Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's no need for mind-reading Paul. That Paul expected the last Adam to become the life-giving spirit was imminent is revealed not only in the "not all shall sleep verse," but elsewhere:

1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

"The Greek word εγενετο commonly translated "was made" or "became" clearly shows that Paul believed that Jesus as the last Adam was already a life-giving spirit rather than that he "expected the last Adam to become the life-giving spirit was imminent"[sic] as you assert. Paul was mistaken about the time being so short that they needed to act as if they didn't have wives in I Cor 7:29. I Cor 10:11 and Galatians 1:4 do confirm that Paul believed he lived at the end of the eon. However, it doesn't follow from those statements that Paul's teaching that all would not die before the second coming of Christ was intended to apply only to the Corinthian receivers of his epistle. As long as there are living believers who are transfigured when Jesus returns, Paul's statement in I Cor 15:51 will still be logically and factually correct. To remove the ambiguity from the verse Paul could have said either "you and I" which would have made it clear that he was only referring only to himself and the Corinthians or "we Christians" which would have made it clear that it applied to all Christians. As it is, the verse could have either meaning.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

However, it doesn't follow from those statements that Paul's teaching that all would not die before the second coming of Christ was intended to apply only to the Corinthian receivers of his epistle.

Just so we understand, I did not say that the resurrection and change would happen only to the Corinthians. That's very obvious when we talk the resurrection, which includes way more than the Corinthians (and would mean it's a good thing we'll have spiritual bodies - as the earth will be so crowded many of us will be forced to stand in the same place at the same time).

Beside that, the resurrection and change Paul was telling the Corinthians about is an event -- yet to happen at that time -- that applied to all believers.

But the WE, in that verse, I'm saying, applies to those living back then ; that generation, of Paul & the Corinthians.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just so we understand, I did not say that the resurrection and change would happen only to the Corinthians. That's very obvious when we talk the resurrection, which includes way more than the Corinthians (and would mean it's a good thing we'll have spiritual bodies - as the earth will be so crowded many of us will be forced to stand in the same place at the same time).

Beside that, the resurrection and change Paul was telling the Corinthians about is an event -- yet to happen at that time -- that applied to all believers.

But the WE, in that verse, I'm saying, applies to those living back then ; that generation, of Paul & the Corinthians.

Based on other verses, it does seem that Paul believed that transfiguration would occur in his lifetime or at least in the lifetime of some of his contemporaries. Yes. But he doesn't explicitly claim that in 15:51. No. Taken by itself as a proposition 15:51 doesn't entail a time frame. It merely asserts that for some of us including the Corinthians and Paul, the transfiguration will come before death arrives. It doesn't give a time frame. Consequently, what is stated in 15:51 could still happen. I think you are bringing a preterist hermeneutic assumption to the verse that is not justified by the text.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Based on other verses, it does seem that Paul believed that transfiguration would occur in his lifetime or at least in the lifetime of some of his contemporaries. Yes.

They, just like the 50 or so generations of believers since, like believers in our generation, like even Witness Lee, believed the Lord was coming back in their/our generation.

Like my Pentecostal preacher friend tells me: "We're living in the last days."

That's what Paul though about when the last Adam would become the life-giving spirit. He thought it would happen before he, and others, slept.

They all sleep.

[UntoHim]

As I have previously noted, this term "life-giving spirit" appears to be an originally coined term (for any of you phraseology geeks out there - Neologism). Upon further review of this Greek word, ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō I think that "originally coined term" may very well not portray the best description of the term itself. The following four verses contain this Greek word ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō, and all of them link, directly or indirectly, the Lord Jesus as a life giver, and this giving of life is inextricably linked with the Person of the Holy Spirit.

I'm sort of being my own devil's advocate here, but there will be a method to my madness if you will just follow me as close as you can. If this makes any sense at all, I think that Witness Lee was not as far off as I and so many others have tried to argue for. The best way I can try to explain is to say that Witness Lee was right for the wrong reasons, or maybe that he was half right and half wrong.

Let's take a look at the following four verses:
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
John 5:21

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life
John 6:63

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18

Interestingly enough, only one of these verses contain the Greek word ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō, immediately followed by the Greek word πνεῦμα - pneuma, and it was not the apostle Paul, but the apostle Peter. (1 Peter 3:18) For obvious grammatical reasons, the translators chose to translate these two Greek words as "made alive in the spirit", but the more I review this particular phrase (by Peter), the more I think that my previous insistence that "live-giving spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 is not directly related to the Person and/or work of the Holy Spirit is at lease partially flawed.

