Filed Under (Uncategorized) by dee dee on 12-05-2013
Tagged Under : Authors-N.T. Wright, Bible-1 Corinthians-15, Bible-2 Corinthians 5, Books-The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christology-Bodily Resurrection, Essential Christian Doctrine-Resurrection, Gnosticism-Protognosticism, Greek-Endusasthai, Greek-Ependusasthai, Greek-Pneumatikon, Greek-Psychikon, Greek-Soma, Hyperpreterism-Gnosticism, Hyperpreterism-Hymenaeus, Hyperpreterism-Resurrection, Judaism-Resurrection, Resurrection-Biblical Passages, Resurrection-Biblical Phrases, Resurrection-Bodily, Resurrection-Definition, Resurrection-Denial, Resurrection-Jesus’ Paralleled with Our Own, Resurrection-Spiritual, Verses- 2 Corinthians 5:1-4, Verses- 2 Corinthians 5:3-4, Verses-1 Corinthians 14:37-9, Verses-1 Corinthians 15:12, Verses-1 Corinthians 15:37, Verses-1 Corinthians 15:50, Verses-1 Corinthians 15:53-54, Verses-1 Corinthians 2:14-15, Verses-2 Timothy 2:17-18, Verses-Colossians 3:3-4, Verses-Isaiah 22:13, Verses-Philippians 3:20-21, Word Study-Body, Word Study-Soul, Word Study-Spirit
This was originally posted July 2006 but the information is so darned freakishly awesome, I had to repost. It took me forever to add the new tags to this post.
Continuing in The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright:
It is important to spell out the logic of what he [Paul] is saying, because in 2 Corinthians all this is controversial. (a) He believes, as a good Pharisaic Jew, that the creator God raises the dead, in the normal sense. (b) He believes this all the more strongly because he believes that God has arty done in the case of Jesus. (c) He believes that he is living between Jesus’ resurrection and his own future resurrection. (d) He therefore claims, and discovers in practice, that God’s power to raise the dead is at work in the present time, one of its results of being that God can and sometimes does rescue his people from what had seemed imminent and certain death. This is inaugurated eschatology and the service of urgent pastoral need.
Anything other than some kind of bodily resurrection, therefore, is simply unthinkable, not only at the level of meaning of individual verses and phrases but at the level of the chapter’s argument as a whole. ‘Resurrection’ does not refer to some part or aspect of the human being not dying but instead going on into a continuing life in a new mode; it refers to something that does die and it is then given a new life. This distinction, so often ignored and both popular and scholarly treatments of the topic, and of this chapter, is vital.
The overall structure and logic of the chapter thus confirms what we would have guessed from the direction in which the rest of the letter points: that this is intended by Paul is a long argument in favor of the future bodily resurrection…. There was, in any case, no indication in Judaism either before or after Paul that ‘resurrection’ could mean anything other than ‘bodily’; if Paul was going to argue for something so oxymoronic as a ‘non–bodily resurrection’ he would have done better not to structure his argument such a way as to give the appearance of articulating a Pharisaic, indeed biblical, worldview in which the goodness of the present creation is reaffirmed in the age to come. Since that is the kind of argument he has composed, at the conclusion of a letter which constantly points this way, no question should remain. When Paul said ‘resurrection’, he meant ‘bodily resurrection’.