Bone of My Bones & Flesh of My Flesh

[Sons to Glory!]

We've had a few discussions on here about who believers and the church are in Christ, that is: what is our new identity in Him? I think WL is alleged to have said, "God became man so man could become God." I'm not sure the authenticity of this quote, since I didn't hear it firsthand. But, to be sure, what God is doing through Christ and the church is something way beyond natural comprehension! However, I agree that this alleged saying of WL goes farther than scripture (at least according to what I've seen so far).

With that said, I ran across some profound verses from Genesis and Ephesians that I'm really considering this week, which are stretching my thinking in this matter:

And the LORD God built (lit.) the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:22-23

For we are members of his body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Ephesians 5:30

(Note: Some translations omit the last part of Ephesians 5:30, "of His flesh, and of His bones." However, my Greek interlinear has it.)

Of course, these verses immediately caused me to remember Mathew 16:18 - "I will build My Church . . ."

So these words really stirred something in me! In light of these verses - what is the church?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

We've had a few discussions on here about who believers and the church are in Christ, that is: what is our new identity in Him? I think WL is alleged to have said, "God became man so man could become God." I'm not sure the authenticity of this quote, since I didn't hear it firsthand. But, to be sure, what God is doing through Christ and the church is something way beyond natural comprehension! However, I agree that this alleged saying of WL goes father than scripture (at least according to what I've seen so far).

I heard Lee say these words, in person, in a weekend conference, Irving, TX. However, when this message was reduced to print, as all his messages were, there was NOTHING in print regarding “man becomes God”.

This was common...covering Lee by taking heretical words out of his mouth...

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for that confirmation. What do you think of the verses presented, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

...With that said, I ran across some profound verses from Genesis and Ephesians that I'm really considering this week, which are stretching my thinking in this matter:[

And the LORD God built (lit.) the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:22-23

For we are members of his body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Ephesians 5:30

(Note: Some translations omit the last part of Ephesians 5:30, "of His flesh, and of His bones." However, my Greek interlinear has it.)
...

First, questions:

If the verses were properly translated, if woman was built from a "rib" from the side of the man, why does the verse say "of his flesh and of his bones"?
Why does it not it simply say "we are members of his body, of his bones"?

As you have noted, could there be a translation issue? Is it possible that there is more than one translation issue?

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

First, questions:

If the verses were properly translated, if woman was built from a "rib" from the side of the man, why does the verse say "of his flesh and of his bones"?
Why does it not it simply say "we are members of his body, of his bones"?

As you have noted, could there be a translation issue? Is it possible that there is more than one translation issue?

Nell

It is an interesting passage in Ephesians, to be sure! Some commentaries Below is a quote from one commentary from this page.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For we are members of his body - Of the body of Christ; see 1 Corinthians 11:3, note; 1 Corinthians 12:27, note; John 15:1-6, notes, and Ephesians 1:23, note. The idea here is, that there is a close and intimate union between the Christian and the Saviour - a union so intimate that they may be spoken of as "one".

Of his flesh, and of his bones - There is an allusion here evidently to the language which Adam used respecting Eve. "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;" Genesis 2:23. It is language which is employed to denote the closeness of the marriage relation, and which Paul applies to the connection between Christ and his people. Of course, it cannot be understood "literally." It is not true literally that our bones are a part of the bones of Christ, or our flesh of his flesh; nor should language ever be used that would imply a miraculous union. It is not a physical union, but a union of attachment; of feeling; of love. If we avoid the notion of a "physical" union, however, it is scarcely possible to use too strong language in describing the union of believers with the Lord Jesus.

I've read that some of the oldest manuscripts don't have "of His flesh and of His bones," but it's also said that other reliable manuscripts include this phrase. Therefore some translations carry it while others don't. In any case, the whole passage in Ephesians 5 is portraying marriage, which is a picture of Christ & the church. This seems to hearken back to the first husband and wife, Adam & Eve. Eve was produced by something out of Adam.

[Sons to Glory!]

I was driving and listening to my NIV Live audio yesterday and it came to 1st Corinthians 15. I started this thread with the thoughts of "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" still in me. As I heard Paul's words in this chapter about a seed dying before it could come with its new body, it occurred to me that this was certainly applicable to Christ. That is, according to the words of Jesus, the "grain of wheat fell into the ground to die, to bring forth many grains," namely, the church. Consider that as you read these verses below. (below is 1 Corinthians 15:35-49, with verses 39-41 excluded as they seem parenthetical)

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else. But God gives it a body as He has designed, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving Spirit.

