PDA

View Full Version : Nigel Tomes on 1 Corinthians 15:45 "Let's Get It Right"


UntoHim
04-22-2021, 01:22 PM
Nigel Tomes of the Church in Toronto Canada explains the biblical, orthodox teaching and understanding of this crucial passage during a recent Sunday morning message.

The applicable portion starts at 39:45 mins.

https://i.imgur.com/QK9THnt.png?1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozuh1gspzZQ&t=0s
-
-

OBW
04-22-2021, 03:11 PM
I bet you expected me to comment on this one. I could say "it's about time" but that is an unnecessary stab at someone who has not only been in that system for so many years as a significant teacher within it, but also clearly working to free himself and his flock from the clutches of it. Given the progress that was seen all the way back at the time of the battles over the Midwest, this should have been understood as expected, even if not immediately. Good to see that we are there now. All those treatises on various issues that he wrote (and you posted and we discussed) years back were the background for finally putting a nail in the coffin of this erroneous teaching.

UntoHim
04-24-2021, 10:45 AM
I've been bugging Nigel for years to write one of his polemic papers on 1 Corinthians 15:45. I'll have to settle on this for now!:o
-

Unregistered
04-24-2021, 01:50 PM
I've been bugging Nigel for years to write one of his polemic papers on 1 Corinthians 15:45. I'll have to settle on this for now!:o
-

Hi,

Is it possible to have what Nigel teaches in this video posted here in writing for those of us who are hearing-impaired?

I and others have really enjoyed his other teachings that are on his thread here. This latest topic seems to be something we would absolutely love to read.

Thanks.

Trapped
04-24-2021, 06:11 PM
Hi,

Is it possible to have what Nigel teaches in this video posted here in writing for those of us who are hearing-impaired?

I and others have really enjoyed his other teachings that are on his thread here. This latest topic seems to be something we would absolutely love to read.

Thanks.

On the YouTube video, does it give you written captions if you click the little "CC" button on the bottom right of the video screen? It does for me, although I haven't vetted them for accuracy.

OBW
04-24-2021, 09:10 PM
Is it possible to have what Nigel teaches in this video posted here in writing for those of us who are hearing-impaired?

I and others have really enjoyed his other teachings that are on his thread here. This latest topic seems to be something we would absolutely love to read. It might be possible to put it through some kind of speech-to-text conversion program, but the last time I looked at something like that, it was too expensive for the average person to buy, and needed to be "trained" with respect to the person it was going to convert, therefore it was too tied to a single speaker and not just generally useable, therefore even more expensive if the goal is general use rather than simply transcribing a single person's speeches, lectures, etc.

The alternative is for someone to sit and transcribe it. A lot more time and work. Unless someone has the time and inclinations, not very likely to happen unless someone at the church in Toronto is already doing it.

Unregistered
04-24-2021, 09:40 PM
Thanks guys,

..don't want to put anybody to too much trouble...thought that a transcript already existed and was automatic.

Alas..

Trapped
04-25-2021, 09:16 AM
Thanks guys,

..don't want to put anybody to too much trouble...thought that a transcript already existed and was automatic.

Alas..


I'm confused. The closed captions I mentioned are written out in real time as Nigel speaks.....doesn't that give you something to read?

Ohio
04-25-2021, 11:12 AM
Nigel, does this mean in resurrection we all receive a "life-giving spirit" spiritual body like Jesus?

aron
04-26-2021, 02:39 AM
Nigel, does this mean in resurrection we all receive a "life-giving spirit" spiritual body like Jesus?One of Witness Lee's go-to questions was, "How many life-giving spirits are there?" I would point our readers to John's gospel, where an angel, a ministering spirit, comes down and stirs the water, and whosoever first touches the water gets healed of any infirmities. (5:4) This is "life" in exactly the same context as the word was used in the LC. There is one spirit, multiple manifestations: healing, comfort, aid, visitation. So in that context the answer to your question is, Yes we do.

Ohio
04-26-2021, 04:11 AM
One of Witness Lee's go-to questions was, "How many life-giving spirits are there?" I would point our readers to John's gospel, where an angel, a ministering spirit, comes down and stirs the water, and whosoever first touches the water gets healed of any infirmities. (5:4) This is "life" in exactly the same context as the word was used in the LC. There is one spirit, multiple manifestations: healing, comfort, aid, visitation. So in that context the answer to your question is, Yes we do.

The apostles, while still in their earthly bodies, did all of these works too. They brought healing, comfort, aid, and even God Himself was manifested through them. Jesus said greater works would be done thru them than even His own.

