B (3:09)

Say I just like the candles.

C (3:10)

Well, that depends. The candles.

B (3:14)

Lighting the candles every week. Excellent. Okay. Well, we've got some. We've got some terrific questions. Our first one is from Scott Ward of Brooklyn park, and this is about a tricky passage in 2 Corinthians 5. And here is what Scott asks. In 2 Corinthians 5:1, Paul writes about the earthly tent or earthly home which may be destroyed. Most commentaries believe he's talking about our human bodies. Yet the contextual flow from chapter four, especially verses 15 and following, deals with reaching more people to join the fellowship of grace. Likewise, the Greek phrase perhaps seemed to imply a tabernacle household. In Hebrews 9:1, we have a similar phrasing regarding a tabernacle not made by human hands. In 2 Corinthians 5, as Paul continues to write, he's continuing to discuss being bold even if the church is Prosecuted. Are the first verses of 2 Corinthians 5 talking about our human bodies? If so, how do these verses square with other passages? Tom, to get to the essence of Scott's question here, I think he's saying, look, it's the whole thing about tent that might be destroyed. Is that a digression about the individual's body and what happens at death in an intermediate state? Or is this language of a tent related to the tabernacle language you can find in other parts of the New Testament?

C (4:40)

Right. I think the answer is yes and yes, because just a chapter earlier chapter and a little bit earlier in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul has been reflecting on the establishment of the wilderness tabernacle and Moses going in to be with God and then coming out with his face shining. So he's got tabernacle in mind. But as well, it's clear that he is using the word tent to describe the present physical human body. And so actually, the whole passage from chapter four, verse seven, right the way on through to at least the middle of chapter five, is a lot about resurrection and a lot about the fact that our present bodies may be being persecuted and killed or damaged or whatever, but that God has a new body waiting for us. That is the real flow of thought right across this passage. Scott, I think, in his question, is running two or three different things together. When he says the contextual flow from chapter four deals with reaching more people to join the fellowship of grace. I'm not quite sure what that means, and I'm not quite sure that that's an accurate description of the second half of chapter four. I mean, chapter four is one of those passages where Paul is talking about the sufferings that he's undergone as an apostle and about how God is with him in that, and though his outer nature is being battered and shattered all way, and that his inner nature is being renewed. Now, at that point, some people think, ah, there we are. We've actually got this outward shell. We're going to get rid of that, and we've got something inside which is more important. And so people imagine. I've read scholars imagining that Paul has become a Platonist here. He's very different from where he was in first Corinthians, which is robustly about a new physical body. But I want to say that's the wrong way of reading that. And I don't recognize Scott's summary of more people joining the fellowship of grace in the second half of 2 Corinthians 4. So I would urge Scott, with due respect perhaps, to read what you or I or others have written about 2 Corinthians 4 and find a fresh way through. Likewise, the reference to Hebrews 9:1. I don't think he means Hebrews 9:1. I think there's something else going on there, and it's a different set of topics anyway. Rather, this is the way it's going. Paul says if our earthly body, if our earthly tent is destroyed, he's imagining the human body as a tent. Where do we find that? Well, guess what? We find it in John chapter 2, where Jesus says, after his dramatic action in the temple, if you want to know why I'm doing this, destroy this tent, and in three days I'll make it again in his temple. And in three days I'll make it again. And the Judeans say, who do you think you are? What's going on here? And John's comment is, he spoke of the temple of his body. Now that's a very interesting thing. Jesus, body as the place where heaven and earth meet, the true tent. And so the idea of tent here is not about a temporary dwelling which we're going to get rid of and be happily shot of it for good and all. Rather, Paul says we then have a Building from God, not made with hands, eternal in the heavenly places. Now, that's the point at which people say, there you are, he's talking about going to heaven, and there'll be a new spiritual dwelling in heaven. That's not how that language of a new thing waiting for us in heaven actually works. We find the same language, say, in First Peter, where he talks about salvation, ready to be revealed, et cetera. And in several such passages, the analogy I've used is things like, if I say, supposing you were coming to visit me, and supposing I was gonna be out when you arrived, I might say, there's some beer in the fridge. And that doesn't mean you've got to get in the fridge to drink the beer. It means when you need some beer, you'll find it in the fridge. Likewise, heaven, among other things in the New Testament, is the place where God's future purposes are kept in store, waiting to be revealed when required and when ready. And Jesus has a lot of sayings like that about rewards in heaven, which doesn't mean you go to heaven to get the reward. It means that God, in the end, has been keeping this reward for you. And Jesus purpose is to bring God's kingdom on earth as in heaven. And whatever is in heaven at the moment, all the good stuff that's there will be brought to birth on earth. So then he says, in the present tent, we groan as we're waiting for that new one to be given to us from heaven, because we don't want to be naked. In other words, I don't want to be a bare Platonic soul or some spiritual equivalent thereof. I need to be fully clothed. In fact, he says not just fully clothed, but more fully clothed. In other words, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. In other words, the new body which we're promised will be like the present one any more. So it'll be more physical, but it will be immortal. And that's exactly what he says in 1st Corinthians 15 as well. So I do think that the first five verses of 2 Corinthians 5 are talking about our human bodies. And I do think that they do square very closely with the other things that Paul says. Now, of course, every syllable of this has been crawled over by scholars this way and that. I have set out my full account of that in my book the Resurrection of the Son of God, which goodness is 22 years old now. It's. Oh, my goodness, 2003 it was published. I know. Isn't that extraordinary. But I go through every single passage in the New Testament about resurrection and I follow the different scholarly debates and I show why Paul said what he said. So I would say to Scott, please, if you've got the time and the inclination, get hold of the resurrection of the Son of God and you'll find it all there.