The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so also shall we bear the likeness of the heavenly man.

It's interesting that this passage is where the phrase, "The Last Adam [became] a life-giving Spirit" is used, isn't it? The context, to me, shows that the reason the Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit is for the producing of the church! This is the result of the One Grain dying. The first Adam had a rib taken to produce his wife; similarly, something came out from the Last Adam to produce His wife!

I must declare it again: WHAT HAS GOD WROUGHT!?

Just remembered to add these verses (20-22) from the same chapter:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Again, this whole passage in 1st Corinthians 15 is talking about producing the church!

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Nell

First, questions:

If the verses were properly translated, if woman was built from a "rib" from the side of the man, why does the verse say "of his flesh and of his bones"?
Why does it not it simply say "we are members of his body, of his bones"?

As you have noted, could there be a translation issue? Is it possible that there is more than one translation issue?

Nell

Here is an interesting answer, from Israel Bible Center, on the translation of "tsela"....RIB or ENTIRE SIDE?

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com...ome-adams-rib/

"Most English translations of Genesis 2:21-22 read, “The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its place. And the rib that the Lord God took from the man he built into a woman.”

The description of the woman made from the man’s “rib” has led to the mistaken conclusion that women are inferior to men because they originate from one small part of the male anatomy. Yet the Hebrew word צלע (tsela) does not mean “rib,” but rather “side.” According to Exodus, for example, God told Moses to make four gold rings for the Ark of the Covenant, “two rings on one side (צלע; tsela) of it, and two rings on the other side of it” (Exod 25:12). Likewise, when God takes one tsela from the man to make the woman, Eve comes from an entire side of Adam’s body, not a single rib.

Adam’s own words clarify that Eve comes from one of his sides when he declares of his wife, “Finally, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” (Gen 2:23). Had Eve been created from the man’s rib alone, Adam would only have been able to say that she was “bone of his bone.” As Adam’s bone and flesh, the woman is the man’s “other half.” When man and woman cleave to one another and return to being “one flesh” (2:24), the two equal halves of humanity are brought back together."

[Ohio]

Thanks, Raptor, for your "digging." I like this.

It's rare when I find something here suitable to share with my wife.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks, Raptor, for your "digging." I like this.

It's rare when I find something here suitable to share with my wife.

Well I think that says something about this forum - that you find little to share with your wife! (is it normally of little value, or nothing that would be edifying, or . . . ?)

So, since this is the LC Discussion board, let me throw this out. WL is accused of Modalism (or at least of teaching the traditional Trinity one moment & Modalism the next). My understanding of Modalism is that it says the one God processed/changed Himself into the Son and then into Spirit. Considering that the mystery of God is Christ, and the mystery of Christ is the church, the natural progression of Modalism would seem to be that God then processed/changed Himself into the church.

So this discussion sort of dovetails with the discussion we've been having about the Triune God and Modalism, right? Does Modalistic thinking then lend itself to thinking we become God?

Personally speaking, from what I've seen, many Christians do not have a very full picture of what the ekklesia is really being called into - the bride and body of Christ, and a dwelling place of God in Spirit. The bible calls us sons and heirs of God and the picture of the church portrayed in Ephesians is exceedingly breathtaking, but I haven't found where it says implicitly that we become God.

To be sure, the revelation of who we have been made in Christ is beyond amazing, and this is a mystery I doubt we will have a full revelation of until we loose this current tent or He fully reveals it to us now!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well I think that says something about this forum - that you find little to share with your wife! (is it normally of little value, or nothing that would be edifying, or . . . ?)

It's definitely a touchy subject!

I told the story one time when I helped some family members move. I picked up a box of books labeled "ministry books" and was asked, "do you need to sign a waiver to carry those?"

[Sons to Glory!]

So watayathimk - is it too far off the mark to say the church is Christ based on those verses?

[UntoHim]

Well since none of the verses you posted say that the church is Christ, I would think that it is off the mark to say that the church is Christ based on those verses.

Taking metaphors too far can lead to serious error. One day we are teaching and believing that "the church is Christ" and the next day we might find ourselves teaching and believing that "the church is the fourth part of the Trinity".

