Although I’m familiar with the view that the Apostle Paul is relating an “out of body experience” at the outset of 2 Corinthians 12, I’m pretty sure that he is not. That’s partly because I’m a physicalist and I don’t think that such things are even possible, but it’s also because the evidence for this claim about the meaning of this passage is pretty weak. I’ll explain why I say this.
The context is that Paul is explaining that he will not boast or take glory in himself and his own achievements. He is not worthy of such boasting, according to him. In passing, he gives an example of someone’s whose encounter with God is worthy of boasting about. He says:
Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself…
I am aware that virtually all commentators believe that Paul was talking about his own experiences fourteen years earlier on the road to Damascus, and that he was using the third person because he was embarrassed and did not want to sound as though he were boasting. If this majority opinion is correct, then the question of an “out of body experience” doesn’t arise. He never had one, and that is that. After all, nobody believes that Paul’s (Saul’s) body died on the road to Damascus and that his soul went to heaven. However, I know that some individuals don’t accept this thesis, and some use this passage as a proof text for dualism out of more of a doctrinal interest and don’t actually realise that this is the majority opinion of scholarly commentators. I am therefore not going to assume that the majority are correct (and for all I know, they could be wrong).
I have intentionally chosen to quote from the New International Version because this is the version used by the majority of contemporary evangelicals, and also because of the significant translation questions raised by the translators’ selection of phrases. I have highlighted some words in particular that are not present or implied in the underlying Greek text, and which also significantly impact the meaning of the passage. If you don’t yet see how they do, read on. I’ll explain the impact of the NIV’s addition of these words in my second argument below.
The inference that some people draw from this text (or at least, from this particular translation of it) is that Paul knows someone who was taken to heaven, but he’s not sure if that person was taken to heaven bodily, or if that person’s soul left the lifeless body behind and went to heaven without it, only to return, bringing the body back to life later so that the man could tell other people about his strange out of body experience.
Major reply 1: This was a vision
The first reply that I would make to this view raises none of the translation issues that I will delve into shortly. The first reply is just this: Why does Paul refer to the event as a “vision”? Now obviously, if the man went some place and was able to see it because he was actually there then this wasn’t a vision, it was merely an observation. But Paul shows some uncertainty about what actually took place (again, if we rely on the NIV translation). He has two possibilities in mind: Either the man physically went there, or the man went there without bodily going there (“without the body”). The word ektos can mean “without,” and doesn’t have to mean “outside of.” It can mean something like sans as we use that word today. In the former scenario, it definitely wouldn’t have been a vision, it would have been more like a visit. But Paul is talking about something that could well have been a vision (according to him). That leaves the second scenario as a possibility. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to talk this way about having a vision of another place and seeing things as though you’re actually there as “going” there, even though you did not bodily go there.
The fact that Paul is prepared to countenance the possibility that this might have been a vision (although he’s not sure) suggests that his reference to the man going somewhere, but not actually bodily going there, might well have been a vision rather than an out of body trip as many suppose. If this approach is correct, then Paul is telling us that he knew a man fourteen years ago who was taken to paradise, but he’s not really sure if the man was physically taken there, or if it was in fact one of the “visions” that Paul referred to in verse one.
I’ve made the following comments about “paradise” before, but they are relevant here. What I am saying is further bolstered by the way that the biblical writers used the Greek word paradeisos (paradise). This term is used in Genesis 2:8 and elsewhere in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) to refer to the garden of Eden. It is used in this connection to refer to the eschatological restoration that God will bring about (Isaiah 51:3). It is used again in Revelation 2:7 in connection with the tree of life, something said (in chapters 21 and 22) to be present on the “new earth.” So there is no suggestion in Scripture that the term should mean “heaven” or some sort of spiritual intermediate state. On the contrary, it suggests a very physical state of existence and is connected with a restored physical world. Because of the presence of this word, then, the natural way to understand what this man saw is a vision of the future. Since it is a future state of affairs, it is more likely that this was a vision, unless the man was miraculously taken to the future and then brought back. From the man’s perspective, however, the likely fact is that he would have been unable to tell the difference between the two.
If all we need is a plausible and sufficient explanation of this passage that does not involve an out of body experience, we can stop there, because we have found one. Paul is referring to a vision, and that is that. But there’s more to see in this text, and there’s also a second solution as well, which I’ll get to shortly.
The “third heaven”?