B (11:05)

Yeah, well, there you go. Tents and tabernacles all waiting for you in the resurrection of the Son of God. We're going to take a break and when we come back, we're going to try find where the Garden of Eden originally was.

D (11:23)

If you've shopped online, chances are you've bought from a business powered by Shopify. You know that purple shop pay button you see at checkout? The one that makes buying so incredibly easy? That's Shopify. And there's a reason so many businesses sell with it. Because Shopify makes it incredibly easy to start and run your business. Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10% of all e commerce in the U.S. sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com promo. Go to shopify.com shop.

B (11:56)

The life application Study Bible moves you beyond knowing the Bible to living it out. Each of the over 10,000 notes and resources were poured over by scholars and pastors, allowing you to confidently take a deep dive into history, culture and Christian beliefs. But what sets this Bible apart is how it guides you through these insights to your daily life, transforming your understanding into truth lived out. Learn more@lifeapplication.com.

A (12:34)

Meet the computer you can talk to with Copilot on Windows. Working, creating and collaborating is as easy as talking. Got writer's block? Share your screen with Copilot Vision to help spark inspiration and use Copilot voice to have a conversation and brainstorm ideas. Or maybe you need some tech help with Copilot Vision. Copilot sees what you see. Let Copilot talk you through step by step guidance so you can master new apps, games and skills faster. Try now@windows.com copilot.

B (13:06)

Welcome back. Our next question is from Alexander Carey in York. Who wants to know where is the Garden of Eden or where was it? Every time I start reading through the Bible, I get to stuck straight away in Genesis 2. Genesis 2:1014 describes the location of the Garden of Eden and seems to me completely at odds with the rest of the text. The poetic Genesis narrative seems to suddenly cut aside to an ancient set of directions. Was this passage added by later authors? If so, how does this affect the authority of Genesis or Scripture as a whole? Or does this passage fit with the rest of the text in ways the ancient Hebrews would have appreciated better than me? Despite not having direct relevance to my day to day life, this passage has bothered me for years and opens bigger questions for me about the creation narrative and the authority of Scripture. I would love to hear both of your insights. Well, thank you for that question, Alexander, and it's a good one. I mean, this bothers a great number of people. And I think the problem is, Tom, if we go into Google Maps or Apple Maps and you put in the Garden of Eden, you're not going to get anything. And people want to know where is the Garden of Eden? And you know, I can imagine some German Old Testament critical scholar claiming this was added in the sixth redaction of the Pentateuch by a hypothetical scribe called Theta or something like that? You know, on all these weird source critical theories about the Bible. Now, I don't think a little bit of editing in the Bible was necessarily bad as it reached the final canonical form. And I think you could show that did happen in some places. But you know, the whole thing about editing and the transmission of biblical texts aside, how should we understand this? Because Alexander is aware that you've got a poetic text and then it's like you get street directions as if someone's, as if, as if, you know, we're being told that the Garden of Eden is just go down Fleet street, follow along the river, take a left around the corner, go through the back entrance of Tesco, and it'll be there in front of you. So how do we understand this passage about a place? Or is it just all parable? Tom, what's your answer to Alexander?