"The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is now in the Body. They are now four in one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body”
Witness Lee The Practical Expression of the Church - (emphasis provided)

And you're right, StG, this is related to Witness Lee's modalistic teaching of the Trinity. Just as no reputable, orthodox teacher or scholar has ever taught that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit, no reputable, orthodox teacher or scholar has ever taught that the church is the fourth part of the Trinity. Again, with this kind of nonsensical teaching, we see the dangers in freeing ourselves from the obligation to stay within the bounds and restrictions of orthodoxy handed down to us down though the ages.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Personally speaking, from what I've seen, many Christians do not have a very full picture of what the ekklesia is really being called into - the bride and body of Christ, and a dwelling place of God in Spirit.

Well any Christian who doesn't have a very full picture of what the ekklesia is really called into is probably not reading their Bible...at least not paying good attention. All the things you list are right there in the Bible. No need for any external source to tell us the church is going to be the Bride of Christ - it's right there in the Bible! No need for some enlightened guru to tell us the church is the Body of Christ - it's right there in the Bible! And the fact that these wonderful truths are right there for us in the Scriptures is the most amazing thing ever.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So watayathimk - is it too far off the mark to say the church is Christ based on those verses?

The closest verse might be I Cor 12.12: "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Taking metaphors too far can lead to serious error. One day we are teaching and believing that "the church is Christ" and the next day we might find ourselves teaching and believing that "the church is the fourth part of the Trinity".

UntoHim spelled out perfectly how WL often took metaphors and inferences too far, often way too far, and introduced conclusions foreign to scripture.

I believe that the scripture sets the boundaries for the truth. WL regularly tore those boundaries down, and arrived at all sorts of crazy conclusions, such as like when he said he had become God in life, and when he became fourth in the hierarchical order of the flow of God.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that the scripture sets the boundaries for the truth. WL regularly tore those boundaries down, and arrived at all sorts of crazy conclusions, such as like when he said he had become God in life, and when he became fourth in the hierarchical order of the flow of God.

Agreed that WL seems to have gone too far, that is, outside what scripture actually states about our ID in Christ.

I'm not sure where the phrase, "The Church is Christ" came from. I do know Bill Freeman wrote a book by that title, which I found out in a previous discussion on here that some find that thought a little controversial. But back to the original topic: Neither you or UntoHim addressed the things in the first couple posts I made to start this thread . . . And yes, UntoHim, things in scripture have been there all along for all Christians to see. Many of us "know" these things are there, but I'm sure you'd agree there is so, so much more light and truth to spring forth from His word, right?

In the end, it is the Spirit that must reveal these things to us, concerning what our amazing identity in Christ actually is. And I agree that the Spirit will not show us something that is beyond what is written in scripture. However, my experience with receiving light on something is that what I'm shown often has been "hiding in plain sight" in familiar scripture all the time. May He show us fully what He has done and give us a fresh revelation of who we are in Christ!

[UntoHim]

Sons to Glory! Would you like me to comment on this?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It's interesting that this passage is where the phrase, "The Last Adam [became] a life-giving Spirit" is used, isn't it? The context, to me, shows that the reason the Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit is for the producing of the church! This is the result of the One Grain dying. The first Adam had a rib taken to produce his wife; similarly, something came out from the Last Adam to produce His wife!

I must declare it again: WHAT HAS GOD WROUGHT!?

Just remembered to add these verses (20-22) from the same chapter:
Quote:
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Again, this whole passage in 1st Corinthians 15 is talking about producing the church!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory! Would you like me to comment on this?

Yes, that's why I started this thread - to present the idea and have a discussion with you and others. Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, that's why I started this thread - to present the idea and have a discussion with you and others. Thanks.

So, what is the church? All the brothers and sisters of the Firstborn, who have the life of God, and are now the children of God.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, what is the church? All the brothers and sisters of the Firstborn, who have the life of God, and are now the children of God.

Yep. What else?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yep. What else?

Well, there is definately some identification between Christ and His believers going on in these verses. How much? We don't know. It´s a mystery.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

Acts 9:1-5
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He approached the high priest 2and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” “Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.

Matthew 25:40
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.

Ephesians 5:28-32
In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. For we are members of His body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

For we are members of his body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Ephesians 5:30

(Note: Some translations omit the last part of Ephesians 5:30, "of His flesh, and of His bones." However, my Greek interlinear has it.)

The better Greek Texts do not have this extra section in red.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The better Greek Texts do not have this extra section in red.

