Pre-Mortal Life
Question: What is pre-mortal life, and is it really supported by the Holy Bible?
THE DOCTRINE OF PRE-MORTAL LIFE, also known as pre-existence, comes from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormons. It’s one of their key doctrines, and lays the foundation for the meaning of life as we know it. For this reason it’s very near and dear to their hearts and will inevitably find its way into any serious conversation about life and purpose.
In support of this doctrine, Mormons will quote scriptures from all four of their holy books: the Holy Bible (the one followed by Christians and Catholics), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
From these books they attempt to show that before this mortal life, everyone existed as spirit children of God. Heaven, is thus considered to be man’s “first estate,” with earth being our second.
Some Latter-day Saints take this idea further, believing that we existed even before we became spirits. They believe that, prior to being born as spirits, individuals existed eternally as “intelligences” or self-aware, individual entities whom God gave spirit bodies. This idea is drawn from the Book of Abraham, found in the Pearl of Great Price, and is believed to refer to the spirit children of God:
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; {23} And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Book of Abraham 3:22-23, Pearl of Great Price)
Along this line of thought, Joseph Smith believed that the Lord had spoken to him about our eternal nature, saying:
Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. (Doctrines & Covenants 93:29)
The term Intelligence, as used here, is singular. This has prompted some Latter-day Saints to define pre-mortal spirit children as “organized intelligence.” Bruce R. McConkie, a Mormon apostle, explained this idea further when he wrote:
Abraham used the name intelligences to apply to the spirit children of the Eternal Father. The intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual entities (see Mormon Doctrine, p. 387)
The Doctrine & Covenants offers more details on the creation of spirit beings:
All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man… (Doctrines & Covenants 93:30-31)
From this it is said that truth and intelligence are co-eternal with God. God is said to have taken this truth and intelligence and made it independent, giving it agency and the ability to act for itself, by forming it into spirit beings, otherwise known as organized intelligence. If God had not done this, it’s claimed that there would have been no existence, which is to say, there would have been no individual identity or consciousness.
IT’S IN YOUR BIBLE
When having a discussion on this subject with Mormon missionaries, Christians may be surprised to hear that their own Bible supports this teaching, even if the Bible doesn’t come right out and teach it expressly. It’s on this argument that I want to focus.
When you have four holy books, they all need to be in agreement. They can’t teach contrary to one another. Unless, of course, at least one of those books doesn’t belong among them. The Holy Bible is that book. The Holy Bible doesn’t teach the doctrine of pre-mortal life, and yet, because it is named among the holy books of the Mormon belief system, support for the doctrine is sought from any verse that appears to use supporting phrases or terminology. And, as is to be expected when one bases an argument on text instead of context, you create non sequiturs.
A non sequitur is defined as “incongruous statement: a statement that appears unrelated to a statement that it follows” or an “unwarranted conclusion: a conclusion that does not follow from its premises.” This isn’t name calling. It’s simply the product of trying to make a point from a phrase or particular wording that does not itself make the point you are suggesting, irregardless of what “could be” implied from it.
The First Estate
For example, the Mormons teach that we were created as spirits and that our first estate was in the presence of God the Father in heaven. Those who were faithful to this first estate were then born into flesh and were required to remain faithful to their second estate, or domain.
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said; These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou are one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:22-23, Pearl of Great Price)
And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Abraham 3:26, Perl of Great Price)
After quoting these verses from the Pearl of Great Price, Mormons will turn to the Bible and quote from the book of Jude.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6, KJV Bible)
This passage in Jude is speaking of angelic beings, not men – pre-mortal or otherwise. Regardless of context, it’s not the context Mormons are interested in. It’s the phrase “first estate.” All they want you to see is that it’s a biblical idea. They will suggest to you that if there is a first estate, there must also be a second estate.
From there, they will move on to show that Jesus and His disciples believed in this first estate from which we have all come to this second estate on earth.
