Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
The context is one of contrasting bodies. Adam received a natural body. The Lord Jesus, in his resurrection received a spiritual body. Earlier Paul contrasts the seed with the full-grown plant. The Greek language is precise. The apostle Paul was precise. The first MAN was from earth, a man of dust - why did Paul say such a thing? Surely the Corinthians already new such an elementary thing. The second MAN is from heaven. PAUL IS CLEARLY MAKING A CONTRAST. Earlier in the chapter - "it is sown...it is raised" and again, "it is sown it is raised". Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became (or was made) a man, a human being with a physical body, but in his resurrection, became - the context is clearly one of receiving - a life giving spirit.
|
Oops, he didn't say "received" he said "became." The question is, why did he mention "life-giving" and who gets the life that is given?
If the idea had been about Christ
receiving life, it would have said "life-given," not "life-giving," I would think.
Paul is contrasting "living soul" with "life-giving spirit?" The first phrase has an adjective ("living") so it seems Paul thought it was fitting to include an adjective in the second. If the first phrase had only said "the first man Adam became a soul" then perhaps Paul would have simply written "the last Adam became a spirit."
So why then didn't Paul simply say that the last Adam became a "living spirit." Apparently he did have a little "squirrel!" moment. He was talking about Christ become something heavenly and spiritual in resurrection, but he realized that this something was more than just living, it was life-giving. We can't give life, but he can. (Unless you want to argue that we all become life-giving spirits in resurrection.)
But there is nothing here about the divine Son becoming the divine Holy Spirit. This is about Christ's humanity (the last Adam), not his divinity.