Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[OBW]

A couple of days ago, a lurker posted to my blog (as Unregistered) and asked the question:

Woah! @ (OBW) Did Christ "become" or not "become" the Life-Giving Spirit according to 1 Cor 15:45? I think I would love to hear your understanding on the Oneness of God..

While I answered there in the blog, I note that despite our constant references to the discussions that have gone on before, they are sometimes rather daunting to find. In hindsight, thread titles are not always as clear as we would like. And the ability to find the best way to search for certain items is not as simple as we might like.

And then, once you do manage to find it, there could be 500 posts to go through, 75 percent of which are not really on topic, and the ability to follow the thought trails is not always easy.

Now, starting a new thread on an old (or new) topic will remedy none of those problems. Unless those who participate choose to avoid them.

So just in case Mr/Ms Unregistered didn't see my response in the blog, or there is some desire to actually discuss both my reply and the parts of the question that I didn't even reply to, I'm putting it here as well. And this makes it easier to restart the thinking without it simply appearing as part of another topic.

And we might get some new perspectives anyway.

I really didn't respond to the challenge to provide my "understanding on the Oneness of God." But I did deal with the "become" or "not become" question in my own way.

Here it is (with some more recent edits):
- - - - -

1 Cor 15:45 does not speak about the Holy Spirit. That is the most important thing to know about the verse. Other than the fact that it references one (and only one) member of the Trinity (and that would be Christ, the Son), the Trinity is not a focus of the verse.

This verse is in the midst of a discussion about the kind of body that believers will receive when they are resurrected. So Paul turns to the only example that he can point to in a solid way — Jesus. He is speaking of the physical body that Jesus had after resurrection. And there is no way to describe that body as simply physical since it was not always visible, and could move through solid walls and locked doors. So Paul referred to it as "spiritual." Sort of a no-brainer since the Son is part of the Godhead and God is spirit. So Jesus is spirit. That is different from declaring that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

I know that Lee strongly declared that there can be only one spirit that gives life. But he was wrong. Jesus gives life and he became "A" spirit. Not the Holy Spirit. I think that it is also provable that the Father can give life. And he is also spirit. BTW. The Holy Spirit is also spirit.

That may seem obvious since that is his name. But it doesn't always work that way. "The Spirit" or the "Holy Spirit" are names for what we refer to as the third of the Trinity. It is obvious that the word "Spirit" in the name is actually linked to his essence as spirit. But both the Father and the Son are also spirit, yet they are not called "The Spirit." Isn't it interesting that Mr. Brown may actually be pasty white, or Mr. White be as black as coal. The name does not cause the one who bears the name to subsume all that the word that is their name implies. Neither does it deny others the ability to possess some of the attributes that the name implies.

Seems like a no-brainer. Unless you are Lee or are under his spell (and I used to be). He is equivocating between "sprit" and "Sprit." The word "spirit" has many meanings. Among them is the idea of a state of being that is not simply physical. And God is spirit. All of Him — Father, Son, and Spirit. It just happens that one of those three has a name that is the same word — Spirit.

Your question is phrased in the words of the Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon. "The Life-Giving Spirit" is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit. But this verse does not say that. It says that the last Adam became "A" quickening (life-giving) spirit. Jesus surely gives life. That does not make him the Holy Spirit. It simply acknowledges the truth that Jesus has this different body — a spiritual body — and he does give life.

Besides, if you buy Lee's version of the verse, then you have to assume that Paul is busy talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity other than to consider the body that Jesus received in resurrection. Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit (without ever actually saying those words) then just as suddenly returned to the discussion he had been carrying on before.

In short, Lee demanded that "spirit" can only be the "Holy Spirit" — and that is just plain wrong. So the answer to your question is "Christ did not become the Life-Giving Spirit" according to 1 Cor 15:45. At least not in the way that Lee meant it. He did receive a spiritual body in resurrection. And he does give life. But that did not cause Jesus to morph over and become the Holy Spirit. That is not supported by this or any other verse in scripture.

- - - - -

Anything still unclear? Any different thoughts?

I know I did not quote a bunch of verses. But we all know the verse in question and it is easily seen as the one I am referring to. Do you think I have misrepresented it?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Anything still unclear? Any different thoughts?

You make a good point. Saying "God is spirit" and saying "there is a Holy Spirit" aren't the same things. If they were, then we could just say that the Father is the Holy Spirit and be done with it.

But that's not really saying anything more than "The Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and since there is only one God they must be the same thing." At some level that might be true, but if that's all there is to it then why does the Bible reveal a Son who relates to the Father as if they are different persons? And why does the Son speak of the Spirit as if he is a different person?

I never get tired of speculating about the Trinity. But in the end I have to admit I can't know for sure what I'd like to know. So I have to go with what I do know, and continue to wonder.

[awareness]

The only objection I have to the Trinity debate is when it results in bloodshed ... as has happened in the past of Christendom.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

The only objection I have to the Trinity debate is when it results in bloodshed ... as has happened in the past of Christendom.

I would agree.

And when some get so strong for a particular way that they are ready to cut off everyone that does not agree 100 percent with their view, there is at least mental, emotional, and psychological bloodshed on the way. It is more important to argue people to put down their guns.

And every time some wannabe spiritual guru comes along and takes common words in a defined context with clear meaning and says they are talking about something else and mean something besides the obvious, there is yet one more faction in the debate.

So the beginning of hope is when you can get them, or their followers, to face the error in their thinking.

Now there are aspects of what we believe that is a matter of faith. But that is not primarily in the things that are given for us to believe. The Bible says much about God, man, righteousness, evil, etc. There are some who believe that what it says is true and others who do not.

But among those who claim to believe what it says, there are some who take what it says and turn it, twist it, misapply it, etc., to say something that it does not say. And that is what they believe. So when they say that they believe what the Bible says, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in that statement. (I'm being kind.) They may believe a lot of what it says, but they don't believe it all. At least part of what they think the Bible says is not actually there.

