ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Larry Wise
Posts: 15
Joined: April 8th, 2013, 12:03 pm

ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Larry Wise » April 15th, 2013, 12:10 pm

Greetings,

Should you continue to read on you will find basic two questions regarding 1 Corinthians chapter 15:22-23.

1Co 15:22 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται. :23 Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι• ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ,

1) Is there anything inherent within ζῳοποιηθήσονται that suggests when this future action was/is to commence? In other words, does ζῳοποιηθήσονται somehow point to “when”? Does it point to a time future to the writing of 1 Corinthians? Could it refer to a time prior to the resurrection of Christ? Or, to a time after the resurrection of Christ and before the writing of 1 Corinthians? If the commencement cannot be inherently derived from ζῳοποιηθήσονται then from where?

2) Why would it be inappropriate to let both ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός stand as nouns, separate and distinct from one another? This would allow for each ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός having uniqueness in their respective ἰδίῳ τάγματι. Thus, if verse 23 were to be punctuated there would be a semicolon after τάγματι, a comma after ἀπαρχὴ, Χριστός and αὐτοῦ. This would mean that ζῳοποιηθήσονται acts through Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι, which τάγματι is comprised of at least three components/orders: ἀπαρχὴ, Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ,. This approach would seem to most closely follow the text. If not, why not?

Thank you for your time, comments and insights.

Élan
0 x


Larry Wise

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3018
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 16th, 2013, 1:23 pm

Larry Wise wrote:1) Is there anything inherent within ζῳοποιηθήσονται that suggests when this future action was/is to commence? In other words, does ζῳοποιηθήσονται somehow point to “when”? Does it point to a time future to the writing of 1 Corinthians? Could it refer to a time prior to the resurrection of Christ? Or, to a time after the resurrection of Christ and before the writing of 1 Corinthians? If the commencement cannot be inherently derived from ζῳοποιηθήσονται then from where?
My understanding of the future tense form is that it refers to some time later than a contextually defined or inferred reference point. Usually, it's the speaker's now but this 1 Cor 15:22 has a timeless, gnomic feel to it, so it is not quite so clear-cut. My personal view of Paul is that he is a profoundly eschatological and apocalyptic thinker, so my instinct with Paul is to read him eschatologically. As the following verse makes clear, the resurrection of Jesus inaugurates (already) a new eschatological era that (not yet) culminates with the parousia.
Larry Wise wrote:2) Why would it be inappropriate to let both ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός stand as nouns, separate and distinct from one another? This would allow for each ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός having uniqueness in their respective ἰδίῳ τάγματι. Thus, if verse 23 were to be punctuated there would be a semicolon after τάγματι, a comma after ἀπαρχὴ, Χριστός and αὐτοῦ. This would mean that ζῳοποιηθήσονται acts through Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι, which τάγματι is comprised of at least three components/orders: ἀπαρχὴ, Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ,. This approach would seem to most closely follow the text. If not, why not?
I don't understand the proposal. If the first-fruit is not Christ, then what does it refer to? How does the proposal handle v.20? Also, what does it means to say that "ζῳοποιηθήσονται acts through Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι"? How does this handle the δέ?
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Larry Wise
Posts: 15
Joined: April 8th, 2013, 12:03 pm

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Larry Wise » April 16th, 2013, 11:48 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote: My understanding of the future tense form is that it refers to some time later than a contextually defined or inferred reference point. Usually, it's the speaker's now but this 1 Cor 15:22 has a timeless, gnomic feel to it, so it is not quite so clear-cut. My personal view of Paul is that he is a profoundly eschatological and apocalyptic thinker, so my instinct with Paul is to read him eschatologically. As the following verse makes clear, the resurrection of Jesus inaugurates (already) a new eschatological era that (not yet) culminates with the parousia.
I should like to probe a little more. If Paul has in mind the zOopoieo of “the Christ”, then ζῳοποιηθήσονται would presumably commence at/near the time of His resurrection. However, 1 Cor 15:23 would seem to have “the Christ” ζῳοποιηθήσονται at a time future to Paul’s writing, thus my first question.

Paul uses ζῳοποιήσει in Romans 8:11, which makes better sense to me than his use here in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Well, it’s not the use of ζῳοποιήσει so much as what follows. It is noted that in 8:11 that “Christ Jesus” is ἐγείραντος prior to the ζῳοποιήσει of θνητὰ σώματα. ζῳοποιήσει of θνητὰ σώματα makes sense. In 1 Corinthians 15:17 “Christ” is noted as ἐγήγερται prior to mention of ζῳοποιηθήσονται in verse 22. The use of ἀπαρχὴ in verse 23, following ζῳοποιηθήσονται, does not seem directly attached with Χριστός as θνητὰ is attached to σώματα in Romans 8:11.

