corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Tim Harris" <tharris AT senet.com.au>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 15
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:58:45 +0930
Eric,
There is a treatment of 1 Cor. 15 along very similar lines to what you are
proposing in Murray J Harris, 'Raised Immortal: The relationship between
resurrection and immortality in New Testament teaching', (London, Marshall,
Morgan and Scott, 1983), p.114ff.. Harris makes some helpful comments in
regard to the -IKOS adjectives in v.44 carrying functional or ethical
meanings, not substantial or material (p.120). See also for more detail
Thiselton's treatment in his recent NIGNT commentary on 1 Corinthians
(Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2000). It was Jeremias who drew attention to the LXX
background of 'flesh and blood' in the sense of 'human nature in its
frailty' - see the summary also in Thiselton.
Hope this is of some help.
Tim Harris.
Adelaide, Sth Australia
PhD Candidate,
Flinders University
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Potts <eric AT revpotts.freeserve.co.uk>
To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 1997 7:24 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] 1 Corinthians 15
> 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.
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: tharris AT senet.com.au
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
-
1 Corinthians 15,
Eric Potts, 07/19/2001
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: 1 Corinthians 15, John Lupia, 07/19/2001
- Re: 1 Corinthians 15, Tim Harris, 07/21/2001
- Re: 1 Corinthians 15, JERRY SUMNEY, 07/23/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.