Yes, as I also pointed out earlier - it is not included in most minority (earlier) texts. So that notwithstanding, the passage I presented in 1 Corinthians 15:20-49 in a subsequent post (see post #6) is talking about what?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Well, there is definately some identification between Christ and His believers going on in these verses. How much? We don't know. It´s a mystery.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

Acts 9:1-5
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He approached the high priest 2and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” “Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.

Matthew 25:40
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.

Ephesians 5:28-32
In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. For we are members of His body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.

Good! And could we say Eve was a picture of the church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, as I also pointed out earlier - it is not included in most minority (earlier) texts. So that notwithstanding, the passage I presented in 1 Corinthians 15:20-49 in a subsequent post (see post #6) is talking about what?

It's not so much about the church, but about resurrection. Firstly the Last Adam, then those who are Christ's.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's not so much about the church, but about resurrection. Firstly the Last Adam, then those who are Christ's.

You're right and that's how I read it too. But I began to see there are also quite a number of references to the church here. Consider some of the words and reference used in this passage (1 Cor 15:20-49) like, firstfruits, Adam, "enemies under His feet," the flesh being sown as a seed and resurrection verses.

* The word "firstfruits" implicitly says there is a first something with other somethings coming after.

* Adam is a type of Christ - something taken from Adam produced Eve, who is a picture of the church

* "Enemies under His feet" sounds like Romans 16:20: "And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

* Christ's flesh was sown to bring forth something in resurrection - many grains

Then in verse 50 it starts talking about us inheriting the kingdom and our flesh being changed. Is this not also the church?

How is the church produced and what facilitates that happening? "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit."

[Ohio]

The church is the body of Christ, His spiritual body on earth.

Many experiences of Christ will also be experienced by His body.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good! And could we say Eve was a picture of the church?

Yes, Eve is a type of the church in some respects. Is this a test?

[Raptor]

2 Thes: 1:10
When He shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

[Sons to Glory!]

Right - another awesome verse!

So can we say this, "The church is NOT Christ"?

[Ohio]

You must first define the church and define Christ.

Otherwise those buildings in town are the Creator and Savior of the world.

[Sons to Glory!]

Really!? I guess I'll leave that "interesting suggestion" up to others.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So can we say this, "The church is NOT Christ"?

Originally Posted by Ohio

You must first define the church and define Christ.

Otherwise those buildings in town are the Creator and Savior of the world.

Otay, if we need to define "church" then let's just say it's all the regenerated believers in Jesus Christ. Howzat?

[Raptor]

Galatians 4:19
My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Galatians 4:19
My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,

That's a great verse showing this remarkable oneness between Christ and the church!

Here's another one I read this morning:
"He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." Rev 3:21

Still trying to wrap my mind around that!

[Raptor]

Romans 8:19
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

When the sons of God are revealed, what is going to be manifested is CHRIST!

[Sons to Glory!]

"Christ in you - the hope of glory!"

[Sons to Glory!]

In another LCD thread (I think it was during last fall perhaps) there was some discussion concerning the phrase "The Church is Christ." Several objected to that thought and stated why they believed this was not true.

However, when on this thread I gave the opportunity to agree with the inverse statement, "The Church is NOT Christ," no one responded or agreed.

Velly intelesting . . .

[UntoHim]

Probably not much of a response because neither statement is biblical, or even carries a faint thought in the bible. The church is "not" a lot of things. The church is not God (despite Witness Lee's heretical teaching that the church is the fourth part of the Trinity) and if it is not God then it is certainly not Christ.

Since the beginning, no reputable, orthodox Christian teacher, scholar or apologist has ever taught that "the church is Christ". Watchman Nee taught that Christ is "every positive thing" (close paraphrase). Well, the simple fact is that Christ is not simply every positive thing. This is the kind of neo-pantheistic garbage that comes from men who refused to take lessons from the great Christian teachers and scholars throughout church history, and instead decided that they would gather followers to themselves who would swallow wholesale their uneducated guesses and make-it-up-as-you-go-along "theology". Of course Witness Lee took Nee's errors and magnified them manifold.
-

[UntoHim]

Sorry Sons to Glory! I wrote this post a number of days ago and thought I had posted it. Come to find out this morning it never appeared on the live forum. Anyway, here is a short retort to your well thought out proposition here: - - -

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

How is the church produced and what facilitates that happening? "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit."

