Ready for some theological problems? Then hang on. I recently was reviewing J. Gresham Machen’s little book The Christian View of Man (Banner of Truth Trust, 1965). Machen, if you don’t know, was a stalwart defender of the Faith (google his name). In this book I found this little quote, “The Bible does not, indeed, teach that it is desirable for the soul to be separated from the body…and that a disembodied state is a state of nakedness from which the Christian desires to be delivered” (126). In the next paragraph he wrote, “Nevertheless the Bible does teach that the soul is a substance distinct from the body, and that it may exist, and in the case of those who die before the return of Christ and the last judgment, actually does exist, separate from the body” (ibid.).
Machen is in line with positing that the soul is a substance in and of its own self. “The ‘image of God’ cannot well refer to man’s body because God is a spirit; it must therefore refer to man’s soul. It is man’s soul which made in the image or likeness of God” (145).
Thus, we have two declarations that the soul of a man is 1. substance, and 2. it is the image of God. Yet, with this, we have Machen on record as saying that without the body, man is “naked.” Undoubtedly, Machen was drawing from the language of Paul in II Corinthians 5.1-ff, where Paul desires not “to be found naked.” However, before the resurrection and last judgment, this is the state man (including Paul) finds himself in when he dies! Get that?
Couple this with the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:[2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] (WCF 32.1). The Scripture quoted by the Confession is II Corinthians 5.1-ff. Now, note that it also posits a “subsistence” of the soul, and that the Christian soul, upon death, goes immediately into “perfect holiness” and is received “into the highest heavens” where each individual person (soul) beholds the face of God in light and glory.
Someone might want to tell our detractors that one does not need a “new body” in order to glorifiy God, be made perfect in holiness, or worship God. The problem here is one of confusion. Machen, who knew the WCF backwards and forwards, wrote that the soul is “naked” until we are glorified at the Second Coming. However, this “naked” soul is perfect in righteousness and holiness enjoying the presence of God in the highest heaven before the resurrection and redemption of his body. It would seem, then, that the redemption of the body, in all actuality, adds very little to the fullness of salvation a soul has in Christ. What does it add to “perfect holiness” if, in fact, it is PERFECT holiness? Does it bring “more perfection” to an already “perfect” soul? What does it add in terms of being in the “highest heaven”? What does it add in terms of the “image of God” being entirely renewed in the “image of Christ, the heavenly man”?
If, in fact, the soul is the image of God (or as Gordon Clark would say, the image of God is not in man, man IS the image of God), then what is it that is “renewed” in the image of Christ? What is the image of the heavenly man? And, what is the image of the earthy man if not but the soul in relationship to Adam, or the soul in relationship to Christ?
See, in this theology we affirm that the “soul” is what needed renewed. The image of God is renewed in the image of Christ. It is the soul, or spirit, that is regenerated or raised from the dead. We end it right there. When this regenerated soul comes into Christ, and is made a member of the Body of Christ, and has “put on the righteousness of Christ”, and indeed, has “put on Christ”, there is a sharing of the body and blood of Christ that renews the image of God into the image of Christ. It’s a done deal. This person, or soul, is already perfected in holiness by the very fact that he is regenerated, born again, raised to newness of life, is a spiritual man, a sanctified man by virtue of his union with Christ, who is Sanctified, Righteous and Glorified. We don’t have these things in ourselves because of ourselves. We have these things in Christ “who is our sanctification, righteousness, and redemption.” There is nothing we “add” to what Christ has made us, so that in humility we worship God in perfect holiness, because we are in the Perfect One.
Now, if the soul has all of these things, and continues with all of these things when his physical shell gives way, then what is this person lacking in terms of “perfect holiness”? A glorified, physical body. Yet, have we not seen that the soul does not need a glorified body in order to worship God in perfect holiness?
Machen called this state “nakedness”. The soul does not desire to be away from the body. So, even though in perfect holiness, I guess in heaven there will be somewhat in the back of our minds while we are worshipping God the thought that this would be so much better in a body!
My point is, some of our lesser informed opponents think you need a physical body to worship God. The WCF denies this. The glorification of the Body is simply an add on. It is not needed in order to worship God in perfect holiness in the highest heavens. It’s is simply an add on demonstrating the power of God over all creation, in redeeming all of creation. However, if the Full Preterist view is correct, the “nakedness” Adam found himself in was not in the fact that he had no body! He had a body and was “naked” – so God clothed him. He didn’t give him a new body. He gave him a covering. Is not Christ our covering, now? Is this not sufficient for our eternal life?