I like the way Iqzy put it. And that reminded me of yet another approach — math, and more specifically, set theory. There is a set of things that are "spirit." There are three members of that set, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Separately and together they are God, therefore God is spirit (which is actually the statement from scripture that gets this little ball rolling). But when considering the members of any set, membership, while having its privileges, does not turn one member into another. It just points to the common characteristic. So being a member of the set of God/spirit, Jesus (the Son) is God and he is spirit. But he is not the Father. And the Father is God and he is spirit, but he is not the Son. And neither of those, being God and spirit, are the Holy Spirit.

Yet this is what Lee is declaring when he reads 1 Cor 15:45. But as I started my original post (on the blog), the verse is not about the Trinity other than the fact that one member (the Son) is referenced. Paul is somewhat poetically saying that Adam was created with the body we know as living humans. Christ was resurrected with a different body — one that is spiritual. And while Paul used the word "spirit" (or some Greek equivalent), he was not using it in the sense of saying that Christ became "spirit" in the sense that John recorded when Jesus said "God is spirit." Same word, but different meaning. In John's gospel, Jesus is speaking of the essence of God. In Paul's letter, he is speaking of the change in the nature of the physical body that Jesus was seen walking around with after the resurrection. It has physicality, but was not bound to the limitations of the body I now inhabit. So his use of the word "spirit," while perfectly valid, is not a reference to the essence of God as "spirit." Neither is it a reference to the "third" or the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.

I know that many of us who have seen through Lee's error here still like the idea that it still speaks of the unity fo God. But it does not. It was not a statement about the unity of the Godhead. Neither was it a statement about the "processing" of Christ.

We used to get so excited when we heard those words — the processed Triune God. Why was that? What does having some theology down in such a fine way (assuming it is correct) really do for you? Does it cause God to love you more for understanding the hidden code better? Do we really believe in that God (or more correctly god)? If we don't, then what does it do for us besides give us a sense of superior understanding of the Bible.

God is God. Those who seek him will find him. They will find him praying "sinner's prayers" and singing Baptist Hymns. They will find him as they are reminded of the truth of God in the weekly liturgy and as they come down and pray at the end of a more evangelical/charismatic service. They will find him as they spend a little time in the Word and/or in contemplation at the beginning of the day, and as they set themselves to be righteous as they drive in rush hour traffic on the major freeway in the middle of a 5-year reconstruction project. As they treat all their coworkers with respect, including the gay guy or the one who is . . . .

I honestly believe that most of our past LRC experiences were of two kinds. First are those that happened because we really were seeking God and found him. The others were because we jointly worked ourselves up over a point of knowledge or just experienced a bit of mob dynamics. I know that sounds more onerous that I mean it, but it is more about the euphoria of being in "the group" than something real. And we got that way over "realizing" that "Christ became the Holy Spirit."

But he didn't, so the entire experience was manufactured. It was a farce. We went gaga over a lie. How do you continue to defend that? (And for those who can't tell, I am not talking to/about awareness.)

[Cal]

I think the Trinity will always be something of a mystery. Just like the answer to "Why does God love us?" will always be something of a mystery. We are talking about the essences of reality here. In one sense I don't want to completely understand it, because I'm afraid it would be like learning a magician's trick. The fact that I could completely understand something as fundamental as God's nature or God's love shows that it was never that wonderful to begin with.

In the same breath, I think the mystery of the Trinity can be better understood when viewed from the principles it seems to declare. Here is the numbers mystery we can't understand:

1) The Oneness of God is important.
2) The Threeness of God is important.
4) Neither trumps the other.

But now look at just the ideas themselves.

1) Unity is important.
2) Plurality is important
3) Neither trumps the other.

The Oneness-Threeness of God is the upholding of these principles on his level. Oneness and plurality must coexist.

Lee saw the importance of the oneness, particularly to our experience. He also saw how rigid adherence to Trinitarian threeness could hinder experience. He wanted to nail down the oneness of God, but in doing so he took a short cut, like an Indy car driver cutting across the infield. He thought it would gain him the victory, but it just got him disqualified.

[awareness]

OBW & all.

If we can hate the sin but love the sinner, why can't we, hate the heresy but love the heretic?

Christian history shows that it's easier than we think to fall into heresy. In fact, it seems as common and ubiquitous as humanity, or to humanity.

But we can't kill the heretics, or exclude them, persecute & discriminate against them, like they are less than human.

I made friends with the Jehovah's Witness' coming to my door. We talk on cell phones, and I've been to his house a couple of times. He gave me a ton of cut oak for my stove.

And you can't believe the hard time I've given him, and the big gun honchos he brings to my door. I've been brutally honest and outspoken.

About a yr ago he showed up with a couple JW big guns. I charged out the door, in a rant.

I said:

I can't believe y'all would join a group that's been wrong prolly more than a thousand times ; that started out from William Miller -- The Great Disappointment -- that should have been stoned as a false prophet ; then your founder Charles Russell picks up where Miller failed, and begins failed prophecy after failed prophecy. And it's been that way for you guys ever since. Why would you want to be a member of such a system that has such a long track record of failure after failure?

They were all taken aback on their heels.

But he still loves me. And I him. Love covers.

[UntoHim]

A number of years ago I ran into a huge (in length) polemic work entitled "LIFE GIVING SPIRIT - PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL'S PNUEMATOLOGY". The author is Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Gaffin is a professor of Biblical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. I think this paper was produced in 1998. The basic premise of Gaffin's arguments center around his contention that the title "spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45 should be rendered Spirit with a capitol S because it must, he claims, refer to The Holy Spirit. Gaffin spends a great deal of time and energy trying to prove his point. But unlike Witness Lee, who uses weak and even childish arguments (cf: "are there two sprit's that give life?"), Gaffin uses strong, biblical and logical arguments and shows a lot of theological prowess in the process. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions, but I do find this work fascinating, if nothing else. Too bad this was produced after Lee's death in 1997, he would have surely used this as a kind of confirmation, if not endorsement, of his teaching that Christ became the Life-Giving Spirit.

Here is a link to the PDF of this paper:
https://www.google.com/#q=paul's+pneumatology

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he still loves me. And I him. Love covers.

