You believe Paul’s account of his experiences recorded in 2 Cor 12:1-4 gives positive proof that a man can be separated from his bodily aspect. Your argument based upon this passage is that if it were not possible for a man to be separated from and exist apart from his body, Paul would not have said that he did not know when this experience took place whether he was in the body or out of the body.
At first glance your argument does seem to be irrefutable. And it may be quite sufficient for the one who desires to prove that a man can be separated from and exist apart from his body. However, the fallacy of your argument is apparent to anyone familiar with other statements of Paul concerning these matters. If he had never used the terms “in the body” and “out of the body” before, your argument would have some weight. But he has used these terms before, and in ways that we do not use them today. These provide the clue to their real meaning here.
The Greek words translated “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 are ektos tou somatos. This identical phrase first occurs in 1 Cor 6:18 where it is translated “without the body.”
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor 6:18.
In view of this, if the words “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 mean that Paul could have been separated from and exist apart from his bodily frame, then these words must mean the same in 1 Cor 6:18, since they are identical in the inspired original. This then would require us to believe that every time a man sins he departs from his body to do it, except in the case of fornication, which in doing he remains within his body. Since such an idea is ridiculous, no such meaning as this can be fastened onto Paul’s words in 1 Cor 6:18. And, this being true, no such meaning should be fastened onto his identical words in 2 Cor 12:2-3.
In 1 Cor 6:18 Paul makes certain statement comparing sinful acts in general with that of fornication in particular, declaring that fornication, as no other sin, violates the body. He states that every sin is “without the body” while fornication is “into the body.” All sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body. It is physical first and mental second, and it bears a vicious character all its own. Many have challenged Paul’s statement concerning the exceptional character of fornication, but I do not. His contrast is between the mental and physical nature of certain sins, and he uses the term ektos tou somatos to describe those which are generated by the mind. This helps us to understand the passage you keep bringing up, time and time again.
In 2 Cor 12:1-3 Paul takes up the matter of “visions and revelations of the Lord,” and speaks of one who was caught away to the third heaven, even unto paradise. There can be no doubt here but that he is speaking of himself – you freely have admitted and proclaimed this. He declares that he cannot say whether this was an actual physical experience (in the body) or a mental experience (out of the body); that is, a vision. (Here we go again with the vision thing). He could not say, and he does not say, whether he in person was caught away to the third heaven or whether God brought the third heaven to him in a vision. And since he expressly says it was “a man” who was caught away, no truth is to be gained by inserting the idea of a soul or a spirit or a whatever. However, in order to come to a true conclusion, more facts are needed to see if the above interpretation harmonizes with other revelations in the Word of God. Positive help will be found in the prophecy of Ezekiel.
As this prophecy opens, Ezekiel is located physically as being among the captive Israelites by the river of Chebar in the land of Babylon. He declares that the heavens were opened to him and he saw “visions of God.” Eze. 1:1. The “of” here denotes the genitive of origin, meaning visions from God. He was not caught away to heaven, but the heavens were opened to him. This experience was strictly mental and in no way physical. He would have seen and known just as much if he had been stone blind.
Later in Ezekiel 8:3 we find the record of an actual physical experience in which Ezekiel was personally raised up between earth and heaven. While there he was given visions of what was taking place in Jerusalem. This combined a physical experience with a mental one. Paul would describe the physical experience as being “in the body” and the mental one “without the body.”
In Ezekiel 11:1 we find another actual, physical experience in which he was carried bodily by the Spirit of God from Babylon to Jerusalem. From all this it is evident that some of his experiences were mental and some were physical – some were “in the body” (physical), and some were “without the body” (mental).
When Paul’s experience is considered in the light of Ezekiel’s experiences, it is evident that Paul could have been transferred bodily to the third heaven, or that the third heaven could have been brought to him in a vision. He declares that he does not know how this great experience took place, whether it was a bodily transfer to paradise or whether it was a vision.
In view of these Scriptural facts, there is nothing in the words used by Paul in 2 Cor 12:2-3, to support the idea that a man can be separated from his bodily aspect. That such a thing may be possible is a part of Plato’s fancies, a purely human idea that has no basis in the facts of God’s Word. It seems Plato’s fancies have taken a firm hold on you, sorry to say.