If, in fact, as the WCF demonstrates, that the soul is substance, and is the image of God, then can we not see that nothing is lacking at all in the Full Preterist view? You see, the reason for the glorified body in the Reformed view is not so that man can enjoy God and worship God in his individual substance as the image of God (soul). The reason the body out of the ground is glorified is because God redeems the entire creation, lock, stock and barrel. For the Reformed, God will renew the entire earth and heavens, and this most certainly would have to include the physical bodies of Man. The IBD view, on the other hand, posits that Man gets a new body, not a REDEEMED body. If the purpose of the glorified body is the redemption of all material creation, then how in the world can physical bodies not be redeemed? The IBD view here posits a major contradiction: all creation will be renewed, except for physical bodies – you get those brand new!
In the Full Preterist view, the soul as substance is the person, it is the image of God, and we believe this image has been renewed in Christ, clothed with Christ and is not naked upon physical death and needs not to be clothed any further than what it already has in Christ through the provisions of Christ. In the Reformed view, one STILL has to wait, being found naked, even though made perfect in holiness! If we see the error of the “nakedness” language as removed in Christ and his covering (putting on Christ), then, when we die, we, being made in perfect holiness, are received into the highest heavens, and worship God forever and ever in full conscious awareness within ourselves as individual members of His one glorious Body.
There is a great benefit to reading the systematic theologies of the past, because in them one can indeed construct a systematic view that is fully compliable with the Bible, and at the same time removes the contradictions in them. Who cannot but blame a person for following a more consistent path?
Our detractors think that one must have a “body” in order to worship God in the highest heavens. Read the WCF statement again and ask if this is necessary. It isn’t. That we must have a “body” in order to remain individuals as individuals. We don’t. If the only purpose to redeem the body is to show God’s power over all creation, then the IBD view hardly solves that problem at all. We have to work within the traditional systematics in order to spot the problems and apply the remedies that the Bible has when one has the right framework. For centuries, Christian systematics was worked out in terms of an end and glorification of the body in the casket. When Full Preterism comes along and posits the Second Coming in A.D. 70, and states, with some, that we “get a new body” – then the purpose of the redemption of the body fails to have any purpose at all. Let me state this again. In Reformed theology (or any theology), the purpose of redeeming the body is not so that one can enjoy God in perfect holiness in the highest heavens. That can be entirely done without a body in the substance of the soul, the image of God as the WCF states. The purpose of the redemption of the body is to demonstrate the end of history, and God’s entire power over all creation, renewing all of creation. The IBD does not have a “renewal of the body” or a “redemption of the body.” The new body is not “redeemed” at all, because it was never “lost” to begin with! It’s brand new! Never stained with sin. Never dead, and in no need of “being raised”. It is not a resurrection body. It can’t even be called a “glorified body” because in order to be “glorified” it first had to have been “without glory”! Thus, if the purpose of the redemption of the body is moot, then nothing theologically stands in the way of stating that we are now clothed, we are now not naked, we are now clothed in Christ, that our souls have been regenerated, raised from deadness in sins, made perfect in holiness, and righteousness, and when we shed this physical body, the substance, the image of God (soul) that we are as persons will worship God in perfect holiness in the highest heavens forever and ever.
Now, have some fun with that!
Well, I guess if they won't listen to arguments from the bible, perhaps they will listen to arguments from the WCF.
Do you remember that line in the movie Patton where they are in the middle of that big tank battle with Rommel? Patton was watching from a distance and shouted, “I read your book Rommel!”.
You know I was just looking this up the other day. A) There are time texts tied to glorification. B) Where does it ever say we get glorifed shiny bodies? Nowhere. It is about fellowship and honor to God. That is glory. C) Jesus shared glory with the Father BEFORE coming here to earth – did he have a body then? Nope – I don't think anyone would say so =)
Martin,
Great scene in that movie. and it's true here, too. I have read their books (I don't think a lot them have).
