As Mr. Ehrman has mentioned on numerous occasions, something is always lost and something is always added in translation. One of the more interesting cases of something lost in translation concerns the Hebrew word kavod. Most of the time it is translated into English as glory, however in Biblical Hebrew it can take on different nuisances and can be used in sense of the radiant physical manifestation of a divine body: “and the glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:34), “And the glory of YHWH went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain” (Ezekiel 11:23), “O LORD, I love the house in which you dwell, and the place where your glory abides” (Psalm 26:8).
In many instances within his epistles, Paul used the word glory in the Hebrew sense of the word:
“All flesh is not the same flesh, but one the flesh of men, another the flesh of animals, another of fish, another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory (kavod) of the celestial is one, and that of the terrestrial is another. One is the glory (kavod) of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars” (1 Corinthians 15:39-41).
The word kavod is important when trying to understand Paul’s theology. In its original form, Paul’s baptism was a death baptism – one in which the participant in some way shape or form forfeits a part or totality of his or her soul, which is then replaced with the Spirit of Christ (who in turn had been raised from the dead by the Spirit of God).
In his own words, Paul describes the dying and transformation process as:
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, just as Christ was raise from the dead by the glory (kavod) of the Father, we too may walk in the the newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).
“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).
Paul was not waxing poetic when he said “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). He meant every word exactly as it was written. Because Paul believed that God actively resided within his own body and the body of his followers, he was confident enough to claim that “you are the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27) for the Spirit of Christ sustained and gave life to all the bodies that the Spirit resides within.
Just as a rib of Adam was broken off to form Eve, and a piece of the Holy Spirit was broken off to resurrect Jesus, many pieces of Jesus – a being that Paul described as a “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45) – was broken off to revive the followers of Paul who had “died” in baptism.
The resultant newborn “seed” (1 Corinthians 15:38) state that followed baptism was still pending a full glorification (in the sense of a full attainment of an immortal undecayable celestial body capable to ascension to heaven). These as-of-yet immature celestials were told that they would eventually be “conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). One must emphasize that in Pauline doctrine, Jesus was the firstborn, he would not be the lastborn. Paul’s followers would have been filled with “earnest expectation” (Romans 8:19) for the “creation” (Romans 8:19) event that “awaits the revelation of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19), “eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23).
Paul promised his followers a mature celestial body at the resurrection, arguing that the human body “is sown in decay, it is raised in immortality. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory (kavod)…It is sown a natural body, it is raise a spiritual body…The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit. The first man [Adam] was from the earth made of dust, the second man [Jesus] from heaven… And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, so too shall we bear the image of the heavenly.” (1 Corinthians 15:42-49)
How would these new celestial beings rank in heaven? It appears that Paul prophesized that he (along with fellow believers) would reign in heaven: “Do you not know that we shall judge angels?”(1 Corinthians 6:3). “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16-17).
As Jim Tabor pointed out, “At the core of the mystery announcement that Paul reveals is God’s secret plan to bring to birth a new heavenly family of his own offspring. In other words, God is reproducing himself. These children of God will represent a new genus of Spirit-beings in the cosmos, exalted in glory, power, and position far above even the highest angels.”[1]
Not many religions promise their followers divinity. Not many religions promise their followers a chance to reign in heaven.
Many of the earliest Christians who were martyred in the Roman arenas may have been reluctant to renounce Paul’s Jesus because to do so would mean they would also have to renounce their own opportunity to rule in heaven.
[1] Tabor, James D. Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity. Simon & Schuster: New York. 2012. Pg. 112.
Very nicely presented, Parables. The idea of participation in Christ is enormously important to Paul’s theology that is often overlooked. Faith in Christ, literally the faith of Christ that is so much debated today as either an objective or subjective genitive was termed a mystical genitive by both Adolf Deissmann and Albert Schweitzer. I am amazed that this idea of the mystical genitive failed to gain more traction in Pauline studies in the past century.
