Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[KSA]

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

Your observation about Christ's humanity is well taken and is something Lee himself taught. It was the addition of the element of humanity which was different.

But I'd like you to expound upon your concept of "life-giving spirit" as "a metonomy" in this verse.

By definition, metonymy is "a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated."

Which word or phrase do you believe is the stubstutional item and what do you propose it is intended to substitute for?

Examples of this literary device include things like e.g. the bottle for alcoholic drink, the press for journalism, skirt for woman, Mozart for Mozart's music, the Oval Office for the US presidency. A well-known metonymic saying is the pen is mightier than the sword (i.e. writing is more powerful than warfare).

I just don't see this concept at play in this verse.

And, not to be too harsh, but, if you can respond with a concrete answer to this question, please then also support your response with citations from the immediate context of the verse.

Having experienced Christ's vivification, as I believe regenerated believers do, I feel I do have some appreciation of this verse at least from that perspective and I don't understand your comment about there being a literary device here.

Do you mean to suggest that Christ is NOT a life-giving Spirit?

[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

But I'd like you to expound upon your concept of "life-giving spirit" as "a metonomy" in this verse.

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

The problem with LC teaching is that Witness Lee described this "becoming" mainly as a change in the Godhead (God was processed and consummated), rather than as a glorification of Christ's humanity in resurrection.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

The problem with LC teaching is that Witness Lee described this "becoming" mainly as a change in the Godhead (God was processed and consummated), rather than as a glorification of Christ's humanity in resurrection.

Brother, I gave some examples of metonymy and your suggestion is not a metonymy. It is a parallel structure, but there is not the thought of one thing standing for or symbolizing another, as it is in a metonymy. Sorry but you are mistaken in your use of this word.

As to the LC teachings regarding "becoming", I should like to just discuss what Lee taught himself versus what others say that he taught. If you have what someone else taught, such as Ron Kangas, then let us discuss that in particular. There is at this point clearly no simple body of work that might be termed "LC teachings."

I agree that it seems that Lee taught that a change in the Godhead occured as a result of the mingled element of humanity being added into divinity and much of that was based upon his interpretation of this verse. Nevertheless, what you have stated is not inconsistent with that teaching, except perhaps in emphasis.

Perhaps I am still missing your point here.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Brother, I gave some examples of metonymy and your suggestion is not a metonymy. It is a parallel structure, but there is not the thought of one thing standing for or symbolizing another, as it is in a metonymy. Sorry but you are mistaken in your use of this word.

When animated thing is called by what animates, to me it is a pure case of metonymy. But anyway let's not argue about linguistics. Maybe SpeakersCorner can give his opinion?

As to the LC teachings regarding "becoming", I should like to just discuss what Lee taught himself versus what others say that he taught. If you have what someone else taught, such as Ron Kangas, then let us discuss that in particular. There is at this point clearly no simple body of work that might be termed "LC teachings."

Lee clearly taught that God was processed and consummated. And becoming a life-giving Spirit was part of the process.

I agree that it seems that Lee taught that a change in the Godhead occured as a result of the mingled element of humanity being added into divinity and much of that was based upon his interpretation of this verse.

Well, I think it is more than seemed. But even if it only seems, it means that Witness Lee was sloppy with his words (you know, creating wrong impressions), therefore I think that instead of trying to explain what Witness Lee really meant, we should discard his phraseology altogether and use more clear language.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

When animated thing is called by what animates, to me it is a pure case of metonymy. But anyway let's not argue about linguistics. Maybe SpeakersCorner can give his opinion?

Please do not be like a moderator on the other board and deflect.

You introduced the linguistic term and now you do not care to defend your introduction of it. Please, dear moderator, refrain from such specious argumentation on our holy forum.

Originally Posted by KSA

Lee clearly taught that God was processed and consummated. And becoming a life-giving Spirit was part of the process.

I don't think I disagreed with this.

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, I think it is more than seemed. But even if it only seems, it means that Witness Lee was sloppy with his words (you know, creating wrong impressions), therefore I think that instead of trying to explain what Witness Lee really meant, we should discard his phraseology altogether and use more clear language.

And you are entitled to that opinion and I don't disagree that Lee was loose sometimes on such matters.

However, I was merely questioning whether your suggestion was "more clear language."