This is a very nice sentiment, StG!, but I'm afraid it's not a very biblical sentiment. The last Adam becoming a life-giving spirit (most reputable translations use a small s) will ultimately facilitate our bodies being transformed and glorified at the resurrection of all believers who have died up to the Lord Jesus' second coming. The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is not the church, unless you think the church age really starts at the Lord's second coming! The main subject of this wonderful chapter is an answer to the question in verse 35: But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” This question was actually answered in the Gospels, but it seems that the Corinthians had not yet been taught and fully imbibe the true and complete Gospel. (Most biblical historians posit that Paul's letters predate the widespread distribution of the written synoptic Gospels)

Verse 20 and 23 also gives a big clue to what this chapter is all about: "In fact, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him." Notice the specific order here: Firstly "Christ the firstfruits". There is little doubt that this is referring to the death, and especially the resurrection, of the Lord Jesus. (cf: "he is the firstborn from among the dead" - Col 1:18) Our Lord's resurrection was not only a fact of history (praise God for this fact!) it was an inauguration of sorts - one in which the Lord Jesus "took office" immediately upon his resurrection, and at the same time Jesus' resurrection was/is the catylist for every believers' bodily resurrection - at which time we will receive a spiritual body"to be like his glorious body". (Phil 3:21) Then will come the full and complete import and meaning of "when Christ appears, we shall be like him". (1 John 3:2)

Witness Lee's faulty interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:45 is mainly the result of his decidedly misinformed understanding of the main subject of the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. Like a ship that is just a few degrees off when it starts a long journey, by the time it has traveled thousands of miles, it is hundreds of miles off course. From the start, Lee abandoned Paul's "the gospel I preached to you" in verse 1, so by the time he reached verse 45 he was so far off course that his interpretation would have been totally unrecognizable to the apostle who penned verse 1. Things became even more convoluted for Lee's followers when they were taught that Lee's interpretations were "recovered truth", and that all traditional and historic teachings were "poor, poor" and "the dead doctrines" of man. May God have mercy.
-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

First, questions: If the verses were properly translated, if woman was built from a "rib" from the side of the man, why does the verse say "of his flesh and of his bones"?
Why does it not it simply say "we are members of his body, of his bones"?
As you have noted, could there be a translation issue? Is it possible that there is more than one translation issue?
Nell

I think that the problem is not really translation — unless we remain convinced that everything about the story of creation is literal, or that if metaphorical in any way, we need to milk each metaphor for all the possible places it could go.

Eliminate those and the rib is sufficient as a metaphor. It need not marry-up to modern terminology or anything literal. All it needs to do is establish that God created with the end result that we are of two genders.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is a very nice sentiment, StG!, but I'm afraid it's not a very biblical sentiment. The last Adam becoming a life-giving spirit (most reputable translations use a small s) will ultimately facilitate our bodies being transformed and glorified at the resurrection of all believers who have died up to the Lord Jesus' second coming. The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is not the church, unless you think the church age really starts at the Lord's second coming! The main subject of this wonderful chapter is an answer to the question in verse 35: But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” This question was actually answered in the Gospels, but it seems that the Corinthians had not yet been taught and fully imbibe the true and complete Gospel. (Most biblical historians posit that Paul's letters predate the widespread distribution of the written synoptic Gospels)

Verse 20 and 23 also gives a big clue to what this chapter is all about: "In fact, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him." Notice the specific order here: Firstly "Christ the firstfruits". There is little doubt that this is referring to the death, and especially the resurrection, of the Lord Jesus. (cf: "he is the firstborn from among the dead" - Col 1:18) Our Lord's resurrection was not only a fact of history (praise God for this fact!) it was an inauguration of sorts - one in which the Lord Jesus "took office" immediately upon his resurrection, and at the same time Jesus' resurrection was/is the catylist for every believers' bodily resurrection - at which time we will receive a spiritual body"to be like his glorious body". (Phil 3:21) Then will come the full and complete import and meaning of "when Christ appears, we shall be like him". (1 John 3:2)
-

I'm carrying-on this same conversation in two threads. Here is what I posted over on the "Modalism" thread regarding the same thing (talking about what 1 Corinthians 15 is about): But ya know, it's interesting because the passage that verse (1 Cor 15:45) is in certainly talks about the resurrection, but also includes us in there. His body is sown and then resurrects. The grain of wheat fell into the ground to die to bring all of us grains forth, right? What I've seen recently is that the church - the new man - is implied all the way through this chapter. It's no mistake then that 15:45 (a life-giving Spirit) is in there . . .