Because all of Paul's doctrines were rooted in the OT, his doctrine of glorification is also. Where is this “glory” of God coming upon the saints? Isaiah 60.1-ff. “Arise (a word for resurrection in the NT) Shine! For your Light has come (Jesus – John 1.1). And the GLORY of the Lord rises (NT word for resurrection) upon you” (Israel). See, DARKNESS COVERS the land, and thick DARKNESS over the peoples” (stop right here. We have heard this from Isaiah before in 25: “On this Mountain, he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all the nations. He will swallow up the death forever”). Isaiah 60 continues, “Nations (Gentiles) will come to your (Israel) Light” You can read the rest of the passage. For Isaiah, when the Nations came to the Light of Israel, Yeshua Ha Meshiach, that was the meaning for Paul: the dead are being raised, “the death” in Isaiah is “being destroyed” – the “darkness” is being repelled. When we read Isaiah in the background of Paul's mission and ministry, we get Full Preterism. Now, who would argue that the “nations” have not come to the Light of Israel? But, it is on this very point that this “arising” to the Light is, in fact, coming into the GLORIFICATION of God's salvation of His People. Where O' where does Isaiah talk about getting shiny, new bodies? No where. Does the OT talk about Israel being a “seed” that has been “planted”? Yep. Does it talk about Israel being raised from the dead? Yep. Does it talk about the the nations joining in the chorus WITH Israel? Yep. All of the doctrines of Paul are found right here in the OT prophets. It's all he preached.
Hey, even the rapture! “Who are these that fly along the clouds, like doves to their nests?” (60.8). this was the time when God “would adorn my Temple” (60.7). Adorn his what? Temple? What is the Temple? Clearly, Jesus is the Temple, and since He is the Temple, those in Him are also “the Temple of the Lord”, His people. What He is, they were becoming so that we would be like Him: A Temple Adorned, Covered. Glorified.
Jesus did materialize here in his body of flesh after the resurrection. It was in that body that He ascended to heaven which the apostles witnessed. Angels too are heavenly creatures who can materialize here in this world as embodied humans. Sometimes showing forth their heavenly glory and sometimes not. And scripture tells us that only God is pure spirit who cannot be seen. Yet we are given in visions in Daniel and Revelation a description of the Ancient of Days who has a shining visible appearance. Whatever a spiritual body may be, it would seem it has a substance that is not of this world. How can we go beyond what scripture says about that? We are told we will be like angels and like Christ, but nowhere is it said we will be 'like God' as 'disembodied' spirits. Do we have to explain it more than that, or can we just stick with not knowing what God has prepared for us that we have never yet seen?
I'm just asking.
Robin
Hi Robin – the part about we will be “like angels” in context – is actually in regards to physically dead people at Resurrection not marrying when resurrected (has nothing to do with living people). Not about the nature of being like an angel.
I don't know how anyone can call me a Docetist by the comment above. I clearly believe that Jesus had a flesh body. My only point is even without that flesh body He (the Son) shared GLORY with the Father. I am questioning why people make glorification about getting a shiny body. I dont think that is what glorification is about. I think it has to do with fellowship and honor to God etc.
Meant to add / clarify – see John 17 – where Jesus said that he shared the glory with the Father before the world began.
Mike,
Is that the term the Ignorant is calling us now? Hmmmm. Doceticism comes from the Greek word “dokeo” which means “to seem”. The sufferings and death of Christ only “appeared” to be real. Truly, only an ignorant person would label our view as Doceticism, Mike. A truly ignorant person. They are grasping at straws, brother, which only means one thing: desparation to pin a label on us. They can't pin the Gnostic label on us (that's just stupid), and now they try to pin the Docetic label on us. Rofl……I thank God for seminary education!
Sam – one of the funniest things about that guy Paul is that he is constantly posting stuff he writes (mostly against you) on a Partial Preterist site, in which alot of what he is saying actually argues against even a Partial Preterist view (oops). Also – again – it should be noted that some on that site are trying to argue for the historical reformed creeds – by posting on a self admitted Arminian's website – now that is rich huh =) Jason is right – in his last post – it seems to be a wast of time – all they do is misrepresent make personal attackes etc. But it is hard to not want to respond when misrepresented.
I read it on this site, and somehow I remember it as being a quote of Don Preston's, “you don't stop a train to throw rocks at a barking dog”. Sam, Jason and others who want to bring forth a positive truth concerning the Preterist System of biblical interpretation, don't slow down the train, keep it moving right along. The barking of the dogs gets further and further away as the train moves on down the track. Love you guys and I see the Lord using all of you during this time. This is my first time to respond to anyone, anywhere on any site, but I read every day. I have enjoyed the Preterist message since 1995. God's blessings!!!!
