The Spiritual Body -- Physical or Non-Physical?

[mfblume]

Mental wrote:

Interesting. How's that?

I saw your post but I haven't had a chance to look at it seriously. I will try to take a look later tonight. This is actually something I have been wanting to get a handle on. I don't have any "position" to defend so I'm open to learning. Thanks for the sources.

[mfblume]

Some older notes from another thread.

Greek Words

Natural is ψυχικοìς (psuchikos).
Spiritual is πνευματικοìς (pneumatikos)

Greek words that end in “inos” speak of compositional material.

Greek words that end in “ikos” speak of characterictics.

So the spiritual body is not a spirit, but is the physical body that is DRIVEN by Spirit for purposes of never dying and being eternity-related and Holy Ghost-controlled, as opposed to animal appetites of our present bodies.

1 Cor 15 is not speaking about physical vs. immaterial bodies.

1 Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

Perishable vs. imperishable.
Weakness vs. power (v. 43).
Dishonour vs. glory (v. 43).

[mfblume]

5) It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body

a) "Natural" (psychikos) means "that which pertains to the soul."

b) "Spiritual" (pneumatikos) means "that which pertains to the spirit."

c) Some have misunderstood Paul to be referring to a non-physical resurrection body.

i) However, when Paul referred to the "spiritual man" in 1 Cor 2:15, he meant a human being empowered by the spirit of God not an immaterial entity.

ii) Adjectives of "material" tend to form in -inos; those which end in -ikos indicate what something is "like", giving an ethical or dynamic relation as opposed to a material one."

(a) Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (ca. 90-20 BC) writes of a machine "moved by wind (pneumatikos)."[4]

(b) The adjective describes, not what something is composed of, but what it is animated by.

(From http://www.ffgreenville.org/notes/bo...or-015-035.htm)

[mfblume]

In Hebrew thought however, psyche is just as subject to corruption as the sarx in their natural states[19]. Indeed Paul uses both psychikos and sarkikos indifferently to mean “natural”[20] in his language about the make-up of humanity. Sōma on the other hand is used to refer to the “whole psycho-physical unity”, and embraces both the psyche and the sarx. Thus it follows that a resurrection sōma is not compatible with the dualistic thought of the day, and that it embraces the whole nature of a person, not just their immortal soul[21].

2.3 Psychikon and Pneumatikon – natural and spiritual bodies contrasted

In 15:44-49, Paul stresses the difference between the natural body and the spiritual one[31]. In English, the terms ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ sound like antitheses, and lend themselves easily to dualistic thought. The Corinthians may similarly have had the understanding that the natural and spiritual bodies were antitheses, and given the dualistic thought in the Corinthian mindset, it seems unlikely that they would have not considered that the destination of a pneumatikos was to be raised to new bodily life[Wright, N T The Resurrection Of The Son Of God (London: SPCK, 2003)]

The context of the verses should help clarify the differences between the two terms. Psychikos and pneumatikos are placed in contrast to each other in precisely the same way as the perishable/imperishable, dishonor/glory and weakness/power are. As we have already seen, these contrasting differences highlight the transformation that the body will undergo at resurrection. They are not contrasts in the matter-spirit mould of Platonism, but rather they are eschatological contrasts. Fee suggests that psychikos suggests a body in the present age, subject to decay, humiliation and weakness,[Fee, G D NICNT: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 1987)] whereas the pneumatikos body is “the new body, animated by the Spirit of God, with which the same man will be equipped in the age to come.”[34] Having established that psychikon and pneumatikon are not eternally opposite, but describe two eschatological phases in humanity.

(from http://worldofsven.co.uk/theology/po...blical_studies)

[Praxeas]

Thanks

[mfblume]

From Pearson, B A The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology In 1 Corinthians (Missoula: Scholars’ Press,1968) p15

...

Greek thought held that the material, the bodily and the corporeal were bad and must be destroyed (Cullmann, O Immortality Of The Soul Or The Resurrection Of The Dead? (London: Epworth Press, 1958) p26). The body was in sharp contrast to the realm of the soul, which was
immortal, and was released from the body at the point of death. As T W Manson summarises:

“[In Greek thought] Man is essentially a soul attached to, even imprisoned in, a body. That soul is akin to God and, when set free from its bodily prison-house […] can achieve its natural divinity or immortality.” (Manson, T W The Bible and Personal Immortality in Duthie, C S Resurrection and Immortality (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd., 1979) p38)

