[B-Greek] re. I Cor 15,22
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jun 13 23:47:19 EDT 2004
On Jun 13, 2004, at 5:28 PM, George F. Somsel wrote:
> Now, Steve, just because I happen to be a died-in-the-wool Calvinist
> there's no reason to accuse me of being theologically motivated [just
> because I am :-) ].
George, I think you misunderstood me. It was BDAG's use of 1 Cor 15.23
as an example of TAGMA with the sense "group" that I said was
"possibly" theologically motivated because of certain comments made in
that section. I would NEVER so much as SUSPECT anyone on B-Greek to be
theologically motivated! :-) (P.S. I too share the dreadful and hated
Calvinist label, and I don't think either one of our views is
necessarily Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic, though Calvin himself
agrees with ME, speaking of the "order of things." :-))
I think much of what I wrote in my first post covers your objections
here, so I will try not to repeat myself here.
> 1. hEKASTOS EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI "each in his own group"
>
> 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.
(1) I think you are being too rigid with respect to the chronological
sense of TAGMA I am proposing. When we say, "each in his own order,"
the idea in the context is "each in his own turn." Christ in his turn,
those in Christ in their turn. Christ first, afterwards those who are
Christ's. Note that in BDAG 2, s.v. TAGMA, the definition is "a stage
in a sequence" and gives the glosses "order, turn." It is not TAGMATI
on its own in our passage that yields this meaning, but TAGMATI in
relation to the context, and especially what follows. What we have here
is an argument against those who say there is no resurrection (v. 12).
Sure, you don't see anyone rising from the dead NOW, but that is
because it is not the proper stage in the divine timetable for it. The
chronological sequence requires that Christ rise first, then those who
are his all together at his coming.
(2) I don't want to misrepresent you, so please correct me if I am
wrong, but it seems to me that you are linking the clause hEKASTOS DE
EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI tightly to what precedes, contra NA27/UBS4, which
have a hard stop at the end of v. 22 and a colon after TAGMATI in v.
23, indicating that hEKASTOS DE EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI looks ahead to and
is in fact clarified and completed by the following clause. This is
reflected in almost every English translation I know of with an English
colon after TAGMATI, so that the sense is, "But each person [is made
alive] in his own turn: Christ the FIRSTfruits, THEN at his coming
those who are Christ's." Whether this is what you have in mind or not,
I think that in order for your view to be possible, the NA27/UBS4
punctuation must be rejected. But then APARCH CRISTOS, EPEITA hOI TOU
CRISTOU EN THi PAROUSIAi AUTOU is left hanging and it is hard to see
how it connects with what precedes and how it fits the context.
(3) Which verb or verbs are we to supply in the first clause of v. 23?
It seems to me that in the context we have three choices: (a) a form of
APOQNHiSKW, (b) a form of ZWOPOIEW, (c) a form of both. Which of these
makes the best sense? A form of APOQNHiSKW alone clearly doesn't make
sense, nor does a form of APOQNHiSKW and a form of ZWOPOIEW together.
But when we supply a form of ZWOPOIEW and follow the NA27/UBS4
punctuation the result is lucid and coherent: For as in Adam all die,
so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each person [is made
alive] in his own turn: Christ the FIRSTfruits, then at his coming
those who belong to Christ."
(4) Keeping in mind the sense I am assigning to TAGMA, as well as the
NA27/UBS4 punctuation, it begs the question to assert that PANTES ...
PANTES are the only possible, or even probable, candidates for those
who are associated with one or the other TAGMA, when we have two
candidates in a clause that is, IMO, indisputably dependent on hEKASTOS
DE EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI and contains two candidates that make much more
sense in the context: CRISTOS and hOI TOU CRISTOU.
(5) To what does hEKASTOS (masc sing nom) refer? If to both PANTES
[APOQNHiSKOUSIN] and PANTES [ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI] it's hard to make out
the sense. For then we have, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ
all shall be made alive. But each person of all who die in Adam and
each person of all who will be made alive in Christ in his own group:
Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ."
Honestly, George, I can't make any sense of this. Each person of all
who die in Adam and each person of all who will be made alive in Christ
WHAT? Where is this clause going? What is it doing? It doesn't even
seem to make grammatical sense when taken as you suggest, especially
when we try to deal with the following dependent clause.
On the other hand, in light of the close connection between the two
clauses of v. 23 and the dependence of the second clause on the first,
it makes perfect sense to see agreement between hEKASTOS and CRISTOS
(both masc sing nom) and treat CRISTOS as appositional to hEKASTOS.
Note the good sense this yields: But each one--Christ the FIRSTfruits,
then at his coming those who belong to Christ--are made alive in their
own turn.
(6) I don't see anything about "ways" here. I suggest that has to be
read into the text.
> 2. APARXH XRISTOS "the first fruit is Christ"
>
> Here it is not simply that Christ is the first to rise. He is the
> APARXH
> -- the first fruits. This was the offering which was made at the
> beginning of the harvest before the remainder could be used.
George, not only do I not deny this, but it is pretty close to what I
said in my previous post:
"It is predicated here that CRISTOS is APARCH, which most naturally
means "the first one raised" (see BDAG 1.b.alpha., s.v. APARCH) with
the implication of others to follow."
It isn't "simply" that Christ was the first to rise; nevertheless, the
idea of order can't be ignored in this context, dealing as it does with
the precedence of Christ's resurrection to that of believers. When this
is kept in mind, it is easy to see the chronological sequence here
indicated by APARCH ... EPEITA. Christ is the first to be made alive
(with the promise of others to follow), then at his coming those who
are in Christ will be made alive. After that (EITA, v. 24) comes TO
TELOS.
> In
> Revelation we have an example of this. In chapter 7 there are two
> groups
> set forth -- 144,000 Israelites and an innumerable multitude who are
> holding palm branches in their hands. This is the celebration of the
> feast of booths / first fruits / Pentecost. Then again in 14.1-5 we
> again meet with the 144,000 who are there explicitly stated (14.4)
>
> hOUTOI HGORASQHSAN APO TWN ANQRWPWN APARXH TWi QEWi KAI TWi ARNIWi
> these were purchased from men [as] first fruits to God and to the Lamb
(1) I think APARCH is used here in a somewhat different sense from in 1
Cor 15. As BDAG says (1.b.alpha., s.v. APARCH), "[In] Rv 14:4 the
emphasis is less on chronological sequence than on quality." In the
same section it says of 1 Cor 15.20, 23, "The orig. mng. is greatly
weakened, so that A. becomes almost = PRWTOS; of Christ A. TWN
KEKOIMHMENWN the first of those who have fallen asleep 1 Cor 15:20; cp.
vs. 23." While I think this goes too far, IMO truncating the full
semantical force of APARCH in 1 Cor 15, it nevertheless recognizes the
ordinal nature of APARCH.
(2) I don't think this text from Rev offers any grammatical or
syntactical evidence that sheds any light on our text in 1 Cor 15.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list