"For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies" (1 Corinthians 15:53 NLT).
This rendering is a stretch in my opinion. The text does not actually say that mortal bodies will be changed to immortal bodies. Rather, mortality itself (a mortal body) is replaced with immortality itself. What immortality means should be ascertained from the context, not read into the passage. Secondly, if Paul said that immortality would be "put on" then how does this proclamation affect the belief in immortal souls? What an interesting biblical chapter.
I'm not denying the Pauline teaching that Christians will undergo a change from humiliated bodies to glorified bodies, which Phil 3:20-21 explicitly states and Corinthians certain indicates. But what terms, syntax or concepts in the text lead us to the NLT translation of 1 Cor 15:53?
Here are my notes on 1 Corinthians 15:35-54:
ReplyDeletehttps://justpaste.it/avwxj
The New Living Translation rendering is quite imprecise, paraphrasing, typical dynamic equivalence, which, although it facilitates readability, is not authoritative in doctrinal matters. The literal translation is approx. this:
"For this perishable/corruptible (one) must put on imperishability/incorruptibility, and this mortal (one) must put on immortality."
The verse does not include the noun "soma" (=body), so here "phthartos" functions as a noun, like the so-called "Substantivierte Adjective" in German, e.g. "der Böse" = the evil one. However, the context of 1Cor 15 makes it clear that the adjective does refer to "soma".
It is a misconception to believe that before the Fall, the way of life of people in the Garden of Eden before the Fall was the same as it will be in the promised paradise to come (that is, heaven[ly Jerusalem] descending to the [new] earth). The human being, as a living creature endowed with a body, is by nature mortal, even if the soul is eternal. Of course, the first human pair before the Fall was free from the compulsion of death. However, exemption from the compulsion of death is not entirely synonymous with immortality. Therefore, the first human could have died without sin if they were to find themselves in a situation incompatible with life (for example, drowning, falling from a great height, being beheaded). So there was a possibility of a violent death. This follows from their physical nature. The exemption from the compulsion of death means that humans (and probably the whole of the living world) would have been unfamiliar with natural death (aging) and disease. Augustine makes a precise distinction when he defines what the gift of human immortality consisted of: in the original state of man, one "had the ability not to die" (posse non mori). True and absolute immortality, which is "the inability to die" (non posse mori), exists only in God. The assumption of an incorruptible body implies some sort of transformation; if not death and resurrection, then at least a change, as discussed in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. That is, Adam would also have had to undergo a transformation, even if he had remained sinless. In other words, God intended for man to ultimately take on a supernatural (which is not to say immaterial) role, and after an appropriate time, man would have left the natural world without having to suffer a grievous death, and his body would not have seen corruption.
It is also worth mentioning here that the JWs introduce their two-class salvation doctrine by saying that according to mainstream Christianity "all good people go to heaven". However, this is a mistake, since it is not "all good people", but "only" all the justified, on the other hand, by "going to heaven" we do not mean, like the JWs, that by taking off the body, practically becoming an angel-like being forever, and thus actually not even receiving an actual (bodily) resurrection. In this sense, it's not just that "not all good people" go to heaven, but in this sense quite specifically no one.
Mainstream Christianity's understanding of the post-resurrection destiny of the righteous is "earthier" than the "heaven" of the 144k of the JWS, and "heavenlier" than what they believe to be the earth of the "Jonadab Class".
"if Paul said that immortality would be "put on" then how does this proclamation affect the belief in immortal souls?"
ReplyDeleteThe two questions have nothing to do with each other, the spiritual (of spiritual substance) soul is inherently incorruptible by nature, while the material body is not, therefore it must be transformed and put on incorruptibility, this is what the apostle Paul calls here the "spiritual body" (sōma pneumatikos). This "spiritual body" is not the same as the pure spiritual being in which God and the angels exist, they do not have such a "spiritual body" (they have no body at all), but are pure spirits. No human transforms into such a being.