Listening to the simple basic message of Jesus, "love your enemy, love your neighbor as yourself," all the knowledge in the world should not undermine God's message. In I Cor 13, Paul had something similar to say about this.

Why is it that all too often, Christian leaders like Lee begin to build walls around their little empires by altering this rudimentary command of our Lord, and equipping their followers to critique those on the other side of the wall? As Paul has said, "knowledge puffs up and divides, but love builds up and unites."

I actually love the way Lee's take on I Cor 15.45 and Rom 8.6 helped to revolutionize my views of God close to 40 years ago. Maybe it was never the actual teaching on these verses that changed me, but the Spirit Himself! These verses made me alive in Christ! They made the Lord so near to me! But take away the Spirit of reality, and we are left with dead doctrines condemning "poor, poor Christianity" and an elite group of people puffed up with pride.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

OBW & all.

If we can hate the sin but love the sinner, why can't we, hate the heresy but love the heretic?

Actually, no one says we aren't loving them.

But loving them (and their followers) does not simply mean ignore their error or allow their teaching (that Paul would have said to refuse) to go unchallenged. For those who are in charge of the flock, or are teaching it, the stakes are high. And the price is high. We can argue that God indicated that he will deal with them all in the end (the whole bit about wood, hay, and stubble) But he also gave us instructions (through Paul and John — if not others) to not tolerate bad teaching. That means you have to tell them to go away (as teachers). These references do not seem to indicate that you cannot fellowship with them (unless they are not actually Christian). But you don't have to tolerate them as teachers.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

The only objection I have to the Trinity debate is when it results in bloodshed ... as has happened in the past of Christendom.

Objection duly noted Harold, but let's not blame God or his Word for the sinful, fleshly and despicable behavior of SOME people back five or six hundred years ago. And such behavior has been condemned by the vast majority of "Christendom" for centuries. Bloodshed has not been a part of Christian debate for all these hundreds and hundreds of years, so it's hardly relevant to us today.

[Lisbon]

I might feel differently if I hadn't heard hundreds of messages on 1Cor15:45 but just the fact that Christ meeting with his disciples on the day of His resurrection and noticing that they thought He was a spirit said,"Look, touch me, a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have." I don't think anyone knows much about what was actually said. One thing is certain WL was always forming a sect whether he was teaching Isa 9:6, 1Cor15:45, God's economy, outer darkness,one church one city, and on. He was secterian from the very beginning and never changed.
Lisbon

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

I might feel differently if I hadn't heard hundreds of messages on 1Cor15:45 but just the fact that Christ meeting with his disciples on the day of His resurrection and noticing that they thought He was a spirit said,"Look, touch me, a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have." I don't think anyone knows much about what was actually said. One thing is certain WL was always forming a sect whether he was teaching Isa 9:6, 1Cor15:45, God's economy, outer darkness,one church one city, and on. He was secterian from the very beginning and never changed.
Lisbon

Yeah, it became very clear near the end of Lee's ministry (if it wasn't already clear) that he was in the business of being novel. He had to stay relevant, and his stuff became more quirky. It was always idiosyncratic, if not heretical, and got worse over time. In the end he did fall into heresy with his "Man becomes God" silliness.

But he was always about setting himself in contrast to everyone else. There's me, then there's everyone else. On rare occasions that might be good. But usually it's a signal for patrons to head for the doors.

[UntoHim]

I hope OBW doesn't mind but I changed the end of the title on this thread. I think it more fully describes what this thread will be about.

There is no doubt that this is an important matter to discuss here on this forum. After all this is one of the signature or hallmark verses used by Witness Lee and his followers. Furthermore, it touches upon the very nature of God in his triune being. What could be more important than this? Our knowledge and apprehension of God, his nature, his character and his ways are essential if we, as his people, are going to really know him in full way. If we are going to be able to worship him in spirit and in truth, if we are going to "go forth to all the nations" to teach and preach about him to a lost world which desperately needs to know God in the most fullest and accurate way possible.

One key question in correctly interpreting any biblical passage (especially one which touches on the nature or character of God) is to know what interpretive parameters, or maybe guidelines will one be limited or adjusted by. Almost everyone, including many of the cults such as Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons will tell you that "they only go by what is in the Bible". But we all know that they view anything in the Bible (Especially the NT) through the prism of the writings and interpretations of their founders.

So what will we be limited by? What will we be adjusted by? Will we be limited by and adjusted by the early Church fathers and major creeds, or will we simply ignore these for the sake of bringing the words of our Lord and the apostles (kicking and screaming if need be) into our modern 21st century? Is there a happy medium? Is there any way to know the difference between what the apostle Paul MEANT versus what it might MEAN for us today? Who is qualified to know?

[awareness]

Only a zealot Bible literalist will interpret 15:45 as Jesus being the Holy Spirit. Talk about accepting premises.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only a zealot Bible literalist will interpret 15:45 as Jesus being the Holy Spirit. Talk about accepting premises.

Look at Revelation chapter 1. Does anyone besides Witness Lee's acolytes really believe that "the seven spirits which are before His throne" in verse 4 are really the same as "Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, and firstborn from the dead" in verse 5? I mean, why put an "and" in between the two?

It seems as if the apostle John hadn't pray-read 1 Corinthians 15:45b enough and was perhaps a bit confused in his introductory chapter... thankfully God eventually raised up the ministry of Witness Lee to set matters straight... otherwise we might be misled by John and think that "seven spirits" and "Jesus Christ" were actually referring to two entirely different things! And what terrible confusion which that might engender!

Yes, yes, I know: "the seven eyes of the lamb which are the seven spirits of God going into all the earth"... now that makes it all so clear, doesn't it? Thank God for Lee's pat, simplistic explanations; otherwise we might have to struggle with some of these nuanced issues, like Jacob wrestling with the angel. Instead, all we have to do is pray-read a few selected verses.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only a zealot Bible literalist will interpret 15:45 as Jesus being the Holy Spirit. Talk about accepting premises.

