Steven Carr

1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

In my resurrection debate with Canon Michael Cole http://media.premier.org.uk/unbeliev...8c9f596e15.mp3 , I argued that Paul did not believe corpses were resurrected, so did not believe the corpse of Jesus rose from the grave.

Instead, Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5 that the earthly body is destroyed, and that we get a heavenly body.

But what did Paul believe would happen to Christians of his time? He told them that they would not all die, so how could they get a heavenly body if death did not destroy their earthly body?

Paul answers that question in 1 Corinthians 15:52-52 where he says 'we' (NB not our bodies) will be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye.

Why does Paul insist this happens 'in a flash'?

It must be to emphasises the discontinuity of the old and new body. Why else emphasise the lightning speed of the change?

There is not to be one nano-second of overlap, where the old body is in a process of transformation to the new body.

Contrast that with Ezekiel 37 where clearly a transformation does not take place 'in a flash'.

In Paul's view ,we make a quantum jump from the old body to the new body, which means there is no intermediate state. One instant we are in the old body. The next instant we are in the new body.

A transformation that takes place in a flash is not a transformation at all. It is a replacement. A transformation is a process, and a process takes a finite time.

But why would Paul emphasise the speed at all if not to impress on the Corinthians the replacement of one body by another, rather than its transformation? There can be no other reason to stress the speed, other than to rub the 'foolish' Corinthians nose in the fact that there is no time for one body to turn into another.

Paul is emphasising the discontinuity between the earthly body and the heavenly body.

This ties in with the fact that he had no stories of corpses leaving tombs. He taught that we left our earthly bodies behind to be destroyed and moved into heavenly bodies.

Which contradicts Gospel stories of a body going into a tomb and a body leaving the tomb.

In 'The Resurrection of the Son of God', NT Wright has a footnote on page 359 on this very verse, where he admits the discontinuous nature of the bodies.

Wright writes 'We may note at this point that those who will be 'changed', here and in Phil. 3:21 will thus , it seems, pass directly from the present bodily life to the future bodily life without any intermediate state.'

This is the very definition of 'discontinuous'. Two states are continuous only if an intermediate state could be found between them. But instant jumps from one state to another are the definition of 'discontinuity'

So even Wright cannot spin away Paul's words entirely to make Paul say that the earthly body turns into the heavenly body, which is what is needed if Paul is not to contradict the Gospels.

robto

I doubt Paul's view included a "quantum jump."
I don't see why it's a contradiction. Couldn't a dead body be changed instantly into a heavenly body, just the same as a live body?

I think your point about discontinuity is correct, but I don't think your conclusion follows.

Steven Carr

An instantaneous change is a change by replacement, rather than change by transformation - an exchange, if you will.

Paul's solution for the change of our dead bodies into heavenly bodies doesn't need an instant change, which is why he never speaks about that change happening in a flash.

For Paul, the dead earthly body is destroyed. That takes time. It could happen even after the heavenly body is occupied, although I don't think Paul makes that explicit.

A dead body could be changed instantly into a heavenly body, but that doesn't seem to be part of Paul's thoughts.

Incidentally, Wright doesn't seem to be to ask himself why Paul stresses the speed of the change. I guess deep exegesis would spoil the flow of Wright's arguments :-)

Diogenes the Cynic

In general, I tend to agree with you on your arguments against Paul believing in a physical resurrection, but this is not a particularly strong angle. I think you're parsing a distinction that probably never would have occurred to Paul.

Steven Carr

Which distinction do you mean? I don't entirely understand your comment.

Diogenes the Cynic

The distinction between "transformation" and "replacement." I think Paul saw it as essentially the same thing in this case. To put it another way, I don't think Paul meant to suggest that any kind of physical body was being left behind (if you'll forgive the expression). I do think you're onto something in your broader thesis -- that Paul did not view resurrections -- including the resurrection of "Christ" -- as being literally resuscitated physical bodies, but I don't think this particular semantic distinction is really what makes the strongest case for it. I don't think Paul was implying that it would appear to observers as if the event would leave any corpses lying around.

Steven Carr

I think you are right, as to what Paul thought would happen to the bodies of living Christians.

And 'transformation' and 'replacement' are essentially the same thing in this case.

My main point is that Paul had to come up with the idea of an instant change, because he 'knew' that there could be no intermediate state between an earthly body and a heavenly body. There could never be even an instant of time where we were in a part earthly, part heavenly body.

As one did not turn into the other, the only change was either an instant 'change' or a short period of leaving one body and moving into the other.

As Paul would have regarded that as leaving us 'naked', he went for the instant change process.

Clivedurdle

Two Pauls is the parsimonious explanation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

Can someone post the table in this link?