Gladman,
Glad to have you here, man! I remember that saying from Don – one of his Don-isms….lol
SAM SAID “The IBD view, on the other hand, posits that Man gets a new body, not a REDEEMED body. If the purpose of the glorified body is the redemption of all material creation, then how in the world can physical bodies not be redeemed? The IBD view here posits a major contradiction: all creation will be renewed, except for physical bodies – you get those brand new!”…
The IBD does not have a “renewal of the body” or a “redemption of the body.” The new body is not “redeemed” at all, because it was never “lost” to begin with! It’s brand new! Never stained with sin. Never dead, and in no need of “being raised”. It is not a resurrection body. It can’t even be called a “glorified body” because in order to be “glorified” it first had to have been “without glory”! “ EOQ
I would propose, though, that we do in fact receive a redeemed body. In another post, Sam theorized about what would have happened if Adam had not sinned. I would also postulate, from the IBD view, that if Adam had not sinned he would have been allowed to eat of the Tree of Life near the close of his mortal life, shed his earthly body, and would have been IMMEDIATELY CLOTHED IN THE IMMORTAL BODY IN HEAVEN. This is only hypothetical, but it is consistent with my IBD views. That being said, the “body” that has to be redeemed was indeed LOST. THE IMMORTAL BODY WAS THE BODY LOST BECAUSE OF ADAM’S SIN. IF ADAM HAD NOT SINNED, MAN WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN “NAKED” IN THE AFTERLIFE.
Sam also says regarding the IBD concept of a spiritual body “is not a resurrection body. It can’t even be called a “glorified body” because in order to be “glorified” it first had to have been “without glory,”
the text actually says “bodies” of “glory.” So we are to receive a 'body of glory' not necessarily a 'glorified body'…a subtle but important difference. In fact Paul places, the “sun, moon and stars” on this list of “bodies of glory.” Were the sun, moon and stars corrupt then glorified? Or were they created in glory?
Patrick Stone
Patrick,
How do you interpret the phrase “the redemption of the body”? Also, “he will quicken your mortal bodies”? This may cut to the chase for me, for I find it impossible to see “exchange” of bodies here.
Roma 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also QUICKEN YOUR MORTAL BODIES by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
The question is, ”HOW is the mortal body quickened?”
Phil 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
1Cor 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.
2Cor 5:4 For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
The answer:
1) By changing it like unto his glorious body
2) By putting on, or being clothed, in the incorruptible body
Roma 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken [“CHANGE…LIKE…HIS GLORIOUS BODY” Phil 3:21, “PUT ON INCORRUPTION” 1 Cor 15:53, CLOTHED…OF LIFE, 2 Cor 5:4] your mortal bodies [VILE BODY, CORRUPTIBLE , THIS TABERNACLE] by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
In other words, Paul saw the “quickening” or making alive as the being clothed in the spiritual body, which would never die (thus the ‘quickening’).
Oddly enough there is another possible interpretation. John Calvin said that
“by mortal bodies he understands all those things which still remain in us that are subject to death; for his usual practice is to give this name to the grosser part of us. We hence conclude that HE SPEAKS NOT OF THE LAST RESURRECTION, which shall be in a moment, BUT OF THE CONTINUED WORKING OF THE SPIRIT, by which he gradually mortifies the relics of the flesh and renews in us a celestial life.”
This is interesting since it was Calvin that said, if I remember correctly, that a second body resurrection was a “monstrous” idea.
Prior to 70AD all living souls/bodies were still mortal and liable to die. Paul knew this was likely to be true for him in that he would die before the return of the Lord and would join the dead who were waiting for Christ. (1 Cor 4:9) It was why he hoped to attain to the resurrection of the dead (Phil 3:11) But that would not be true for those who were alive and remained so at the coming of the Lord. Because their souls were going to receive immortality at that time. The corruption (the dead) would receive incorruption in the resurrection,, but the mortal (living but still liable to die) would receive immortality. Therefore the promise to the living who are in Christ after His coming, is that they will never die. That is when to be absent from the body means to be present with the Lord.
