1 Corinthians 15 - the natural and the spiritual order

[JonC]

On another thread a member made an interpretation that I have never considered. I believe it is wrong (that the member is reading theories into the passage) but have discovered there are many interpretations of passages I have not considered.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

I have always considered the "last Adam" who "became a life-giving spirit", the "second man" who is" from heaven" to refer to Christ. I have been told this is an ignorant view demonstrating a lack of knowledge - that instead this is referring to Adam having a physical body and then a spiritual life (first natural, then spiritual).

Evidently this is another passage you do not understand.
Speaking of Adam first having a physical body, then a spiritual body.
Verse 44 is very clear. Did you not read this verse?

The reason this is important is so much of my theology is actually based on Christ as this "last Adam who became a life-giving spirit". I never considered that it could refer to Adam obtaining spiritual life. I believe it is an incorrect interpretation but am open to how it is defended.

The question is - Is this passage speaking about the first Adam (Adam) and the last Adam (Christ) or is it speaking of the natural and spiritual aspects of Adam?

 

[David Kent]

Yes

 

[Revmitchell]

The last Adam is Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

On another thread a member made an interpretation that I have never considered. I believe it is wrong (that the member is reading theories into the passage) but have discovered there are many interpretations of passages I have not considered.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

I have always considered the "last Adam" who "became a life-giving spirit", the "second man" who is" from heaven" to refer to Christ. I have been told this is an ignorant view demonstrating a lack of knowledge - that instead this is referring to Adam having a physical body and then a spiritual life (first natural, then spiritual).



The reason this is important is so much of my theology is actually based on Christ as this "last Adam who became a life-giving spirit". I never considered that it could refer to Adam obtaining spiritual life. I believe it is an incorrect interpretation but am open to how it is defended.

The question is - Is this passage speaking about the first Adam (Adam) and the last Adam (Christ) or is it speaking of the natural and spiritual aspects of Adam?

This post confirms your error yet again.
It is not an either or situation. But both and.
This was answered in the other thread.
By the way...no one denied the last Adam is Christ.
What an absurd suggestion and missed reading of the post.
Let me be clear for the readers as you once again do not desire an answer.

First Adam had a physical body first. Then a spiritual body second.
Jesus had a physical body in the incarnation, then a spiritual body when raised and ascended.

No one has hinted at anything saying Christ Jesus is not the last Adam.
Can you show a post where someone said Jesus is not the last Adam?

No...because no one said any such thing. You know it but intentionally attempt to portray others in a way they never portray themselves or their posts.
You should be a bit more honest and upright when you post JonC.

 

[Yeshua1]

On another thread a member made an interpretation that I have never considered. I believe it is wrong (that the member is reading theories into the passage) but have discovered there are many interpretations of passages I have not considered.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

I have always considered the "last Adam" who "became a life-giving spirit", the "second man" who is" from heaven" to refer to Christ. I have been told this is an ignorant view demonstrating a lack of knowledge - that instead this is referring to Adam having a physical body and then a spiritual life (first natural, then spiritual).



The reason this is important is so much of my theology is actually based on Christ as this "last Adam who became a life-giving spirit". I never considered that it could refer to Adam obtaining spiritual life. I believe it is an incorrect interpretation but am open to how it is defended.

The question is - Is this passage speaking about the first Adam (Adam) and the last Adam (Christ) or is it speaking of the natural and spiritual aspects of Adam?

Speaking to the Second Adam, Jesus Christ....

 

[JonC]

Speaking to the Second Adam, Jesus Christ....

I agree. Not Adam. Not Adam and Christ. The "last Adam who became a life-giving Spirit" is Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree. Not Adam. Not Adam and Christ. The "last Adam who became a life-giving Spirit" is Christ.

I have never seen a post by you that could be deemed as dishonest or intentionally misrepresent others positions or posts. Not even when I disagree with you.

 

[JonC]

I have never seen a post by you that could be deemed as dishonest or intentionally misrepresent others positions or posts. Not even when I disagree with you.

Thank you.

I think some people just consider anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy to be conquered by any means necessary.

I try to understand opposing views and discuss them in an honest way, even if we do not end up agreeing. I think at least we can come to an understanding and know where the other person stands and why. Sometimes we will pick up truths along the way that may help us refine our own views.

You and I have honest disagreements, and we can speak about them as brothers because we share the same love for Christ. I appreciate that and have learned from our disagreements (even to the point you influenced my view on a doctrine).

But I think there will always be people who will belittle those who reject their views.

 

[Revmitchell]

Thank you.

I think some people just consider anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy to be conquered by any means necessary.

I try to understand opposing views and discuss them in an honest way, even if we do not end up agreeing. I think at least we can come to an understanding and know where the other person stands and why. Sometimes we will pick up truths along the way that may help us refine our own views.

You and I have honest disagreements, and we can speak about them as brothers because we share the same love for Christ. I appreciate that and have learned from our disagreements (even to the point you influenced my view on a doctrine).

But I think there will always be people who will belittle those who reject their views.

Boom! (he drops the mic)

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you.

I think some people just consider anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy to be conquered by any means necessary.

I try to understand opposing views and discuss them in an honest way, even if we do not end up agreeing. I think at least we can come to an understanding and know where the other person stands and why. Sometimes we will pick up truths along the way that may help us refine our own views.

You and I have honest disagreements, and we can speak about them as brothers because we share the same love for Christ. I appreciate that and have learned from our disagreements (even to the point you influenced my view on a doctrine).

But I think there will always be people who will belittle those who reject their views.

You do at times come across though in a belittling way, especially when dealing with Calvinism theology!

 

[JonC]

You do at times come across though in a belittling way, especially when dealing with Calvinism theology!