The dead then, are those who have superseded mundane physicality, and for whom the body had no further relevance. The superiority of the spirit or soul to the body was demonstrated in the behaviour of the Corinthians, who engaged in both licentious the case, then the Corinthians would have understood salvation as being some kind of spiritual escape from their dead bodies, not a resurrection of it. This causes soteriological difficulties, because the body is omitted from the salvific process and ultimately death would still prevail, far from being completely swallowed up in victory. As Paul makes clear, this is unthinkable for those whose faith is based on the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As he was raised, so they too shall be raised, and there is no room for a soteriological split between body and spirit. Both are saved, and one is not to be emphasised at the expense of the other. This of course highlights the radical differences between the Greek thought of the Corinthians and the Jewish thought of Paul. C K Barrett notes that “Greek intellectuals developed the notion of immortality; Jewish mystics and apocalyptists looked for the resurrection of dead bodies.” This is the cultural and religious gap in
thinking that Paul has to bridge.

As shall become clear shortly, it is particularly the bodily aspect of the resurrection that Paul has to deal with, and so it shall be necessary to examine his understanding as to precisely what he meant by ‘body’. Paul uses the word sōma to refer to the body, though sōma means more than just the physical body. The sōma contains the psyche and sarx, with psyche referring to the mind or soul and sarx to the natural,
fleshly part of the body. In Platonic thought, the psyche paralleled closely with the divine nature, over and against the lowly sarx. In Hebrew thought however, psyche is just as subject to corruption as the sarx in their natural states. Indeed Paul uses both psychikos and sarkikos indifferently to mean “natural” in his language about the make-up of humanity. Sōma on the other hand is used to refer to the “whole psycho-
physical unity”, and embraces both the psyche and the sarx. Thus it follows that a resurrection sōma is not compatible with the dualistic thought of the day, and that it embraces the whole nature of a person, not just their immortal soul.


...


Having laid a Christological foundation, Paul then answers some of the Corinthian objections to the doctrine of bodily resurrection. He anticipates them in 15:35: “But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” Paul uses the example of a seed buried in the soil that dies and in time yields a full- grown plant. This helps give clarity to Pauline resurrection thought by introducing the concept of continuity and discontinuity is the resurrection body. In the illustration, it is the same seed that dies and is turned into a plant, just as God wills. The lesson to be drawn from this is that resurrection is similarly a miraculous event brought about as God wills it, just as God causes the crops to grow, but that the divide between a natural body and a resurrection one is not a divide between the physical and the immortal soul, but an eschatological one between the current natural ‘seed’ and the resurrection ‘wheat’ that God will bring about in due time. The resurrection body is not simply a ‘resuscitation’, or a dug-up seed, but a new creation brought about by God and in keeping with the Christological parallel.

...

That pneumatikos derives from the root word pneuma suggests that the resurrection body will go beyond the ‘physical life principle’ of Adam, and instead will be animated and constituted by the Spirit of God. Paul’s concern in this passage is not to answer ontological curiosities but to assert the reality and importance of the resurrection body, and its superiority over the psychikos body of Adam. The –ikos endings of psychikos-pneumatikos terminology denote that the words have ethical or functional meanings rather than referring to the substance of which something is composed, and so will have implications for praxis and hope now, rather than simply establishing a resurrection theology without context.

(http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...s&client=opera)

[mfblume]

Spiritual (4152) (pneumatikos from pneuma = spirit + -ikos = speaks of the willingness to do that which the spirit stands for. -Ikos means adapted to or fitted for the spirit. It conveys idea of pertaining to the spirit or with the characteristics of the Spirit) relates to the human spirit, as the part of man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ. It refers to that which belongs to the supernatural world as distinguished from what belongs to the natural world.

Here are the 26 uses of pneumatikos in the NT - Rom. 1:11; 7:14; 15:27; 1 Co. 2:13, 15; 3:1; 9:11; 10:3f; 12:1; 14:1, 37; 15:44, 46; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 1:3; 5:19; 6:12; Col. 1:9; 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:5

[mfblume]

Paul employs shock therapy against these pneumatics: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:44). His point appears to be that not only should they not denigrate the present material order (which they have done, chs. 6-7), but he informs them that they will be resurrected in a "spiritual body" in the eschatological order! And here is where the hyper-preterist's theological naiveté causes him to stumble so badly. Hyper-preterists believe Paul's reference to the "spiritual body" speaks of the substance of the body, its compositional makeup. Consequently, they are emboldened to employ this verse for discounting a physical resurrection. Of course, this is as wrong-headed as to say a Coca-Cola bottle is made of Coca-Cola. Note the following evidences supporting the orthodox approach to Paul's argument (to name but a few):

This "spiritual (pneumatikos) body" is no more immaterial than the "natural (psuchikos) body," even though both "spirit" (pneuma) and "soul" (psuche) often refer to the immaterial element within the creature. Here Paul uses these (usually spiritual) terms to describe the body, and we know that our present natural (psuchikos) body is material. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 these adjectives distinguish the believer and the unbeliever. Rather than distinguishing their body materials, the terms focus on their driving forces: spiritual (Holy Spirit driven) concerns over against animal appetites.

