THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE

[Johann]

Why?

(1) People are never named in parables. Search the gospels and find one if you can, but you will fail. In this scripture however, three people are named, Lazarus (v20, 23) , Abraham (v23, 24), and Moses (v29, 31), of which Moses and Abraham are definite historical figures who are mentioned many times elsewhere in the scriptures. Parables on the other hand refer to people as "a king" (Luke 14:31-42), "the master of the house" (Matthew 24:42-44), "that evil servant" (Matthew 24:48-51), "a man taking a far journey" (Mark 13:34-37), "a judge" (Luke 18:2), "a widow" (Luke 18:3), "a certain man" (Luke 13:6), "a certain rich man" (Luke 12:16), and so on; but none named.

That's why, and it shows me you have no read the post @Butch5

Shalom
Johann

 

[Johann]

The physical body cannot speak or hear once it is physically dead and I think this to what Butch is referring, There are a few scriptures which support this! Though I know he is not one of them, those who support the "soul sleep" position use them all them time (like Ecclesiastes 9). But remember, unless Jesus is a liar when He tells the contrite thief he will be with Him that same day in Paradise ("Sheol"{ the equivalent of hades, not the physical grave) then it must exist. IMHO it is from here that Jesus leads captivity captive (the Lazarus section) and brings them to His throne room.

Where is paradise?
Sheol, or the Hades, the grave?


Luk_23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Sēmeron met' emou esēi en tōi paradeisōi). However crude may have been the robber’s Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2Co_12:4; Rev_2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven.

Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting “Abraham’s bosom” (Luk_16:22.) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it.


2Co_12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Rev_2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Shalom
Johann

 

[Butch5]

The physical body cannot speak or hear once it is physically dead and I think this to what Butch is referring, There are a few scriptures which support this! Though I know he is not one of them, those who support the "soul sleep" position use them all them time (like Ecclesiastes 9). But remember, unless Jesus is a liar when He tells the contrite thief he will be with Him that same day in Paradise ("Sheol"{ the equivalent of hades, not the physical grave) then it must exist. IMHO it is from here that Jesus leads captivity captive (the Lazarus section) and brings them to His throne room.

Hi Br. Paul, I'd like to throw something out for consideration. In the Scriptures the translators translate Paradesios as garden, with a few exceptions. In the incident with the thief on the cross, they didn't translate it, they transliterated it. The question is why? Why didn't they translate it and have Jesus saying to the thief, you will be with me in the garden? I think the answer is obvious. They don't believe that the dead go to a garden. They believe the dead go to hades, which they believe is some underground abode of the dead. If they translated it garden it wouldn't fit their theology. If we search the Bible, we find nothing that suggests that there is a garden located in a subterranean location somewhere in the earth. We know a garden is just that, a garden. Since there is no mention of a garden or Paradise, located beneath the earth we have to wonder where that idea comes from. I think it's pretty clear where it comes from. People come to the text already believing that the dead live on. They believe that when people die, they go to hades, in some form other than physical. Since the thief was going to be there after he died and Jesus said he would be with Him in the Garden or Paradise, it is "assumed" that there is a place in hades called Paradise. The whole idea of a place in hades called Paradise is based on a false assumption. Again, it's not stated anywhere in the Bible.

Now, here's the point. What did the thief request of Jesus? Wasn't it that Jesus would remember him when Jesus came into His Kingdom? It was. Now, did Jesus answer his question or did He ignore it? If he answered it and spoke of Paradise then Paradise must be a reference to Jesus' Kingdom and not some location in hades. The other option is that Jesus ignored the thief's question and instead told him where he's be later on. The thief wasn't interested in where he'd be later that afternoon. He was interested in knowing whether or not he was going to be saved, ie. enter the Kingdom. Instead of letting the man die not knowing his destiny Jesus answers his question. I say to you today. In other words, you don't have to wait until the resurrection, you will be with me in paradise. The thief, being a Jew would be familiar with the Paradise of Eden where God had placed Adam and Eve. He would also likely be familiar with the prophets who spoke of the restoration of all things. That would be his hope. So, what then is Paradise Well. Paul was caught "up" to Paradise.

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 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. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Co 12:1–4.

Here Paul is equating Paradise with the Third heaven. How can Paradies be in Hades if it's in the third haven?

But, we don't have to wonder what Jesus meant by Paradise. Later on He stated plainly what Paradise is. In the Revelation given to John Jesus said.

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And hast jborne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Re 2:1–7.

To the one who overcomes Jesus will give to eat of the "tree of life" which is in the "Paradise of God". The tree of life is in the garden or paradise of Eden. Jesus answered the thief's question regarding the Kingdom. The thief would be in the garden of Eden in the restored creation.

I don't believe Jesus ignored the thief's question only to tell him he'd be in some subterranean location later that afternoon. This raises the obvious question of "today". Didn't Jesus say they would be there "that" day? Jesus didn't go to the Kingdom "that" day. This is easily explained by saying the translators have placed the comma in the wrong place. The comma should be after the word today, not before it. If we move the comma the sentence changes to, 'Verily I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise'. By moving the comma there is no mention of when they would in paradise, but rather that Jesus was telling him that say. There is no comma in the original texts. It's strictly a translator's choice of where he "thinks" it should go.

I did a Bible study on the subject of the restored creation. It's located here.

Regarding Him leading captivity captive. Paul is quoiting from psalm 68. In the context of that passage God is leading His people out from His enemies. There's nothing there about dead people.

 

[Butch5]

(1) People are never named in parables. Search the gospels and find one if you can, but you will fail. In this scripture however, three people are named, Lazarus (v20, 23) , Abraham (v23, 24), and Moses (v29, 31), of which Moses and Abraham are definite historical figures who are mentioned many times elsewhere in the scriptures. Parables on the other hand refer to people as "a king" (Luke 14:31-42), "the master of the house" (Matthew 24:42-44), "that evil servant" (Matthew 24:48-51), "a man taking a far journey" (Mark 13:34-37), "a judge" (Luke 18:2), "a widow" (Luke 18:3), "a certain man" (Luke 13:6), "a certain rich man" (Luke 12:16), and so on; but none named.

That's why, and it shows me you have no read the post @Butch5

Shalom
Johann

That's a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur. Just because no other parable in the Bible uses a name doesn't mean one can't. And if the name is pertinent to the parable we would expect it to be there. Since you study morphology, I'll assume you know what the name Lazarus means. This is an indication as to why it's there. The details are pertinent. Also, Jesus spoke much more than the small amount that we have recorded. John said Jesus did and said so many things that he supposed the world could not hold the books if it all was written. Jesus could have used many names in parables. that Luke is the only one that recorded on doesn't mean that Jesus didn't do it many more times.

 

[Johann]

That's a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur. Just because no other parable in the Bible uses a name doesn't mean one can't. And if the name is pertinent to the parable we would expect it to be there. Since you study morphology, I'll assume you know what the name Lazarus means. This is an indication as to why it's there. The details are pertinent. Also, Jesus spoke much more than the small amount that we have recorded. John said Jesus did and said so many things that he supposed the world could not hold the books if it all was written. Jesus could have used many names in parables. that Luke is the only one that recorded on doesn't mean that Jesus didn't do it many more times.

That's why I don't want to lock horns with anyone, so agree to disagree.
Shalom
Johann

 

[Butch5]

Where is paradise?
Sheol, or the Hades, the grave?


Luk_23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Sēmeron met' emou esēi en tōi paradeisōi). However crude may have been the robber’s Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2Co_12:4; Rev_2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven.

Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting “Abraham’s bosom” (Luk_16:22.) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it.


2Co_12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Rev_2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Shalom
Johann

Where in that passage does it say they would be in Paradise alive? It doesn't say anything at all about them being alive later that day. We know they both died. This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question. People come to the text already believing that people live on after death, they read this passage and believe it confirms their premise and the use it to prove their premise. The problem is that all they are doing is restating their premise. They haven't actually proven their premise. There is "NOTHING" in this passage that suggests they would be alive later that day.

As I pointed out in the post to Br. Paul, Paradise is the garden of Eden.

 

[Butch5]

That's why I don't want to lock horns with anyone, so agree to disagree.
Shalom
Johann

What's why? You're welcome to disagree. I'm simply pointing out that the reasoning is flawed.

