You can read the text here.
Paul had just established that the resurrection of Jesus is at the heart of the gospel and the foundation of the Corinthians' faith. Given that, he is shocked and dismayed that some of the Corinthians could possibly deny that there is a resurrection of the dead. To make the implications clear in hopes of bringing them to their sense he hits them with the full implications of this belief. To be clear, what some seem to be arguing is that there is no general resurrection from the dead on the last day. Paul says, if that's true, then Jesus himself was not raised from the dead, which then implies that the gospel isn't true, the Corinthians are still enslaved to sin, and Paul and the other apostles have misrepresented God (a terrifying prospect).[1] Given the self denial called for by the Christian way of life, they are most piteous.
Paul's next stage in his argument is to reaffirm the truth of the resurrection and give them a vision of the grand scope of its implications. Jesus did rise from the dead as the first and special case pointing to the general resurrection when he returns. Christ acts as representative head of humanity undoing the effects and curse of sin, and inaugurating the new age.[2] Paul clarifies, Jesus rose, then those who belong to him will rise.[3] Then Christ will return and break the power of all authorities, human, and otherwise that enslave us. Last but not least will be death. Then his purpose will have been completed and God will be recognized as the one with true power and dominion.[4]
Paul concludes this portion of his argument with some practical implications. First, why do some get baptized because of the dead? What Paul is likely pointing to is people who converted after the death of loved ones and were baptized in hope of being reunited with them in the resurrection.[5] And if there was no resurrection, why would Paul and his coworkers take the risks they take and sacrifice so much? It would be far better to live like the much (unfairly) maligned Epicureans and enjoy the pleasures of food and drink (alcohol) before one passes on![6] There also may be something of veiled criticism there at the lifestyle of some of the Corinthians. They may have been living that way. Paul exhorts them to keep good company to help them avoid sin, for some of them have demonstrated that they do not know God by how they live.
-------------------------------------------------
[1] Thiselton helpfully draws attention to the fact that when Paul is talking about sins he is not merely thinking about individual misdeeds, but about the structural aspect as well.
[2] Clearly Paul believed in a historical Adam. The question is whether or not his argument requires a historical Adam to hold up. I personally don't think it does. The literary reference is enough to make the point, which is purely about Christ as the one who conquers death and gives us hope of eternal life.
[3] Who the 'those who belong to him' are is the million dollar question. I think it's obvious for Paul that the reference is to Christians, at least primarily. We must also hold open the possibility that he would have included Jewish people as well. The question of the fate of adherents of other religions (and no religion at all) is a serious and pressing issue for the church to wrestle with, and is not simple. While the New Testament itself is clearly exclusivist, it shifts the boundary question from one of ethnicity to one of devotion to Jesus. Should we shift again or shift further? I do not know.
[4] See Ciampa and Rosner. This passage obviously has implications for debates over subordination. Clearly one must at least admit to subordination in the economic Trinity. The question is whether or not this passes into the immanent Trinity as well. This is a (legitimate) question of theological exegesis. I doubt Paul would ever have made these kinds of distinctions. Jesus was clearly subordinate to the Father.
[5] So Thiselton. See his lengthy discussion of possible interpretations. Ciampa and Rosner also cover a couple that Thiselton does not.
[6] Ciampa and Rosner have a nice discussion on this point.
Paul had just established that the resurrection of Jesus is at the heart of the gospel and the foundation of the Corinthians' faith. Given that, he is shocked and dismayed that some of the Corinthians could possibly deny that there is a resurrection of the dead. To make the implications clear in hopes of bringing them to their sense he hits them with the full implications of this belief. To be clear, what some seem to be arguing is that there is no general resurrection from the dead on the last day. Paul says, if that's true, then Jesus himself was not raised from the dead, which then implies that the gospel isn't true, the Corinthians are still enslaved to sin, and Paul and the other apostles have misrepresented God (a terrifying prospect).[1] Given the self denial called for by the Christian way of life, they are most piteous.
Paul's next stage in his argument is to reaffirm the truth of the resurrection and give them a vision of the grand scope of its implications. Jesus did rise from the dead as the first and special case pointing to the general resurrection when he returns. Christ acts as representative head of humanity undoing the effects and curse of sin, and inaugurating the new age.[2] Paul clarifies, Jesus rose, then those who belong to him will rise.[3] Then Christ will return and break the power of all authorities, human, and otherwise that enslave us. Last but not least will be death. Then his purpose will have been completed and God will be recognized as the one with true power and dominion.[4]
Paul concludes this portion of his argument with some practical implications. First, why do some get baptized because of the dead? What Paul is likely pointing to is people who converted after the death of loved ones and were baptized in hope of being reunited with them in the resurrection.[5] And if there was no resurrection, why would Paul and his coworkers take the risks they take and sacrifice so much? It would be far better to live like the much (unfairly) maligned Epicureans and enjoy the pleasures of food and drink (alcohol) before one passes on![6] There also may be something of veiled criticism there at the lifestyle of some of the Corinthians. They may have been living that way. Paul exhorts them to keep good company to help them avoid sin, for some of them have demonstrated that they do not know God by how they live.
-------------------------------------------------
[1] Thiselton helpfully draws attention to the fact that when Paul is talking about sins he is not merely thinking about individual misdeeds, but about the structural aspect as well.
[2] Clearly Paul believed in a historical Adam. The question is whether or not his argument requires a historical Adam to hold up. I personally don't think it does. The literary reference is enough to make the point, which is purely about Christ as the one who conquers death and gives us hope of eternal life.
[3] Who the 'those who belong to him' are is the million dollar question. I think it's obvious for Paul that the reference is to Christians, at least primarily. We must also hold open the possibility that he would have included Jewish people as well. The question of the fate of adherents of other religions (and no religion at all) is a serious and pressing issue for the church to wrestle with, and is not simple. While the New Testament itself is clearly exclusivist, it shifts the boundary question from one of ethnicity to one of devotion to Jesus. Should we shift again or shift further? I do not know.
[4] See Ciampa and Rosner. This passage obviously has implications for debates over subordination. Clearly one must at least admit to subordination in the economic Trinity. The question is whether or not this passes into the immanent Trinity as well. This is a (legitimate) question of theological exegesis. I doubt Paul would ever have made these kinds of distinctions. Jesus was clearly subordinate to the Father.
[5] So Thiselton. See his lengthy discussion of possible interpretations. Ciampa and Rosner also cover a couple that Thiselton does not.
[6] Ciampa and Rosner have a nice discussion on this point.
Comments
Post a Comment