C (15:28)

Wow. Well, there are many, many passages in the Bible which don't follow the train of thought that we expect them to. One obvious example which would be well known is the Johannine prologue. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And then suddenly there was a man said from God whose name was John. Excuse me, we're looking at a cosmic vision of the one God creating everything in and through the Word. Why are we suddenly cutting and looking at John the Baptist and then how does that fit? Et cetera, et cetera. And so at that point, exactly as you say, some text critics, some so called higher critics have said, ah, this is a different source or it comes from somewhere else and it's been put in here. But let me say something about that, because many Christians have a view of Scripture which is that it's inspired in the sense that one person went almost into a trance and just got given the whole thing and wrote it all out. So that if we then suddenly find bits which seem to us to be jerky or fitting, well, oh, my goodness, maybe somebody else has added that. Now, I want to say all the Old Testament, as far as we know, has been edited, has been put together. Somebody, probably in the exile or the time after the exile, has worked on the multiple texts that were available and has produced a fair copy which then the people of God from the time of Ezra onwards have been able to use and read. And I have quite a strong view of the earliness of large chunks of the Pentateuch. But that's not because I think that God suddenly inspired either Moses or anybody else back then to write simply some text which would be a single coherent narrative. Rather, like many texts in the ancient and the modern world, they have been put together. And there's an interesting riff there, because when I was first studying the Hebrew texts that I was looking at, if they thought that a redactor had added something to the text, a redactor being somebody going through and fiddling around editing, they would put an R in the margin indicating that a redactor had been at work there. And I remember a wise colleague of mine, when I was quite young, quoting a Jewish rabbi who said that actually the letter R really stands for Rabbeinu, in other words, our teacher. In other words, if somebody has put these texts together, then through the providence of God, that person has become our teacher and has said, you need to read these texts together or side by side or whatever. So from there I move to a reflection about reading apparently disparate texts, that there are many, many things in heaven and earth for which ordinary human discourse is inadequate. And one of the ways of getting at those things is to say one thing and then to say something apparently quite different, but to let them sit there and, as it were, jangle against one another. And sometimes the Psalms do this. Often one half of a psalm verse is followed by second half saying much the same thing. But other times you've got a psalm verse and then a very different psalm verse, and you have to have the two of them together to make the sense that they're supposed to make. And if we want to say, oh, this seems to be inconsistent, then we're applying a very modern rationalistic idea of consistency. So I want to say it looks to me as though Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 or possibly 2:3, that's an interesting question there. Does look as though it's written in one particular fluid poetic style. The seven days. Well, the six days, and then the day of rest, et cetera, and God blessing the seventh day. And then as this particular Bible that I've got here, which is the revised version of the New Revised Standard Version calls it another account of the creation that seems to be a bit wooden and flat, to be honest, but it's a way of saying, now we're coming at the same thing from a very different angle. I've seen some novelists do this to great success. Julian Barnes's novel Flaubert's Parrot talks about Flaubert, the great French man of letters, and he tells us all about this aspect of his life. Then in the next chapter, it tells us all about that aspect of his life, and so on and so on. How could one man do all these things? But actually, he did. He was an extraordinary character. And if you want to understand him, you've got to get your head around this bit and then that bit, even if that seems radically incompatible to. To us. So I want to say that Genesis 1 looks to me as though it's a wonderfully poetic account of God's bipartite single creation of heaven and earth, with humans as the crown and flower of that. And it's the idea of creation as temple, with the humans as the image. But then this second account from chapter 2, verse probably 4b or somewhere on, is an account of human origins which doesn't have to be fitted squarely in there, and which maybe quite deliberately, almost teasingly, is saying, by the way, there's this river and that river and the other river. And one of my favorite little lines which still always strikes me when I read it, is that the river Pishon flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold, and the writer says, and the gold of that land is good. It's an extraordinary little note in the middle of it, by the way. There's really good gold there. But I think it's almost a tease. Now, most. I think I'm right in saying that most scholars on Genesis these days would say these are quite different accounts which have been combined by a wise editor, probably during the exilic period, and that it's highly likely that what we think of as the second one was actually written first, and that what we now think of as the first one is somebody standing back, rather like John writing his prologue, looking at the whole picture. In the beginning. This is how it was to create A kind of theological, almost mystical framework. And then we get down to the nitty gritty. So I don't see a problem. I'm not a Genesis scholar. I haven't. I can't resolve all the details. But I think we need to lighten up in terms of our views of inspiration in order just to let Scripture breathe and be itself and enjoy the oddities. Rather like the piece of music where there's a bit which is apparently discordant and then we have to wait and see how it's going to be resolved. So that's what I would say.