But how does this explain our resurrected body, the heart of the Corinthians' questions? Tomes seems to be saying that we all in resurrection become "life giving spirit" like the Firstborn, yet your response points out the work of angels.

Perhaps Tomes is right. I need more than that to be persuaded. His commentary was not adequate. Yours only introduces more questions.

aron
04-26-2021, 07:42 AM
Perhaps Tomes is right. I need more than that to be persuaded. His commentary was not adequate. Yours only introduces more questions.

Witness Lee gave us simple, clear, pat answers. How many life-giving Spirits are there? His answer: one. But I think his answers were not just simple, but simplistic (too simple). So, yes, I am introducing more questions. Why does the NT show us other spirits giving life? How do you know the apostle John would have said, "Only one life-giving spirit"? Does John 5:4 (among others assume a different answer) than Lee gave?

Now, if that comment isn't relevant to your, "Do we get a life-giving spiritual body like Jesus?" then fine. But I assumed your question was using Lee's simplistic formula as its base, or was at least related. If not, nevermind.

Ohio
04-26-2021, 10:55 AM
Witness Lee gave us simple, clear, pat answers. How many life-giving Spirits are there? His answer: one. But I think his answers were not just simple, but simplistic (too simple). So, yes, I am introducing more questions. Why does the NT show us other spirits giving life? How do you know the apostle John would have said, "Only one life-giving spirit"? Does John 5:4 (among others assume a different answer) than Lee gave?

Now, if that comment isn't relevant to your, "Do we get a life-giving spiritual body like Jesus?" then fine. But I assumed your question was using Lee's simplistic formula as its base, or was at least related. If not, nevermind.
For 45 years I have read about folks who have protested interpretations of I Cor 15.45. Today I neither endorse Lee's views nor espouse anti-Lee views. It's just me and my Bibles, Jesus and my brothers and sisters.

This verse (and many others too) helped to radically save me from a godless life as a troubled and indoctrinated Catholic sinner totally lost in this world. I had a wonderful salvation, my sins were washed clean, and I knew that I knew that I was no longer going to spend eternity in hell, or perhaps purgatory, but this verse made Jesus alive in my heart. Jesus was no longer just sitting on a distant throne in heaven who sent a warm feeling spirit into my heart.

Whether this is too simple or way too complicated for others, this verse answered so many questions for me. Truths like this change peoples' lives, mine included. This truth set me free! Christ in me the hope of glory!

But as far as "getting it right" on I Cor 15.45, I'm not so sure. Obviously most posters here are happy to hear Tomes once again "stick it" to Lee. As one who has read many, many of Nigel's papers, this video clip has not risen to that standard, educating and persuading the reader. Perhaps he will say more. UntoHim sure hopes so.

UntoHim
04-26-2021, 01:45 PM
Ohio, I think we're all happy for your "wonderful salvation". I'm sure the angels in heaven were rejoicing over the revelation of "Christ in me, the hope of glory!" Nothing can change this, nor can any mere teaching or doctrine of man take away this wonderful salvation and the glorious revelation of Christ in you.

Now let's talk about "getting it right". Nigel Tomes was not talking about some inconsequential or esoteric interpretation of the timing of the 2nd coming, or whether or not the Millennial kingdom is a literal 1,000 years, or what is the correct interpretation of Daniel 7. Nigel was teaching about things that touch upon the very nature of God. Teachings concerning the nature of God greatly effect how we know God. Knowing God affects how we worship him. Incorrect teachings about God and his nature and his character touch upon his glory.

The apostle Paul has been dubbed as the first Christian theologian. His letters address all sorts of doctrines and issues. Without exception there is always a context, and the context should always govern our understanding and interpretation of any particular passage. The context of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 is not the Trinity. The context is clear. “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (vrs 35) The apostle Paul compares and contrasts two physical bodies: That of the first Adam, who was made "a living being", and that of the second and last Adam, who was made "a life-giving spirit". And just in case, Paul reiterates a few verses later: "For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality." The context is clear.

Sorry I got distracted from finishing this post. Probably good enough for now anyway!
-

Ohio
04-26-2021, 07:39 PM
Ohio, I think we're all happy for your "wonderful salvation". I'm sure the angels in heaven were rejoicing over the revelation of "Christ in me, the hope of glory!" Nothing can change this, nor can any mere teaching or doctrine of man take away this wonderful salvation and the glorious revelation of Christ in you.

