The nature and destiny of man

Apollumi (Strong’s word 622) is found 92 times in the NT where it is translated “perish” 33 times, “destroy” 26, “lose” 22, “be lost” 5, “lost” 4, “be marred” 1, “dies”1. This variety of meanings reveals the indecision of the translators as to the meaning. Yes, words may have more than one meaning, depending on the context, but “destroy” and “perish” represent the strongest possible meaning, and the word “lost” represents its weakest possible usge. Some expositors have determined that the weakest meaning of this word is its true meaning, that it means to be lost, a condition from which men can be saved. Usually these are advocates of some doctrine of universal salvation, restoration or reconciliation.

[snip]

At death, I believe no part of man or the man as a whole enters into any new or unknown condition. Man was in the soil before his creation and at death he returns to the soil; the spirit (breath of life) which was with God before it was given to man, returns to God Who gave it. This is the condition of all men in death, it is the state of death.

Where do lexicographers ever define Apollumi as either annihilation, or absence of conscious existence, which is really the way you are defining it, in its strong sense?

If the the soul is just a man's physical life how is it that Jesus said,

"And do not fear those who kill (apokteino) the body, but are unable to kill (apokteino) the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both soul and body in hell."
Mt 10:28

If your definition of man were complete then it should be impossible for me to go down to the local 7-11 and kill the store clerk. Obviously it is not impossible, as the police are likely to inform me at the station, so logically there either something wrong with your definition, or there is something wrong with what the Lord Jesus said. I doubt it is the latter. Can you please explain how man cannot kill the soul if a man's physical life and soul are entirely convertible terms?

Paul wrote this about what he considered might be his impending death:

20I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
Philippians 1

If soul and the physical life of the man are convertible terms, can you please explain how Paul 1) could speak of desire to depart and be somewhere else, if there is nothing that departs, and nothing to depart from and nowhere to go, and 2) what precisely are the items of gain to him to be dust for 2,000 years as opposed to living for another few years or decades?

Cordially,

Somehow, someway, I thought you might be bringing up the issue of PAUL’S DESIRE TO DEPART.

So I dare say, here we go with Paul’s desire to depart and to be with Christ. I mean, how much plainer can it be? Doesn’t it say right here that this is what happens when we die? People ask me, “Don’t you believe the Bible?” To which I reply that I certainly do.

KJV Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

I was watching CNN the other night – at least I thought it was CNN, but now I’m not so sure it wasn’t a dream (although I don’t know why I would do such a thing as watch CNN in the first place - maybe it was a vision) and I caught an interesting interview, the transcript of which follows:

Larry: “Tonight’s guest is the Apostle Paul. I think everyone knows who he is, so no introduction is necessary. Good evening, Paul. It’s good to have you back for another discussion.”

Paul: “Good evening to you too, Larry. I don’t mind these get togethers at all.”

Larry: “Great! Well, let’s get right to it. In the Philippian epistle many truths jump out at us, if we are looking, but Paul, you don’t deal with these at length. Important statements are made within the flow of the message which are new and different. We wish there were more introductory words to lead us into the truth of what you were talking about, also more explanation following, but you don’t ‘give it up.’ “

Paul: “I know. It just kind of happened that way. Sorry.”

Larry: “This can be clearly seen in your declaration in 1:22 where suddenly you bring up the matter of a choice that is open to you, and declare that you are not making known what your decision will be. Was it because you didn’t want to close your options by stating what your choice would be?”

Paul: “That’s right. I didn’t want to close off any of my options.”

Larry: “Fair enough. Now we know the Greek word for choose has to do with what one prefers as being the basis of a selection. However, Paul, you had a serious decision to make, and if we go back to discover what this might be all about we find nothing that fits into the picture. You have been speaking of life and death in the previous passages, but it can’t be that in these two great issues you had any choice - right?”

Paul: “Right, not regarding the issues of life and death.”

Larry: “It’s kind of like asking if you would die if you chose death. And we might further ask if you chose death, would you make the choice effective by committing suicide? It is bordering on the ridiculous to interpret this choice as if you, Paul, were playing Hamlet and mulling over the question, ‘to be or not to be?’ “

Paul: “Believe me, the last thing I would ever have considered was to kill myself. There were plenty of people who wanted to do that for me.”

Larry: “That’s for sure. No shortage there. Going forward from your statement, ‘Yet what I shall choose I am not making known,’ we discover at once what you are talking about. Your selection is limited to one of two things: 1) to depart and be with Christ, or 2) to abide (remain) in the flesh.”

Paul: “Thus, the choice is between departing and remaining, and not between living and dying, for ‘departing to be with Christ’ does not mean death.”

Larry: “Well, then, it’s too bad this beautiful phrase has been taken and used as a description of death in the ritual of funeral services.”

Paul: “Yes, it is very surprising to me that Orthodox Christianity has taken my statement about departing to be with Christ as meaning the same thing as dying. You remember that Enoch departed to be with God, and Enoch didn’t experience death. Also, Elijah got caught up in a whirlwind and went up to heaven without dying. So, I was talking about becoming number four to depart while alive. How did that get hijacked?”

Larry: “Number four?”

Paul: “Yes, don’t forget the Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven after He became alive again. He didn’t die once more and then go to heaven, did He?”

Larry: “No, that’s right. So, you would have been number four. I see. Unfortunately, many of the things you said got hijacked by the ‘mainstream.’ Of course this is bound to bring forth the question, ‘If departing to be with Christ does not mean death, what does it mean then?’ ”

Paul: “This is asked as if there were no alternatives. However, this can best be answered by pointing out the three other departures in Scripture already mentioned, none of which had any connection with the death of the departed one.

There is the case of Enoch. We are told that ‘Enoch was not, for God took him’ (Gen. 5:24); and this is further interpreted by the declaration: ‘By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him’ (Heb. 11:5). Thus he departed and was in the presence of the LORD of heaven, but this was in no way related to death.

Then, there is the departure of Elijah. We are told in Scripture that ‘Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven’ (2 Kgs. 2:11). This plain and direct statement should not be contradicted by the words of our Lord in John 3:13, where all three occurrences of ‘heaven’ mean God.

Finally, there is the departure of the man Christ Jesus, as recorded in Acts 1:9-11. This was by ascension, and not by death.

These three departures of living men are sufficient to show that the words ‘to depart and be with Christ’ do not mean death, and that I was not expressing a death wish when I said that this was my desire. For it is from these words that we learn that one of the unique privileges that God gave to me was the right to leave this earth and ascend into heaven where I would be with Christ. These words concern me, and me alone, for I was the only one who could choose if I so decided to depart and be with Christ, or to remain upon the earth.”

Larry: “That’s awesome, Paul. That is so totally awesome.”

Paul: “Yes it was. It will probably be difficult for those who are Biblically illiterate to understand how this privilege could be given to me and to no one else. “

Larry: “That’s right. They would probably ask why this should be true of you alone. I think the only way to answer is by establishing certain truths about God’s greatest apostle, the man Paul.”

Paul: “Thanks. You’re way too kind.”

Larry: “Of what we know about you, Paul, certain great facts that were true of you are revealed to us in very few words. These must be believed on the basis of a few terse statements, as there is no corroborating testimony. Could you share some of these with us?”

Paul: “Let’s see. ‘I have fought with beasts at Ephesus’ (1 Cor.15:32); ‘of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one’ (that’s thirty-nine for those who can’t count) (2 Cor.11:24); ‘thrice I was beaten with rods’ (2 Cor.11:25); ‘thrice I suffered shipwreck’ (2 Cor.11:25); ‘caught up to the third heaven’ (2 Cor.12:2).”

Larry: “These five statements alone are sufficient to show that certain great experiences in your life are made known by and must be believed on the basis of very few words. Furthermore, there are certain great truths that were true of you alone which must be believed on the basis of one terse statement. Let’s look at five of these.”

Paul: “You mean when I said that I am ‘one born out of due time’ (1 Cor.15:8); that I was ‘the chief of sinners’ (1 Tim. 1: 15), a fact that can be true only of one; I was ‘a pattern to them which should hereafter believe’ (1 Tim. 1:16); there was given to me ‘a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me’ (2 Cor.12:7); and I bore in my body ‘the marks of the Lord Jesus’ (Gal. 6:17)? Yes, all these were true of me alone.”

Larry: “With the foregoing examples in mind, we are ready to consider your desire to depart and be with Christ, a truth exclusively true of you. This unique privilege of yours is revealed in one statement. There is no additional testimony. Your terse statement reveals that it was within your power to choose at any time to depart from this earth and to be with Christ. You spoke of not making known what you would choose, so you must have had the power of choice.”

Paul: “Yes, I did, and at times it surely was tempting to use this wonderful choice available to me. Enoch departed from this earth, but he had no choice in the matter. Elijah departed to heaven in a whirlwind, but it wasn’t his privilege to choose. So, there are three in heaven who have been men on earth. I could have made this four, if I had chosen to do so, for it was my privilege, not to live or die, but to depart and be with Christ.”

