Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 2003.2
Bulletin
for Biblical Research 13.2 (2003) 175-192 [© 2003 Institute for
Biblical Research]
On Removing a Trump Card:
Flesh and Blood and
the Reign of God
ANDY JOHNSON
NAZARENE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
This
article reexamines the meaning of the phrase 'flesh and blood" in
1
Cor 15:50 in light of two recent proposals (Martin, Asher) as to the rea-
son
why "some" in Paul's audience are denying a future resurrection.
While
assuming these nuanced proposals cogently describe the assump-
tions
of Paul's audience, the article contends that Paul does not use "flesh
and
blood" to denote the particular "stuff" of which human beings
are
composed.
Hence, contra these recent proposals, 1 Cor 15:50 does not ex-
clude
the possibility that the fleshly "stuff" of the human person is able
to
be
redeemed/transformed and yet remain fleshly material capable of par-
ticipating
as such in the coming kingdom of God.
Key
Words: Resurrection, flesh and blood, flesh, Kingdom/Reign of God,
J.
Asher, D. Marti , J. Jeremias, E. Teichmann, pneumatikos/psychi-
kos,
new creation, transformation
INTRODUCTION
1
Cor 15:50 has often been used as a kind of rhetorical "trump card"
in
the hands of those who argue that Paul holds to a more "spiritual"
(i.e.,
less concretely material) concept of resurrection. Such interpret-
ers
use this verse to rule out the possibility that the fleshly "stuff"
of
the
human person is able to be redeemed/transformed and yet re-
main fleshly material capable of participating in the coming kingdom
of
God as such. These readings take the phrase sa/rc kai_ ai{ma to refer
to
part(s) of the human being which are, by nature, ontologically
problematic
and incapable of participation in the reign of God / new
Author's
note: I
wish to thank Howard Marshall, Phillip Quanbeck II, Dan Spross, and
Robert
Wall for reading earlier versions of this paper and making suggestions that
have
helped me clarify my arguments.
176 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
creation.
They tend to locate the problem in fleshly existence per se
rather
than in the corruption that has entered into the whole created
order
through sin. The gist of this position was classically expressed
by
E. Teichmann, who argued that Paul expects the full annihilation
(Vernichtung)
of everything that belongs to the sa_rc, with only pneu-
matic
material remaining.1 In contrast to such readings, J. Jeremias
argued
that sa_rc kai_ ai{ma is an idiom with which
Paul refers to living
persons
who will be transformed at the parousia.2 Hence, on Jere-
mias's
reading, v. 50 does not function to denote the particular mate-
rial
of which human beings are composed thereby excluding it from
participation
in the reign of God. Commenting on Jeremias's article in
1986,
B. Meyer could say, "Jeremias' 1955 essay all but put an end to
the
idea that 'flesh and blood' (interpreted as the corporeal principle
itself)
had no part in final salvation . . . few today being ready to fol-
low
Teichmann in suppressing the prima-facie sense of 'change' . . . in
favor
of making it mean annihilation and new creation."3
Meyer's
assessment would at least require nuancing in light of
some
recent interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15 which, while not di-
rectly
dependent on Teichmann, restate some of his basic ideas. Two
such
interpretations have moved the discussion on 1 Corinthians 15
forward
by persuasively delineating the main issue leading "some" of
Paul's
audience to deny the future resurrection.4 Whether framed in
1. Die paulinische Vorstellungen von Aukrstehung und Gericht und ihre
Beziehungen
zur
jüdischen Apokalyptik (Freiburg-Leipzig: Mohr, 1896), 46, 48, 50, 53. O. Pfleiderer
preceded
Teichmann with a similar understanding of pneu=ma, claiming that it is the op-
posite
of sa/rc, which he characterized
as the "relatively sinful element of the world . . .
[and
thereby] excluded from the kingdom of God (Paulinism: A Contribution to the
History
of
Primitive Christian Theology [2 vols.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1877],
1:201).
J.
Weiss (Der erste Korintherbrief [2d ed.; MeyerK 5:9; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck Ru-
precht,
1910], 372-73) and H. Lietzmann (An die Korinther I. II. [5th ed.; HNT
9; Tü-
bingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1969], 84) were also influenced by this classic line of thinking.
2.
"Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," NTS 2
(1956): 151-59.
J.
Gillman traces the line of thinking articulated by Jeremias to W. A. van Hengel
in
1851,
showing its development by W. N. Stort (1854), J. P. Briët (1857), F. Godet
(1887),
et
al. (Gilman, "Transformation in 1 Cor. 15,50-53," ETL 58
[1982]: 310-13).
3.
"Did Paul's View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo
Development?" TS
47
(1986): 375.
4.
Efforts to reconstruct the original community situation behind 1 Corinthians 15
usually
center on why the "some among you" of 15:12 are denying a
resurrection of the
dead
(see J. S. Vos, "Argumentation und Situation in 1Kor 15," NovT 41 [1999]: 313-33,
for
a recent summary of the main options). The usual options include their holding
to
(1)
disbelief in any form of afterlife; (2) over-realized eschatology; (3) some
form of
body/soul
dualism. I have summarized my understanding of the rhetorical situation
of
1 Corinthians 15 and argued against options (1) and (2) in "Firstfruits
and Death's
Defeat:
Metaphor in Paul's Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Cor. 15:20-28," WW 16
(1996): 457-
58.
For reasons for rejecting option (2) see also n. 26 below as well as my
"Turning the
World
Upside Down in 1 Corinthians 15: Apocalyptic Epistemology, the Resurrected
Body,
and the New Creation," EvQ 75 (2003) forthcoming.
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 177
D.
B. Martin's terms of a "hierarchy of stuff" on a cosmological spec-
trum
or in J. R. Asher's terms of a "cosmic polarity" between the ter-
restrial
and celestial realms, the main issue both Martin and Asher
have
Paul addressing in 1 Corinthians 15 is that the Corinthian de-
niers
cannot imagine that the terrestrial fleshly "stuff" of the
human
body
is capable of participation in celestial afterlife.5 However,
while
avoiding
Teichmanik's language of annihilation, they continue to use
1
Cor 15:50 as support for attributing to Paul an understanding of the
resurrected
body similar to that of Teichmann: that is, as composed
of
very light pneumatic material fit for celestial existence.6 To my
knowledge,
no one has revisited the debate over the meaning of sa_rc,
kai_
ai{ma in 1
Cor 15:50 in light of Martin and Asher's more nuanced
understanding
as to why "some" of the Corinthians deny the future res-
urrection.