To Paul, the semantic domain for pneuma overwhelmingly means "pertaining to the Holy Spirit" (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:13; 3:1; 12:1; Rom. 1:11; Eph. 1:3; 5:19). That is, it means governed by the Spirit of God. The adjectives psuchikos and pneumatikos describe, therefore, the essential governing characteristic of each body: the present, unresurrected, fallen body over against the future, resurrected, redeemed body. That is, they speak of the earth-related, animal-appetite-controlled condition of the present order (the totality of man in his earthly estate) over against the eternity-related, Holy Spirit-controlled condition of the resurrected estate (the totality of man in his eternal estate). The glory of the eschatological state entered into by the eschatological resurrection involves the full dominance of the Holy Spirit and all that that entails (including the body's imperishable condition and its moral control). And contextually, Paul designs his response to confront the prideful Corinthian pneumatics who think they have arrived at full spiritual glory. (Later Paul notes that the natural is first, not the spiritual, showing that the Corinthians must first live out their present lives before attaining the fullness of the Spirit, v. 46).

Paul's parallels and contrasts show that his concern is not physical over immaterial, but perishable over imperishable (v. 42), dishonor over honor (v. 43a), and weakness over power (v. 43b). Our resurrected condition is so governed by the Holy Spirit that the weaknesses of our present condition will be totally overcome by the transformational power of the Spirit. Indeed, he emphasizes the difference of glory as the key (vv. 40-41).

According to scholars such as A. T. Robertson, adjectives ending in -inos generally denote compositional material, whereas those ending with -ikos signify characteristics. This fits the flow of Paul's argument regarding the "natural"(psuchikos) and the "spiritual" (pneumatikos) body as I have presented it — and it supports the historic faith of the church regarding the resurrection.

Once again, Paul brings in the parallel between Adam and Christ as illustrating the differing circumstances of our estates (vv. 45-48). In verse 45 he applies Genesis 2:7 in light of his resurrection argument, contrasting the Adamic condition (the first Adam) with the resurrected Christ (the second Adam). (He cites the LXX: "the man became a living [psuchen] soul.") Adam's body was a psuchen body subject to animal weaknesses (hunger, death, and so forth, Gen. 1:29; 2:17). Once again we have the distinction between the psuche (soul) and pneuma (spirit): But we know that Adam was not immaterial, nor was Christ in His resurrection. The idea here is that just as Adam is the source of our perishable bodies as the "first Adam," so Christ is the source of our Spirit-powered bodies as the "last Adam" (the man of the last estate or condition of the redeemed). Thus, Paul is drawing the parallel between the two material bodies and their consequent conditions (cp. v. 22), then noting the superiority of the consummate state represented in Christ's resurrection condition.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Mode...urrection.html

[mfblume]

1. Nowhere does it say we get a different body and leave this one behind. Also let us see the specific terms in question. For example Paul says the body is sown in a natural body it is sown in a spiritual body. Is what Paul talking about here different bodies? Not really. Here is why. The words that are used is for natural (psychikos) and spiritual (pneumatikos). But if you look in 1 Cor 2:14-15 “But a natural (psychikos) man does not accept the thing of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual (pneumatikos) appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. Here Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual man, ie one who is led by his soulish, or fleshly desires to a Christian who is led by the Holy Spirit. These same words are used in the dying seed analogy as well. So Paul„¢s point is that concerning our future bodies, it will not have a sinful nature/appetites but raised with holy spiritual ones.

2. In Philipians 3:20-21 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.� Notice that in the resurrection, our bodies are not left behind but transformed. And notice also, our transformed body will be like His glorious body.

3. In Romans 8:11 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.�

4. Colossians 2:9 “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily� Notice the present tense. Paul is saying that the Godhead presently dwells in Jesus„¢ body.