The Disciple’s Question
As evidence, the following passage is offered:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. {2} His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” {3} “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. (John 9:1-3, NIV)
The key point in this passage that Mormons want you to see is that the disciples believed that the man existed prior to being born, and sinned in that estate. This is a valid point. The disciples did ask if the man sinned prior to being born. That’s an odd thing to ask, and it wasn’t a slip of the tongue. So the Mormon will ask you why the disciples would ask if the man sinned prior to being born if they didn’t believe in pre-mortal life. They will follow this question with the following statements:
- Jesus didn’t rebuke them for asking an illogical question about something that cannot happen.
- Jesus said nothing to indicate that it was impossible for a man to have sinned prior to birth.
- (non sequitur) This means that the man could have sinned prior to his birth. And if he could have sinned, that means that he had a pre-earth existence and had the capacity to sin in that existence. That is what the Mormons believe too.
Arguing from silence is the easiest way to put your words in someone else’s mouth. But the fact remains that if Jesus didn’t say something, it means just that – He didn’t say something. As soon as you begin to teach what Jesus didn’t, you become a false teacher. That’s simply a fact of definition.
That’s also what the Rabbi’s of Jesus day were doing when Jesus arrived. They were teaching things that the Bible did not expressly teach. And, ironically, the disciples asked their question based on one of those doctrines of silence.
Among the various views of the Jews at that time was the belief that one could sin in the womb. One of the primary verses used to support this notion was Genesis 25:22.
The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.
{23} The LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”{24} When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. {25} The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau. {26} After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them. (Genesis 25:22-26, NIV)
Does this passage teach anything about sinning in the womb? No. But the jostling between the babies was said to imply the fight and struggle between two brothers. If you can fight, you can sin, or so the logic goes. Again, nothing is expressly taught, but in the silence men’s beliefs are imposed upon the text.
And so, in rabbinical literature (read that as: not actually in the Bible) there are several teachings based upon the assumptions made about the text in Genesis. In one case, Esau is described as possessing a sinful nature even though he was not yet born.
“When Rebecca passed by the pagan shrines, Esau would run and struggle to come out (Rashi cites this midrash1 in his commentary on Genesis 25:22-30).
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 91b also discusses the question.
“Antoninus also enquired of Rabbi, ‘From what time does the Evil Tempter hold sway over man; from the formation [of the embryo], or from [its] issuing forth [into the light of the world]?! — ‘From the formation,’ he replied. ‘If so,’ he objected, ‘it would rebel in its mother’s womb and go forth. But it is from when it issues.’ Rabbi said: This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is said, At the door [i.e., where the babe emerges] sin lieth in wait” (Gen 4:7).
In Midrash Koheleth and Midrash Ruth, there is a story told of Elisha Ben Abujah, who became an apostate. One of the reasons given for his departure from the faith is as follows:
“There are which say, that his mother, when she was big with child of him, passing through a temple of the Gentiles, smelt something very strong, and they gave to her of what she smelt, and she did eat; and the child in the womb grew hot, and swelled blisters, as in the womb of a serpent”
Elisha Ben Abujah’s apostasy is thus seen as the curse of his mother’s sin.
This was part of the rabbinical teaching that the disciples were taught before Jesus arrived. So it was on this basis that they asked their question about sin. To imply that it was because they believed in a doctrine that is nowhere taught in either the Holy Bible, or in the rabbinical teachings of the Jews, is to become a self appointed and false witness. Jesus rebuked the scribes for doing this with God’s word.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (Matthew 15:9, NIV)
IT IS WRITTEN
There are many verses containing phrases that Mormons use to imply a meaning not expressly taught in the Bible. The problem is, not one of the verses they quote actually teaches their doctrine. I would take their assertions more seriously if they could show even one place in the Bible where their views are expressly taught. Without that, I would have to accept their arguments on nothing more than blind faith. I cannot do that in good conscience. Not even the Bible requires that of me. God always explains Himself in His word, and it is on that basis that I stand confidently.
