[Cal]

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."

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 becoming 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.

Never got much feedback about the above.