Nielsen’s Nook

I was reading through a forum recently where Protestants of a variety of types were addressing the Church season called Lent. In dismissing Lent, there were phrases like, “the scriptures do not command it” and “ungodly superstition.” After all, one person smugly noted, Lent gave us Mardi Gras and that of course has to prove that Lent is wrong.

The scriptures don’t command that we go to church on Wednesdays, but Christians all over the world, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant all go to church on days that are not Sunday. The scriptures do not command that we celebrate Easter or Christmas and yet those Christian holidays seem to be practiced ubiquitously. So what’s the problem with Lent?

Is it superstitious? Is it ungodly? If I might quote from A Handbook for Lent that St. John’s Episcopal Church, Dallas, Texas put out this year, I’d like to establish from the perspective of a group celebrating Lent, what the season is about:

Lent is a penitential season of the Christian Year, forty days in length, in which Christians focus on repentance and personal devotion in light of the coming celebration of Christ’s resurrection at Easter. The forty-day period alludes to many Scriptural events which are important in salvation history: the forty days of the flood; the forty-year Exodus of the Hebrews in the Sinai wilderness: Moses’ forty days on Mount Sinai when he received the Law; Jesus’ forty days of temptation in the desert, during which time the Father prepared him for his public ministry.

In this quote, I think we can see that the length of forty days has historical precedence and is purposed to connect the Church today with the Church of History that transcends the ages. Lent is a time of personal devotion and repentance in preparation for Easter. Is it personal devotion, repentance or Easter that is the problem? It is hard to believe that if truly considered that any of these three core components of Lent could be considered “ungodly superstition.”

Mardi Gras of course is the debauchery in New Orleans, Louisiana in which people impale themselves on as much sin as possible with the unbelievable assumption that then they would give up such sinful practices during the Lenten season. This actually has nothing to do with the Lenten fasting. During Lent one gives up good things (alcohol, meat, etc) with a view towards laying hold of the best thing, the reward God promises his people, Christ himself. There is never a time when Christians are permitted or encouraged to sin in order to worship God. To say that Mardi Gras demonstrates that Lent should not be practiced, is analogous to saying that because Christmas is a time when people gorge themselves in a feast of materialism that we should not celebrate the ancient Christian holy season of Advent. It is in this vein that we must conclude that Mardi Gras is a godless aberration of Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday), is in no way a Christian practice, and has no bearing on whether one should celebrate Lent.

Lent is not something we of course observe as individuals, but as the Church. It is a season of preparation for Easter, when Christ Jesus rose from the dead, swallowing death and hell whole. For “if in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:19, ESV). Lord have mercy upon your Church that in this age her members might finally learn how to play charitably as you came and gave us charity that we never imagined. Amen.

The Church Liturgy is divided into two parts: 1) the Word Spoken and 2) the Word Broken. In the first part one will experience the reading and preaching of the Word of God. There is in our church an Old Testament reading, the singing of a Psalm, the Epistle reading and then the reading from the Gospel. There is a processional from the altar to the middle of the sanctuary, in the midst of the people, where a formation occurs and the reading of the Holy Gospel occurs. The formation looks something like this:

The crucifer (i.e., the person carrying the crucifix) stands at the head of the formation. The torch bearers stand to either side and forward, shining light upon the Gospel Book held by the Lay Reader in between them. And at the foot of this cruciform formation stands the priest who reads the Gospel. Something is profoundly and purposefully communicated to both clergy and laity, that is to everyone, at this point. Whatever the Gospel is, we come to it at the foot of the Cross. It is a visible lesson on hermeneutics, that we must always seek to understand Jesus at the foot of the Cross. We cannot read His book on any other terms than the terms that were given at the foot of the Cross. Thus, it is that St. Paul has told us that he decided to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2).

Want to learn more about Christian Liturgy? Check out Thomas Howard’s Liturgy Explained.

