It should be noted that Arians don’t all believe the same thing regarding how long Christ has been human (or rather, something close to human, since Christ isn’t fully human according to Arianism), or when Christ began to have a human nature (or something close to a human nature). Some Arians believe that Christ pre-existed as a “celestial human.” For example, Martin Zender has stated, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the prototype human,” and went on to refer to him as “the first celestial man.” Concerning Christ’s first appearance to Paul, MZ stated that Christ “was appearing now as the human that antedated Bethlehem, prior even to the terrestrial Adam’s existence.”
This view is not based on or informed by what’s revealed in Scripture. Rather, it’s based on MZ’s own reasoning (which is based on certain presuppositions that are based on his prior commitment to the belief that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being). The Genesis narrative is clear that mankind/humanity did not begin to exist until the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:5-7; 5:1-2). God defined what a “human” is when he created Adam. Any beings that existed prior to the creation of Adam – whether celestial or terrestrial – cannot be validly categorized or understood as the same kind of creature that God made when he created Adam. It’s also clear that mankind was created in the image of God himself (and not in the image of a pre-existent “celestial human” who later became a “terrestrial human”). That is, it’s in the image of Yahweh Elohim himself – and not in the image of a pre-existent “celestial human” – that mankind was created on the sixth day of creation.
When discussing his view that Christ pre-existed as a “celestial human” in an email correspondence, MZ asked me the following question: “Concerning Adam, might we consider him to be the first human of the earth variety?” But Genesis 1-2 is not a record of how God first made humans who are “of the earth variety.” It’s a revelation of how and when God created mankind. When God created Adam and Eve, the only humans that existed were “of the earth.” It wasn’t until Christ was vivified – and thus became “the Celestial One” whose image we’ll be wearing after we’re vivified (1 Cor. 15:48-49) – that a different “variety” of human existed. Before Christ was vivified, no other “variety” of human existed (or had ever existed).
Paul confirmed this understanding of how and when God created the first man when, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, he twice referred to Adam as “the first man”:
If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, “became a living soul:” the last Adam a vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish, thereupon the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven.
In these verses, Paul’s not informing the reader that Adam was “the first man of the earth variety”; rather, Paul’s making clear what was true of the first man. No one who isn’t already assuming that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a “celestial man” would read what Paul wrote here and conclude that Adam was “the first man of the earth variety” (which would mean that, in v. 47, he was basically communicating the idea that “the first human of the earth variety was out of the earth”).
Paul referred to Adam as “the first man,” without any implication whatsoever that there was, at the time of his creation, some other “variety” of man already in existence (e.g., some celestial “man” who was not “soulish” or “soilish”/“out of the earth”). Had Paul wanted to communicate the idea that there was no other man in existence before Adam, I can’t think of a clearer and more succinct way of expressing this truth than with the words, “the first man, Adam.”
Moreover, Paul explicitly wrote in this same passage that the “spiritual” is not first, but rather than soulish. And since, in the context, Paul links “spiritual” with “celestial” and “soulish” with “soilish” – they are, for Paul, inseparably connected – it follows that, for humans, the spiritual and celestial follows the soulish and soilish. This simple fact completely undermines the idea that Christ pre-existed as a glorified, spiritual and celestial “man” (a “man” biologically unrelated to “the first man, Adam”).
In response to my criticisms of the view that Christ pre-existed as a “celestial man” in an earlier article, Stephen rightly recognized the error of regarding Christ as having pre-existed as “the first celestial man.” Despite his agreement that Christ didn’t pre-exist his life on earth as a “celestial man,” Stephen went on to respond to my comments on 1 Cor. 15:45-47 by pointing out that what Paul wrote is “concerning humanity.” Well, of course it’s concerning humanity. And this fact is contrary to the Arian position. For if someone is a human, then – according to what Paul affirmed in 1 Cor. 15:45-47 – we can conclude that they didn’t first exist with a spiritual body. Or, to put it another way, no one who is human previously existed with a spiritual body. And Scripture is crystal-clear that Christ is a human. MZ correctly affirmed this truth when, in the article from which I quoted earlier, he stated the following:
“The difference between [Christ] and us is that, being tempted in like manner as we, He did not sin. Other than this, He was as human as we.”