I suspect we all come across in a belittling way when dealing with Calvinism theology.

We all have our beliefs and we all hold our beliefs personally (but hopefully not emotionally). I've studied theology for years as a personal passion (not just my theology but things that I know I will never affirm). I enjoy exploring what people believe, why they believe it, and how they arrived at their belief. I do get aggravated when people cannot explain adequately (adequate enough for one as dense as me to grasp) their views but simply insist it is correct. I can argue when I should let it go. And I can insult, particularly when being insulting (I have a bad habit of responding to people in kind).

But there is a difference between how a person comes across and actually being dishonest. There is a difference between belittling and insulting (which should not occur intentionally) and being dishonest.

If it helps you to understand the way I think and how I look at things, I'm working through baseball stats and have decided RBI's are worthless as an individual stat. I will argue that until the cows come home because it is important to me (RBI's depend on the situation and the batter should not be able to take credit for other persons on base, the actual run is counted more than once, and it is a team stat). That is just the way that I am.

People have the right to say I come across in a belittling way, although I suspect it is simply an issue I will not agree with the position. People can call me rude, arrogant, and ugly (all are probably true at least to an extent). But no one has the right to say that I have been intentionally dishonest in my posts.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suspect we all come across in a belittling way when dealing with Calvinism theology.

We all have our beliefs and we all hold our beliefs personally (but hopefully not emotionally). I've studied theology for years as a personal passion (not just my theology but things that I know I will never affirm). I enjoy exploring what people believe, why they believe it, and how they arrived at their belief. I do get aggravated when people cannot explain adequately (adequate enough for one as dense as me to grasp) their views but simply insist it is correct. I can argue when I should let it go. And I can insult, particularly when being insulting (I have a bad habit of responding to people in kind).

But there is a difference between how a person comes across and actually being dishonest. There is a difference between belittling and insulting (which should not occur intentionally) and being dishonest.

If it helps you to understand the way I think and how I look at things, I'm working through baseball stats and have decided RBI's are worthless as an individual stat. I will argue that until the cows come home because it is important to me (RBI's depend on the situation and the batter should not be able to take credit for other persons on base, the actual run is counted more than once, and it is a team stat). That is just the way that I am.

People have the right to say I come across in a belittling way, although I suspect it is simply an issue I will not agree with the position. People can call me rude, arrogant, and ugly (all are probably true at least to an extent). But no one has the right to say that I have been intentionally dishonest in my posts.

Think that all who post here need to have thick skin, and try to stay discussing in a Christ like manner!

 

[JonC]

Think that all who post here need to have thick skin, and try to stay discussing in a Christ like manner!

Some do seem to wear their feelings on their sleeves, I agree. At the same time we need to behave in a Christ-like manner with the other person (feelings in all) in mind.

 

[Reynolds]

On another thread a member made an interpretation that I have never considered. I believe it is wrong (that the member is reading theories into the passage) but have discovered there are many interpretations of passages I have not considered.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

I have always considered the "last Adam" who "became a life-giving spirit", the "second man" who is" from heaven" to refer to Christ. I have been told this is an ignorant view demonstrating a lack of knowledge - that instead this is referring to Adam having a physical body and then a spiritual life (first natural, then spiritual).



The reason this is important is so much of my theology is actually based on Christ as this "last Adam who became a life-giving spirit". I never considered that it could refer to Adam obtaining spiritual life. I believe it is an incorrect interpretation but am open to how it is defended.

The question is - Is this passage speaking about the first Adam (Adam) and the last Adam (Christ) or is it speaking of the natural and spiritual aspects of Adam?

I can not see Second Adam as anyone other than Jesus Christ.

 

[Reynolds]

Think that all who post here need to have thick skin, and try to stay discussing in a Christ like manner!

Or maybe some people should just be less annoying.

 

[Yeshua1]

Or maybe some people should just be less annoying.

And I will stop doing this every time!

 

[JonC]

@davidtaylorjr ,

Part of the reason I like this conversation is I have an opportunity to learn about other views. Before coming here I had no idea of Baptist Bride theology, I did not know much about Primitive Baptist theology, and I had never taken the time to study ideas like Covenant Theology from those who hold the view.

Earlier I offered this passage:

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

@Iconoclast implied that this is the historical way of interpreting the passage:

Evidently this is another passage you do not understand. Speaking of Adam first having a physical body, then a spiritual body. Verse 44 is very clear. Did you not read this verse?

Is it your view that 1 Corinthians 15 is presenting God as creating Adam with a physical body and then with a spiritual body as evidence that Adam was spiritually alive?

Is it this “spiritual body” that you believe died when Adam sinned, leaving the physical body intact?

The reason I ask is that if you are in agreement that this is the proof, that the passage speaks of God giving Adam first a physical body and then a spiritual body which died, then perhaps we can discuss this passage as a very clear example of our disagreement. Sometimes such a narrow focus helps see the other's position more clearly.

 

[Reformed1689]

Is it your view that 1 Corinthians 15 is presenting God as creating Adam with a physical body and then with a spiritual body as evidence that Adam was spiritually alive?

Is it this “spiritual body” that you believe died when Adam sinned, leaving the physical body intact?

Again, that is not how I define spiritually alive. Do we have spiritual bodies currently? Are we spiritually alive?

 

[Iconoclast]

Again, that is not how I define spiritually alive. Do we have spiritual bodies currently? Are we spiritually alive?

David, JonC still does not understand the verse i asked him about, so do not be confused by his wrongly using it and suggesting what no one said,lol

 

[Iconoclast]

I can not see Second Adam as anyone other than Jesus Christ.

No one has suggested any other identity for the last Adam...nobody.