1 Corinthians 7:19 says:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; what matters is keeping the commands of God.

What’s interesting is that circumcision, of course, was one of the commands of God!  I can only guess that Paul’s use of “commands of God” hints at shorthand that he had used when with the Corinthians for 18 months – and he expected them to understand what he meant.

PS: After a computer disaster I am now officially a Mac user.  I now look down on all you PC users

Yale Divinity School Dean Harold W. Attridge and Professor Emeritus David L. Bartlett discuss The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, Ch. 15. This is session 8 of 8 videos for the First Letter…

I’m not convinced by all that they say – but I found it an enjoyable watch – perhaps the series would be an interesting set of discussion starters for a Bible study group…

I want to explore something a little more that I’ve explored here before, related to the “denial of resurrection” in Corinth: To get you up to speed, I guess I’m wondering whether perhaps the problem was tripartite:

1. Some in Corinth were confident in their own present “spiritual” immortality (as many Christians are today – assuming that we are essentially an immortal soul)
2. They were dismissive of the plight of those who had died – assuming that ”the dead” were at a real disadvantage
3. They looked down on Paul’s gospel of present cruciformity

Paul responds by insisting that the life of the believer consists in living an ongoing death (i.e. the pattern of the cross), and looking ahead, with those who have died, to Christ’s future appearing, when the dead will be raised, and will finally share in Christ’s immortality.

Anyway, the further development is that I’ve been looking more into the question of whether point 1 above is reasonable: Is it reasonable to think that people thought of themselves as already having entered a sort of spiritual immortality.  I had already noticed that the Epicureans thought that way – presently imperishable and immortal…

And it has now struck me that Philo seems to envisage something similar – the possibility of entering imperishability/immortality in the present, in some sort of spiritual sense:

Perhaps some in Corinth were acting as though something similar had been inaugurated for themselves – having become Christians, they had passed from “creation and mortality” to “the uncreated, to the immortal, to free will” – and thus were in a position to look down on those who had died: “There is no resurrection of the dead”.

Not long ago I posted an overview of 1 Corinthians chapters 1-4, suggesting that it represents a showdown between that which is of God, and that which is human: The Corinthians are called to choose between two models:

Paul urges them to move from the former to the latter, calling the Corinthians to imitate himself.  The following 10 chapters, I suggest, apply this to the ethical issues that are going on in the Christian assemblies of Roman Corinth.  They spell out how to be crucified…

The famous guy and the tagalong…

I think chapters 1-4 of 1 Corinthians is a showdown between that which is θεοῦ and that which is ἀνθρώπου:

The cross and human wisdom

The Spirit and human capability

Divine work and human authority

Divinely ordained death and human boasting

Another attempt at recreating the Temple of Apollo - again, Christoph’s work… and this imposing building overlooked the marketplace.  Clearly, “religion” had a far more pervasive presence than in many of our present-day cities (eg Nottingham!).  1 Corinthians should be read, of course, with this in mind.

A little bird told me today that next month, one of the best commentators on 1 Corinthians will begin revising and updating his excellent commentary, engaging with recent scholarship and bringing the translation up to date.  Sweet!  I’m sure you can guess who it is…

Today I received a contract for publishing a book on 1 Corinthians… woohoo!

For I handed on to you, as of foremost importance, that which I also received: That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day [tē hēmera tē tritē] according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at once, of whom most remain alive to this day, but some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all of the apostles.  And last of all, as to one who had been miscarried, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:3-8)

He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures

Paul’s scriptures nowhere explicitly indicate that the Christ will die and be raised on the third day.  However, there is certainly an established pattern whereby Israel, or its faithful representatives, undergo suffering and persecution and possible death before being vindicated by God.  Many “Psalms of Lament” follow this pattern (such as Psalm 22 and Psalm 30), as well as Isaiah 53, narratives within Daniel and its additions (Sussana and Bel and the Dragon), and the book of Esther.

It may be that “the third day” was an idiom that indicated the expected end of a certain sequence.  So Hosea 6:2 expresses that Israel will be “raised up” on the “third day”, after suffering for a while.  Luke has Jesus using the same idiom to speak about the necessity of reaching Jerusalem: “I am casting out demons and conducting healings today and tomorrow; and on the third day I will reach the goal.”  The “Gabriel Revelation” also seems to utilise the number 3 in relation to days, perhaps confirming its use as an idiom in first century Judaism:

Line 19: Holiness for Israel!  In three days [lšlšt ymyn] you will know

Line 54: …three days… [šlšt ymyn]

Line 80: In three days [lšlvšt ymyn]… I, Gabriel

The context and meaning of these lines is hard to determine.  It seems that the phrase “three days” is important in the 87 line Hebrew inscription; but beyond this, not much is certain.  In none of the above instances, however, are three literal days envisaged.

So in what sense did Paul believe that “the scriptures” were being fulfilled with the resurrection of Jesus on the third day?  In the sense that the scriptures envisaged the necessary vindication of the righteous representative of Israel.  That’s my take on it anyway.