Translation

2 After these things were said by the herald, the entire crowd, consisting [a] of Gentiles and even Jews residing in Smyrna, with uncontrollable anger and a great voice, cried out, [b] “This is the teacher of Asia! The father of Christians! The destroyer of our gods! The one who teaches so many not to offer sacrifices and fall down in worship!” [c]

While saying the things, they were crying out and asking Philipp, the ruler of Asia, [d] that he might set a lion loose upon Polycarp. However, he replied that it would not be lawful for him, since he had already completed [e] the animal hunts. [f]

---

[a] We are taking the genitive phrase ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων τῶν τὴν Σμύρναν κατοικούντων to be in the domain of a genitive of material or content or perhaps a genitive of source. Consequently, the translated phrase is set off by the word consisting (BAGD, 91-92, 109 respectively).

[b] ἐπεβόα is the same word used in §3.2 of the crowd’s response to the fearless way Germanikos had died. They had cried out for the death of Christians (i.e., atheists) and specifically that St. Polycarp be sought out.

[c] προσκυνεῖν is generically translated as worship. However, it connotes the prostration of a person in the worship of deity (BAGD, 716). For example, consider 1 Corinthians 14:25 (NA27) τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, καὶ οὕτως πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον προσκυνήσει τῷ θεῷ… The secrets of his heart become exposed and after he falls upon his face, he will (prostrate) worship God… (author’s translation).

[d] From the compound word Ἀσιάπχην we have translated ruler of Asia.

[e] Alternately, πεπληρώκει might be translated as fulfilled.

[f] τὰ κυνηγέσια These animal hunts had connection with pagan festival days and were instituted by certain political officials such as in Smyrna by Philipp the Asiarch (BAGD, 457). Whatever the cultural intricacies of Philipp’s reply, he is divesting himself of the responsibility of loosing the lion.

Translation

4 And likewise also those who were condemned [1] to wild animals [2] endured patiently terrible punishments, being laid out on top of trumpet shells [3] and beaten [4] with other manifold sorts of torture, so that the devil might, if possible, through the persistence of punishment turn them to denial [5] - for he contrives much against them.

---

[1] κριθέντες (κρίνω) i.e., condemned by courtly decision.

[2] θηρία (θηρίον) These were the wild animals bred for fighting in the arenas.

[3] κήρυκας comes from the familiar κῆρυξ (herald, preacher); however, in this form (acc. pl. masc.) and context it refers to the “trumpet-shell,” which is a “large, sharp seashell, used in torturing.” (BAGD, 431) Here, one would suspect that the subjects here were stretched out over broken shards of trumpet-shells.

[4] For NT usage of κολαφίζω see Mt 26:67; Mk 14:65; 1 Cor 4:11; 1 Pt 2:20.

[5] i.e., a denial of faith.

Out of the brief second section of Osborne’s article on interpreting Paul there are nuggets of insights into Paul’s world. The letters of the Apostle Paul generally follow the traditional bounds of “Hellenistic letters”; however, Paul “felt less bound” to these structures, mixing several forms to accomplish his literary task.¹

Osborne incorporates nine types of Hellenistic letters into his catalog of letters with which Paul was likely familiar: ²

1. Letters of friendship (cf. 2 Cor 1:16; 5:3; Phil 1:7–8)
2. Family letters
3. Letters of praise and blame (1 Cor 11; Rev 2–3)
4. Exhortatory or paraenetic letters (1 Thess 1-5; the Pastorals)
5. Letters of mediation or recommendation (Phil 2:19-30, Philemon)
6. Juridical or forensic letters (1 Cor 9:3-12; 2 Cor 1:8-2:13)
7. Private or documentary letters
8. Official letters
9. Literary letters

---

¹ Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics/Interpreting Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 391.
² ibid.

Greek Text

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.

Translation

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.

Commentary

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).

BHS Hebrew

⁷ וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו � ִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְ� ֶפֶשׁ 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.

In this history, Adam is first and in his federal position is head of an order characterized by corruption, dishonor, and weakness. By contrast, the order of Christ is second and last, being the order of fidelity, honor, and strength – the eschatological order. It is the paradigm of Creation and New Creation, each beginning with an Adam of its own. Thus, redemption is not a matter of Paradise Regained. It is an altogether better order, an “over-plus” as Dr. Gaffin put it.
__________

[1] Plato, “Timaeus,” in Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), §42b-c.