Your statement is hyperbole, probably intended to provoke the Trinitarians here.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only a zealot Bible literalist will interpret 15:45 as Jesus being the Holy Spirit. Talk about accepting premises.

Funny that zeek pointed to this post. I missed something in it way back when . . . .

I think that no zealot Bible literalist would interpret that way. Instead, it would be a zealot who plays around with the Bible and only allows one definition of any word to exist within the whole of scripture who would interpret that way. Therefore, since there is clearly the Holy Spirit and he is referred to as The Spirit, then spirit can only mean the Holy Spirit.

And how many times did Lee actually say things like that?

That and a credit card might get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But it won't get you anything by itself.

[InChristAlone]

I don't think it will be interesting to the brothers. But I've checked out how some of the Orthodox Church writers, including St. Theophan the Recluse, interpret 1 Cor 15:45. That's what I found:

Probably, in 1 Cor 15:45, the Apostle Paul speaks about two periods in human history. Each of the two periods has two representatives. The first period is represented by the first man, the living soul, named Adam. The second period is represented by Jesus Christ, the life-giving spirit, who is the last Adam. The verse also shows the difference between our current and future bodies. Our current body is our physical body with soul. It's mortal. Our future body will be not physical but spiritual. It will not know corruption or death. We already have the roots or the source of our future life (and bodies), Jesus Christ.

St. Theophan the Recluse says that it's hard to say clearly, for sure, what the Apostle Paul meant. But probably, according to St Paul, in Jesus Christ human race starts a new life, not only in soul but also in spirit (through Jesus Christ). When Jesus Christ came to earth, all people were after (alike) the first Adam, i.e. living souls who lived "soul" lives. Jesus was the first person who lived according to the life-giving spirit. After resurrection, Our Lord Jesus Christ became the head of new humanity whom He gives His life-giving spirit. We are becoming the new humanity because we bear this life-giving spirit. Our spiritual bodies are growing within our current bodies which are the living souls. But on the day of the Lord's second coming, the first period of human history will come to its end. Our bodies, the living soul of the first Adam, will be transformed. We will be completely transformed through Christ, and after that we will have new life and new body, in spirit.

In other words, after resurrection, Christ became the source of mankind transformation. In Christ, we got a new life -- eternal life in spirit. So we are on our way to become a new humanity. The old human has been replaced by the new. The change is not (yet at any rate) biological but spiritual. It might be connected to the idea of baptism leading to a new birth. Besides, we are not going to return to the old paradise (the Eden) and the old Adam condition. But we will have a union with Christ and be transformed through Him, Who will bring us to the new paradise, New Jerusalem.

Next interpretation supports the previous idea:

"So also it is written"... "became a living soul". Where is it written? Let's check Genesis 2:7. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". The phrase says about man's creation. God created the first man, Adam, a living soul. Adam is limited by this definition. The first goal of creating had been reached. Mankind became a living soul. It was the first period of mankind growth and development. Spiritual life or life in spirit starts later, in the second period of human history, after the Lord's resurrection. The last Adam is Christ, the Lord of mankind and there will be no other lords. "A life-giving spirit" is a new human condition which is opposite to the previous condition, "a living soul". In this context "life-giving spirit" means that it revives the organism where the spirit dwells. The spirit gives makes the body alive, giving it new strength, new youth, and new life. What moment in Jesus's life did the Apostle Paul had in mind? We believe Christ started becoming the life-giving spirit step by step - from His birth to His Resurrection and Ascension, when His physical body became fully spiritual. On the Lord's second coming, He will transform our bodies and they will become like His - spiritual and immortal.

[awareness]

Interesting (left below). Thanks for presenting. Those E. Orthodox ... and their theosis. Everything is becoming -- a present on-going process -- heavenly.

So much from one little verse.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I don't think it will be interesting to the brothers. But I've checked out how some of the Orthodox Church writers, including St. Theophan the Recluse, interpret 1 Cor 15:45....

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting (left below). Thanks for presenting. Those E. Orthodox ... and their theosis. Everything is becoming -- a present on-going process -- heavenly.

So much from one little verse.

Thank you. I believe it can give some food for mind even if one doesn't believe that the interpretation is correct.

Of course, we should not blindly trust anyone, even the Church Fathers and especially Wikipedia but that's what the latter says about 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians: 15 is the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Paul the Apostle. The first eleven verses are the earliest account of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus in the New Testament. The rest of the chapter stresses the primacy of the resurrection for Christianity.

Resurrection of the body: 35-58

The chapter concludes with an account of the nature of the resurrection. At the Last Judgement the dead will be raised and both the living and the dead transformed into "spiritual bodies" (44):

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Through the power of Christ "Death is swallowed up in victory" (54). Referencing a verse in Hosea, Paul asks: "O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?" (55), equating sin with death and the Judaic Law which have now been conquered and superseded by the victory of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

[awareness]

Correction. So much from one little chapter : Everything is becoming heavenly.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Besides, if you buy Lee's version of the verse, then you have to assume that Paul is busy talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity other than to consider the body that Jesus received in resurrection. Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit (without ever actually saying those words) then just as suddenly returned to the discussion he had been carrying on before.

There is a term used in relation to the buying and selling of real estate: "Location, Location, Location!". Suppose you were in the market for buying a home and a realtor tells you "I have the perfect house for you". Then he goes on to describe the house in great detail, right down to the color of the front door and how shiny the brass door knobs are. Naturally your response would be, "great, just where is this perfect house located?" Then the realtor gets all indigent and says "you foolish person, I just told you that I found the perfect house for you. You must be under the influence of all those people who think only of location. Location, Location, Location? Fooey on Location!"

Please forgive me for the lame story, but it does have some application to what we are discussing here. When it comes to interpreting many of the passages in the Bible (especially the New Testament, and particularly in the writings of Paul) the concern is also Location, Location, Location - or to put a finer point on it, Context, Context, Context!