You keep telling me that you have proven to me that I am wrong and that you are right. You keep telling me, so it must be true? I haven’t surrendered yet, nor do I plan on doing so.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor 6:18. The irony of your attempt to use that verse to refute the Scriptural distinction between body and spirit is apparent. What is the entity that posseses a body, and which sins against it?
The Greek words translated “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 are ektos tou somatos. This identical phrase first occurs in 1 Cor 6:18 where it is translated “without the body.”
True
In view of this, if the words “out of the body” in 2 Cor 12:2-3 mean that Paul could have been separated from and exist apart from his bodily frame, then these words must mean the same in 1 Cor 6:18, since they are identical in the inspired original. This then would require us to believe that every time a man sins he departs from his body to do it, except in the case of fornication, which in doing he remains within his body.
I suppose if you ignore the rest of the different words around the same prepositional phrase in the two different passages, then you can come with an absurd conclusion.
In 1 Cor 6:18 Paul makes certain statement comparing sinful acts in general with that of fornication in particular, declaring that fornication, as no other sin, violates the body. He states that every sin is “without the body” while fornication is “into the body.”
True.
All sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body. It is physical first and mental second, and it bears a vicious character all its own. Many have challenged Paul’s statement concerning the exceptional character of fornication, but I do not. His contrast is between the mental and physical nature of certain sins, and he uses the term ektos tou somatos to describe those which are generated by the mind. This helps us to understand the passage you keep bringing up, time and time again.
Your exegesis here is very poor. Not to digress too much, but Chapter and Verse, please, for your astounding claim that "all sins begin in the mind except fornication, and it has its beginning in the body. It is physical first and mental second..."
Matthew 15:
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'
If sexual immorality alone among sins does not begin in the mind, but has its beginning in the body, then how could Jesus say:
Matthew 5:
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Back to 1 Cor 6:18. The meaning is, at minimum, that sexual immorality, unlike other sins against one's neighbor, for example, which terminate upon an object external to one's self, and do not immediately pollute one's own body, (though they do pollute one's spirit) have an immediate effect on one's own body. Ektos means outside, beyond or exterior:
| Strong's Number: 1622 |
eÍkto/v |
| Original Word |
Word Origin |
| |
eÍkto/v |
|
from (1537) |
| Transliterated Word |
Phonetic Spelling |
| |
Ektos |
|
ek-tos'  |
| Parts of Speech |
TDNT |
| |
Adverb |
|
None |
| Definition |
| |
- outside, beyond
- the outside, exterior
- outside of
- beyond, besides, except
|
If I go down to the 7-11 and shoot and kill the store clerk, the immediate effect of that sin, the sudden extinguishing of a human life, is external to me; I do not share in my body the same fate as the person whom I have murdered. However, if I commit sexual immorality the defilement of my body (the temple of the Holy Spirit, v.19) is immediate. In other words, my body is not only the instrument by which this sin is committed, but the object against which it is committed. So the distinction between fornication and other sins is not that it alone of sins, is against the body, but that it is peculiarly a sin against the body. It defiles a body which is designed to be a member of Christ, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is not between "mind" and "body", as you would have it.
The word "mind" does not even appear anywhere in the passage, in the Greek or in the English. There is no textual support for your interpolation of "mind" or "mental" into this passage or the 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 passage, just as there there is no textual support for your supposition that a mental experience is "out of the body", or that "out of the body" is "out of reality".
In view of these Scriptural facts, there is nothing in the words used by Paul in 2 Cor 12:2-3, to support the idea that a man can be separated from his bodily aspect. That such a thing may be possible is a part of Plato’s fancies, a purely human idea that has no basis in the facts of God’s Word. It seems Plato’s fancies have taken a firm hold on you, sorry to say.
Not Plato, or his fancies, but Jesus, Luke, Paul, et al.
You keep telling me that you have proven to me that I am wrong and that you are right. You keep telling me, so it must be true? I haven’t surrendered yet, nor do I plan on doing so.
I'm not so insane as to expect that you should or would "surrender" to me. You've written a book on the subject. I would suggest this, though:
Romans 6:13
Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.
Cordially,