of separation from Christ. Likewise, he says, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” ~Philippians 1:21, and then clarifies, “I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed” ~Philippians 1:23, where “to depart” is directly linked with being “with Christ,” not with delay or unconsciousness.
Jesus Himself speaks in similar terms to the thief on the cross, saying, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” ~Luke 23:43, which again ties death for the believer to immediate fellowship with Him.
So my question is this, reading these passages as they stand, do you understand Scripture to teach that the believer’s death results in immediate presence with Christ, even as we await the future resurrection of the body promised in ~1 Corinthians 15:42–44?
Thanks.
J.
Paul’s point is in disagreement with the Greek idea that our bodies will be completely different. The “seed” that is sown is not totally different from the raised plant, but the latter plant will be different. It’s the same body but perfected.
The word “spiritual” has that meaning in the New Testament, @KPuff. Biblical words have their own meanings, as a word study of their uses in other New Testament contexts will show. We need to let God’s Word define them, not what we think they mean or the meanings a secular dictionary would give them. That’s exact what a biblical lexicon does.
Alright @Bruce_Leiter, I appreciate your input. My understanding is that the Greek myths held that after death, humans leave their bodies behind, and exist in some disembodied gloomy ghostly afterlife of misery.
Paul’s teaching is to reassure them that we don’t become only gloomy spirits, but rather that we live on in a new body that is incorruptible. A completely different body. I still don’t see what you’re claiming as connectivity between the mortal body and the spiritual immortal body.
Hopefully I explained my point. It’s important to understand that while on earth, we are free to make morally relevant decisions. My belief is that in heaven, we are still free persons. One thing that we won’t have is the flesh (our mortal bodies) that we have to deal with. That will be over.
Your brother
Great @Bruce_Leiter. Thanx for your explanation.
Maybe you can help me understand a little better. You said:
By “that meaning”, you were saying your lexicon suggests the Greek words used for “spiritual body” (pneumatikós soma) in the passage I mentioned:
…tells us that the “spiritual body” is “not totally different” from the “natural body”, just of a better, perfected quality. Also you suggest your lexical study of the word carries the understanding that “spiritual body” means it is controlled by the Holy Spirit. Am I correct?
From my study it is obvious that the Apostle goes to some-length to disambiguate this idea for us, specifically by reiterating the radical difference in the two types of bodies (compositions) by many examples. The passage explicitly says:
“It is sown a natural body (Gk. psuchikós soma), it is raised a spiritual body (Gk. pneumatikós soma). There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (this statement is a linguistic tool to emphasize their difference)
And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:44-50).”
Further, you may note that the Apostles use of the term “psuchikós soma” translated “natural body” is actually from the word we translate “soul” and specifically eliminates the confusion one might make thinking he was speaking only of the material body (“flesh and blood”) as the “natural body” (compare Hebrews 2:14). By using psuchikós soma, he is literally speaking of the immaterial person of dust becoming a super-immaterial celestial man of spirit.
For more clarification, the word used here for “spiritual body” is the same word used in Ephesians,
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood (material men), but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against “spiritual hosts of wickedness” (tá pneumatiká tés ponērías) in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)”
If pneumatiká here means a perfected physical body, controled by The Holy Spirit, then we are left with the understanding that these adversaries, against whom we wrestle, are perfected physical bodies of wickedness being motivated by The Holy Spirit of God. We don’t think that here, do we? Here, I think the phrase is understood to mean immaterial bodies of evil; wicked beings of spiritual composition, beings quite contrary to material creatures “flesh and blood”, even those flesh and blood creatures who also possess immaterial souls (men). Does this make sense? Am I missing something?
Let me know how this sits with you. I assure you, I wholeheartedly agree with your warning:
[quote]“We need to let God’s Word define them, not what we think they mean or the meanings a secular dictionary would give them.”
[/quote]
Thanx for your thoughts.
KP
Robertson - Only by dissolution of the material particles in the seed is the germ of life, which no microscope can detect, made to operate. The new living organism is not the old one reconstructed, although it has a necessary and close connexion with it; it is neither identical with the former, nor is it a new creation (John 12:24). Dissolution and continuity are not incompatible; how they are combined is a mystery beyond our ken, but the fact that they can be combined is evident, and death setting free a mysterious power of new life is part of the how.
“Do You Plant Corn?”
A missionary lady in Africa was talking to some black men and women. “Jesus died on the Cross for us all,” she told them. “Then His body was put in a grave and on the third day He arose from the grave. We, too, shall arise from our graves after our bodies have rested for a time in the ground.”
“How can that happen?” asked one old black man. “I do not believe that What is put in the ground cannot come up.”
“Listen to me,” said the missionary lady. “Do you plant corn?”
“Yes, I do,” he answered.
“Well, what happens when you put the grain of corn in the ground?”
“The grain decays and the corn comes up out of the ground,” he replied.
“Very well,” said the missionary lady. "The grain decays but the life in the corn doesn’t die. It sends up a plant that comes through the soil and grows several feet above the ground.
“It will be the same with us. When we are dead our bodies will be put into the ground. They will lie there until Jesus comes again. Then He will wake us and we shall arise from our graves. We believe that His Word is true.”
“I cannot understand it,” said the old black man, “but I believe it now, too, for Jesus has said it.” —Selected
MacDonald - Is the plant the same as the seed? No, the plant is not the same as the seed; however, there is a very vital connection between the two. Without the seed there would have been no plant. Also, the plant derives its features from the seed (ED: as taught in 1 Cor 15:38). So it is in resurrection.