Larry: “It follows then that if on the basis of very few words we can believe that you were shipwrecked three times and that three times you were beaten with rods, why then can’t we believe that it was possible for you to ‘depart and be with Christ’ on the basis of one simple statement made in Phil. 1:22?”

Paul: “I can’t explain it. People are funny that way. They refuse to consider other possible explanations because of the blinders they wear.”

Larry: “Indeed. The problem that so many have in believing the actual declaration made in this passage is based upon the fact that men have long taken the words ‘to depart and be with Christ’ and used them to describe the death of God’s people. This allows them to be used to support the orthodox theory as to what happens when a man dies, holding that at death he is immediately ushered into the presence of Christ. But, if this be true, of what value then is resurrection?”

Paul: “Precisely. If you’ll recall, my hope was in resurrection, not death.”

Larry: “The question comes up about why this privilege was given to you only, and to no one else. Why did you have this power of release and deliverance if you should ever desire to use it?”

Paul: “It’s not too tough to figure out. When I became the instrument of the Lord to bear His Name before the nations, and kings, and the sons of Israel (Acts 9: 15), God declared that He would ‘show him (me) how great things he (I) must suffer’ for His name’s sake.”

Larry: “From this we know that you were given a preview of the rest of your life, so far as your sufferings were concerned.”

Paul: “Yes, before I was given my divine commission, I knew that as I carried it out every year would be one of intense suffering. Just how much I suffered is not revealed to you, but you can be sure that my afflictions have no parallel in history.”

Larry: “We do get one quick look in your words in 2 Cor.11:23-27: ‘In labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in peril of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the nations, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.”

Paul: “It was no picnic, believe me. But, as you will find out – it was all worth it.”

Larry: “There is no other man who has served the Lord except you who could write a catalog of sufferings such as these. You were the pattern believer, and as such you were the one chosen by God to demonstrate to all men just how much a man would willingly and joyfully suffer when he knew to what these sufferings were related. And you, Paul, knew!”

Paul: “Yes. For after God had given me a preview of my life of suffering, He caught me away to the third heaven, to paradise, giving me a view of the ultimate goal of all of God’s purposes for the universe. What I saw was for me alone, since I was not permitted to tell what I had seen or heard (2 Cor.12:1-4). Since no one else has ever been called upon by God to suffer what I did, no one else stood in need of hearing and seeing the things I saw and heard. I alone could speak from experience when I said: ‘The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’ (Rom. 8:18).

In order that my sufferings should be endured willingly, rather than being something forced upon me, and from which there was no escape, God made it possible for me at any moment to make the choice of being done with it all and departing to be with Christ. “

Larry: “This, no doubt, must have been a continual desire upon your part. As you stood on the deck of a ship that was soon to be torn to pieces by tempestuous waves, how tempting it must have been to ‘call it quits’ and depart and be with Christ, rather than to be plunged into the raging sea. As blow after blow rained down upon your bleeding back, what a temptation it must have been to have told God you had taken all you could (God would understand), and have departed to be with Christ.”

Paul: “If I would have so chosen, I could have vanished from the earth before another blow fell upon me.”

Larry: “But, you did not do this, and the obvious question immediately comes up, ‘Why did you not do this?’ If you had this power, then why did you not use it?”

Paul: “Because this would have taken me away from my work of magnifying Christ, and of ministering the Word of God to His people. I told the Corinthians: ‘You are in our hearts to die and to live with you’ (2 Cor.7: 3). I would not abandon God’s people.”

Larry: “Many centuries before you, Paul, King David was experiencing a period of suffering which was more than he could bear. He describes this by saying, ‘Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me;’ following which he cried out: ‘Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and, be at rest. Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness. I would hasten my escape from the windy storm and tempest.’ Psa. 55:6-8. David did not have these ‘wings.’ He had to stay there and see it through. But Paul, figuratively speaking, you did have them. And it is to your glory that you never made use of them, giving as your reason: ‘To abide in the flesh is more needful for you’ (Phil. 1:24).”
Paul: “It certainly was more needful.”
Larry: “Thanks again, Paul, for spending the time with us today.”
Paul: “You’re very welcome. All my love to you and yours in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. See you in ‘the resurrection.’ ”

Larry: AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS NOT REGARDING WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE; RATHER, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU THINK THIS IS A SUITABLE PILLAR TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEF.

Be sure to tune in next time when I invite Paul back to discuss, “To Die Is Gain.” I know you will want to pay particular attention to that one. See you then.

I was watching CNN the other night – at least I thought it was CNN, but now I’m not so sure it wasn’t a dream (although I don’t know why I would do such a thing as watch CNN in the first place - maybe it was a vision)

LOL!:^)

Man, that's self inflicted punishment. You ought not torture yourself that way.

Larry: “It’s kind of like asking if you would die if you chose death.

Reminds me of Woody Allen's "I'm not afraid of dying; I just don't want to be there when it happens."

Staying tuned for the next installment.

Cordially

TO DIE IS GAIN

Mahmoud (a student at a small middle American college is taking a Christian Apologetics class hoping he can get himself an easy “A” to boost his grade point averaqe) is on his way to the college snack bar where he is about to overhear some Christian Bible students discussing the topic of his assignment which is to consider Paul’s words in Philippians 1:21 where he said, “ ... to die is gain.” The professor, he recalls, says this verse is constantly used in discussions about death and dying. When Mahmoud arrives two Bible students are already having a discussion about this very matter.

SCENE. College snack bar

Enter MAHMOUD. (FRED and BILL are already seated in the next booth). He sits.

Fred: “Did you know that the Bible says, ‘To die is gain?’ When you die, you go to heaven.“

Bill: “It does?”

Fred: “Yes, it does.”

Bill: “Wow! That’s amazing!

Fred: “Yes, it is.”

Bill: “Then, why don’t you go and kill yourself?”

Fred: “What?”

Bill: “Why don’t you go and kill yourself?”

Fred: “That’s crazy!”

Bill: “Yes it is. But, it’s just as crazy for you to say something stupid like, ‘To die is gain.”

Fred: “What do you mean? Are you calling the Bible stupid?”

Bill: “No, I’m calling you stupid for saying that the Bible says something it doesn’t say.”

Fred: “Now who’s the stupid one? It says clearly that to die is gain right here in

Philippians 1:21, ‘For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.’

You go to heaven when you die.”

Bill: “Will I get to have seventy-two virgins when I get there?”

Fred: “Bill, you’re really getting goofy on me! Stop it!”

Bill: “Well, the Islamic terrorists say that if they die in jihad, say, by blowing up some innocent people to further the cause of Islam, they will go right to paradise to be with their prophet, Muhammad, and their god, Allah. Plus, they will get to enjoy the delights and pleasures of seventy-two virgins.”

Fred: “You’re not a Muslim, are you?”

Bill: “No, but don’t you see the manipulation, just like what you’re trying to put over on me?”

Fred: “No, I don’t”

Bill: “Look, the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an, does not mention these seventy-two virgins, but most Muslims believe it does.”

Fred: “Well, why on earth do they believe something is in their holy book if it isn’t really there?”

Bill: “Fred, you are so close to what I am trying to tell you.”

Fred: “Whatchoutalkinbout?”

Bill: “Remember all those jokes about Confucius we used to tell when we were kids? You know, like Confucius say ...?”

Fred: “Oh yeah. But most of them were kind of dirty.”

Bill: “Well, I have a new one. Confucius say, ‘Who say I say all these things?’ ”

Fred: “Did he really say that?”

Bill: “No, he didn’t really say that! I just made it up. But, I’m trying to illustrate a point here. Why do so many Muslims believe that part about the seventy-two virgins, if it’s not really in their book? Because all their Imams, Mullahs, or ‘holy men,’ are trying to manipulate the hell out of them, especially the young men by appealing to their frustrated sexual urges.”

Fred: “Now you’re getting really weird on me.”

Bill: “No, think about it. You have a whole bunch of impressionable young men, worked on and worked over in their indoctrination centers they call schools, or madrassas. They are exhorted to wage jihad against the infidels all over the world, wherever they can find them. And, as a reward for getting themselves killed in the process, they are promised immediate entrance into paradise where they will be comforted by the virgins. That’s gotta be pretty appealing to a young man who can only properly behold a woman when she is clad head to toe in a black burkha. Hubba, hubba, come on and be my burkha baby.”

Fred: “But, if it’s not in their holy book, you’re saying they believe all this simply because they are told it’s there?”

Bill: “Yes, simply because they are being told it’s there. And, they are being told this by the ones who want to manipulate them into doing what they want them to do. Their self-proclaimed holy men are using their own people like cannon fodder. Do you think they would be able to get so many people to do what they want them to do, if they couldn’t use the lure of the promise of the heavenly virgins as bait?”

Fred: “What about the women homicide bombers?”

Bill: “I don’t know. Maybe they will end up with 72 Fabio’s. Don’t you see how ridiculous this all is?”

Fred: “That’s awful! It’s not right to tell them something that isn’t true.”

Bill: “That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you about ‘To Die Is Gain.’ Let’s take a closer look and see just what The Bible actually does have to say about all this.”

Enter APOSTLE PAUL.