What then, of the phrase “the third heaven”? What does this refer to? It’s a good question because that phrase doesn’t appear anywhere else in the whole Bible. However, there’s an interesting reference to multiple heavens in 2 Peter 3:5ff
[T]he heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
…
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Look at what is said here about the heavens and the earth: The “heavens and the earth” once perished. There now exists the “heavens and earth” that will one day pass away as well, and there will be a new heavens and earth.
For those who are counting, how many is that? Which one is the eternal state? By my count, it’s the third. The third heaven is the third sky – the sky in the new creation (I’m going to assume that the reader realises that “the heavens and the earth” just means “the sky above and the earth below” as a reference to the physical creation, as in Genesis chapter 1). Yes, it’s a strange way to put it, but don’t blame me, I didn’t write it. Speaking of the heavens and the earth just seems to refer to a “world order.” When all things are made new, we can speak of a new heavens and earth. The man then was caught up in a vision into the sky in the new creation (which is also how the term paradise is used), enabling him to get a view of it all. But while Peter uses this language of the heavens and the earth being replaced with version 3.0, Paul never does. But then again, Paul never spoke of these events with as much clarity either. Still, it is a speculative solution.
Does another solution exist?
The “third heaven” is also mentioned in the pseudepigraphal work (that means it was written in the name of an author who could not have actually written it) called the Apocalypse of Moses. There it is described as a physical place, equated with paradise, where the angel Michael buried the body of Adam as he awaits the resurrection. The difficulty with using this document as a source of Christian belief is that it is believed to have been written in the first century AD and very likely got this turn of phrase from 2 Corinthians itself.
There are a number of online pieces written by Christians explaining that the “third heaven” represent a spiritual place out there where God and the angels dwell. The first heaven is the sky or atmosphere, the second heaven is outer space, and the third heaven is what we mean when we talk about a person dying and “going to heaven” (see here for instance where this claim is spelled out). But these are all restrospective arguments, trying to come up with a way that three different types of heaven could be distinguished in order to justify the use of this phrase in 2 Corinthians. The fact is, the Hebrew Scriptures to which proponents of this claim appeal nowhere show any awareness of the idea of a “third heaven.” There was a Jewish view that there are not three but seven levels of heaven, like an onion with multiple layers, but the earliest record we have of this comes from the Talmud, after Paul’s time. True, it’s still possible that the idea was present but unrecorded in Paul’s circles, but how would we know? What’s more, if there are seven layers of heaven, why would Paul refer to only the third?
So while my suggestion as to what the “third heaven” refers to is highly speculative, it’s at least possible, and it’s also not clear what alternative there might be. Whatever it refers to, as a visionary event no out of body travel needs to be dragged into the already strange picture.
Major reply 2: The NIV translates the passage poorly
About twelve years ago I purchased a copy of the New Testament translated from Aramaic sources by George Lamsa. If you’re not familiar with this work, it’s an interesting enough story. There’s a view that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, and this translation purports to be from those original Aramaic sources. There’s a bit of fantasy in all of this. As is widely accepted, the earliest New Testament documents that we know of were in Greek, not Aramaic. The Aramaic Peshitta is still a very useful source, but that’s another subject altogether. Anyway, I bought this copy of the New Testament out of interest, and read it. On the whole, there’s nothing terribly different or striking about it compared to what’s available in other translations. I was fascinated, however, when I got to 2 Corinthians 12. This is what I started to read:
BOASTING is proper, but there is no advantage in it, and I prefer to relate the visions and revelations of our Lord. I knew a man in Christ more than fourteen years ago, but whether I knew him in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows; this very one was caught up to the third heaven. And I still know this man, but whether in the body or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knows; How that he was caught up to paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such a person, I will boast; but of myself, I will not boast, except in my weaknesses.
I have highlighted the part that really leapt out at me. “What? That’s not what it says!” I said to myself. I knew what this verse was supposed to say, or so I thought. I checked with my NIV, which confirmed my previous belief about what it said. It’s supposed to say that Paul knew a man fourteen years ago, and this man was caught up to heaven, and Paul doesn’t know if that event was in the body or out of the body. This is why I highlighted some words in my quotation of this passage from the NIV, because those words stress that this is what the translators meant to convey.