The purpose of this article is to do just that, showing that
the
phrase sa_rc kai_
ai{ma still
does not provide support for arguing
that Paul himself holds to the idea that the "fleshly" material of the
present
human body is by nature problematic. I will show that, in the
rhetorical
context of 1 Corinthians 15, the phrase functions as a part
of
Paul's overall argument that even the fleshly material of the human
body
will be transformed and incorporated into the reign of God /
new
creation. While there remains ambiguity as to the type of mate-
rial
that will be "put on over" this present fleshly body, I will conclude
that
one must at least consider the possibility that Paul conceives of it
as
superior, incorruptible fleshly material. The upshot of the article
will
be that, in the light of Martin and Asher's more nuanced under-
standing
of the background of 1 Corinthians 15, v. 50 cannot function
to
exclude the possibility that the fleshly "stuff" of the human person
is
able to be redeemed/transformed and yet remain fleshly material
capable
of participating in the coming kingdom of God as such.
5.
D. B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1995),
108-29;
J. R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of
Metaphysics, Rhet-
oric,
and Resurrection (H T 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 89-145, esp. 144-45;
"SPEIRETAI: Paul's Anthropogenic
Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44," JBL, 120
(2001):
103. Hence, the problem for the Corinthian deniers was not the general cate-
gory
of embodiment or of materiality, but the specific type of
materiality these deniers as-
sume
is involved in the future resurrection. This way of setting forth the problem
is a
more
carefully nuanced version of the body/soul dualism referred to in the
preceding
footnote.
By focusing on popular assumptions pervading much of Greco-Roman soci-
ety,
it represents an advance over efforts to delineate the problem by appealing to
the
more
speculative categories of Religionsgeschichte or to a version of
body/soul dualism
more
indebted to Descates than to categories of thought present in Roman Corinth
(on
which see Martin, Corinthian Body, 3-6). While it is not possible ever
to know for
sure
that this way of reconstructing the situation was in fact what called forth
Paul's
rhetoric
in 1 Corinthians 15, it makes better sense of the rhetoric he uses there than
any
of
the other alternatives usually offered.
6.
Martin, Corinthian Body, 126-32; Asher, Polarity and Change, 156
n. 20.
178 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
1. PAUL'S RHETORIC LEADING UP TO 15:50
1
Cor 15:50 is in the context7 of an overall argument for the future
resurrection.8 Understanding what Paul has argued in vv. 35-49 is
particularly
important for our purposes. In those verses he addresses
the
main issue reflected in the question of the interlocutor in v. 35,
namely,
"What sort of body could the resurrected dead possibly
have?"9 In his answer, the yuxiko/j/pneumatiko/j terminology plays a
crucial
role. Earlier in 1 Cor 2:12-15 he uses this terminology to refer
to epistemological opposites, that is, those who see by the standards of
"this
age" versus those whom the Spirit enables to see by the stan-
dards
of the "new creation." In vv. 35-49 Paul uses this terminology in
a
way that corresponds to his use of it in chap. 2 except that, in this
context,
an issue of ontology rather than epistemology per se is his
focus, namely, the nature of
the resurrected body. Here they point to
two
distinct ontologies that correspond to the two distinct epistemol-
ogies
in chap. 2, one characteristic of "this age" and one characteristic
of
the "new creation." The distinction between these two ontologies is
not that the former has
room for fleshly existence whereas the latter
does
not. Rather, when applied to the human body, the yuxiko/n/pneu-
matiko/n terminology simply
distinguishes the state of the human body
of
"this age" (sw=ma
yuxiko/n)
from the state of that same human body
after
it has been completely transformed to enable its participation in
the
consummated "new creation" (sw=ma pneumatiko/n).
Paul
uses the controlling imagery of the buried seed as an anal-
ogy
to the future resurrection (vv. 36-37) to argue that the dead will
be
raised with a pneumatiko_n body, which for all its
discontinuity and
newness,
will have a definite material continuity with the yuxiko_n
body
that is buried. Using language that deliberately evokes his au-
dience's
assumptions of cosmic hierarchy/polarity, Paul destabilizes
his
audience's expectations by forging the pneumatiko_n and yuxiko_n
bodies
as temporal, not cosmological/physiological, opposites.10 But
he
evokes these assumptions, not to accommodate to them, but to per-
7.
For a detailed analysis of how Paul's argument moves to persuade his audience
throughout
vv. 1-34, see my "Resurrection Rhetoric: A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Corin-
thians
15" (Th.D. diss., Luther Seminary, 1994), 44-189.
8.
For the argument that Paul assumes his audience's belief in the resurrection
of
Jesus and uses that belief as a common assumption from which to argue for a
future
resurrection
of the dead, see my "Firstfruits," 457-58.
9.
This paragraph and the next one are a summary of what I have argued more
extensively
in "Turning."
10.
As I argued in "Turning," the most natural opposite of pneu=ma on the cosmo-
logical
scale of hierarchy or polarity is clearly sa_rc, not yuxh/. Hence, had Paul wanted
to
forge cosmological opposites here, it would have been much more natural
to oppose
a sa/rkinon or sarkiko/n body to the pneumatiko_n body.
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 179
suade
"some" in his audience to leave them behind. By arguing that
lower-status
elements such as flesh will be transformed and incor-
porated
into the "new creation" at its consummation, he turns the
physiological/cosmological
hierarchy or polarity of the "some among
you"
(v. 12) upside down and offers them a new way of understand-
ing
the cosmos that accommodates a future resurrection of the dead
involving
the normal human (yuxiko/n) body.11
Paul's
answer to the question with which he starts in v. 35, how-
ever,
raises another question. By using the first-person plural lan-
guage
in v. 49 to gather up the imagery he has been using and
applying
it to himself and his audience, Paul has gone a step beyond
what
the interlocutor had actually asked. The implied audience ex-
pects
that some of their number will be alive at the end.12 Hence,
when
Paul says "We will bear the image of the heavenly person" in a
context
dealing with the sort of bodies the dead will have at the future
resurrection,
the question naturally arises as to how this relates to
the
"we" in the community who are still living.13 In vv. 50-58
he
shifts
his focus to clarify this issue in a way that is directly connected
with
vv. 35-49 and, in the process, brings all the various arguments
and
imagery of this rhetorical unit into convergence.14
2. sa_rc kai_ ai{ma AND THE basilei/a qeou=
IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15:50
By
beginning v. 50 with the words Tou=to de/ fhmi, a)delfoi/, Paul sig-
nals
his audience that what he is about to say functions as a kind of
conceptual
summary statement that refers both backward and for-
ward;
that is, it underlies much of his preceding argument and his
11.