Paul: “Hi, everybody. The Apostle Paul here. Sorry to interrupt, but can we talk? I’m dead right now, but I can talk to you via my words, if you will allow them to speak and give their own testimony. You see, apparently people have been twisting my words and shouting them all over the place, making it appear that I was saying things I never said, as it were. As my good friend, James, was always fond of saying, ‘These things ought not so to be,’ or something like that. It always drove me crazy trying to figure out what ought so to be, and not so to be. Almost sounds like that young kid, Shakespeare, who would often ask many years hence, ‘To be, or not to be?’

Let me just state that the words, ‘To die is gain,’ are definitely found in Holy Scripture – what you now call The Bible. I know, because I wrote them. But, they don’t mean what you think they mean. Let me explain.

In translating any passage of Scripture, the context must be kept in mind. In this case I was talking about the magnification of Christ, and that He should be magnified in my body, whether I lived or died. The theme, the subject of what I was talking about was the magnification of Christ.

It didn’t make any difference whether I lived, or if they put me to death. The result would be the same – the magnification of Christ. Then I made the statement: ‘For to me to be living Christ, and to be dying gain.’ (If you don’t know New Testament Greek, get yourselves a Greek interlinear and follow along with the words). Now, doesn’t it seem like something is missing from my statement?

The King James Version translators figured out that something was indeed missing, and they supplied the word ‘is.’ But, that didn’t really make too much sense because, ‘For me to live is Christ,’ doesn’t make a complete sentence. Again, what is apparently missing must be supplied from the context. So, what I was really trying to say was that, ‘For to me to be living is the magnification of Christ.’ The figure of speech I am talking about here is called ellipsis. But wait, there’s more.

I also used another figure of speech called chiasmos, which means a crossing over of ideas. So, what I was actually saying, or at least trying to convey to the hearers, was, ‘For to me to be living is gain for Christ, and to me to be dying is gain for Christ.’

If you care about God’s truth, you have to be willing to stand firm on it, no matter what the cost. It’s the main thing that matters. I became such a man after I got knocked off my ass and onto my ass, while traveling along the road to Damascus. Thereafter, the most important consideration to me was sharing God’s word, His truth, with whosoever.

In my letter to the Philippians I was using some literary devices called Ellipsis and Chiasmos in my writing. You don’t have to remember these fancy terms, but please keep in mind the underlying ideas.

See you all in the resurrection.”

[Exit PAUL.

Mahmoud: “I think I understand the point that Bill and the Apostle Paul are making about this Bible verse in Philippians. We want to be really careful about saying there is some greatness about dying. As Christians tell me, elsewhere the Bible speaks of death being an enemy.

[Exeunt.

You have a whole bunch of impressionable young men, worked on and worked over in their indoctrination centers they call schools, or madrassas. They are exhorted to wage jihad against the infidels all over the world, wherever they can find them. And, as a reward for getting themselves killed in the process, they are promised immediate entrance into paradise where they will be comforted by the virgins. That’s gotta be pretty appealing to a young man who can only properly behold a woman when she is clad head to toe in a black burkha. Hubba, hubba, come on and be my burkha baby.”

What's the point? We're just a bunch of ignorant, impressionable, easily manipulated, indoctrinated morons who haven't read the Bible, but we have been told what to think, and we believe what we're told by self proclaimed holy men, psssst! just like young Molsem men, who, by the way, go on to blow up innocent men, women and children?

In translating any passage of Scripture, the context must be kept in mind. In this case I was talking about the magnification of Christ, and that He should be magnified in my body, whether I lived or died. The theme, the subject of what I was talking about was the magnification of Christ.

True.

It didn’t make any difference whether I lived, or if they put me to death. The result would be the same – the magnification of Christ.

He did not say it didn't make any difference. He said his desire was to depart and be with Christ, which was by far the more preferable"; a double comparative - "better beyond all expression."

Then I made the statement: ‘For to me to be living Christ, and to be dying gain.’ (If you don’t know New Testament Greek, get yourselves a Greek interlinear and follow along with the words).

I did. "To be dying" is wrong. It is not the act of dying, but "to have died". From Robertson's Word Pictures:

Philippians 1:21

For to me (emoi gar).
Fine example of the ethical dative. Paul gives his own view of living.

To live is Christ (to zhin Xristov).
No copula (estin), but to zhin (the act of living present active infinitive) is the subject as is shown by the article to. Living is coextensive with Christ.

Gain (kerdov).
Old word for any gain or profit, interest on money (so in papyri). In N.T. only here, Philippians 3:7; Titus 1:11.

To die (to apotanein, second aorist active infinitive, single act)
is to cash in both principal and interest and so to have more of Christ than when living. So Paul faces death with independence and calm courage.

(Philippians 3:7

Were gain to me (en moi kerdh).: "Were gains (plural, see on 1:21) to me (ethical dative)." Paul had natural pride in his Jewish attainments. He was the star of hope for Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin.

Titus 1:11 - who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. )

Now, doesn’t it seem like something is missing from my statement?

The King James Version translators figured out that something was indeed missing, and they supplied the word ‘is.’ But, that didn’t really make too much sense because, ‘For me to live is Christ,’ doesn’t make a complete sentence. Again, what is apparently missing must be supplied from the context. So, what I was really trying to say was that, ‘For to me to be living is the magnification of Christ.’ The figure of speech I am talking about here is called ellipsis. But wait, there’s more.

I also used another figure of speech called chiasmos, which means a crossing over of ideas. So, what I was actually saying, or at least trying to convey to the hearers, was, ‘For to me to be living is gain for Christ, and to me to be dying is gain for Christ.’

It can be understood in either of two senses; our doctrine is not effected either way, but YOURS IS. First, as in your explication, some commentators have it that his death for the cause of Christ would glorify Christ, and that is gain. The second sense you CANNOT at all costs allow because it refutes your pretext, and that is, to be in the immediate presence of the Lord was gain for Paul. As John Gill puts it:

"to himself, for death is gain to believers: it is not easy to say what a believer gains by dying; he is released thereby, and delivered from all the troubles and distresses of this life, arising from diseases of body, losses and disappointments in worldly things; from the oppressions and persecutions of wicked men; from indwelling sin, unbelief, doubts, and fears, and the temptations of Satan; he as soon as dies enters into the presence of God, where is fulness of joy, and is immediately with Christ, which is far better than being here, beholding his glory and enjoying communion with him; he is at once in the company of angels and glorified saints; is possessed of perfect holiness and knowledge; inherits a kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, and wears a crown of life, righteousness, and glory; enters upon an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled; is received into everlasting habitations, into mansions of light, life, love, joy, peace, and comfort; is at perfect rest, and surrounded with endless pleasures. This is the common interpretation, and is countenanced by the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, which read, "to die", or "if I die, it is gain to me":
but instead of reading the words as consisting of two propositions, they may he considered as one, and the sense be either this; Christ is gain to me living or dying in life or in death; for Christ is the believer's gain in life; he is all in all, his righteousness, his wisdom, his sanctification, his redemption, his life, his light, his food, his raiment, his riches, his joy, peace, and comfort; he is everything to him he wants, can wish for, or desire: and he is his gain in death; the hope he then has is founded on him, and the triumphs of his faith over death and the grave arise from redemption by him; his expectation is to be immediately with him; and the glory he will then enter into will lie in communion with him, in conformity to him, and in an everlasting vision of him:
or thus, for me to live and to die is Christ's gain; his life being spent in his service, in living according to his will, in preaching his Gospel, serving his churches, and suffering for his sake, was for his glory; and his death being for his sake, in the faith of him, and the steady profession of it, would be what would glorify him, and so be his gain likewise; and this seems to be the genuine sense of the words, which contain a reason of the apostle's faith, why he was persuaded Christ would be magnified or glorified in his body, whether by life or by death. "

To sum that all up, Paul's death at the time would be a gain in two senses. First, his death for the cause of Christ would glorify Christ, and that is gain. Second, to be in the immediate presence of the Lord was gain for Paul.

Paul: "To die is gain"

You: "When we’re dead, we got nuthin"

13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."
"Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."
Revelation 14:13

To you, blessedness is nothingness. To you, blessedness is "we got nothin'"

Philippians 1:23

I am in a strait (sunexomai).
"I am held together." Present passive indicative of the common compound verb sunexw, to hold together, to hem together as in Luke 8:45. "I am hemmed in on both sides" (Lightfoot).

Betwixt the two (ek twn duo).
"From the two (sides)." Pressure to live on, pressure to die and be with Christ.

To depart (eiv to analusai).
Purpose clause, eiv to and the aorist active infinitive analusai, old compound verb, to unloose (as threads), to break up, to return (Luke 12:36, only other N.T. example), to break up camp (Polybius), to weigh anchor and put out to sea, to depart (often in old Greek and papyri). Cf. kataluw in 2 Corinthians 5:1 for tearing down the tent.

Very far better (pollwi mallon kreisson).
Double comparative (triple Lightfoot calls it because of pollwi) like Isocrates and the Koine often. See 2 Corinthians 7:13 for perissoterwv mallon. Pollwi is the instrumental case of measure (by much).

