[B-Greek] re. I Cor 15,22

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jul 11 19:11:36 EDT 2004


George, all apologies to you for taking so long to get back to you.

On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:11 AM, George F. Somsel wrote:

> I don't attach any particular chronological sense to TAGMA whatsoever 
> so,
> if anyone is being too rigid in regard to a chronological sense, you 
> need
> only look in the mirror. (I don't mean this unkindly so please don't 
> take
> it as such).  What I see is 2 (or one might stretch it to 3) groups. 1.
> Those who are Christ's (and Christ as the first fruits)  2. The enemies
> of Christ.

(1) I don't view TAGMA as chronological in the sense of there being 
some *intrinsic* chronological meaning to the word in itself. What I am 
proposing is a chronological sense in its use in context in 1 Cor 
15.23. And what I mean by "chronological" is a "turn" in a temporal 
order of events. So I am not being too rigid in my handling of TAGMA, 
since I know and acknowledge that the word may communicate different 
senses in different contexts, several of which senses have nothing to 
do with a group.

(2) BDAG acknowledges this sense in section 2 of the entry for TAGMA. 
There the proposed definition is "a stage in a sequence" and the 
glosses are "order, turn." Though the example given has TAGMA in a 
prepositional phrase governed by KATA, I see no reason why TAGMA in a 
prepositional phrase governed by EN could not yield the same or a 
similar sense.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that BDAG 
includes the usage of TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23 in section 1, where the 
proposed definition is "a clearly defined group." Here there are 2 
subsections, a and b. The first of these subsections says that TAGMA 
may be used in the sense "of an orderly arrangement of personnel" and 
uses the glosses "division, group." It is noted, though, that in this 
sense it is a technical term for "bodies of troops in various numbers." 
This clearly does not fit the context of 1 Cor 15.23. In the second of 
these subsections it is noted that TAGMA may be used "without any 
special military application" and the glosses "class, group" are 
offered.

I think the sense "class" brings us somewhat closer to the precise 
sense of TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23, since this sense does not require us to 
think in terms of a "group," which is important, since Christ is 
certainly not a group and in light of EPEITA must be considered in his 
own TAGMA, distinct from hOI TOU CRISTOU in *their* TAGMA. But it seems 
to me that the comments of BDAG here on 1 Cor 15.23 are somewhat 
confusing, and indicate that this use of TAGMA should have been used as 
an example for section 2, the definition and glosses of which I have 
already quoted above. Note what BDAG says about TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23:

"Acc. to 1 Cor 15:23f the gift of life is given to various ones IN TURN 
(cp. Arrian, Tact. 28, 2 EPEIDAN TAGMA TAGMATI hEPHTAI), and AT VARIOUS 
TIMES" [my emphasis].

In light of this statement, it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion 
that TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23 would have been better utilized as an example 
for section 2, "a stage in a sequence" with the glosses "order, turn." 
Why BDAG, in light of what they actually *say* about TAGMA in 1 Cor 
15.23, chose to include it under section 1.b instead of under section 2 
puzzles me.

(3) L-N pairs TAXIS and TAGMA as synonyms in the domain "Arrange, 
Organize" (62.7). It offers the definition "a proper and correct order" 
and gives the glosses "right order, good order, in order, in an orderly 
manner." If in fact this proposed semantic overlap between TAXIS and 
TAGMA is valid, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that TAGMA may be 
used in the sense "order" or "turn" (cf. 1 Cor 14.40 and Col 2.5, both 
included as examples along with 1 Cor 15.23).

(4) From the sense of "a distinct group of people" comes by extension 
the sense of "rank," i.e., the status of an individual or individuals 
within a distinctive group in which the others have the same status. 
Thus the person/persons is/are distinguished by status in the broader 
scheme of things, i.e., in relation to those of higher or lower rank. 
When used in this sense, the "group" idea is shed and an ordinal sense 
comes to the fore. We find TAGMA used in this sense in 1 Clem 37.3:

OU PANTES EISIN EPARCOI OUDE CILIARCOI OUDE hEKATONTARCOI OUDE 
PENTEKONTARCOI OUDE TO KAQEXHS, ALL' hEKASTOS EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI TA 
EPITASSOMENA hUPO TOU BASILEWS KAI TWN hHGOUMENWN EPITELEI.
Not all are prefects or tribunes or centurions or captains of fifty and 
so forth, but each in his own rank executes the orders given by the 
emperor and the commanders.

The reason I am making this point is that I think it is important to 
understand that the sense of a word in its context may be an extension 
of another sense that in turn is an extension of another. Sometimes 
this process makes it hard to tell exactly how a word came to be used 
in a certain sense. This is the way language works. In the present 
case, I don't think it is hard to see the progression from distinct 
group to the rank of an individual within a distinct group in the 
broader scheme of things to a person's order of participation or "turn" 
in a series of events. Once we realize that TAGMA may be used in an 
ordinal sense, there is nothing to prohibit the sense I am proposing.