 

[Butch5]

(1) People are never named in parables. Search the gospels and find one if you can, but you will fail. In this scripture however, three people are named, Lazarus (v20, 23) , Abraham (v23, 24), and Moses (v29, 31), of which Moses and Abraham are definite historical figures who are mentioned many times elsewhere in the scriptures. Parables on the other hand refer to people as "a king" (Luke 14:31-42), "the master of the house" (Matthew 24:42-44), "that evil servant" (Matthew 24:48-51), "a man taking a far journey" (Mark 13:34-37), "a judge" (Luke 18:2), "a widow" (Luke 18:3), "a certain man" (Luke 13:6), "a certain rich man" (Luke 12:16), and so on; but none named.

That's why, and it shows me you have no read the post @Butch5

Shalom
Johann

I was asking @KingJ. I looked that post. I pointed out that all of the reasons were the Logical fallacy known as the non-Sequitur.

 

[Johann]

Where in that passage does it say they would be in Paradise alive? It doesn't say anything at all about them being alive later that day. We know they both died. This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question. People come to the text already believing that people live on after death, they read this passage and believe it confirms their premise and the use it to prove their premise. The problem is that all they are doing is restating their premise. They haven't actually proven their premise. There is "NOTHING" in this passage that suggests they would be alive later that day.

As I pointed out in the post to Br. Paul, Paradise is the garden of Eden.

The scriptures that I have posted is very, very clear to me, why is it you don't understand?

Maybe this would help.

What Is Paradise and Is it Different Than Heaven?
Mike Leake
Borrowed Light
2021
17 Sep
What Is Paradise and Is it Different Than Heaven?
There are two thieves hanging on a cross next to Jesus. One is mocking, the other exhibits a bit of faith and asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes into His kingdom. “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.’” Why doesn’t he say, “today you will be with me in heaven”? What is paradise and is it heaven? Is it a sort of holding tank where believers go before the resurrection? Or was paradise the place where Old Testament saints went when they died but after the resurrection when people die, they go to heaven? Is paradise a different place than heaven?

Yes. And no.

I will answer this question by explaining a little about the word paradise and where it appears in the Bible. But it’s also important to understand a little about heaven and the new heavens. Hopefully, by the end, you’ll understand why the answer is both yes and no.

Where Does the Bible Talk about Paradise?
Paradise is a word that is likely borrowed from the Persians. It means “garden.” The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only in three places where it refers to a park (Ecc. 2:5), a forest (Neh. 2:8), and an orchard (Song of Solomon 4:13). But the word seems to have taken on a new flavor after the Babylonian Exile. In the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek word paradeisos is used for the Garden of Eden. “Paradise” becomes God’s Garden. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary explains it well:

The religious meaning—God’s garden or Paradise—entered Jewish thought and vocabulary after the Babylonian Exile, was combined with the hope of a blessed eschaton, and appears in the Apocrypha (2 Esdr 4:7; 6:2; 7:36, 123; 8:52) and frequently in other early Jewish writings. (Paradise).

Thus, by the time of the New Testament paradise became synonymous with resting in God’s presence. The word paradeisos only appears three times in the New Testament. It is the locale where Jesus tells the thief on the cross he will be with him in Luke 23:43. Paul speaks of being caught up into the “third heaven” and then almost synonymously refers to it as “paradise”. And in Revelation 2:7, Jesus tells the church in Ephesus that they will be granted to “eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God”. Revelation 2 clearly has overtones of the Garden of Eden.


It is surprising that the word paradise only appears six times in the Scriptures. And yet the concept, of God’s presence with humanity, is all throughout.

What Is Paradise and Is It Heaven?
If you ask your friend about his trip to the Bahama’s he might respond that it was a paradise. There is a town in California with the name Paradise and another locale south of Vegas referred to as Paradise. If you’re in Texas you could visit a tobacco store called Smokers Paradise. There are television shows with the name paradise in them, and it’s a word which luxury hotels will use to sell their products. Paradise has become a common word within our vocabulary. But what does it mean?

According to Merriam-Webster’s paradise is “a very beautiful, pleasant, or peaceful place that seems to be perfect.” Or it is a “place that is perfect for a particular activity or for a person who enjoys that activity.” Finally, it is a “state of complete happiness.” Is this what the Bible means when it refers to paradise?

As stated earlier, the word originally referred to a garden. Specifically, it referred to the lush and walled gardens of the Persian kings. The Garden of Eden, then, is a perfect representation of a paradise. Merriam-Webster isn’t that far off when it refers to a beautiful, pleasant and peaceful place. But the difference between the two is that in the Scriptures what makes the Garden of Eden so wonderful is not the trees or the rivers or the luscious fruits, it is the presence of Almighty God. When the first couple is booted out of the Garden (note the concept of being walled away) the great tragedy is not simply that they now have thorns instead of beautiful gardens, it is that they are removed from the good presence of God. The story of the Bible is about humanity returning to God’s presence through the work of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Milton wasn’t far off—the Bible is about Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained.

If we use the simplest of definitions for both paradise and heaven, we see that they are practically synonymous. They both refer to a place of happiness that is filled with the good presence of God. In 2 Corinthians 12:4 Paul seems to refer to the “third heaven” and “paradise” as the same locale. When Jesus tells the thief that he will be with him in paradise, it’s certainly not wrong to connect this with Paul’s statement that to “depart” is to be in the presence of Jesus.

So, to answer what is paradise and is it heaven, we must ask, are paradise and heaven the same thing? I believe the answer to that question depends on what you mean by heaven. When a believer in Christ dies today, do they go to heaven? Yes. When a believer in Christ dies today, do they go to paradise? Yes. In that sense the two are synonymous. But heaven today will not be the same as heaven tomorrow.

How Do We Distinguish the Difference between Paradise and Heaven?
There are some who teach that Sheol/Hades (the underworld) was actually made up of two parts. The good side was called paradise or Abraham’s bosom. Most get this understanding from the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (as well as Old Testament uses of the word Sheol).

Many who hold to this view of the afterlife will also hold to something called the Harrowing of Hades (or Hell). This view holds that when Jesus died his soul went to Paradise (in Sheol, located under the earth) but upon his resurrection, he took the souls from paradise up into heaven with him. This place would not be in the direct presence of God the Father—it would instead be a type of holding place until the final resurrection.

Though such a view is plausible, I find it a bit shaky to develop an entire theology of the afterlife upon a parable. What is clear from Scripture is that when a believer dies, they are in the presence of Christ. That is certainly enough for me. And I think these words of John Piper are particularly convicting and exposing of our true desire within the afterlife:

The critical question for our generation—and for every generation—is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?

What Piper is saying is that the goal of heaven/paradise is the presence of Christ. That is what the story of the Bible is really about. There is no difference between heaven and paradise when we are defining them by the good presence of God. But perhaps there is a bit of a difference when we are talking location and stage within redemptive history. I think you could say with some level of certainty that the heaven/paradise that exists now is not the same that will exist when Revelation 21-22 becomes reality.

I believe you could speak of “going up” to heaven/paradise at present. But I do not believe you can speak that way of the new heavens and the new earth. Revelation 21-22 is clear that God comes down to earth and transforming everything. Christopher J.H. Wright says it well:

In other words, the Bible’s last great vision is not of us going ‘up’ there (to heaven), but of God coming ‘down’ here (to earth). That’s why I said, I look forward to going to heaven if I die before Christ returns. But I’m not going to stay there a moment longer than it takes to receive my resurrection body and join the rest of the redeemed humanity on earth once Christ does return. That’s where Revelation 21-22 clearly locates the bride of Christ and the city of God. Not ‘up’ there but ‘down’ here! (Wright, 195)

Conclusion
What is paradise and is it heaven? Well, it depends on your definition. Are you talking location? If so, are you referring to the new heaven/new earth or heaven as it presently exists? If you mean as it presently exists, I think you can make a quality argument from the Scriptures that the two are synonymous. But the paradise/heaven that currently exists is not the same as what awaits us for all eternity when Christ returns. We look for the resurrection—our ultimate and blessed hope. Until then, when we die we know that we are in the presence of Christ. Whether you call this paradise or heaven doesn’t matter much. What matters is whether or not you are with Jesus. If you’re with Jesus then it is bliss. If you’re not with Jesus then it’s everything but bliss. That is the most important question to ask of paradise/heaven and hell. Are you with Jesus?

Sources:
Charlesworth, J. H. (1992). Paradise. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5, p. 154). New York: Doubleday.

I don't claim to know it all friend, I seek after truth, not premises.

Shalom
Johann

 

[Butch5]

And then what is Paul saying when (IYO) he tells us "to be absent FROM THE BODY is to be present with the Lord"?

And even men can be called elohim, in that time and culture, so this word choice does not demand it was a demon (Psalm 82:6).

Hi Br. Paul,

Here is a commentary I wrote previously on this passage.


I believe this passage is poorly translated. To understand it properly we need to look at the entire context. In context Paul is speaking of the resurrection not an intermediate state. If we go back to chapter 4 we find this.