Do you see under "to depart" (eiv to analusai). that,"breaking up of camp", and "Cf. kataluw in 2 Corinthians 5:1 for tearing down the tent? There it is AGAIN. I have mention this Biblical imagery to you previously. Apparently, you are unable to tell the difference between someone living in a tent and the tent itself.

Adam Clarke has,

Having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ
τηνεπιθμιαν ειςτοαναλυσαι . It appears to be a metaphor taken from the commander of a vessel, in a foreign port, who feels a strong desire αναλυσαι, to set sail, and get to his own country and family; but this desire is counterbalanced by a conviction that the general interests of the voyage may be best answered by his longer stay in the port where his vessel now rides; for he is not in dock, he is not aground, but rides at anchor in the port, and may any hour weigh and be gone. Such was the condition of the apostle: he was not at home, but although he was abroad it was on his employer's business; he wishes to return, and is cleared out and ready to set sail, but he has not received his last orders from his owner, and whatever desire he may feel to be at home he will faithfully wait till his final orders arrive.

More on your earlier post to come when I get a chance.

Cordially,

What’s the point? We’re just a bunch of ignorant, impressionable, easily manipulated, indoctrinated morons who haven’t read the Bible, but we have been told what to think, and we believe what we’re told by self proclaimed holy men, psssst! just like young Molsem men, who, by the way, go on to blow up innocent men, women and children?

I’m surprised you homed in on that point - that was not what I intended for you.

So, now let me ask you - what are you intending to say to me by: Titus 1:11 - who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

You said:

He did not say it didn’t make any difference. He said his desire was to depart and be with Christ, which was by far the more preferable”; a double comparative - “better beyond all expression.”

I agree. I’ll even go a step further and say to depart and be with Christ would have been way beyond “better beyond all expression.”

You said:

It can be understood in either of two senses; our doctrine is not effected either way, but YOURS IS. First, as in your explication, some commentators have it that his death for the cause of Christ would glorify Christ, and that is gain. The second sense you CANNOT at all costs allow because it refutes your pretext, and that is, to be in the immediate presence of the Lord was gain for Paul.

You are dead wrong as to your conclusion about what I said. Let me make it perfectly clear. It would have been an immeasurable gain if Paul were to be in the immediate presence of the Lord. Beyond what I can imagine! Fabulous beyond words! But, with John Gill I do not agree. This gain was a prerogative for Paul, not for believers. For Paul. As much as I consider myself a believer, and as much as I would like to be in the immediate presence of the Lord, it was an invitation only Paul could accept.

Paul: “To die is gain.” For him, absolutely. Yes. I wish it were for me too. But, God didn’t extend that option to me, nor to you.

You (your meaning, me): “When we’re dead, we got nuthin.’ “

Yes, true. Thank God for resurrection, eh?

Yes, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” The key is “from now on.” These are those who give up their lives during the revolt against God’s kingdom. These are indeed blessed and they will wear crowns of glory.

You claim not to put words in my mouth, yet you have done so throughout your post. I also feel strongly that you have selective retention disorder (srd) - I just made up that term. Blessedness does not equal nothingness.

So, now let me ask you - what are you intending to say to me by: Titus 1:11 - who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

Oh, that was in no way directed at you; I just quoted the verses Robertson pointed to illustrating the meaning of the word "gain". No personal slight was intended or implied. I'm sorry, I should have made that clearer.

Cordially,

Thanks. I guess I’m too touchy sometimes.

Anyway, I replied to soon. Forgot to include the following:

I know perfectly well what a tabernacle is and the imagery associated with it - it is a center of activity, just like the general’s tent usually was. Actually he was the only guy who had a tent way back then. When God sets up His tabernacle in the New Jerusalem, there will never be a KATALUW again.

You never mention the singular and plural grammatical aspects of Absent From the Body. Guess that wasn’t important to consider.

Again, Paul did indeed desire to depart and be with Christ. I also would have had that desire. But, the fact that he didn’t take advantage of that offer is certainly to his credit. Why? Because it was more needful for us that he didn’t take God up on His offer. Just like the commander of the vessel Adam Clarke talks about, it was more needful for him to stay put.

I'm getting a little backlogged. Let me try to clean up a couple of items before I get to your #122.

I know perfectly well what a tabernacle is and the imagery associated with it - it is a center of activity, just like the general’s tent usually was. Actually he was the only guy who had a tent way back then. When God sets up His tabernacle in the New Jerusalem, there will never be a KATALUW again.

The general is not his tent. Peter had his own personal tent, too: I guess he must have been a general:

Book of 2 Peter

Chapter 1 Read This Chapter

1:14 [ Greek Font Size: / | ] [ View in: BYZ / TR | | ]
Knowing (5761) that shortly I must (5748) put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed (5656) me.
eidwv (5761) oti taxinh estin (5748) h apoqesiv tou skhnwmatov mou, kaqwv kai o kuriov hmwn Ihsouv Xristov edhlwsen (5656) moi;

Note the definition:

Strong's Number: 4638

skh/nwma

Original Word		Word Origin
	skh/nwma		from (4637)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Skenoma		skay'-no-mah
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Noun Neuter		7:383,1040
Definition
	a tent, a tabernacle of the temple as God's habitation of the tabernacle of the covenant metaph. of the human body as the dwelling of the soul
Translated Words
	KJV (3) - tabernacle, 3; NAS (3) - dwelling, 2; dwelling place, 1;

You never mention the singular and plural grammatical aspects of Absent From the Body. Guess that wasn’t important to consider.

Never say never. I did consider it and I specifically and explicitly addressed the singular and plural senses of "absent from the body" in my #107.

You said in your #127:

It would have been an immeasurable gain if Paul were to be in the immediate presence of the Lord. Beyond what I can imagine! Fabulous beyond words! But, with John Gill I do not agree. This gain was a prerogative for Paul, not for believers. For Paul. As much as I consider myself a believer, and as much as I would like to be in the immediate presence of the Lord, it was an invitation only Paul could accept.
Paul: “To die is gain.” For him, absolutely. Yes. [emphasis mine] I wish it were for me too. But, God didn’t extend that option to me, nor to you.

Wait a second. I thought you said in #122 that Paul's choice was "between departing and remaining, and not between living and dying, for ‘departing to be with Christ’ does not mean death.” So which is it, that he's talking about death or he's not talking about death? If he's talking about his death, as I asked before, what specifically are the items of GAIN TO PAUL from his death? If he's not talking about death why does he say "to have died"?

Cordially,

Paul’s desire to depart as I have stated has nothing to do with death. Plus, his statement commonly referred to as “to die is gain,” has nothing to do with departing, but has to do with living or dying. I thought it was pretty plain.

Whether Paul lived or died would result in the magnification of Christ.

Paul’s desire to depart was concerning an option that was available to him and him alone, and does not mean he wanted to die. Or, that his departing would mean his dying. To depart and be with Christ did not mean Paul would die in order to do so.

I don’t know how much plainer I can make it.

Concerning dying, Paul’s hope was in resurrection and not in death. In the first part of 2 Cor 1 Paul gave fervent thanks to God for having rescued him from certain death.

This “elementary house” ... “not made with hands”
a clear warning that the term “elementary house” does not mean our bodies, since this implies that the elementary house is made with hands. If not, Paul’s contrast is meaningless.

It is the tabernacle which is the center of activity. Sure it started out as a tent, but it developed to mean a center of life or activity. This is not contradicted by pointing to the word skenoma in 2 Peter 1:13-14.

13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

To insist that Peter here has reference to his body when he speaks of “this tabernacle,” is nothing more than a mistaken interpretation based upon the Platonic theory of man’s nature. This must be understood in the light of Acts 7:46 where we are told that David “requested to find a tabernacle (skenoma) for the God of Jacob.” Since there was already a tabernacle in Israel, it is evident that David desired to find a location, that is, a city that would be the center of all divine activities (1 Kings 8:16). This was the city of Jerusalem.

Let me try and “flesh out” what I wrote before by adding some verse by verse amplification:

5.1 WERE DEMOLISHED – kataluein – loose completely.

5.1 WE HAVE A DWELLING OUT OF GOD – This is Jerusalem in the Kingdom of God, a divine center for the redeemed and restored nation of Israel. ‘At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem.’ (Jer 3:17). We need to note again here the plural and the singular – many people and one dwelling.

5.1 A HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS – This is an idiomatic phrase which Paul defined in Hebrews 9:11, where he declared it means, ‘not of this creation.’ The term ‘this creation’ refers to a period of time that began when Noah left the ark and continues until God assumes authority and the Kingdom of God becomes a reality in the earth. Concerning Jerusalem in that time God says, ‘I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.’ Isa 65:19. Note again here it is ‘a house,’ one house for many people.