1 Corinthians 15:45 is written within a particular context, and we can zoom out just a little, putting it within the context of the immediate surrounding verses, (maybe verses 44-46) or we can zoom out to the entire chapter, or the entire book of 1 Corinthians, or the entire body of Paul's writings, and on and on. But no matter what, if we are going to be "rightly dividing the Word of truth" we must take care to interpret any particular word, term or phrase within as large of a context as is necessary to accurately ascertain the correct interpretation. If we don't do this then we are going to end up cutting off our hands and plucking out our eyes!

Witness Lee proclaiming "how many spirits are there that give life?" is like somebody saying "what part of cutting off your hands and plucking out your eyes do you people not understand? Now shut up and pass out the swords and gouges and get to work!".

"The last Adam became a life giving spirit". Firstly we might ask, does every reference to "spirit" refer to the Holy Spirit? Sometimes it IS appropriate to answer a question with a question, especially if the question is to clarify the context of any particular word, term or phrase. So, job one here, it seems to me, is to accurately ascertain what Paul meant by "spirit". The apostle Paul was a master theologian and was very thoughtful and precise in his use of language, so there is no reason that any latter day theologian should not be as thoughtful and precise as well.

Sorry, too long of a post already.

Originally Posted by OBW

Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit

Shouted "squirrel"

[Cal]

I've admittedly been all over the map on this subject. Although I agree that Lee took some liberties with the Scripture, I think, with all due respect to those who say, "neither divide the Godhead nor confound the Persons," the Scripture itself in some places seems to do both.

The fact is, if the Son is God and the Spirit is God and there is only one God, then in some way, at some level, the Son has to be the Spirit.

However, the inverse is also true. If the Son and Spirit are distinct persons, in the sense we understand persons (that is they can have relationships), then in some way, at some level, the Son is not the Spirit.

Attempting to be orthodox only takes us so far, and itself can lead to error. In my experience, being too distinctive about the Persons gets in the way of my experience. It's as if God is saying, "Let it flow," while I'm attempting to be consistent in my mental picture of the Trinity, kind of like trying to analyze dances steps while dancing.

So the crucial questions should probably be--How is it helpful to consider the Persons as distinct, and how is it helpful to consider them as one?

To answer, it clearly expedites experience to not overly distinguish between Jesus and the Spirit when praying or having other personal spiritual experiences. On the other hand, it clearly enriches experience, and understanding, to realize that relationships, particularly ones of love, submission, cooperation, honor and appreciation of roles, seem to be at the heart of who and what God is.

Placed in the best light, Lee's downplaying the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is a nod to our experience. We experience God as one. I have no experiential realization of any personality differences of the Persons of the Trinity. Although I believe there are three Persons, there only seems to be one personality. Put plainly, whether I'm experiencing the Father, Son or Spirit, it's essentially the same to me.

Placed in the worst light, Lee neglected the relational lessons of the Trinity, Loving the Other. This opened the door wider to a cold approach to others, which empowered callousness, betrayal and other abuses. Not to mention that he play fast, loose and abusive to push his view.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact is, if the Son is God and the Spirit is God and there is only one God, then in some way, at some level, the Son has to be the Spirit.

However, the inverse is also true. If the Son and Spirit are distinct persons, in the sense we understand persons (that is can have relationships), then in some way, at some level, the Son is not the Spirit.

Attempting to be orthodox only takes us so far...

Attempting to impose our logical overlay onto the Bible only takes us, and our notions of orthodoxy, so far. For example, since Elizabeth called Mary "The mother of my Lord" in Luke 1:43, and the Lord Jesus is the incarnated God (John 1:4 and elsewhere), why can't our logic then call Mary as "The Mother of God"?

Or, "That they all may be one, Father, even as I am in You and You in Me". So therefore Aaron is in Igzy and Igzy is in Aaron? Is that where our logic should take us?

Lee specialized in logical leaps: "A indicates B"; "B indicates C"; therefore "A equals C". Because he had a captive and uncritical audience, he got away with it. In the open marketplace of ideas, Lee would not go as far, I suspect. But the "ground of the church" preserved his ministry, and there was no one to restrain the logical leaps of the prophet.

Originally Posted by Igzy

whether I'm experiencing the Father, Son or Spirit, it's essentially the same to me.

True. I think most professing Christians, except the combative ones, would not be too interested in splitting hairs. In LC parlance, it doesn't give life. Yet some how Lee splitting hairs made us all warm and fuzzy. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Placed in the worst light, Lee neglected the relational lessons of the Trinity, Loving the Other. This opened the door wider to a cold approach to others, which empowered callousness, betrayal and other abuses. Not to mention that he play fast, loose and abusive to push his view.

Lee gave us the Processed God in our human spirit. We now had an instantaneous relation with our Creator. God wasn't far away in the heavens, frowning and looking down on all our failures. God was real, God was here and now. We could experience the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

Wonderful. Like I said, third grade was fun, too. I really liked reading "Dick and Jane." But I didn't stay there the rest of my life.

Lee seemed to miss the human Jesus, loving and obeying His Father in Heaven. The relation of love between a man on earth and the Creator God in heaven is arguably the core of the Bible, and when I began to see glimpses of this love in the shadows and types of scripture it changed my walk. Ironically some of these expressions of love and fealty were in what Lee termed "fallen" and "natural" sections of the Old Testament.

I think that when we see this love it will help us to love one another. "Greater love has no one than this, that a man would lay down his life for his friends".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee seemed to miss the human Jesus, loving and obeying His Father in Heaven.

That's because Lee's Christology was so high that it was "out of this world." His Christology was so heavenly that it was no earthly good ... except to make him exceptional than all the rest ... and to bona fide him as the oracle and authority of God on the earth. Lee's Christology was intended to bewitch our minds into following him blindly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Or, "That they all may be one, Father, even as I am in You and You in Me". So therefore Aaron is in Igzy and Igzy is in Aaron? Is that where our logic should take us?

I think that when we encounter these verses of "in-ness" or "being-ness" we err by thinking in terms of location or state is some way that reflects a physical location or state. I think it helps to think about them more in relational and moral terms.