10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
(KJV 2 Co 4:10–18)

This is previous to the passage you mentioned. He's referencing the resurrection. Dying in the body that the life of Jesus might be manifest in our body. He continues with this line of reasoning.

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens
The Holy Bible: King James Version 2 Co 5:1.

In this verse many people think Paul is talking about bodies, an earthly body and a heavenly body. However, he's not. Paul often talks in concepts. Consider Galatians 3 where Sarah and Hagar represent the two covenants. What Paul is speaking of here is two different states of being, mortal and immortal. This will be seen shortly.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:1–2.

Here he speaks of a desire to be "clothed" with the house from heaven (immortality)

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:3.

He spoke of being clothed with the house from heaven (immortality). He opposes that to being found naked.

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 Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:4.

Here again he expresses that desire to "clothed" upon. Notice he doesn't want to be unclothed, but clothed upon. To understand what he means here we need some historical information about this church. The church in Corinth was right next to Athens. Athens was the center of Greek Philosophy and thought. The primary belief among the pagans in this region in Paul's day was that of Plato. Plato taught that man was immortal. He taught that the flesh was inherently evil and that the goal of man, who he claimed had an immortal spirit, was to escape the flesh and ascend through the heavens to the Ploroma (fulness), essentially the ultimate God. Because they believed the flesh was evil the idea of resurrection was rejected. They would want no part of returning to a body that they believed was inherently evil. That's why Paul said the Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks. It was because of resurrection.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Cor. 1:23 KJV)

The church at Corinth was primarily gentile and this rejection of the resurrection was entering into it.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor. 15:12 KJV)

This is what Paul is addressing. The goal of the Greeks was to shed the body. Paul equates this with, being found naked. He says he doesn't want to be found naked. In other words, He's not looking to shed his body. He doesn't want to be found unclothed, naked, (shed the body), but rather, "clothed upon". The Greek word he uses here means, to put on over. Like one would put on a coat over their clothes. What he's saying is that he wants to put on that heavenly building of God, the immortal state, over his earthly house, mortality. He makes this clear in his next statement where he says, that mortality may be swallowed up of life. Mortality is the mortal state. Life is eternal life, the resurrection, the immortal state. He wants his current mortality to be swallowed up by immortality.

So, He's actually arguing against the very thing many use this passage to try to prove. That being that man can leave the body. That's what the Greeks wanted. Paul says, no. I don't want that. He's saying he wants his mortal body to become immortal. That happens at the resurrection.

Now we move on to the passage in question.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:5–8.

The key words in this passage are, absent, present, and body. Many read this as though Paul is saying if a persons ghost is absent from their body it is present with the Lord. However, we just saw that Paul didn't want that. He didn't want to leave the body. The first thing to point out is that Paul is stating a desire, not a theological fact. Now we need to look at these key words. The word translated Absent is ekdemeo. It carries the idea of going abroad, to emigrate, or to live abroad. The word translated present is endemeo. It means to be among one's own people or to be in one's own country. From this the translators get absent and present. The last word is soma and it means body. So lets look at passage again with these definitions in mind.

While we are among our own people (enemeo) present, at home, in the body we are away from our own people (ekdemeo) absent from the Lord.

Lets consider this. The word translated present means to be among one's own people. The word translated absent means to go abroad, at which point one is away from one's people. We can see from there two words that there is nothing that indicates a disembodied being. They simply mean to be with or away from one's home or people. So where does this idea of a disembodied being come from? There's only one key word left. That's body. Because the passage is translated present and absent from the body, people who believe that man can depart the body naturally see their belief in this passage. However, let's consider what Paul was saying earlier. Remember, Paul often uses figures. For mortality and immortality he used the images of an earthly house and a heavenly one. When speaking of the resurrection he used clothed and unclothed. So, maybe the word "body" here isn't referring to his physical body.
Lets think about this some more. Endemeo, present, meant to be with one's own people. Who were Paul's own people? Was it not Christians? Was is not "The Church"? We know these were Paul's people. What did Paul call his people at times? The body. As a matter of fact he called these very people, the body of Christ.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (1 Cor. 12:27 KJV)

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph. 4:12 KJV)

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Eph. 4:15-16 KJV)

Paul refers to the church as the body. Does that fit with the idea of endemeo and ekdemeo, being with one's people and going abroad? Sure it does. So how can we read verse 8? Remember Paul is stating a desire.

We are confident, I say, and willing, rather to be away from our own people, the church, and to be present with our own people, the Lord. He's simply saying he'd rather be with the Lord than the present state of corruption. That's his desire. Why? What did he say earlier? When he's with the Lord it's the resurrection. He will have his home from heaven, immortality, healing, and all the other great promises that come with it.

 

[Johann]

Hi Br. Paul,

Here is a commentary I wrote previously on this passage.


I believe this passage is poorly translated. To understand it properly we need to look at the entire context. In context Paul is speaking of the resurrection not an intermediate state. If we go back to chapter 4 we find this.

10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
(KJV 2 Co 4:10–18)

This is previous to the passage you mentioned. He's referencing the resurrection. Dying in the body that the life of Jesus might be manifest in our body. He continues with this line of reasoning.

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens
The Holy Bible: King James Version 2 Co 5:1.

In this verse many people think Paul is talking about bodies, an earthly body and a heavenly body. However, he's not. Paul often talks in concepts. Consider Galatians 3 where Sarah and Hagar represent the two covenants. What Paul is speaking of here is two different states of being, mortal and immortal. This will be seen shortly.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:1–2.

Here he speaks of a desire to be "clothed" with the house from heaven (immortality)

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:3.

He spoke of being clothed with the house from heaven (immortality). He opposes that to being found naked.

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 Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:4.

Here again he expresses that desire to "clothed" upon. Notice he doesn't want to be unclothed, but clothed upon. To understand what he means here we need some historical information about this church. The church in Corinth was right next to Athens. Athens was the center of Greek Philosophy and thought. The primary belief among the pagans in this region in Paul's day was that of Plato. Plato taught that man was immortal. He taught that the flesh was inherently evil and that the goal of man, who he claimed had an immortal spirit, was to escape the flesh and ascend through the heavens to the Ploroma (fulness), essentially the ultimate God. Because they believed the flesh was evil the idea of resurrection was rejected. They would want no part of returning to a body that they believed was inherently evil. That's why Paul said the Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks. It was because of resurrection.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Cor. 1:23 KJV)

The church at Corinth was primarily gentile and this rejection of the resurrection was entering into it.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor. 15:12 KJV)

This is what Paul is addressing. The goal of the Greeks was to shed the body. Paul equates this with, being found naked. He says he doesn't want to be found naked. In other words, He's not looking to shed his body. He doesn't want to be found unclothed, naked, (shed the body), but rather, "clothed upon". The Greek word he uses here means, to put on over. Like one would put on a coat over their clothes. What he's saying is that he wants to put on that heavenly building of God, the immortal state, over his earthly house, mortality. He makes this clear in his next statement where he says, that mortality may be swallowed up of life. Mortality is the mortal state. Life is eternal life, the resurrection, the immortal state. He wants his current mortality to be swallowed up by immortality.

So, He's actually arguing against the very thing many use this passage to try to prove. That being that man can leave the body. That's what the Greeks wanted. Paul says, no. I don't want that. He's saying he wants his mortal body to become immortal. That happens at the resurrection.

Now we move on to the passage in question.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:5–8.

The key words in this passage are, absent, present, and body. Many read this as though Paul is saying if a persons ghost is absent from their body it is present with the Lord. However, we just saw that Paul didn't want that. He didn't want to leave the body. The first thing to point out is that Paul is stating a desire, not a theological fact. Now we need to look at these key words. The word translated Absent is ekdemeo. It carries the idea of going abroad, to emigrate, or to live abroad. The word translated present is endemeo. It means to be among one's own people or to be in one's own country. From this the translators get absent and present. The last word is soma and it means body. So lets look at passage again with these definitions in mind.

While we are among our own people (enemeo) present, at home, in the body we are away from our own people (ekdemeo) absent from the Lord.

