What did Paul mean by a "spiritual body"?

[historia]

This topic spun out of an earlier thread:

I'm finding it hard to see how [1 Cor. 15:44-45] can be interpreted as anything but that Christ was raised in a spiritual body.

Indeed, that's the term that Paul uses to describe the resurrected body. But the question we need to answer is this:

What did Paul mean by a soma pneumatikon (a "spiritual body")?

[historia]

So what can we deduce?

Not much, to be honest, which is why I feel like we're headed into a cul-de-sac here.

Either God made this "place" (for want of a better word) and subsequently put himself inside it. Or heaven can reasonably be defined as "where God is". (We have already established Paul did not speak of heaven and earth being the same thing). Is there a third option?

I think the third option is that this was just left somewhat undefined in the minds of Paul and his contemporaries.

Paul doesn't actually say that God dwells in heaven, we just assumed that from his Jewish context. Jews also thought that God somehow dwelled in the temple in Jerusalem, even though quite a few passages in the Old Testament talk about how God cannot be contained and is present everywhere, filling both heaven and earth.

So "heaven" can't be defined simply as "where God is," if God can be everywhere. Nor does it make much sense to say God "put himself inside" heaven, if the heavens can't contain him. Jews at the time did seem to think that God was somehow uniquely present in heaven or the temple, or both, but how exactly is unknown to us.

Similarly, while Paul explicitly says that Christ is in heaven (1 Thess. 1:10), he also talks about Christ being in the believer (Romans 8:10). He doesn't explain how those two things can be true.

You and I, like many a later Christian theologian, can construct ideas to explain all of this, but can we reasonably read those explanations back into Paul?

[JehovahsWitness]

Paul doesn't actually say that God dwells in heaven, we just assumed that from his Jewish context. Jews also thought that God somehow dwelled in the temple in Jerusalem, even though quite a few passages in the Old Testament talk about how God cannot be contained and is present everywhere, filling both heaven and earth.

I am a little confused here, you have just made reference to other passages in scripture that Paul did not write as if they can be relevant to our conclusions . Why did you do this? (I ask because I thought we were analysing Pauls work independent of other scriptures. If that is not the case (and we can reference other passages to shed light on Paul's writings) perhaps now would be a good time to clarify, so we can get out of the cul-de-sac of "What did Paul mean when he spoke of "heaven"?

HEBREWS 9:24 ESV

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf

Col 4:1 "...you also have a Master in heaven"

Eph 3:15 " ... .. every family in heaven and on earth owes its name"

[JehovahsWitness]

So "heaven" can't be defined simply as "where God is," if God can be everywhere.

Emphasis MINE

Obviously an omnipotent God can be everywhere. The question then is, does he choose to be ? If that were the case, then Heaven would be ...everywhere. Now if God is "in" heaven and someone can go "from" heaven to "to" earth and visa versa , then logically the reference to heaven cannot be synonymous with "everywhere".

Now if God is not everywhere; then the defintion would work fine.

There where he is would be "HEAVEN" . There where he is not would be "not heaven". We have already established Paul wrote of heaven and earth being different things, so all we need to do is see if he indicated God being "in" heaven and if so, we have a working defintion of heaven.

Why is this important? Paul indicates there are were angels ... there". Jesus is spoken of as being from "there" and of returning there. If we can establish that the "there" is a non-physical realm. then we have a good indication as to whether Jesus returned "there" in a physical or a non-physical body.

[theophile]

I think the soma pneumatikon is essentially the body of Christ, which in everyday parlance is the church. So Jesus, as Christ, essentially becomes the figurehead and unifying direction of this living, spiritual body / network after he dies. No longer Jesus the man so much as Christ the figurehead of something much, much greater. (Something more along the lines of an idea, moral principle, etc., which governs the spiritual domain.)

Just so I'm clear: You think soma psychikon refers to a literal body (the one we each possess now), but the soma pneumatikon is a metaphorical "body," like the communion of saints. Additionally, Jesus remains dead, and wasn't literally resurrected. "Christ" is just an idea. Is that right?

Did Paul think we will be literally resurrected?

I think the soma pneumatikon is essentially the body of Christ, which in everyday parlance is the church. So Jesus, as Christ, essentially becomes the figurehead and unifying direction of this living, spiritual body / network after he dies. No longer Jesus the man so much as Christ the figurehead of something much, much greater. (Something more along the lines of an idea, moral principle, etc., which governs the spiritual domain.)