Lots more to say, but enough for now.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As I have previously noted, this term "life-giving spirit" appears to be an originally coined term (for any of you phraseology geeks out there - Neologism). Upon further review of this Greek word, ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō I think that "originally coined term" may very well not portray the best description of the term itself. The following four verses contain this Greek word ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō, and all of them link, directly or indirectly, the Lord Jesus as a life giver, and this giving of life is inextricably linked with the Person of the Holy Spirit.

I'm sort of being my own devil's advocate here, but there will be a method to my madness if you will just follow me as close as you can. If this makes any sense at all, I think that Witness Lee was not as far off as I and so many others have tried to argue for. The best way I can try to explain is to say that Witness Lee was right for the wrong reasons, or maybe that he was half right and half wrong.

Let's take a look at the following four verses:
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
John 5:21

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life
John 6:63

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18

Interestingly enough, only one of these verses contain the Greek word ζῳοποιέω - zōopoieō, immediately followed by the Greek word πνεῦμα - pneuma, and it was not the apostle Paul, but the apostle Peter. (1 Peter 3:18) For obvious grammatical reasons, the translators chose to translate these two Greek words as "made alive in the spirit", but the more I review this particular phrase (by Peter), the more I think that my previous insistence that "live-giving spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 is not directly related to the Person and/or work of the Holy Spirit is at lease partially flawed.

Lots more to say, but enough for now.

Great bro UntoHim ... thanks for breaking it down. I read those verses in one of your references. (I try to read verse references in articles, as have found some to be far-fetched at times).

While reading them, I was wondering the same thing as you. But I AM the devils' advocate out here - branded with believing the Bible is fairy-tales and gibberish - and so, out of kindness, hold my tongue, until perchance another poster -- so many are crowding this thread -- jumps in ... and inspires me (inspire = theopneustos = 2 Tim 3:16 = not the same spirit as in 15:45 ... or is it?).

I already pointed out that Paul is "showing a mystery" 1Co 15:51. But hey, it's fun trying to figure it out.

We've already - thanks to Zeek - determined that we can't define "spirit" -- "spirit is not a physical body."

But we can look to the Bible to help us understand.

So, since we're jumping around in the Bible - John/Peter/other Paul references, for help, in understanding 15:45, please allow me to ask :

Are these references to spirit the same spirit as in 15:45 (hint: they are all life-giving)?

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost (pneuma).

If so, it would mean the Spirit animates the last Adam. Not the last Adam animating the Holy Spirit.

And Witness Lee got it wrong.

[OBW]

The following is not to Unto:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Let's take a look at the following four verses:
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
John 5:21

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life
John 6:63

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1 Peter 3:18

First, are getting lost relative to the purpose of the thread? But it is interesting, so I will not complain.

At some level, I wonder if the propensity for capitalizing or not capitalizing is causing us to take a stand on the meaning of the various words. And coupled with that, are the articles so precise that, for example, in John 6:63 is it clearly the "Spirit who," or possibly the "spirit that." The reason that I ask is that Jesus referred to the very being of God as "spirit" (not The Spirit), and in this verse, he follows shortly after the "S/spirit who/that" by referring to his words as "spirit and life." There seems to be an inconsistency in the meaning if we insist that Jesus has said the "Spirit" gives life juxtaposed so immediately to saying his words are "spirit" and life. That makes his words life without being "The Spirit" yet he has just said (or is thought by some translator to have said) that it is The Spirit that gives life.

I know that there is a lot about this that is over our heads. But it is just possible that the wording being used is more straightforward than we want to think? That neither Jesus nor Paul is trying to jam pack specially coded messages into single sentences, such as John 6:63, or 1 Cor 15:45? Might it be that rather than a passage to be dissected like an encrypted message, Paul, while writing about the nature of the body in resurrection (and using that of Jesus after his resurrection as the prime example) kind of gets beside himself as he juxtaposes the body of the common man — Adam — with the resurrected body of Jesus, the one who is not common, but gives life.