Yes interesting. It also plays into the idea that Paul was influenced by Merkabah mysticism since those folks at least had the concept of humans being divinized. The hero of the Enochic literature is of course Enoch, a human, who was divinized into Metatron, an angel. This made the Rabbis queasy since it could and did occasionally slip over into heresy. The idea of “Two Gods in Heaven” or the “Lesser” Yahweh.
Pauline studies were dominated by the intellectual and spiritual descendants of the Reformers, correct? I suspect this sort of thing made them as queasy as it did the Rabbis.
I’d love to hear Ehrman’s views on this subject. It would be hard to frame as a question that would make sense in a brief post.
This revives a bit my moribund interest in Paul. It is strange how you can read Paul (or be trained to read Paul) and completely miss all the freaky stuff. But of course most people don’t read Paul. Paul is interpreted for them. Poor Paul, in the words of Auden about Yeats, after his death he became his admirers. Rather worth hoping for an afterlife just to be present at the interviews between Paul and his interpreters. “That’s not what I meant!”
Wait, there are six types of atheists? You mean there are others than just the ones who don’t believe in god? Or is it that there are six characteristic ways atheists respond to their lack of belief?
Let me guess-
1.The “thoughtful” “intellectual” atheist who never brings up the subject in polite company.
2.The firebrand atheistic evangelist spreading the word.
3.The ones who just don’t give a crap.
4.The sad sack who reads Nietzsche and writes really bad poetry.
5.The ones who are so angry that everyone else will be made to suffer.
6.The ones who are genuinely unable to believe but mourn that fact.
Except for that last one I am being a bit facetious. I have seen a bit of all this and probably felt a little of all of it myself. And there are more.
Was it something like ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Two researchers at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga found that atheists and agnostics run the range from vocally anti-religious activists to nonbelievers who nonetheless observe some religious traditions. . . . 1) Intellectual atheist/agnostic
This type of nonbeliever seeks information and intellectual stimulation about atheism.
They like debating and arguing, particularly on popular Internet sites.
(Ahem.)
They’re also well-versed in books and articles about religion and atheism, and prone to cite those works frequently.
2) Activist
These kinds of atheists and agnostics are not content with just disbelieving in God; they want to tell others why they reject religion and why society would be better off if we all did likewise.
They tend to be vocal about political causes like gay rights, feminism, the environment and the care of animals.
3) Seeker-agnostic
This group is made up of people who are unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience.
Silver and Coleman describe this group as people who regularly question their own beliefs and “do not hold a firm ideological position.”
That doesn’t mean this group is confused, the researchers say. They just embrace uncertainty.
4) Anti-theist
This group regularly speaks out against religion and religious beliefs, usually by positioning themselves as “diametrically opposed to religious ideology,” Silver and Coleman wrote.
“Anti-theists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental,” the researchers wrote. “The Anti-Theist has a clear and — in their view, superior — understanding of the limitations and danger of religions.”
Anti-theists are outspoken, devoted and — at times — confrontational about their disbelief. They believe that “obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another.”
5) Non-theist
The smallest group among the six are the non-theists, people who do not involve themselves with either religion or anti-religion.
In many cases, this comes across as apathy or disinterest.
“A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion,” Silver and Coleman wrote. “Religion plays no role or issue in one’s consciousness or worldview; nor does a Non- Theist have concern for the atheist or agnostic movement.”
They continue: “They simply do not believe, and in the same right, their absence of faith means the absence of anything religion in any form from their mental space.”
6) Ritual atheist
They don’t believe in God, they don’t associate with religion, and they tend to believe there is no afterlife, but the sixth type of nonbeliever still finds useful the teachings of some religious traditions.
“They see these as more or less philosophical teachings of how to live life and achieve happiness than a path to transcendental liberation,” Silver and Coleman wrote. “For example, these individuals may participate in specific rituals, ceremonies, musical opportunities, meditation, yoga classes, or holiday traditions.”
Paul “circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the churches; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” Phil 3:5-6 is an interesting case of breaking patterns and traditions. He stands before God like a free Greek with his head uncovered, as if he did not know the customs of his tribe. He uses only the LXX and some later translations similar to Theodotion. If Paul didn’t know how to use a shawl, maybe he didn’t know Hebrew either?