You're missing the point, perhaps purposely, hopefully not, and seem to be denying the actual truths that set me free. I Cor 15.45 was instrumental to working out my salvation.


The context of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 is not the Trinity. The context is clear. “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (vrs 35) The apostle Paul compares and contrasts two physical bodies: That of the first Adam, who was made "a living being", and that of the second and last Adam, who was made "a life-giving spirit". And just in case, Paul reiterates a few verses later: "For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality." The context is clear.
I find it so ironical that you endlessly deny the obvious reading of scripture here, "the Last Adam became life giving spirit," and are willing to embrace Nigel's thought that "life giving spirit" becomes the description of every believers own spiritual body in resurrection. Now that is a novel thought.

How can you deny that the last Adam became life giving spirit and accept that all believers become life giving spirit? By analogy, that's like accepting all humans are "living soul," yet refusing to believe such a description applies to Adam. Yet 15.45 says plainly that Adam became a living soul, and Christ became life giving spirit.

This is not that complicated bro. This does not require theological doctors. Your years of Lee-hate clouds your thinking. Just believe the Bible. You will be so much more joyful!

Trapped
04-26-2021, 08:31 PM
Nigel, does this mean in resurrection we all receive a "life-giving spirit" spiritual body like Jesus?

Since Jesus was the only one at that point to have resurrected, His was the only example of an already-resurrected being that could be used. None of us are Jesus or the only begotten Son of God, and none of us are the lifeline for anyone to gain eternal life. Only Jesus is that person, and so only He can be said to be "life-giving". So, like Jesus, we will have a spiritual body after resurrection, but none of us are life-givers like He is, so I don't see that we would be life-giving after resurrection either.

I went back listened to Nigel's sermon from about 39:00 on, and I don't believe he asserts anywhere that we will be life-giving spirits with spiritual bodies, only that we will have spiritual bodies.

From the 48:00 minute mark what he has on the screen emphasizes the physical/spiritual body only (that's what's bolded on the quote) not what's "inside" either of those bodies. At 48:23 he says:

"...okay, so, what do we know about resurrection? Resurrection....you resurrect with a body. Jesus resurrected with a body, the tomb was empty, because he was resurrected. His, the body, which was like that of Adam, became something different, but it was the same Jesus. The one became the other. He didn't leave His old body in the tomb; rather, that body was resurrected and changed and became different. Amen? What will happen to you? [laughing] Answer: the same! What can God do for you? Answer: the same. He can change your, even after death, He can change your body, current body, into a different kind of body, yet in continuity with that. It's not a total change...."

When Nigel says "the same" he seems to only be referring to the spiritual body part of it. Not that we also will become life-giving spirits in a spiritual body. Nigel says very clearly at one point that resurrection changes our body outwardly, but it's still us...."you are still you". So, since Jesus was explicit pre-resurrection that He is "the life", so He will still be after resurrection. Since none of us are "the life" pre-resurrection, neither will any of us be afterward, and we thus wouldn't be life-giving.

Nigel's whole comparison is just about the spiritual body. Not about the life-giving part of it that is unique to Jesus.

I think the confusion is that people have heard different things when they listened to Nigel and don't realize others came away with a different thought than them, but I think a careful listening shows he wasn't saying that believers become life-giving spirits.

OBW
04-27-2021, 06:21 AM
Ohio,

I think that the point that Paul made was that Christ, who was life-giving, was now in a spiritual body. While he had used the example of Christ to give some kind of idea about the nature of this body, the point was not to transfer every aspect of Christ to us in our resurrection but to point to the features described in the accounts of his appearance over the few weeks between the resurrection and ascension that related to the body, not to everything else about Christ. Surely there was more than just the body of resurrection present because it made God in the person of Jesus Christ visible and tangible. So the fact that Paul makes any reference to the nature of God is not to be presumed as a statement about us when the discussion is about bodies, not divine attributes.

Consider other places where Paul talks about Christ. Does he simply talk coldly about some specific thing? No, he tends to be rather superlative. So here, he has managed to seem almost clinical for a bit, then reminds them of one of the superlatives about Christ as he continues to tell us about this body that he has reason to believe is like the one we will receive.

Besides, it is not the body that is life-giving. It is the person who inhabits it. Since neither you nor I are live-giving (in the manner that Christ is), then our resurrected body will not be housing such a person.