More than this, when I was first handed a list of verses that supposedly supported the doctrine of pre-mortal life, I couldn’t see why they were being offered as evidence. I saw no realationship between the verse and the Mormon assertion. I studied the context of the verses hoping to see their argument to no avail. Then I gave up and began to study what the Mormons believe based upon their other holy books. That’s when I saw what was happening. They aren’t teaching from context, they are linking phrases from the Bible with phrases used in their other holy books. You have to already believe in their doctrines and be familure with their phrases before you can see how they supposedly connect with scripture from the Bible. That’s a serious problem considering the fact that they list the Bible as an inspired authority.
It’s also a serious problem for their missionaries, because it forces them into bearing false witness from a biblical standpoint. When arguing from the Holy Bible, they must teach by assumed inference. In other words, they must teach that even though Jesus didn’t say it, or teach it, He believed it and inferred it. That’s putting words in His mouth. We get angry when people do this to us, so why would we do it to Jesus? That is a horrendous way to teach, and rests not upon fact, but upon what the teacher wants to say. In this one cannot escape error, and once accepted, it cannot be corrected internally because you have already embraced it on blind faith which requires no proof.
So instead of spending the rest of this discussion pointing out the fallacy of arguing from silence, let’s simply look at what the Bible does teach on the matter.
We’ll begin with Jude 1:6, KJV, which speaks of the angel’s first estate, because the context will actually bring us to what God does say on this subject.
BORN OF god
Jude 1:6, KJV is a hotbed of controversy. It’s implications are debated even within the Christian community. Why? It’s because of why these angels are being punished. They did something after leaving their first estate (heaven) for which God saw fit to imprison them immediately, instead of allowing them to roam free like their peers until Judgment Day. What was their crime? What sin did they commit that was worse than those committed every day by other demons? The answer is shocking. They were part of a massive, global deception that prompted God to flood the entire earth in order to put an end to what they had done.
Here’s my study synopsis on that subject:
After sin had manifested in Adam and Eve, God prophesied that the seed of Eve would crush the rebellion of Satan through a descended child of Eve. The devil responded with an extraordinary, if not ingenious, plan. He would make it impossible for the Messiah to be born as a representative of Adam.
The plan was simple. Satan would move Adam’s descendants to forget God and begin worshiping created creatures and objects. Then he would appoint certain demons (the angels of Jude 1:6) to take on a physical form. These masquerading demons would then appear to men as physical gods come from the heavens. They would take to themselves willing brides and bear children with them. The resulting offspring became known by many tribal names, but were collectively known as the Nephilim, or simply as “giants.”
By extending themselves into the bloodlines of mankind, the pure seed of Adam would eventually be thoroughly corrupted and turn man from what Adam was into a transgenic race of half-breeds. What purpose would that serve? It would put an end to God’s plan of redemption through representation. God promised to send the Messiah who would stand in Adam’s place, being flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones. Thus, the Messiah would have to be born of Adam’s seed, and not of a transgenic seed comprised of man and angel.
So God flooded the entire earth killing off all living things, save Noah, his immediate family, and animals in his care. After the flood, Satan attempted to re-initiate his plan. However as giants began to be born from these unholy unions between demons and women, God raised up the nation of Israel to stand against them, and wipe them from the face of the earth. Eventually, the giants disappeared from the earth. But the alien god’s behind the deception did not.
Satan continued to parade his alien “gods” before men, creating a long standing history of interaction between aliens and mankind. Eventually, the human Antichrist (possessed by Satan) will officially reintroduce these aliens (demons in physical disguise) to the world as co-rulers with him.
So what, again, does that have to do with Jude 1:6? Simply put, Jude 1:6 is where we learn what happened to those demons (fallen angels) who left their first estate and impregnated women.