Then I did something that can be life changing. I checked. I did not expect what I found. I first checked the King James Version, just because I know that it takes a very literal approach to translation, and literal wording was the crucial factor here. And lo and behold, the very first version I checked sided against the NIV, as follows:
It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
You should immediately spot the difference. Just as with the Lamsa translation, the KJV likewise never even suggests that the man’s experience might have been out of the body. No, the phrase “without the body” is used to describe the way in which Paul knew this man. I had to check more versions – those versions with a literal approach to translations. So I checked the American Standard version: “I must needs glory, though it is not expedient; but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven…” Another one! I tried Young’s Literal Version: “I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago—whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known—such an one being caught away unto the third heaven…” I checked my interlinear Greek English New Testament. Sure enough, these literal translations were giving what is essentially a word for word translation of this passage. The NIV was wrong.
What exactly does the text mean? I think Lamsa was right. Now, Lamsa added in a couple of words to make a strange sentence seem clearer. The text says “whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know…” whereas Lamsa says “but whether I knew him in the body or out of the body, I do not know.” Given the structure of what is said here, however, this makes sense, and I think it fairly represents the idea being expressed. But what does it mean? It’s not crystal clear. What does it mean to know someone “in the body” or “without the body”? One possibility is that Paul knows of the person, but isn’t sure if it is someone that he has met “in the flesh,” so to speak, or if it’s a friend of a friend. I would not dogmatise about what the phrase means, because it’s not clear. Drawing an uncertain conclusion in such circumstances is quite acceptable.
What is not acceptable, however, is to make phrases clear by changing their subject, which is effectively what the NIV has done. Unfortunately, even my current favourite translation, the ESV, falls prey to the same temptation. It reads, “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know…” The order of phrases is changed and the word “who” is added, shifting the meaning, just as with the NIV. What we have now is phrasing that is clear English, but which has given up its original meaning altogether.
I’ll draw this to a close here, but in summary, I don’t think we have any good reason to believe that Paul is describing somebody’s out of body experience. To recap:
- First, most believe that Paul was speaking of himself and his Damascus road experience, in which case this was not an out of body experience.
- Second, Paul tells people that this is possibly a vision. That should be sufficient to end the matter.
- Third, the reference to “paradise” lends weight to the above, since that word is used in the Scripture to refer to a state of final restoration, a state that has not yet happened.
- Fourth, “third heaven.” Yeah, what’s up with that? I’m not sure, but it might offer support for the thesis that this was a vision of the future.
- Fifth, and taking the discussion in a whole new direction, those versions that imply that this man was caught up to heaven but possibly out of his body have badly mistranslated this passage. The underlying Greek text refers to no such thing, nor do the most literal English translations.
And as Forrest Gump says, “that’s all I have to say about that.”
Glenn Peoples
Similar Posts:
- The Apostle Paul and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
- Tyndale on Hades
- Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism
- Tom Wright: Wrong about Soul Sleep
- Luke 23:43 and Soul Sleep
- A non material body?
Tags: Apostle Paul, dualism, intermediate state, mind-body problem, New Testament Studies, physicalism, soul
So… because we will be like the angels in some regard, you’re saying that we can look at everything done by angels and apply those to us as well?
Or because we will have bodies like Jesus, you’re saying that we can look at the life and work of Jesus as a smorgasboard will be able to do as well?
I guess I just don’t see the logical (or exegetical) connection.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No? Oh, well, let’s call it quits on this one at any rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well OK… but I don’t see why really. At present I’m the one left stood up on prom night! I just wanted an explanation. I mean, if there’s a connection that you know of, wouldn’t you tell me? It would go something like this:
1) At the resurrection our bodies will be trasnformed, like Jesus’ body was.
2) Jesus did wonderful things, both before and after his resurrection.
3) ____________________________ (this is where the vital connecting link goes, associating Jesus’ resurrected body with his wodnerful deeds in such a way that getting a resurrected body leads to the exepctation that we can do wonderful things too).
4) Therefore after the resurrection we will be able to do wonderful miraculous things.
Or perhaps:
1) Angels in Scripture have the power to work wonderful miracles [citation needed, because this is not obvious]
2) Jesus said that at the resurrection we will be like the angels in the sense that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage.
3) If we will be like the angels in this sense, then we must also be like the angels in every other sense [this premise will need its own defence]
4) Therefore at the resurrection we will be like angels in every sense, and therefore able to work wonderful miracles.
If you do in fact believe something like one of these arguments, could you indicate which? I don’t need to be convinced, I just want to know what your reasons are for believing as you do. So far I feel like it has been a vague allusion in one direction and an innuendo in another direction. But I don’t know what the actual line of reasoning is.