I do not think your presentation is clear in any fashion and just makes thing worse than they already were.

Sorry!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

Let me just say what I should have stated clearly in my first response, that I do understand that the Genesis verse quoted by Paul does arguably utilize the common Hebrew device of metonymy and that an argument could be made that the parallel structure then transfers that analysis.

The problem with this analysis is that you implicitly state that Adam did NOT become a living soul and that Christ did NOT become a life-giving Spirit.

[SpeakersCorner]

I'm not sure I see metonymy here, KSA. YP is correct in his explanation of what metonymy is and perhaps there is some going on here but I don't see it. However, I am open to further explanation of what both of you see here concerning this.

What is important in bringing this matter up is that metonymy is figurative language. If this verse is figurative then we must not take it as literal ... in which case the 2nd person of the trinity did not literally become the 3rd. He became it in figure in some way.

I'd like both of you to speak more on this matter. It isn't just a linguistics sidewater; it matters.


SC

P.S. I just re-read one of your above posts, KSA, and now I think I'm more clear on what you are calling metonymy. To wit: the "spiritual body" is the metonymy -- that is, the figure -- for the "life-giving spirit." Or is it the other way around? I'm still confused, I guess. At any rate, it just doesn't seem like a case of metonymy because neither term is a handy metaphorical shorthand for the other as far as I can tell.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I'm not sure I see metonymy here, KSA. YP is correct in his explanation of what metonymy is and perhaps there is some going on here but I don't see it. However, I am open to further explanation of what both of you see here concerning this.

I will not insist that it is metonymy. It is not too important. But I will try to explain once again why I think it is a metonymy. One of the types of the metonymy (I think it is called synecdoche) is when the whole is called by part (or vice versa). For example, you call a person "blue eyes", you call the whole person by one feature of his. This is synecdoche. Christ is called a life-giving spirit, because spirit now animates his spiritual body. I think it is a case of synecdoche too. If you disagree, it is fine.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by KSA

Verse 45 starts with "and" and therefore is a continuation of the preceding verse. Verse 44 talks about soulish body and spiritual body. Soulish body is connected with first Adam being a living soul, and spiritual body is connected with last Adam being a life-giving spirit. Soulish body is animated by a soul. And spiritual body is animated by a life-giving spirit. A metonymy here then is a substitution of "spiritual body" with "a life-giving spirit".

The problem with LC teaching is that Witness Lee described this "becoming" mainly as a change in the Godhead (God was processed and consummated), rather than as a glorification of Christ's humanity in resurrection.

I beg to disagree with your second paragraph posting as shown above.

The local church or Brother Witness Lee has never taught that there was "a change in the Godhead". WL was very careful to state the following in contrast with your statement:

The Compound Spirit

This life-giving Spirit is the all-inclusive, compound Spirit typified by the compound anointing ointment in Exodus 30:23-25. Now the Spirit is no longer just the Spirit of God typified by the olive oil but is the compound Spirit typified by the ointment formed by compounding a hin of olive oil with four spices—myrrh and cinnamon (signifying Christ's death with its effectiveness) and calamus and cassia (signifying Christ's resurrection with its power). As the compounded, all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit, He is now an ointment compounded with the four factors of God, man, Christ's death, and Christ's resurrection.

Christ's Two Becomings

The compounding of the Spirit took place when Christ as the last Adam became the life-giving Spirit. This becoming was not a simple matter. As we pointed out in the previous message, Christ has passed through two becomings. The first becoming was His incarnation: "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). This becoming was rather simple, for it involved the entering of divinity into humanity and the mingling of divinity with humanity, but it did not include either death or resurrection. Christ's second becoming was His becoming in resurrection: "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45b). This becoming was quite complicated because it included divinity, humanity, Christ's death, and Christ's resurrection.

[Excerpts: Incarnation, Inclusion and Intensification. By Witness Lee]

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by KSA

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

Christ also became a life-giving Spirit to regenerate man, they also would be genuine sons of God.

Not being enthralled with theology, I find no contradictions in my faith or the scripture for my belief that "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit."

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by KSA

1 Cor. 15:45b is one of the cornerstone scriptures in LC. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate thread. For starters, I would like to mention some thoughts of mine.

1) Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity. Therefore, it was not the second in the Trinity becoming the third.