Patrick,
the Calvin quote is repeated in Clark's idea of Romans 8.10. It is a “quickening” Paul saw as already happening.
the problem for you, again, is the object. the mortal BODY is the object that is quickened. There no idea of “replacement” here. If the physical body is put off, it isn't quickened (made alive).
In the other example, it is the redemption of the BODY. The BODY is redeemed (meaning, it was UNREDEEMED). You lose site of the Object/subject here. A exchanging of the body with a new unredeemed body makes no sense. What body is “redeemed” in your view? The Greek word “redeemed” is apolutrosis. The TDNT notes the prepositional “OF the Body” not FROM the body. The BODY is what it redeemed. If I REDEEM a gift, I am getting that gift, not exchanging it. This is what I think your view really fails to comprehend here.
Sam writes:
the problem for you, again, is the object. the mortal BODY is the object that is quickened. There no idea of “replacement” here. If the physical body is put off, it isn't quickened (made alive).
What a great point Sam! BTW – check this out – 1 Corinthians 15 makes the point that Adam 1 was a LIVING BEING (not a physically dead body). But Adam 2 a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT.
1 Corinthians 15
45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Paul speaks of attaining perfection = resurrection. Hebrews makes it clear that the physically living and physically dead are made perfect TOGETHER – not as each person dies physically.
Phillipians 3
11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
Hebrews 11
13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth…39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
Therefore – IBD is defeated.
(I posted this yesterday, but I think it went into Limbo)…
The REDEEMED body, in my view, is the SPIRITUAL BODY. It is redeemed in the sense that it was “lost” with the transgression of Adam. After Adam, man was “naked” in the afterlife and without the spiritual body. This spiritual body, and not the corruptible body, is the one that is redeemed. Since I equate “white robes” in Revelation with the spiritual body, this redemption is reflected in the following verse:
Reve 3:18 I counsel thee to BUY OF ME … white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear…
(apolutrosis = a releasing effected BY PAYMENT of ransom; liberation procured by the payment of a ransom)
The only payment, though, is the blood of Christ, also associated with the “white robes,”
Reve 7:14 these are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
It seems Calvin’s interpretation may be the best approach from an IBD view,
“by mortal bodies he understands all those things which still remain in us that are subject to death; for his usual practice is to give this name to the grosser part of us. We hence conclude that HE SPEAKS NOT OF THE LAST RESURRECTION, which shall be in a moment, BUT OF THE CONTINUED WORKING OF THE SPIRIT, by which he gradually mortifies the relics of the flesh and renews in us a celestial life.”
Romans 6:9-14 is the only other location in the New Testament where Paul uses the phrase “your mortal bodies” (although singular in chapter 6).
Rom 6:11 Likewise RECKON ye also YOURSELVES TO BE DEAD INDEED UNTO SIN, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in YOUR MORTAL BODY, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither YIELD ye YOUR MEMBERS as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but YIELD YOURSELVES unto God, as those that are ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, and YOUR MEMBERS as instruments of RIGHTEOUSNESS unto God.
Both passages seem to focus on not following after the flesh, although the two use different terminologies. In chapter 6 Paul says “our old man is crucified” & “let not sin reign in your mortal body,” while in chapter 8 Paul says “we are debtors, not to the flesh.” Paul’s appeal to “reckon YOURSELVES to be DEAD indeed unto SIN” in chapter 6 is equivalent to his additional appeals to “let not SIN…reign in your MORTAL BODY,” as well as “neither yield ye YOUR MEMBERS as instruments of UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.” In addition to NOT YIELDING TO SIN, Paul concludes that Christians should “YIELD YOURSELVES unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and YOUR MEMBERS as instruments of RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
IF reckoning yourselves as “DEAD” (Rom 6:13…”from the dead”) is equated to NOT YIELDING the “members” of the mortal body as instruments of unrighteousness, it seems logical that being “ALIVE” from sin can be equated to the YIELDING of the “members” of the mortal body as instruments of righteousness. Therefore the “mortal body” is made alive (Rom 6:13…”as they that are alive,” Rom 8:11 “quicken your mortal bodies”), by yielding the members of this mortal body to God’s service.
The future tense of “shall also quicken” in Romans 8:11 can be explained by the continual yielding of the members of the mortal body to God (Rom 6:13), made possible only after the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11).
