The Temple of the Holy Ghost

In First Corinthians 6:19, Paul makes an interesting statement: He tells us that our bodies are each, individually, temples of the Holy Ghost. When I was young in the faith, I had someone try to misread this scripture to me. He was trying to make the point that our souls are spiritual bodies. Not bodies in the sense of flesh and blood, but bodies in the sense that they are self-contained, distinct entities. I couldn't grasp that concept at the time, and some of the things that people said to try to explain it to me really didn't help. Anyway, he said that Paul wasn't talking about our physical bodies, he was talking about our spiritual bodies; he said you could tell, because it says, "...your body, which is in you..." except it doesn't. It says, "..the Holy Ghost, which is in you..." So, even though his point was correct, and my thinking was wrong, the fact that he misused that scripture just further convinced me that I was right, and deepened my confusion.

There are other, similar references: First Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 6:16... Peter refers to the body as a tabernacle in First Peter chapter 1. Personally, I find it interesting that in First Corinthians, Paul tells us in chapter 3 that our bodies are the temples of God, but in chapter 6, the temples of the Holy Ghost. Jesus also prophesied His resurrection, referring to His own body as a temple in John 2:21. I think that it's important to note that we, as fleshly beings, have a hard time (at best) discerning spiritual things. So the people that walked with Jesus saw His physical body (His temple), but couldn't perceive His Spirit. In John 10:38, Jesus said that the Father was in Him. In Colossians 2:9, we are told that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. Jesus knew our limitations, and understood, that we, as humans, saw Him as human, with a flesh and blood body much as our own, but we should not worship that flesh, in any form (not the babe in the manger at Christmas, or the thirty-three year old man on the cross at Easter...); we should worship the Spirit of God.

By the way, a little side note, here, I know that a lot of people have taken John 2:21 as a prophesy that must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. Books have been written about how Solomon's temple must be rebuilt before the rapture of the church. Read John chapter 2. It specifically says that it isn't talking about Solomon's temple, it's talking about Jesus' resurrection. "Oh, but I think there are some Old Testament prophesies about the temple being rebuilt, too." Yes, there are, but where was Jesus when He was talking about His temple being rebuilt? Look back up to verse 14: He was in the temple. Actually, the temple has been rebuilt, more than once. Look, I'm not saying that the temple won't be rebuilt (again) before Jesus comes again; what I'm saying is that if you get caught up looking for signs, you may find out that the things that you were looking for have already happened and you haven't noticed them (possibly before you were born, and the people that should have noticed them then, were asleep at the switch). Even if they haven't happened yet, who's to say that you will live until Jesus comes again, anyway? You have no promise of tomorrow, so do your best to be ready today.

That Which Is in Part

I have had some discussions with people about speaking in tongues. The conventional wisdom in Christian circles seems to be that tongues were done away with; the usual reference given is 1 Corinthians 13:10. That reference has really never made sense to me. I can sort of see it, but not really. In verse eight it talks about prophesies failing, tongues ceasing, and knowledge passing away. In verse nine, it tells us that we know in part, and we prophecy in part. Verse ten says that when "that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Now, I know this is being nit-picky, but I have to point out that it doesn't say that tongues are in part. It does lump tongues with knowledge and prophesy in verse eight, and tells us that the other two are in part in verse nine, so, by implication, tongues are in part. I'm not sure what that would mean, exactly (I understand the idea that prophesy is in part, because God doesn't show us everything that is going to happen; I understand that knowledge is in part, because there is an awful lot that we don't know--is tongues in part because most of the time we speak the language that we grew up with?) . Now John 21:25 would seem to indicate that the gospels themselves are in part; should they be done away with as well?

Really, though, that's not the point. The point is, what did Paul mean by "that which is perfect?" These people seem to think that he was referring to the completed Bible. Let me again refer you to John 21:25. I don't really want to say that the Bible isn't perfect, but where is the text that covers Jesus' life from 12 to 30? There is an eighteen year gap there, and, to be honest, it doesn't tell us a lot about His early years either. It seems fairly obvious to me that Paul was talking about Christ's return--when He carries us, His children, home. Then we will know and understand all the things that we don't get now. Now, we see through a glass darkly (because we are spiritual beings, but robed in flesh, and we experience things in a carnal way), but then face to face (because when I see Jesus' face, He and I will both be wholly spiritual, with no flesh between us to distort the experience). Let me also point out that in 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul goes on to say that, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." That doesn't sound like what was in part was being destroyed, as much as being completed (that works, doesn't it? If that which is in part is completed, then it is no longer 'in part,' so that which is in part has been done away).

Personally, I find it hard to believe that tongues have been done away with: It seems to me that all the gifts that God gave to the early church He gave to the church. The church is still around, so the gifts are still around. Some of them are much rarer now than they were (that may simply signify a lack of faith on our part), I have to admit that the vast majority of the time that I have heard 'speaking in tongues,' it just sounded like jibber-jabber to me. Were they faking it, or was I just not properly attuned to hear it for what it was? I can't be sure. I do believe that there is a lot of fakery out there. I suspect that there are probably a whole lot more people pretending to speak in tongues than actually speaking in tongues. Does that mean that tongues are done away with? I don't think so.

One story that I want to pass on, just because it's kind of related: Some years ago, some friends and I went to visit a Baptist Church in Milwaukee. One of the pastors there had a doctorate in theology, and was a very educated man. At one point during the service, he began leading in prayer, and, partway into the prayer, he stopped speaking English. Now, I am not nearly as well educated as he was, but I recognized a few words as ancient Hebrew (or possibly modern Hebrew--I'm not sure I could tell the difference). After the service, one of my friends started laughing at the pastor, "I thought Baptists didn't believe in speaking in tongues!" I tried to explain that he wasn't speaking in tongues, but he wasn't listening. Of course, there are about 400 different flavors of Baptist in this country, so I don't think it's fair to say that Baptists don't believe in speaking in tongues. Some of them do, don't they?