[B-Greek] re. I Cor 15,22
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jun 27 20:06:46 EDT 2004
My apologies, Harold, for taking so long to get back to you. During the
week I usually have only the time to write a few lines and I had to
work last weekend, thus the delay.
> HH: I agree, as you seem to, with the referential idea for the
> definite article in EV TWi ADAM that George shared as going back to
> verse 21. And I agree with you that Adam and Christ are individuals,
> the men indicated in verse 21. But I don't know that verse 21 has to
> eliminate the collective idea. The question is whether they may refer
> to more than individuals. The preposition in verse 21 is DIA, but it
> is EN in verse 22. That might be significant, as stressing a location,
> a sphere. Verse 22 does not have to be a simple substitution for verse
> 21 with names introduced.
The different prepositions certainly mark different types of
relationships of their objects to the state or actions in view. But I
think what you are missing is that EN necessarily implies a distinction
between TWi ADAM and TWi CRISTWi and those who are EN them. If indeed
"location" or "sphere" is involved here, there is a necessary
distinction between the location or sphere and those occupying the
location or sphere. The "all who die" do so IN Adam, not AS Adam, and
the "all who will be made alive" will be made so IN Christ, not AS
Christ. So no, I don't think there is any way to view TWi ADAM and TWi
CRISTWi as signifying anything other than the two individuals with whom
the respective groups are EN relationship.
I certainly never meant to indicate that v. 22 was "a simple
substitution for verse 21 with names introduced." We were talking about
the significance of the articles, not the overall significance and
meaning of v. 22 in the wider argument. And if indeed the articles in
v. 22 are meant to make definite and explicit in v. 22 what was
indefinite and only implied in v. 21, then it is hard to escape the
conclusion that TWi ADAM explicitly identifies the man through whom
came death and TWi CRISTWi explicitly identifies the man through whom
came resurrection from the dead. Paul is certainly not saying in v. 21
that death came through a corporate entity and resurrection also came
through a corporate entity. And the sentence marked by GAR in v. 22
prepares us for the cause for, clarification of, or inference from what
he has previously stated. If we take Carl's cue and think of GAR in
terms of "after all" (which I think is helpful in many cases) we have
something like the following in vv. 20-22:
"But now Christ [the individual] has been raised from the dead, the
firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. After all, since death
came through a man [the individual Adam], resurrection from the dead
came also through a man [the individual Christ]. After all, just as in
Adam [the individual] all die, so also in Christ [the individual] all
shall be made alive."
It's hard to see any continuity in this argument if indeed there is an
unexpected and indeed abrupt transition from Christ the individual in
vv. 20-21 to a corporate entity signified by the same name in v. 22 as
we find in v. 20. Rather the idea is that Christ the individual was
raised from the dead as the FIRSTFRUITS (v. 20), and afterwards all [in
view] will be made alive IN RELATION TO THIS SAME CHRIST (v. 22).
> HH: My thought is that the later verses in the chapter may clarify
> what Adam and Christ represent in verse 22. Adam is called the first
> man, and Christ the second man (v. 47).
But it is important to analyze v. 48 along with v. 47. There is a clear
distinction made in v. 48 between hO COIKOS and hOI COIKOI and between
hO EPOURANIOS and hOI EPOURANIOI. Thus hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS and hO
DEUTEROS ANQRWPOS in v. 47 are clearly the individuals Adam and Christ.
> Christ is also called the last Adam (v. 45), probably as the
> progenitor of a new race.
I have no problem with the idea of Christ as the ESCATOS ADAM being the
progenitor of a new humanity. But it is important to note that the
progenitor is not identified AS the new race or people.
> The context shows that they are two types of man, one earthly and the
> other heavenly, one natural and the other spiritual (vv. 46, 48). So
> Adam in verse 22, while representing himself, could also indicate a
> type of man, and the same would be true for Christ.