Utilizing Calvin’s interpretation, there is no need for a “replacement” of the mortal body since Paul “speaks not of the last resurrection” but of the “continued working of the Holy Spirit.”
See also Pheme Perkins, Resurrection, New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, pages 269-70.
“The first section of the chapter comes to its conclusion by tying the Spirit operative in Christian life to the risen Lord. Verse 11 begins with the description of the Spirit dwelling in the Christian according to the kerygmatic formula, God is the one who raised Christ from the dead (Rom 4:24f). The Spirit 'makes alive our mortal bodies.' At this point in the paraenesis the 'making alive' is that which enables the Christian to walk in the life of the Spirit. Later, the 'new life' will refer to the future. This reservation is typical of Pauline paraenesis. The Christian manifests the lordship of Jesus by walking in the Spirit now.”
Michael, when you say “Therefore IBD is defeated” I must only conclude you refer to your Irritable Bowel Disease? Warm milk helps as well…
Patrick ;)
A redeemed body how? In IBD it is a NEW body not a REDEEMED one. Imortal Body at Death / Irritable Bowel Disease – I don't see alot of difference there =) HAHA
Redemption carries with it the concept that something that was previously lost is now owned again, typically through payment. The Immortal Body was lost with the transgression of Adam. The Immortal Body was redeemed at the Parousia. All Christians now inherit the immortal body after shedding the mortal, unlike in Paul's time when they remained “naked” in the afterlife (2 Cor 5:3). It doesn't matter that it is qualitatively “new.,” only that the right to its inheritance was lost to those after Adam, and regained through the second Adam.
One aspect of glorification to consider relative to the “soul” is the fact that GLORIFICATION took into consideration that no longer would believers be subject to the power of Hades or any other representative form of separation from the Presence of God. The glorification of the believer included the transformed state of being because of the work of the imparted or quickening Spirit. Salvation in Christ represented a change of relationship with God, a new standing and identity “in Christ” that was to release that believer from any form of bondage to the powers that belonged to his former stance “in Adam” which could not give him true freedom from either sin or death.
Moses Stuart, who was by no means unfamiliar with the Greek, held a similar view of Romans 8:10-11 (note: This quote was copy and pasted from Google books, but unfortunately the Greek words did not transliterate and appear as gibberish. For the original source see “A Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans,” p319-321).
“The view which I entertain of the passage, agrees substantially with the first of the above interpretations. I understand ai~>/<a VIXQOV in v. 10, as not indicating [physical] death; nor yet as meaning death in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins, i. e. destitute of spiritual life, or in a state of death or condemnation. I take it to be used in the same sense as Qavurog in 6: 4, 5; as expressing an idea exactly kindred with avvtaravgiu&ri and xaragyridy TO m'tint ttjs dfta^Tittg, in 6: 6; the same with uno&avcov in 6: 7; unf&ttvoftiv in 6: 8 ; and vixpovg in 6: 11. That the writer did connect 8: 10, 11, in his own mind, with 6: 4—13, appears quite plain from his diction and general course of thought In 6: 12 he calls the body just as in 8: 11; and in the former passage he evidently means to designate by it, a corporeal, material, perishable body ; which is also the sense, for substance, in 8: 11.
But all the words above mentioned, in chap. VI., serve merely to characterize what we call the mortification [the putting to death] of the body, i. e. the subduing and mortifying our carnal desires and affections, which are cherished by, or originate from, the body. I understand vtxgov in 8: 10 (as I do vixgovg in 6: 11), to designate this state or condition, viz. a state in which the old man is crucified, in which the carnal desires of the body are mortified and subdued. This exegesis has, at least, analogy on its side.
Thus interpreted, the sentiment of the whole passage would run thus : ' If the Spirit of Christ dwells in any one, his body is indeed dead on account of sin, i. e. the old man is crucified, or he undergoes mortification as to his bodily sinful appetites ; but his spirit is rendered happy on account of righteousness, i. e. because of conformity to the requisitions of the gospel. Yea, if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, dwells in any man, that same Spirit will quicken, i. e. impart life to, his mortal body ;' in other words, he will not suffer it to remain a mere oaifici vtxgov, but make it an instrument of righteousness (C: 12, 13, 19), and give it a power of being subservient to the glory of God.