Lets consider this. The word translated present means to be among one's own people. The word translated absent means to go abroad, at which point one is away from one's people. We can see from there two words that there is nothing that indicates a disembodied being. They simply mean to be with or away from one's home or people. So where does this idea of a disembodied being come from? There's only one key word left. That's body. Because the passage is translated present and absent from the body, people who believe that man can depart the body naturally see their belief in this passage. However, let's consider what Paul was saying earlier. Remember, Paul often uses figures. For mortality and immortality he used the images of an earthly house and a heavenly one. When speaking of the resurrection he used clothed and unclothed. So, maybe the word "body" here isn't referring to his physical body.
Lets think about this some more. Endemeo, present, meant to be with one's own people. Who were Paul's own people? Was it not Christians? Was is not "The Church"? We know these were Paul's people. What did Paul call his people at times? The body. As a matter of fact he called these very people, the body of Christ.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (1 Cor. 12:27 KJV)

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph. 4:12 KJV)

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Eph. 4:15-16 KJV)

Paul refers to the church as the body. Does that fit with the idea of endemeo and ekdemeo, being with one's people and going abroad? Sure it does. So how can we read verse 8? Remember Paul is stating a desire.

We are confident, I say, and willing, rather to be away from our own people, the church, and to be present with our own people, the Lord. He's simply saying he'd rather be with the Lord than the present state of corruption. That's his desire. Why? What did he say earlier? When he's with the Lord it's the resurrection. He will have his home from heaven, immortality, healing, and all the other great promises that come with it.

Are members not bodies? Souls?

Gen_36:6 Now Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all the members of his household, and his livestock and all his cattle and all his possessions which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and he went to a land away from his brother Jacob.

Num_18:31 You may eat it anywhere, you and [the members of] your households, for it is your compensation in return for your service in the Tent of Meeting (tabernacle).

Job_17:7 "My eye has grown dim (unexpressive) because of grief, And all my [body's] members are [wasted away] like a shadow.

Mic_7:6 For the son dishonors the father and treats him contemptuously, The daughter rises up [in hostility] against her mother, The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- A man's enemies are the men (members) of his own household. [Mat_10:21, Mat_10:35-36; Mar_13:12-13]

Mat_10:25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the bond-servant like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul (Satan), how much more [will they speak evil of] the members of his household. [2Ki_1:2]

Mat_10:36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS [own] HOUSEHOLD [when one believes and another does not]. [Mic_7:6]

Act_4:8 Then Peter, filled with [the power of] the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people [members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Court],

Act_4:21 When the rulers and Council members had threatened them further, they let them go, finding no way to punish them because [of their fear] of the people, for they were all praising and glorifying and honoring God for what had happened;

Rom_6:13 Do not go on offering members of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness. But offer yourselves to God [in a decisive act] as those alive [raised] from the dead [to a new life], and your members [all of your abilities--sanctified, set apart] as instruments of righteousness [yielded] to God.
ανθρωπου
G444
N-GSM
ἄνθρωπος
from
ánthrōpos; gen. anthrṓpou, masc., fem. noun. Man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals. In the NT, used to make the distinction between sinful man, whose conduct, way, or nature is opposed to God, and anḗr (G435), male or husband.
(I) A man or woman, an individual of the human race, a person.
(A) Generally and universally (Mat_4:19; Mat_12:12; Mar_7:21; Luk_2:52; Luk_5:10; Joh_1:4; 1Co_4:9). In a direct address, "O man" (ṓ ánthrōpe) implies an inferior or common person (Luk_5:20; Luk_12:14; Luk_22:58, Luk_22:60; Rom_2:1, Rom_2:3; Rom_9:20; Jas_2:20; Sept.: Isa_2:9; Isa_5:15). In Rev_9:10, Rev_9:15, Rev_9:18, Rev_9:20, hoi ánthrōpoi, men, i.e., the living, are those with whom we live, people (Mat_5:13, Mat_5:16, Mat_5:19; Mat_6:1; Mat_8:27; Mat_13:25; Mar_8:24, Mar_8:27), or men of this world or generation, wicked men (Mat_10:17; Mat_17:22; Luk_6:22, Luk_6:26). In Mat_6:5, Mat_6:14-16; Mat_7:12; Mat_19:12; Mat_23:4; Luk_6:31; Luk_11:46, other men, others. See also Sept.: Jdg_16:7; Jdg_18:28.
(B) Spoken in reference to his human nature, a man, i.e., a human being, a mortal. (1) As in Php_2:7; 1Ti_2:5; Jas_5:17; Rev_4:7; Rev_9:7. Here is included the idea of human infirmity and imperfection, especially when spoken in contrast to God and divine things (1Co_1:25; 1Co_3:21). In Gal_1:11-12, katá (G2596), according, ánthrōpon, and pará (G3844), from, anthrṓpou, of human origin. To speak (légō [G3004], or lalṓ or laléō [G2980]), katá ánthrōpon, means to speak after the manner of men, i.e., in accordance with human views, and so forth, to illustrate by human example or institutions, to use a popular manner of speaking (Rom_3:5; 1Co_9:8; Gal_3:15). In 1Co_15:32, "if according to man's will" (a.t.), i.e., not according to God (see 2Co_7:9, 2Co_7:11; 2Co_11:17). The gen. anthrṓpou stands also instead of the adj. anthrṓpinos (G442), as in 2Pe_2:16, "with a human voice" (a.t.). "A man's number" (a.t. [Rev_13:18]) means an ordinary number. "Human measure" (a.t. [Rev_21:17]) means common measure (cf. Sept.: Isa_8:1). (2) Metaphorically used of the internal man, meaning the mind, soul, the rational man (Rom_7:22; Eph_3:16). In 1Pe_3:4, "the hidden man of the heart," to which is opposed the outward or external visible man (2Co_4:16). The old man (ho palaiós [G3820]) means the old man or the former unrenewed disposition of heart, and the new man (kainós, 2537) means the disposition or attitude which is created and cherished by the new nature that Jesus Christ gives to the believer (Rom_6:6; Eph_2:15; Eph_4:22, Eph_4:24; Col_3:9).
(C) Spoken with reference to the character and condition of a person and applied in various senses according to the context: (1) A man, a male person of maturity and ripe age (Mat_8:9; Mat_11:8; Mat_25:24; Mar_3:3; Luk_19:21; Joh_1:6; Joh_3:1; Act_4:13). The expression "man of God" (ánthrōpos toú Theoú) means a minister or messenger of God, one devoted to His service (1Ti_6:11; 2Ti_3:17; 2Pe_1:21; Sept.: 1Ki_13:1; 2Ki_1:9-13; 2Ki_4:7, 2Ki_4:9, 2Ki_4:21). In 2Th_2:3, the "man of sin" means that impious man referring to the Antichrist (so named in 1Jn_2:18, 1Jn_2:22; 1Jn_4:3; 2Jn_1:7). (2) A husband as contrasted to a wife (Mat_19:3, Mat_19:10; 1Co_7:1; Sept.: Deu_22:30). (3) A son as contrasted to a father (Mat_10:35), or a male child generally (Joh_7:23; Joh_16:21). (4) A master as contrasted to servants (Mat_10:36). (5) A servant (Luk_12:36). In Rev_18:13, "souls of men" means male and female slaves. See also Sept.: Eze_27:13. (6) In Joh_4:28, "the men" in the city means citizens, inhabitants.

Mat 10:36 και εχθροι του ανθρωπου οι οικιακοι αυτου
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2Co 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