You've made a leap here that I think is completely unwarranted and
arbitrary. When you say that "they" are two types of man, you seem
clearly to be referring to the INDIVIDUALS Adam and Christ. This is of
course correct. The contrast in vv. 45, 46, and 47 is between the
individuals. But in these verses they are different types of man AS
INDIVIDUALS. hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM and hO ESCATOS ADAM as well as hO
PRWTOS ANQRWPOS and hO DEUTEROS ANQRWPOS are clearly NOT identifying
and contrasting corporate entities, but individuals, as you yourself
seem to acknowledge. In turn, as I have already pointed out, the
individuals are clearly distinguished from the groups associated with
them, which are described as LIKE them (hOIOS hO COIKOS, TOIOUTOI KAI
hOI COIKOI, KAI hOIOS hO EPOURANIOS, TOIOUTOI KAI hOI EPOURANIOI, v.
48). So to say that because these INDIVIDUALS are designated as certain
"types" of man it follows that when we see their names or titles we may
conclude that these names or titles indicate a corporate entity rather
than the individuals is unwarranted and arbitrary, since in none of the
examples you have given are these names or titles actually used of a
corporate entity. In fact, you have still to explain why, if in every
other case in this chapter these names/titles designate individuals, we
should take TWi ADAM and TWi CRISTWi as anything other than individuals
in v. 22.
> HH: This seems possible with Christ because twice earlier in 1
> Corinthians Paul has indicated that believers are part of Christ:
>
> 1Cor. 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ
> himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a
> prostitute? Never!
>
> 1Cor. 12:12 ¶ The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts;
> and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with
> Christ.
> 1Cor. 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
But in every one of these cases the name/title Christ refers to nothing
else besides the INDIVIDUAL! We, as members, are united to the
individual person Christ, and the union of all members with him is what
unites us to each other. But the name/title CRISTOS refers ONLY to the
individual. What you need to prove is not only that the name/title
CRISTOS in and of itself may refer to a corporate entity, but also that
this is the most probable meaning in 1 Cor 15.22 in its context.
> HH: So my question is whether the sentence could mean something like:
> "For as in Adam all [who are in Adam] die, so also in Christ all [who
> are in Christ] shall be made alive."
Well of course the sentence could mean that, but it is hard to see what
your above translation has to do with what you are actually arguing,
since in this rendering both Adam and Christ refer to the INDIVIDUALS
while your bracketed explicatory words expand not on TWi ADAM and TWi
CRISTWi but on PANTES and PANTES! Remember, what you are arguing is
that TWi ADAM and TWi CRISTWi may themselves indicate corporate
entities, not that PANTES and PANTES may mean "all in their respective
category."
> HH: The argument I have seen in Thiselton's Greek New Testament
> commentary on 1 Corinthians is that this passage does not refer to the
> general resurrection because Christ as the firstfruits would point to
> a resurrection of glory (v. 23). But there must be something in the
> grammar to prevent the reader from assuming that all would be
> resurrected in a glorious way.
I think Thiselton is exactly right in this case. The concern is with
the resurrection of Christ and believers--those who have fallen asleep
in him, those who are his. The resurrection of unbelievers is nowhere
dealt with here, and must be imported from other contexts. Remember,
the issue is that some among the Corinthians were saying that there was
no resurrection of the dead. Paul's response is that yes there is,
since Christ was indeed raised as the firstfruits and his people would
be raised with him subsequently. This was to give the Corinthians
assurance that THEIR faith, hope, and labor were not in vain (vv. 2,
12-14, 17-20, 23, 29-32, 58). It is essential to note that in vv. 35-49
it is clearly the resurrection to imperishability and glory that is in
view (see vv. 42-43). The same with vv. 50ff., where inheritance of the
kingdom of God as changed and imperishable beings is in view. THIS is
the victory over death that is before us (vv. 25f.; 54f.). It is the
victory of Christians (v. 57). The whole point of the chapter is
discernible in the closing exhortation marked by the inferential hWSTE:
"So then, dear brothers and sisters, be firm. Do not be moved! Always
be outstanding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not
in vain in the Lord." The Corinthians faith, hope, and labor would
ultimately be fruitful. Aside from the fact that there is no explicit
reference to the resurrection of unbelievers, which we find in other NT
works, it is hard to see how this idea has any practical value in the
present argument and exhortation. It would be nothing more than an
extraneous theological flourish.