2) A life-giving spirit in this verse mainly refers to the glorified body of Christ that became spiritual. A life-giving spirit is a metonymy here.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure I follow the thought that "Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity." Could you expound on what you mean by this?

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Some thoughts:

In Paul's reasoning in this chapter, he seems to identify the following objects/process:

1) a "seed"
2) "death" of that seed;
3) which manifests in a "body" which matches the nature of that seed

see verses 36, 38 (as well as the thought of entire chapter).

In the case of the LAST ADAM, I would match these items up with:

1) "a life-giving spirit" is the "seed" which,
2) by Christ's death
3) manifested as a "spiritual body"

Similarly, for us, the "seed" is the "life-giving spirit" received at regeneration which manifests as a "spiritual body" for us after our death.

Not sure if there's any metonymy going on here, but I don't think so - these terms aren't "stand-ins" for eachother. They are related, however, in this narrative and metaphor Paul is using.

Thoughts?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure I follow the thought that "Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity." Could you expound on what you mean by this?

Peter

My understanding of this thought is that the phrase "the last Adam" is a designation of Christ's human element as opposed to His innate divine nature. In other words, it is not only THAT the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit but that it was the last ADAM who became a life-giving Spirit.

And KSA's main point is well taken, I believe. If it is Christ as the last ADAM who became a life-giving Spirit, how does this indicate the confounding of the Persons of the Trinity that Lee's exegesis so commonly entails? (KSA says sloppy. I say loose. Not much difference.)

Ultimately, my response is that a difference in emphasis may become substantive at a certain point but unless we can dismiss Lee's teachings altogether with regard to the balance on the side of the Three, we should not make too much of his lack of balance on the side of the One. If the One side was correct, it is still correct even if it is incomplete.

And my intial testimony, I repeat: I have enjoyed and experienced the vivification of the Spirit of Christ enlivening my pitiful humanity and I expect that the eventual issue will be something to see one day, if not so much just yet. According to my understanding and experience, we receive the complete Triune God as the Spirit and in the Spirit and through the Spirit and all of the compound ointment elements are found therein as well. Whether one Person became another Person to accomplish this, I don't think so, but I'm not so much for the deep theology, either.

I don't have any problems with "processed and consummated" as I appreciate those terms but others may disagree. I don't know how Christ can be "the way, the truth and the life" to me without being in and with the divine Trinity realized as the Spirit, but I have no problem with addressing this issue on solid Biblical grounds. The teachings of God will not collapse under man's scrutiny, rest assured! And if Lee's teachings crumble with a little talk from the likes of us? Surely that could not be anything to concern us!

I figure it's not a bad thing to kindle a little wood, hay and stubble before the real tests by fire arrive!

[Shawn]

When brother Lee expounded these verses, the scriptural support was based on the word "became," that was also used in John chapter 1 to describe the Word becoming flesh. It was my understanding that the first becoming occurred in incarnation and the second becoming took place in our Lord's ressurrection; not that the trinity changed, but that God's access to man has changed with the Lords ressurrection.

I wonder how KSA's ideas support or refute this understanding?

Is the last Adam becoming the life giving Spirit figurative or actual?

Explaining this will help me to understand the last few threads.

Thanks,

Shawn

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Shawn

When brother Lee expounded these verses, the scriptural support was based on the word "became," that was also used in John chapter 1 to describe the Word becoming flesh.

Yes the Word became flesh, and then flesh became a life-giving spirit. Therefore, we do not know Christ according to flesh anymore (2 Cor. 5:16).

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure I follow the thought that "Christ became a life-giving spirit in His humanity." Could you expound on what you mean by this?

Peter

The Holy Spirit is always life-giving (John 6:63). 1 Cor. 15:45 talks about Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit in the context of His resurrection, when He was glorified and His body became spiritual. And notice that it says that it was last Adam (referring to the humanity of Jesus) who became a life-giving Spirit.

[OBW]

There’s been a lot of discussion (ignoring the metonymy thing), but I think that KSA has basically hit the mark.

Every time I read through the whole of these verses, I see Paul explaining something about how we will be resurrected. It really is not about Christ. He is merely using the example or parallel of the first and last Adam. If Paul’s intent had been to make a radical statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, he would not have buried it in this manner. It would have been the forefront of what he was saying, not simply part of the discussion of how we frail humans will be resurrected.