And it’s on that point, the angelic impregnation of women, that I want to focus our attention. This is because the very idea invokes a question that, when answered, provides us with God’s definition of what the term “sons of God” means in contrast to the term “sons of man.”
By answering the question, “How could spirit beings impregnate human women?”, we discover the origin of man, and see why God’s definition of the terms “sons of God” and “sons of men” categorically excludes the possibility that men existed as sons of God prior to being born in the so-called “second estate” of their humanity upon the earth. Here’s why.
SONS OF GOD vs. SONS OF MAN
The term “sons of God” is not a designation of righteousness, but of origin. It therefore only applies to those who were born directly from God Himself. This interpretation is quickly validated when one identifies those to whom God has applied this title.
The angels were the first sons of God to be created (Job 38:4-7). Who are the angels?
Mormonism teaches that angels are people who either have lived, or will live, on earth. For example, Joseph Smith saw the angel Moroni, who had lived on the earth as a prophet 1600 years prior to appearing to Joseph as an angel. This however, is not what the Bible teaches.
While the term “angel” simply means “messenger” and anyone can be a messenger, the Bible expressly teaches that we will become something different than the angels, and actually makes a direct comparison between what angels are, and what we will become in Christ. For a study on this very subject, please see DO WE BECOME ANGELS WHEN WE DIE for more information.
After the angels sang for joy at the creation of the earth, Adam was created as the first man. Like the angels before him, Adam was created supernaturally, and is also called a son of God (Luke 3:38). After Adam, and aside from the pre-incarnate presence of Jesus Christ (Daniel 3:25), the only human references to sons and daughters of God in the Old Testament are found in prophecies that foretell of the redemptive work of the Messiah under the New Covenant (Isaiah 43:6, Hosea 1:10).
That includes references to the nation of Israel which speak of Israel as the children of God in purview of God’s redemptive promises (Deuteronomy 14:1). In other words, just as sheep and bulls could not actually cleanse the sins of the people (Hebrews 10:4), yet were counted as if they had (Hebrews 9:13-14), so were the children of Israel counted as the children of God on behalf of the power that the promised Messiah would give to them. Were they counted as the children of God? Yes. Were their sins considered cleansed? Yes. Was there anything that made those realities true in the day in which they were ascribed to the people? No, that would come with Christ. It was a truth of promise, but not of actuality as was illustrated by the need for Christ to come and give the Jews the power to become the sons of God thereafter.
Aside from that specific and national reckoning of promise, every other instance in which sons of God are spoken refer to the angelic host, be they holy or fallen (Psalms 82:6-7). The point, therefore, is this: mankind is not counted as the children of God by reason of direct creation.
Now here is a crucial point to comprehend.
It was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that enabled Him to give men “the power to become the sons of God” through the spiritual rebirth of redemption.
“But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: {13} Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13, KJV)
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23, KJV)
Now Mormons will read that and hear that we are the given the power to become what we were previously – sons God created first as spirits in heaven and then as humans on earth. But that assumes that we are first the sons of God by right of original creation, and then born-again into flesh.
The problem with this assumption is simple. You cannot become unborn. Think about that for a minute. Your origin does not change. But you can be born-again.
So into which estate are men originally born? The spirit or the flesh? Heaven or earth? Mormonism teaches that we are born-again into the flesh, after having been originally born or created in heaven as spirits. But the Bible teaches that we are born-again into the spirit, having originally been formed on the earth. This point is expressly taught in scripture, so let’s take a closer look at how one becomes a “son of man” and or a “son of God.”
THE MYSTERY OF PROCREATION
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6, KJV)
It takes a spirit to produce a spirit. And the transfer of spirit does not require fleshly reproductive systems in order to be imparted as the life of another.
In the book of Genesis, we are taught that God’s creation of Adam was completed in two stages.
The first stage involved the creation of Adam’s body. Instead of commanding Adam to exist from out of nothing, God first formed Adam’s flesh from the dust of the earth.