But, as in all aspects of discussion about what is to be in the next life, at the end times, etc., it is what it is. Too much consideration about that was never the point. Instead, it seems that Paul is trying to terminate a bunch of arguing about what the resurrected body might be like. And the only thing he had to provide was Jesus as an example. The goal wasn't to provide teaching about the body in resurrection but to end the debate so they could get back to the more important aspects of the Christian life. At some level, that is what the whole letter is about — ending disputes over teachers, what is acceptable sin to ignore, how to behave at the Lord's table, the distribution of gifts, the three-ring circus that their meetings became, and now both the certainty of and the nature of the body in resurrection.

And so the point was not to provide some certainty about the nature of our body in resurrection but to suggest that we have an example, therefore we can stop bickering about it and move on beyond it. Just like the goal of stopping the argument over teachers wasn't to settle the argument in favor of one over the other but to show that it was not relevant or useful. It seems that this was the theme of so much of the book, yet we still want to milk a single verse for special attribute for ourselves. Seems very Corinthian.

Ohio
04-27-2021, 07:35 AM
Ohio,

I think that the point that Paul made was that Christ, who was life-giving, was now in a spiritual body.
This interpretation shoehorns an apparently stubborn scripture. But let's look at it.

Paul was comparing and contrasting throughout this entire section of I Cor 15. He compared the First Adam to Christ, whom he interestingly called the "Last" Adam. He called Adam the "First" man, (which I'm sure upsets the evolutionists here) and surprisingly called Christ the "Second" man. Other contrasts can be seen: Earthy/heavenly, soulish/spiritual/ corruption/incorruption, seed/body, etc.

Paul says that Adam "became" or "was made" a living soul, and he follows with Christ, the Last Adam, "became" or "was made" [a] life-giving spirit.

I realize that you have issues with this, and struggle to explain it away, as if the plain words of Paul's statement here somehow insults the persons of the Godhead. Paul did this regularly it seems. (eg Col 2.9)

Back to your opening comment. Was the man Jesus, the promised Christ, already "life-giving" as you said? Sure, Jesus raised Lazarus, only to die at a later date, but that was his physical body, his "bios" life, and not the "zoe" life.

Was Jesus Christ, prior to His resurrection, able to give life, the eternal life? Was He really "ZOE-giving?"

If not, then as Paul says, "The Last Adam became a Zoe-giving Spirit."

UntoHim
04-27-2021, 08:24 AM
Ohio,

I'm afraid that it's not the scriptures that are stubborn, but maybe it's those of us who are trying to interpret the apostle Paul and this very important passage.

While were waiting for Mikes answer to your question, I have a question for you my brother.

I'm sure we all know that this word translated as "spirit" in v45 is the Greek word πνεῦμα pneuma. My question is this: Is every occurrence of the word pneuma in the New Testament a direct reference to the Person of the Holy Spirit?

This is NOT a "catcha" question. It's not a question to get you upset. It's not a question to "stick it to Lee". It's just a question that I believe is very pertinent to ascertaining the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 in general, and verse 45 specifically.
-

Ohio
04-27-2021, 09:02 AM
To answer your question, UntoHim, no, of course not. In fact, Paul does not even mention "the Person of the Holy Spirit" in this entire section.

Nigel indicated that we should use the context here to understand Paul, so that's what I am trying to do.

And let me propose a relevant and pertinent question to you. Perhaps you know the answer to this, because I don't. Was Jesus Christ, prior to His resurrection, able to give life, the eternal zoe life? Not a trick question. Before His resurrection, is there any indication in scripture that Jesus Christ could regenerate us with eternal zoe life?

Peter didn't think so, and thus he wrote, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." I P 1.3

And shouldn't we be a little "stubborn" with those matters in the Bible which really matter, like the zoe life? As far as WL is considered, there are two kinds of people who are stubbornly stuck on Lee: Those who love his ministry too much, and those who hate his ministry too much. I am neither.

Ohio
04-27-2021, 09:43 AM
Nigel's whole comparison is just about the spiritual body. Not about the life-giving part of it that is unique to Jesus.

Listen carefully to the transition that Nigel misses when he posts I Cor 15.44-45. He discusses Paul's comments on two types of body, the soulish or natural body and the spiritual body, the body before resurrection, and the body after.

Then Paul quotes a part of Genesis 2.7, "Adam became a living soul." But that was NOT Adam's body. Adam's body was dust, made from dust, and will return to dust. Paul did not refer to Adam's body here, rather to what Adam became after God breathed into him.

Likewise when the Last Adam became "life giving spirit," Paul was not referring to the spiritual body of Jesus, but what He had become following resurrection.