So what does the term "spiritual body" mean? The body of resurrected people is a real material body, yet it is different from the old one: It will no longer be subject to decay, disease, and death. It carries the lightness, strength, and harmony of the spirit. It will reflect the spirituality of the soul and the beauty of grace. So, the "spiritual body" in relation to the resurrected saved does not mean that it will be transformed into a spirit (that is, essentially immaterial, incorporeal), but because it will be completely subordinate to the soul, it will therefore be free from all frailty and dirt and will last forever. The "spiritual body" of the elect will be similar to the body of Jesus Christ after his resurrection, which was a real visible and tangible body, but at the same time so spiritual that it could suddenly move from place to place and penetrate other bodies as well. The glorified body of the Lord and of the saved is fine because of the power of the spirit, but it is also tangible because of reality. Through sin, our soul became lustful, animalistic, natural, without thereby ceasing to be a spirit; and on the other hand, through glorification, our body will become spiritual, supernatural, without ceasing to be a real body. In other words, the "spiritual body" means the transfer of the positive qualities of the spiritual soul to the physical body.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1990_problemi-attuali-escatologia_en.html
ReplyDelete"...we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:23
ReplyDeleteA note from Troels Enberg-Pedersen's volume on Paul and Stoicism:
ReplyDelete"Where the Stoics spoke of a separation of the soul from the body of flesh and blood, Paul’s speaks of a transformation of that same body. It is true that the net result does not differ very much. In Stoicism, the soul of the wise man leaves the body of flesh and blood behind and rises ‘balloon-like from the corpse’ to take its place in heaven alongside other heavenly bodies made up of pneuma. In Paul, the body of flesh and blood is transformed as a whole—but into the very same state as in Stoicism. This similarity is due, of course, to the fact that Paul’s understanding of the resurrection body as a pneumatic body is fundamentally in accordance with the Stoic cosmology. Still, there is a difference, on which Paul places much weight in 15:50–5. Is it possible, then, to account for the difference, too, in terms of Stoic cosmology?"
"If this is Paul’s picture, then there is indeed a closely comparable idea in Stoicism: that of the conflagration, when everything in the world—including the earth with all its earthly bodies—will be transformed into the single, ‘uppermost’ element of pneuma, which constitutes the essence of God himself. This is the Stoic anastoicheiosis in its proper, technical sense: the ‘resolution’ of the whole world into God. This gives us our thesis: Paul’s idea of the change, and indeed the transformation, of individual bodies of flesh and blood into pneumatic bodies should be understood on the model of the Stoic idea of the transformation of the whole world into (pneuma and) God at the conflagration. The arguments for this proposal that we have considered so far are two. One was that Paul after all does speak of a transformation of the world as a whole, and not just once, but in several places. Another is that the idea of a genuine transformation of individual bodies of flesh and blood into pneumatic bodies seems to require a Stoic-like outlook. After all, both the starting point and the end point of the process are explicitly said by Paul to be bodies."
The NLT has done one thing I appreciate, it has supplied the implied word when other [some] Bibles do not, unfortunately NLT probably gets "hate" for this (as does NWT in some non-theologically important scriptures)
ReplyDeleteWhile it says nothing about "transformed" it does say "put on" (calls to mind the new [man/person])
I would guess what Paul means is that "dieing bodies" are made "out of dust" and immortal bodies are "from heaven." (what that means should be seen from other scriptures and Jesus' ascension into heaven. Ill note Flesh cannot "manifest" as something else - only spirits can.)
In Luke it only says spirits don't have "flesh and bones" (What Luke means by "spirits" is somewhat debatable but I know at least 3 of his mentions refer to demons)
This begs another question - assuming the soul can leave the body after death, is it still considered "flesh"?
after-all Souls are never said to stop being "flesh"
But then John 3:6 also plays a passive-role in that.
&
and if the soul is immortal - Why does Paul link immortality to salvation (and spirits) rather than to flesh?
Paul says Christ became a "life-giving spirit" and we are supposed to become "like Christ" (whether the JW interpretation is correct, idk, there are merits to it)
I would wager a guess this is Paul speaking in a "the future as the present" sort of way.
For Stoicism and the Corinthians, see also https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24637865.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Ad57c62b6c9d42968904be20fd428ce76&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
ReplyDeleteStable link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24637865
ReplyDeleteThanks Foster, I don't have access to that article though (no institutional access).
ReplyDeleteRoman, I know somebody who has it :-)
ReplyDeleteLot of papers here on the subject: https://www.academia.edu/5856050/_Pauls_Concept_of_the_Resurrection_Body_in_1_Corinthians_15_35_58_In_Stanley_E_Porter_and_David_Yoon_eds_Paul_and_Gnosis_PAST_9_Leiden_Brill_2016_44_58
ReplyDelete