Whether he fully realized it or not, what MZ wrote here means that the nature that Christ had during his earthly life was no different than the nature with which Adam was created. Although Christ (in contrast with Adam) remained sinless throughout his life, his sinlessness was not due to his having had a different nature than (or his being a different kind of being than) Adam. Christ was, instead, “as human as we” during his life on earth. And since Christ was (and is) a human being – i.e., since Christ essentially belongs to the race of beings known in Scripture as “mankind” – it means that Christ didn’t first exist with (and couldn’t have first existed with) a spiritual body. Like “the first man, Adam,” Christ began his existence with a soulish/soulish body.
Moreover, even if, according to the Arian view, Christ wasn’t a “celestial human” when he’s thought to have pre-existed with a spiritual body, it would still mean that, for Christ, the spiritual body was first. That is, it would still be the case that a certain human – i.e., the Man, Christ Jesus – had a spiritual body before he had a soulish body. And this would mean that, for at least one human being (Christ), the spiritual body was indeed first. Christ would still be a counterexample to what Paul asserted to be true (which would therefore falsify what Paul wrote).
Therefore, Paul’s assertion that the spiritual isn’t first presupposes that Christ didn’t begin his existence with a spiritual body. Like every other human, Christ began – and had to have begun – his existence with a soulish body. Since Paul was making known what’s true of all humanity in 1 Cor. 15:45-47, he was necessarily making known what has been true of Christ for as long as Christ has existed. It was not until Christ was vivified that he received a spiritual body and became a celestial being. In fact, it was by virtue of his obedience unto death that Christ became worthy of being vivified with a spiritual body.
Stephen went on to claim that what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:45-46 “…doesn’t apply to Christ, Who is called “a vivifying Spirit” in the very passages we’re talking about. No mere man could definitively be called this, or Paul’s arguments concerning mankind’s universal justification have a major issue that can’t be rectified (Rom. 5:12.) In contrast, Christ can be called a Vivifying spirit, because: Matt. 8:27, and 16:15-16, clarify that He is not merely ‘man,’ but the Son of the Living God.”
When Paul referred to Christ as “a vivifying Spirit,” he wasn’t denying or minimizing Christ’s humanity/human nature. For when he referred to Christ as “a vivifying Spirit,” he wasn’t referring to what was true of Christ before his resurrection. This is evident from the immediate context (the subject of which is the resurrection of the dead – including Christ’s resurrection – and the nature of the resurrection body).
When Paul referred to Adam as “a living soul” and then to Christ as “a vivifying Spirit,” he was doing so to support his prior claim that, “if there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also.” Since Christ’s becoming a “vivifying Spirit” is intended to support this prior claim, it follows that Christ became a “vivifying Spirit” when he was roused by God and received a spiritual body. Again, the subject is the resurrection of the dead (including Christ’s resurrection, and what is true of Christ in his resurrected state).
But what is a “soulish body” and a “spiritual body?” Answer: a “soulish body” is simply a body that’s characterized by the soul. But what is a soul? Answer: Literally, the term “soul” denote the sentience (or sentient capacity) of living humans and animals – i.e., their sensation (broadly speaking) or sensory experience (Gen 1:30; 19:17; 35:18; Ex 4:19; 21:23; Lev 17:11-14; 1Sam 22:23; Job 12:10; Esther 7:7; Prov. 12:10; Jonah 4:3). Genesis 35:18 is a good example of the literal use of the term “soul”:
“And as Rachel’s soul [nephesh] was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”
Notice that we’re not told that Rachel was departing at this time. Rather, we’re told that something was departing from Rachel (i.e., her nephesh, or “soul”). So what was the nephesh or “soul” that we’re told was “departing” from Rachel as she was dying? Answer: it was simply Rachel’s sentience (or sentient capacity) that was “departing” from her.