Christ is in us, not physically or locationally, but relationally and morally. God isn't interest in "location." He's a Spirit. He has no physical location. He's interested in moral state and relationships. This is why Jesus can pray that they may be one as He is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him.

We get hung up on how the Father, Son and Spirit can be one or "in" each other. But their oneness and in-ness is one of essence. And that essence is relationship, also known as love. And God is love. Genuine love always produces oneness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And God is love. Genuine love always produces oneness.

Well said.

I saw way too much fervor and orchestration when it came to the life-giving Spirit, and far too little love. Remember Paul's classic definition which begins, "love is patient, love is kind." Instead we had "stand up and exercise your spirit," which produced competitive performances and religious showmanship, rather than genuine faith operating in love.

So it's no wonder why a ministry and a collection of churches can talk and boast of oneness, and yet have so little of it. In the name of oneness and the life-giving Spirit, both featured in 1 Corinthians, they can bring lawsuits against one another for not being sufficiently "Of Lee," all the while dismissing any instructions about not suing your brothers.

Sorry to say, the shortage of love in the Recovery not only cheated them from real oneness, but opened the door for all kinds of other rotten things to step in.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We get hung up on how the Father, Son and Spirit can be one or "in" each other. But their oneness and in-ness is one of essence. And that essence is relationship, also known as love. And God is love. Genuine love always produces oneness.

Very well stated. Yes, "that essence is relationship". Genuine love not only produces oneness, love is the very foundation and even description of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "The Father loves the Son" describes something within the relationship of the Trinity, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" describes the seminal action of this loving Trinity's loving work among mankind.

1 Corinthians 15 actually describes what the completion of this work will look like "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed (1 Cor 15:51-52) The Lord Jesus, in his resurrection, became the pioneer, the forerunner into this glorious "state of being" that we will enter into. And this is the context in which we find "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit"

Yes, we have been given a wonderful foretaste, or down payment as the Bible tells us: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14) Again we see the relationship and action of the Trinity that will effect this glorious change - "just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Romans 6:4) and "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you"(Romans 8:11) These are not descriptions of a "processed triune God", these are descriptions of the mysterious, loving relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the actions that this loving triune being has taken towards his fallen creation.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Christ is in us, not physically or locationally, but relationally and morally. God isn't interest in "location." He's a Spirit. He has no physical location. He's interested in moral state and relationships. This is why Jesus can pray that they may be one as He is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him.

Traditional, orthodox Christian scholars and teachers have usually taught that Christ is in us through the representation of the Holy Spirit. I think when we take into the consideration the totality of the words of the Lord Jesus, and those of the scripture writing apostles, this is as accurate of a teaching regarding how Christ is in us as we can wrap out little minds around.

Yes, God is interested in moral state and relationships, but the fact is is that God also addresses location as well. Twice in Matthew 6 the Lord Jesus gave an indication of the location of the Father: "for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven" (vr 1) and "Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name" (vr 6).

Also we can go back to that very familiar verse in John: "for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son...". Not trying to be flippant here (UntoHim flippant...no way!)...Well, God sent his Son somewhere, now didn't he? I don't think we need to have degrees in language to get the drift that God the Father sent his Son from somewhere to some place. And let's all at least agree to thank, praise and glorify him for this!

We get hung up on how the Father, Son and Spirit can be one or "in" each other. But their oneness and in-ness is one of essence. And that essence is relationship, also known as love. And God is love. Genuine love always produces oneness.

I really and truly believe that good, solid theology does not get us "hung up" at all, in fact I think it has great potential to "un-hang" us from erroneous and harmful thoughts about the nature and character of God. Look what happened when we were taught "we don't care about doctrine we only care about life" - we became a bunch of people that could be best described as the blind leading the blind.

http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/th...ransformation/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/th...ransformation/

Isn't that basically the text version of the video Untohim posted? I'm still not bedazzled about it, or by him.

Ravi strikes me as a guru from India ... speaking to disgruntled, disenchanted, or desperate, perchance, Christians who are open to anything better.

I'm no stranger to these gurus. They give me the willies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ravi Zacharias strikes me as a guru from India ... speaking to disgruntled, disenchanted, or desperate, perchance, Christians who are open to anything better.

I'm no stranger to these gurus. They give me the willies.

I watched a couple of his videos and he seems to me to be a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian who is also not afraid to be an intellectual. I.e. to be educated and to think.

So he is simultaneously attempting to traffic in two worlds: among those who think, and among those who believe. Not an easy task.

Now, is he speaking to disenchanted and desperate Christians, as awareness says? I'd say that being a Christian here on this captive planet, in our fallen flesh and with our damaged soul should lead us to be desperate! Zacharias seems to be taking the gospel message to those who imagine that "Believe into the name of Jesus Christ and go to heaven" is an irrational, superstitious, and intellectually demeaning proposition. And he is trying to simultaneously train believers not to be dull but to sharpen their sword and go out and compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ravi Zacharias is one of the preeminent theologian/philosophers of our day. (and no I'm not saying he's the one theologian with the one theology for the age...only that he explains the trinity the clearest I've ever heard).

I did enjoy the video. I didn't particularly agree with or understand his explication of the trinity, but that didn't bother me because I've never understood the trinity, at least on the terms that it is commonly presented (Remember Lee with his tea bags and water...).

But I did want to comment on one of Unto's remarks, that Zacharias doesn't have "the one theology for the age"... Zacharias said in another video that he didn't expect everyone to agree with him. He realizes that minds work differently. People can see the same thing and come up with different conclusions. He seems to get this, and doesn't insist on primacy.

What he said that he wanted to do was to engage others in the free market of ideas... "Let the best idea win out in the end", is how he put it. Zacharias is willing to let others think differently, and speak differently, and he believes that if he's also allowed to speak his message, that God loves us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to rescue us from both our sins and our sinful nature, then some people will indeed apprehend the power of the gospel. Zacharias believes that other narratives, both religious and what he calls "naturalistic" (i.e. rational/scientific) have inherent flaws, and contain hidden assumptions that cannot be supported on their own terms. He believes that the Christian message is the one coherent message that can satisfy us all emotionally, mentally, and spiritually, and can bring us back to our source, our Father God.

