Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 15:35-58

You can read the text here.

Paul moves now to tackle a key objective raised by some in the Corinthian congregation. A physical resurrected body seems ridiculous to them, as they see them as little more than resuscitated corpses. Paul has no tolerance for such nonsense and disdain. He swiftly corrects them giving them the analogy of a seed being planted. Our bodies when they are buried will be like seeds going into the ground. What springs up is not a seed but a whole plant, something far more glorious.  It has continuity with the seed, a wheat seed doesn't grow up into an apple tree. However, it surpasses it in glory. The same will be true of our resurrected bodies. They will be far more than reanimated corpses.

In our case our bodies prone to sin and decay will be transformed into immortal bodies that are animated by the Spirit and take on her character.[1] We are sown in the weakness and earthiness of our forebearers, however, Jesus serves as the template for our resurrected bodies. In his glorified image we will be raised.

The kingdom of heaven is not a place of weakness and sin, it is a place where only those who have been completely transformed by the Spirit can reside, and that includes our physical bodies. The Lord will arrive as announced by the trumpet. Those who have not yet died when Jesus returns will be instantly transformed into a new, perfected, Christ-like humanity. At the same time the dead will be raised to have bodies in the same fashion. Thus death, the last enemy, will have been defeated.[2] Since sin and death have been defeated there is no more room for them in the new age, we will have immortality. We can mock death.[3]

Due to the law, creation experienced a causal chain. Sin lead to death.[4] Thanks be to God who has given us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ! It is for this that we hope, and for this reward that we sacrifice in this life. Paul urges the Corinthians to push on knowing what joy is in store for them.

--------------------------------
[1] So Thiselton and Ciampa and Rosner as well. As a note, God obviously does not have a gender, but I have decided to start using the feminine pronoun in my writing to refer to God and the Holy Spirit because if we're not conscious about it, using male gendered pronouns subtly shapes our view of God to a male image. When referring to God as Father or to Jesus, obviously the male pronoun makes sense.

[2] Ciampa and Rosner capture this point very well.

[3] Thiselton calls vv 54b-55 a taunt.

[4]Again Thiselton was very helpful here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5