Just so I'm clear: You think soma psychikon refers to a literal body (the one we each possess now), but the soma pneumatikon is a metaphorical "body," like the communion of saints. Additionally, Jesus remains dead, and wasn't literally resurrected. "Christ" is just an idea. Is that right?

Did Paul think we will be literally resurrected?

Yes, but to be clear I do think the soma pneumatikon is not just 'Christ as idea' as you say, but also a very real network of living things that forms 'Christ as body' as well. But yah, it is not a literal resurrection of Jesus the man I don't think that Paul is describing here, and as such you could call it a metaphorical resurrection.

To your last question though, I think we have to infer the answer from statements from Paul like death itself will be conquered in the end. Or that God will become all in all. For such statements to be true I think that literal resurrection, ultimately, needs to be part of the plan that the soma pneumatikon seeks under Christ, and therefore be part of Paul's theology.

To put it otherwise, I do think there are two types of resurrection going on here, even if Paul emphasizes the first. One metaphorical where we end our life of sin and are reborn spiritually in the body of Christ. The other literal where we die bodily and are one day returned to bodily life.

[JehovahsWitness]

...The other literal where we die bodily and are one day returned to bodily life.

So does Paul ever refer to Jesus experiencing the above? I'think the objective of this thread is can the latter be established exclusively from the writings of Paul without any reference to the rest of the bible.

[theophile]

...The other literal where we die bodily and are one day returned to bodily life.

So does Paul ever refer to Jesus experiencing the above? I'think the objective of this thread is can the latter be established exclusively from the writings of Paul without any reference to the rest of the bible.

I can only infer this from other statements from Paul like I mentioned above. There is no direct statement I am aware of. But again, how can Paul say death itself will be conquered in the end and not believe in literal resurrection? Feels like a requirement, you know?

[JehovahsWitness]

...The other literal where we die bodily and are one day returned to bodily life.

So does Paul ever refer to Jesus experiencing the above? I'think the objective of this thread is can the latter be established exclusively from the writings of Paul without any reference to the rest of the bible.

I can only infer this from other statements from Paul like I mentioned above. There is no direct statement I am aware of. But again, how can Paul say death itself will be conquered in the end and not believe in literal resurrection? Feels like a requirement, you know?

I agree but the exercise is not to conclude from inference but from explicit statement. Im not even sure we can conclude Paul believed Jesus existed within these constraints but it is an interesting exercise ...




JW

[theophile]

...The other literal where we die bodily and are one day returned to bodily life.

So does Paul ever refer to Jesus experiencing the above? I'think the objective of this thread is can the latter be established exclusively from the writings of Paul without any reference to the rest of the bible.

I can only infer this from other statements from Paul like I mentioned above. There is no direct statement I am aware of. But again, how can Paul say death itself will be conquered in the end and not believe in literal resurrection? Feels like a requirement, you know?

I agree but the exercise is not to conclude from inference but from explicit statement. Im not even sure we can conclude Paul believed Jesus existed within these constraints but it is an interesting exercise ...




JW

I took the main question of the OP to be, what did Paul mean by a soma pneumatikon (a "spiritual body")?

But looks like we're on the same page for literal resurrection in Paul.

[JehovahsWitness]

Similarly, while Paul explicitly says that Christ is in heaven (1 Thess. 1:10), he also talks about Christ being in the believer (Romans 8:10). He doesn't explain how those two things can be true.

In line with Theophile's comments would a legitimate question not be : could Paul be using the "in" in one or both of the above examples you provide, metaphorically ? Could it be that Christ the literal individual can be metaphorically be " in" someone but literally somewhere outside of that person's carbon based body?

In short is "literal versus non-literal" a line of examination we can introduce into the mix? Is there any evidence in the Pauline letters that the writer was familiar with these two concepts?



JW

[historia]

I am a little confused here, you have just made reference to other passages in scripture that Paul did not write as if they can be relevant to our conclusions. Why did you do this?

I'm approaching the topic historically.

Paul was a Pharisee (he tells us so), and so naturally Jewish scriptures and traditions would have informed his thinking, at least to some degree. His letters wouldn't make much sense otherwise. So we can infer some things about what he likely (although not necessarily) believed from his background.

That's different from turning to, say, the gospels or other early Christian writings and arguing that, because they say X about Y therefore we should understand Paul to mean X about Y. Paul didn't write those other Christian works -- in fact, they likely were written after he wrote his letters -- so we have a hard time arguing that they informed his thinking in the way that the Jewish scriptures did.

I realize this is a different approach than some here may be used to, but it's not an entirely artificial exercise either. We're treating Paul as an historical person, taking into account what he said in the light of his historical context, as we would for any author.