As I argue extensively in "Resurrection Rhetoric," Paul does not
"theologically
impose"
his own views on his audience but begins with assumptions he holds in com-
mon
with them and attempts to move them to a different view.
12.
See n. 26 below.
13.
Cf. A. Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck,
2000),
365. Hence, the distinction Paul will make between the living and the dead in
vv.
50-57 is not simply incidental to the main thrust of his argument (contra
Asher, Po-
larity, 162). Rather, it was
explicitly called forth by the need to clarify his own argu-
ment
in light of the nature of the audience he was addressing.
14.
This shift at the beginning of v. 50 is recognized by numerous interpreters as
the
beginning of a new section (e.g., A. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians
[NIGTC;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 1290-91; Lindemann, Erste Korintherbrief,
364;
R. Collins, 1 Corinthians [SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999],
573; C. Wolff,
Der
erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [THKNT 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsan-
stalt,
1996], 413; Fee, First Epistle, 797-98; E.-B. Allo, Saint Paul:
Première Épitre aux
Corinthiens [2d ed.; Pars: Gabalda,
1956], 431; Weiss, Erste Korintherbrief, 377). Others
(e.g.,
A. C. Perriman, "Paul and the Parousia: 1 Corinthians 15.50-57 and 2
Corinthians
5.1-5," NTS 35 [1989]: 514) see v. 50 as the conclusion to the preceding verses.
180 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
argument
that will follow it.15 "Now what I am saying brothers and
sisters
is this," Paul says, "Flesh and blood (sa_rc kai_ ai{ma) is not able
to
inherit the reign of God, nor will corruption (h( fqora/) inherit in-
corruptibility
(th_n a)fqarsi/an)." Various
considerations, some exter-
nal
to 1 Corinthians, and some internal in the letter itself, converge
to
support Jeremias's contentions that the phrase sa_rc kai_ ai{ma is an
idiom
with which Paul refers to living but frail and sinful human
beings
and that the parallelism of v. 50 is synthetic, not synonymous.
We
begin by giving attention to a consideration external to the letter
itself,
namely, the use of the phrase prior to and contemporaneous
with
Paul.
a.
Uses of sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma Prior to and
Contemporaneous with Paul
Since,
as is widely recognized, the most authentic reading treats
sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma as a singular grammatical entity,16 we ought to regard
the
phrase as a whole, rather than the individual words in it, as the
carrier
of meaning. Therefore, we begin by inquiring after other uses
of
the phrase as a whole to help us decide on its meaning here.
Besides
1 Cor 15:50, there are only four other instances of the use
of
this exact idiom, sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma,
in Greek literature prior to and in-
cluding
the first century (although it is inverted in Eph 6:12 and Heb
2:14).17 In Sir 14:18 the writer makes the point that all will die and ex-
pounds
on this in v. 18: "Like green leaves on a thick tree, some fall
and
some grow, so also is the generation of flesh and blood (sarko_j
kai_
ai#matoj):
one dies and another is born." The most natural way to
understand
the use of the phrase here is as a reference to a generation
15.
See 7:29. As we will see, one part of the summary statement "Flesh and
blood
is
not able to inherit the reign of God" is directed toward the implicit
question about
the
living he has just raised in v. 49 and underlies and summarizes much of what he
will
say about the necessity of their transformation in vv. 51-55. The other part of
the
statement,
"nor will corruption inherit incorruption," underlies and summarizes
what
he
has already said in vv. 35-49 about those who will be resurrected.
16.
Thiselton, First Epistle, 1290. Among others, ), B, Clement, and Origin all com-
bine
the infinitive, klhronomh=sai, with the singular
indicative, du/natai, to produce the
reading
preferred by both the UBS4 and NA27, "klhronomh=sai ou0 du/natai" where sa_rc
kai_
ai{ma is
the singular subject of du/natai.
17.
Jeremias lists these references with little comment ("Flesh and
Blood," 152).
R.
Sider's brief analysis of them confirms Jeremias's basic understanding, but
empha-
sizes
the phrase's connotation of humanity as frail sinners ("The Pauline
Conception of
the
Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians XV. 35-54," NTS 21 [19751:
436-37). In a slightly
longer
discussion of the passages, Gillman concludes that the parallelism in v. 50 is
syn-
onymous
rather than synthetic, as Jeremias contends ("Transformation,"
316-17; see
also
his "Thematic Comparison: 1 Cor. 15:50-57 and 2 Cor. 5:1-5," JBL 107 [1988]: 443).
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 181
of living people who are capable of dying.18 Hence, the phrase
as a whole
is
the carrier of meaning, and its referent is frail, living human beings.
In
Sir 17:29-32 there is an obvious contrast between God and hu-
manity.
There the writer says that the great mercy of the Lord (v. 29)
cannot
be found in human beings because they are not immortal
(a)qa/natoj, v. 30). He then
continues in vv. 31-32: "What is brighter
than
the sun? Even this undergoes eclipse. And sa_rc kai_ ai{ma will
ponder
evil. He himself [God] considers the power of the height of
heaven.
And all people are earth and ashes." The point of the peculiar
analogy
seems to be: "If the sun, most brilliant of the stars, can at
times
fail to give light, how much more can a human fail, who is but
'flesh
and blood.'"19 In this context, the idiom sa_rc kai_ ai{ma dissoci-
ates
what is divine from what is merely human. In addition, it is im-
portant
to note that Ben Sira is using the term a)qa/natoj to describe
living,
frail human beings, distinguishing them from God in the pro-
cess.
Hence, his use of a)qa/natoj in this rhetorical
context parallels his
use
of sa_rc kai_ ai{ma. As I will argue below,
this is consistent with the
way
Paul uses the cognate, a)qanasi/a, in the rhetorical
context of 1 Cor
15:50-55
where it also parallels his use of sa_rc kai_ ai{ma. Hence, in the
only
other rhetorical context where the exact phrase sa_rc kai_ ai{ma and a
cognate
of a)qanasi/a are used together, they
are used parallel to each other
and
their field of meaning has to do specifically with frail, living human be-
ings.20 In both
of the occurrences in Ben Sira, then, the phrase sa_rc
kai_
ai{ma is a
reference to frail, living people and, especially in the lat-
ter
text, the aspect of humanity it emphasizes is its nondivinity.
