To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

You don't know Greek do you...

You should have all the space you need to enlighten me, Greg. But non-answers like the one above lead me to believe you might not be sure how to do so...

[Greg Logan]

TJ

With respect, I think our discussion has come to a close. I find no edification in it.

My wishes in your pursuit of the Creator in the only mediator between man and God - the man Christ Jesus - whom God has made Lord and Judge of all.

Best,

Greg Logan

[TJ]

With respect, I think our discussion has come to a close.

Thank you for your participation Greg. I was waiting for you to expand upon your vague objection to my previous post before I answered it, but since you chose to not explain yourself, I'll go ahead and provide more justification for that now in order to edify other interested readers.

One reason why the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:5 doesn't support the weight you try to place upon it is because you emphasize that it must be present tense, while the Greek text simply is not explicitly so. The verb is implicit, and as such it must be interpreted by the translator. Take for example the other verse you brought up, 1 Corinthians 15:21, which states:

• "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead." (NAS)

The NAS translators supplied both implicit verbs above and chose the past-tense form for both. This is an interpretation. Another version has the passage this way:

• "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." (NIV)

The NIV translators chose to supply a past-tense verb in the first instance and a present-tense verb in the second. This too is a valid translation of the passage, but again it should be well understood that this is an interpretation by the translators; they inferred this meaning from contextual considerations.

Now what if I tried to use the NAS version of 1 Corinthians 15:21 as my major proof text to insist that the resurrection has already taken place? (It's PAST tense!!!) Would the text be able to support my claim? NO!! And that's because the past-tense aspect that I would be using as my proof is merely an interpretation by those translators.

So let's look again at 1 Timothy 2:5, which says:

• "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (ESV)

The translators here decided to supply two present-tense verbs, but they could have, with equal authority, rendered the passage as the NIV did 1 Corinthians 15:21, using verbs with different tenses:

• "For there is one God, and there was one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

This would be an equally valid translation/interpretation of the underlying Greek text, and it would NOT support the burden you are attempting to make the verse carry because it explicitly places the entire episode of Jesus' mediatorship (as a man) in the past, when he made his sacrifice (as the next verse spells out).

This was the point I was making by noting the simple fact that the present tense in that passage is merely an interpretation of the Greek. But as I went on to explain, I don't at all believe that it's even necessary to use a past-tense verb in the passage to show your conclusion is faulty. I'm perfectly happy with the way the ESV translates it. The effects of Jesus' work as mediator, wherein he provided the ransom sacrifice (in the past), extends to the present and is no different than a first-century Jew saying that "the man Moses is our mediator". That claim would certainly NOT be intended as proof that Moses still existed somewhere as a human being! But you chose to not respond to any of that (common-sense) reasoning.


Thank you again for discussing these issues with me, Greg.

[TJ]

Interestingly, here's another example of how the Greek text at 1 Timothy 2:5-6 can be interpreted by translators:

• "There is only one God, and Christ Jesus is the only one who can bring us to God. Jesus was truly human, and he gave himself to rescue all of us." (CEV)

This rendering highlights the connection between the last part of verse 5 and verse 6 (the original Greek obviously did not have these verse divisions). A more literal rendering of this interpretation would be something like:

• "There is one God and there is one mediator between god and men; Jesus Christ was a man who gave himself as a ransom for all."

[JimSpace]

Hey that was a great survey of translations TJ, and I especially like the CEV of 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

[JimSpace]

This discussion here has motivated me to update my article Jesus’ Resurrection Body.

One point that I find is often overlooked is the drama of the Atonement Day. As the High Priest passed though the curtain from the Holy to the Most Holy on Atonement Day with only the blood and not the body of the sacrificed animal, so Jesus presented the value of his sacrificed life and not his body when he passed though the greater spiritual curtain in the presence of the Almighty God Jehovah. This is explained in greater detail here: Passing Through the Curtain.

[TJ]

Really excellent articles, Jim. I found this statement to well express my feelings:

At Acts 17:31 and 1 Timothy 2:5, the resurrected Jesus is called "a man."[1] This description would naturally refer to Jesus' experience as a man on earth during his ministry—it would more fittingly be applied to him being a man experientially, not ontologically.