(5) Building on the last point, there is another passage in 1 Clement 
that may provide some interesting insight into TAGMA. In 1 Clem 41.1 we 
read,

hEKASTOS hUMWN, ADELFOI, EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI EUCARISTEITW TWi QEWi EN 
AGAQHi SUNEIDHSEI hUPARCWN, MH PAREKBAINWN TON hWRISMENON THS 
LEITOURGIAS AUTOU KANONA, EN SEMNOTHTI.
Let each of you, brothers, in his proper order give thanks to God, 
maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of 
his ministry, but acting with reverence.

But does TAGMATI here mean "rank" or "turn"? The context in which it is 
used seems to indicate that *both* may be in view. Let me back up a bit 
and give the preceding context leading up to this verse. For sake of 
convenience, I'll quote an English translation and identify the 
important Greek words where appropriate.

1 Clem 40.1-41.1 These things therefore being manifest to us, and since 
we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do 
all things in [their proper] order [TAXEI], which the Lord has 
commanded us to perform at stated times [KATA KAIROUS TETAGMENOUS]. He 
has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service [LEITOURGIAS] to 
be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but 
at the appointed times and hours [ALL' hWRISMENOIS KAIROIS KAI hWRAIS]. 
Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has 
fixed [hWRISEN] by His own supreme will, in order that all things being 
piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto 
Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed 
times [TOIS PROSTETAGMENOIS KAIROIS], are accepted and blessed; for 
inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own 
peculiar services [LEITOURGIAI] are assigned to the high priest, and 
their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own 
special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by 
the laws that pertain to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, give 
thanks to God in his own order [EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI], living in all 
good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule 
of the ministry THS LEITOURGIAS] prescribed to him [TON hWRISMENON ... 
KANONA].

Note the cognates that relate to temporal order and fixed times (TAXEI, 
TETAGMENOUS, PROSTETAGMENOIS, TAGMATI (?)), the repeated use of hORIZW, 
especially in reference to designated times, and the repetition of 
LEITOURGIA. It seems that both rank (high priest, priests, levites, 
laymen) and temporal order of worship pertaining to the rank of the 
participants (KATA KAIROUS TETAGMENOUS, hWRISMENOIS KAIROIS KAI hWRAIS, 
TOIS PROSTETAGMENOIS KAIROIS) are in view. So when we read the 
exhortation in 41.1, it seems that the author wants his readers to 
accept their God-assigned "rank" as well as limit their participation 
in the temporal order of service in a way that reflects that rank. 
TAGMA seems to indicate both "rank" *and* "turn," since both ideas are 
central to the argument.

> As you note, I am not following the NA-27 punctuation.  Let me lay out 
> my
> understanding
>
> I. General statement
>     A. EPEIDH GAR DI' ANQRWPOU QANATOS
>     B. KAI DI' ANQRWPOU ANASTASIS NEKRWN
> II. Explication
>      A. hWSPER GAR EN TWi ADAM PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN
>      B. hOUTWS KAI EN XRISTWi PANTES ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI:  hEKASTOS EN DE
> TWi IDIWi TAGMATI
>           1. APARXH XRISTOS
>           2. EPEITA hOI TOU XRISTOU EN TWi PAROUSIAi AUTOU
>           3. EITA TO TELOS . . . PANTA GAR hUPETACEN hUPO TOUS PODAS
> AUTOU . . .

George, I'm a bit confused as to exactly what it is you are arguing. At 
one point in the thread you seemed to argue that there were two and 
only two TAGMATA. Here is what you said:

"This is 'each in HIS OWN' TAGMATI. The implication is that there is 
more than one TAGMA and that one may belong to one or to the other 
TAGMA. Who is it that belongs to these TAGMATA? PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN 
the "all [who] die" or PANTES ZWiOPOIHUHSONTAI the "all [who] shall be 
made alive." The two ways. It does not refer to Christ."

But in another post you said:

"What I see is 2 (or one might stretch it to 3) groups. 1. Those who 
are Christ's (and Christ as the first fruits)  2. The enemies
of Christ."

Here you seem to allow three groups. And one group does in fact "refer 
to Christ." Though you do not state it explicitly in this second quote, 
from what you say here and from your outline above, the three groups 
would seem to be (1) Christ, (2) those who are Christ's, and (3) the 
enemies of Christ. I think there are major problems with either view, 
which I will delineate below.