By degrees, the Christian ” brings under his body,” and keeps it in subjection. At first it is, as it were, crucifying the old man; but in the sequel, the grace of God makes conquest easy and even delightful. It is such a quickening of our bodies, a converting of them into ” instruments of righteousness,” to which the apostle seems to me here to refer. One circumstance appears to be conclusive, in regard to this exegesis; which is, that the apostle here describes the Spirit which “quickens the bodies” of Christians, as being the Spirit which dwells in them, fnoixovv tv Vft7i>. Where is the resurrection at the last day, of our physical bodies, attributed to the sanctifying Spirit in believers? Very different is the statement in Col. 2: 12,13. Eph. 1: 19, 20. 2: 5, 6. Rom. 6: 4. It is, then, the Spirit who dwells in believers, that is to quicken them, in the sense which is here meant; and what can this be, except the one designated in 6: 12, 13, 19?
The body is often the occasion of sin and sorrow, it is a atafia d-avatov. It requires to be mortified, and crucified. But the Spirit of God, in believers, by degrees brings them to yield their members as instruments of righteousness. Then is the old man, the body of sin, dead; and the body itself, like the spirit, is qtiickened in the service of God. Verse 13 seems clearly to indicate that the present passage is to be thus understood ; for there, rug 7ipaJ-«s rov Vuvatoutf appears plainly to convey the same meaning as vtxgGv. The object of the writer, as I apprehend it, is to shew Christians, that although mortification and self-denial must be practised in order to subjugate carnal desires, yet even here they may expect relief in due time. Victory repeated becomes easier. The enemy, often vanquished, becomes weaker. The Spirit of Christ, in fine, brings the believer at last, fully and freely to dedicate all that he has and is to the service of his Lord and Master; so that no discouragement should be felt, because the way is at first rough and difficult. It is a path which conducts to life.
(11) El 61 TO . . . . vft~v. The Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, is the Spirit of God the Father, or the Spirit of God; comp. v. 9, also Col. 2: 12, 13. Eph. 1: 19, 20. 2: 5, 6. Rom. 6: 4. At here is a contimeative; it Hi, if also, if moreover. Ziaonoiyaei, will give life to, will animate, i. e. will make them active instruments. Aia TO ivowovv …. vittv, i. e. the same Spirit who dwells in you, will enable you to quicken the -&vi}iov awftu or a<afta -Qavarov, which now occasions so much pain and mortification, and to make it a willing instrument of righteousness.
So, also, The Works of John Locke, Volume 8, p. 328-330
John paraphrases Romans 8:11:
“But if the Spirit of God, who had power able to raise Jesus Christ from the dead, dwell in you, as certainly it does, he that raised Christ from the dead is certainly able, and will, by his Spirit that dwells in you, enliven even your mortal bodies, that sin shall not have the sole power and rule there, but your members may be made living instruments of righteousness.”
Locke devotes much to his view in his footnotes, about a page and a half compared to his single paragraph paraphrase.
(Sam, forgive me for the continual posts. I simply wanted to demonstrate that this alternate interpretation of Romans 8:11 was viable and held by a wide array of scholars.)
Also…
The Universalist Quarterly and General Review, Volume 2, (published 1845), p414-418,
“The Flesh, Body, & c., as the Cause of Sin”, H.B.
“Says he, ‘Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal bodies;’ of course, his brethren might prevent this, by a right exercise of the mind. Again: ‘If the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his spirit that dwelleth in you;’ that is, shall make your bodies the outward organs of the internal spiritual life; for the context shows that he means their sanctification in the present mortal state. To the Romans he says, referring to their former condition while unconverted, ‘As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity, unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness, unto holiness.’ Again: ‘Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.’ Of course, he held that ‘ the members,’ or the body, might be devoted to sin or to righteousness, just according to the mind of the man.”
One of the interesting questions Max deals with in his book “Cross and the Parousia” relates to the what the verse actually says for those who apply it to physical bodily resurrection. Does the Spirit of God indwell “dead bodies” while they are in the grave? The answer, of course is, “no.” The action of “making alive” the “mortal bodies” has to do with the power of the Holy Spirit in the believer during the transition period who was experiencing “in advance” of the end of the age, the “powers” that belonged to that age (Heb. 6:5). When seen in the context of Covenantal transformation, the meaning makes more sense because these believers were beginning to experience the “eternal life” that belonged to the “age to come”–resurrection-life.