It's similar to the situation with the word 'spirit'; in one passage the post-resurrection Jesus is convincing his disciples that he is not a 'spirit' and yet elsewhere he is very clearly described as being raised as a 'spirit'. These accounts have to be harmonized, and the best way to do that is to allow scripture to interpret itself.

When it comes to the question of whether or not Jesus is a 'man' in the resurrection, I cannot get past the scriptural concept that you described thusly:

He agreed to become a perfect human and then surrender his human life to furnish the corresponding ransom sacrifice (1 Timothy 2:5-6) that he presented before God after passing though greater spiritual curtain from the Holy.

If Jesus still exists as a 'man' in any real sense of the term, I cannot understand what it is that was actually sacrificed. And your reference of the Atonement Day ritual as a symbolic drama is very revealing in this respect.

BTW Jim, what bearing if any would you think Jesus' statement below about the resurrection have on this topic?

• "For when they rise from the dead, neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in the heavens." (Mark 12:25)

Another version of it:

• "Jesus said to them: 'The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage,  but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection.'" (Luke 20:34-36)

[JimSpace]

Thank you for your praise TJ, and I'm glad you liked those articles.

Regarding those scriptures on the resurrection, Jesus' "words would tell us several things about those raised to heavenly life: They do not marry, they cannot die, and they are in some respects like angels—spirit creatures who inhabit the spirit realm." (w14 8/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers) This has been my understanding before the w14 article.

So, if Jesus' brothers in heaven are "in some respects like angels—spirit creatures," then it would follow that Jesus believed that his resurrection body would be in the same vein, a spirit body.

And at Luke 24:36-43, Jesus was appearing as a materialization with selectively replicated wounds. We know that this must be the case because he sacrificed his body (Hebrews 10:10) and it was left behind per the Atonement Day drama. (I present this in more detail in Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth. Also, JW.org has an excellent article on this here: After Jesus’ Resurrection, Was His Body Flesh or Spirit?.)

[TJ]

Awesome article, Jim! It really gets to the root of why Jesus cannot currently exist in some elevated form of his prior humanity. It really would invalidate the ransom sacrifice, which is the legal engine by which a just God saves a fallen humankind. If Jesus retained any aspect of his ontological humanity, then that would mean that his (perfect, sinless) human life was NOT sacrificed!

It seems to me that the reason why this thread's discussion, which was originally meant to examine whether or not Jesus pre-existed his human life, shifted focus to his post-earthly state of existence is due to the question of whether or not a person can switch from one ontological state of existence to another. I think that the 'change' mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:50-52 is clearly an ontological change, backed up by other scriptures, e.g. Luke 20:34-36, 2 Peter 1:4, etc. And if such an ontological change is possible, that would completely undermine what seems to be the primary argument against a pre-existence for Christ, i.e. that any pre-existence in the spirit realm, despite his being "born to a woman" (Galatians 4:4), would mean that he is merely a "divine being encased in human flesh."

Jesus was born from a woman. That means he was a human ONLY.

Completely agree. The 'kenosis event' in Philippians 2:7 was really the same type of 'change' mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:50-52, but in reverse. I'm sure your intent in emphasizing the statement above was to argue against the Trinitarian concept of a hypostatic union, but it works equally well in the context of this discussion and I think that's revealing.

It would appear that the Trinitarians and the Socinians (for lack of a more commonly-accepted label) find common ground, generally speaking, in that they both reject the notion of a true ontological change being possible. That's what much of this boils down to. Trinitarians devised the hypostatic union in order to maintain that the Son always existed with a divine nature, while Socinians (evidently) maintain that those resurrected to the heavens continue to exist as human beings, although with some type of modification on that ontological existence which was not adequately clarified here (in other words, they're not living in heavenly spacesuits). I think the much simpler answer for the scriptural evidence is that ontological changes are possible and do happen. And, most significantly, it explains exactly what Jesus actually sacrificed in behalf of us...his human existence!

[JimSpace]

Thank you and