(1) hEKASTOS, being a masculine pronoun, naturally has a person/people 
in view. The clause in which it is used is introductory, i.e., it 
introduces the person/people to which hEKASTOS refers, which 
person/people is/are in apposition to hEKASTOS. When we analyze the 
flow of substantives from vv. 23-24, we have APARCH CRISTOS ... EPEITA 
hOI TOU CRISTOU ... EITA TO TELOS. Only two of these are personal, 
referring to a person/persons, thus hEKASTOS must introduce only APARCH 
CRISTOS and hOI TOU CRISTOU. Therefore only two TAGMATA are in view to 
which a person may be related. One TAGMA in relation to APARCH CRISTOS, 
the other in relation to hOI TOU CRISTOU. Also, since CRISTOS can in no 
way be taken as a group in this context, TAGMA must carry another 
sense. In fact, your insistence that TAGMA must mean group sinks the 
idea that three groups are in view and invalidates the very outline you 
provided above. The idea of "rank" makes sense here, but the idea of 
"turn" fits even better, since a sequence of events is in view.

(2) In v. 22 we have two verbs, APOQNHiSKOUSIN and ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI. It 
is clear that a form of one or the other of these verbs must be 
supplied in two of the next three clauses. It is equally clear that a 
form of APOQNHiSKW doesn't work. Furthermore, if the first clause of v. 
24 indicates another TAGMA, as seems required by your comments and 
outline, we must be able to supply a form of ZWiOPOIEW here also, or 
your outline breaks down. Let's see how this works out:

v. 23a hEKASTOS DE [ZWiOPOIEITAI] EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI

v. 23b APARCH [ESTIN] CRISTOS, i.e., the first to be made alive in the 
sense in which "made alive" is meant here.

v. 23c EPEITA hOI TOU CRISTOU [ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI] EN THi PAROUSIAi AUTOU

v. 24a EITA TO TELOS [ZWiOPOIHQHSETAI]

It's pretty clear that your outline breaks down completely in v. 24. 
The sequence introduced by hEKASTOS DE EN TWi IDIWi has to do with 
people being made alive, and TO TELOS is not personal and doesn't fit 
as a TAGMA when it is understood that each person is made alive in his 
own TAGMA.

(3) CRISTOS should be distinguished as a discrete element to which 
hEKASTOS refers, since it is separated from hOI TOU CRISTOU by EPEITA, 
indicating that whatever it is that happens to Christ and those who are 
his happens in a sequential order at different times. When this is 
understood, it becomes clear that there are only two TAGMATA in view, 
Christ in his TAGMA and those who are his in their TAGMA. There are no 
other candidates mentioned.

(4) TO TELOS in v. 24 clearly does not signify a person/persons, and so 
does not work in relation to hEKASTOS, which is required if TO TELOS is 
to be understood as a second or third TAGMA. But not only does TO TELOS 
not work in relation to hEKASTOS, it also can in no meaningful way be 
construed as a "group," which is the meaning of TAGMA you require. And 
one must pour an awful lot of imported theology into TO TELOS to come 
up with a general resurrection that includes Christ's enemies, since 
there is not a hint of that here.

(5) PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN in v. 24 cannot refer 
back to all who die in Adam in v. 22, since, in relation to human 
beings, the group in v. 22 is much broader and the forces described in 
v. 24 likely include angelic entities. Therefore your idea that all who 
die in Adam constitute a TAGMA breaks down once again, since all who 
die in Adam are nowhere mentioned in the temporal sequence of events 
delineated in vv. 23-24 and are nowhere said to be made alive.

> No, there is a difference in taking APARXH as simply being "first" and
> taking it as being "first fruits."  The first fruits were the beginning
> of the harvest which was offered as a sacrifice before the beginning of
> the real harvest.  Thus, while it has a temporal significance as well,
> its real meaning is that of a dedication to God.  One cannot simply
> ignore its usage in the literature.  It would also be well to remember
> that there is always a two-fold designation in the harvest.  There is 
> the
> wheat, and there are the tares.

First of all, I never said APARCH should be taken "simply" as being 
first. What I said was that the ordinal aspect of the word must not be 
discounted. It is undoubtedly the case in 1 Cor 15 that Christ rises 
before those who are his in the sequence delineated.

Second, the idea that APARCH was a foretaste and promise of anything 
but good grain is, in my opinion, quite mistaken. Is the harvest of 
good grain *and* tares what was being celebrated at Pentecost? Indeed, 
the first portion of the harvest offered in thanksgiving to God implies 
the consecration of the harvest to come, which consecration cannot 
include tares. And in the parable to which you refer, the tares were 
purposely planted by an enemy, so a harvest consisting of a sizable 
proportion of tares doesn't seem to be a common occurrence and thus 
wouldn't have been considered in connection with APARCH. At any rate, 
the idea of tares is another theological idea that must be imported 
into the text with which we are now concerned. As I think I have shown 
in some detail in my last response to Harold, the only resurrection in 
view in 1 Cor 15 is the resurrection to glory and eternal life in its 
fullest sense.

I'll let you have the last word, George, since it will likely be 
another week or two before I can put together a decent post. Thanks for 
the stimulating dialogue.
============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list