In
addition to 1 Cor 15:50, the idiom is used twice in the NT. In
Matt
16:17, after Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of
the
living God," Jesus praises him by saying: "Blessed are you, Si-
mon,
son of Jonah, because flesh and blood (sa_rc kai_ ai{ma) has not re-
vealed (a)peka/luyen) this to you, but my
Father in heaven." No doubt
"flesh
and blood" here refers to living human beings and in this con-
text
it has the added rhetorical function of dissociating divine reve-
lation from what is simply
human information.
For
our purposes, the most important usage of the phrase outside
1
Cor 15:50 is Paul's own use of it in Gal 1:15-16. There, after speaking
about
his former life in Judaism, he says: "But when it pleased God,
18.
On the basis of this verse, Gillman claims that [t]o say that a generation of
flesh
and blood dies implies that this dual expression may also include what is
dead"
("Transformation,"
316). That the writer would continue to use "flesh and blood" to
describe
this generation after they have died is simply an argument from silence.
19.
P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden
City,
N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1987), 285.
20.
A discussion of this passage is notably absent from Gillman's otherwise quite
thorough
article, where he only mentions it in passing ("Transformation,"
318).
182 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
who
set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his
grace, to reveal (a)pokalu/yai) his son in me in order
that I might
preach
him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with
flesh
and blood (sa_rc kai_
ai{ma)."
In this context the idiom "flesh and
blood"
obviously refers to living human beings, and one could even
paraphrase
it "mere human beings," as opposed to God. Here, as in
Matt
16:17, it also dissociates divine revelation from what is merely
human
information. Paul's casual use of the phrase in the context of an
epistle
addressing a church of Gentiles is worth noting because he ex-
pects
his entirely Gentile audience to understand what he means by
this
Jewish idiom without stopping to explain it. Hence, there would
be
no reason to imagine that he could not expect the mostly Gentile
audience
of 1 Corinthians, among whom he spent significant time, to
understand
his use of it in the context of 1 Cor 15:50.21
In
summary, when the phrase sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma appears the only
other
time in Paul and in places prior to or roughly contemporaneous
with
him, it is a Jewish idiom that refers to living people and gener-
ally
has the rhetorical function of distinguishing what is merely hu-
man
from what is divine. In addition, in its two uses in the NT, one
can
go a bit further and say that it has the rhetorical function of dis-
sociating
divine revelation from what is simply human information.
This
observation is closely related to our next consideration.
b. Sa_rc kai_ ai{ma and Paul's Apocalyptic
Epistemology
Paul's
use of sa_rc kai_
ai{ma does
not reflect his capitulation to a cos-
mic
hierarchy/polarity but is entirely at home in his apocalyptic
epistemology.22 As we saw above, when Paul uses sa_rc kai_ ai{ma in
Gal
1:15-16 it not only refers to living humans, but also functions
rhetorically
to dissociate divine revelation from what is merely hu-
man
information. It took an a)poka/luyij for Paul's
epistemological
categories
to be transformed in such a way that a crucified Messiah
would
make any sense. Hence, from his perspective there was no
need
to consult with any living human being who had not received
21.
Therefore, contra Gillman and Collins, one need not argue that this Semitic
expression
in 50b would need translating and explaining with "the more Hellenistic
terms
in v. 50c" (Gillman, "Transformation," 316; Collins, 1
Corinthians, 579).
22.
A. Segal also argues that Paul's language in 1 Corinthians 15 is influenced by
Jewish
apocalypticism, albeit with a decidedly mystical slant ("Paul's Thinking
about
Resurrection
in Its Jewish Context," NTS 44 [1998]: 400-419). My disagreement
with
various
aspects of Segal's interpretation is partially due to his understanding of 1
Cor
15:50
as implying a spiritualization "of matter, a new body which is not flesh
and
blood,
which cannot inherit the kingdom" (p. 412).
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 183
such
an a)polka/luyij. Since those who were
apostles before him obvi-
ously
did make sense of the world in terms of a crucified Messiah,
his
distinction between them and other living human beings (sa_rc
kai_
ai{ma) in
1:16-17 implies that he was using the latter as a general
category
for those who had not received such a revelation from God
and,
therefore, consulting with them would have been pointless. In
Gal
1:15-17 then, the phrase sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma refers to a category of
people
who have not received a revelation that would effect a radical
epistemological
transformation, enabling them to see reality in terms
of
the new creation begun by God in the death and resurrection of a
crucified
Messiah.
In
1 Cor 2:12-15, Paul uses the terminology of yuxiko_j a!nqrwpoj
in
a way that is analogous to his use of sa_rc kai_ ai{ma in Gal 1:15-16.
In
1 Cor 2:12-15, a yuxiko_j
a!nqrwpoj is one who lives on a merely hu-
man
level, one who has not yet been transformed into a pneumatiko/j
a!nqrwpoj--that is, one to whom
the Spirit's a)poka/luyij has not yet
come,
enabling him or her to see reality in terms of the new creation
rather
than by the standards of "this age." As we saw above, when an
issue
of ontology arises in chap. 15 (i.e., the nature of the resurrected
body),
we find Paul using the yuxiko/n/pneumatiko/n terminology in
an
analogous way. In 15:44-49 he uses them to point to two distinct
ontologies
that correspond to the two distinct epistemologies in chap.
2,
one characteristic of "this age" and one characteristic of the
"new
creation."
When applied to the nature of the resurrected body, the
yuxiko/n/pneumatiko/n terminology
distinguishes the Adam-like body
of
"this age" (the sw=ma yuxiko/n)
from the body that has been com-
pletely
transformed by the "making alive Spirit" to fit it for the "new
creation"
at its consummation (the sw=ma
pneumatiko/n). Hence, the way
Paul
uses the yuxiko/n/pneumatiko/n terminology in 1 Corinthians
distin-
guishes
what is suited for "this age" from what the Spirit makes appropriate
for
the "new creation."23
When
Paul is using the phrases sa_rc kai_ ai{ma and yuxiko_j a!nqrw-
poj in rhetorical contexts
related to epistemology (Gal 1:15-17 and
1
Cor 2:12-15, respectively), he uses them in an analogous way: that
is,
to mark out those with epistemological glasses suited for "this
age."
Since the focus of the rhetorical context in 1 Cor 15:50 has
shifted
to an issue of ontology, it is therefore not surprising that he
can
now use sa_rc kai_
ai{ma and sw=ma yuxiko/n in an analogous way:
that
is, to mark out bodies suited for "this age" that have yet to be
23.