Surely the Christ as flesh and blood was separate from mankind. But after resurrection, flesh and blood were replaced by the spiritual. Now the Christ that gives life is doing so spiritually. Just as God is spirit, but not exclusively the Holy Spirit, so also Christ is spirit.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Every time I read through the whole of these verses, I see Paul explaining something about how we will be resurrected. It really is not about Christ. He is merely using the example or parallel of the first and last Adam. If Paul’s intent had been to make a radical statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, he would not have buried it in this manner. It would have been the forefront of what he was saying, not simply part of the discussion of how we frail humans will be resurrected.

I disagree.

To my way of thinking, Paul often dropped little landmine nuggets of truth into a discourse which was only tangentially related to that particular gem.

My favorite example of this is Galatians 4:26. Others are 1 Tim. 3:15-16 and Ephesians 5:32. Hebrews has moments like this as well.

We need to care for immediate context always but not exclusively.

There is always a larger context Paul is working within and sometimes things just seem kind of plopped inappropriately in the middle of something else...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by YP0534

To my way of thinking, Paul often dropped little landmine nuggets of truth into a discourse which was only tangentially related to that particular gem.

Agreed. Good point. However, no major, essential teachings or doctrines should be based solely upon any of these landmines. And this is exactly what Witness Lee did time and time again. When this is done it leads to misinterpretation at the very least, and in some cases out-in-out heresy.

This is what Christian orthodoxy is all about. There are standards, there are boundaries, there are limits.

Let me give just one brief example that I hope will hit my point home.

All (or most?) Christians consider that Jesus was God and He was equal to the Father in substance, glory, power and holiness.
How then do we handle John 14:28...
"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I"

"Greater?" But I thought we orthodox Christians consider the three of the Trinity to be equal. Is this one of the landmines that YP is talking about, or should we interpret/understand this statement within the larger context of the orthodox understanding of the nature of the Trinity?

There is a myriad of examples of such "contradictions" throughout the New Testament, especially those which touch upon (or seemingly touch upon) the nature of the Trinity. If any teacher, or so-called apostle, who comes along is allowed to interpret (or reinterpret as it were) any given verse apart from the standards, boundaries and limit set, then all bets are off folks. Everything becomes a theological free-for-all.

There is always a larger context Paul is working within and sometimes things just seem kind of plopped inappropriately in the middle of something else...

Ok, agreed again. But this is EXACTLY why we need to rely upon wise, educated and spiritual persons to let us know what should be put within a larger context, and what might just be something to be considered "an exception to the rule". Witness Lee was no such person. As a matter of fact, in my observation over 30+ years, the Local Church has never produced such a person. Maybe they have but such a person has never been allowed to excersise their gift to teach/expound upon the Word of God in this manner. Very sad actually.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

OBW I agree with your assessment. To take half a verse out of context as Lee did to support his theory about God being processed is sloppy scholarship. If exegesis work is reduced to this level we can take half verses from over the bible and string them together to support anything we want.

[YP0534]

Is it really fair to say that Lee's doctrine regarding the life-giving Spirit is solely based upon 1 Cor. 15:45b?

What about his coordinated appeal to John 7:39 and 2 Cor. 3:17-18?

I mean, you could almost leave 1 Cor. 15:45b out altogether to get to the same place Lee got in citation of these other two verses.

I'm observing that there seems to be an ease of ditching Lee's teaching regarding 1 Cor. 15:45b simply because it was Lee's teaching and diverged from mainstream orthodoxy. That's your choice, I suppose, but it seems like maybe there's at least a possibility of some discarding of the baby with the bathwater in that approach.

Personally, I'm not all that impressed with academic credentialing, particular with regard to religious academia. No offense meant to anyone here but neither traditional study nor extra letters behind your name makes you any better able to know God or God's Word than the rest of us poor layman peons.