5.1 EONIAN IN THE HEAVENS – those who hold that aionion means ‘eternal’ have long been puzzled by this statement here, and they are puzzled all the more if they hold that Paul was speaking here of ‘another body’ which is given at death. How can these bodies be ‘eternal in the heavens?’ Are they stacked up there, like cordwood, waiting for that moment when a soul that has left its body on earth shall incarnate them and endue them with life? Some expositors have tried to solve this problem by saying this should read ‘in the eternal heavens,’ an idea made popular by the late Dr. Harry Rimmer. But this is not possible since the word translated ‘eternal’ (aionion) is singular, and the word ‘heavens’ (ouranios) is plural. In Greek, adjectives must agree in number with the noun they qualify, and there is no agreement here. The adjective aionios is from the noun aion, a word that has to do with that which is flowing. It can be used of things that are intended to flow, or that are flowing. We have already been told that this dwelling is ‘out of God,’ and the same truth is repeated here when we are told it is ‘eonian in the heavens.’ It has its source in God, it flows out of the heavens, even as the Lord said of Jerusalem in Isaiah 66:12 ‘For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream.’

5:2 FOR IN THIS WE ARE GROANING – Note again it is ‘in this (singular) we (plural) are groaning.’ The word ‘this’ is neuter and refers back to the skenos of the preceding verse. The conditions that existed in the milieu that centered in Jerusalem could not but cause groaning among all who were a part of it. Even the Lord Jesus Christ lamented over Jerusalem saying: ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Mat 23:37) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.’ (Mat 23:38). In anticipation of the future blessing of Jerusalem the Lord had long before said through Isaiah: 66:10 ‘Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:’(66:10)When Paul wrote his words, it was a time of mourning for all who loved Jerusalem and all that it stood for. This condition, of course, created an earnest desire.

5:2 EARNESTLY DESIRING TO BE CLOTHED IN OUR HABITATION – This cannot refer to death or to what takes place at death. And while it is true that some desire to die, this can only be the desire of those whose bodies are in such shape that they long for release from suffering.

As Tennyson said:
Whatever crazy sorrow saith,
No life that breaths with human breath
Has ever truly longed for death.

And again it should be noticed that it is ‘our (plural) habitation (singular),’ one habitation for many. If by ‘habitation’ Paul had meant the human body, as so many seem to be insisting, he would have said ‘our habitations.’ But he did not do so.

The glorious hope that had been generated in Israel by the promise that they would yet ‘see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down’ (Isa 33:20) is reflected in Paul’s words. They earnestly desired the fulfillment of this promise, to be clothed in ‘our habitation which is out of heaven.’ Some think that it is strange for Paul to speak of being clothed with a city, a nation, a people. However, this objection dissolves away once we become familiar with the Hebraic use of this figure. Long before this the Lord had said to Israel: “Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: all these gather themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith the LORD, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind them on thee, as a bride doeth.”.Isaiah 49:18

5:2 WHICH IS OUT OF HEAVEN – This is true. The Jerusalem that will be a reality in the Kingdom of God will have ‘designed in heaven’ stamped upon every aspect of it. In the first verse it was a ‘dwelling out of God.’ Here it is a ‘habitation out of heaven.’ These are two statements of the same truth.

5:3 IF SO THAT BEING CLOTHED – There are alternatives here. If one happens, it rules out the other. There is no uncertainty here about their being clothed. It is the timing of this event that is open to question. A few months later Paul will write ‘to all that be in Rome’ and declare that ‘the night is far spent, the day is at hand’ (Rom 12:12). His hope was that the day would arrive before the night became still darker for Jerusalem and all who are related to her.

5:3 WE SHALL NOT BE FOUND NAKED – Those who have read the story of “The Man Without a Country” by Edward Everett Hale get a picture of a man stripped of his country. As the story recounts the mental torments of this country-less prisoner, one gets an idea of what it means to be found in such a state. It must have been a burdensome thing for Paul to watch his nation disintegrate. He cries out, ‘Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved’ (Rom 10:1). By this he meant that he desired that his nation should be rescued, delivered, and made safe. Yet he knew that this would not be until the Deliverer out of Zion should turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Rom 11:26).

5:4 FOR WE WHO ARE IN THIS TABERNACLE – Again it is to be noted that ‘we who’ is plural and ‘this tabernacle’ is singular. It is one center that takes in many people. If Paul were using a metaphor to indicate ‘the human body’ it would read ‘we who are in these tabernacles.’ Any interpretation that is advanced in respect to this portion must be in harmony with these singulars and plurals.

5:4 ARE GROANING, BEING BURDENED – This sweeping statement cannot be true of every human being, not even the majority; therefore, we have further proof that it cannot refer to the human body. However, this was true of every godly Israelite, those in the land as well as those in dispersion. Jerusalem was the divine center to which they hoped to return. Paul’s words here seem to spring right out of the Old Testament. Note carefully these words from Psalm 102:13-22

13 Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come.
14 For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof.
15 So the heathen shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory.
16 When the LORD shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.
17 He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer.
18 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.
19 For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth;
20 To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death;
21 To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem;
22 When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.

When an Israelite, one who loved the very stones and dust of Jerusalem, considered these glorious promises, and then looked upon the condition of Jerusalem as it was in Paul’s day, he could not help but groan and feel the burden.

5.4 ON WHICH WE ARE NOT WANTING TO BE STRIPPED, BUT TO BE DRESSED - I could have divorced myself from Jerusalem and all its problems. At times my close friends urged me to do this. I had said, ‘I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there’ (Acts 20:22), but I was determined to go. A prophet named Agabus gave a dramatic portrayal of what would happen to me there (Acts 21:11,12), but I insisted that I was ‘ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 21:13). I had no desire to escape, no desire to be stripped of this burden. I would accept it as long as it existed. My earnest desire was not to put off, but to put on.

6 These words have been lifted from the Bible and have been applied to everyone who seeks to serve Jesus Christ. Young converts are urged to ‘go forth and be ambassadors of the Lord Jesus,’ as if one can be an ambassador by his own volition. This is not right, for this meaningful word cannot describe the service of anyone who is laboring for Christ today – no matter what service he may be performing. A man is traveling under false pretenses if he today claims that he is an ‘ambassador for Christ.’ If the word ambassador means nothing, then we can all claim to be ambassadors, but if it has a definite meaning, then we had better discover what it does mean and see if this word can be applied to the servants of Christ today.

7. The Greek word for ‘ambassador’ (presbuo) is found only here and in Eph 6:20. Of this Adolf Deissman says in his ‘Light from the Ancient East,’ page 374, ‘It was the proper term in the Greek East for the Emperor’s Legate.

8. Certain lexicographers have given these same definitions, but I have never found them admitted or recognized in any commentary on this passage. Dr. Robert Young defines endemeo as meaning to be among ones people, and ekdemeo to mean to be away from one’s people. Dr. A. T. Robertson says of endemeo that it is a rare verb from endemos which means one among his own people as opposed to ekdemos, one away from his people. However, these meanings are flagrantly ignored by both translators and commentators when they deal with this passage. I feel this is wrong and want no part of it. The Spirit of God caused Paul to select these two special words for use here. They are found nowhere else in the New Testament. These words were selected because they alone were capable of expressing the truth God desired to reveal.

Here’s an alternative version for the remainder, a paraphrasing if you must:

5:6 BEING THEN ALWAYS COURAGEOUS – no faltering, no hesitation, no indecision, no fear in my ministry or my message.

5:6 AND FULLY AWARE – Paul was aware of the paradox that was evident in his ministry. He did not deny it, and he then showed that what seemed to be a paradox was in reality a divine arrangement.

THAT WHILE WE ARE AMONG OUR OWN PEOPLE – this was the reality, the literal fact in the case.

5:6 IN THE BODY – It is quite evident to the careful student that Paul used the terms ‘in the body’ and ‘without the body’ in ways that communicated certain ideas that are not immediately apparent to us today. Most people who hear the word body today think of the human frame that is composed of flesh, bones, and blood. They close their eyes to the simple fact that this word has numerous meanings in the Scripture. If one considers Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 6:16; 6:18; 15:40; 2 Cor 5:10; Col 2:17; and Heb 13:3, he will see some of the various ways in which this word is used. In all these passages the word body draws its meaning from the context in which it is found. This is also true in English. Among the numerous definitions given in an unabridged dictionary of the word body we will find that it means ‘something that is perceptible and realizable, or gives concrete reality to a thing’ and ‘the real as opposed to the symbolical.’ In the passage we are now considering, ‘in the body’ means ‘in the real.’ or simply ‘in reality’ as we would say it, and it refers to the actual position of the apostles when they ministered to men. They were among their own people.

5:6 WE ARE AWAY FROM OUR OWN PEOPLE – This was not the reality, but it was the actuality since it was so decreed by God. He calls ‘those things which be not as though they were’ (Rom 4:17). When Paul and the other apostles spoke or acted on behalf of Christ, they did so as those who bore no relationship to the ones to whom they spoke.

5:6 FROM THE LORD – There seems to be an ellipsis here that can best be supplied by adding the word being, making it to read ‘we are away from our own people, being from the Lord.’ However, this could also mean that the Lord was the creator of this situation, which while it was not true in reality, became true by His decree.

5:7 FOR WE ARE WALKING BY FAITH – Since faith is taking God at His word and acting or responding accordingly, Paul and his fellow workers were walking by what God had revealed as to the nature of their service and their relationship to others.