For a more detailed explanation of Paul's apocalyptic epistemology in 1 Corin-
thians
2 and its relationship to his understanding of the resurrected body in 1 Corin-
thians
15, see my "Turning."
184 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
acted
upon by the "making-alive Spirit" fitting them for the "new
creation."24 What this suggests is that the phrase sa_rc kai_ ai{ma here
is
no more a reference to the "stuff" of human beings than is yuxiko/n.
Rather,
placing sa_cr kai_
ai{ma in
synthetic parallelism with h( fqora_,
is
simply
Paul's way of differentiating between the yuxikoi/ bodies of
the
living and the yuxikoi/ bodies of the dead,
both of which must be
acted
upon by the "making alive Spirit" in order to inherit the reign
of
God/"new creation."
c.
The Use of sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma as a Subject that Is
Not Able to "Inherit the basilei/a qeou="
Paul
uses flesh and blood as a subject which he says "is not able to in-
herit the reign of God."
He does not say, “flesh is not able to ascend into
heaven."25 In 1 Corinthians Paul implies that his entire audience is
expecting
to participate in the future basilei/a qeou=.26 Granted, Paul
says
little about the nature of the basilei/a qeou= in 1 Corinthians
(4:20;
6:9-10; 15:24, 50). But what he does say does not lead to the
impression
that he himself understood it in terms of "celestial exist-
ence,"
as something into which one must ascend, although the "some"
of
v. 12 may have naturally come to reinterpret this language in pre-
cisely
that way after Paul's departure.27
24.
Paul's rhetoric in vv. 44-45b makes it clear that sw=ma yuxiko/n is simply the
body
appropriate for this age, the type of body that is both "sown" at
death (v. 44a) and
constitutes
all living humans in "this age" (vv. 44b-45a). As I will argue below,
at the
parousia
the "making-alive Spirit" transforms the yuxikoi/ bodies of both the dead
and
the
living into pneumatikoi/ ones.
25.
As we might expect if Paul was "openly endorsing" the view of the
"some"
that
the fleshy stuff of human bodies could not ascend into a celestial existence
(Asher,
Polarity, 152). Nowhere does
Paul speak about believers permanently ascending into
heaven
(in 1 Thess 4:17, following the a)pa/nthsij in the clouds, the context implies a de-
scent,
not an ascent).
26.
Paul's rhetoric in 1 Corinthians assumes that "the end," a "judgment
day," and
the
coming "reign of God" are accepted parts of his audience's narrative
world. This is
because
he never stops to argue for them but rather appeals to them as he is making
other ar-
guments, as he does here in v.
50 (cf. 15:24-28; 6:9-10; 3:13-17; 5:5; 4:5). The hypothesis
that
there is an "over-realized eschatology" at Corinth is increasingly
being challenged
(e.g.,
see my "Turning"; "Firstfruits," 461; Martin, Corinthian
Body, 105; Vos, "Argumen-
tation,"
313-33; R. Hays, "The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and
Eschatol-
ogy
in 1 Corinthians," NTS 45 [1999]: 391-412; D. W. Kuck, Judgment
and Community
Conflict:
Paul's Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in I Corinthians 3:5-4:5 [NovTSup
66;
Leiden: Brill, 1992],150-222).
27.
If Martin and Asher are correct that the "some" of v. 12 were arguing
that the
terrestrial, fleshly material of those who had died was incapable of participation in ce-
lestial afterlife,
then when community members began to die, it would have been very
natural
for the "some" to imagine some sort of celestial existence for them
prior to the
future
reign of God. It would then have been a short step for them also to imagine the
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 185
In
fact, recent work on Paul's political setting would suggest that
Paul's
use of basilei/a
qeou= as
well as other terms having similar po-
litical
connotations could have at least initially been heard by the au-
dience
as loaded political language, language standing in opposition
to
the Roman imperial order, addressing an alternative. e)kklhsi/a as
they
await the descent of the true ku/rioj, who will fully and finally
place
all enemies under his feet (including his imperial enemies).28
Hence,
even if the deniers had begun to reinterpret this language
after
Paul's departure, when Paul referred to the basilei/a qeou=, they
would
still have most likely understood his use of the phrase in con-
crete,
material, and political terms and not as an endorsement of their
view
of the place of human flesh in the cosmos or of their "celestial"
view
of the coming basilei/a
qeou=.
Here, as in vv. 23-28, Paul is subtly
attempting
to reconfigure their view of the future basileia qeou= to in-
clude
the transformation of the human body of flesh.29 Paul's rhetoric
in
the remainder of vv. 50-55 bears this out, and it is to an examina-
tion
of these verses that we now turn.
3. PAUL'S RHETORIC IN VERSES 50-55
a.
Verse 50 as Synthetic Parallelism
Paul's
careful use of language in the remainder of vv. 50-55 both cor-
roborates
and is clarified by the understanding of sa_rc kai_ ai{ma ar-
ticulated
in the last section. We begin with what he says immediately
following
in v. 50c: "neither will corruption (h( fqora_) inherit incor-
ruption
(th_n a)fqarsi/an)." The way these
terms are used in v. 42 in-
forms
how they function here. The context of v. 42 has to do with
"sowing"
a dead body of flesh.30 Hence, the term fqora|= takes the general
meaning
of "dissolution, deterioration, corruption."31 The second
term
in v. 42, a)fqarsi/a|, while capable of
taking the broader meaning
of
"immortality," most naturally takes its more narrow meaning of
"incorruption"32 since Paul is using this terminology to differentiate
____________________________________________________________________
future
reign of God in analogous terms—that is, as the future descent of the ku/rioj,
only
to ascend with those who belonged to him into a "celestial
existence." Even so,
there
is still no reason to think that they did not understand what Paul meant
by the
phrase.
28.
See, for example, the essays in R. A. Horsley, ed., Paul and Politics:
Ekklesia, Is-
rael,
Imperium, Interpretation (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2000); R. A. Horsley, Paul
and Em-
pire:
Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 1997),
29.
On vv. 23-28, see my "Firstfruits," 458-64.
30.
See my "Turning."
31.
BDAG, 1054. The point is that what is sown is in the very process of decaying,
that
is, of its organic matter being broken down.
32.
Or perhaps even, in Thiselton's terms, "the reversal of decay, i.e., flourishing"
(First
Epistle, 1297 [his italics]).