I'd like to pose this question for your honest consideration: has anyone looked elsewhere, say in the volumes of the Early Church Fathers, for support for Lee's teaching on this point? I believe there's something to be said about being cautious in embracing wholeheartedly the results of Post-Nicene theological formulations for the same reasons I view academic credentials as of limited utility in knowing the truth of God. Further, I'm pretty sure if I dug around enough I could find at least a few with theological cred of some kind to corroborate Lee's reading of this verse. (For instance, see the discussion beginning on p. 322 in http://books.google.com/books?id=CEkyo7Wb7hgC)

I'll be honest with you. My cursory review of general Christian literature on this verse mostly seems to demonstrate people struggling to avoid the conclusion that Lee so gleefully reached. There are of course a few who dogmatically declare that it cannot mean any such thing, but most seem to see what it rather clearly says and then in honesty feel they have to struggle with its meaning within the confines of traditional orthodoxy. I'll note in this context that the "Open Letter" scholars do not directly address this one as an issue, although they are generally critical of Lee's theology on related points (such as implicit patripassionism and modalistic phraseology.)

I'm not really advocating for Lee's position here, although I do hold it, or at least something similar, myself. I just don't think any of us should become those who likewise deal loosely with things in an attempt to overthrow whatever looseness we have been burdened and bound with. It seems too easy for us to become what we hate.

If it makes someone happy to speculate concerning a Christ whose life-giving spirit is meaningfully distinct from the Holy Spirit who is the third Person of the Trinity, that is of course your right, but I won't follow that myself. According to my experience, that is a corrosive doctrine that will eventually leave you without any reality.

I think there is something infinitely profound to be learned about God's purpose and work in verses such as John 1:14 and 1 Cor. 15:45. God's entry into human history and His accomplishments while among us are what infuse us with the interest to take up this topic at all. If the the Word that became flesh has not in turn become the life-giving Spirit, I'm pretty much done with Him, I'm afraid.

I have the joy to participate in the living God in His assembly.

I have no more use for an orthodox creed than I do for a statue of the Buddha.

Of course, as they say in the commercials, your mileage may vary.

[YP0534]

I just wanted to additionally mention, since it has not been expressly mentioned yet in this discussion, that the section is clearly mainly concerned with Paul's teachings regarding resurrection of the mortal body in apparent refutation of those who might deny physical resurrection.

Thus, the discourse focuses on the fact we should know that our spiritual bodies in resurrection are to be far different from our soulish bodies in death.

Please note that the contrast is not between spiritual and physical bodies, but between spiritual and soulish.

Thus, we know that God formed the physical body out of the earth, breathed into the nostrils of that, and Adam became a living soul, which is obviously something distinct from, although connected with, the now-animated pile of dirt.

So, to the extent that there is a parallel structure here, how can we handle all these elements with proper care?

The suggestion, according to the whole context, is not only that our spiritual bodies will be different in kind from the soulish bodies in resurrection, but indeed that we are the now-animated pile of dirt as the Body of Christ by the operation of the life-giving Spirit.

We surely cannot ignore that He breathed into the disciples after resurrection and told them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22...

[KSA]

I think this commentary from John Gill will add to our discussion:

...now he is made "a quickening spirit"; which some understand of the Holy Spirit, which filled the human nature of Christ, raised him from the dead, and will quicken our mortal bodies at the last day; others of the divine nature of Christ, to which his flesh, or human nature, was united; and which gave life, rigour, and virtue, to all his actions and sufferings, as man; and by which he was quickened, when put to death in the flesh, and by which he will quicken others another day: though rather I think it is to be understood of his spiritual body, of his body, not as it was made of the virgin, for that was a natural, or an animal one; it was conceived and bred, and born as animal bodies are; it grew and increased, and was nourished with meat and drink, and sleep and rest; and was subject to infirmities, and to death itself, as our bodies be; but it is to be understood of it as raised from the dead, when it was made a spiritual body, for which reason it is called a "spirit": not that it was changed into a spirit, for it still remained flesh and blood; but because it was no more supported in an animal way; nor subject to those weaknesses that animal bodies are, but lives as spirits, or angels do; and a quickening one, not only because it has life itself, but because by virtue of the saints' union to it, as it subsists in the divine person of the Son of God, their bodies will be quickened at the last day, and made like unto it, spiritual bodies; also because he lives in his body as a spiritual one, they shall live in theirs as spiritual ones: and so the apostle shows, that there is a spiritual, as well as an animal body; that as the first man's body, even before the fall, was an animal or natural one; the last Adam's body upon his resurrection is a spiritual and life giving one, as the Syriac version renders it...