98 Self-Assessment Exercises
i. Explain how the resurrection of Christ was a powerful transformation of his person.
ii. Explain the nature of our solidarity with Christ in his death and resurrection.
6.0 References/Further Readings
Fraser, J. W. (1971). Paul‘s Knowledge of Jesus: II Cor V.16 once more, NTS 17.
Martin, R. (1981). Reconciliation at Corinth, in Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology. Atlanta:
John Knox.
O‘Brien Peter T. (1999). The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans.
Hoehner, Harold. (2002). Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002).
Arnold, Clinton E. (2010). Ephesians: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Pao, David W. (2012). Colossians and Philemon: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Stott, John. (1984). Message of Ephesians: God’s New Society. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press.
Unit 3: The Place of the Holy Spirit in Eschatology
99 5.0 Conclusion
6.0 References for further Reading 1.0 Introduction
This unit exposes the student to Paul‘s view of the Holy Spirit in the eschatological dawn. The relationship between the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ‘s resurrection is explored. In this connection Christ has been juxtaposed with Adam. This is as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit by which Christ also became the life-giving Spirit. The Holy Spirit is involved in the resurrection of Christ and of believers.
2.0 Objective
By the end of this unit, you are should be able to:
Explain the core redemptive work of the Holy Spirit.
Discuss the nature of the resurrection work of the Holy Spirit.
Explain the contrast between the first and second Adam 3.0 Main Content
3.1 Christ and the Holy Spirit (Historia Salutis)
What we have established in section B is the unity between Christ and believers in His resurrection. C focuses on Christ, and D on the Christian life, in this resurrection. What it meant for Christ personally, what it meant for Him, for Jesus Himself to pass through and experience resurrection, we see as Paul highlights best, as we explore the relationship between Christ and the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 15:45:
"The last Adam became life-giving Spirit."
Note the deliberate antithetical parallelisms. This is a contrast between this present aion and the aion to come; that is the controlling structure, even if that language is not there.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
We are concerned with the statement that the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. We can proceed here in focusing on that statement by answering two key questions. First, what is the meaning by pneuma zoopoioun, and secondly, there is a time question. Paul doesn't merely say that there is such a
100
life-giving Spirit, but that Christ became a life-giving Spirit. There is a point in time at which this occurred; so, when did He become a life-giving Spirit? The answer to the first is the Holy Spirit, and to the second is the resurrection.
Paul's Opposition (v 35): I can imagine how you could wonder how Christ became the Holy Spirit, and how Paul could mean this. What is the meaning of zoopoioun? The context we read is a unit, vv 42-49.
As Murray said, here we have one of the most striking and significant rubrics in all of Scripture. But we can only treat this briefly. (From a Systematic Theological Perspective, it really does touch on just about every subject--and in a decisive way.) We should look back at v 35, where we have an earlier transition point, what opens up the discussion at the end of the chapter. V 35 raises two questions: how are the dead raised, and with what sort of body do they come? There is a double question here; a question as to the pos, the how, the mode, of the coming resurrection, and the poio, the nature of the resurrection body. These questions are posed by opponents (we can say from earlier in the ch), and as such they were probably raised in a somewhat derisive fashion, and I say that in view of the sharpness of Paul's reply: one word, "fool," without qualification. I think this will be a place to say something about this opposition; some things are clear, others lead into gray areas. Surely their opposition centers in a denial of the future bodily resurrection. Where things are less clear is where you try to determine the exact nature or grounds of that denial. If you look back at v. 12, "Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" so between Paul and his opponents, there is a formal agreement that Christ has been raised. But beyond this there has been quite a diversity of opinion as to how the position of this opposition should be understood. You can observe that this is a believer Paul is responding to.
However, there is a fairly wide consensus, with which I would identify, that Paul has in view some form of belief controlled by a pagan Hellenistic dualism, that involves a depreciation of the body as part of the material of existence; a depreciation of the material aspect of reality, as not being reality, and more pointedly, the body. It is probably a proto-Gnostic type of error which makes a sharp division even an opposition in Christology, between the Christ in the present as a spiritual (heavenly) being in the sense of immaterial, a being with which Christians now are substantially identified, identified in substance, which carries with it a depreciation of the earthly, bodily historical Jesus of the past as having no significance for Christian faith. Accordingly, what this view involved is spiritualization in the sense of an immaterialization. And the believer's resurrection is seen as spiritual in the sense of being immaterial. The resurrection then is entirely what has already happened to the believer, in his regeneration. The true self, the spiritual essence has already been brought to perfection, and has in fact become part of the pneumatic Christ. So, on this view the body has no positive significance; it can either be suppressed or abused, or it can be indulged, in various forms of licentiousness. We can even go on here to speculate or suggest that Paul is dealing with a distortion of his own teaching, as we have been considering it in Rom 6 and Eph. 2, where Paul taught that believers have already been raised with Christ. So, there's a one-sided misuse of Paul resulting in drastic error. It may be then akin to the position of these individuals in 2 Tim. 2:17-18, Hymenaus and Meletus, that they were upsetting the faith of some by saying that the resurrection has already taken place. Ridderbos' chapter on the resurrection is helpful here. But whatever prompts Paul's sharp reply in v 35, Paul takes up these two questions, and treats them as a single compound question, that structures the discussion to the end of Ch. 15.