B (22:33)

I mean, I think the Gospel of John analogy is good because I remember reading some Rudolf Bultman. Bultmann was a very famous German New Testament scholar. His reading of the Gospel of John, he would say, oh, yeah, this bit here is secondary. Originally, chapter 14 was ahead of chapter 12. And he would make all these theories up. And you don't know that you're just making stuff up, like where everything goes. But when you get to the end of the Gospel of John, chapter 21, there's a very interesting phrase where it's got the testimony of the beloved disciple. And at the end it says, and we know his testimony is true, it switches from the first person singular to the first person plural, which is clearly the work of someone who has taken this. This gospel and added a little thing at the end saying, you know, we believe what he told us about Jesus. And that's clearly a mark of editing.

C (23:28)

Yeah.

B (23:28)

So I think the takeaway is don't believe everything critical scholars say. But, you know, the idea that there is some editing in the Bible at some progress in its transmission and canonization is nothing to be sneered at. And that's no. No threat. It's not injurious to a healthy doctrine of Scripture. And I guess on Genesis 2, the location of the Garden of Eden, I think he's just trying to situate it in a way that people would understand in the ancient world to say, well, yeah, there is a concrete place or notion behind this. And this is obviously relates to the whole thing about whether Genesis is history, parable, allegory, or something else.

C (24:10)

All of the above. And the rivers are tricky to figure out, but some people have said it looks as though this was a kind of a loose, rather fanciful description of the Fertile Crescent, or at least that part of what we now call the Middle east, but going down as far as. As far as Ethiopia, so all. All the way down and then background into Assyria, et cetera. In other words, as though, because we're going to be following this in 10 chapters, time by the call of Abraham and the promise of the land. It's almost as though we've got here a hint that there's somewhere special and God's going to do something special with it. Even though the details of the geography may be about as sketchy as my understanding of the bit of London where we're sitting at the moment, where I would have to get out a map and have a look and follow the river if need be.

B (25:06)

Yeah. Well, this goes to show that there's still more questions to be asked about the way biblical language works. Maybe that's something for a boat bonus episode.

C (25:14)

Could be.

B (25:15)

Yeah. And can I tell people if you're listening, watching, please send us in more questions or go into YouTube into the comment section if you're watching the video and ask something there I I go and I try to read all the comments and I mean all the comments. So I'm very keen to hear what people are thinking and feeling about the show. And if there's a variation on the theme of biblical language, the canonization of the Bible, please let us know what your question is and we'll try to answer. If you enjoy the program, there is an excellent back catalog. I know many of you wait eagerly every week for the latest episode to drop, but if you're bored, if you're on a long drive, feel free to have a browse through the back catalog and find some episodes that will stimulate your thinking and help you bide your time. Otherwise. I'm Mike Bird from Ridley College.

C (26:09)

And I'm Tom Wright from Witchliff hall.

B (26:11)

And we look forward to seeing you on the next episode of Ask NT Wright. Anything until then.

D (26:16)

God bless Sam.