Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Which is why civil discussions are okay, even beneficial, and moreso even on subjects as unfathomable as the trinity. As long as it doesn't... hmmm... degenerate into antagonistic scenarios over... hmmm... deep truths...

Hey, we can fight, argue, and disagree on the trinity. We can even reject brothers over it ... and call them serpents and vipers, and anti-Christs. But personally, I draw the line when bloodletting results over disagreements over God. To me, just hostility over God, without blood, is against what God, Jesus, and the Bible, stands for, ultimately.

To me, fighting over the nature of God is like fleas fighting over the dog.

[FaithInChrist]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

The phrase is beyond my understanding. To literally translate it into my native language is one thing. To grasp and comprehend the meaning of these words is another thing. And to know God and the Living Reality of God behind the words and concepts, in our living union with Him, is something else.

Originally Posted by aron

Certainly the "very nature of the Godhead" is something that I don't get. If I got it I probably wouldn't be posting here! I'd probably be doing something more profitable!

Originally Posted by Ohio

I honestly find no attempt in scripture to properly and adequately explain to us all the theology of the Trinity. Then why should I be discontent if I or others cannot properly and adequately explain the theology of the Trinity?

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, we can fight, argue, and disagree on the trinity. We can even reject brothers over it ... and call them serpents and vipers, and anti-Christs. But personally, I draw the line when bloodletting results over disagreements over God. To me, just hostility over God, without blood, is against what God, Jesus, and the Bible, stands for, ultimately.

To me, fighting over the nature of God is like fleas fighting over the dog.

Neither do I claim to understand "all the theology of the Trinity" nor do I intend to argue about the Trinity.

Even Witness Lee said "My answer is that He is the Triune God and that the Trinity is a mystery. If you can understand the Trinity and define it adequately, it is no longer a mystery. In the realm of mathematics or chemistry, things can be scientifically analyzed by the human mind. That is science, not mystery. If you can use your supposedly clever mind to understand the Triune God, He is no longer a mystery. Because none of us can understand the Trinity adequately, it remains a mystery. Do not ask me why. I do not know why. I can only say, ‘The Bible tells us so.’ Do not argue; just take the pure Word of God. […] This one unique God is Triune. I do not know how to explain this, although for many years I tried. During the past fifty years, I spent a great deal of time analyzing and trying to understand the Trinity. Since I could find no way to resolve it, I gave up long ago. I said to myself, ‘Little man, you are too small. You can never understand the Trinity adequately’” (8-9). ~from The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee (copyrighted 1976)

Witness Lee also said, "This matter of the Trinity has been a subject of great argument and strong disputation among Christians ever since the second century. During the last eighteen or nineteen centuries, the argument has never ceased. It has been utilized by the enemy to destroy the unity of the saints. Do not get caught in the snare of endless debate. We must come back from the traditional terms sayings, and teachings to the pure Word of God. The controversy concerning such a mystery as the Trinity is endless. Be on the alert to avoid this trap” (7). ~from The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee (copyrighted 1976)

Works Cited

Lee, Witness. The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1994. Print.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by FaithInChrist

Neither do I claim to understand "all the theology of the Trinity" nor do I intend to argue about the Trinity.

Even Witness Lee said "My answer is that He is the Triune God and that the Trinity is a mystery. If you can understand the Trinity and define it adequately, it is no longer a mystery. In the realm of mathematics or chemistry, things can be scientifically analyzed by the human mind. That is science, not mystery. If you can use your supposedly clever mind to understand the Triune God, He is no longer a mystery. Because none of us can understand the Trinity adequately, it remains a mystery. Do not ask me why. I do not know why. I can only say, ‘The Bible tells us so.’ Do not argue; just take the pure Word of God. […] This one unique God is Triune. I do not know how to explain this, although for many years I tried. During the past fifty years, I spent a great deal of time analyzing and trying to understand the Trinity. Since I could find no way to resolve it, I gave up long ago. I said to myself, ‘Little man, you are too small. You can never understand the Trinity adequately’” (8-9). ~from The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee (copyrighted 1976)