The Meaning of Pneumatikon (vv 42-49)
101
As you could see from our reading, in v. 42 Paul begins to reason antithetically, reflecting the antithesis of the two ages. That becomes clear as you move toward the latter part of the passage, v. 47, where he uses specifically cosmological language. He describes the resurrection, eschatological body of believers, and contrasts that with the pre-resurrection, pre-eschatological body of believers. The resurrection body is marked by incorruption, glory, power; in contrast, the pre-resurrection body, decay, dishonor, weakness. So that when he comes to v. 44, he is providing a summary description of the two bodies, an all-embracing designation, looking for a one-word description of the pre-resurrection body, psukikon, natural, with reference to the creation, and with reference to what has happened in the fall. The one-word description of the resurrection body he uses is pneumatikon. Here particularly with reference to the question controlling our discussion, we see that pneumatikon has reference to the Holy Spirit. It is to be rendered "Spiritual," with reference to the activity of the Holy Spirit. It is helpful to think with a capital S. To put it negatively, then, to distance from some misunderstandings that have been fairly pervasive in the history of the church, the adjective here is not anthropological, not referring to the human spirit, not a body associated with the human spirit. This is the view that is taken by Charles Hodge in his commentary, who speaks here of the body "adapted to pneuma, understood as the rational, immortal principle in man." I think there are contextual reasons that argue against that understanding; nor does the adjective have a compositional sense, as if spiritual describes the material of which the resurrection body is made of. That would imply that the body is made up of an immaterial spirit-substance, involving then a denial of the truly physical character of the resurrection body, which is to deny the resurrection of the body, which scripture and Paul teach.
However, the reference here is referring to the Holy Spirit.
For one thing, we could point up here that pneumatikon is contrasted, juxtaposed, with psukikon. Now what needs to be observed here further is that in the NT, and more broadly, early Christian writing up to the period of the apostolic fathers, this contrast is found only in Paul, and in only one other place in Paul, which is elsewhere in this same letter, back in 1 Cor. 2:14-15. The distinction between anthropos psukikos and pneumatikos. At least so far as the body of Christian literature, the rest of the NT and the first extrabiblical materials, this is a distinctively Pauline usage, and is rather specialized, one which he is rather deliberately employing. These categories could be found widely employed across Gnostic materials beyond the time of the NT, and that raises the question of that background; what is happening here is that Paul is taking those Gnostic categories and is using them to make a decidedly anti-Gnostic point. When you look back in 2:14-15, the contrast that is there between natural person (or "man") and spiritual person, is in a context where the stress is on the Holy Spirit, His activity, and the necessity of His activity in revelation. So, I would say that clearly in the Ch. 2 context, pneumatikos there has reference to the Holy Spirit. Consequently, Spiritual person is that in the sense of one who is indwelt, taught, motivated by the Holy Spirit. There is also something that comes close to Paul's antithesis when you look in Jude 19, where he talks about those who are psukikoi, and then he describes them as "not having the Spirit." And this is to describe them as unbelievers in their worldly-mindedness, those who follow their natural instincts, and do not have the Spirit of God. Thus, in effect this would point up a reference to the Holy Spirit. We do find this adjective in a number of places in Paul, though not in contrast to psukikon. In Paul it clearly and consistently refers to the Holy Spirit and His work. The only exception is in Eph. 6:12, where Paul talks about "the spirituals of evil in the heavens." Pointing to the spiritual dimension of the opposition to the believer. That would not bear against seeing the reference in Ch. 15 here as to the Holy Spirit. V. 46 has reference to the Holy Spirit.
We might just take the time now to accent the positive point Paul is making about the resurrection
102
body. It describes the body, this presently psukikon body, the believer's body, as it will be, in contrast to the way in which it is now. It is spiritual in that it is so transformed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, such that the one term that best characterizes that body is pneumatikon. It is not a spiritual body in the sense of being immaterial, but rather it is this body in its genuine corporeality, in its genuine physicality, transformed by the Holy Spirit. This is where the ultimate work of the Holy Spirit comes to its final expression in the life of the believer. Accordingly, when some translations, most notably the NRV, say "physical body" and "spiritual body," that is decidedly a most unhappy rendering. Rather, the contrast is not here; the contrast is between a present, sin-cursed physicality and a transformed physicality. NT Wright, who can be helpful in many ways, suggests "trans physical." Of course, there's great mystery here as to continuity and discontinuity, but as so many things among Christians, we need to talk about mystery in a biblically bounded way.