186 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
what
is sown (the dead body of flesh subject to decay) from its an-
tithesis
(a body that is no longer subject to decay).33 Paul has not
changed
the way he is using these terms in v. 50. Here, h( fqora/ con-
tinues
to refer to those who have died and whose corpses are thus in
the
state of corruption in which they "were sown," whereas a)fqar-
si/an specifically denotes
nondecay.34 Hence, while we will see that
this
use of these cognates is corroborated in vv. 52-54, enough has
been
said so far to maintain that v. 50 can indeed be read as synthetic
parallelism,
where the inability of "flesh and blood" (frail human be-
ings
alive at the parousia) to inherit the reign of God parallels the
inability
of h( fqora/ (dead and
decaying/decayed human beings) to
inherit a)fqarsi/an.35
b.
The Mystery of Transformation: Verses 51-52
In
vv. 51-54 Paul clarifies his conceptual summary statement of v. 50.
He
begins by characterizing what he is about to say as a mystery, the
content of which is found in v.
51c, especially the latter part: "We will
not
all fall asleep, but we will all be changed."36 Since this
entire au-
33.
See my "Turning." For a different view of the function of these
terms, see
K.
Usarni, "'How Are the Dead Raised?' (1Cor 15, 35-58)," Bib 57
(1976): 490.
34.
So Meyer, "Did Paul's View?" 379; contra Collins, 1 Corinthians, 579 and Fee,
First
Epistle,
798 n. 11, both of whom translate h( fqora/ as "the perishable" and claim that
it
cannot refer to what is already dead. But such a claim is unwarranted. That
cognates
of fqora/ could naturally apply
to that which is already dead (i.e., corpses in a state of
decomposition)
is clear from Plutarch's narration of the fate of Mithridates. His death
was
so engineered as to mimic the fate of a decomposing corpse. His flesh was
allowed to
decompose
in a boat, being consumed by worms and maggots as a result of the overall
corruption
(fqora/) and rottenness of his
excrement and decaying flesh. Plutarch sums
up
his fate as follows: "Thus, Mithridates died painfully by decomposing (fqeiro/menoj)
for
seventeen days" (Lives, Artax. 16.7. I owe this reference to BDAG,
1054).
35.
So Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood," 152. Perriman, followed by Asher (Polarity,
153
n. 16), objects to this understanding with the charge that Paul's change from
the
"kingdom of God" to "the imperishable" in the second line makes synthetic
parallel-
ism
unlikely. Synthetic parallelism, he argues, would require "a greater
convergence
in
the second part of each member," by which he means that th_n a)fqarsi/an ought to
be
more closely linked to basilei/an
qeou= ("Paul and the Parousia," 514). But Paul has
already
forged the very convergence that Perriman demands in his preceding argu-
ment.
In vv. 23-24 he directly connects the future resurrection with the parousia and
collectively
calls these events "the end" which is the point at which he hands
over the
reign
to God (th_n
basilei/an tw|= qew|=).
Hence he directly links the future resurrection with
the basilei/a tou= qeou=. Then, in v. 42 he claims
that the body of that future resurrection
will
be raised by e)n
a)fqarsi/a|,
thereby forging a clear convergence between the a)fqarsi/a
of
the future resurrection body and the basilei/a tou= qeou=. It would be difficult for there
to
be "a greater convergence in the second part of each member" without
Paul's simply
repeating basilei/an qeou= in the second line.
36.
On the textual problems associated with this verse, see B. Metzger, A
Textual
Commentary
on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 187
dience
is expecting to participate in some way in God's coming reign,
at
which time they believe some of their number will be alive,37 the
first
part of the statement, "We will not all fall sleep," is not news to
them.38 The content of the mystery, then, is that it is not just those
who
have died that will be changed, but we all will be changed, includ-
ing
the living.39 Hence, while Paul intentionally distinguishes be-
tween
the living and the dead in vv. 50-55, his primary concern is
articulating the transformation of all in the coming reign of God.40
In
v. 52 Paul describes the time at which the change takes place as
being at the last trumpet. "For," he continues, "the trumpet
will sound
and
the dead will be raised incorruptible (a!fqatoi) and we ourselves
will
be changed." Thus, when the trumpet sounds the call for battle,41 the
dead
undergo their bodily change by being raised incorruptible and
God
changes the bodies of the living (the sa_rc kai_ ai{ma) without their
having
experienced death.42 It is only then that the last enemy,
Death,
is defeated, God's reign is consummated, and God becomes
"all
in all." In vv. 53-54 Paul further describes God's action that
brings
this about.
c.
Putting on the Transformed Body: Verses 53-54
In
vv. 53-54 one must first decide what the words to_ fqarto_n tou=to
and to_ qnhto_n tou=to mean in this
rhetorical context. The adjective
fqarto_n means "subject to
decay /destruction."43 It corresponds to
the
noun fqora_ in vv. 42 and 50,
which, as I have argued above, re-
fers
to dead and decaying/decayed human beings. In addition it is
clearly
the opposite of a!fqartoi in v. 52c which
unambiguously re-
fers
to the bodily state in which the dead will be raised. Hence, while
it
is capable of meaning anyone or anything subject to decay, con-
textual
indicators make it clear that Paul is using fqarto/n here in
reference
to that which was "sown e)n fqora|="
(v. 42), that is, a corpse
subjected
to the process of decay/destruction. As I argued above
502.
The repetition of pa/ntej in 51c indicates that
the statement "We all will be
changed"
applies to both the living and those in the community who have fallen asleep.
37.
See nn. 26 and 27 above.
38.
So Meyer, "Did Paul's View?" 378.
39.
Ibid.; Fee, First Epistle, 801; Wolff, Erste Brief, 414.
40.
So Asher, Polarity, 157.
41.
On the connotations of warfare evoked by sa/lpigc, see Collins, 1 Corinthians, 574.
42.
Paul's addition of the emphatic nominative pronoun imigic which replaces the
more
all-inclusive pa/ntej of v. 51 indicates that
here the "we ourselves" are those who
are
still living (so also Fee, First Epistle, 802; Gillman,
"Transformation," 319-20; Wolff,
Erste
Brief, 415; Lindemann, Erste Korintherbrief, 367; Asher, Polarity, 161;
contra Perri-
man,
"Paul and the Parousia," 515, 516).
43.
BDAG, 1053; LSJ, 1927.
188 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
with
reference to its use in v. 50, in this rhetorical context, the cor-
responding
noun a)fqarsi/a takes the meaning of
incorruption, spe-
cifically
denoting nondecay or perhaps even, "the reversal of decay,
i.e.,
flourishing."44 In this rhetorical unit then (in vv.