So he is quite different than Witness Lee, who had some unresolved inner need to be the only voice at the party. Zacharias is taking an entirely different tack, and is quite willing to be one voice among many. If you look at his videos, he seems to go where they don't admire the Christian message. Quite different from gurus who surround themselves with acolytes. It was interesting to watch a video of Zacharias taking confrontational questions from a crowd at an Ivy League university, and turn the tables on the questioners. He would point out that their questions contained implicit assumptions, and he would ask them, where did those assumptions come from? So when they tried to question him, he made them question themselves.

[awareness]

Well Ravi did sign onto the Kingdom of the Cults, with Walter Martin

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well Ravi did sign onto the Kingdom of the Cults, with Walter Martin

I saw that, too. Not sure what it signifies, as I've never read Martin's work.

As I said, I only watched maybe 3 videos of Ravi, and took a cursory look at his website, and won't try to defend or trumpet his ministry.

But I resonate with the idea that he takes his message to Hindus, Muslims, atheists, and Mormons. Instead of staying in a relatively safe place, and speaking before a throng of agreeable folks, he often puts himself in a vulnerable position, in front of people who don't have a vested interest to see things his way.

My sense was that he was counting on magnanimity, humility, and grace (i.e. "Christ in me") as much as rhetoric, to convey his message. He was clearly defending his position, and saying, "This is my truth", yet he was openly cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Anyway, I liked watching it. But I'm not going to evaluate the man's ministry, yea or nay. I'm not qualified, and I'm not interested in taking the time and effort to become qualified.

I have spent a good deal of time yesterday and today reading this entire thread and doing all the "homework" because I believe the topics being discussed are highly important. At the beginning, I noticed some Witness Lee bashing, which I expected; however, I also perceived some good theological discussion about 1 Corinthians 15:45, much of which was quite interesting and, for the most part, respectful of the views of the others in the thread. The latter part of the thread turned to discussing the theology behind the Trinity.

Since this site is dedicated to the "open discussion of the Local Church Movement and the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee," I think it is important to examine what they say about these two topics in their own words.

1) On 1 Corinthians 15:45: http://online.recoveryversion.org/Fo...sp?FNtsID=4674

As I read this footnote (see link above), nowhere does it say that Christ became the Holy Spirit. It actually says that "Christ became a life-giving Spirit with a spiritual body" (emphasis mine). [Please note the difference between "the" and "a." THE (one and only) Holy Spirit vs. A life-giving Spirit] This closely aligns with what OBW is saying about in post #1:

Originally Posted by OBW

- - - - -
1 Cor does not speak about the Holy Spirit. That is the most important thing to know about the verse. Other than the fact that it references one (and only one) member of the Trinity (and that would be Christ, the Son), the Trinity is not a focus of the verse.

This verse is in the midst of a discussion about the kind of body that believers will receive when they are resurrected. So Paul turns to the only example that he can point to in a solid way — Jesus. He is speaking of the physical body that Jesus had after resurrection. And there is no way to describe that body as simply physical since it was not always visible, and could move through solid walls and locked doors. So Paul referred to it as "spiritual." Sort of a no-brainer since the Son is part of the Godhead and God is spirit. So Jesus is spirit. That is different from declaring that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

I know that Lee strongly declared that there can be only one spirit that gives life. But he was wrong. Jesus gives life and he became "A" spirit. Not the Holy Spirit. I think that it is also provable that the Father can give life. And he is also spirit. BTW. The Holy Spirit is also spirit.

That may seem obvious since that is his name. But it doesn't always work that way. "The Spirit" or the "Holy Spirit" are names for what we refer to as the third of the Trinity. It is obvious that the word "Spirit" in the name is actually linked to his essence as spirit. But both the Father and the Son are also spirit, yet they are not called "The Spirit." Isn't it interesting that Mr. Brown may actually be pasty white, or Mr. White be as black as coal. The name does not cause the one who bears the name to subsume all that the word that is their name implies. Neither does it deny others the ability to possess some of the attributes that the name implies.

Seems like a no-brainer. Unless you are Lee or are under his spell (and I used to be). He is equivocating between "sprit" and "Sprit." The word "spirit" has many meanings. Among them is the idea of a state of being that is not simply physical. And God is spirit. All of Him — Father, Son, and Spirit. It just happens that one of those three has a name that is the same word — Spirit.

Your question is phrased in the words of the Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon. "The Life-Giving Spirit" is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit. But this verse does not say that. It says that the last Adam became "A" quickening (life-giving) spirit. Jesus surely gives life. That does not make him the Holy Spirit. It simply acknowledges the truth that Jesus has this different body — a spiritual body — and he does give life.

Besides, if you buy Lee's version of the verse, then you have to assume that Paul is busy talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity other than to consider the body that Jesus received in resurrection. Then suddenly, in the middle of that discussion, Paul had a serious bout of ADHD, shouted "squirrel" and rambled on about how Jesus became the Holy Spirit (without ever actually saying those words) then just as suddenly returned to the discussion he had been carrying on before.

In short, Lee demanded that "spirit" can only be the "Holy Spirit" — and that is just plain wrong. So the answer to your question is "Christ did not become the Life-Giving Spirit" according to 1 Cor . At least not in the way that Lee meant it. He did receive a spiritual body in resurrection. And he does give life. But that did not cause Jesus to morph over and become the Holy Spirit. That is not supported by this or any other verse in scripture.

- - - - -

Anything still unclear? Any different thoughts?

I know I did not quote a bunch of verses. But we all know the verse in question and it is easily seen as the one I am referring to. Do you think I have misrepresented it?

It seems to me that OBW and the footnote are in agreement on this one. The footnote says "Christ became a life-giving Spirit with a spiritual body" (emphasis mine). OBW also emphasizes "a" throughout the post and mentions "a spiritual body" in the last quoted paragraph before the line.