Referring to Adam as a living “soul” is an example of the figure of speech “metonymy” (i.e., according to which someone or something is referred to by the name of something closely associated with it). It should be emphasized that this particular understanding of the words “and he became a living soul” in Genesis 2:7 and 1 Cor. 15:47 (i.e., that the figure of speech “metonymy” is being used here) is not original to me. It’s also the view of the Concordant Publishing Concern. For example, in Volume 89 of Unsearchable Riches (Unsearchable Riches Volume 89), we read the following on pages 117-118:
“Man, like the animals, is a ‘living soul’ (Gen. 1:21; 2:7). While both are living creatures, they are termed (by metonymy) living ‘souls.’ This is because they are not only living creatures but are living creatures which possess soul, that is, sentient capacity. Both man and beast are termed living souls because they are living creatures which, through sentient faculties, are capable of experience.”
We also read on p. 279 of the Keyword Concordance that, “By metonymy, [a soul is] a human being considered from the standpoint of its sensations or experiences (Rev.6:9).”
We find this point made in Volume 19 of Unsearchable Riches (see pages 69-70) as well:
Many, many times do we find the possessive pronoun with soul—my soul, your soul, his soul, their souls etc. This could not be the case if we are souls. It is used precisely as body and spirit are used. Except in a figurative sense, a human being is not a body, or spirit, hence we speak of our body, our spirit, and so, our soul. We possess sensation, but if it should leave us we still have a body and a spirit.
The apostle Paul prays that our spirit and soul and body be kept blameless (1 Thess. 5:23). He draws a distinct line between them. In Hebrews we are assured that the word of God severs soul from spirit (Heb. 4:12).
Instead of the soul being the body and spirit, Scripture tells us it is of the flesh and in the blood (Lev. 17:11). We read of “flesh with the soul” (Gen. 9:4).
When then, human beings are called souls, or bodies, or spirits, we take something that belongs to them, a part of them, as a name for the whole. This is an old and well known figure of speech.
In resurrection our Lord became a life-giving Spirit. Yet He assured His disciples that He was not a spirit. They supposed they are beholding a spirit. And He said to them “...Perceive My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and perceive, seeing that a spirit has not flesh and bones according AS YOU BEHOLD ME HAVING” (Luke 24: 39). Our Lord did not deliberately deceive His disciples. Paul does not differ from His express declarations. Both are true. One is a fact, the other is a figure.
By identifying the living human, Adam, with that which he received when he became alive (i.e., soul), it emphasizes the fact that Adam’s sensory experience is what characterized and dominated his existence. And Paul appealed to this fact in order to support his previous statement that our present body – which is the same kind of body that Adam was created with – is “soulish” (v. 44-45), or characterized/dominated by our soul. But again, the word “soul” literally refers to something that a living human or animal has, and not to what a living human or animal is. It is only in a figurative sense (by the use of metonymy) that humans or animals are referred to as “souls” or “living souls.” It’s because a soulish body is a body that’s characterized/dominated by soul that Paul went on to quote Genesis 2:7 (where we’re first told that Adam “became a living soul”).
In contrast with a “soulish body,” a spiritual body is a body that’s characterized/dominated by the spirit. But by whose spirit is the “spiritual body” characterized/dominated? What is the “vivifying Spirit” that Christ is being figuratively identified as here? The answer is found in John 6:63:
“The Spirit is that which is vivifying. The flesh is not benefiting anything. The declarations which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
“The Spirit” that “is vivifying” is God’s Spirit (and not Christ’s own spirit – i.e., the “spirit of life,” or life-principle, that all humans and animals have, and which is distinct from God’s Spirit). Rather than having a body that is characterized/dominated by his soul (a “soulish body”), the body with which Christ was roused is characterized/dominated by the vivifying Spirit of God within him (making it a “spiritual body”). That is, Christ’s body is characterized/dominated by the vivifying Spirit of God within it. But again, just as Adam was not literally his own soul, so Christ is not literally the vivifying Spirit of God within him. Both men are being represented by what they possess, and which characterizes (and dominates) their body. As we read in the above article from Unsearchable Riches, when Paul referred to Christ as a “vivifying Spirit,” he was taking something that belongs to Christ – i.e., the vivifying Spirit within him – and figuratively identifying Christ with it. But Christ is not literally the vivifying Spirit within him.