I'm not sure I understand your point in the second sentence above. Are
you saying that for my interpretation to be true there must be some
bare grammatical phenomenon that would prevent the reader from assuming
that all would be resurrected in glory? If so, I disagree. Grammar is a
part of interpretation, but is not of itself a key that automatically
unlocks every interpretive door. I think there are indications
virtually from beginning to end in this chapter that only
believers/those who die in Christ are in view as those raised to glory.
Remember, this is not a theological treatise, but the application of
the doctrine of the resurrection to a specific problem in the
Corinthian church, and is thus supremely practical. In a situation in
which their faith, hope, and labor in Christ were being undermined by
the false doctrine that there is no resurrection, Paul counters with an
argument setting forth the fact of Christ's resurrection and the
relationship of the Corinthian believers to that resurrection. He
stresses the resurrection of Christ as APARCH (vv. 20, 23) and those
referred to as hOI KOIMHQENTES EN CRISTWi (v. 18) and hOI TOU CRISTOU
(v. 23) as the necessarily ensuing harvest EN THi PAROUSIAi AUTOU (v.
23). This is the doctrine the Corinthians needed to understand in order
to avoid the serious implications of the false doctrine confronting
them. While the ultimate victory over God's foes is a comfort in this
case (vv. 23-25), the resurrection of unbelievers is extraneous to this
argument or exhortation.
> HH: I do not see how these two phrases would exclude all from being
> resurrected to glory. I agree with Arie that "all" does not have to
> imply every individual on earth. Its meaning depends on the context,
> but what in the context limits it?
If in fact the relationship between vv. 22 and 23 is as I have
explained in my earlier post and is as the NA27 and UBS4 punctuation
indicates, then I think it is hOI TOU CRISTOU who are in view as the
PANTES who shall be made alive. In Adam all die, not live, according to
this passage. So clearly in Adam no one shall be made alive in the
sense that life is spoken of in this chapter. Those who receive the
resurrection life indicated by ZWOPOIEW in v. 22 do so in their proper
order: Christ the firstfruits, after that, when Christ comes, those who
are his (v. 23). Believers do not die EN TWi ADAM (v. 22) but EN
CRISTWi (v. 18). Believers do not now bear the image of the man of dust
(v. 49; note the aorist), but WILL bear the image of the man of heaven
(v. 49; note the future). In the meantime they are being transformed
into that image (2 Cor 3.18).
> The phrase in verse 18 only requires that those who sleep in Jesus be
> part of the "all," and the phrase in verse 23 could indicate a group
> that is part of the "all."
Not if the whole context is taken into account, as I think I have
already shown.
> So it may be that something in verse 22 can limit the "all" to those
> who are in Christ.
What is that "something" in your view of things?
>
> HH: You might be right about verse 18, but the connection might be in
> the phrase EN CRISTWi, which also occurs, but with the definite
> article, in verse 22. So verse 22 might do two things. It might
> identify the two men of verse 21, and it might indicate those two men
> as representative heads of a type of human being. What do you think?
It seems to me that you've here abandoned your own original contention
with which you began this post, that the names TWi ADAM and TWi CRISTWi
are in themselves "collective" and "refer to more than individuals." A
representative head is quite distinct from those represented, and
therefore not a collective. I have no problem with the idea of Adam and
Christ being representative heads, but the names TWi ADAM and TWi
CRISTWi do not signify a collective, they signify individuals, Adam and
Christ.
I apologize if I have ventured too far into the area of exegesis, but
sometimes it is hard to nail down the meanings of words without
venturing into the nearer and wider context, and sometimes hard to know
where to draw the line.
Thanks, Harold, and I look forward to hearing from you.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list