The life-giving person of the Holy Spirit (v 45)
What we can go on further to point up in support of the reference to the Holy Spirit is to look at v. 45, and notice that in the immediate context, it functions to support an argument at the latter part of v. 44.
So, you have the summary statement of 44a and Paul changes the discourse mode--from an assertive, antithetical parallelism to this linear argumentative form ("if there is, then"). It is that argument which we gave close attention to in Salvation 1. Psuke (taken from the Greek of Gen 2:7) on the one side refers to Adam, and pneuma on the other side of the contrast referring to Christ as the last Adam, those two descriptions define or anchor the adjectives we have in v. 44: psukikon and pneumatikon. As pneumatikon refers to the Holy Spirit, that would point us to that, the noun refers to the person of the Holy Spirit. What we would go on to point out further is that Paul doesn't simply say that the last Adam became pneuma, but pneuma zoopoioun (life-giving or life-producing Spirit), and that is important, because we find out that the same word is connected with the Holy Spirit, in 2 Cor. 3:6.
God who has made us (apostles) competent as ministers of the new covenant; it is a covenant not of letter but of Spirit. The Spirit makes alive (the Corinthian congregation, 3:2). That activity of making alive Paul associates particularly with the Holy Spirit. We could more broadly take note of those places in Paul where there is a close connection between the Holy Spirit and life. Rom. 8:2 the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, 6, the mind of the Spirit is life, and 10; and Gal. 6:8. We are brought to the conclusion that pneuma refers to the Holy Spirit; in this sense Paul affirms that the last Adam became a/the life-giving Spirit. This is certainly surprising, and it raises questions (particularly regarding trinitarian considerations, and the ontological distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Before considering those questions, let me address the other question that we had raised here, and that is the time question.
The Time Question: Look at v 45 and the way that contrast is broader. Bodies were concerned; now whole persons are concerned. Also note that this Adam considered in 45 is created, prefall man (despite those that argue differently). I think there can be little doubt as we keep in view the immediate and broader context that the reference is to the resurrection, or more broadly, the ascension. It almost obscures the point to belabor it, but there are those who have questioned that. The immediate context:
whatever else may be involved in describing Christ as a life-giving Spirit, Christ is brought into view as the primary and first realization of the soma of the pneumatikon of v. 44. Christ is the first to instance of the Spiritual body in v. 44, the body that will be received by believers in the resurrection.
Adam is the primary ("first") instance of the psukikon body, and Christ of the pneumatikon body.
Bodies imply an environment. They are exponential of a context. v 46 has generalizing words. Two
103
orders are contrasted, 1st and 2nd. Problem countering the Hellenistic pagan notion of things. Paul's eschatological point: the ideal is to be seen as history coming to its consummation.
The Pauline Biblical Worldview:
Perfection is not at the beginning of history nor above history but arrives at the end of history in the consummation of God's creative purposes. Vv. 47-49 confirm and elaborate what we have said is the general or comprehensive scope of v 46. But the contrasts are different: earth-heaven. It makes explicit the environmental context that was implicit in v 42. Christ is the heavenly one, v. 48, referring to the ascended Christ, whose image those who are heavenly will bear bodily at their resurrection. The earthly one is representative and constitutive of the earthly order and the earthly ones. And the heavenly one is representative and constitutive of the heavenly order and the heavenly ones. (Cf. 47:
ek gys and ek ouranon. Not "from" in the sense of Adam from the earth and Christ from heaven.
Rather these are qualitative. So there is no reference to the incarnation, but to resurrection. V 49 brings us back around to the original concern begun in v 42. At the resurrection, believers experience the full transformation, the full spiritual renovation of their existence, of their bodily existence. They will bear the image of their heavenly one; they too then will receive the soma pneumatikon of v 44, which is already existent in the person of their head, Christ.
