The Spiritual Body -- Physical or Non-Physical?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Can you guys restart this conversation in another thread? It sounds interesting but I would have to back up and read through a lot of posts. Can one of you start another thread and sum up the issue with some evidences please?

Adam was immortal and lost the kingdom and immortality, so Christ came to return that to us all. He is immortal as Adam would have been had Adam not fallen. And He is seated with the Father in His throne as Adam would have been had Adam not fallen. He is head of the human race as Adam would have been had Adam not fallen.

The immortality of Christ was what it means for Paul to say "The Lord from Heaven", which is the flesh we shall have in our resurrection. This is why it is said we shall be changed, since flesh as it is now cannot inherit the kingdom.

Mental wrote:

Interesting. Are you thinking Christ has (and our resurrected bodies will have) spiritual flesh? I’ve always thought of it as being a spiritual body as opposed to flesh. In other words a spiritual body won't have flesh. That is part of the natural body.

[mfblume]

I think most make that response when they first read this issue. But I honestly think it is mistaken. I have long researched Paul's words on this since I am partial preterist and have been shown the prospect of full preterism which denies a physical resurrection. I think we often make the mistake of thinking natural means physical, and so when we see natural contrasted with spiritual we think it is physical versus non-physical. However, Paul uses the same terms in 1 Cor 2 in comparing natural believers with spiritual believers. That is not a contrast of composite material. It is a contrast with what motivates a person. And in Chapter 10 the same idea of spiritual is used again in speaking of drink and meat which were very physical although also spiritual.

So, the idea is a physical body of either natural empowerment or spiritual empowerment.

The IKOS or INOS suffixes determine the issue. In these cases, IKOS is the suffix used. According to Greek scholars IKOS is used to describe what DRIVES a thing rather than what a thing is made of. For example, a wind machine that was quite physical was said to be a PNEUMATIKOS, since it was DRIVEN by wind. It did not mean it was made of wind, but driven by it.

Barnes said of 1 Cor 2:14:

Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” - who is regenerate - the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.

Bodies are containers. And they contain, in our cases, soul and spirit. But the SPIRITUAL BODY is not something like spirit that contains spirit. It is rather a spiritually and supernaturally driven physical body that contains spirit and soul.

[mfblume]

Mental wrote:

I think you are reading too much into ikos vs inos. It is true that suffixes are different depending on what the adjective means/denotes/expresses. However, the suffix has to be ikos since that is the suffix for these adjectives. There are no adjectives psuchinos or pneumatinos to contrast and compare to. What is your source for this reading of 1 Cor 15 based on the suffixes ikos and inos? I would be interested to read this if it is from a legitimate source.

In Greek adjectives can act either adjectively or substantively. In 1 Cor. 2 these adjectives are acting adjectively and I think from the context your view of this passage is correct. In 1 Cor.15:46 they are acting substantively since there is no noun and they are preceded by the article. I think the context also shows that Paul is talking about a thing rather than an empowering force.

BDAG would agree with me on the adjective and substantive usage as the following entry for psuchikos shows.

--------------------------------
ψυχικός, ή, όν (ψυχή; in var. mngs. Diocles, Aristot. et al.; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 1 [opp. σωματικος]; SIG 656, 20 [166 B.C.]; 4 Macc 1:32; Philo; Jos., Bell. 1, 430; Just., D. 30, 1; Tat.; Ath. 23, 2 [Thales]) ‘of the soul/life’, in our lit. pert. to the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the realm of experience whose central characteristic is πνεῦμα, natural, unspiritual, worldly (cp. PGM 4, 524f and 510=Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 175f lines 28 and 20, where the ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχικὴ δύναμις is contrasted w. the ἱερὸν πνεῦμα. On this s. πνευματικός 2aγ; also β and PGM 4, 725; Herm. Wr. 9, 9; Iambl., Myst. 6, 6 P.: the ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχή in contrast to the gods and to γνῶσις; Orig., C. Cels. 4, 57, 14).

ⓐ adj. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (Hippol., Ref. 5, 27, 3) an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:14. σῶμα ψυχ. a physical body 15:44ab. The wisdom that does not come fr. above is called ἐπίγειος, ψυχική (unspiritual), δαιμονιώδης Js 3:15.

ⓑ subst.

α. τὸ ψυχικόν the physical in contrast to τὸ πνευματικόν (cp. Iren. 1, 5, 1 [Harv. I 42, 1]) 1 Cor 15:46.

