Clark wrote a small book entitled, The Biblical Doctrine of Man (Trinity Foundation, 1984). In it is a powerful argument that suites the Corporate Body view quite well. Of course, Clark was a Westminster Confession man all the way, but you take what you can get.
First off, Clark defines “image of God” (pp.5-ff). “Image cannot be man’s body” (6). “Man himself is the image” (8). He then goes on to note that man is a “unity” (9). He used the example of NaCl (salt) being a combination of sodium and chloride. However, he disagreed with this understanding being the definition of man. Man is the soul. He is not a combination of soul and body. He is a soul that lives in a body (10). It is quite clear that Clark sees the problems the traditional view has, and he tries to smooth this out through logic. He was not happy with “paradox.” And, neither am I.
Now, Clark notes that Gen. 2.7 does appear to suggest that man is a combination of soul and body. But, in other usages, “soul” clearly refers to the “person.” The whole person. Paul was “in or out of the body” (2 Cor. !12). The point Clark made is that “he”, Paul, cannot be the “body” he was “out of.” The body and the soul did not define Paul. Paul was the soul in a bodily form.
When we take this idea to I Cor. 15 we see that Paul uses “of the dust” and “earthy” for the “image” of Adam in which “we bear.” This “image” cannot be in reference to his physical body, though we certainly “share” in that. But, this misses Paul’s point, for the “image” of the heavenly man is not “bodily” either. The image of the earthy man has to do with his “nature”. We share in the image of Adam in his corruption. Paul is drawing straight out of Genesis 5.3, where Adam’s son, Seth, is in Adam’s “image.” By implication, all Adam’s children are in his image. Paul proves this: “since we bear the image of the first man.” This image cannot be talking about his physical body: it is talking about his nature. The terms “earthy” and “of the dust” refers to his origins that are in contrast to the heavenly man, who origins are divine. We have inherited Adam’s corrupt nature – our souls were corrupted. Paul’s listeners were “being transformed into His likeness” from the “likeness” of Adam. From image to image.
Now, the text in Gen. 2.7 in the Hebrew, does not necessarily teach that Man is a combination as Clark suggested, but clearly rejects as the final definition of Man. Clark offered no exegesis of Gen. 2.7, but I will.
וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. Here we find, “and He formed, the LORD God, the man, dust from the ground. And He breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and the man became a living nephesh.” A lamed of indirect object is attached to “nephesh” here which may have significance in terms of definition. Ha-adam (“the man”) became something. Now, here we would find it difficult to have “the man” as defined before he was even “formed”! Hence, “the man” here is the rhetorical phenomenon of naming the thing before the thing is. We have to refer to what is being made before it is made. “Walt Disney world was built in Orlando”. Well, it didn’t exist before it was built! Yet, we know what was going to be built, so we call it by name. The indirect object lamed can be used in terms of alteration or the purpose of forming something that was not. What we have is, if we can imagine, a clay model on the ground, made from the “dust of the ground.” And, that’s it. This is not “the man.” This is what will “become” the man. This is not the image of God, either. It’s dirt.
What shapes it, or alters this clay model is the breath of God. This is blown “into” (beth) the clay model. This alters, or changes the clay model – it animates it. It is the breath of God “in” the man that is the “living nephesh.” Not a combination. There is no grammatical necessity here for saying dogmatically that this text “proves” that man is a combination of body and soul, and Clark’s definition can fit in perfectly here: Man is the soul. The soul is the Person, the Essence, the Substance, Man. Man lives in a body of clay, but this body of clay is not the Man, nor is it his “image.”
For Paul, then, by pointing out that Adam was “of the dust of the ground” shows that he was a “creature”. If “image of God” cannot be in reference to the body, then how can “image of Adam” be in reference to his body? Is Paul saying that we have a physical image of Adam, but will have a spiritual image in Christ? Or, does “image” mean the same thing: nature. Does Paul mean that we have a physical corrupt body (image of Adam) but that will be put off and we will get a physically – non corrupt spiritual body (image of Christ). This would tie “image” to “body”! We would have to conclude that Adam “made in the image of God” must mean that somehow, Adam’s body looks like God’s body! God forbid! God is spirit. He has no body.