Witness Lee also said, "This matter of the Trinity has been a subject of great argument and strong disputation among Christians ever since the second century. During the last eighteen or nineteen centuries, the argument has never ceased. It has been utilized by the enemy to destroy the unity of the saints. Do not get caught in the snare of endless debate. We must come back from the traditional terms sayings, and teachings to the pure Word of God. The controversy concerning such a mystery as the Trinity is endless. Be on the alert to avoid this trap” (7). ~from The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee (copyrighted 1976)

Works Cited

Lee, Witness. The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1994. Print.

I read the above quotes a couple times and it reminded me ... once again ... of classic Witness Lee doublespeak. Lee liked to venture out into the greater body of Christ from time to time and talk as if he was a mainstream minister, as if fit into the body of Christ like so many other gifted ministers out there in "Christianity." It reminded me how "normal" Witness Lee could appear at times, especially in those early days.

But here's the real question: Who is the real Witness Lee?

After Lee's death in 1997, and rumblings of dissension about future leadership reverberated throughout the Recovery, Titus Chu had all his workers and full-timers go back and read through all of Lee's and Nee's books concerning a number of pertinent issues affecting the leadership of the LC's and "The Work." All these pages of quotes were compiled and personally delivered to the leading "Blendeds" in Anaheim -- ones like Kangas, Yu, Phillips, Chen. What a waste of time! The Blendeds in Power had no interest in quotes extracted from edited books by their hero. Why should they? They knew the "real" Lee, and all the books in the world, including the Bible itself, would never change their minds!

That's why these two quotes above by FaithInChrist mean nothing. Nothing personal to FaithInChrist, who really means well, and sincerely believes these quotes, but after all the time I have invested within and without the Recovery, I can see right through them. Nice quotes that mean nothing. No different than a "presidential" speech.

[bearbear]

The trinity used to be a point of confusion for me but I've come to appreciate it after I realized how beautifully it conveys God's love.

Throughout Jesus' ministry the Father glorified the son. At Jesus' baptism, the Father opened the heavens and declared "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.". The Father also expressed his love for the Son again during Jesus' transfiguration.

Jesus on the other hand lived to glorify the Father. He loved the Father so much that he thought nothing of his own will or needs but constantly obeyed his Father and did his will. He taught his disciples to do the same through the Lord's prayer.

The Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus (John 16:14) because everything he makes known to us is what he receives from Jesus.

So each part of the trinity lives not for its own glory but for that of the other.. and in this way God is glorified. God is "one" in purpose and essence but because he is also three distinct persons, God lives selflessly and in relationship with one another. In the movie Frozen, love is defined as "putting the needs of others first". This is a pretty good description of how God relates to just himself even.

Contrast this to Satan who is simply 'one' and lives for his own glory. And instead of serving others, he uses others to serve himself.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by bearbear

So each part of the trinity lives not for its own glory but for that of the other.. and in this way God is glorified. God is "one" in purpose and essence but because he is also three distinct persons, God lives selflessly and in relationship with one another. In the movie Frozen, love is defined as "putting the needs of others first". This is a pretty good description of how God relates to just himself even.

Contrast this to Satan who is simply 'one' and lives for his own glory. And instead of serving others, he uses others to serve himself.

Excellent post bearbear! I never really thought of this contrast between God and his Trinity and how Satan is serving himself.

[awareness]

Thread progress so far:

The last man Adam became a life giving "x" ...

And the Trinity = x.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thread progress so far:

The last man Adam became a life giving "x" ...

And the Trinity = x.

Sorry I haven't parsed this thread thoroughly but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

My understanding of this verse is in context of the previous verse 44. I think life-giving spirit in verse 45 refers to Jesus' spiritual body which is not unlike the spiritual body we'll receive after we pass from our life in the flesh.