H. Living in the Light of Christ's Judgment Seat (5:1-10)
The verses to follow are closely linked with what has gone before. Paul has been speaking of his present sufferings and distresses, and the future glory which lay before him. This brings him face to face with the subject of death. In this section we have one of the greatest unfoldings of death in all the word of God, and the Christian's relationship to it.
5:1 In verse 1, the apostle speaks of our present mortal body as our earthly house, this tent. A tent is not a permanent dwelling, but a portable one for pilgrims and travelers.
Death is spoken of as the dissolving of this tent. The tent is taken down at the time of death. The body goes into the grave, whereas the spirit and soul of the believer go to be with the Lord.
Paul opens the chapter with the assurance that if his earthly house should be destroyed (as a result of the sufferings mentioned in the preceding chapter) he knows he has a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Notice the distinction between tent and building. The temporary tent is taken down, but a new, permanent house awaits the believer in the land beyond the skies. This is a building from God, in the sense that God is the One who gives it to us.
Furthermore, it is a house not made with hands. Why should Paul say this? Our present bodies are not made with hands; so why should he emphasize that our future, glorified bodies will not be made with hands? The answer is that the expression not made with hands means “not of this creation.” This is made clear in Heb_9:11, where we read, “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.” What Paul is saying in 2Co_5:1 is that whereas our present bodies are suited to life on this earth, our future, glorified bodies will not be of this creation. They will be especially designed for life in heaven.
The believer's future body is also described as eternal in the heavens. It is a body that will no longer be subject to disease, decay, and death, but one that will endure forever in our heavenly home.
It might sound from this verse as if a believer receives this building from God the moment he dies, but that is not the case. He does not get his glorified body until Christ comes back for His church (1Th_4:13-18). What happens to the believer is this. At the time of death, his spirit and soul go to be with Christ where he is consciously enjoying the glories of heaven. His body is placed in the grave. At the time of the Lord's return, the dust will be raised from the grave, God will fashion it into a new, glorified body, and it will then be reunited with the spirit and the soul. Between death and Christ's coming for His saints, the believer might be said to be in a disembodied condition. However, this does not mean that he is not fully conscious of all the joy and bliss of heaven. He is!
Before leaving verse 1 we should mention that there are three principal interpretations of the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens:
1. Heaven itself.
2. An intermediate body between death and resurrection.
3. The glorified body.
The house can scarcely be heaven itself, because it is said to be eternal in the heavens and “from heaven” (5:2). As far as an intermediate body is concerned, the Scriptures never mention such a body. Moreover, the house not made with hands is described as eternal in the heavens, which would not be true of an intermediate body. The third view—that the house is the resurrection body of glory—seems to be the correct one.
5:2 In this present mortal body, we are often forced to groan because of the way it limits us and impedes us in our spiritual lives. What we greatly desire is to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven.
In this verse, the apostle seems to change his figure from a tent to clothing. A suggested explanation of this is that Paul was a tentmaker and realized that similar material used for tents was also used for clothing. At any rate, the meaning is clear that he longed to receive his glorified body.
5:3 What does naked mean in this verse? Does it mean that the person is unsaved and therefore without any covering of righteousness before God? Does it mean that the person, though saved, will be without reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ? Or does it mean that the saved person does not have a body between the time of death and resurrection, and is naked in the sense that he is a disembodied spirit?
This writer understands it to mean disembodied or unclothed. Paul is saying that his earnest desire is not for death, and for the disembodied state that goes with it, but rather for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when all those who have died will receive their glorified bodies.
5:4 That our interpretation of verse 3 is valid seems to be borne out by verse 4. The apostle says that we who are in this present earthly tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. In other words, he did not look forward to the state between death and the Rapture as the ideal hope of the believer, but to what will take place at the Rapture when believers will receive a body that will no longer be subject to death.
5:5 It is God ... who has prepared us for this very purpose, namely, the redemption of the body. This will be the climax of His glorious purposes for us. At the present time we are redeemed as to our spirit and soul, but then redemption will include the body as well. Just think of it—God made us with this goal in view—the glorified state—a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens!
And how can we be sure that we will have a glorified body? The answer is that God ... has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. As explained previously, the fact that every believer possesses the indwelling Spirit of God is a pledge that all God's promises to the believer will be fulfilled. He is a token of what is to come. The Spirit of God is Himself a guarantee that what God has already given to us in part will one day be ours in full.
5:6 It was the deep assurance of these precious realities that enabled Paul to be always of good courage. He knew that as long as he was at home in the body, he was absent from the Lord. This was certainly not the ideal state for Paul, but he was willing that it should be so if he could serve Christ down here and be a help to the people of God.
5:7 The fact that we walk by faith, not by sight is abundant proof that we are absent from the Lord. We have never gazed upon the Lord with our physical eyes. Only through faith have we ever seen Him. As long as we are at home in the body, we have a life that is less close and intimate than the life of actual sight.
5:8 Verse 8 resumes the thought of verse 6 and completes it. Paul is of good courage in view of the blessed hope that lies before him, and he can say that he is well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. He has what Bernard calls a case of “heavenly homesickness.”
This verse might seem to contradict what the apostle has just been saying. In the preceding verses he has been longing for the glorified body. But here he says that he is willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, that is, willing rather to be in the disembodied state that exists between death and the Rapture.
But there is no contradiction. There are three possibilities for the Christian, and it is simply a matter of which is most to be preferred. There is the present life on earth in this mortal body. There is the state between death and the coming of Christ, a disembodied state, but one in which the spirit and soul are consciously enjoying Christ's presence. Finally, there is the consummation of our salvation when we receive our glorified bodies at the coming again of the Lord Jesus. Paul is simply teaching in this passage that the first state is good, the second is better, and the third is best of all.
5:9 The believer should make it his aim to be well pleasing to the Lord. While his salvation is not dependent on works, his reward in a coming day will be directly proportionate to his faithfulness to the Lord. A believer should always remember that faith is linked with salvation, and works are linked with reward. He is saved by grace through faith, not of works; but once he is saved, he should be ambitious to perform good works, and for so doing he will receive rewards.
Notice that Paul wanted to be well pleasing to Him, whether present or absent. This means that his service on earth was designed to bring pleasure to the heart of his Lord, whether Paul was still here on earth or whether he was standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
5:10 One motive for being well pleasing to Christ is that we must all appear before His judgment seat. Actually it is not just a matter of appearing there, but of being made manifest. The NEB correctly says, “We must all have our lives laid open before the tribunal of Christ.” It is one thing to appear in a doctor's office and quite another thing to be X-rayed by him there. The judgment seat of Christ will reveal our lives of service for Christ exactly as they have been. Not only the amount of our service, but also its quality, and even the very motives that prompted it will be brought into review.
Although sins after conversion will have an effect on our service, a believer's sins, as such, will not be brought into review for judgment at this solemn time. That judgment took place over 1900 years ago, when the Lord Jesus bore our sins in His body on the tree. He fully paid the debt that our sins deserved, and God will never bring those sins into judgment again (Joh_5:24). The judgment seat of Christ has to do with our service for the Lord. It will not be a matter of whether we are saved or not; that is already an assured fact. But it is a matter of reward and loss at that time.


Shalom
Johann

 

[Butch5]

The scriptures that I have posted is very, very clear to me, why is it you don't understand?

Maybe this would help.

What Is Paradise and Is it Different Than Heaven?
Mike Leake
Borrowed Light
2021
17 Sep
What Is Paradise and Is it Different Than Heaven?
There are two thieves hanging on a cross next to Jesus. One is mocking, the other exhibits a bit of faith and asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes into His kingdom. “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.’” Why doesn’t he say, “today you will be with me in heaven”? What is paradise and is it heaven? Is it a sort of holding tank where believers go before the resurrection? Or was paradise the place where Old Testament saints went when they died but after the resurrection when people die, they go to heaven? Is paradise a different place than heaven?

Yes. And no.

I will answer this question by explaining a little about the word paradise and where it appears in the Bible. But it’s also important to understand a little about heaven and the new heavens. Hopefully, by the end, you’ll understand why the answer is both yes and no.

Where Does the Bible Talk about Paradise?
Paradise is a word that is likely borrowed from the Persians. It means “garden.” The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only in three places where it refers to a park (Ecc. 2:5), a forest (Neh. 2:8), and an orchard (Song of Solomon 4:13). But the word seems to have taken on a new flavor after the Babylonian Exile. In the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek word paradeisos is used for the Garden of Eden. “Paradise” becomes God’s Garden. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary explains it well:

The religious meaning—God’s garden or Paradise—entered Jewish thought and vocabulary after the Babylonian Exile, was combined with the hope of a blessed eschaton, and appears in the Apocrypha (2 Esdr 4:7; 6:2; 7:36, 123; 8:52) and frequently in other early Jewish writings. (Paradise).

Thus, by the time of the New Testament paradise became synonymous with resting in God’s presence. The word paradeisos only appears three times in the New Testament. It is the locale where Jesus tells the thief on the cross he will be with him in Luke 23:43. Paul speaks of being caught up into the “third heaven” and then almost synonymously refers to it as “paradise”. And in Revelation 2:7, Jesus tells the church in Ephesus that they will be granted to “eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God”. Revelation 2 clearly has overtones of the Garden of Eden.


It is surprising that the word paradise only appears six times in the Scriptures. And yet the concept, of God’s presence with humanity, is all throughout.

What Is Paradise and Is It Heaven?
If you ask your friend about his trip to the Bahama’s he might respond that it was a paradise. There is a town in California with the name Paradise and another locale south of Vegas referred to as Paradise. If you’re in Texas you could visit a tobacco store called Smokers Paradise. There are television shows with the name paradise in them, and it’s a word which luxury hotels will use to sell their products. Paradise has become a common word within our vocabulary. But what does it mean?

According to Merriam-Webster’s paradise is “a very beautiful, pleasant, or peaceful place that seems to be perfect.” Or it is a “place that is perfect for a particular activity or for a person who enjoys that activity.” Finally, it is a “state of complete happiness.” Is this what the Bible means when it refers to paradise?