β. Jd 19 calls the teachers of error ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες worldly (lit. ‘psychic’) people, who do not have the Spirit, thereby taking over the terminology of gnostic (on ‘psychic’ and ‘pneumatic’ people in gnostic thinking s. AHilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums 1884, index) opponents, but applying to gnostics the epithets that they used of orthodox Christians.—DELG s.v. ψυχή. M-M. TW. Sv.

[mfblume]

Mental wrote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bodies are containers. And they contain, in our cases, soul and spirit. But the SPIRITUAL BODY is not something like spirit that contains spirit. It is rather a spiritually and supernaturally driven physical body that contains spirit and soul.

Interestingly, though he doesn’t base it on the suffix, Thiselton and others (Fee and Barrett) would agree with you. That doesn't mean it is right though. I would be interested in what N.T. Wright and Harris have to say on this passage. I need to study this a bit more. Here is what Thiselton has to say.

(c) The allusion to 1 Cor 3:1 provides an admirable starting point for confirmation of the third understanding which we have been urging. We translated the contrast between πνευματικός and σάρκινος … σαρκικός in 3:1, 3 as “people of the Spirit … people moved by entirely human drives … unspiritual.… ” Thus Barrett understands v. 44 to refer to “the new body animated by the Spirit of God.” Bruce hints at the dimension of Christology and character by alluding here to the life-giving Spirit of v. 45. The natural body deserves its character from the Adam of creation; the body which is raised derives its character from the last Adam, Christ, who is both Lord of the Spirit and himself raised by God through the Spirit (Rom 8:11). Wolff declares, “The spiritual body of the resurrection (der pneumatische Auferstehungsleib) is through and through a body under the control of the divine Spirit, according to v. 45 a creation of Christ (cf. also vv. 21–22) who is ‘the life-giving Spirit.’ ”

Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (1278). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mental

I think you are reading too much into ikos vs inos.

I am just going by what the Greek scholars said on the issue. And anyone can also see that the same terms used in 1 Cor 2 and 1 Cor 10 do not mean the term PNEUMATIKOS cannot refer to something physical.

It is true that suffixes are different depending on what the adjective means/denotes/expresses. However, the suffix has to be ikos since that is the suffix for these adjectives. There are no adjectives psuchinos or pneumatinos to contrast and compare to. What is your source for this reading of 1 Cor 15 based on the suffixes ikos and inos? I would be interested to read this if it is from a legitimate source.

I already noted that Albert Barnes related this information concerning 1 Cor 2:14:

Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” - who is regenerate - the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.

Archibald Thomas Robertson wrote this in Robertson's Word Pictures:

1Co 2:14
Now the natural man (psuchikos de anthrōpos). Note absence of article here, “A natural man” (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as pneuma and pneumatikos, psuchē and psuchikos, sarx and sarkinos and sarkikos. A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his New Testament Word Studies, pp. 62-68, and in his Spirit, Soul, and Flesh. The papyri furnish so many examples of sarx, pneuma, and psuchē that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament. Psuchikos is a qualitative adjective from psuchē (breath of life like anima, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by animalis and the German by sinnlich, the original sense of animal life as in Jud_1:19; Jam_3:15. In 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46 there is the same contrast between psuchikos and pneumatikos as here. The psuchikos man is the unregenerate man while the pneumatikos man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God.

Receiveth not (ou dechetai). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In Rom_8:7 Paul definitely states the inability (oude gar dunatai) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer “foolishness” (mōria) to us as was once the case (1Co_1:23). Today one notes certain of the intelligentsia who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance.

He cannot know them (ou dunatai gnōnai). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of ginōskō). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ.

They are spiritually judged (pneumatikōs anakrinetai). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In Act_17:11 the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These psuchikoi men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the psuchē (mere animal nature) rather than by the pneuma (the renewed spirit).

In verse 16's word study of pneumatikos we read:

The pneumatikos man is superior to others who attempt even to instruct God himself.

Does that mean the man is not physical, or that he is physically motivated?