Now, in response to the scripturally-informed fact that Christ couldn’t have pre-existed as a celestial being with a spiritual body, the Arian will typically appeal to what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:47 (i.e., “The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven”). For example, in response to my statement that Christ began his existence with a soulish body,” Stephen stated the following:
“This is just contrary to [1 Cor. 15:47] entirely. Like, his claim is the direct opposite of this verse. The verse itself is contrasting Adam and Christ, not drawing parallels to them! The Lord out of heaven, not ‘the Christ, soilish turned celestial!’”
Ironically, it is Stephen’s interpretation that is entirely contrary to what Paul was saying in this verse. Just as Paul was telling us what “the first man WAS,” so Paul was telling us what “the second Man IS.” “Is” refers to what is true of Christ now, and not what the Arian thinks was true of Christ when Adam was formed (and when, according to what Stephen – but not MZ – thinks, Christ wasn’t even a man). I hope that reader can appreciate the completely absurd nature of Stephen’s interpretation here. Stephen thinks that, in 1 Cor. 15:47, Paul was telling us what was true about Christ before he became “the last Adam” and “the second Man” in order to make a point about the nature of the body that Christ, as “the last Adam” and “second Man,” received when he was roused by God (and which makes it possible for Christ to be referred to as “the Firstfruit of those who are reposing”).
Stephen, however, is simply assuming that Christ was “the Lord out of heaven” before his resurrection. Of course, Stephen doesn’t think he’s “assuming” anything; he thinks that his interpretation is “just what the text literally says.” But the text doesn’t “literally say” say that Christ was the Lord out of heaven before his resurrection. And there’s no good reason to assume that he was.
The only reason Stephen is assuming that Christ, the second Man, was the Lord out of heaven before his resurrection (and before Adam, the first man, was created) is because of his belief that Christ pre-existed in heaven. But the Arian’s assumption concerning when Christ became “the Lord out of heaven” is contrary to the immediate context. The subject of the immediate context in which this statement was made is the nature of the resurrection body (i.e., the kind of body with which Christ was roused/vivified). In order to understand this verse as supporting the Arian view, one has to disregard the immediate context, and erroneously assume that Paul was referring to what the Arian thinks was true of Christ before he was roused with a spiritual body.
According to the CLNT Keyword Concordance, the word translated “out of” in this verse (ek) can express the idea of something being the source of something else. That is, in this context (and other similar contexts), the word “ek” means “derived from.”
Consider the following:
1. In 1 Corinthians 11:8, 12, the expression “out of the man” means that Adam was the source of what God used to form Eve (and not that Eve pre-existed in Adam before she was formed). That is, Paul’s use of ek here expresses the idea that Eve was derived from Adam.
2. In 1 Corinthians 15:47, the expression “out of the earth” means that the earth was the source of what God used to form Adam (and not that Adam pre-existed in the earth before he was formed). That is, Paul’s use of ek here expresses the idea that Adam was derived from the earth.
3. In 2 Corinthians 5:2, the expression “out of heaven” means that heaven is the source of what God will use to create the body of which we’ll will composed after we’ve been vivified (and not that our spiritual body pre-exists in heaven). That is, Paul’s use of ek here expresses the idea that our future, spiritual body will be derived from heaven.
But according to how the Arian interprets 1 Cor. 15:47, he ought to also believe – that is, if he’s being consistent – that Eve pre-existed as a living human in Adam’s body before God formed her, that Adam pre-existed as a living human in the earth before God formed him, and that the spiritual bodies of believers pre-exist in heaven before we’re vivified and thus “clothed” with them. But that, of course, is absurd. The Arian can’t be consistent here.