As stated earlier, the word originally referred to a garden. Specifically, it referred to the lush and walled gardens of the Persian kings. The Garden of Eden, then, is a perfect representation of a paradise. Merriam-Webster isn’t that far off when it refers to a beautiful, pleasant and peaceful place. But the difference between the two is that in the Scriptures what makes the Garden of Eden so wonderful is not the trees or the rivers or the luscious fruits, it is the presence of Almighty God. When the first couple is booted out of the Garden (note the concept of being walled away) the great tragedy is not simply that they now have thorns instead of beautiful gardens, it is that they are removed from the good presence of God. The story of the Bible is about humanity returning to God’s presence through the work of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Milton wasn’t far off—the Bible is about Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained.

If we use the simplest of definitions for both paradise and heaven, we see that they are practically synonymous. They both refer to a place of happiness that is filled with the good presence of God. In 2 Corinthians 12:4 Paul seems to refer to the “third heaven” and “paradise” as the same locale. When Jesus tells the thief that he will be with him in paradise, it’s certainly not wrong to connect this with Paul’s statement that to “depart” is to be in the presence of Jesus.

So, to answer what is paradise and is it heaven, we must ask, are paradise and heaven the same thing? I believe the answer to that question depends on what you mean by heaven. When a believer in Christ dies today, do they go to heaven? Yes. When a believer in Christ dies today, do they go to paradise? Yes. In that sense the two are synonymous. But heaven today will not be the same as heaven tomorrow.

How Do We Distinguish the Difference between Paradise and Heaven?
There are some who teach that Sheol/Hades (the underworld) was actually made up of two parts. The good side was called paradise or Abraham’s bosom. Most get this understanding from the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (as well as Old Testament uses of the word Sheol).

Many who hold to this view of the afterlife will also hold to something called the Harrowing of Hades (or Hell). This view holds that when Jesus died his soul went to Paradise (in Sheol, located under the earth) but upon his resurrection, he took the souls from paradise up into heaven with him. This place would not be in the direct presence of God the Father—it would instead be a type of holding place until the final resurrection.

Though such a view is plausible, I find it a bit shaky to develop an entire theology of the afterlife upon a parable. What is clear from Scripture is that when a believer dies, they are in the presence of Christ. That is certainly enough for me. And I think these words of John Piper are particularly convicting and exposing of our true desire within the afterlife:

The critical question for our generation—and for every generation—is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?

What Piper is saying is that the goal of heaven/paradise is the presence of Christ. That is what the story of the Bible is really about. There is no difference between heaven and paradise when we are defining them by the good presence of God. But perhaps there is a bit of a difference when we are talking location and stage within redemptive history. I think you could say with some level of certainty that the heaven/paradise that exists now is not the same that will exist when Revelation 21-22 becomes reality.

I believe you could speak of “going up” to heaven/paradise at present. But I do not believe you can speak that way of the new heavens and the new earth. Revelation 21-22 is clear that God comes down to earth and transforming everything. Christopher J.H. Wright says it well:

In other words, the Bible’s last great vision is not of us going ‘up’ there (to heaven), but of God coming ‘down’ here (to earth). That’s why I said, I look forward to going to heaven if I die before Christ returns. But I’m not going to stay there a moment longer than it takes to receive my resurrection body and join the rest of the redeemed humanity on earth once Christ does return. That’s where Revelation 21-22 clearly locates the bride of Christ and the city of God. Not ‘up’ there but ‘down’ here! (Wright, 195)

Conclusion
What is paradise and is it heaven? Well, it depends on your definition. Are you talking location? If so, are you referring to the new heaven/new earth or heaven as it presently exists? If you mean as it presently exists, I think you can make a quality argument from the Scriptures that the two are synonymous. But the paradise/heaven that currently exists is not the same as what awaits us for all eternity when Christ returns. We look for the resurrection—our ultimate and blessed hope. Until then, when we die we know that we are in the presence of Christ. Whether you call this paradise or heaven doesn’t matter much. What matters is whether or not you are with Jesus. If you’re with Jesus then it is bliss. If you’re not with Jesus then it’s everything but bliss. That is the most important question to ask of paradise/heaven and hell. Are you with Jesus?

Sources:
Charlesworth, J. H. (1992). Paradise. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5, p. 154). New York: Doubleday.

I don't claim to know it all friend, I seek after truth, not premises.

Shalom
Johann

It's not that I don't understand it. I used to believe it. It's that I reject it. My study of Scripture has shown me that that is not what the Bible teaches. Earlier I spoke of preconceptions. You and I bring different preconceptions to the table. You come to the Bible believing that man can live apart from the body. I come to the Bible believing man cannot live apart from the body. These differing preconceptions cause us to interpret the Bible differently. The question is, which set of preconceptions is correct? Since I used to hold the ones you do, and now hold the opposite preconceptions I can see both sides of the issue. I can see all of the places where and others (holding the same presuppositions) will struggle. It's why I can ask the hard questions, the questions that tie you guys in knots. I know because they are the same questions I had ask myself. For me, the most important thing is getting the Scriptures right. Therefore, I don't accept contradictions and illogical doctrines. If the Bible states something clearly, I'll believe it, even if it means changing my doctrines. I did that. After attending different churches and being taught opposing doctrines I quickly learned that churches aren't teaching the Bible. If one wants to learn what the Bible teaches, they're going to have to be willing to go against the flow.

Regarding Paradise isn't heaven. It's literally the garden of Eden. When God restores the creation, so that man can rule (Jesus) as He originally planned, the garden of Eden will also be restored. The tree of life will literally be restored.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Rev. 2:7 KJV)

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: (Rev. 22:1-3 KJV)

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Rev. 22:14 KJV)

Paradise is on earth in the restored creation.

 

[Brother Paul]

This one is a little more to get into, but if we look at the context, the passage is about the Resurrection. just previous to the verse you're referencing Paul is speaking about mortality being swallowed up of life. That's the Ressurection. He's not talking about an intermediate state.

I agree that elohim is used of men. My point in bringing it up was to show that the words spirit or soul are not used anywhere in the passage. The word choice doesn't demand a demon, but I think the fact that Saul was seeking a familiar spirit does demand a demon.

Honestly I have never heard anyone with your interpretation of the absent FROM THE BODY, not even the early church fathers that themselves were taught by the Apostles or those they appointed. So if this is speaking of the resurrection then that would mean the spirit man is in the grave for 1000s of years until then, even thou)gh the BODY has entirely rotted away (and what of those lost at sea or blown to bits). Sorry, but that just does not make sense.

 

[Johann]

You come to the Bible believing that man can live apart from the body. I come to the Bible believing man cannot live apart from the body. These differing preconceptions cause us to interpret the Bible differently. The question is, which set of preconceptions is correct? Since I used to hold the ones you do, and now hold the opposite preconceptions I can see both sides of the issue. I can see all of the places where and others (holding the same presuppositions) will struggle. It's why I can ask the hard questions, the questions that tie you guys in knots. I know because they are the same questions I had ask myself. For me, the most important thing is getting the Scriptures right. Therefore, I don't accept contradictions and illogical doctrines.

I see, where do I advocate man can live WITHOUT/APART from the soma/body?
As to asking hard questions, I do that to myself, no need to be tied in knots brother.
As for contradictions and illogical doctrines, I would suggest we are all guilty of this, not purposefully, not handling the scriptures deceitfully.
If we could get all the doctrines right, why the need for over 43,000 heteros denominations?
Just a thought.
Shalom
Johann.

 

[Butch5]

Are members not bodies? Souls?

Gen_36:6 Now Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all the members of his household, and his livestock and all his cattle and all his possessions which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and he went to a land away from his brother Jacob.

Num_18:31 You may eat it anywhere, you and [the members of] your households, for it is your compensation in return for your service in the Tent of Meeting (tabernacle).

Job_17:7 "My eye has grown dim (unexpressive) because of grief, And all my [body's] members are [wasted away] like a shadow.

