Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[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.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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.

This was a glorious post. Thanks Untohim.

But now you've introduce YOUR paradox, your conundrum, at demanding we stick to just the theology of 15:45.

Cuz when you bring in the context of 15:45 you bring in our experience. Paul is not speaking theology. He's speaking of the guarantee of our inheritance. He's speaking of experiences.

So the truth is, if/when we get down to the bottom of the theology of 15:45, without experience as the conclusion, our theology will be hollow and empty of content.

So bro Ohio was right to bring in his experience of the last Adam. That's where the theology of 15:45 brings us.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

So bro Ohio was right to bring in his experience of the last Adam. That's where the theology of 15:45 brings us.

No problem at all bringing in experience. I plainly stated that theology without experience is dead, just as faith without works is dead. Yet we should not "interpret" the bible with our experience. (very awkward statement, but can't think of another way to say it for now) This can and does lead to all sorts of error in teaching and in practice.

Let me put it this way: We should not use the Word of God to "prove" our experience is legitimately of God, rather we should be willing to let our experiences be guided, adjusted and even reproved by the Word of God. Yes we have the Holy Spirit who is to be our helper, advocate and guide. But Jesus said that the Spirit would "guide you into all truth" - So just how are we to verify that we have been guided by the Holy Spirit? Well I think the surest way is to be guided by the truth that is right before us in the Word of God.

We're probably getting off track here. Darn you guys! You are so good at this, that before I even realize that I'm off topic, I'm way off topic!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No problem at all bringing in experience. I plainly stated that theology without experience is dead, just as faith without works is dead. Yet we should not "interpret" the bible with our experience. (very awkward statement, but can't think of another way to say it for now) This can and does lead to all sorts of error in teaching and in practice.

Let me put it this way: We should not use the Word of God to "prove" our experience is legitimately of God, rather we should be willing to let our experiences be guided, adjusted and even reproved by the Word of God. Yes we have the Holy Spirit who is to be our helper, advocate and guide. But Jesus said that the Spirit would "guide you into all truth" - So just how are we to verify that we have been guided by the Holy Spirit? Well I think the surest way is to be guided by the truth that is right before us in the Word of God.

We're probably getting off track here. Darn you guys! You are so good at this, that before I even realize that I'm off topic, I'm way off topic!

Off topic sort of. You bring out good points about experience and the word of God.

But how deep can we go with theology on 15:45?

I'd like to go deeper if possible. Y'all are smarter than me. You brought in the context and that cleared up much. But I'm at a loss to go any deeper.

For example, what did Paul mean by life giving spirit? If we look at the use of spirit in the Bible it's all over the map.

Lee said it was the Holy Spirit, but that's just conjecture on his part. When it comes down to it what did Lee know? He wasn't the oracle he claimed to be and sold us on.

Personally I don't think Paul was speaking of the Holy Spirit when he used the phrase "life giving spirit."

But what do I know? When I pray to God I don't have a clue what I'm speaking to and experiencing. I leave the mechanics up to God.

Hell, I don't even know if I'm going off topic. Y'all have to be real strong Christians, exercising long suffering and forbearance, just to tolerate me.

Thanks for that. Must have something to do with the life giving spirit.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Cuz when you bring in the context of 15:45 you bring in our experience. Paul is not speaking theology. He's speaking of the guarantee of our inheritance. He's speaking of experiences.

So the truth is, if/when we get down to the bottom of the theology of 15:45, without experience as the conclusion, our theology will be hollow and empty of content.

And therein lies the problem with 1 Cor 15:45 as experience. This is the middle of a discussion about something that none of the participants to the conversation had experienced. Not Paul. Not the Corinthian believers. Not anyone who has read the dialog since. That verse is an attempt to focus the minds of a bunch of believers who were speculating about something that had never been discussed previously, and that none of them could experience and talk to others about. And even if Paul was not entirely correct on the ultimate similarity of the coming body in resurrection, he only had one example to provide — Jesus after his resurrection — and it was not really talked about other than by inference from the accounts of his actions during those few days before his ascension.

If anything, I believe that Paul's goal was not to school the Corinthians on what was to be, but to give them a narrower range of imagination so they would drop it and move on to what mattered — living now. And from what I can see, no matter how high and lofty and spiritual the other things Paul taught, it was all tied in with their practical living as a community of faith and as individuals representing that community in the larger community of life.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

And therein lies the problem with 1 Cor 15:45 as experience.