5:7 NOT BY SIGHT – As Paul’s eyes surveyed his hearers, he would often see familiar faces, maybe the faces of those who had in times past been loyal friends, yet he had to close his eyes to all of this and declare that there was no salvation in any other way save Jesus Christ, there being none other name given under heaven among men whereby you must be saved.

5:8 YET WE DO NOT LACK COURAGE – This is repeated for emphasis and it picks up again the thought that was interrupted by the parenthetical utterance about walking by faith.

5:8 AND WE ARE DELIGHTING ALL THE MORE- Since this is the way God had ordered it, Paul and his fellow workers were delighted to have it this way.

5:8 TO BE SEPARATE FROM OUR OWN PEOPLE – Ordinarily this could not be a delightsome thing, but since this was the good pleasure of His will, Paul and his fellow workers were pleased with the arrangement. As to how this could be true, Paul explained in the next phrase.

5:8 OUT OF THE BODY – This is ‘ek tou somatos’ in the Greek, and it means ‘out of reality.’ We would say ‘not in reality.’ Paul was not separate from his people in reality, but by decree of the Lord whom he served, this was the situation. How else could Paul speak without prejudice?

5:8 AND TO BE AMONG OUR OWN PEOPLE – It was as if the Lord had said to Paul, ‘Go proclaim My word to your own people, go to them first (Rom 1:16), but when you stand before your own people I will separate you from them and it will be as if you were not one of them, and then you will speak to them as one sent from Me.’

5:8 IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE LORD – The Greek here is ‘pros ton Kurion.’ The word ‘pros’ means ‘toward’ and one definition of toward is ‘in relationship to.’ An example of all this can be seen in Paul’s
first visit to Antioch in Psidia as set forth in Acts 13. His ministry was ‘to the Jew first’ (Rom 1:16), so on the first Sabbath day after his arrival he went into the synagogue and sat down (13:14). Thus, in reality, Paul and his fellow workers were ‘endemeo,’ that is, ‘among their own people.’ They were not at home, but were among their own kind. And they were fully received as such, for after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto Paul and his associates saying, ‘Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on’ (13:15). As Paul spoke, this relationship became evident. As patriotic Jews, which they were, their inclination would have been to minimize the part Israel played in the crucifixion of Christ and to magnify the part the Romans played. Yet they did not. As God’s ambassadors they were required to represent Him, and to speak the message He gave to them. Thus Paul said with great emphasis: Acts 13:27-30 “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead:”

As he finished his message, Paul, as one who in reality was among his own people, yet out of reality was separated from his own people, and speaking to them as one sent from the Lord, uttered this warning: Acts 13;40-41 “Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.” If we follow out the results of Paul’s proclamation, we will find that he was a ‘savor of life: to some and a ‘savor of death’ to others, but as always a sweet savor of Christ in those who were saved and in those who perished. 2 Cor. 2:14-17.

5:9 AND FOR THIS REASON ALSO WE ARE AMBITIOUS - i.e., They made it their aim. The verb here means to act from love of honor, to be ambitious, in a good sense. It could be translated, ‘We love it as a point of honor.’

5:9 THAT WHETHER WE ARE AMONG OUR OWN PEOPLE – a condition that could be true when Paul was not acting or speaking as an ambassador of Christ. He was among his own people when he lodged with Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth. He was not with them because he was an ambassador of Jesus Christ, but because they and he were tentmakers. Acts 18:1-3.

5:9 OR WHETHER AWAY FROM OUR OWN PEOPLE – a second condition – not physically separated from them but apart from them in order to serve his Lord.

5:9 TO BE WELL PLEASING TO HIM – This was Paul’s earnest desire no matter what the condition. From these words the Corinthians could better understand his motives and those of his associates. We were not seeking to please ourselves nor other men, only the Lord, says Paul.

Paul’s desire to depart as I have stated has nothing to do with death. Plus, his statement commonly referred to as “to die is gain,” has nothing to do with departing, but has to do with living or dying. I thought it was pretty plain.

Ok, I see that you are putting the words in Paul's mouth to say that death would be gain "only to Christ", not to Paul himself or to us. You have Paul saying, "I wish it were for me too. But, God didn’t extend that option to me nor to you."

Imho, those have to be some of the most forlorn and pitiable words I have ever seen written on FreeRepublic.

You either are either in Christ or you are not. If you have Christ you have eternal life. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

John 5:24 (New American Standard Bible

24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and ^(A)believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and ^(B)does not come into judgment, but has ^(C)passed out of death into life.
John 5:24

John 5:24

Hath eternal life (exei zwhn aiwnion).
Has now this spiritual life which is endless. See 3:36. In verses 5:24,25 Jesus speaks of spiritual life and spiritual death. In this passage (21-29) Jesus speaks now of physical life and death, now of spiritual, and one must notice carefully the quick transition. In Revelation 20:14 we have the phrase "the second death" with which language compare Revelation 20:4-6.

But hath passed out of death into life (alla metabebhken ek tou tanatou eiv thn zwhn).
Perfect active indicative of metabainw, to pass from one place or state to another. Out of spiritual death into spiritual life and so no judgement (krisiv).

Note well the tense: "HAS NOW THIS SPIRITUAL LIFE WHICH IS ENDLESS". If the life is eternal, and one has it now, then it does not ever stop or end. If it ends at physical death then it is not eternal, for it is possessed NOW.

("I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.")

Was dead and is now alive; yet all the while possessing natural human life while dead in that sense in which he is now made alive. How can a living man be said by Christ to pass from death to life, unless there is a new spiritual life added to his human life? And if there is a merely human life, and there is a spiritual and divine life resident in the same person at the same time then there must also be two sorts of death as well as two sorts of life. One necessarily implies the other.

If Paul's death meant the cessation of his being then one is lead inexorably to the absurd conclusion that he did not have eternal life; he, though a believer in Christ, had not passed from death to life, and consequently neither have any other people who have believed on the name of Christ. God forbid that anyone believe such an absurdity!

Cordially,

You said:

Ok, I see that you are putting the words in Paul’s mouth to say that death would be gain “only to Christ”, not to Paul himself or to us. You have Paul saying, “I wish it were for me too. But, God didn’t extend that option to me nor to you.”

You, Sir, are incorrect. I put no words into Paul’s mouth. I let his own words speak. I do NOT have Paul saying, “I wish it were for me too.” I am the one saying that, not Paul. Because he had that prerogative (to depart and be with Christ), he didn’t have to say that.

Again, Paul’s hope was in resurrection and NOT in death.

Again, if Paul had departed to be with Christ that would have been immeasurable GAIN for Paul.

Again, regarding “to die is gain,” the GAIN would be the magnification of Christ whether Paul lived or died.

I am definitely in Christ - there is no doubt. I do have the assurance of having eternal (eonian life). I have the Son and I indeed have life.

You keep stating time and again that if someone draws a conclusion other than the one you come up with, it is an absurdity. You are sounding like a broken record.

When we get together in the resurrection, and I’m sure we will, I will bring up this matter again with you, and then it is my opinion that you will indeed retract your statement about my words being “the most forlorn and pitiable words I have ever seen written on FreeRepublic.”

13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

To insist that Peter here has reference to his body when he speaks of “this tabernacle,” is nothing more than a mistaken interpretation based upon the Platonic theory of man’s nature.

It has nothing to do with Platonic theory. It is very Pauline, Petrine and Jewish. Don't you remember that Paul said in the present tense that he was a Pharisee, as opposed to the Sadducees? Peter here is referring to his impending martyrdom. His death; "...even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me." (John 21:19)

Robertson's Word Pictures:
2 Peter 1:14

The putting off of my tabernacle (h apotesiv tou skhnnwmatov mou).
For apotesiv see on 1 Peter 3:21 and for skhnwma verse 13. For the metaphor see 2 Corinthians 5:3.

Cometh swiftly (taxinh estin).
Late adjective (Theocritus, LXX, inscription), in N.T. only here and 2:1. It is not clear whether taxinov means soon or speedy as in Isaiah 59:7 and like taxuv in James 1:19, or sudden, like taxuv in Plato (Republ. 553 D). Either sense agrees with the urgent tone of Peter here, whether he felt his death to be near or violent or both.

Signified unto me (edhlwsen moi).
First aorist active indicative of dhlow, old verb (from delov), as in 1 Peter 1:11. Peter refers to the incident told in John 21:18, which he knew by personal experience before John wrote it down.

That he is talking about his death is also evident from the next verse, 2 Peter 1:15:

2 Peter 1:15
Peter may also have had an intimation by vision of his approaching death (cf. the legend Domine quo vadis) as Paul often did (Acts 16:9; 18:9; 21:11; 23:11; 27:23).
At every time (ekastote).
As need arises, old adverb, here alone in N.T.

After my decease (meta thn emhn exodon).
For exodov meaning death see Luke 9:31, and for departure from Egypt (way out, ex, odov) see Hebrews 11:22, the only other N.T. examples. Here again Peter was present on the Transfiguration mount when the talk was about the "exodus" of Jesus from earth.