The question of resurrection in connection with the “glorification” of the believer has to do with the destroying of the power of sin and death and the release of saints (Old and New Testament) from the power of Hades and the applied meaning of the death of Christ on their behalf at the end of the age.
Even though Paul argues from the standpoint of the Community, all of those, as individual believers were ushered into the Presence of God, and together with those who would believe during the age to come, the “resurrection-life” was to become the reality for one and all who are in Covenant with God. Believers whose stance is determined by being “in Christ” are participants in the benefits of the first-century resurrection of the dead, and pertaining to “bodily” existence or identity their live each day of their lives with resurrection life before their physical death and departure from this realm of being.
Sam, while researching this view of Romans 8:11 on Google Books, I found there were a quite a number of scholars who held to Calvin's (or similar) view during the period of mid to late 1800's but few before or after this period. Do you know a possible reason for this, or is this a possible “quirk” of Google Books?
Patrick,
I am aware of Calvin's view (Clark held the same thing in that passage – Romans 8.11). Of course, this plays into the Preterist view, as you would agree, in terms of the Framework. The problem is the “switch” they have to make. The “mortal body”, in your view, is “switched” in meaning “the redemption of the body” just a few verses down. You have two bodies here. One body is being “quickened” (the physical body), but is to be put off at death. The other body, just a few verses down, is a new body. Two bodies.
You wrote, “Redemption carries with it the concept that something that was previously lost is now owned again, typically through payment. The Immortal Body was lost with the transgression of Adam. The Immortal Body was redeemed at the Parousia. All Christians now inherit the immortal body after shedding the mortal, unlike in Paul's time when they remained “naked” in the afterlife (2 Cor 5:3). It doesn't matter that it is qualitatively “new.,” only that the right to its inheritance was lost to those after Adam, and regained through the second Adam.”
The problem here is that parallel breaks down, for Adam was “naked” while IN his body, not AFTER he put off his body. How can he be “naked”, then, if he still has his physical body? Clearly, I believe, the “nakedness” Paul has in mind in II Cor. 5 is Adamic.
In II Cor. 3.18 the word “likeness” is used. In 4.4, “image of God” is used. In 4.6, Gen. 1.3 is quoted, and in 5.3 “naked” is found. It shows, I think, that Paul has Genesis in mind here and “the death” (Genesis LXX uses “dying the death” for the Hebrew “you shall surely die”) that came through the one man, and reigned through the “adding of the Law” – the “administration of the death”.
Sam, while researching this view of Romans 8:11 on Google Books, I found there were a quite a number of scholars who held to Calvin's (or similar) view during the period of mid to late 1800's but few before or after this period. Do you know a possible reason for this, or is this a possible “quirk” of Google Books?
Patrick,
I am aware of Calvin's view (Clark held the same thing in that passage – Romans 8.11). Of course, this plays into the Preterist view, as you would agree, in terms of the Framework. The problem is the “switch” they have to make. The “mortal body”, in your view, is “switched” in meaning “the redemption of the body” just a few verses down. You have two bodies here. One body is being “quickened” (the physical body), but is to be put off at death. The other body, just a few verses down, is a new body. Two bodies.
You wrote, “Redemption carries with it the concept that something that was previously lost is now owned again, typically through payment. The Immortal Body was lost with the transgression of Adam. The Immortal Body was redeemed at the Parousia. All Christians now inherit the immortal body after shedding the mortal, unlike in Paul's time when they remained “naked” in the afterlife (2 Cor 5:3). It doesn't matter that it is qualitatively “new.,” only that the right to its inheritance was lost to those after Adam, and regained through the second Adam.”
The problem here is that parallel breaks down, for Adam was “naked” while IN his body, not AFTER he put off his body. How can he be “naked”, then, if he still has his physical body? Clearly, I believe, the “nakedness” Paul has in mind in II Cor. 5 is Adamic.
In II Cor. 3.18 the word “likeness” is used. In 4.4, “image of God” is used. In 4.6, Gen. 1.3 is quoted, and in 5.3 “naked” is found. It shows, I think, that Paul has Genesis in mind here and “the death” (Genesis LXX uses “dying the death” for the Hebrew “you shall surely die”) that came through the one man, and reigned through the “adding of the Law” – the “administration of the death”.