I don't agree with Nigel's premise here. He misses the transition, "So also it is written." (I Cor 15.45a) Paul's word use here indicates he is making a further point, not just expanding the previous point. To repeat, Adam's body was not "a living soul," and Jesus' resurrected body was not "living giving spirit." These two descriptions refer to something more "intrinsic" for lack of a better word.

Then Nigel quotes E.P. Sanders saying this verse is easy to misunderstand. I would say that E.P. Sanders is "easy to misunderstand" since he has numerous controversial ideas about Paul, Jesus, and Judaism. Many evangelicals do not accept his ideas. He may be a scholar, and I do not reject scholars, but "scholars" come in all flavors. Dr. Bart Ehrman has been widely referenced on this forum and he is now a professed agnostic/atheist. When it comes to "scholars," buyer beware!

OBW
04-27-2021, 10:11 AM
To answer your question, UntoHim, no, of course not. In fact, Paul does not even mention "the Person of the Holy Spirit" in this entire section.And yet you quoted the verse in the earlier post sayingIf not, then as Paul says, "The Last Adam became a Zoe-giving Spirit."You capitalized "spirit." So you brought the Spirit into the discussion. Or seemed to do so. And you even calitalized "zoe" as if it is important to make it like a person rather than function or adjective. Not that this was intentionally for that purpose. But it is not the words actually there.

To understand this particular phrase as simply words that must tie "life-giving" to the understanding of the resurrected body that we receive is not something clearly stated. With v 45, Paul not only continues the comparison of the natural body and the spiritual body but notes that there is an order. First came the natural, then the spiritual. He ends this part of the comparison by saying that " just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man." (v 49). So the thrust is not to be the same as, but to bear the image of.

Clearly, this could mean that we do not simply have a body in resurrection exactly like that of Christ, but that we should expect that it bears the image of that body. Since we will be in a different era, some aspects of comparison are not as meaningful as they are when it is about someone who is moving around Judea as Christ did among all those totally flesh-and-blood people.

And the purpose of the discussion was not to pin it down, but to stop the bickering. If you want to carry your ideas beyond what Paul actually said to what might be extrapolated from it, then I believe you missed the point.

And even if you turn out to be right on this point (which we will not know in this life) what does it benefit you in this life or the next? It isn't yet (as long as you live) and it is what it is in resurrection and no benefit derives to those who figured it out. To hang on to something like this as important seems to be contrary to most of Paul's purpose for this whole epistle.

Ohio
04-27-2021, 10:32 AM
And yet you quoted the verse in the earlier post sayingYou capitalized "spirit."
Thanks. A typo. I'll try to correct. There was only one time I made that error. Please forgive me. Mea Culpa.

Sons to Glory!
04-27-2021, 10:32 AM
Listen carefully to the transition that Nigel misses when he posts I Cor 15.44-45. He discusses Paul's comments on two types of body, the soulish or natural body and the spiritual body, the body before resurrection, and the body after.

Then Paul quotes a part of Genesis 2.7, "Adam became a living soul." But that was NOT Adam's body. Adam's body was dust, made from dust, and will return to dust. Paul did not refer to Adam's body here, rather to what Adam became after God breathed into him.

Likewise when the Last Adam became "life giving Spirit," Paul was not referring to the spiritual body of Jesus, but what He had become following resurrection.

I don't agree with Nigel's premise here. He misses the transition, "So also it is written." (I Cor 15.45a) Paul's word use here indicates he is making a further point, not just expanding the previous point. To repeat, Adam's body was not "a living soul," and Jesus' resurrected body was not "living giving spirit." These two descriptions refer to something more "intrinsic" for lack of a better word.

Then Nigel quotes E.P. Sanders saying this verse is easy to misunderstand. I would say that E.P. Sanders is "easy to misunderstand" since he has numerous controversial ideas about Paul, Jesus, and Judaism. Many evangelicals do not accept his ideas. He may be a scholar, and I do not reject scholars, but "scholars" come in all flavors. Dr. Bart Ehrman has been widely referenced on this forum and he is now a professed agnostic/atheist. When it comes to "scholars," buyer beware!This looks right to me. One is not to the exclusion of the other. To me, this kind of debate happens when we're not keeping the union between Christ and His body members in view. That is, we're trying to divide one out from the other. I don't think scripture does this, because we are in Christ and He is in us. And that word "in" should actually many times be translated "into," (like is in John 3:16 - "everyone believing into Him.") This shows that there is a union that is something more than just joining a "Christian club." So trying to finely divide Christ from body members in this passage probably shouldn't be done.