[B-Greek] re. I Cor 15,22
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Jun 27 22:51:47 EDT 2004
Dear Steve,
Thanks for taking the time to respond at length,
since a lot of the material is helpful. I think I
was confused in my own mind when I used the
phrase "collective idea", and whatever else I
might have said in a still earlier post, since I
also had the individuals in mind.
>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."
HH: Right.
>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: Right.
>>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.
HH: Right.
>> 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.
HH: True.
>>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: They are individuals but special individuals
because of their unique representative function.
>>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: But we as believers form the body of Christ
(1 Cor 12:27). So there is an identification, a
unity, just as there apparently was in the case
of Adam, where His action affected us. I
understand the way we were in Adam as comparable
to the way Levi was in Abraham when Abraham paid
tithes. Levi in a sense paid tithes too. Since we
were in Adam, we in a sense sinned too:
Heb. 7:9 And if I may so say, Levi also, who
receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
Heb. 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
HH: We were in the loins of Adam when he sinned.
Now the way that we are identified with Christ is
different than the way we were identified with
Adam, but there is still a notion of being in
Christ.
>>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: My argument hinges on the union. I thought of
it like this: "For as in Alaska all are cold, so
also in Arizona all are hot." The prepositional
phrases give some qualification to the words
"all" so that they have a different meaning in
each case. It is not the same group of people.
Because of our union with Adam or Christ, I
thought there might be a similar qualification in
1 Cor 15:22. Not all are in Christ by faith, but
that is the way Paul has used the phrase "in
Christ" (v. 18). So "in Christ all will be made
alive" does not have to be an unqualified
generalization if "in Christ" helps to define
"all."
>>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.
HH: I agree with Thiselton, too.
> 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.
HH: But I think it might be possible to take the
words about "all" more generally if nothing
restricts the meaning. There are people who do
take it that way. So any help that can be given
them to see the implied restriction would be
helpful.
>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.
HH: "In Adam all die," however, refers to the
mass of mankind, or could. So it might not be an
automatic idea for the reader to restrict the
range of reference of a neighboring "all" to
believers without a clue from the immediate
context.
>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.
HH: I agree with you basically, but my discussion
partner does not, and it is possible that though
you are generally right, Paul could have spoken
in broader generalizations. Anyway, I think it is
appropriate to look for something specific in
verse 22, if possible.
> 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: This is all true, of course.
>>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.
HH: Part of my problem here is that I believe in
a millennium where people with earthly bodies
live a long time but may eventually die as
believers (Isa 65:20). So I think there may be
resurrection for them at the time of final
judgment (Rev 20:11-15). Therefore, I do not see
hOI TOU CRISTOU as necessarily being the only
group resurrected to life besides Christ Himself.
There would hardly be need to mention the coming
of the end separately in verse 24 if it was the
same event as Christ's coming in verse 23. There
is an EITA in verse 24 that suggests another gap
of time, and other revelation can support such a
gap. This makes me regard hOI TOU CRISTOU in
verse 23 as just part of "all" who will be made
alive in a distinctly three step process.
> 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).
HH: This is all news to me. I had never thought
of it that way and still have some reservations
about it. Yes, we are in Christ, but we also die
physically. We may die physically because we are
still in Adam. It seems possible to be both in
Adam and in Christ. Dying in Christ (v. 18) does
not necessarily exclude one from being
simultaneously in Adam. I know it says
"sleeping," but I gather that sleeping was used
as a euphemism for death even in pre-Christian
times (BAGD, second meaning, KOIMAW). We don't
completely lose the image of the earthly when we
accept Christ by faith. We will bear the image of
the heavenly man, but we don't yet (1 Cor 15:49).
The aorist is normally translated "have borne" in
1 Cor 15:49 or something more gnomic:
NIV: And just as we have borne the likeness of
the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of
the man from heaven.
NLT: Just as we are now like Adam, the man of the
earth, so we will someday be like Christ, the man
from heaven.
Amplified: 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.
ESV: Just as we have borne the image of the man
of dust, we shall[5] also bear the image of the
man of heaven.
CEV: Just as we are like the one who was made out
of earth, we will be like the one who came from
heaven.
NASB: Just as we have borne the image of the
earthy, we will also bear the image of the
heavenly.
HCSB: And just as we have borne the image of the
man made of dust, we will bear the image of the
heavenly man.
NKJV: And as we have borne the image of the man
of dust, we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly Man.
NRSV: Just as we have borne the image of the man
of dust, we will also bear the image of the man
of heaven.
HH: Perhaps it is a gnomic or proleptic aorist
(Wallace, _Greek Grammar beyond the Basics_, p.
562, 563).
>>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.
HH: My original contention must have been ill-conceived.
>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.
HH: I think it's fair to suggest that the overall
context can imply a specific limitation to "all"
in 1 Cor 15:22, but there may be more than that
to assist the reader.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list