Note that there is a significant semantic break between 44a and 44b. The fallen natural body, then the Adamic natural body. Let's remind ourselves of our primary interest in looking at this passage, Christ became life-giving Spirit. When? The answer, keeping the context in view, is his resurrection, ascension and exaltation (with the resurrection as the alpha point of that). With those observations, directed toward answering the question, we can draw the threads together, that the thought of v. 45 is this. Christ is the first instance of the soma pseukikon. Thus, the point could be made here by analogy, what Christ instances for believers, and what believers will receive at their resurrection, Christ received and became at His resurrection. Looking at the broader context: 1 Cor. 15. The entire argument of Ch. 15 is based on the resurrection of Christ, and more particularly, the connection between His resurrection and the resurrection of believers. It would make no sense to construct the argument in this way as Paul has, if Christ were already life-giver by virtue of something else, if Christ were already qualified as life-giving Spirit, by virtue say of His preexistence or His incarnation. In fact, if He were by virtue of anything other than His resurrection, more broadly, His exaltation, the basic structure of Paul's argument breaks down. In terms of keywords to capture this point: v. 20 He is aparche, v. 45 He is pneuma zoopoioun. As firstfruits, He is life-giving Spirit. Or, as life-giving Spirit, He is firstfruits. It's not as if the divine preexistence is not absolutely essential to Paul; nor is it the case that the incarnation as an event does not have its significance; but it is specifically in his resurrection and ascension as contingent upon and following out of his obedience unto death that Christ is qualified as life-giver, the giver of eschatological, saving life. To blunt that in any way as some traditions do, to locate soteriologic life, in the act of incarnation is too blunt, at the very least, the biblical significance of cross and resurrection; the gospel centrality of that for Paul he makes clear (as in vv 3-4). This heaven is the place he has created in exaltation (here, in Paul, keeping Christ's incarnate existence is in view). At His resurrection, more broadly the exaltation, because of the language of heaven which comes later in the paragraph, Christ, as last Adam, became life-giving Spirit in the sense of the Holy Spirit. And he continues to be that. in his heavenly estate. More so, there would be the obvious tie between zoopoieo, and that in Christ all will be made alive. So, the key question now we should be clear on, and be clear on the answer, is what is the sense of this "becoming?" How more exactly are we
104
to understand the equation between Christ and the Spirit, the unity? The identity? To that question let me say this first of all: we need to keep in view the scope of the apostle's discussion. Which is to say, here, this is contrary to the way so many handles this passage today, Paul is not concerned with essential inter-trinitarian relationships, so the statement is pushed too far or we go beyond it if we take it in an ontological sense, as if Paul is here denying the trinitarian distinction between second and third persons. Or, as he describes, it concerns Christ's specific identity as the second man. It is quite wrong-headed when contemporary scholarship such as James Dunn says that Paul has an entirely adoptionistic, functional Christology, and that the later church trinitarian doctrine of the ontological trinity is something Paul wouldn't know anything about. That conclusion is not respecting the terms of this passage, and what Paul is intending to do, as well as Paul's clear trinitarian view elsewhere.
Trinitarian doctrine later in the church builds on Paul (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13-14; Eph 4:4-6). His outlook here is not ontological relationship between the 2nd and 3rd person as eternally existent.
Rather, we must remember always in looking at this statement, Paul is speaking here of what happened to Christ, and what happened to Christ, not a timeless estin, but a historical egeneto, a historical became, as last Adam. That is, we need not to miss the historical scope of his outlook to express things positively, what Paul is affirming in the passage is that the resurrection brought about in Christ, first of all, two interrelated aspects of reality, it brought about a conjunction between the incarnate Christ and the Holy Spirit that did not previously exist, a possession by Him of the Holy Spirit that previously was not the case. But as the resurrection brings about such a culminating conjunction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, it also brings about His transformation, by the Holy Spirit.
There is a climactic possession of the Spirit by Christ (v 45). There is also an unprecedented transformation of Christ by the Holy Spirit here. Conjunction between Christ and the Spirit, and transformation of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Both those aspects come into view by the passage. This is a conjunction and transformation that is so complete, climactic, and eschatological, that Christ and the Spirit are one. Or maybe we should just speak as the apostle does, that the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. But with that accented, the uniqueness and the climactic point, we need at the same time not to lose focus that when we speak of Christ and the Spirit as one, it is their being one and identical in a specific respect, and that is a functional respect, the activity of giving zoe, of being life-giving, the giving of eschatological life. They are united in life-giving. How are we to categorize this equation between Christ and the Spirit, this oneness, we could use terms of theology, economic, as distinct from ontological. Or, the unity is functional, or if you will, eschatological. At any rate, whatever term we use here, what we are affirming is an equation or oneness in terms of their saving activity, a oneness that does not obliterate their personal distinctions.
Christ as the last Adam as Spirit makes alive
In time it has become more and more helpful to in effect to read 1 Cor 15:45, last clause, as Paul's one-sentence commentary on Pentecost and the significance of Pentecost. So, let me just comment here that it continues to be a concern for me, and we all and I need to be ready to hear what others have to say, that our English translations do not reflect this point. We confront a broad consensus in the exegesis, commentaries and monograph literature, that Spirit here is a reference to the Holy Spirit.
That is the case in the way I have developed things here, I have depended on Murray, Vos, and Ridderbos, who hold that conclusion, but we find a situation in the translations that it is spirit with a small "s." The ESV sticks with the lower case. I made the case for the capital, and I challenge you as you read and teach from 1 Cor. 15:45, think of capital "S." Within the framework of biblical teaching,