It may seem strange that a body of flesh was derived from the same chemical elements as rock and soil (such as: oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, water, etc.), nevertheless, this is something modern science has been able to test and examine, and as a result, has confirmed this scientific statement to be true.
While atheistic men do not contest that man’s body came from the natural elements of the earth, they cannot bear to accept the next claim – that life is not derived from the same chemical elements. The living spirit of man has never been identified or cataloged showing it to be comprised of natural substances. Nor shall it ever be, for a spirit is not natural to the elements of the earth, but is instead supernatural and comes from a Supernatural Creator. It was God Himself who breathed life into the body He formed from the dust of the earth.
This is the second step God took to create Adam. God’s “breath,” which is to say, His Spirit, became the life called Adam (Genesis 2:7).
How do we explain this? How do we describe the spiritual means by which part of God became a being who was distinct and separate from the Being of God? This Divine knowledge has not yet been revealed to the limited minds of men. However, its fundamental principle stands as the foundation for procreation: life proceeds from life, and spirits beget spirits.
When men and women join together in sexual union, they too contribute a portion of themselves to form a new life after their own image. And because a man is comprised of flesh, soul, and spirit, we find that it is flesh, soul, and spirit that they impart to their children.
Now listen carefully.
If men and women only transferred their flesh to their children, and it was from God alone that they received their spirits, then all men and women would be called the sons and daughters of God. But as we have seen, the sons of men must be given power in order to “become” the sons “of God.” That distinction is defined by the origin of one’s soul and spirit.
Here’s a biblical example of this difference in origin.
Consider the parent of Eve. The parent of Eve was Adam. God did not breath into a body to make Eve, nor did He take a pre-existing spirit and place it within a fleshly body. Instead, He took Adam’s rib, containing Adam’s flesh and blood (in which was a remnant of his soul and spirit), and formed Eve. Thus, the Bible tells us that Adam was created in the “likeness” or “glory” of God’s image, as a son of God, but Eve was fashioned after the “likeness” or “glory” of Adam, as a daughter of man.
“…Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38, KJV)
“..since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. {8} For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;” (1 Corinthians 11:7-8, NASB)
Where does woman originate from? God? No, she originates from man, being an extension of Adam’s flesh, soul, and spirit.
The fact that God makes this distinction of origin, or direct descent, between Adam and Eve reveals its significance. There’s a spiritual transfer in procreation that originates from one’s parents.
So we must ask, how did Eve receive her spirit from Adam? Contrary to arguments that insist that reproductive organs are needed in order to transfer life, life was transferred to Eve without their help. That spiritual transfer was made, at least in part, through human blood.
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood…” (Leviticus 17:11, KJV)
While this transfer of life was accomplished supernaturally, it employed the same principles used in natural birth.
Is it really so difficult to understand, then, that fallen angels were able to impart a portion of their spirits into the blood of men? If you are still struggling to embrace this idea, consider how the Messiah was formed, keeping in mind the supernatural union of angel and man spoken of in Genesis chapter six.
We are told that the Holy Spirit “came upon” a woman named Mary in such a way that she became pregnant with the Son of God, Jesus Christ (Luke 1:35). So we must ask a question.
What needed to take place in order for this pregnancy to produce a being who was both a son of God, and a genuine Son of man?
Our answer must be that the descended flesh, soul, and spirit of Adam would need to be offered by Mary and infused or formed together with the Spirit of God the Son.
No creation was necessary, only a supernatural transfer of Spirit that would be molded together with the descended spirit of Adam. Thus, the virgin birth was not an act of creation, but of formation – a molding together of two spirits into one.
In this concept of formation, the Mormons are correct. But in their understanding of what is being formed together, and from whence it came, they are at odds with the revelation of scripture.