The only untrue thing I see in OBW's post is what he/she claims that Lee says. OBW claims that in the "Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon," " 'The Life-Giving Spirit' is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit." As can be clearly seen from reading the linked footnote, the "Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon" does not say anything of the sort.

In conclusion, I do not think OBW misrepresented the verse. I think he/she misrepresented what Lee said about the verse.

It is getting late for me; therefore, I’ll let y’all read and digest this first post before I finish writing and post part two on the Trinity.

This is my first time on this site, and I do not have a user name yet; however, I'll sign my posts with "~Faith" to avoid confusion with other "Unregistered"s. I trust that no one else will write posts and sign them with "~Faith" during this interim.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider what I am presenting in this post.

~Faith

Originally Posted by ~Faith

On 1 Corinthians 15:45: http://online.recoveryversion.org/Fo...sp?FNtsID=4674

As I read this footnote (see link above), nowhere does it say that Christ became the Holy Spirit. It actually says that "Christ became a life-giving Spirit with a spiritual body" (emphasis mine). [Please note the difference between "the" and "a." THE (one and only) Holy Spirit vs. A life-giving Spirit]

The footnote says "Christ became a life-giving Spirit with a spiritual body" (emphasis mine).

OBW claims that in the "Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon," " 'The Life-Giving Spirit' is a code word for this singular thing that is the Holy Spirit." As can be clearly seen from reading the linked footnote, the "Lee/LSM/LRC lexicon" does not say anything of the sort.

In conclusion, I do not think OBW misrepresented the verse. I think he/she misrepresented what Lee said about the verse.

It seems as though Faith is ignoring the ministry of Witness Lee in order to defend it. As soon as WL told us, “The last Adam, Jesus Christ, became a life-giving Spirit”, he then asked us, “Are there two life-giving Spirits?” Next, he showed us the verse “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”, and he said that it told us that THE Lord is THE Spirit.

One would have to be pretty obtuse not to miss this. Lee hammered us with it, repeatedly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It seems as though Faith is ignoring the ministry of Witness Lee in order to defend it. As soon as WL told us, “The last Adam, Jesus Christ, became a life-giving Spirit”, he then asked us, “Are there two life-giving Spirits?” Next, he showed us the verse “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”, and he said that it told us that THE Lord is THE Spirit.

One would have to be pretty obtuse not to miss this. Lee hammered us with it, repeatedly.

Faith is linking a text that's been sanitized ....

[UntoHim]

No, actually she has linked to the actual footnote, which is unaltered in the link she provided.

I do agree with the other "unregistered". This footnote is not all that Lee taught regarding this and some of the other related verses, such as 2 Corinthians 3:16. When these are coupled with Lee's teachings on Isaiah 9:6, one comes away with a deep impression of a "modalistic" Godhead, where the Father becomes the Son and then the Son becomes the Spirit. Of course Lee strongly insisted that his teachings were not modalism, but most of the current scholars/theologians who've reviewed them strongly insist that they are some form of modalism.

It's the old swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, feathers like a duck....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No, actually she has linked to the actual footnote, which is unaltered in the link she provided.

I do agree with the other "unregistered". This footnote is not all that Lee taught regarding this and some of the other related verses, such as 2 Corinthians 3:16. When these are coupled with Lee's teachings on Isaiah 9:6, one comes away with a deep impression of a "modalistic" Godhead, where the Father becomes the Son and then the Son becomes the Spirit. Of course Lee strongly insisted that his teachings were not modalism, but most of the current scholars/theologians who've reviewed them strongly insist that they are some form of modalism.

It's the old swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, feathers like a duck....

Obviously the footnote does not represent all Lee had to say about 15:45.

[UntoHim]

Please, let's try to stay away from distractions and get sidetracked. I didn't say the Spirit mentioned in 1 Cor 2:10 was not the Holy Spirit. awareness was the one who brought up that verse. Let's just stay with this portion, there is quite enough to work with here as it is!

There is a particular context that the apostle Paul is working with. The context is actually quite clear - he is dealing with certain people who were teaching the Corinthians that there will not be a bodily resurrection of the dead. "With what kind of body do they come?" Some people were teaching that there will only be a "spiritual" resurrection - that it would only be our spirit and soul that would be with God in eternity. This was actually a very prevalent kind of doctrine/philosophy of the Greek society of the day.

Next: "There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies". Pretty basic. Let's jest try to stay with this guy, shall we? The apostle Paul knew that his audience would absolutely know what he meant by "earthly bodies". What he had to educate the Corinthians about was the "heavenly bodies". This was a new concept to both the Jewish believers and the gentile believers. The heavenly body was something for the future. Both the Jews and Gentiles could easily fathom "the future", what they could not fathom was having a "heavenly body" existence in the future. This went against the grain for both - the Jews had not really been able to ascertain any such concept from the Old Testament scriptures, and the Gentiles (mostly Greeks at that point) had no reason to believe such a bodily resurrection was even remotely possible.

Next: "so it is with the resurrection of the dead". "sown perishable" - "raised imperishable". Stay with him now. What was "sown perishable"? It was Adam, but not just his soul, but his BODY - His physical body. Yet this very same thing that was sown imperishable was to be raised imperishable. The first Adam "WAS MADE A LIVING SOUL", the last Adam "WAS MADE A LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT". Again, as I have previously noted, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever from the context that the apostle Paul was not referring to the Lord Jesus Christ becoming, or was made, the Holy Spirit - He was referring to a future state of BODILY EXISTANCE that the Lord Jesus Christ had entered into - and that he was the forerunner of all those who would, at the resurrection of the dead, also enter into such a BODILY EXISTANCE. This is going to be the ultimate "recovery" from the fall in the Garden of Eden. We - fallen, sinful, ruined MAN IN HIS BODY will be recovered to be in the full, unhindered, naked presence of God almighty.

This my friends is the real mystery, the wonderment, the unfathomable truth that is revealed in this statement - "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit". There is SO MUCH in this statement! What a tragedy that Witness Lee lead us all to believe something that was not even in the thoughts of the apostle Paul.

So much more to get into.

v35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.