(Rom 8:11 εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν.)
Stephen Carlson wrote: I don't understand the proposal. If the first-fruit is not Christ, then what does it refer to? How does the proposal handle v.20? Also, what does it means to say that "ζῳοποιηθήσονται acts through Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι"?
I can’t say that I have a proposal at this time, but am definitely interested in how/why the “Greek” requires these two nouns, ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός, to be inextricably linked. If ἀπαρχὴ in verse 23 does or does not pertain to “Christ”, that’s okay with me. My interest is what Greek “rules” are used to require such linkage to “Christ”. I understand this approach is atypical and seemingly does not work well with contextual flow/continuity, but would the “rules” of Greek render this view as inadmissible? If so, citation of said rule(s) would be most appreciated.

If ζῳοποιηθήσονται is indeed a future event to the writing 1 Cor 15, then it would seem appropriate that ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός be reviewed, because “Christ” was zOopoieo (or at least ἐγήγερται) in time past (at/near the time of His resurrection is my assumption), not some time in the future, unless ζῳοποιηθήσονται began at His resurrection.

Since both ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός are nouns, is there any “Greek” reason to not have them stand separately as nouns? Comparing other occurenceds of nominative-feminine-singular-nouns located next to nominative-masculine-singular-nouns in the new testament reveals that the these nouns configuration are most often treated as distinctly separate.

It seems that ἀπαρχὴ in verse 23 is translated as an adjective to/for Χριστός. When Paul uses ζῳοποιήσει in Romans 8:11 it is followed by θνητὰ σώματα (adjective-noun). This may not be an appropriate comparison, but it is noted. In 1 Cor. 15:23 we find ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός next to each other. Does a Greek adjective form for ἀπαρχὴ exist? If so, why was it not used? If not, why try to have these two nouns do something similarly adjacent nouns elsewhere in the new testament are not required to do?
Stephen Carlson wrote: “How does this handle the δέ?”
My use of the word “through” was probably not the best. I would currently understand δέ as connecting ζῳοποιηθήσονται to Ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι, thus clarifying the order of ζῳοποιηθήσονται “in Christ”. In other words, “in Christ” ζῳοποιηθήσοντα is not willy-nilly, but orderly, and evidently not fully accomplished as a single future event – though future occurrence is sure.

Thank you for your reply.
0 x
Larry Wise

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3018
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 17th, 2013, 6:50 am

Larry Wise wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:How does the proposal handle v.20?
I can’t say that I have a proposal at this time, but am definitely interested in how/why the “Greek” requires these two nouns, ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός, to be inextricably linked. If ἀπαρχὴ in verse 23 does or does not pertain to “Christ”, that’s okay with me. My interest is what Greek “rules” are used to require such linkage to “Christ”. I understand this approach is atypical and seemingly does not work well with contextual flow/continuity, but would the “rules” of Greek render this view as inadmissible? If so, citation of said rule(s) would be most appreciated.
It's not so much Greek grammar that's identitying Christ as the first fruit, but the context. They are equated in v.20 and there's nothing in the grammar of v.23 to read that any differently. The juxtaposition of nouns is handled pragmatically. I don't see the point of taking a sentence out of context and asking if could mean something else when it is ripped from its context.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Larry Wise
Posts: 15
Joined: April 8th, 2013, 12:03 pm

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Larry Wise » April 17th, 2013, 4:47 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote: It's not so much Greek grammar that's identitying Christ as the first fruit, but the context. They are equated in v.20 and there's nothing in the grammar of v.23 to read that any differently. The juxtaposition of nouns is handled pragmatically. I don't see the point of taking a sentence out of context and asking if could mean something else when it is ripped from its context. .
Accepting the approach as presented, should the future tense use of zOopoieo give us pause? As Paul uses “ζῳοποιηθήσονται” in relation to Christ as the first fruit, which zOopoieo, I assume occurred prior to writing 1 Corinthians 15 and the same verb seems to apply to “οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτου”, which is currently understood to be future to 1 Corinthians 15. Is this juxtaposition of time, from past to future, derived from Paul’s use of “ἔπειτα“? Or, is it all context at this point?

I suppose I am expecting too much from the Greek itself and should better roll along with context.

Thank you for your replies.
0 x
Larry Wise

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Scott Lawson » April 19th, 2013, 12:33 pm

Larry,

BDAG under τάγμα says: "Acc. to 1 Cor 15:23f the gift of life is given to various ones in turn,...and at various times. One view is that in this connection Paul distinguishes three groups: Christ, who already possesses life, the Christians, who will receive it at his second coming, and the rest of humanity,...who will receive it when death as the last of God's enemies is destroyed..."
0 x
Scott Lawson

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3018
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 19th, 2013, 12:50 pm

I guess they're getting the third group out of v.24??
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Scott Lawson » April 19th, 2013, 1:45 pm

@ Stephen: I'm away from my copy of BDAG (Oh how I long for Logos!) but it seems they connect it to τέλος (2) which I haven't yet read.