God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die. We all know that after they ate of that tree they didn't drop dead but Adam continued as a living being in the flesh, perhaps because God was referring to another kind of death that mattered more, a spiritual death - the death of Adam and Eve's spirit.

Though it seemed like man was doomed to die this spiritual death forever, Jesus came into the picture and took the key to death and Hades away from Satan. Because he overcame death we can too through what he did on the cross. I think Paul was just trying to convey this contrast between death and life. Before we were doomed to spiritual death, but through Jesus we are made alive and can be born again in the spirit.

The thief comes to kill steal and destroy, but Jesus came that we would have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10).

This is contrasted with Adam who by eating of the forbidden fruit became a perpetual "death" giver by passing his sin which leads to spiritual death to all mankind.

So I think Paul was trying to communicate two things at once with the phrase "life-giving spirit" : 1. Although Jesus died, he overcame death and he is alive right now in the spirit. 2. His resurrection to life is not limited to himself, but we can share and receive in this same life.

To me, to come to the conclusion that Jesus became the Holy Spirit from a reading of this verse is just way out of left-field and has nothing to do with the spirit of what Paul was trying to convey in the passage.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

To me, to come to the conclusion that Jesus became the Holy Spirit from a reading of this verse is just way out of left-field and has nothing to do with the spirit of what Paul was trying to convey in the passage.

Welcome back bro BB. Nice to see your smiling face again.

Witness Lee just got carried away with that verse because he always had to be unique, and so to distinguish himself, above all others, he had to introduce "new revelations."

And in doing so he would wax silly to the absurd. As he did with 15:45.

[InChristAlone]

FaithInChrist, thanks for your posts. Welcome aboard!

Could you please tell us a little about yourself? How long have you been in the LRC? Do you believe that it’s the only genuine Christian church? What do you think about saints who left it? Do you know what reasons make saints leave the church? Have you ever read anything about the hidden history of the LC?

It would be interesting to know you opinion. You may open a new thread here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...isplay.php?f=9

Thank you in advance!


PS I got an epub version of Orthodox Study Bible. So I’d like to share some footnotes from it. I don’t think it will add anything new to the discussion. But I’d like to pay attention to 1 Corinthians 15:22, where the Apostle Paul says that we die in Adam, but we shall be made alive in Christ. Paul uses the present tense in the first part of the sentence and the future tense – in the second. So it’s quite clear that in 15:22 and 15:45, Paul doesn't speak about the Holy Spirit but about the contrast between our present mortal body and our future immortal spiritual body. Christ is risen. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. One day Christians will be resurrected and made alive in Christ, living in immortal spiritual bodies.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

All people share the same human nature, but Christians have two fathers: first Adam, who became the father of mortality and earthly life, and now Christ, the father of immortality and spiritual life.

1 Corinthians 15:35-54

How will the dead rise? What is the resurrection body like? Paul's most basic contrast is that between the natural (lit. “soulish”; Gr. psychikon) and the spiritual (Gr. pneumatikon, v. 44), that is, between the present body and the deified body. Other contrasts are corruption vs. incorruption (v. 42), dishonor vs. glory (v. 43), weakness vs. power (v. 43), living “soul” (literal translation) vs. life-giving spirit (v. 45), of the earth vs. from heaven (v. 47), of dust vs. heavenly (v. 48), the mortal vs. the immortal (v. 54). This present body is only a seed (v. 38) of the body to come. The “spiritual” body is not a pale shadow of the material world we now know; the opposite is true. The resurrection body is the fulfillment of what God intends for our present body. It is the material fulfilled, not dematerialized

1 Corinthians 15:45
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Whose body is this? As our present body is Adam's, so the resurrection body is that of the last Adam, Christ.

Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they ate from the tree, the words “you shall die” indicate a spiritual death through separation from God. Adam disobeyed God’s commandment and diverted himself, or fell, from God’s path to perfection, thus separating himself from His Creator, the Source of life. Christ, by His Death and Resurrection, conquered the devil and death, freeing mankind from the fear of death (Heb 2:14–15) and making possible a more complete communion between God and man than was ever possible before. This communion allows people to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2Pt 1:4), to transcend death and, ultimately, all the consequences of the Fall.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die. We all know that after they ate of that tree they didn't drop dead but Adam continued as a living being in the flesh, perhaps because God was referring to another kind of death that mattered more, a spiritual death - the death of Adam and Eve's spirit.

Here is how I have long understood this verse ...

God told Adam, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." We know that one day to God is as a thousand years, and this explains, at least to me, why no man has lived longer than "one day," which is a thousand years. In this way, Adam died on the same day he ate of that tree.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is how I have long understood this verse ...

God told Adam, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." We know that one day to God is as a thousand years, and this explains, at least to me, why no man has lived longer than "one day," which is a thousand years. In this way, Adam died on the same day he ate of that tree.

That's deep bro ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thread progress so far:

The last man Adam became a life giving "x" ...

And the Trinity = x.

With the variation in meaning of "spirit," the statement you make is true. But at the same time it is of uncertain truth because it is not clear that there is a single meaning of spirit in both cases.

Given the context of Paul's discussion here in 1 Corinthians 15, I do not think that he is necessarily suggesting that we take on the essence of God in resurrection because he is not talking about that. He is talking about the nature of the body in resurrection.

In John 4, Jesus identifies the nature of God as being "spirit." Would you say that Jesus was not part of the Godhead, therefore not spirit? I would think that his essence was not taken away to become born of woman, then returned to him when resurrected, so he was always spirit in the sense of what it is that is common within the Trinity. Yet his body was strictly limited to the physical. While there is record of him walking on water, there is no record of him simply disappearing or appearing within a locked room, floating up into the sky, or anything like that. Paul says that what was observed after his resurrection is like what the Christian should expect at the resurrection.

At resurrection, the body of Jesus was different than before. Paul said that this difference was "spirit." The Godhead is already spirit. And even man is said in numerous places to have a spirit. But that spirit is associated with the soul, not the body. But at resurrection, the body of Jesus changed. It ceased to be bound to the physics of earth, yet it could be touched, so retained some aspects of they physical. Paul called this body spirit.

And the example of what he meant was Christ — the one who gives life. Therefore, the one who gives life is now seen in a spiritual body, and is therefore a life-giving spirit.

As for the claim by Lee that there is only one life-giving spirit, I give you Romans 8:11, where the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in us, and that he will also give life to our mortal bodies through his spirit that lives in us. In this verse, I can see the propensity to rush for the conclusion that it is the Spirit that raised Jesus and that will give life to our bodies, but that is not what it says. It seems to say that it is the Father who raised Jesus through his spirit (the Holy Spirit) and that it is because of the Holy Spirit that lives in us that he (the Father) will also give life to our bodies.

And yet Jesus is referred to as life-giving. But it is in the context of a change in our present life — in our soul — not in terms of our future body. It is surely the "making alive" of our spirit that is what that reference to "life-giving" is about in 1 Cor 15. But according to Romans, it is the Father, through the Spirit, that raised Jesus from the dead and will do the same for our bodies at a time yet to come. Why do I say "yet to come"? Because I daily feel the effects of the lack of that life in my body. It aches. It does not regenerate its energy as easily from a short nap or even a night of sleep. No matter how I try, I will never do certain things that used to be fairly easy for me (at least not in this life).

From this, I conclude that to say that the reference to spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is not the same as the use of the term spirit to refer to the thing that John 4 claims to be the essence of God. The word is the same, but the meaning is not identical. It is not simply the same thing. To say otherwise is a kind of equivocation. It is to insist on a singularity of meaning where such singularity does not exist.