If there’s a reason that you don’t want me to know your reasons, I guess that’s fine. But we’re not at an impasse where we need to call it quits because we can’t agree. We’re just at a point where I want to know your reasons, and it feels like you just don’t want to tell!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK Glenn, let me gather my thoughts and I will try to satisfy your questions as best I can. Rest assured that there is no deliberate motive or desire to withhold information. I thought I had bought you tickets to the prom, but then find you don’t want to dance!
My methods at extracting theological concepts from scripture are, I believe, honest and consistent. Without training in philosophical critical analysis or Biblical studies, let alone the original Greek, I am left with assessing themes (such as the resurrection) in terms of what the relevant scriptures say on the matter. I thought I had achieved that and made a suitable case. However, more work to be done it seems.
That said, it seems that any efforts at further explanation will be largely nugatory, given that you say you don’t need convincing. To me, that means you are with me already on this but I just need to express myself in a clear 4-step (for example) format or, if not, any reasoning will not sway you from your extant ideas on the subject. Nevertheless, I’ll give it a shot, but I have a busy week ahead and need to conduct some further research.
You’ll still get to the Ball
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good post Glenn. Woah, the comments really went off here, sad not to have time to read them all. Just wanted to let you know I have tried a variant reading to Glenn’s, although my reading does not contradict Glenn’s “physicalism” it does interpret the passage rather differently. Enjoy
http://xenos-theology.blogspot.com/2010/03/2-cor-121-5-is-paul-just-taking-mickey.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, Glenn since Eat, Drink and be Merry is enjoying something of a mini-revival, I thought I’d be true to my word here at # 54. Sorry it’s a bit late. I am at pains to avoid ‘vague allusion in one direction and an innuendo in another direction’, and quoted relevant passages of scripture to back statements in previous posts. I also note that your last reply to the above mentioned blog entry included ‘I am inferring propositions about the philosophy of mind from what Paul said about theology’, so if you spot any inferences of mine I hope you’ll be understanding. I certainly don’t want a repeat of that 254-reply behemoth over on Preteristblog that descended into something Dante might have included in his circles.
I’ll only use the bible to validate a claim, and start with Luke 20:27-36, so that you can see my reasoning that when we inherit our resurrection bodies they will be more capable that our current versions (I think that’s what you said I failed to explain clearly).
Here the Sadducees are banging on to Jesus, trying to outwit him on a theoretical point regarding a many-married woman and the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in). Jesus turns their question around and tells them they have missed the point entirely – 34And Jesus answering said unto them, “The children of this world marry and are given in marriage. 35But they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that World and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. (21st Century King James Version)
So, we will be as the angels are after the resurrection. The point about marriage is moot since it is an activity of this world, not the next. The significant aspect is our equality with angels. Hebrews 1:6 states: 6And again, when He bringeth in the First-Begotten into the world, He saith, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” So, amongst other verses in that chapter, we are clearly below Jesus in the post-resurrection hierarchy, and it’s safe to conclude that we won’t have the creative powers Jesus possesses.
What kind of capabilities did angels possess? From Genesis 19 alone we see that they can eat and possess supernatural power (to cause blindness in v11). They have immense power (Ps 103:20); they can indulge in the miraculous (Acts 12); they are invisible to the human eye, if necessary (Numbers 22 – Balaam’s donkey and 2 Kings 6:17 – 17 And Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha); they battled against demonic principalities and powers (Dan 10)…well, you get the picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s all remarkably similar to the body Jesus presents post-resurrection. He can simply appear at will in a location, he also can eat (Luke 24 – 36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you’’. 37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
He said he had flesh and bones, not flesh and blood, for in the old body the life is in the blood (Lev 17), in the new the life comes from the Spirit and power of God. Earlier in that chapter the disciples failed to recognize Jesus since the old can’t identify with the new, but from 1 John 3:2 – 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is , so we will see him as he really is for we shall be of the same nature.
Verses such as Phil 3:21 – 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body and Romans 8 – 18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently – both point to glorious bodies, as does 1 Cor 15:49.
As to what the full reach of our new resurrected bodies will be only God knows, but the scriptures give plenty of hints and clues that we will not be simply a made over, non-decaying version of the Mark 1 human. We will be as the angels and in the likeness of Jesus. So:
1. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed, as Jesus’s body was.
2. Angels can do things beyond the humanly ordinary (see verses and commentary above), as could Jesus during his post-resurrection time on Earth.
3. Since we will have equality with angels, and also be made of the same glorious bodily material as Jesus, we will be able to perform acts in total harmony with God’s will, as empowered by the Holy Spirit.