Further, some manuscripts have “so let us bear the image of the man from heaven.” How can we do that now, if, in fact, “image” is related to “bodies”? Paul’s noting that Adam was earthy is to point out his origin, his realm of existence, his nature. It’s “natural”. Earth bound. Dust bound. Dirt holds him down. He cannot escape it. He cannot reach to the heavens in it. He must be transformed into a new image. The “image of Christ.” His SOUL must be changed, not his BODY! His BODY is not the PROBLEM! Jesus was in a body, and he had no problems with sin and corruption. He was one with the Father in his physical body. He was demonstrating that this can be done while here on earth. What needed to be changed was the IMAGE.
We can go further, but I think I have written enough here to point out some issues for discussion.
Good stuff, Sam. The points raised here are exactly why the whole “Gnostic” cry against preterists is ridiculous. From what i understand about some forms of Gnosticism, the material was deemed evil; thus the body was viewed as a prison of sorts. Something to be freed from.
As you have pointed out here, the body is not the problem. Is it what inhabits the body that is the problem.
As a redeemed soul, my body is used by the soul as a tool on earth to bring glory to God. And at some point, its purpose will end and that will be that. I don't long to be freed from it because i think it is inherently evil. It simply has a temporary purpose and that's it.
It seems to me that it is the futurist position that teeters on gnosticism because according to them, though my soul is “saved”, my body still needs to be “saved”/”glorified”, as if sin were some gaseous element floating around in it or something.
I know some of them do not word it that way, but they come awfully darn close when they start talking about how their “flesh” rises up to battle their “soul”.
Kinda like guns. Guns aren't evil. Guns don't kill. People do. The body is neutral; it's just dirt. Nothing inherently evil about it. What determines whether it is used honorably or dishonorably is the soul of the man.
Our opponents who want to make it sound like we deny a future resurrection of corpses because we think the body is inherently evil or worthless simply don't know what they are talking about.
How's this for a quote from RE: “I’m seeing more and more that Dr. Talbot buys his influence over others.”
ROFL….anyhow, thought I'd start off with a laugh. Yes, you are right. The futurist view truly leads to a view that we are awaiting to “escape” the evil old physical body. As if evil resided in it or something.
Clark pushed these logical envelopes. If it didn't make sense, it didn't make sense. If Paul said “he” was out of the body, then the whole “he” was out of the body. You can't have “part” of Paul be his phsyical body, and another “part” be his soul. This is the NaCl combination view, which Clark rejected. Why did he reject it? I made no sense. It contradicted Scriptures. It, therefore, had to be rejected, even though it was, as he said, “orthodox.” A better solution was sought. Clark was a maverick.
However, with this definition of Man, one can see that being clothed with Christ is entirely something “spiritual” in nature. It is typified when Adam was “naked” and was “clothed over” with skins. This was while he was in his body.
We must be like Clark and push the envelop where logic dictates, freeing the Scriptures from traditionalist views that bound it to absurdities, absurdities we are told to submit to because, well, “that's the way we have always done it.” I can't submit to nonsense, once it is uncovered that it is nonsense. I won't submit to someone saying, “submit to this square circle! It's the Tradition!” I just say back, “It's nonsense. God's word does not teach sqaure circles, and I would rather find fault with your traditions, than abscribe to His word your nonsense!” Semper Reformanda
The idea that the dead body somehow needs to receive a life apart from that already given to the soul that remains alive, is the real absurdity in their resurrection view.
(Rom 14:8) For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
(Rom 14:9) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Died, rose and revived. Which word should the resurrection be attached?
His rising was from the dead. His reviving back into His body was His testimony to the apostles in the earth, that He had in fact risen from the dead. It was not after His return to the body that He delivered His blood to the Father – but before. All of which occurred in that unseen Holy of Holies in heaven.
Apparently they want us to focus on the sign that indicates the spiritual truth, rather than the truth the sign revealed. Had Jesus not returned in visible form to appear to the apostles, it would not have affected His having been raised from the dead at all! It would however have kept them from knowing that truth.
Robin
The idea that the dead body somehow needs to receive a life apart from that already given to the soul that remains alive, is the real absurdity in their resurrection view.
(Rom 14:8) For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
(Rom 14:9) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Died, rose and revived. Which word should the resurrection be attached?
His rising was from the dead. His reviving back into His body was His testimony to the apostles in the earth, that He had in fact risen from the dead. It was not after His return to the body that He delivered His blood to the Father – but before. All of which occurred in that unseen Holy of Holies in heaven.
Apparently they want us to focus on the sign that indicates the spiritual truth, rather than the truth the sign revealed. Had Jesus not returned in visible form to appear to the apostles, it would not have affected His having been raised from the dead at all! It would however have kept them from knowing that truth.
Robin