5. In 1 Cor 15:3-5, after mentioning the death of Jesus, Paul using a creed says “and that he was buried and that he was raised.� This implies that what was buried is what was raised. The same thing occurs in v 42-44 “it is sown¦it is raised¦It is sown¦It is raised¦. Again what goes down in burial is raised in resurrection. All the time talking about the same body.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...p?f=23&t=12232
Formal Debate

[mfblume]

Resurrection Thinking
N. T. Wright


'Spiritual' doesn't mean 'non-physical'

The second reason why this is difficult comes in v44, where the NIV RSV and NRSV make the same mistake in translating 'It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body'. (If you want to get inside Paul, use almost any translation other than the NIV especially in Romans and Galatians.) The problem is that many writers, teachers and theologians of the last generation have argued that if it's a spiritual body it must be a non-physical body. I Cor 15 is the earliest piece of writing we've got about the resurrection (Paul is writing within 25 years or so whereas the gospels are written down later). Later they had these rather physical stories about Jesus eating broiled fish and breaking bread. But (the argument runs) the earliest Christian belief did not necessitate an empty tomb, because it's just a spiritual body- therefore it's not physical.

Our culture is still so soaked in Platonism that we assume 'spiritual' means 'non-physical' - it has left behind this world of shadows and illusions, and things you can touch and see and put into test tubes, and it's gone into the realm of pure spirit. That's not what Paul is saying. The two adjectives he uses, here translated 'natural' and 'spiritual', are psychikos and pneumatikos. Psychikos actually means 'soulish', in other words it is 'natural' in the sense that this is the ordinary human life. It certainly doesn't mean 'physical' as opposed to 'spiritual', which is what the RSV says.



Not what it's made of, but what it's animated by

Now for a fact of Greek grammar. These adjectives are the type ending in -ikos, which tell you not what something is made of but what it is animated by. To ask 'Is the boat you bought last week a sailboat or a motorboat?' is asking what's driving this boat, what it is animated by - as opposed to asking whether it is made of fibreglass or wood. These adjectives are not telling you what the new body is made of, but what is animating it. Paul's point is this: the body we currently have, which is decaying and will die, is presently animated by what we can loosely call the psyche, the life, the soul, the inner person that we currently are. But the new body will be animated by pneuma, by God's Spirit: as Paul says clearly in Romans 8:11, 'If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, then the one who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells within you.'



Resurrection means bodies

In other words, the gift of the Holy Spirit in the present is the guarantee of our resurrection in the future. There's the continuity. Yes, Paul says it's a spiritual body - it's a transformed body animated and driven by the Spirit - yet it is still physical, and if it wasn't, nobody in the ancient world would ever have used the word 'resurrection' to describe what was going on. Resurrection meant bodies, that's just the way it was and is. So this generates a worldview which is frustratingly different from the one that many Christians implicitly slide into, where the question is simply 'How do you get to go to heaven when you die?' So they find in Matthew's gospel (which they read when they open the New Testament) 'Do this and that and the other so that you may enter the kingdom of heaven', and they assume that this means going to a place called heaven which is the place where God's people live with him after they die. It's not what that means at all. We are called to pray that the kingdom of heaven (which is a periphrasis for the kingdom of God in the New Testament) will come on earth as it is in heaven.

http://www.eureca-online.org/en/arti...htArticle.html


Now for a fact of Greek grammar. These adjectives are the type ending in -ikos, which tell you not what something is made of but what it is animated by. To ask 'Is the boat you bought last week a sailboat or a motorboat?' is asking what's driving this boat, what it is animated by - as opposed to asking whether it is made of fibreglass or wood. These adjectives are not telling you what the new body is made of, but what is animating it. Paul's point is this: the body we currently have, which is decaying and will die, is presently animated by what we can loosely call the psyche, the life, the soul, the inner person that we currently are. But the new body will be animated by pneuma, by God's Spirit: as Paul says clearly in Romans 8:11, 'If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, then the one who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells within you.'



Resurrection means bodies

In other words, the gift of the Holy Spirit in the present is the guarantee of our resurrection in the future. There's the continuity. Yes, Paul says it's a spiritual body - it's a transformed body animated and driven by the Spirit - yet it is still physical, and if it wasn't, nobody in the ancient world would ever have used the word 'resurrection' to describe what was going on. Resurrection meant bodies, that's just the way it was and is. So this generates a worldview which is frustratingly different from the one that many Christians implicitly slide into, where the question is simply 'How do you get to go to heaven when you die?' So they find in Matthew's gospel (which they read when they open the New Testament) 'Do this and that and the other so that you may enter the kingdom of heaven', and they assume that this means going to a place called heaven which is the place where God's people live with him after they die. It's not what that means at all. We are called to pray that the kingdom of heaven (which is a periphrasis for the kingdom of God in the New Testament) will come on earth as it is in heaven.

http://www.eureca-online.org/en/arti...htArticle.html