The fact is that the expression “out of heaven” expresses the fact that heaven is the source of Christ’s vivified body – i.e., the body with which Christ was roused, and which composes Christ (A.E. Knoch helpfully defines “body” [soma] as “the organic substance which composes a human being or animal”).[i] Because our body is what composes us, what is true of our body is true of us (and thus, what is true of Christ’s body is true of him). And since Christ’s vivified body is “out of heaven” (i.e., it’s derived from heaven, just like our body will be), Christ is “the Lord out of heaven.”
Before I move on, I need to respond to an objection by Stephen to my use of 2 Cor. 5:2 (where our future, spiritual body is referred to as being “out of heaven”). Stephen’s objection begins as follows:
There’s sufficient evidence here that points to the tabernacle house being related to wages (1 Cor. 3:10-15,) an actual location, and not our physical bodies.
There is no evidence (let alone “sufficient evidence”) for the view Stephen is proposing here. It’s clear from the context that Paul was referring to the bodily change that will be brought about when one is resurrected. Here’s 2 Cor. 4:13-18:
Now having the same spirit of faith, in accord with what is written, "I believe, wherefore I speak also," we also are believing, wherefore we are speaking also, being aware that He Who rouses the Lord Jesus will be rousing us also, through Jesus, and will be presenting us together with you. For all is because of you, that the grace, increasing through the majority, should be super-abounding in thanksgiving to the glory of God.
Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day. For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory, at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian.
Paul clearly had the resurrection in mind here (as verse 14 makes clear). The “outward man” that is “decaying” is the mortal body. The fact that Paul used the plural “our” and the singular “outward man” is no objection to this fact, as Paul went on to refer to “the body” (singular) while using the plural pronoun “we” (2 Cor. 5:6-9). Paul used similar terminology elsewhere when referring to the resurrection; for example, in Rom. 8:23 Paul wrote that we are “awaiting the sonship, the deliverance of our body” (see also 1 Cor. 15:42-44 and Phil. 3:20-21).
We then read the following in 2 Cor. 5:1-8:
For we are aware that, if our terrestrial tabernacle house should be demolished, we have a building of God, a house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens. For in this also we are groaning, longing to be dressed in our habitation which is out of heaven, if so be that, being dressed also, we shall not be found naked. For we also, who are in the tabernacle, are groaning, being burdened, on which we are not wanting to be stripped, but to be dressed, that the mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now He Who produces us for this same longing is God, Who is also giving us the earnest of the spirit. Being, then, courageous always, and aware that, being at home in the body, we are away from home from the Lord (for by faith are we walking, not by perception), yet we are encouraged, and are delighting rather to be away from home out of the body and to be at home with the Lord.
In accord with the fact that “our outward man” refers to the mortal body, the “terrestrial tabernacle house” to which Paul was referring is clearly a reference to the mortal body in which we’re presently “at home.” It is this mortal body that is “demolished” when one dies, and is the body in those who are alive “are groaning.” The contrast to this “terrestrial tabernacle house” is the spiritual body with which we’ll be “dressed, that the mortal may be swallowed up by life.” Paul was not referring to wages at the dais of Christ here. The vivifying change that will result in our being “dressed in our habitation which is out of heaven” (such that “the mortal” will be “swallowed up by life”) will occur when the event referred to in 1 Cor. 15:51-54 takes place.
Notice, also, that what Paul's referring to here is connected with our having been given “the earnest of the spirit.” The earnest of the spirit is the guarantee of our vivification – i.e., “the deliverance of our body” (Rom. 8:23), not the receiving of wages at the dais of Christ. It is after we have been “dressed in our habitation which is out of heaven” (and “the mortal” has thus been “swallowed up by life”) that we will then be able to be “manifested in front of the dais of Christ, that each should be requited for that which he puts into practice through the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). In other words, it’s because of the future bodily change that’s being referred to in 2 Cor. 5:1-8 that the saints in the body of Christ will be able to be present at the dais of Christ to receive wages.