Thanks Mike, I think what you have posted here can serve as a catalyst for us to refocus this thread away from some of the peripheral matters. It is naturally taken for granted that any discussion that involves God, the Trinity or any actions taken by Him may very well involve our experience (Good, bad or indifferent). But to make our experience the central hub of every discussion will end up in a lot of chasing of our tails and getting us nowhere.

Originally Posted by aron

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...)

Point very well taken aron. From Genesis to Revelation, I don't see where God has expected us to fully "understand" Him. He asked us to love Him, obey Him, serve Him, worship Him, proclaim Him and yes, even know Him. And knowing does imply understanding. Remember when the lawyer asked the Lord Jesus "what is the great commandment" he answered "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" - Mat 22:37 (Darby says "understanding" here). To those of us who sat under Witness Lee for many years, knowing and understanding God and the things of God became almost counterintuitive...Experiencing God and the things of God trumped everything. We became a very unbalanced lot, and it showed in our interaction with other LC members and non-members alike, and with other believers and non-believers alike.

"Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105) Brothers, sisters, friends, lurkers: It all comes down to "Your Word" - without the Word, and I would contend, without an understanding and comprehension of and even obedience to the Word, we will find ourselves groping in the dark, stumbling over every obstacle that our enemy has placed in the way. Christian theology (especially biblical/systematic theology) is nothing less then a necessary instrument to light the lamp. It is not the lamp, and it is certainly not the light itself...it is merely a tool which God has provided....if we will only use it!

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

If anything, I believe that Paul's goal was not to school the Corinthians on what was to be, but to give them a narrower range of imagination so they would drop it and move on to what mattered — living now. And from what I can see, no matter how high and lofty and spiritual the other things Paul taught, it was all tied in with their practical living as a community of faith and as individuals representing that community in the larger community of life.

Two sections come to my mind, here. First, where Paul said, "I know that you want to know about certain foods..." then he suddenly started talking about the vanity of knowledge and the better way, which is love.

1 Cor 8:1 "Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.…"

The way is not to scrupulously parse the rule book, but rather to love one another. True knowledge is not objective fact closely held but rather to love. Paul was not interested in answering their question so much as re-directing their inquiry, and focus.

Secondly, remember where Paul wrote "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged..." in 1 Cor 14:31? WL made it appear as if the apostle was encouraging us all to stand one by one, and speak. But actually Paul was dealing with a situation in which everybody tried to speak at once, and to re-create the excitement of Pentecost. The Corinthians were going to each meeting expecting the building to shake and tongues of fire to fall, and each would shout in the language of angels (or at least in Scythian) of the mighty works of God. Paul was saying, "Calm down, be sober, speak to edify the hearers."

But Lee divorced that word from its context and it became, repeated endlessly, the basis of our "popcorn testimonies", in which we would line up behind the microphone, and one by one, tell everyone else what a revelation the latest speaking was.

Likewise, if we consider the over-all context of 1 Corinthians 15:45b we might see what the merit of OBW's comment. Perhaps Paul is not attempting to lay the foundation for someone's trinitarian dogma but rather trying to bring some measure of closure and/or restraint to what is, for the speculating Corinthians, a largely hypothetical realm.

[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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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!

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.

Well, I believe heaven is more a moral location than a physical location. Jesus gave us an "address" but he never said it was a physical place. I think it helps to realize that heaven is a place where moral realities have more substance than physical ones. The moral is the physical there, so to speak. The inside is the outside.

When you say "Christ is in us through the representation of the Holy Spirit" that sounds good theologically, and I have little problem with it, but it really doesn't answer the question whether Christ is actually in us himself. Are two in me, or one? And can I experience the distinction between the two, or do I need to? And if I don't, doesn't the idea that Christ is in some way the Spirit carry some weight?

"Through the representation of the Holy Spirit" doesn't mean much unless you again interpret it from relational angle. If the Holy Spirit can be seen as the relationship and flow of love and light between the Father and the Son, then it's easy to picture that the relationship (the Spirit) brings with it the person related to (the Son). That's what I mean when I say it at least helps to consider these things from the moral/relational angle.