Also, Εξαναστασις...is the word for resurrection at Philippians 3:11 and might imply a first resurrection...or so Robertson seems to imply in his word pictures.
0 x
Scott Lawson

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Scott Lawson » April 19th, 2013, 2:09 pm

Also έκαστος has me wanting to look for more than two groups and perhaps even exclude Jesus as part of the groups.
0 x
Scott Lawson

Larry Wise
Posts: 15
Joined: April 8th, 2013, 12:03 pm

Re: ζῳοποιηθήσονται in 1Corinthians 15

Post by Larry Wise » April 22nd, 2013, 1:19 pm

Scott Lawson wrote: Larry,

BDAG under τάγμα says: "Acc. to 1 Cor 15:23f the gift of life is given to various ones in turn,...and at various times. One view is that in this connection Paul distinguishes three groups: Christ, who already possesses life, the Christians, who will receive it at his second coming, and the rest of humanity,...who will receive it when death as the last of God's enemies is destroyed..."
Hello Scott,
The perspective you present has become a puzzlement for me. It’s not that I have not heard of it, but I can’t wiggle it out from the Greek text. It seems to work contextually, but not from the underlying language. If one of the “…… three groups: Christ, who already possesses life, ……” then why the use of ζῳοποιηθήσονται (future tense)? Paul could have used the aorist tense as he does in Galatians 3:21, Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13? Peter brings forth the idea that Christ is ζῳοποιηθεὶς (1Pe 3:18) which would indicate that the future zOopoieO of Christ (Jesus) is not necessary at the writing of 1st Peter.

Why should Paul include Christ in a group that “shall be” zOopoieO? This make little sense to me. Christ is clearly identified as ἐγήγερται in I Corinthians 15:20. He (Christ) is also identified as ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων. He is “raised” and He is “first fruit of those that are sleeping”.

I believe that it is important to distinguish that τάγμα is related to ζῳοποιηθήσονται in verse 22 and not to ἀνάστασις in verse 21, at least in the sense of contextual flow. There is a tendency to connect ζῳοποιηθήσονται and ἀνάστασις so closely that they become one in the same. The use of zOopoieO does occur without ἀνάστασις – such as in Romans 4:17 and John 6:63. Also, in this 1 Corinthians passage Paul is dialing in on the zOopoieO of those “in the Christ,” I suppose that some of these may certainly be “alive” and not in need of ἀνάστασις, per se (a “change” would suffice). ζῳοποιηθήσονται in verse 22 pertains to those “in the Christ”, not the general population.

It also seems reasonable to suspect that there is potential overlapping within τάγμα. It is easy to assume that τάγμα is referring to a horizontal timeline (Galatians 1:17), but it is a little more difficult to perceive a rise to authority. For example there were believers “in Christ” before Paul came to believe (Romans 16:7), yet Paul was raised to the τάγμα/group/order of Apostle and most other believers were not.

1 Corinthians 15, verse 22, draws a parallel between ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ and ἐν τῷ Χριστω. It is those that are ἐν τῷ Χριστω that will receive ζῳοποιηθήσονται, not Χριστω. Christ (Jesus) is not zOopoieO in Himself. This was the reason for my first question in this thread and because of the above reasons I start looking for other possibilities for ἀπαρχὴ and Χριστός. This was the reason for my second question.

The only other place that zOopoieO is used in the future tense in the new testament is in Romans 8:11. There is pertains to ζῳοποιήσει of θνητὰ σώματα. So, is it possible that ζῳοποιηθήσονται of ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός correspond to ζῳοποιήσει of θνητὰ σώματα?
Scott Lawson wrote: Also, Εξαναστασις...is the word for resurrection at Philippians 3:11 and might imply a first resurrection...or so Robertson seems to imply in his word pictures.
Do you find that the ἐξανάστασιν of Philippians 3:11 is somehow related to the τάγμα of ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός or οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτου in 1 Corinthians 15:23?
Scott Lawson wrote: Also έκαστος has me wanting to look for more than two groups and perhaps even exclude Jesus as part of the groups.
Is there a significant difference between έκαστος in verse 23 and εἶτα in verse 24?

Now, for me, another question merges from 15:23. Is παρουσίᾳ αὐτου to stand in contrast to a parousia of ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός? Why would Paul not just continue in the genitive and use παρουσίας – something like this; “ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῆς παρουσίας”? It’s like Paul is using αὐτου to eliminate a potential confusion with some other parousia, other than Christ’s. Perhaps Paul just wants to better use parousia in the dative case.
0 x
Larry Wise

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”