So regarding our formation, the scripture tells us that:
“..the LORD…formeth [yatsar] the spirit of man within him.” (Zechariah 12:1, KJV)
STRONGS EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE:
- FORMETH: 3335. yatsar, yaw-tsar’; prob. identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); ([comp. H3331]), to mould into a form; espec. as a potter; fig. to determine (i.e. form a resolution):– X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make (-r), potter, purpose.
To form or fashion something is to take preexisting elements and mold them into shape. For example, God created the earth void, and formless, but afterward, He formed its shape to be inhabitable.
“In the beginning God created [bara'] the heaven and the earth. {2} And the earth was without form, and void;….” (Genesis 1:1-2, KJV)
“For thus saith the LORD that created [bara'] the heavens;… He formed [yatsar] it to be inhabited: …” (Isaiah 45:18, KJV)
The Hebrew word bara’ is a primary root word which means “to create,” and can be qualified to speak of formative processes. For example, God created all men, in that He created Adam from whom we have all descended through the process of procreation. We are all extensions of Adam’s flesh, soul, and spirit. And now when we are born of two parents, their flesh, souls, and spirits are joined together to form us after their image.
“…I have created [bara'] him for my glory, I have formed [yatsar] him; yea, I have made ['asah] him.” (Isaiah 43:7 (KJV)
Adam was created, but Eve and every descendant of Adam thereafter have all been formed from the fleshly and spiritual components of Adam. If this were not true, there could be no redemption for man, because redemption requires representation. For a full explanation of this Biblical teaching, see “The Secret of the Flesh.”
CONCLUSION:
Not only does the Bible not teach the pre-existence, or pre-mortal life, of man prior to being born into flesh upon the earth, it actually teaches against it (see The Secret of the Flesh). Contrary to the assertions of extra-biblical books that are claimed to be in agreement with the Bile, God’s word marks and defines the distinction of our origin – the point at which we came into existence.
Adam was created as a Son of God like the angels before him, but Eve and her children have all been formed from the physical and spiritual elements of Adam. That was intentional and for the purposes of redemption.
Only with the advent of Christ and His work of atonement have men been given the power to become what they are not – the power to become the sons of God. This is called being born-again because the first estate of those born to Adam is the earth. Thus we are born-again when our spirits are redeemed by the power of God. This is such a significant change from what we were before that we are actually called “new creatures.”
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV)
So, then, our second estate, if you wish to call it that, will be the presence of God – a presence man has never known prior.
That is why Jesus has said of Himself:
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (John 1:18, NIV)
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man (Jesus Christ) which is in heaven. (John 3:13, KJV)
And contrasting the origin of Adam with the origin of Jesus, the Bible declares:
Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being (an individual personality); the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving Spirit [restoring the dead to life]. {46} But it is not the spiritual life which came first, but the physical and then the spiritual. {47} The first man [was] from out of earth, made of dust (earthly-minded); the second Man [is] the Lord from out of heaven. {48} Now those who are made of the dust are like him who was first made of the dust (earthly-minded); and as is [the Man] from heaven, so also [are those] who are of heaven (heavenly-minded). {49} And just as we have borne the image [of the man] of dust, so shall we and so let us also bear the image [of the Man] of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:45-49, AMP Bible)
Our spiritual life did not begin prior to being born in the flesh, it came afterward, when Christ gave us the power to become the sons of God. And thus the apostle John concludes:
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2, NIV)
Now that we are born again into the spirit of God, we are what we were not before. And seeing as our second estate (heaven) will be different from our first estate (earth), what we shall be after this mortal life will be revealed in our glorified Representative (Jesus) before God the Father. We will become like our Redeemer. We will be glorified in Him, as His bride, like Eve was the very glory of Adam. And so shall we be forever more, being made so much greater than the angels who serve mankind (man being the only inheritors of salvation).
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:6-7, KJV)
- The word ‘Midrash’ is based on a Hebrew word meaning ‘interpretation’ or ‘exegesis’. Midrash is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at. [↩]