The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Ahanu]

What exception, what rule?

You said:
OK. Do remember that Origen is not doctrine ...

Origen, it can be argued, saw the 'resurrected body' as purely a spiritual body, a body shaped by its eidos or form, the pattern of the soul. Therefore there is some identification between the person who died, and their resurrected body, but Origen does not – perhaps – therefore believe a resurrected flesh.

The Church however, generally believed in a bodily resurrection being a resurrection of the flesh, even though it was clear that the flesh of a particular person would have decomposed and 'vanished' into the earth.

The general rule is that the writings of early Church Fathers can provide valuable insights into the development of Christian thought. However, you selectively dismiss his views on the nature of the resurrected body as non-doctrinal. This allows you to avoid engaging in Origen's interpretation, which challenges your view.

Origen believed bodily substance is "changed in proportion to the qualities or merits of those who wear it, into an ethereal condition . . . and will shine with light" (Princ. 2.3.7). The pneumatic body, he says, dwells in heaven (2.10.3), similar to what we find in 2 Corinthians 5.1. These bodies will dwell in the air after the resurrection (2 Thess 4.17) before ascending through the celestial spheres (2.11.6). The pneumatic body will become one pneuma (1 Cor 6.17) with God in the higher reaches of the universe (3.6.6). Origen is an early witness to seeing celestial immortality/astral immortality in Paul. It is not out of this world to believe Paul also had such thoughts.

I don't think either Paul or Origen spoke of 'astral immortality' in precisely those terms, so I'd have to ask how you define that, as 'astral' has a broad connotation today, not necessarily as the Jews or Paul and Origen and their contemporaries saw it?

Christianity in general speaks of the immortality of the soul, which both Paul and the Fathers saw in relation to Christ, so I'm not sure where you think I dismiss it, or make any special pleading?

See above.

 

[Thomas]

Good luck with that from a few letters.

Well we have plenty of background material to work with, as Fredriksen and others argue.

But the point surely is, that's a better way than ignoring sitz im leben?

We might not be accurate, we can but try, but that's better than the alternatives.

Where are you getting figuratively out of the body from?

That, in retrospect, is a poor example, and I should not have leapt to it.

I'll answer the direct question about figurative language below.

 

[Thomas]

The general rule is that the writings of early Church Fathers can provide valuable insights into the development of Christian thought.

Whether those insights are correct are a matter of debate, that's my point.

Origen believed bodily substance is "changed in proportion to the qualities or merits of those who wear it, into an ethereal condition . . . and will shine with light" (Princ. 2.3.7).

OK

The pneumatic body, he says, dwells in heaven (2.10.3), similar to what we find in 2 Corinthians 5.1.

OK.

These bodies will dwell in the air after the resurrection (2 Thess 4.17)

These bodies are those who are living, in the flesh, at the time of the Lord's return.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 "Then we which are alive (in the flesh) and remain (on the earth) shall be caught up (carried away) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

"with them in the clouds" is most likely a reference to "the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" (Daniel 7:13, as later in Matthew 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:25, 14:62).

"in the air" the Greek term distinguishes between the 'lower' air which we breathe and the higher realms, in this case the term used is for the lower.

So he's talking about the earth and the heavens and all therein 'shall ever be with the Lord'.

The pneumatic body will become one pneuma (1 Cor 6.17)

Not quite – Paul is talking about the physical body here, corruptible by sin. 1 Cor 6:17 makes no reference to the soma pneumatikos.

with God in the higher reaches of the universe (3.6.6). Origen is an early witness to seeing celestial immortality/astral immortality in Paul.

I suggest Origen's witness follows Paul in seeing an immortality of a higher order than a stellar or astral order – as Paul sees it, we shall sit in judgement upon angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).

It is not out of this world to believe Paul also had such thoughts.

Never said it wasn't.

 

[Thomas]

Back to figurative language.

Words like "taken up" can have figurative meanings.

Yes.

Their original, literal meanings within the cultural and historical context of the Bible are key, however.

OK.

A biblical writer's understanding of the physical world is different from our own.

Not so much from my own.

If you mean the biblical writer lacked the understandings derived from our technologies, telescopes and microscopes, etc., then yes, their material/physical understanding of the nature of matter falls far short of our contemporary understanding.

Their understanding of the physical world being shot through with the spiritual, as being an extension and a continuum of the spiritual in limited material form, in a kind of relative contingency, is far superior to the current assumptions of the secular world today.

They understood intrinsically that God is 'all in all' – it was a Cretan poet 600 years before Christ who said "In him we live and move and have our being" (echoed by Paul in Acts 17:28), and although he was talking about an entirely different god (Zeus), the principle is the same.

So I agree with Fredriksen that
Earth ... Surrounded by nested rings of cosmic forces ... Luminous bodies are animate intelligences with social agency; bodies made of
material spirit (pneuma). The highest god, high gods, gods, post-human gods, human gods, angeloi (messenger divinities), daimonia (godlings), pneumata (spirits); celestial cosmic powers and rulers; underworld powers; household gods; ancestors; daimones.

