Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
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."
|
Reminds me of when I was first saved. My younger brother was going to the local Jehovah Witness meetings, and I was trying to "rescue" him from that heresy. He came home one night with this "brilliant" insight he was taught and challenged me, "
do we have a soul, or are we a soul?" At the time I was clueless. "Huh?"
They were just playing with words, and my young brother's mind. There is no right answer, since the question was wrong. The answer is obviously both, since we have a soul and we are one.
For all the life in me I just can't get a grip on what is so wrong with believing that "the Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit." I suppose my lack of penchant for the deeper side of theology could be construed by some a curse, and by others a blessing.
I understand that this raises fundamental modalistic fears in the minds of the faithful, but not for me. I seem to be perfectly fine with these two incongruous statements, "The Father is the Son, and the Son is the Spirit," and "The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinctly unique, each one being God Himself."
I see no need to reconcile these anomalies. Humanly, they are an unexplainable contradiction. But for some reason, I just don't bother me in the least. Perhaps part of the reason lies with the very first scripture that spoke to my heart, "
the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God."