42, 52, 53, 54), cog-
nates
of fqora/ and a)fqarsi/a uniformly refer to the
bodily state of the
dead
(i.e., corruption, decay) versus the bodily state in which they
are
raised (i.e., incorruption, nondecay).
In
contrast, the adjective qnhto/n is almost always used of
living
creatures
and means "mortal" or "subject to death."45 Paul
is the only
writer
in the NT who uses this term and in every case he uses it to re-
fer
to the bodies / flesh of living human beings which are / is
"mortal"
or
"liable to death" (Rom 6:12; 8:11; 2 Cor 4:11; 5:4).46 Its
correspond-
ing
noun, a)qanasi/a (only used here by
Paul; cf. 1 Tim 6:16), means
"immortality."47 Thus, in terms of their field of meaning the adjec-
tives qnhto/n and fqarto/n correspond respectively
to the distinction in
v.
50 between the living (sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma)
and the dead (h(
fqora_).48
The
sense of v. 53 then, is as follows: "For this corruptible body (of
the
dead) must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal body (of the
living)
must put on immortality."49 Paul has already prepared his au-
44.
Thiselton, First Epistle, 1297 (his italics).
45.
LSJ, 802; BDAG, 458.
46.
On 2 Cor 5:4, see n. 56 below. In Rom 8:11 he uses the term to refer to the
bod-
ies
of his currently living audience that are "dead because of Sin,"
that is, bodies that are
liable
to death because of the power of Sin at work in "this age." However,
since the
Holy
Spirit (i.e., the firstfruits/agent of the new creation) is at work among them,
they
will
be made truly alive when the whole cosmos is redeemed (8:23). Whether some in
his
audience will still be alive and constituted by a qnhto/n body or dead by then
and
constituted
by a fqarto/n body, Paul simply does
not say.
47.
LSJ, 30; BDAG, 23.
48.
So also Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood," 153; contra Wolff, Erste
Brief, 416. Gillman
agrees
that those who are to be clothed in this passage are both the living and the
dead
("Transformation,"
322) but argues against differentiating them on the terminological
basis
I am suggesting. The parallels he cites from Philo and Wisdom show that the
ter-
minology
(fqora//a!fqarsi/a and qnhto/n/a)qansi/an can be used
interchangeably when
used
in conjunction with each other. In addition, he points out that Paul uses the
ter-
minology fqarto/j/a!fqartoj in Rom 1:23 to
distinguish the incorruptible God from
corruptible
living humans (pp. 316-17). Gillman is correct in concluding that in Paul's
usage
of the term fqarto/j and its cognates,
neither category (i.e., the dead or the liv-
ing)
can be a priori excluded (p. 316). My argument, however, is not based on an a
pri-
ori
decision as to how this terminology can be used but on the way it is being used
in
this
rhetorical context, the only context in which Paul is using these terms in
close rhetorical
quarters
in order to draw on their nuances in meaning. Hence, while it is possible to un-
derstand
the antitheses in vv. 53-54 as parallel in meaning, the cumulative weight of
my
argument makes it improbable and it is certainly not true to say that Gillman
has
shown
them to be "clearly parallel in meaning" and that Jeremias's view
"has been
corrected
in Gillman's research" (Asher, Polarity, 153, 154).
49.
Taking both fqarto/n and qnhto/n as modifying the
unexpressed neuter-singu-
lar
subject sw=ma as in the NRSV.
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 189
dience
for the sort of language he uses here with the seed imagery of
vv.
36-38. There, the imagery of the body (sw=ma) of wheat being
raised
from the naked (gumno/j) seed buried in the
ground presses the
audience
to imagine the corrupted and decaying body as something that
is
naked and thus needing to be clothed by God.50 And here Paul's
emphatic
use of the demonstrative pronouns vividly draws attention
to
the bodily continuity between the respective bodies of both the dead
and
the living before and after transformation.51 It is this corruptible,
decayed
body of the dead and this mortal / liable-to-death body of
the
living which must "put on" incorruption and immortality respec-
tively.
Thus, the combined effect of the "putting on" imagery and the
demonstrative
pronouns presses the audience to imagine the change
that
happens to all as something that occurs to this present body,
whether
it is still mortal / liable to death or already in a state of cor-
ruption.52 When this happens, when God clothes both groups and
only
then, the last enemy, Death, will suffer its final defeat and be
swallowed
up into victory.53
Hence,
the mystery is that we, both the living and the dead, will
have
the present state of our body changed. What the living and the
dead
have in common is that both are currently constituted by a sw=ma
yuxiko/n, that is, a "this
age" body that "all" have who "continue to
die
in Adam," a merely human body already subject/subjected to
death
and decay because of sin.54 It is a sw=ma yuxiko/n whether it is
manifested
as a decayed/decaying body or as a currently living, mor-
tal
/ liable-to-death body.55 Hence, whatever the state of our yuxiko/n
body
at the parousia, that present body will be changed into, or will
put
on, a pneumatiko/n body. The clothing
imagery Paul is using here
50.
Contra Lindemann, who reads e)ndu/sasqai as referring to an "exchange / re-
placement
of identity" (Erste Korintherbrief, 369).
51.
So Sider, "Pauline Conception," 437; Thiselton, First Epistle, 1297.
52.
Paul's sw=ma concept is more
comprehensive than the material with which the
terrestrial
human body is composed, but this language emphasizes that its very
stuff/matter
somehow persists throughout God's transformation of it (contra Asher,
Polarity, 159-60; Martin, Corinthian
Body, 128; Gillman, "Transformation," 332). Hence,
Paul's
language presses the audience to recognize some continuity in the body's ma-
terial
that persists throughout the change, not because of any inherent potentiality
in
old
bodies, but only because God wills some continuity to be located there.
53.
Since Death is one of the Powers of the old age and is a constant threat to
the
living, speaking of its being
"swallowed up" is a quite suitable way of speaking about
the
fate of the living (Contra Perriman, "Transformation," 514).
54.
Note that Paul's argument in vv. 21-22 only works if the audience knows that
in
the story of Genesis 2-3, it was through Adam's sin that death came into the
cosmos.
Paul's
language in 1 Corinthians 15 implies that the discontinuity between "this
age"
and
the "new creation" has to do with the ravaging effects of Sin that
will continue in
the
cosmos until the consummation of the "new creation" (see my
"Turning").
55.
Cf. Sider, "Pauline Conception," 438.