Mic_7:6 For the son dishonors the father and treats him contemptuously, The daughter rises up [in hostility] against her mother, The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- A man's enemies are the men (members) of his own household. [Mat_10:21, Mat_10:35-36; Mar_13:12-13]

Mat_10:25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the bond-servant like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul (Satan), how much more [will they speak evil of] the members of his household. [2Ki_1:2]

Mat_10:36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS [own] HOUSEHOLD [when one believes and another does not]. [Mic_7:6]

Act_4:8 Then Peter, filled with [the power of] the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people [members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Court],

Act_4:21 When the rulers and Council members had threatened them further, they let them go, finding no way to punish them because [of their fear] of the people, for they were all praising and glorifying and honoring God for what had happened;

Rom_6:13 Do not go on offering members of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness. But offer yourselves to God [in a decisive act] as those alive [raised] from the dead [to a new life], and your members [all of your abilities--sanctified, set apart] as instruments of righteousness [yielded] to God.
ανθρωπου
G444
N-GSM
ἄνθρωπος
from
ánthrōpos; gen. anthrṓpou, masc., fem. noun. Man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals. In the NT, used to make the distinction between sinful man, whose conduct, way, or nature is opposed to God, and anḗr (G435), male or husband.
(I) A man or woman, an individual of the human race, a person.
(A) Generally and universally (Mat_4:19; Mat_12:12; Mar_7:21; Luk_2:52; Luk_5:10; Joh_1:4; 1Co_4:9). In a direct address, "O man" (ṓ ánthrōpe) implies an inferior or common person (Luk_5:20; Luk_12:14; Luk_22:58, Luk_22:60; Rom_2:1, Rom_2:3; Rom_9:20; Jas_2:20; Sept.: Isa_2:9; Isa_5:15). In Rev_9:10, Rev_9:15, Rev_9:18, Rev_9:20, hoi ánthrōpoi, men, i.e., the living, are those with whom we live, people (Mat_5:13, Mat_5:16, Mat_5:19; Mat_6:1; Mat_8:27; Mat_13:25; Mar_8:24, Mar_8:27), or men of this world or generation, wicked men (Mat_10:17; Mat_17:22; Luk_6:22, Luk_6:26). In Mat_6:5, Mat_6:14-16; Mat_7:12; Mat_19:12; Mat_23:4; Luk_6:31; Luk_11:46, other men, others. See also Sept.: Jdg_16:7; Jdg_18:28.
(B) Spoken in reference to his human nature, a man, i.e., a human being, a mortal. (1) As in Php_2:7; 1Ti_2:5; Jas_5:17; Rev_4:7; Rev_9:7. Here is included the idea of human infirmity and imperfection, especially when spoken in contrast to God and divine things (1Co_1:25; 1Co_3:21). In Gal_1:11-12, katá (G2596), according, ánthrōpon, and pará (G3844), from, anthrṓpou, of human origin. To speak (légō [G3004], or lalṓ or laléō [G2980]), katá ánthrōpon, means to speak after the manner of men, i.e., in accordance with human views, and so forth, to illustrate by human example or institutions, to use a popular manner of speaking (Rom_3:5; 1Co_9:8; Gal_3:15). In 1Co_15:32, "if according to man's will" (a.t.), i.e., not according to God (see 2Co_7:9, 2Co_7:11; 2Co_11:17). The gen. anthrṓpou stands also instead of the adj. anthrṓpinos (G442), as in 2Pe_2:16, "with a human voice" (a.t.). "A man's number" (a.t. [Rev_13:18]) means an ordinary number. "Human measure" (a.t. [Rev_21:17]) means common measure (cf. Sept.: Isa_8:1). (2) Metaphorically used of the internal man, meaning the mind, soul, the rational man (Rom_7:22; Eph_3:16). In 1Pe_3:4, "the hidden man of the heart," to which is opposed the outward or external visible man (2Co_4:16). The old man (ho palaiós [G3820]) means the old man or the former unrenewed disposition of heart, and the new man (kainós, 2537) means the disposition or attitude which is created and cherished by the new nature that Jesus Christ gives to the believer (Rom_6:6; Eph_2:15; Eph_4:22, Eph_4:24; Col_3:9).
(C) Spoken with reference to the character and condition of a person and applied in various senses according to the context: (1) A man, a male person of maturity and ripe age (Mat_8:9; Mat_11:8; Mat_25:24; Mar_3:3; Luk_19:21; Joh_1:6; Joh_3:1; Act_4:13). The expression "man of God" (ánthrōpos toú Theoú) means a minister or messenger of God, one devoted to His service (1Ti_6:11; 2Ti_3:17; 2Pe_1:21; Sept.: 1Ki_13:1; 2Ki_1:9-13; 2Ki_4:7, 2Ki_4:9, 2Ki_4:21). In 2Th_2:3, the "man of sin" means that impious man referring to the Antichrist (so named in 1Jn_2:18, 1Jn_2:22; 1Jn_4:3; 2Jn_1:7). (2) A husband as contrasted to a wife (Mat_19:3, Mat_19:10; 1Co_7:1; Sept.: Deu_22:30). (3) A son as contrasted to a father (Mat_10:35), or a male child generally (Joh_7:23; Joh_16:21). (4) A master as contrasted to servants (Mat_10:36). (5) A servant (Luk_12:36). In Rev_18:13, "souls of men" means male and female slaves. See also Sept.: Eze_27:13. (6) In Joh_4:28, "the men" in the city means citizens, inhabitants.

Mat 10:36 και εχθροι του ανθρωπου οι οικιακοι αυτου
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2Co 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

H. Living in the Light of Christ's Judgment Seat (5:1-10)
The verses to follow are closely linked with what has gone before. Paul has been speaking of his present sufferings and distresses, and the future glory which lay before him. This brings him face to face with the subject of death. In this section we have one of the greatest unfoldings of death in all the word of God, and the Christian's relationship to it.
5:1 In verse 1, the apostle speaks of our present mortal body as our earthly house, this tent. A tent is not a permanent dwelling, but a portable one for pilgrims and travelers.
Death is spoken of as the dissolving of this tent. The tent is taken down at the time of death. The body goes into the grave, whereas the spirit and soul of the believer go to be with the Lord.
Paul opens the chapter with the assurance that if his earthly house should be destroyed (as a result of the sufferings mentioned in the preceding chapter) he knows he has a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Notice the distinction between tent and building. The temporary tent is taken down, but a new, permanent house awaits the believer in the land beyond the skies. This is a building from God, in the sense that God is the One who gives it to us.
Furthermore, it is a house not made with hands. Why should Paul say this? Our present bodies are not made with hands; so why should he emphasize that our future, glorified bodies will not be made with hands? The answer is that the expression not made with hands means “not of this creation.” This is made clear in Heb_9:11, where we read, “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.” What Paul is saying in 2Co_5:1 is that whereas our present bodies are suited to life on this earth, our future, glorified bodies will not be of this creation. They will be especially designed for life in heaven.
The believer's future body is also described as eternal in the heavens. It is a body that will no longer be subject to disease, decay, and death, but one that will endure forever in our heavenly home.
It might sound from this verse as if a believer receives this building from God the moment he dies, but that is not the case. He does not get his glorified body until Christ comes back for His church (1Th_4:13-18). What happens to the believer is this. At the time of death, his spirit and soul go to be with Christ where he is consciously enjoying the glories of heaven. His body is placed in the grave. At the time of the Lord's return, the dust will be raised from the grave, God will fashion it into a new, glorified body, and it will then be reunited with the spirit and the soul. Between death and Christ's coming for His saints, the believer might be said to be in a disembodied condition. However, this does not mean that he is not fully conscious of all the joy and bliss of heaven. He is!
Before leaving verse 1 we should mention that there are three principal interpretations of the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens:
1. Heaven itself.
2. An intermediate body between death and resurrection.
3. The glorified body.
The house can scarcely be heaven itself, because it is said to be eternal in the heavens and “from heaven” (5:2). As far as an intermediate body is concerned, the Scriptures never mention such a body. Moreover, the house not made with hands is described as eternal in the heavens, which would not be true of an intermediate body. The third view—that the house is the resurrection body of glory—seems to be the correct one.
5:2 In this present mortal body, we are often forced to groan because of the way it limits us and impedes us in our spiritual lives. What we greatly desire is to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven.
In this verse, the apostle seems to change his figure from a tent to clothing. A suggested explanation of this is that Paul was a tentmaker and realized that similar material used for tents was also used for clothing. At any rate, the meaning is clear that he longed to receive his glorified body.
5:3 What does naked mean in this verse? Does it mean that the person is unsaved and therefore without any covering of righteousness before God? Does it mean that the person, though saved, will be without reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ? Or does it mean that the saved person does not have a body between the time of death and resurrection, and is naked in the sense that he is a disembodied spirit?
This writer understands it to mean disembodied or unclothed. Paul is saying that his earnest desire is not for death, and for the disembodied state that goes with it, but rather for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when all those who have died will receive their glorified bodies.
5:4 That our interpretation of verse 3 is valid seems to be borne out by verse 4. The apostle says that we who are in this present earthly tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. In other words, he did not look forward to the state between death and the Rapture as the ideal hope of the believer, but to what will take place at the Rapture when believers will receive a body that will no longer be subject to death.
5:5 It is God ... who has prepared us for this very purpose, namely, the redemption of the body. This will be the climax of His glorious purposes for us. At the present time we are redeemed as to our spirit and soul, but then redemption will include the body as well. Just think of it—God made us with this goal in view—the glorified state—a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens!
And how can we be sure that we will have a glorified body? The answer is that God ... has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. As explained previously, the fact that every believer possesses the indwelling Spirit of God is a pledge that all God's promises to the believer will be fulfilled. He is a token of what is to come. The Spirit of God is Himself a guarantee that what God has already given to us in part will one day be ours in full.
5:6 It was the deep assurance of these precious realities that enabled Paul to be always of good courage. He knew that as long as he was at home in the body, he was absent from the Lord. This was certainly not the ideal state for Paul, but he was willing that it should be so if he could serve Christ down here and be a help to the people of God.
5:7 The fact that we walk by faith, not by sight is abundant proof that we are absent from the Lord. We have never gazed upon the Lord with our physical eyes. Only through faith have we ever seen Him. As long as we are at home in the body, we have a life that is less close and intimate than the life of actual sight.
5:8 Verse 8 resumes the thought of verse 6 and completes it. Paul is of good courage in view of the blessed hope that lies before him, and he can say that he is well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. He has what Bernard calls a case of “heavenly homesickness.”
This verse might seem to contradict what the apostle has just been saying. In the preceding verses he has been longing for the glorified body. But here he says that he is willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, that is, willing rather to be in the disembodied state that exists between death and the Rapture.
But there is no contradiction. There are three possibilities for the Christian, and it is simply a matter of which is most to be preferred. There is the present life on earth in this mortal body. There is the state between death and the coming of Christ, a disembodied state, but one in which the spirit and soul are consciously enjoying Christ's presence. Finally, there is the consummation of our salvation when we receive our glorified bodies at the coming again of the Lord Jesus. Paul is simply teaching in this passage that the first state is good, the second is better, and the third is best of all.
5:9 The believer should make it his aim to be well pleasing to the Lord. While his salvation is not dependent on works, his reward in a coming day will be directly proportionate to his faithfulness to the Lord. A believer should always remember that faith is linked with salvation, and works are linked with reward. He is saved by grace through faith, not of works; but once he is saved, he should be ambitious to perform good works, and for so doing he will receive rewards.
Notice that Paul wanted to be well pleasing to Him, whether present or absent. This means that his service on earth was designed to bring pleasure to the heart of his Lord, whether Paul was still here on earth or whether he was standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
5:10 One motive for being well pleasing to Christ is that we must all appear before His judgment seat. Actually it is not just a matter of appearing there, but of being made manifest. The NEB correctly says, “We must all have our lives laid open before the tribunal of Christ.” It is one thing to appear in a doctor's office and quite another thing to be X-rayed by him there. The judgment seat of Christ will reveal our lives of service for Christ exactly as they have been. Not only the amount of our service, but also its quality, and even the very motives that prompted it will be brought into review.
Although sins after conversion will have an effect on our service, a believer's sins, as such, will not be brought into review for judgment at this solemn time. That judgment took place over 1900 years ago, when the Lord Jesus bore our sins in His body on the tree. He fully paid the debt that our sins deserved, and God will never bring those sins into judgment again (Joh_5:24). The judgment seat of Christ has to do with our service for the Lord. It will not be a matter of whether we are saved or not; that is already an assured fact. But it is a matter of reward and loss at that time.