1 Cor 3:3:

For ye are yet carnal (eti gar sarkikoi este). Sarkikos, unlike sarkinos, like ikos formations, means adapted to, fitted for the flesh (sarx), one who lives according to the flesh (kata sarka)[/b][/u]. Paul by psuchikos describes the unregenerate man, by pneumatikos the regenerate man. Both classes are sarkinoi made in flesh, and both may be sarkikoi though the pneumatikoi should not be. The pneumatikoi who continue to be sarkinoi are still babes (nēpioi), not adults (teleioi), while those who are still sarkikoi (carnal) have given way to the flesh as if they were still psuchikoi (unregenerate). It is a bold and cutting figure, not without sarcasm, but necessary to reveal the Corinthians to themselves.

In Greek adjectives can act either adjectively or substantively. In 1 Cor. 2 these adjectives are acting adjectively and I think from the context your view of this passage is correct. In 1 Cor.15:46 they are acting substantively since there is no noun and they are preceded by the article.

The noun is BODY.

1Co 15:35 KJV But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

1Co 15:44 KJV It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

I think the context also shows that Paul is talking about a thing rather than an empowering force.

Not when he uses the term spiritual. the thing is present, though, but it is the body. So the adjective pneumatikos is used in relation to the noun BODY.

[mfblume]

Marvin R. Vincent, D.D.


Vincent's Word Studies

1 Cor 15:44
Spiritual body (σώμα πνευματικόν)
A body in which a divine πνεῦμα spirit supersedes the ψυχή soul, so that the resurrection-body is the fitting organ for its indwelling and work, and so is properly characterized as a spiritual body.

1Co 15:46
Not first - spiritual - natural
A general principle, illustrated everywhere in human history, that the lower life precedes the higher.

Vincent bases his thoughts from Wendt and Meyer.

with what kind of a body, the answer, expanded throughout nearly the whole chapter, is, a spiritual body.

Body (σώματι)
Organism. The objection assumes that the risen man must exist in some kind of an organism; and as this cannot be the fleshly body which is corrupted and dissolved, resurrection is impossible. Σῶμα body is related to σάρξ flesh, as general to special; σῶμα denoting the material organism, not apart from any matter, but apart from any definite matter; and σάρξ the definite earthly, animal organism. See on Rom_6:6. The question is not, what will be the substance of the risen body, but what will be its organization (Wendt)?


1Co 15:44
A natural body (σώμα ψυχικόν)
See on 1Co_2:14. The word ψυχικόν natural occurs only twice outside this epistle; Jam_3:15; Jud_1:19. The expression natural body signifies an organism animated by a ψυχή soul (see on Rom_11:4); that phase of the immaterial principle in man which is more nearly allied to the σάρξ flesh, and which characterizes the man as a mortal creature; while πνεῦμα spirit is that phase which looks Godward, and characterizes him as related to God. “It is a brief designation for the whole compass of the non-corporeal side of the earthly man” (Wendt). “In the earthly body the ψυχή soul, not the πνεῦμα spirit is that which conditions its constitution and its qualities, so that it is framed as the organ of the ψυχή. In the resurrection-body the πνεῦμα spirit, for whose life-activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature” (Meyer). Compare Plato: “The soul has the care of inanimate being everywhere, and traverses the whole heaven in divers forms appearing; when perfect and fully winged she soars upward, and is the ruler of the universe; while the imperfect soul loses her feathers, and drooping in her flight, at last settles on the solid ground - there, finding a home, she receives an earthly frame which appears to be self-moved, but is really moved by her power; and this composition of soul and body is called a living and mortal creature. For immortal no such union can be reasonably believed to be; although fancy, not having seen nor surely known the nature of God, may imagine an immortal creature having a body, and having also a soul which are united throughout all time” (“Phaedrus,” 246).

Spiritual body (σώμα πνευματικόν)
A body in which a divine πνεῦμα spirit supersedes the ψυχή soul, so that the resurrection-body is the fitting organ for its indwelling and work, and so is properly characterized as a spiritual body.

“When, glorious and sanctified, our flesh
Is reassumed, then shall our persons be
More pleasing by their being all complete;
For will increase whate'er bestows on us
Of light gratuitous the Good Supreme,
Light which enables us to look on Him;
Therefore the vision must perforce increase,
Increase the ardor which from that is kindled,
Increase the radiance from which this proceeds.
But even as a coal that sends forth flame,
And by its vivid whiteness overpowers it
So that its own appearance it maintains,
Thus the effulgence that surrounds us now
Shall be o'erpowered in aspect by the flesh,
Which still to-day the earth doth cover up;
Nor can so great a splendor weary us,
For strong will be the organs of the body
To everything which hath the power to please us.”
“Paradiso,” xiv., 43-60.