Robert: “I have (jokingly) accused Bart of being a Protestant atheist…”
When reading that, I googled “Protestant atheist” but could not find it among the six kinds of atheists. The following day I could not find those six kinds of atheists but could not take the time to thoroughly search.
Just now when looking, I found this: “What are the six types of nonbelievers? Those are Academic Atheists, Activist Atheist/Agnostics, Seeker Agnostics, Antitheists, Non-Theists, and the Ritual Atheists.
I’ve not looked into any of those. I’m a believer, myself. My faith is the most precious thing I have. I’m a blogger because I want to know what is known about Christianity.
Concerning Robert’s question as for what that celestial body looked like and what ruling in heaven entailed, unfortunately, all we have to go on is the brief snippets Paul recorded in his epistles which can be summarized as 1) the body would be immortal and would be made of the same heavenly material as God 2) they would be co-heirs of God.
“Behold, I tell you a mystery (in Greek, mystḗrion – something unknowable that can only be known through divine revelation): We will not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed – in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised undecayable, and we shall be changed. It is necessary for this perishable to put on imperishability, and this mortal to put on immortality.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-53) “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror (which in ancient times would be a very blurry reflection) the glory (kavod) of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory. (2 Corinthians 3:18).
Someone with greater expertise in the grammatical structure of ancient Greek would need to clarify what “from glory to glory” entails, maybe from a lesser glory to a greater glory, from a lesser divinity to a greater divinity, from a blurry, imitation of the glory of God to a much closer replica?
The body would be a spirit-body like Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:45) and not made of blood and flesh as Paul explicitly says “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). It would not be a terrestrial body, it would be a celestial one.
After a cursory skim, I’m not finding anything explicit within Paul’s letters that his followers could expect to directly fly into heaven (which in Hebrew just means the dome of the sky), but I’m assuming you’d have to be in heaven to be able to judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3) as that’s where they reside. Furthermore, if Jesus, as the firstborn has the freedom to come and go to heaven, then the later born “co-heirs” (Romans 8:17) should retain the same access privileges as “children of God” (Philippians 2:15).
Thank you for the reminder concerning 1 Thessalonians, I could have sworn I read something about them ascending to heaven. As for the 2nd Coming, it was probably the Jewish Christians who had apocalyptic expectations of a life on earth (in Jerusalem) and wrote about their expectations in the Book of Revelations. It appears Paul envisioned only a heavenly future for himself and his followers and didn’t really have much to say about what would happen to the rest of the people on earth as he didn’t concern himself with things in the “flesh” (Romans 8:8).
I do have to make a correction though, after a more careful review of 1 Corinthians, I’m forced to conclude that Paul believed Jesus was divine even prior to the crucifixion because Paul said “which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the glory of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 2:8).
The Docetists – who did not believe Jesus had a natural body – were probably Paul’s original followers. They would have interpreted Philippians 2 to mean Jesus had not come in the “flesh” but only came “in the likeness of men” and in “appearance” but not truly as flesh and blood.
“Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (maybe in the sense that Jesus did not consider godhood as something one needed to possessively cling onto?), but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8)
If Paul’s followers did not believe that Jesus, during his time on Earth, had a body made of flesh, but rather a celestial/spiritual body, then it makes sense that they would argue if Jesus felt pain or not (even for something as painful as a crucifixion). I mean, think about it, does Casper the ghost feel pain when he is punched?
I like riddles and a parable is a riddle.
As for why Jesus had to die on the cross, the Docetists would have believed whatever Paul told them and one of Paul’s primary arguments appears to be that Jesus willingly descended to Earth and allowed himself to be crucified so that “the righteousness of God apart from the Torah is revealed” (Romans 3:21) – one that required “a propitiation by His blood” (Romans 3:25). As a religion, Judaism is big on blood sacrifice as a way to atone for sin. (In Judaism, righteousness is defined as how well someone complied with the Torah: “concerning righteousness which is in the Torah” (Philippians 3:6)).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)