Shalom
Johann

I'm not sure what you're asking, are members not bodies, souls.

Again, you start with a false premise. This post assumes that man can live apart from the body. Please show me where Scripture teaches any such thing. Once one realizes that man cannot live apart from the body, it becomes abundantly clear that what you've posted above is simply wrong. It may seem to make sense to you, but that's because of your preconceptions. Your premise is that man can live apart from the body. If you can establish that from Scripture and not opinion or inference, then you could have a valid argument. If you can't then the argument is invalid.

My preconception is that man cannot live apart from the body and that is based on Scripture. Gen 2:7 says that God created man from the dust of the earth. From that I conclude that man is a physical being consisting of the elements of the earth. Then Moses says that God breathed into the man, the breath or spirit of life. From this I conclude that something was breathed out of God and into the man. This something is not man but is God. This is the breath or spirit. Then Moses said the man became a living soul. From this I conclude that the body and the breath or spirit of God together, form a soul. In this passage we have all three things associated with man, the body, the spirit and the soul. Body (man)+ spirit (God) = soul. We're told that when man dies, the spirit or breath returns to God and the man, the body, returns to dust. If the body and the spirit or breath of God together form a soul, then removing one of those two components would mean the soul no longer exists. It didn't exist before the two came together, thus it doesn't exist when they are separated.

That is my logical argument, based on Scripture, to support the preconceptions I bring to the table. Can you do the same for your preconception?

 

[Butch5]

Honestly I have never heard anyone with your interpretation of the absent FROM THE BODY, not even the early church fathers that themselves were taught by the Apostles or those they appointed. So if this is speaking of the resurrection then that would mean the spirit man is in the grave for 1000s of years until then, even thou)gh the BODY has entirely rotted away (and what of those lost at sea or blown to bits). Sorry, but that just does not make sense.

One thing to keep in mind is that the EFC's were Greeks. That man lived on after death was the prevalent belief system. Remember, Paul had to get onto the Corinthians some of which were denying the Resurrection. If they were going off base in the days of the apostles how much more so after the apostles were no longer around to correct the errors. Let me ask you to do something. Just suppose for the sake of argument that I'm correct that man cannot live apart from the body. How would you understand those passages in 2 Cor. 5?

Regarding the spirit, you see it as man, I don't. I see it as God (Gen2:7). If it is God, then man isn't a spirit that would be in the grave for thousands of years. Take a look at a lexicon and see what those words, absent and present actually mean. Paul likes to talk in figurative language. Peter, who got his understanding of the Scripture straight from Jesus, said that some things Paul writes are hard to understand. So, if a man who was taught directly by Jesus, had difficulty understanding what Paul wrote, how much more us, who are reading a translation of a closed language from a culture 2000 years ago?

As I said to Johann, people start with the premise that man can live apart from the body. But no one tries to establish that premise from scripture. If that premise can't be established from Scripture, then what is it based on?

 

[Butch5]

I see, where do I advocate man can live WITHOUT/APART from the soma/body?
As to asking hard questions, I do that to myself, no need to be tied in knots brother.
As for contradictions and illogical doctrines, I would suggest we are all guilty of this, not purposefully, not handling the scriptures deceitfully.
If we could get all the doctrines right, why the need for over 43,000 heteros denominations?
Just a thought.
Shalom
Johann.

If the body returns to dust what lives on?

When I was referring to being tied in knots, I meant for example, in the other thread I asked, how can something that ends be eternal? No one responded to that question.

I'm not suggesting anyone is handling the Scriptures deceitfully. I don't believe that's it at all. The problem is the preconceptions. If people check to see if their preconceptions are actually supported by Scripture and not just assumed and brought to Scripture, they may end up with a different set of preconceptions.

That's the 64-thousand-dollar question. Why all of the denominations? Obviously, a massive number of Christians misunderstand the Bible. But I think a huge problem is that many are not willing to entertain the idea that they may be wrong. I've spoken with Christians, and they'll admit that they don't understand it all. They'll say that they probably have some of their doctrine wrong. The funny thing is, every time I point something out, it's never wrong. So, their actions don't align with their words. It seems, though they want to be humble and say they're probably wrong on some things, they don't really believe that, because anything you question they're never wrong, even when it's demonstrable from Scripture.

 

[KingJ]

Why?

It is just common sense really.

If it were a parable He would say ''lets say there is a person in hell called Joe Soap''.

 

[Butch5]

It is just common sense really.



If it were a parable He would say ''lets say there is a person in hell called Joe'.

Do you see what you're saying? In other words, it's a parable because Jesus didn't word it the way you think He should have. The only basis for your statement then is your opinion of how he should have said it. That's not a valid argument, its an opinion. Jesus told many parables that were not recorded for us. He could have used many names. That fact that only one is recorded doesn't mean it's not a parable.

 

[KingJ]

Do you see what you're saying? In other words, it's a parable because Jesus didn't word it the way you think He should have. The only basis for your statement then is your opinion of how he should have said it. That's not a valid argument, its an opinion. Jesus told many parables that were not recorded for us. He could have used many names. That fact that only one is recorded doesn't mean it's not a parable.

Not really my opinion. It is the wording.

The story is very specific. Specific name is given. Specifics to fire. Specific to drop of water. Specific conversation. Specifically mentions a chat with Abraham.

Far from parable. This should be English 101 / Greek 101 / Latin 101. Grammar and comprehension.