Stephen went on to say, “Even if it is in relation to physical bodies, it is evident that the source of our habitation is, literally, out of heaven, and we will not receive it on the earth. It is indeed a future expectation…”
There’s no question that, in 2 Cor. 5:1-8, Paul was referring to “physical bodies” (rather than to “wages”). And this fact is completely contrary to what Stephen goes on to say. Moreover, while Stephen states that “the source of our habitation is, literally, out of heaven,” it’s not accurate to say that “out of heaven” is the source of our spiritual body. Rather, heaven itself is the source (i.e., the location from which our spiritual body is derived). “Out of heaven” is the expression that indicates this fact. And Stephen is simply mistaken when he says that “we will not receive [our spiritual body] on the earth.” Our vivification is going to take place while we’re on the earth (just as Christ was vivified while he was entombed). Here’s 1 Cor. 15:51-52:
“Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”
Notice that the living are changed (i.e., “the mortal” is “swallowed up by life”) when the dead are roused incorruptible. Both changes occur at the same moment. And then, after this change has occurred (which, again, will involve the dead being roused incorruptible), the saints in the body of Christ will then be snatched away to meet the Lord in the air (as we read in 1 Thess. 4:15-17). Based on what we read in these verses, it’s evident that the dead and the living are going to be vivified – and thus receive their spiritual body – before being removed from the earth to meet the Lord in the air. And when we’re vivified, the earthly elements of our mortal, soilish body will be instantly replaced with whatever heavenly elements comprise Christ’s immortal, spiritual body. And this means that heaven – rather than earth – will be the source of our body when we undergo this change on the earth. Our body will, at this future time, be “out of [derived from] heaven.” And because our spiritual body will be that which composes us after we’ve been vivified (just as our soulish body is what composes us now), we will be “out of [derived from] heaven” as well.
Again, the body with which Christ was roused is a spiritual body, and is heavenly in nature. Heaven – rather than earth – is its source. When Christ was vivified, the earthly elements of his soilish body were replaced with heavenly elements (thus transforming Christ into a celestial being). And when we’re vivified (and thus come to be “dressed in our habitation which is out of heaven”), we will thus “wear the image of the Celestial One,” and be “celestials” ourselves (1 Cor. 15:48-49). Christ is now a celestial being because of the nature of the body with which he was roused; his present celestial nature has nothing to do with the Arian view that he “pre-existed” in heaven, and has everything to do with his present vivified condition (of which he became worthy when he died in obedience to God).
The contrast between Adam and Christ that Paul is making in 1 Cor. 15:45-47 concerns the nature of their human body (and is the very reason why Paul brings up Adam in this context at all). Adam was “out of [derived from] the earth,” and his body was thus “soilish” in nature. However, since being roused, Christ is “the Lord out of [derived from] heaven.” The heavenly nature of his vivified body makes him a celestial being (just as Paul makes clear in 2 Cor. 5:2 that, when we’re vivified with a spiritual body, heaven will be the source of our body as well).
Thus, based on the above considerations (including what we read concerning Adam and Eve in 1 Cor. 11:8, 12 and Adam in 1 Cor. 15:47), we can conclude that the expression “out of heaven” in 1 Cor. 15:47 means that heaven (rather than earth) is the source of the Lord’s spiritual body (and thus the source of the Lord himself, since every living human is composed of his or her body). This understanding is in accord with the previously-noted fact that the subject with which Paul is concerned in the immediate and broader context is the truth of the resurrection and the nature of the resurrection body. That is, the nature of the Lord’s resurrected body (i.e., the physical substance of which he’s been composed ever since he was roused) is what Paul is talking about in the immediate context of 1 Cor. 15:47.
Stephen went on to say that “our Lord cannot have been “out of heaven” at a future point in time, or Jesus is, like the Pharisees, a liar, as He would not truly be acquainted with God (John 8:55.)”
