| 35 Ἀλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις· πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται; 44 σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν. 45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται· ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν. 46 ἀλλ̓ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν. 47 ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. 48 οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπουράνιοι· 49 καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου. | 35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? In what type of body do they come?"... 44 It is sown a natural (ψυχικόν, psychikon) body, it is raised a spiritual (πνευματικόν, pneumaticon) body. If there is a natural body then there is also a spiritual. 45 Just as it is written, "The first human, Adam, became a living nature (ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, psychan zoosan), the eschatological Adam became a life giving spirit (πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, pneuma zooopoioun). 46 But the spiritual (πνευματικόν) is not first; rather, the natural (ψυχικόν) comes first, then the spiritual (πνευματικόν). 47 The first man was from the dust of the earth; the second man is from heaven. 48 As the man from the dust, so also those of the dust, and as the man from heaven, so also those of heaven. 49 Just as we bore the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. |
I should alert you to the fact that much of this analysis is from lecture notes I took while in Dr. Richard B. Gaffin’s Christology class at Westminster Theological Seminary and this post is being used as exam preparation for the final I take tomorrow.
Context and Structure
While the NIV includes a paragraph break in the middle of verse 44, other versions do not. It will be the contention of this exegesis that there is a shift in Paul’s argument that would warrant a paragraph break in the middle of v 44.
It is at this point that we must also realize that the Apostle is answering a question in v 44 that he initially asked in v 35, viz., How are the dead raised? He makes a contrast between two bodies, which are connected by the resurrection. On the one hand, there is the body of corruptibility and death; on the other hand, there is the body of incorruptibility and life.
In v 45 Paul cites Genesis 2:7 and in so doing he expands the analogy that he had been making between Adam and Christ. The contrast he makes between them is not simply between individuals but between Adam and Christ as covenant heads, exemplifying the two bodies that are clearly in view in vv 47-49. In these verses Adam’s progeny is identified as οἱ χοϊκοί and Christ’s as οἱ ἐπουράνιοι.
The Scope and Contrast in View
In Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:7 (LXX) he underscores the point that Adam is a living person (ψυχὴν ζῶσαν). This marks a significant shift in Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15. Here Paul expands the scope of reference regarding Adam to include his pre-Fall state (i.e., Adam as he was created, prior to sin).
Genesis 2:7 | |
| BHS (Hebrew) 7 וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ | Septuagint (LXX) 7 καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. |
Paul’s Argument
1 Corinthians 15:45c is an ellipsis which assumes the ἐγένετο of Genesis 2:7 (LXX). He identifies for us two bodies that are connected by way of the resurrection of the incarnate Christ. On the one hand is the pre-resurrection body (σῶμα ψυχικόν) and on the other the resurrection body (σῶμα πνευματικόν), referring to the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἁγίου). It is the reference to ψυχικόν regarding Adam that indicates the hinge on which Paul’s argument swings.
So in v 44b we see the antithetical parallelism that has been flowing throughout the passage moves to an “if…then” argumentative form, moving from the ψυχικόν body to that of the πνευματικόν. It is important to note that this shift in argumentation does not fit within the antithesis that has characterized the larger passage up to this point in 1 Corinthians 15. We see relation between his argument here and in places like Romans 5:12-21 where we find the “if Adam…how much more Christ” pattern (c.f., Hebrews).
Paul argues from the pre-resurrection body to that of the resurrection without the disjunction that he had employed in the verses prior to 44b. This means that the body of 44b is not the same as that of 44a. The body of 44a is characterized by perishability, dishonor and weakness, predicates resulting from the Fall. Paul could not argue directly from this body to the eschatological body of the resurrection; one cannot be inferred from the other, just as life cannot be inferred from death in the biblical worldview. It is for this reason that the NIV makes the paragraph break at 44b, demonstrating that the σῶμα ψυχικόν (something like “natural body”) of 44a is not the same as that of 44b.
So what is the σῶμα ψυχικόν of 44b? The body of 44b has been broadened conceptually to include not only the pre-eschatological but also the pre-Lapsarian (i.e., pre-Fall). In this we see that the post-Fall ψυχικόν is the result of the unnatural entrance of sin into the human race. Generally, it is quite difficult to convey the relationship of the Greek ψυχικόν and πνευματικόν in the English language. Thus, suffice to know that the relationship is looking at Creation on the one hand and the New Creation on the other, and Paul is arguing from the one to the other.
The Importance of Paul’s Philosophy of History
When Paul is asked about his resurrection hope, he responds by giving his philosophy of history. The apostle argues for a higher sort of existence than even Adam possessed prior to the Fall. We see this in the way Paul concludes this paragraph drawing our attention to the image of the man of heaven and that of the man of the dust. The image that Adam has is eschatologically oriented, having a view towards its fulfillment in Christ, the man of heaven.
In this way we see how Paul’s philosophy of History is dramatically different than that of his Hellenistic contemporaries who viewed history as cyclical. Consider Plato’s telling statement:
And if a person lived a good life throughout the due course of his time, he would at the end return to his dwelling place in his companion star, to live a life of happiness that agreed with his character. But if he failed in this, he would be born a second time, now as a woman.[1]
Aside from the very annoying chauvinism, Plato’s comment reveals to us that in his view human history was doomed to repeat itself over and over again. Paul’s notion of history is as a bright companion star over against the blackness of Platonic history. The Apostle in harmony with the scriptures is arguing for a history that is not simply linear, but that starts with its goal in mind. In other words, the goal of history is providentially and logically considered before its means in God’s decree.
__________
[1]Plato, "Timaeus," in Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), §42b-c.
0 comments:
Post a Comment