Mind you it’s easier to read at night when the southern sun isn’t glowing!

James: Good questions…

I think a related issue (to your first point) is this: Why does Paul think the party-divisions referred to in chapters 1-4 are so catastrophic? To call the Corinthians “merely human” is a major criticism, in a section in which Paul has set up an important dichotomy between that which is “human” and that which is “divine”. I think the reason for Paul’s harshness is that behind the presenting problem of political divisiveness, Paul perceives a theological crisis (which has come to the fore by chapter 4) of proud human autonomy. And this, Paul believes, requires a sharp critique: The Corinthians need to move from a religiosity that prizes ‘human’ esteem to a Christianity that eschews human esteem and prizes the grace of God in the cross of Jesus.

I think this accusation of proud human autonomy lies behind Paul’s presentation of all of the issues in Corinth: In chapters 5-7, Paul brings the way of the cross into confrontation with proud, autonomous approaches to sex, greed, and the body. In chapters 8-14, Paul brings the way of the cross into confrontation with proud, autonomous approaches to ecclesial relationships… and in chapter 15, Paul brings the necessity of the cross/death into confrontation with a proud, autonomous lack of regard for resurrection. Here again, there is a presenting problem (which I am reading as a disdain for the plight of the dead) – but that presenting problem is paradigmatic of THE Corinthian problem of proud human autonomy (or to use Pannenberg’s phrase, “human self-assertion before God”).

So that’s why I think Paul finds the resurrection-denial to be so offensive: because it represents the pinnacle of a problem that is evidenced in all of the issues in the letter: A self-assured confidence in that which is human, rather than a dependence on the God of the cross.

Augustine captures this flavour of 1 Corinthians brilliantly in his ‘letter to the people of Madaura’:
Since, therefore, it is necessary that we be first brought down from vain selfsufficiency to lowliness of spirit, that rising thence we may attain to real exaltation, it was not possible that this spirit could be produced in us by any method at once more glorious and more gentle… than that the Word by whom the Father reveals Himself to angels, who is His Power and Wisdom, who could not be discerned by the human heart so long as it was blinded by love for the things which are seen, should condescend to assume our nature…. Therefore the Christ who is preached throughout the whole world is not Christ adorned with an earthly crown, nor Christ rich in earthly treasures, nor Christ illustrious for earthly prosperity, but Christ crucified…. Thus, at length, the pride of this world was convinced that, even among the things of this world, there is nothing more powerful than the humility of God, so that beneath the shield of a divine example that humility, which it is most profitable for men to practise, might find defence against the contemptuous assaults of pride.

The other point you raise is also a useful one: What did the Corinthians actually believe about the future of the dead, or the timing of any sort of resurrection? I think the answer is that they didn’t have a clear picture of this, because the state of the dead didn’t particularly matter to them. Certainly, while Paul was with them for 18 months, he would have taught them about his expectations of the future (indeed it was from Corinth that Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about these very issues); so I think Bruce Winter is unpersuasive when he says that the very concept of resurrection would have been a total ‘enigma’ to them… I think that the issue in Corinth was probably fairly non-systematic: They simply assumed that those who were dead were not going to be raised to benefit from the Parousia. Beyond that, I don’t think they would have denied that God held the dead; but neither would they have necessarily developed clear views on the nature of their actual present or future state. It does seem that, if they were pushed, they might have used the difficulty of the revivification of bodies as a justification for their attitude (so vv35-44) – but I don’t think this was the central, driving issue for them. What mattered to the “some” in Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead was THEMSELVES, and their own possession of “spirituality”; not the plight of the dead.

Thanks for the response and the clarifications. If I may be permitted to push you a bit further:

First, why would Paul have considered the Corinthian attitude you outline to be of the seriousness with which he lays into the Corinthians. He is certainly one for strong rhetoric, but here he goes so far as to talk about invalidating the whole message of the Gospel. Second, if the Corinthians saw a place for some sort of Resurrection, but one that didn’t coincide with Christ’s Parousia, what do you envision as their understanding for the place and timing of this resurrection? Some thoughts . . .

James

I suppose firstly, I ought to have clarified that I don’t think the Corinthians’ disdainful attitude involved the idea that the dead were eternally lost; simply that they were seriously disadvantaged, because they would miss out on the benefits of being personally present for Christ’s parousia. This is very similar to the way in which Wanamaker envisages the problem in Thessalonica: The “dead” are not considered to be beyond salvation or out of God’s hands – but they are assumed to be disqualified from welcoming Jesus back at his immanent return.

So in vv17-19, Paul draws an extension that the Corinthians had not foreseen: if there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is no resurrection of Christ, and if there is no resurrection of Christ, then:
a) the Corinthians’ faith is useless;
b) the dead are actually lost; and
c) the apostles are pitiable

Far from being a minor issue, as the Corinthians perhaps assumed it was (the dead won’t be raised to take part in the parousia), the resurrection of the dead is actually central to God’s purposes.

So, importantly, I think that Paul sees the Corinthian disdain for the plight of the dead as a paradigm of their stance toward God in general: They utterly downplay the necessity of dependence upon God, who gives life to the dead through Jesus Christ. For this reason, Christ’s own resurrection from death takes centre stage, as you say. Paul wants the Corinthians to conform to Christ in his death, and so look ahead to sharing with Christ in resurrection… but it’s DEATH first (even in life), then RESURRECTION later!

There are a few reasons why I find this a more satisfying explanation than the idea that the Corinthians object primarily to the problem of BODIES:
- Paul does not argue for the resurrection of Jesus’ body, but for his resurrection at all.
- And the problem in Corinth is not always characterised with the word “nekroi” – which could mean corpses – it is often rather characterised with the word “sleeping”.
- And the chapter builds toward the announcement of God-given victory over death, not simply an affirmation of future embodiment. Paul’s strenuous argument for the resurrection of Christ and of the dead who belong to him seems to be more than simply the corrective to an ill-formed conception of the afterlife. At stake is a bigger problem: A lack of knowledge of the God who graciously gives life to the dead, as unwittingly evidenced in the Corinthians’ claims of superiority to those who have died.

As to whether one would expect to find an argument more closely aligned to that of 1 Thessalonians 4, I’ll have to think about that – I have dwelt upon the similarities, but I should probably also consider the dissimilarities – good point.

I’m not actually sure how coherent the above is… but I appreciate the chance to try to continue to explore some of these directions…

Also, as a brief aside, even if the approach of the offending Corinthians is quite the opposite of the Thessalonians (their attitude being one of grief as opposed to a Corinthian attitude of something like disdain) would you expect to find more argument along the lines of 1 Thess 4 here if your reconstruction were true? Again, it’s only a purely speculative thought, but just for what it’s worth. Hopefully these points (which I’m sure you’ve thought of) give you a chance to hone your argument more.

Just some (rather conventional, I’m sure) food for thought. Thanks for your thoughts. I look forward to reading more on your developing understanding of Corinthians.