1 Corinthians 15:22

[] re. I Cor 15,22 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jul 11 19:11:36 EDT 2004

[] Hebrews 1:2 [] re. I Cor 15,22 — CORRECTION George, all apologies to you for taking so long to get back to you.On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:11 AM, George F. Somsel wrote:> I don’t attach any particular chronological sense to TAGMA whatsoever > so,> if anyone is being too rigid in regard to a chronological sense, you > need> only look in the mirror. (I don’t mean this unkindly so please don’t > take> it as such). What I see is 2 (or one might stretch it to 3) groups. 1.> Those who are Christ’s (and Christ as the first fruits) 2. The enemies> of Christ.(1) I don’t view TAGMA as chronological in the sense of there being some *intrinsic* chronological meaning to the word in itself. What I am proposing is a chronological sense in its use in context in 1 Cor 15.23. And what I mean by “chronological” is a “turn” in a temporal order of events. So I am not being too rigid in my handling of TAGMA, since I know and acknowledge that the word may communicate different senses in different contexts, several of which senses have nothing to do with a group.(2) BDAG acknowledges this sense in section 2 of the entry for TAGMA. There the proposed definition is “a stage in a sequence” and the glosses are “order, turn.” Though the example given has TAGMA in a prepositional phrase governed by KATA, I see no reason why TAGMA in a prepositional phrase governed by EN could not yield the same or a similar sense.In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that BDAG includes the usage of TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23 in section 1, where the proposed definition is “a clearly defined group.” Here there are 2 subsections, a and b. The first of these subsections says that TAGMA may be used in the sense “of an orderly arrangement of personnel” and uses the glosses “division, group.” It is noted, though, that in this sense it is a technical term for “bodies of troops in various numbers.” This clearly does not fit the context of 1 Cor 15.23. In the second of these subsections it is noted that TAGMA may be used “without any special military application” and the glosses “class, group” are offered.I think the sense “class” brings us somewhat closer to the precise sense of TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23, since this sense does not require us to think in terms of a “group,” which is important, since Christ is certainly not a group and in light of EPEITA must be considered in his own TAGMA, distinct from hOI TOU CRISTOU in *their* TAGMA. But it seems to me that the comments of BDAG here on 1 Cor 15.23 are somewhat confusing, and indicate that this use of TAGMA should have been used as an example for section 2, the definition and glosses of which I have already quoted above. Note what BDAG says about TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23:”Acc. to 1 Cor 15:23f the gift of life is given to various ones IN TURN (cp. Arrian, Tact. 28, 2 EPEIDAN TAGMA TAGMATI hEPHTAI), and AT VARIOUS TIMES” [my emphasis].In light of this statement, it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23 would have been better utilized as an example for section 2, “a stage in a sequence” with the glosses “order, turn.” Why BDAG, in light of what they actually *say* about TAGMA in 1 Cor 15.23, chose to include it under section 1.b instead of under section 2 puzzles me.(3) L-N pairs TAXIS and TAGMA as synonyms in the domain “Arrange, Organize” (62.7). It offers the definition “a proper and correct order” and gives the glosses “right order, good order, in order, in an orderly manner.” If in fact this proposed semantic overlap between TAXIS and TAGMA is valid, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that TAGMA may be used in the sense “order” or “turn” (cf. 1 Cor 14.40 and Col 2.5, both included as examples along with 1 Cor 15.23).