[mfblume]

Mental wrote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am just going by what the Greek scholars said on the issue. And anyone can also see that the same terms used in 1 Cor 2 and 1 Cor 10 do not mean the term PNEUMATIKOS cannot refer to something physical.

I'm not sure what you mean here and why you are referring to Chap. 10.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already noted that Albert Barnes related this information concerning 1 Cor 2:14:

I would just say that Albert Barnes is by no means a recent scholar. Our knowledge of Greek grammar has really advanced quite a bit since his time. I’m not sure you can refer to “Greek scholars” and quote men who died in 1870 and 1934 respectively. Also he is talking about 1 Cor 2 here, not 1 Cor 15. They are different. You still haven’t told me where to find this information about 1 Cor 15 backed up by ikos and inos suffixes. You haven’t even given me a reference for ikos and inos at all.

Originally Posted by mfblume

The noun is BODY..

Not in verse 44 which is what I am refering to. The subject is an adjective. The spiritual vs the natural.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not when he uses the term spiritual. the thing is present, though, but it is the body. So the adjective pneumatikos is used in relation to the noun BODY.

But you still have an adjective describing the noun body. In other words a spiritual body. I'm not convinced you can say this means a spiritually empowered flesh body rather than a description of the body itself.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mental

I'm not sure what you mean here and why you are refereing to Chap. 10.

Chapter 10 calls meat and drink that Israel consumed "spiritual".

1Co 10:3-4 KJV And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I would just say that Albert Barnes is by no means a recent scholar.

I was not sure you limited this to a recent scholar. I just noted where I got my information, and added Wendt and Meyer.

Our knowledge of Greek grammar has really advanced quite a bit since his time. I’m not sure you can refer to “Greek scholars” and quote men who died in 1870 and 1934 respectively. Also he is talking about 1 Cor 2 here, not 1 Cor 15.

They are different.

Please explain.

You still haven’t told me where to find this information about 1 Cor 15 backed up by ikos and inos suffixes. You haven’t even given me a reference for ikos and inos at all.

I gave definitions of the entire terms spiritual and natural provided by scholars. Did you mean specific contrasting suffix references alone?

Not in verse 44 which is what I am refering to. The subject is an adjective.

Please explain.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mental

I would be interested in what N.T. Wright and Harris have to say on this passage.

From http://tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html

Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. (Wright [351n] adds that adjectives of material end in -inos.) Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

And Wright adds these classical uses, showing that the word is used not for what something is made of, but what it is "animated by": Aristotle speaks of wombs "swollen with air" (hysterai pnumatikai) and Vitruvius refers to a machine "moved by wind" (pneumatikon organon). The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

Carrier [129] attempts to get around this difficulty by claiming that the distinction between -inos and -ikos is "not so clear-cut" as, he says, "Wright admits." Though in fact, Wright is not so firm as that; he does say it is "dangerous to generalize in so widespread and pluriform a language as Koine Greek" yet the distinction remains "generally true". Carrier also ignores Wright's point that Paul was perfectly capable of coining a word like psychinos if needed.

While Carrier gives us an alleged set of examples of words with dual meanings, he does not offer specific citations as to where they appear. He would further need to show that these examples were not potential cases of scribal error or poor spelling/usage, or occurred often enough to make this suggestion unlikely.

Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...

Here our critic has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul.

This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body. Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3.

The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What our critc has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same.

Wright (Resurrection of the Son of God, 315) adds the pertinent point that as it happens, the pagan philosophers of the day DID hold a "Mormon" view of spirit as "composed of material, albeit in finer particles." Thus indeed if Paul was teaching the sort of "spirit body" resurrection supposed, "his argument would be unnecessary, since many people in Corinth believed in that anyway." A "spiritual resurrection" thesis makes 1 Cor. 15 an argument for something that the Corinthians would have already believed in!

Harr.RI -- Harris, Murray. Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983.

Wri.Rez -- Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. 2003.

See also: http://www.forumtheology.com/Docs/Re...20Physical.pdf

[mfblume]

Mental,

Now that I have posted the information you requested, I recalled that the link I gave to the website with Harris' and Wright's thoughts was the original website from which I gained those thoughts of IKOS and INOS in the original post I submitted about the issue.

Any comments on Wright and Harris?