4. Therefore, after the resurrection our bodies will be able to perform above and beyond what we see in humans today.
How does that sound? Apologies for the lack of brevity. I hope the Prom has a nice glitter ball
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
James, looking at your premises, there’s a very fast and very large leap between 2 and 3. Where does “equality with angels” come from? Being physically transformed like Jesus doesn’t translated to equality with Jesus, and being physically transformed as Jesus was has little (if anything) to do with being like angels (i.e. not being married), so premise 3 appears out of nowhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m honestly not sure, given the contextual references I provided, why you say there is ‘a very fast and very large leap between 2 and 3. I won’t repeat it all again here, but re-read the Luke 20:36 bit in the middle of #56. Jesus directly refutes your line ‘being physically transformed as Jesus was has little (if anything) to do with being like angels’. Furthermore, I never said that we will have equality with Jesus, just we will be LIKE him (again references in 56 & 57). Don’t be side-tracked by the ‘not being married’ aspect. Jesus was simply taking the wind out the Sadducees argument that was centred on marriage in the after-life.
So, premise 3 appears entirely from logical deduction of the scriptures I provided. Does this conflict with your concept of our resurrection nature? If so, how? I’d be interested to hear your line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is clear, from a logical point of view, that premise three is not supported by premises 1 and 2, nor is it implicit in the Scriptures cited.
All that is said up to and including premise 2, and all that is supported by the texts cited, is that our bodies will be trasnformed, as Christ’s was, and that like the angels, we will not die or marry.
Then all of a sudden: BAM, premise three claims that we will be able to do the kind of thing that God enabled angels to do, and which Jesus did. The logical problem is that it’s an invalid inference. It’s not entailed by what came before. It introduces ideas that are nowhere in the material shown beforehand.
When it comes to the resurrection, what I believe is intentionally limited to what Scripture says about the resurrection. Scripture affirms that we will live again, that we will be – as Jesus us – immortal and free of sin and corruption, and that we will (like the angels) not marry or be given in marriage. We will live in a creation free of defect and of all cause for sorrow.
This is what the texts that you cited support. That we will share specific, identifiable features with Jesus or with angels does not imply that we will share further features with them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, it’s premise 4 that declares we will be able to achieve more than we are humanly capable of once resurrected, in the sense that angels can do more than the Mk 1 us. Premise 3 simply says we will be as Jesus was and be in complete harmony with God.
To use a rather trite automotive analogy, if Jesus was resurrected as a brand new Bentley, and says that we will be as all the Porsches (we are currently no better than 10 year old Fords at best), but we will not have velour seats, however, we will never break down, and I know from other NT writers that I will like the Bentley as well as the Porsche, I can infer pretty safely that I will perform better than my old Ford. I will not limit myself to the basic statement that I will not break down and not have velour seats; I can deduce with all validity that I will have wheels, tyres, non-rusting bodywork, a powerful engine and other attributes of these cars. I should be able to most if not all a Porsche can do, but not that of a Bentley.
Basic, I know, and the car analogy doesn’t take into account the change in building materials that come post-resurrection. That said, if you’ve driven a 10 year old Ford and a new Bentley you might disagree!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, but the “devil is in the detail” lurking behind what premise 3 really means by “equality” and “acts in total harmony with God’s will.”
I thinkt he car analogy is too far removed, and here’s why: When Jesus was on earth before his crucifixion, he was made of the same stuff as his fellow human. Already they were made of the same stuff, and yet nobody suggests that when Jesus was on earth, everyone had his abilities.
Why then would anyone suggest that if we will be made of the same stuff as Jesus in the future, things will be totally different, and suddenylt that fact will mean that we will be able to do… “acts in total harmony with God’s will” with an innuendo of miracles?
As I said, it just doesn’t logically follow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I would suggest that there are plenty of accounts of NT believers exhibiting all of Jesus’s abilities whilst he was on earth – raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the sick. Clearly, they weren’t equal to the singular Son of God who had come from heaven and would return to heaven. As one born totally free from sin, he was a unique man, BUT his works were (and are) carried out by many. So, we are not equal with Jesus after the resurrection, just as men weren’t equal with him in the flesh, but we will do much that he is capable of, and in an immortal, sin-free body.
When Luke 20:36 says we have equality with the angels, the discussion is what that equality will encompass. I am taking it to mean we don’t die, we don’t need to marry and more. You just don’t go with the ‘and more’ bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So James, it looks like the real issue is not that you think we’ll gain miraculous abilities after the resurrection. The issue is that you believe we should have them now.