And (as Hart argues) Paul clearly did, and Hart refers to Enoch, which I could not track in the Fredriksen resources available above.

Precisely because neither Plato nor Paul saw such an intense bifurcation in the cosmos as we tend to see today – the veil was much more tenuous and translucent – it's because we have focussed so much and so exclusively on the physical we have lost sight and touch of the spiritual.

So where you seem to want to assert a radical difference between 'literal' and 'figurative', I don't think the ancient world was so defined. I think they saw things as literally so because they had a sense or understanding of what lay behind them, if you like.

The fundamental assumption of Greek Philosophy, as the foundation of the arts and sciences, is that the cosmos is ordered and rational, because it is so ordered by a higher power. Therefore the way to that Higher Power is up through the orders.

And again, while Fredriksen disabuses us of a Jewish monotheism, there was nevertheless, in the minds of the intelligentsia and the common people, the sense of One God Above All, and one heaven above all the heavens.

So I rather think the point is language was (and is) both literal and figurative – they saw physical things as figures of the spiritual.

Not 'this or that', but 'both/and'.

Simply asserting that this type of language back then was used figuratively without substantiation is not a sufficient argument.

I think there's plenty of substance to it ... You low opinion of the insights and intellects of Antiquity would preclude that, I would have thought, but I don't share that opinion, and I think there's a wealth of materials that refute it.

 

[Ahanu]

Well we have plenty of background material to work with, as Fredriksen and others argue.

I'm not sure what you mean by background material. Be more specific, please.

But the point surely is, that's a better way than ignoring sitz im leben?

Not sure why you mention sitz im leben ("setting in life"). What's sitz im leben got to do with you reading figuratively out of the body in 2 Corinthians 12.2? I say sitz im leben seems irrelevant to the specific textual interpretation thus far. Where's your proof he meant out of the body figuratively?

In fact, sitz im leben can supports the interpretation of a literal, out-of-body experience in 2 Corinthians 12.2. In the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman world, it was common to believe in astral journeys.

We might not be accurate, we can but try, but that's better than the alternatives.

We can try.

That, in retrospect, is a poor example, and I should not have leapt to it.

In Baha'i thought there is no material spirit that ascends and descends through the celestial spheres, because human language itself fails to adequately capture transcendent realities:

"To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress."
-Baha'u'llah, The Kitáb-i-Íqán

I'll answer the direct question about figurative language below.

Okay.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not sure what you mean by background material. Be more specific, please.

I'd look at Fredriksen's sources.

Not sure why you mention sitz im leben ("setting in life"). What's sitz im leben got to do with you reading figuratively out of the body in 2 Corinthians 12.2? I say sitz im leben seems irrelevant to the specific textual interpretation thus far.

I'd say it's always relevant – it's the basis of Fredriksen's argument, for a start. Paul is talking according to his knowledge and experience – he's not speaking from a void, but from the background of 1st century Jewish mystical and eschatalogical speculation.

So when he says 'third heaven', he hasn't picked that figure from nowhere.

Where's your proof he meant out of the body figuratively?

Where's the proof he meant it literally?

In fact, sitz im leben can supports the interpretation of a literal, out-of-body experience in 2 Corinthians 12.2. In the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman world, it was common to believe in astral journeys.

Hang on ... I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. I am not arguing against an OOB experience, simply whether he was physically taken up to the third heaven, or psychically/spiritually.

I'd rather avoid using 'astral' as the term is so vague and broad. As you focus on the literal, it would be better to stick to actual references, rather than apply a term like 'astral' which carries so much anachronistic or irrelevant baggage. We can try.

In Baha'i thought ...

Your belief, not mine.

 

[Ahanu]

I'd look at Fredriksen's sources.

Her sources from other contemporary scholars?

I'd say it's always relevant

I never said it wasn't, but it sure hasn't been relevant in your discussion of 2 Corinthians 12.2 thus far. All you have to do is quote Paul’s contemporaries to show how they clearly understood astral journeys figuratively. By astral journey I am referring to a material spirit moving through physical space in an upward direction through the celestial spheres. Let me know if that is not clear.

– it's the basis of Fredriksen's argument, for a start.

I know that, but where is it the basis of your argument for 2 Corinthians 12.2?

Paul is talking according to his knowledge and experience – he's not speaking from a void, but from the background of 1st century Jewish mystical and eschatalogical speculation.

So when he says 'third heaven', he hasn't picked that figure from nowhere.

Are you going to mention the figurative out of the body passages from his contemporaries or keep me on my toes guessing here?

Where's the proof he meant it literally?

I have already discussed his cosmology . . .

Hang on ... I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. I am not arguing against an OOB experience, simply whether he was physically taken up to the third heaven, or psychically/spiritually.

Taken up physically is confusing, because both soul or body could be understood to be taken up in a physical sense for Paul’s time period . . .

 

[Thomas]

Her sources from other contemporary scholars?

I'll leave you to check Fredriksen's sources – you brought her into this debate.

All you have to do is quote Paul’s contemporaries to show how they clearly understood astral journeys figuratively.