Stephen’s understanding of how Jesus was acquainted with God is flawed. Jesus didn’t need to have previously existed in heaven prior to his life on earth in order for him to have been “truly acquainted with God.” Jesus was acquainted with God because God had revealed essential truth concerning himself to Jesus, and given Jesus the faith to believe it.
Stephen went on to object that “Paul doesn’t say, ‘Christ is now the Lord out of heaven.’ God doesn’t say, ‘Christ’s source is heaven now.’ He says that with you, sure (2 Cor. 5:1,) but He does not say that about His Son.”
But here Stephen is simply assuming that Christ pre-existed as “the Lord out of heaven” (despite the fact that Paul didn’t say that Christ “was the Lord out of heaven, before his life on earth began”). His belief that Christ pre-existed – and not the immediate context in which Paul wrote what he did in 1 Cor. 15:47 – is what’s driving his interpretation of this verse. It would’ve been completely contrary to Paul’s point to say that Christ was, prior to his life on earth, “the Lord out of heaven.” The context, again, is the truth of the resurrection and the nature of the resurrection body. Paul didn’t have to say “Christ is now the Lord out of heaven,” because it’s obvious from the immediate context that he’s referring to what has been true of Christ since the time he was roused (and became “a vivifying Spirit”).
Another Arian (Tony N.) attempted to explain to me what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:47 as follows:
“Adam, as the first human, got his start out of the earth. He is soilish. The second Human got His start in heaven, since He originally existed in heaven.”
But what, exactly, are the words “got his start out of the earth” supposed to mean, if not that the earth is the source of what God used to compose Adam? What else can it mean? Tony doesn’t believe that Adam pre-existed somewhere in the earth as a living being before God formed him, and that God removed Adam from somewhere in the earth (which, of course, is absurd). Nor does Tony believe that the first woman (Eve) pre-existed as a living being in Adam, and that God removed her from Adam’s body. No, Tony correctly believes that “out of the earth” means that the earth is the source of what God used to form Adam (and that “out of the man” means that Adam was the source of what God used to form Eve). However, because of his prior commitment to the view that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a heavenly being, he was unable to see that 1 Cor. 15:47 has nothing to do with what was true of Christ before his life on earth began (and has everything to do with what has been true of Christ since the time of his resurrection).
Tony went on to say, “Adam came out of the earth. He is soilish. The Lord came out of heaven. He is spiritual.”
Notice how Tony had to misquote Paul as saying that Christ “came out of heaven.” That’s not what Paul wrote. Christ is presently “the Lord out of [derived from] heaven,” because heaven – rather than earth – is the source the spiritual body that composes him (and apart from which he wouldn’t exist as the living being that he is). Moreover, as already noted, Paul wrote (immediately after contrasting Adam and Christ), “But not FIRST the spiritual, but the soulish, THERUPON the spiritual.” Adam was created with a soulish body (of which the earth was the source). Christ, the last Adam and second man, was roused with a spiritual body (of which heaven is the source). Thus Paul was able to refer to Adam as being “out of the earth” while he was able to refer to Christ – who has been roused with a spiritual body – as being “out of heaven.”
The Arian interpretation of this verse distracts from and obscures the truth that Christ’s present status and condition as a celestial being with a spiritual body is a state of which he became worthy by his obedience unto death. When Christ was vivified and transformed into a celestial being, he was not being restored to a previous state. Rather, Christ’s present existence as a celestial being (who, by virtue of the body with which he was roused, can be referred to as “the Lord out of heaven”) is one that he would not be able to enjoy – and which no other human would be able to enjoy with him, in the future – had he not done what he did.
Part seven: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part seven
[i] “Substance” is defined as “the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.” According to this understanding of what our body is, every human is composed of a certain quantity or amount of physical matter. But how does the quantity of matter that is our body compose us? Evidently, it does so by existing in a unified and organized state. And it exists in a unified and organized state because of the “spirit of life” (or life-principle) within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment