Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - 1 Corinthians 15

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Potts <eric AT revpotts.freeserve.co.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: 1 Corinthians 15
  • Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:54:27 +0100


I have been having a conversation elsewhere about the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, and would like to offer my ideas here for scrutiny by those who have made a study of Paul.

I seek to do two things:
1. To establish that the chapter falls into two distinct parts: verses 1 to 34; and verses 35 to the end;
2. To look more closely at the second part.

1. The structure of the chapter. It is sometimes assumed that the chapter is a whole, an argument about resurrection. I want to suggest, however, that there are two separate arguments, possibly directed to two different sets of opponents; although it is possible that the same opponents applied two separate arguments.

The first part takes the structure:
1-11 - the statement of the issue; prolonged because of the use of a credal formula
12-32 - the argument
33-34 - brief exhortation

The second part takes the structure:
35 - the statement of the issue
36-57 - the argument
58 - brief exhortation.

This structure represents here on the micro scale a pattern that is also Pauline on the macro scale: thus
Romans 1.1-17 - the statement of the issue
Romans 1.15 - 11.36 - the argument
Romans 12-15 - (comparatively) brief exhortation

or
Galatians 1.1-9 - the statement of the issue
Galatians 1.10 - 5.26 - the argument
Galatians 6.1-10 - brief exhortation.

If we can agree that there are two distinct sections, then the separate, but related, themes are:
a. The fact and idea of resurrection: against those who deny resurrection
b. The nature of resurrection: against those who argue for a particular concept of resurrection.


2. The second part of the chapter and its interpretation.

Paul does here what he does elsewhere: he states the foolishness of a presentation and then goes on to present it anyway! (Cf. 2 Cor 11.16, and 12.1ff), and in the process delightfully displays his humanity!

But the essence of his argument is the unlikeness of the resurrection body to the earthly body. Now, I want to suggest that what Paul is doing here is to oppose an argument that is still held by many today to be essential Christian doctrine; namely that the resurrection must be physical. And, in the first section, Paul had already linked our resurrection with that of Christ (v 12 ff) as he has done elsewhere: see Romans 6.5. Thus the picture of our resurrection bodies described here must also be a picture of Christ's resurrection body.

The crucial matter is the use of the term "flesh." It is generally accepted that Paul often uses the word symbolically, to represent our unredeemed nature, rather than to refer to the physicality of our bodies. But it seems to me that he cannot be using the term in that meaning here.
a) He is talking about our resurrection in Christ. There can be no thought therefore that this can have anything to do with our unredeemed nature. That has already been dealt with by God.
b) He is talking quite explicitly about the nature of our bodies, not of our inner being. He is tackling the question in v 35: "With what kind of body do they come?" In this context references to flesh must be taken as references to the physical aspect of our humanity.
c) In verse 39 he uses the term "flesh" in a totally non-pejorative way.
d) In verse 49 he talks about our bearing the "image of the man of dust" - clearly a ohysical reference.
e) In verse 50, he specifically refers to "flesh and blood," a usage distinct from the pejorative use of "flesh."

He shows his argument when he says, in verse 44: "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." Or verse 37: "what you sow is not the body which is to be." And passim.

I simply cannot see that it is possible to say that Paul is not denying the physicality of resurrection, by claiming that the references to "flesh" have only a symbolical meaning. Perhaps that symbolic meaning is there also, though I doubt it. But it is not the prime meaning.

Best wishes,
Eric.
------------------------------------------
Eric Potts: Lowestoft, England.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts
now with a Lectionary Zone
- notes on each week's lections.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page