Er, no. 'astral journeys' is your term, I'm not sure what it means.

By astral journey I am referring to a material spirit moving through physical space in an upward direction through the celestial spheres. Let me know if that is not clear.

Oh, that's clear – I think it's wrong. I'm not sure either Christian or Jew saw the human soul/spirit as a material entity.

I know that, but where is it the basis of your argument for 2 Corinthians 12.2?

Sitz im leben means 'setting in life' and I'm saying that plays a part in the language and understanding of the day.

Paul was writing to a Jewish audience. They would understand what Paul means by 'whether in the body or out of the body' and 'third heaven' in a cultural context. 'Astral travel' would have left them nonplussed, as the term wasn't in use at the time.

Are you going to mention the figurative out of the body passages from his contemporaries or keep me on my toes guessing here?

I've explained myself sufficiently, I think.

I have already discussed his cosmology . . .

As have I.

Taken up physically is confusing, because both soul or body could be understood to be taken up in a physical sense for Paul’s time period . . .

No, the soul is not a physical entity.

 

[Ahanu]

Not so much from my own.

Of course it is. Exorcism is a case in point. Happened quite regularly in the ancient world. Today I am hard-pressed to find one unless I travel to a remote jungle or community isolated from modernity. It's not because of something we have lost (as if our knowledge were somehow misplaced), but because of something we have gained in knowledge.

If you mean the biblical writer lacked the understandings derived from our technologies, telescopes and microscopes, etc., then yes, their material/physical understanding of the nature of matter falls far short of our contemporary understanding.

Also, their descriptions of their intrinsic world was quite different too. Some pretend those descriptions correspond to reality in the face of a collapsed cosmology. As Troels Engberg-Pedersen concludes: "If we cannot immediately adopt Paul’s cosmology, neither can (or should) we adopt his views on the body, on social life and even on politics just as they were. But this should not in the least prevent us from learning from studying him." I agree with his conclusion here.

I'll leave you to check Fredriksen's sources – you brought her into this debate.

Well, I have been using her sources. Not sure if we are talking about the same thing. For example, you wrote: "Oh, that's clear – I think it's wrong. I'm not sure either Christian or Jew saw the human soul/spirit as a material entity." However, Fredriksen cites Troels Engber-Pederson in her footnotes: "On Paul and pneuma (which is constituted of fine 'matter,' not of not matter), esp. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)." Paula Fredriksen concludes that "Paul and his people were bound together—literally and materially—by a stronger power: the holy pneuma of Christ, and of Israel’s god."

In the interview with Matthew Thessien that I provided a link to earlier, he was asked: "I’ve noticed, however, that Stoic philosophy is primarily used to support pneuma as a light material substance, whether fine particles, aether, or something else. It is held not only by you but also by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Matt Novenson, and others. But Paul is Jewish, not Stoic. Maybe I overlooked it, or it’s in one of your other books, but are there Second Temple Jewish sources that support pneuma as a material substance?"

In response, he said: "Although Paul is Jewish this does not mean that he was uninfluenced by the philosophical and scientific currents of his day. Of course, he was no Stoic philosopher nor did he spend time writing scientific treatises on the ontological or metaphysical nature of pneuma. So, as is so often the case with Paul and other ancient writers, we have to fill in gaps from the literary remains of others. When Paul used pneuma, what would others have likely heard?"

To which the interviewer adds: "I’m glad you raise this question; salient interpretation should always be concerned with how Paul’s original auditors might have heard his letters."

To which Thessien's reply is: "Other Jewish writers were not also involved in scientific discussions either. The closest we get, and this is something that Engberg-Pedersen discusses, is the Wisdom of Solomon. This work is not straightforwardly Stoic in its thinking, but it does seem to contain stoicized elements, especially in relation to pneuma.

For instance, Wisdom speaks of the pneuma of the Lord filling the world and holding all things together (Wis 1:7) and then of divine wisdom in ways that evoke Stoic thinking about the pneuma: “wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God” (Wis 7:24–25).

In my own reading of Paul, I find it very suggestive that when he talks about the resurrected body, he speaks of it as a pneumatic body in the same context that he compares the resurrected body to astral bodies—sun, stars, and moon (1 Corinthians 15:35–49). To become a heavenly being and to enjoy the heavenly realm, one must become like the heavenly realm.

Here ancient scientists, following Aristotle, speak often of a fifth element of the cosmos, aether. Aetherial, heavenly bodies are material, but made of the best kind of matter—immortal, unchangeable, indestructible. Paul doesn’t use that language, but he uses the language of stars, and glory (doxa), and pneuma. And he uses the same language of the pneumatic bodies of the resurrection that ancient scientists do of aether."

A Jewish Paul: Part 3 Of The Interview With Matthew Thiessen

We are back for a third and final segment of a three-part interview with Matthew Thiessen, author of the recent book, A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Gentiles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023). Dr. Thiessen is an associate professor of religious studies at McMaster University. He...

www.patheos.com

This is an example of sitz im leben ("setting in life").