190 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
converges
well with the imagery he used to speak about the nature of
the
resurrection body in vv. 35-49.56
To
conclude this section, we have seen that the rhetoric of vv. 51-
55
is both clarified by and corroborates the understanding of sa_rc kai_
ai{ma we set forth in the
preceding section. We move now to summa-
rize
the results of this article and briefly describe some of the impli-
cations
that emerge from it.
4. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
To
summarize, in light of a more nuanced understanding of the
background
of 1 Corinthians 15, sa_rc
kai_ ai{ma is still best under-
stood
as a reference to living human beings. It is not a reference to
parts
of the human being which are, by nature, ontologically prob-
lematic
and incapable of participation in the reign of God / new
creation.
Hence, contra Teichmann and contemporary interpreta-
tions
similar to his (e.g., Martin and Asher), Paul's use of (sa_rc kai_
ai{ma in 15:50 is not
evidence that he holds to the idea that the
"fleshly"
material of the present human body is by nature problem-
atic.
Rather, in its rhetorical context, the phrase functions as a part of
Paul's
overall argument that even the fleshly material of the human
body
will be transformed and incorporated into the reign of God /
new
creation. The net effect of this is to remove 1 Cor 15:50 as a
"trump
card" from the hands of those who use it to argue that Paul
holds
to a more "spiritual" concept of resurrection as opposed to
what
they might term a more "physical/material" one.
This
has implications for further reflection on the nature of the
resurrected
body. First, it enables us to recognize more clearly the di-
rection
Paul's overall argument in 1 Corinthians 15 is moving. That is,
if sa_rc kai_ ai{ma is not a reference to
the material of which humans are
composed,
the nature of the transformation implicit in the seed im-
agery
in vv. 36-38 and in the "putting on" language of vv. 51-54 be-
gins
to emerge with more clarity. Rather than envisioning sa/rc as
material
that will be "sloughed off along the way," Paul is arguing
strenuously
that fleshly elements will be transformed and incorpo-
rated
into the "new creation" / coming reign of God. Hence, one must
consider
the possibility that although Paul doesn't directly say what
56.
The clothing imagery in 1 Cor 15:50-55 is also consistent with the way Paul
uses
"clothing" language in 2 Cor 5:1-5. There, as he awaits the parousia
in his "earthly
dwelling,"
such existence is "naked" when viewed in light of the future
spiritual body. That
is,
it too is a mortal body (to_ qnhto/n, v. 4, a body liable to death because of Sin as
in Rom
8:10),
that must be clothed with the future "building from heaven" /
"spiritual body"
and
in that sense is "naked."
JOHNSON: Flesh and Blood and the Reign of God 191
kind
of material will be "put on over" this present fleshly body, he
may
indeed conceive of it as superior, incorruptible fleshly material.57
If
this is true, a second implication follows for the wider debate
over
reconstructing the history of the tradition with regard to the na-
ture
of Jesus' resurrection. In this debate, 1 Cor 15:50 has also been
pressed
into service, again functioning as a "trump card" for a par-
ticular
way of reconstructing that history. That is, it is often under-
stood
to clinch the argument that Paul doesn't understand the future
resurrection
body as fleshly material and therefore, since he under-
stands
the future resurrection on analogy with that of Christ's, nei-
ther
did he conceive of Christ's risen body as fleshly material.58 The
usual
implication drawn from this is that a "more spiritual" concep-
tion
of Jesus' resurrection was earlier than the "late apologetic,"
physical
conception displayed in the finished Gospels. If what I have
argued
in this paper is correct, 1 Cor 15:50 cannot serve as an anchor-
ing
point for this way of reconstructing the tradition history of the
nature
of Jesus' resurrection. One cannot simply appeal to 1 Cor 15:50
as
a primary warrant for portraying Paul's understanding of Jesus'
resurrection
as "more spiritual" and then pitting it against the "late
apologetic,
crassly physical" portraits of the finished Gospels. In-
deed,
Paul's rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 15 might more naturally lead to
the
conclusion that he understood the future resurrection body (and
by
analogy that of Christ's resurrected body) as "crassly physical,"
57.
See the similar conclusion of R. H. Gundry, "The Essential Physicality of
Jesus'
Resurrection
according to the New Testament," in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ—
Essays
on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (ed. Joel B. Green and
Max
Turner;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 209,217-18. Technically, Paul's rhetoric in
this
chapter
does not totally exclude one of the ways that Asher argues Paul might have
understood
the transformation, that is, where the terrestrial substance (flesh) is not
sloughed
off but transformed into the celestial substance of pneu/ma (Polarity, 156
n. 20).
However,
as I argued in more detail in "Turning," in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul
simply has
not
juxtaposed the fleshly material of the present human body to some sort of pneu-
matic
material of the resurrected body as evidenced by: (1) his making a yuxiko_n body,
rather
than a sa/rkinon/sarkiko/n body, the opposite of
the resurrected pneumatiko_n
body;
(2) the way he contrasts the two Adams in v. 45 indicating that their being op-
posites
is not primarily because of the stuff of which they are composed; (3)
his refusal
in
v. 47 to juxtapose "the man of earth composed of dust" with
what, on Asher's reading
would
be his opposite—that is, "the man of heaven composed of pneu=ma"; (4) Paul never
speaks
about believers permanently ascending into heaven so that their bodies would
have
to meet the requirements of some sort of celestial existence (see n. 25 above).
58.
E.g., A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1999),
87. Whether one should draw an analogy between Christ's resurrection and
that
of
a future resurrection as Paul is describing it in 1 Corinthians 15 is open for
debate.
However,
that such an analogy is often drawn and that 1 Cor 15:50 plays a large part
in
understanding how the analogy is understood is beyond debate.
192 Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2
and
perhaps even just as fleshly as the portrayal of Christ's resur-
rected
body in the finished Gospels.59
59.
If, in fact, Paul's rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 15 is not in tension with Luke's
nar-
rative
depiction of the appearances of the risen Christ but rather has a certain reso-
nance
to them, an interesting canonical dialogue between the two might be explored.
On
Luke's depiction of the risen Christ, see my "Ripples of the Resurrection
in the Tri-
une
Life of God: Reading Luke 24 with Eschatological and Trinitarian Eyes," HBT 24
(2002);
"Our God Reigns: The Body of the Risen Lord in Luke 24," WW 22
(2002): 133—
43;
"Resurrection, Ascension, and the Developing Portrait of the God of Israel in Acts,"
SJT, forthcoming.
|