Whichever way you try to look at it, Peter's mode of speaking is very dualistic. He says, "as long as I AM in this tabernacle." The body was not Peter, but Peter dwelt in that body. He calls it "my tabernacle" . He is talking about his body, the tabernacle, the tent in which he dwells.

Strong's Number: 3450 eÍgwñ

Original Word Word Origin

eÍgwñ the simpler form of (1700)

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling

Mou moo

Parts of Speech TDNT

pronoun None

Definition

I, me, my, of me

Translated Words

KJV (587) - I, 11; me, 52; mine, 19; mine own, 4; my, 501;

Strong's Number: 4638

skh/nwma

Original Word		Word Origin
	skh/nwma		from (4637)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Skenoma		skay'-no-mah
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Noun Neuter		7:383,1040
Definition
	a tent, a tabernacle of the temple as God's habitation of the tabernacle of the covenant metaph. of the human body as the dwelling of the soul
Translated Words
	KJV (3) - tabernacle, 3; NAS (3) - dwelling, 2; dwelling place, 1;

His decease, he describes, as Robertson shows, with

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3598 o(do/v

Original Word Word Origin

o(do/v apparently a root word

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling

Hodos hod-os'

Parts of Speech TDNT

Noun Feminine 5:42,666

Definition

properly

a way

a travelled way, road

a travellers way, journey, travelling

metaph.

a course of conduct
a way (i.e. manner) of thinking, feeling, deciding

Translated Words

KJV (102) - highway, 3; journey, 6; misc, 2; way, 83; way side, 8;
NAS (100) - highways, 2; journey, 7; path, 1; paths, 1; road, 24; roads, 1; streets, 1; way, 54; ways, 9;

An "exodus" implies not only the place departed but the traveller who departs and arrives or returns somewhere else. There is nothing in it that implies cessation of being, or nothingness.
a travelled way, road
a travellers way, journey, travelling
metaphoriclaly, a course of conduct
a way (i.e. manner) of thinking, feeling, deciding

This must be understood in the light of Acts 7:46 where we are told that David “requested to find a tabernacle (skenoma) for the God of Jacob.” Since there was already a tabernacle in Israel, it is evident that David desired to find a location, that is, a city that would be the center of all divine activities (1 Kings 8:16). This was the city of Jerusalem.

Location. Location. Location. You should sell real estate. So Peter was talking about putting off Jerusalem. Ok, well he was still talking about putting it off, like a garment. There is the person who puts it off; a subject, a predicate and an object. The general does not cease to be because he strikes his tent. The general is not his tent. The traveler does not cease to be because he quits a location. The traveler is not the location. There are no lexicographers who define death as nothingness the way you do.

8. Certain lexicographers have given these same definitions, but I have never found them admitted or recognized in any commentary on this passage. Dr. Robert Young defines endemeo as meaning to be among ones people, and ekdemeo to mean to be away from one’s people. Dr. A. T. Robertson says of endemeo that it is a rare verb from endemos which means one among his own people as opposed to ekdemos, one away from his people. However, these meanings are flagrantly ignored by both translators and commentators when they deal with this passage.

Robertson does not ignore them, and I quoted them to you.

5:8 OUT OF THE BODY – This is ‘ek tou somatos’ in the Greek, and it means ‘out of reality.’ We would say ‘not in reality.’ Paul was not separate from his people in reality, but by decree of the Lord whom he served, this was the situation. How else could Paul speak without prejudice?

I asked before, and I'll ask again; cite one lexicographical source that defines 'ek tou somatos' as "out of reality"

Cordially,

I am definitely in Christ - there is no doubt. I do have the assurance of having eternal (eonian life). I have the Son and I indeed have life.

You keep stating time and again that if someone draws a conclusion other than the one you come up with, it is an absurdity. You are sounding like a broken record.

Don't just tell me that I'm sounding like a broken record - refute me. Eplain why the conclusions I draw from your premises are not valid and not absurd. You say you have the Son and you have eternal (eonian life). What happens to your eternal life when you breathe your last in this life? Nothingness? For some unspecified period of time? If in death, "you got nuthin'" you ain't got no eternal life, neither. Eternal life is not nothingness. You say you have eternal life now, but if your life stops for some unspecified period of time then you don't have eternal life now.

Please explain how you, a living person, "have passed (perfect active indicative)from death to life."

When we get together in the resurrection, and I’m sure we will, I will bring up this matter again with you, and then it is my opinion that you will indeed retract your statement about my words being “the most forlorn and pitiable words I have ever seen written on FreeRepublic.”

Well, we shall see. I don't know who will see first, but I am certain there will be a lot more clarity on the subject when that happens.

Cordially,

I wish you would pay more attention to what I actually say, instead of what you think I said. I am definitely in Christ. I do NOT have eternal (eonian) life NOW; rather, since I do have Christ I also have the ASSURANCE OF HAVING eonian life when “the eon” (the kingdom of God) should come and when I will be resurrected to have this eonian life. So, there’s nothing absurd or contradictory in my statements. So, I don’t have to “refute you.” So, you say that I say that I have eternal life now, but I say that what you say is not what I say.

I, a living person, WILL pass (future active indicative) from death to life.

I have the Son (and because I do) and I indeed have life.

Let me ask you a question. Where was Jesus for three days and three nights after He was crucified? (I think I can guess what you will reply, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth).

Is death a reward or a punishment? (okay, that’s two questions).

Is death an enemy to be abolished? (three questions).

I do NOT have eternal (eonian) life NOW; rather, since I do have Christ I also have the ASSURANCE OF HAVING eonian life when “the eon” (the kingdom of God) should come and when I will be resurrected to have this eonian life.

Now that is clear.

You say you do not yet have eternal life, and you say that you a living person, WILL pass (future active indicative) from death to life.

Now that it clear to me what you are saying, I can say that you are not contradicting yourself here, you are contradicting Jesus.

He says "he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life."

Strong's Number: 2192

eáxw

Original Word		Word Origin
	eáxw		including an alternate form scheo {skheh'-o}, used in certain tenses only), a primary verb
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Echo		ekh'-o
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Verb		2:816,286
Definition
	to have, i.e. to hold to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as to have i.e. own, possess external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc. used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to to be closely joined to a person or a thing

Strong's Number: 166

aiÎwñniov

Original Word		Word Origin
	aiÎwñniov		from (165)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Aionios		ahee-o'-nee-os
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Adjective		1:208,31
Definition
	without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be without beginning without end, never to cease, everlasting
Translated Words
	KJV (71) - eternal, 42; everlasting, 25; for ever, 1; since the world began + (5550), 1; the world began + (5550), 2; NAS (68) - eternal, 66; eternity, 1; forever, 1;

Strong's Number: 2222

zwh/

Original Word		Word Origin
	zwh/		from (2198)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Zoe		dzo-ay'
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Noun Feminine		2:832,290
Definition
	life the state of one who is possessed of vitality or is animate every living soul life of the absolute fulness of life, both essential and ethical, which belongs to God, and through him both to the hypostatic "logos" and to Christ in whom the "logos" put on human nature life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever.
Translated Words
	KJV (134) - life, 133; lifetime, 1; NAS (135) - alive, 1; life, 133; living, 1;

You sound like Martha. He didn't say, "ASSURANCE OF HAVING eonian life when you will be resurrected to have this eonian life. " He didn't say, "a living person, WILL pass (future active indicative) from death to life. You have your tenses confused. Eternal life is already possessed by the one who believes in Him because he has passed from death to life.

I have the Son (and because I do) and I indeed have life.

What species of life do you have because of the Son? Do you just mean your physical life? Even the unregenerate have human life. They are alive. But Jesus said to them, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you", and the people to whom he was speaking were certainly alive physically while he was speaking to them. What kind of life are you talking about when you say "and I indeed have life"?

Let me ask you a question. Where was Jesus for three days and three nights after He was crucified? (I think I can guess what you will reply, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth).

Is death a reward or a punishment? (okay, that’s two questions).

Is death an enemy to be abolished? (three questions).

At this rate this could go on forever. [rim shot] I haven't even gotten to your #122 yet.

I do hope you will answer my previous question and explain how man cannot kill the soul if a man's physical life and soul are entirely convertible terms.

First question: Where was Jesus for three days and three nights after He was crucified?

Acts 2:27 - Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.

The body of Jesus was in the tomb. and his spirit, which he committed into the hands of the Father, as he said to the thief on the cross, was in Paradise; i.e., that part of Hades where those who please God are at rest. This is where Jesus went between His death and His resurrection. He certainly had not ceased to be, for he had said that he would raise up his body, and he did, so that it did not see corruption.

Second question. Is death a reward or a punishment? Both physical and spiritual death (separation from God) were brought into creation through sin.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned- Romans 5:12
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
"For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace"
"And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. - Romans 8:10

Third question; Is death an enemy to be abolished? Yes:

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death
1 Corinthians 15:26.

Cordially,

My take on your 122, for what it's worth.

Larry: “This can be clearly seen in your declaration in 1:22 where suddenly you bring up the matter of a choice that is open to you, and declare that you are not making known what your decision will be. Was it because you didn’t want to close your options by stating what your choice would be?”