I think my comment above goes a little with the one I made to zeek shortly before going on vacation where I had no internet access. When I said that we may not be so able to just figure it out on our own (or by ourselves) I was not suggesting that we are unable to spot shoddy theology. Or think for ourselves. But without any anchoring to something solid (and I hate to say it, but my mind tied solely to the scripture is not so solid) we are now subject to only our own bias. We have no basis for critique. We put an Adam Savage (I think that name is right) and suggest that "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

For the most part, I do not make any declaration that the things that have been mentioned by anyone are definitely wrong. But I wonder if looking at them the way we do to get to them is actually beneficial. Does knowing something better than someone else change the reality that underpins it all? If I believe in Jesus and am not hiding my light or living a hypocritical life, does having the best understanding of whether it is The Spirit or the spirit (being the essence of God) that gives me life really matter if I know that it is the words that Jesus is speaking that brings it? If I am learning from those words and living them?

And that is the reason that I think that the nit picking should be left to the theologians. And sometimes it is probably better if we didn't hear all of the "deep theology" that the theologians think they know. They don't all agree on it and it is not helping with the oneness of the body.

And if they tell us too many of those details, we too often think of them as reasons that we are better than some other poor(er) Christian who doesn't have such deep theology. Miss how it should impact us (if at all) and instead note that "they" don't know this "important truth" and have too much ritual in their worship (as we complain that someone messed with the order of service, made the bread out of the wrong flour, broke it at the wrong point in the service (or called it a service), called the wrong song, etc.) (And I'm not just talking about the LRC.)

I wonder why we think that any particular "tradition" in worship is so inferior to the one we prefer. And I bet we disagree among ourselves as to what that tradition is or should be.

And back to the original question. Does getting the knowledge of whether it is The Spirit who gives life or the spirit that gives life really change anything? It would appear that it comes with the words of Jesus. So if we are focused on those, whether it is The Spirit or the spirit is not important because the life will come.

I will pull a Harold here. We are acting as if it is knowing which kind of reference to S/spirit it is that is important to gaining the life. But it is really the words of Jesus that are the key. We are a "cargo cult" that thinks getting the periphery right makes everything right as we miss the real message that is in the words of Christ. And that message was not really about figuring out the S/spirit, but in believing and obeying. Yes. It is in that order. You must first believe. But after that, if you don't obey, it doesn't matter how well you figure out the correct meaning of T/the S/spirit Who/that gives life. You will have that spark of salvation, but you will be busy missing the next step while thinking that your mental understanding makes it all better.

And we don't get to that better place by ourselves. And figuring out the meaning of that verse doesn't do it. So my version v Unto's version v Awareness' version v Ohio's version is not the key to anything. It does not give life. Even the best version (the one that is ultimately correct) does not give life. It is the S/spirit Who/that gives life. That is good enough.

And meeting with a prepared series of responsive readings that walk us through the gospel, our sin, our need of mercy (the Kyrie), the provision of Christ as we stand, sit, kneel, etc., is no better or worse than the most free-form Charismatic, lift your hands and do your own thing service (or anywhere in between) if we are focused upon the one who is the gospel and are participants with Him in all aspects of our lives (not just the religious ones).

Seems that knowing (or thinking we know) the real coded message in John 6:63 or 1 Cor 15:45 is a reason for despising each other rather than being one in Christ. We can be one with them all. Can we drive to our "house of worship" and as we pass by other houses we pray for their stand with Christ for the gospel? For the needs and hurts within the congregation? For their activities as an assembly and as individuals in loving their neighbors?

Or will we pray that the "real Christians" will "come out of her"? Or worse yet, just ignore them. Pretend they don't exist.

I know this seems somewhat contradictory to the whole point of the thread, but unlike so many of those other groups that we can imagine from my references, I honestly think that the teachings and practices of the LRC are harmful to the participants. It is not a healthy place. I would rather they drop their beliefs in Nee and Lee and their nonsense and join with a good Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/charismatic, Baptist, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Bible church, independent, traditional, emerging, etc., church and be part of the larger body of Christ in both fact and word. (They are only part of it in fact at this point. They have chosen to be separated from it in word and deed.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will pull a Harold here. We are acting as if it is knowing which kind of reference to S/spirit it is that is important to gaining the life. But it is really the words of Jesus that are the key. We are a "cargo cult" that thinks getting the periphery right makes everything right as we miss the real message that is in the words of Christ. And that message was not really about figuring out the S/spirit, but in believing and obeying. Yes. It is in that order. You must first believe. But after that, if you don't obey, it doesn't matter how well you figure out the correct meaning of T/the S/spirit Who/that gives life. You will have that spark of salvation, but you will be busy missing the next step while thinking that your mental understanding makes it all better.

I agree 100%. But isn't the whole point of the discussion to see if Lee was wrong about something? And if that's the goal, then nailing down the meaning of these verses is necessary.