(4) From the sense of “a distinct group of people” comes by extension the sense of “rank,” i.e., the status of an individual or individuals within a distinctive group in which the others have the same status. Thus the person/persons is/are distinguished by status in the broader scheme of things, i.e., in relation to those of higher or lower rank. When used in this sense, the “group” idea is shed and an ordinal sense comes to the fore. We find TAGMA used in this sense in 1 Clem 37.3:OU PANTES EISIN EPARCOI OUDE CILIARCOI OUDE hEKATONTARCOI OUDE PENTEKONTARCOI OUDE TO KAQEXHS, ALL’ hEKASTOS EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI TA EPITASSOMENA hUPO TOU BASILEWS KAI TWN hHGOUMENWN EPITELEI.Not all are prefects or tribunes or centurions or captains of fifty and so forth, but each in his own rank executes the orders given by the emperor and the commanders.The reason I am making this point is that I think it is important to understand that the sense of a word in its context may be an extension of another sense that in turn is an extension of another. Sometimes this process makes it hard to tell exactly how a word came to be used in a certain sense. This is the way language works. In the present case, I don’t think it is hard to see the progression from distinct group to the rank of an individual within a distinct group in the broader scheme of things to a person’s order of participation or “turn” in a series of events. Once we realize that TAGMA may be used in an ordinal sense, there is nothing to prohibit the sense I am proposing.(5) Building on the last point, there is another passage in 1 Clement that may provide some interesting insight into TAGMA. In 1 Clem 41.1 we read,hEKASTOS hUMWN, ADELFOI, EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI EUCARISTEITW TWi QEWi EN AGAQHi SUNEIDHSEI hUPARCWN, MH PAREKBAINWN TON hWRISMENON THS LEITOURGIAS AUTOU KANONA, EN SEMNOTHTI.Let each of you, brothers, in his proper order give thanks to God, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence.But does TAGMATI here mean “rank” or “turn”? The context in which it is used seems to indicate that *both* may be in view. Let me back up a bit and give the preceding context leading up to this verse. For sake of convenience, I’ll quote an English translation and identify the important Greek words where appropriate.1 Clem 40.1-41.1 These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order [TAXEI], which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times [KATA KAIROUS TETAGMENOUS]. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service [LEITOURGIAS] to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours [ALL’ hWRISMENOIS KAIROIS KAI hWRAIS]. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed [hWRISEN] by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times [TOIS PROSTETAGMENOIS KAIROIS], are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services [LEITOURGIAI] are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order [EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI], living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry THS LEITOURGIAS] prescribed to him [TON hWRISMENON … KANONA].Note the cognates that relate to temporal order and fixed times (TAXEI, TETAGMENOUS, PROSTETAGMENOIS, TAGMATI (?)), the repeated use of hORIZW, especially in reference to designated times, and the repetition of LEITOURGIA. It seems that both rank (high priest, priests, levites, laymen) and temporal order of worship pertaining to the rank of the participants (KATA KAIROUS TETAGMENOUS, hWRISMENOIS KAIROIS KAI hWRAIS, TOIS PROSTETAGMENOIS KAIROIS) are in view. So when we read the exhortation in 41.1, it seems that the author wants his readers to accept their God-assigned “rank” as well as limit their participation in the temporal order of service in a way that reflects that rank. TAGMA seems to indicate both “rank” *and* “turn,” since both ideas are central to the argument.> As you note, I am not following the NA-27 punctuation. Let me lay out > my> understanding> > I. General statement> A. EPEIDH GAR DI’ ANQRWPOU QANATOS> B. KAI DI’ ANQRWPOU ANASTASIS NEKRWN> II. Explication> A. hWSPER GAR EN TWi ADAM PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN> B. hOUTWS KAI EN XRISTWi PANTES ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI: hEKASTOS EN DE> TWi IDIWi TAGMATI> 1. APARXH XRISTOS> 2. EPEITA hOI TOU XRISTOU EN TWi PAROUSIAi AUTOU> 3. EITA TO TELOS . . . PANTA GAR hUPETACEN hUPO TOUS PODAS> AUTOU . . .George, I’m a bit confused as to exactly what it is you are arguing. At one point in the thread you seemed to argue that there were two and only two TAGMATA. Here is what you said:”This is ‘each in HIS OWN’ TAGMATI. The implication is that there is more than one TAGMA and that one may belong to one or to the other TAGMA. Who is it that belongs to these TAGMATA? PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN the “all [who] die” or PANTES ZWiOPOIHUHSONTAI the “all [who] shall be made alive.” The two ways. It does not refer to Christ.”But in another post you said:”What I see is 2 (or one might stretch it to 3) groups. 