Norman Geisler - 1 CORINTHIANS 15:37—Is Paul teaching that the resurrection body is a different one from the one that is sown—a kind of reincarnation?
MISINTERPRETATION: Just as seeds change when they are sown, so this verse says that the body will change when it is resurrected. Some take this to mean the resurrection body is a different one, a “spiritual” (v. 44) body that is not essentially material. Does this prove that we are not raised in the same physical body of flesh and blood in which we die? This verse is relevant to discussions with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 1395).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: There are real changes in the resurrection body, but it is not changed into a nonphysical body—one substantially different from the one we possess now. The seed that goes into the ground brings forth more seeds that are the same kind, not immaterial seeds. It is in this sense that Paul can say “you do not sow [cause to die] the body that shall be,” since it is immortal and cannot die. The body that is raised is different in that it is immortal (1 Cor. 15:53), not in that it is immaterial. Of his resurrection body Jesus said, “It is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).
Jesus’ resurrection body, though transformed and glorified, is the numerically same body of flesh and bones Jesus possessed before his resurrection. And since our resurrection bodies will be like his (Phil. 3:21), the same is true of the believer’s resurrection body. Notice these characteristics of Jesus’ resurrection body: (1) It was the same body, with the crucifixion scars, it had from before the resurrection (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). (2) It was the same body that left the empty tomb behind (Matt. 28:6; John 20:5–7; cf. John 5:28–29). (3) The physical body of Jesus did not corrupt in the tomb (Acts 2:31). (4) Jesus said his body would be destroyed and built up again (John 2:19–22). (5) It was a body of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39) that could be touched (Matt. 28:9; John 20:27) and could eat physical food (Luke 24:41–42).
Further, Scripture teaches that the immortal body is “put on” over, but does not replace, the mortal body (1 Cor. 15:53). The plant that springs forth from the seed is both genetically and physically connected with the seed. What is sown is what is reaped (1 Cor. 15:37–38).
The “change” (1 Cor. 15:51) Paul referred to at the resurrection is a change in the body, not a change of body. The changes in the resurrection are accidental, not substantial. They are changes in secondary qualities, not changes in primary qualities. It is changed from a corruptible physical body to an incorruptible physical body. It is not changed from a physical body into a nonphysical body. It is changed from a mortal to an immortal physical body. But it not changed from a material to an immaterial body. (When Cultists Ask)
Peace to you and family @Bruce_Leiter
J.
That said @Bruce_Leiter
Geisler is partly correct in what he affirms, but his argument is linguistically and exegetically flawed in how it gets there, and several of his claims overstep what 1 Corinthians 15 actually says at the levels of morphology, syntax, and Pauline anthropology.
At the level of Paul’s basic intent, Geisler is right to reject the idea that Paul teaches reincarnation or a resurrection that discards embodiment altogether, since Paul clearly insists on σῶμα as the constant referent and explicitly denies a merely disembodied afterlife, so the general direction of his conclusion aligns with mainstream Pauline scholarship.
However, Geisler’s case becomes problematic when he equates continuity of identity with numerical sameness of physical matter, because Paul never argues for the persistence of the same flesh, bones, or biological material, and Geisler imports this claim from Gospel resurrection narratives rather than deriving it from the syntax and semantics of 1 Corinthians 15 itself.
Morphologically, Geisler does not engage the critical fact that ψυχικός and πνευματικός are both relational adjectives formed with the same ~-ικός suffix, which grammatically encodes mode of existence or governing principle, ~a statement about material composition, so his insistence that Paul is explicitly defending physical material continuity exceeds what the morphology can support.
Syntactically, Paul’s seed metaphor does ~not argue that the plant is numerically identical to the seed, but that identity through transformation and Paul explicitly says “you do ~not sow the body that shall be,” which grammatically weakens Geisler’s claim that Paul is defending strict bodily sameness at the material level.
Geisler’s appeal to the seed being “genetically and physically connected” reflects modern biological assumptions that are anachronistic when read back into Paul’s metaphor, since Paul’s rhetorical point concerns continuity of kind and divine givenness, not material persistence in a scientific sense.
His claim that the resurrection changes are “accidental, not substantial” imports Aristotelian–Thomistic metaphysical categories that Paul himself does ~not use, and while such categories may be theologically defensible within a later systematic framework, they are exegetically imposed rather than textually derived.
The appeal to Jesus’ resurrection body in the Gospels is theologically relevant but exegetically indirect, because Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 does ~not ground his argument in the physical properties of Jesus’ post-resurrection body, but in Adam–Christ typology and Spirit~life contrast, so Geisler conflates canonical synthesis with Pauline exegesis.
Moreover, Paul explicitly says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), which Geisler does ~not adequately integrate into his argument, since this phrase strongly qualifies any claim that the resurrection body remains “physical” in the ordinary biological sense.
What Paul actually affirms, grammatically and conceptually, is continuity of embodied identity under radically transformed conditions of existence, where the body is no longer governed by ψυχή (mortal life~principle) but by πνεῦμα (eschatological divine life), and this is a subtler claim than Geisler’s flesh~and~bones continuity model allows.
In sum, Geisler is correct in denying reincarnation and disembodiment, but he is ~not correct in claiming that Paul teaches the resurrection of the numerically same physical body as presently constituted, because that conclusion is driven more by later metaphysical theology and Gospel harmonization than by the morphology, syntax, and rhetoric of 1 Corinthians 15 itself.
J.