Paul: “That’s right. I didn’t want to close off any of my options.”

Larry: “Fair enough. Now we know the Greek word for choose has to do with what one prefers as being the basis of a selection. However, Paul, you had a serious decision to make, and if we go back to discover what this might be all about we find nothing that fits into the picture. You have been speaking of life and death in the previous passages, but it can’t be that in these two great issues you had any choice - right?”

Paul: “Right, not regarding the issues of life and death.”

Paul was in prison. He did not know what the outcome of his case would be. Because of your prior commitment to the monochotomous nature of man you have your moderator assume a hyper-literal reading of 'choosing' that infers an actual offer from God to Paul; an actual decision to be made by Paul on the offer, based solely on a (purported) statement by Paul that he's not telling what his (purported) actual decision is. You do not have your 'moderator' inform the 'viewer' of alternate renderings that are equally acceptable, which is, I think, a little misleading. The part about Paul's "declaration" can just as well be translated either that he is not going to make it known, OR simply that he doesn't know.

NAS - "But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose."

Strong's Number: 1107

gnwriðzw

Original Word		Word Origin
	gnwriðzw		from a derivative of (1097)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Gnorizo		gno-rid'-zo
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Verb		1:718,119
Definition
	to make known to become known, be recognised to know, to gain knowledge of, have thorough knowledge of in earlier Greek it means "to gain a knowledge of" or "have thorough knowledge of"
Translated Words
	KJV (24) - certify, 1; declare, 4; do to wit, 1; give to understand, 1; make known, 16; wot, 1; NAS (24) - bring...information, 1; have you know, 1; inform, 1; know, 1; made known, 11; made...known, 2; make known, 6; make...known, 1;

I understand the passage as Paul reasoning with himself, and simply stating what he would prefer if he had the choice, as, "If I had my druthers...,", etc. However, it doesn't really make any difference whether Paul is just saying he doesn't know, or if he is saying that he is not declaring what he chooses or would choose. Since there is nothing at all in the passage that speaks of God actually giving him a choice, it is certainly plausible or reasonable to understand it as Paul ruminating out loud, as it were, about what he would prefer.

You remember that Enoch departed to be with God, and Enoch didn’t experience death. Also, Elijah got caught up in a whirlwind and went up to heaven without dying. So, I was talking about becoming number four to depart while alive. How did that get hijacked?”

Larry: “Number four?”

Paul: “Yes, don’t forget the Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven after He became alive again. He didn’t die once more and then go to heaven, did He?”

If I had to describe your hermeneutic rule here I would call it "imagination run riot".

Enoch is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.
Elijah is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.
Christ's ascension into heaven is not mentioned in the passage.
Although you use the word departure 3 or 4 times to describe the foregoing events, that word "departure" is not used in Scripture of their being taken or translated into heaven, and in fact, it is used only one other time in the N.T.:

"Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.
Luke 12:36

To depart (eiv to analusai).

Purpose clause, eiv to and the aorist active infinitive analusai, old compound verb, to unloose (as threads), to break up, to return (Luke 12:36, only other N.T. example), to break up camp (Polybius), to weigh anchor and put out to sea, to depart (often in old Greek and papyri). Cf. kataluw in 2 Corinthians 5:1 for tearing down the tent.

Strong's Number: 360

a)nalu/w

Original Word		Word Origin
	a)nalu/w		from (303) and (3089)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Analuo		an-al-oo'-o
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Verb		4:337,543
Definition
	to unloose, undo again to depart, break up, to depart from life, to return
Translated Words
	KJV (2) - depart, 1; return, 1; NAS (2) - depart, 1; returns, 1;

These three departures of living men are sufficient to show that the words ‘to depart and be with Christ’ do not mean death...

From nothing but silence and zero textual support from the passage itself, and a sprinkle of rank speculation, you make the fantastic leap of logic that because something is logically possible (God could take Paul in the twinkling of an eye to Heaven) it is necessarily so that this is what Paul was referring to by "depart". From that non-sequiter you then conclude that there is sufficient reason to exclude any other meaning, particularly the meaning of death, which Paul refers to in the immediately preceding verse.

As I've said before, major doctrines of historic Christianity do not hinge on a single passage. So it is with this one. Even if you were right about Paul abruptly introducing an unstated third alternative (in a passage that says "both" or "two") sandwiched in between the apparent parallelism of dying and "living in the flesh" in verses immediately preceding and immediately following the verse in question, the historic doctrine of the Church is not effected either way because of the many other passages that can be adduced in its favor. However, since you CANNOT (or should I say WILL NOT) allow death to mean departure and immediate presence with Christ (for to do so would completely destroy your doctrine of death as nothingness) you are forced to resort to imaginative speculation as if it were necessary and required under laws of interpretation.

That's my take on your exegesis of this verse, anyway.

Cordially,

That’ all I could ask for - your take. Thanks.

You wrote:
I do hope you will answer my previous question and explain how man cannot kill the soul if a man’s physical life and soul are entirely convertible terms.

I will try my humble best to answer you, but I hope my words don’t come across as “forlorn and pitiable.”
In Mat 10:28 it seems the Lord is speaking of men not being able to kill the soul.

In Lev 24:17 the Hebrew reads: “He that killeth the soul of a man shall surely be put to death, and he that killeth the soul of a beast shall make it good, soul for soul.”

The word nephesh is found four times in these two passages, but the KJV translators well knew what an accurate rendering would do to their treasured Platonic philosophy. So, they took care of the matter by ignoring two occurrences altogether and rendering the other two by the word “beast.”

In Num 35:30 the Hebrew reads: “Whoever killeth any soul, the murderer shall be put to death.”

Num 6:6 actually speaks of a “dead soul” (muth nephesh).

The OT does not contradict the NT and the NT does not contradict the OT. But, what Jesus is saying in Mat 10:28 seems to make Him contradict the OT. That cannot be; therefore, something is amiss. The principle of mutual exclusivity should apply here.

Furthermore, Luke’s parallel account in 12:4-5 leaves out the part about killing the soul. Why would he cut out the very heart of this passage? Perhaps, just perhaps, that wasn’t the central point of the passage after all?

This passage in Matthew deals with whom the disciples should not fear and Whom they shall fear. They are not to fear men who can kill only the body but cannot go beyond this; but they are to fear Him which after He has killed, can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. These words from the lips of our Lord are remarkable, inasmuch as they were spoken at a time when Greek philosophy taught that the true man was an eternal soul that could not die, could not be killed, and was indestructible.

This philosophy had permeated into the thinking of many in Israel, but our Lord negated this whole system of thought when He flew into the face of all Greeks who taught this and all in Israel who assented to it when He said: “Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” A soul that can be destroyed is certainly not eternal or immortal.

In the section Mat.10:16-28 the Lord Jesus is looking far into the future, while at the same time He is applying His words to the immediate experiences of His disciples. He warns them concerning men who will deliver them up to the councils and scourge them in their synagogues, tells them that they will be brought before governors and kings for His sake, and that they would be hated and persecuted. But when and if this comes upon them they are not to cease their testimony. What He had told them in darkness, they were to speak in light; and what He had whispered in their ears, they were to proclaim from the housetops. And at no time were they to allow their actions to be shaped by the fear of men, not even the most powerful men. These can only kill the body, and afterward have no more that they can do. But they are to fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

I think the word “kill” in this passage has to do with the judicial sentencing of a man to death, so that by a legal process his life, his labors, his influence, and his testimony are all brought to an end. Such judges would probably rub their hands in glee, congratulate one another and say: “A good work, that troublemaker is dead and gone!” But, is he? The answer has to be, “No, by no means.” That man will be heard from again – not because he survived death, or that his soul lives on, but because of the great fact of resurrection from among the dead.

It is possible that the real key to the meaning of Mat 10:28 can be found in the fact that in Hebrew thought, the word “soul” regularly stands for a simple personal pronoun and is used in places where we would use I, myself, or me.

Our Lord was a Hebrew, not a Greek, and the men He spoke to were Hebrews. It is in harmony with this fact that we find the true meaning of His words in Mat 10:28. The powerful rulers who would sentence the Lord’s apostles to death could only bring them to an end as animated bodies, but they could not bring an end to the apostles themselves. Of all that the Father gave the Son He would lose nothing. Not because they were still living after having been killed, but because He would raise them up in the coming day. John 6:39.

This passage does not teach the Greek idea of a detachable and immortal soul. But it does declare a future life for one that evil judges thought was gone forever.

It is obvious that you have contempt for my words and my opinions. Therefore, it is probably a good idea that I not burden you any longer with my “forlorn and pitiable” words.

Book of 2 Peter
Chapter 1 Read This Chapter
1:14 [ Greek Font Size: / \| ] [ View in: BYZ / TR \| \| ] Knowing (5761) that shortly I must (5748) put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed (5656) me. eidwv (5761) oti taxinh estin (5748) h apoqesiv tou skhnwmatov mou, kaqwv kai o kuriov hmwn Ihsouv Xristov edhlwsen (5656) moi;