Why recruit the doctrine of the resurrection to promote that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If by ‘miraculous abilities’ you mean those which I believe we will possess after the resurrection then, no, I have never stated, inferred, hinted, or alluded to our having them now. So that issue is not the issue
If you mean those works which Jesus exhibited before his resurrection then, yes, I do believe we have them now.
That said, what I have read on cessationism seems reasonably convincing, so that area is a work in progress in reality. Do you have any blog entries on the subject? I couldn’t make anything out in your word cloud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
James, I meant the following:
* I know (or at least think I know) your pentecostal leanings when it comes to miracles
* You were saying that having a body like Jesus after the resurrection means that we’ll have those abilities after the resurrection
* This implies the principle that same body = same abilities
* This implies that right now, we shoudl expect to work miracles like Jesus did.
Since this last point is either the same or close to what you think due in part to your Pentecostal leanings, I strongly suspect – your denial notwithstanding – that it is this approach to the miraculous that is actually underlying your approach here, if you’ll pardon my saying so. It would explain why, for example, you maintain that we will have miraculous abilities after the resurrection even though none of the biblical material on the resurrection suggests this. It’s because you think that being able to do such things is part and parcel of being truly in tune with God.
If you’re suggesting that actually our post resurrection abilities will surpass those of Jesus when he was on earth, then wow… I wonder what sort of miraculous abilities you have in mind for the future. Surely you mean abilities like those that Jesus had. And if that’s so, then actually you are saying that we should have those abilities already.
I think that unless you were already committed to that view of genuine spirituality (i.e. that we should be able to do works like those of Jesus right now), you would not find the suggestion of post-resurrection miraculous abilities plausible in the least.
The only thing I have written that’s close to this is an old seminar that I presented back in 2001, on tongues and prophecy. You can find that here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the link Glenn. I’ll go through it in slow time.
It’s true, my pentecostal Christian background does still colour a number of doctrinal aspects, even now, but there’s a long road ahead and thinking shifts. I would just add, if you have grasped that I equate bodily substance (pre- and post-resurrection) with miraculous ability, I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly. Just dashing out to church, but quickly: miraculous pre-resurrection activity is solely from the equipping of the Holy Spirit – our flesh accomplishes nothing, and we, rightly, steal none of God’s glory.
Post-resurrection, we’ve gone from dial up to ultra high speed broadband, in terms of connection with the Holy Spirit, and as a spiritual body comprising the same form/material as Jesus had post-resurrection, we will, from the verses I have already referred to, be able to accomplish much more in the miraculous than now. Since God made me new body, if I can do angelic-like things with it (see above posts), he still gets all the glory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just came hear after reading a blog called “Choosing Hats” where they tried to rebut this article.
I was unfamiliar with the issues raised by this text in 2 Corinthians, but having read their response and your blog: Glenn, you are right, they are wrong. “Choosing hats”? More like “Choosing what the Bible means based on my own theology!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow… I just saw the “Choosing hats” blog commenting on this blog post (someone linked to it on Facebook). I was shocked by their dishonesty! Glenn, in this blog post, says that he was alerted to an issue when he read a translation from an Aramaic New Testament that didn’t look right to him, so he started checking English versions translated from the Greek (i.e normal English New Testaments). He found that they too all disagreed with the NIV – and then he checked the Greek wording as well. All of these sided against the NIV.
But then when the “choosing hats” folks looked at Glenn’s claim that the NIV does not translate the Greek well, they had the absolute dishonesty to say that Glenn never checked the Greek at all and that he relied solely on an “Aramaic version” for his conclusion. I’m loathe to use this word, but C L Bolt (who wrote that blog) is a simple liar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can only echo the sentiments of Gareth and Sandra. This “Bolt” fellow has not engaged with your evidence at all, Glenn. Instead he has gone off on a doctrinaire rant about how your presuppositions are all wrong. But what about the actual evidence that you go through? Well, that doesn’t seem to matter. I mean, look at what Paul says. Immediately before describing what happened, Paul says “I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.” He then “goes on,” to reiterate the phrase, to describe being taken to the third heaven and seeing all sorts of things. So clearly Paul regarded the event as visionary. And yet “C L Bolt” steps in to tell us that Paul says “no such thing,” and that it wasn’t a vision at all! He knows better than the author!
Clearly something is holding him back from seeing this evidence – which is there for all to see. Probably a “presupposition” is at work here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0