1. Those who are Christ’s (and Christ as the first fruits) 2. The enemiesof Christ.”Here you seem to allow three groups. And one group does in fact “refer to Christ.” Though you do not state it explicitly in this second quote, from what you say here and from your outline above, the three groups would seem to be (1) Christ, (2) those who are Christ’s, and (3) the enemies of Christ. I think there are major problems with either view, which I will delineate below.(1) hEKASTOS, being a masculine pronoun, naturally has a person/people in view. The clause in which it is used is introductory, i.e., it introduces the person/people to which hEKASTOS refers, which person/people is/are in apposition to hEKASTOS. When we analyze the flow of substantives from vv. 23-24, we have APARCH CRISTOS … EPEITA hOI TOU CRISTOU … EITA TO TELOS. Only two of these are personal, referring to a person/persons, thus hEKASTOS must introduce only APARCH CRISTOS and hOI TOU CRISTOU. Therefore only two TAGMATA are in view to which a person may be related. One TAGMA in relation to APARCH CRISTOS, the other in relation to hOI TOU CRISTOU. Also, since CRISTOS can in no way be taken as a group in this context, TAGMA must carry another sense. In fact, your insistence that TAGMA must mean group sinks the idea that three groups are in view and invalidates the very outline you provided above. The idea of “rank” makes sense here, but the idea of “turn” fits even better, since a sequence of events is in view.(2) In v. 22 we have two verbs, APOQNHiSKOUSIN and ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI. It is clear that a form of one or the other of these verbs must be supplied in two of the next three clauses. It is equally clear that a form of APOQNHiSKW doesn’t work. Furthermore, if the first clause of v. 24 indicates another TAGMA, as seems required by your comments and outline, we must be able to supply a form of ZWiOPOIEW here also, or your outline breaks down. Let’s see how this works out:v. 23a hEKASTOS DE [ZWiOPOIEITAI] EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATIv. 23b APARCH [ESTIN] CRISTOS, i.e., the first to be made alive in the sense in which “made alive” is meant here.v. 23c EPEITA hOI TOU CRISTOU [ZWiOPOIHQHSONTAI] EN THi PAROUSIAi AUTOUv. 24a EITA TO TELOS [ZWiOPOIHQHSETAI]It’s pretty clear that your outline breaks down completely in v. 24. The sequence introduced by hEKASTOS DE EN TWi IDIWi has to do with people being made alive, and TO TELOS is not personal and doesn’t fit as a TAGMA when it is understood that each person is made alive in his own TAGMA.(3) CRISTOS should be distinguished as a discrete element to which hEKASTOS refers, since it is separated from hOI TOU CRISTOU by EPEITA, indicating that whatever it is that happens to Christ and those who are his happens in a sequential order at different times. When this is understood, it becomes clear that there are only two TAGMATA in view, Christ in his TAGMA and those who are his in their TAGMA. There are no other candidates mentioned.(4) TO TELOS in v. 24 clearly does not signify a person/persons, and so does not work in relation to hEKASTOS, which is required if TO TELOS is to be understood as a second or third TAGMA. But not only does TO TELOS not work in relation to hEKASTOS, it also can in no meaningful way be construed as a “group,” which is the meaning of TAGMA you require. And one must pour an awful lot of imported theology into TO TELOS to come up with a general resurrection that includes Christ’s enemies, since there is not a hint of that here.(5) PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN in v. 24 cannot refer back to all who die in Adam in v. 22, since, in relation to human beings, the group in v. 22 is much broader and the forces described in v. 24 likely include angelic entities. Therefore your idea that all who die in Adam constitute a TAGMA breaks down once again, since all who die in Adam are nowhere mentioned in the temporal sequence of events delineated in vv. 23-24 and are nowhere said to be made alive.> No, there is a difference in taking APARXH as simply being “first” and> taking it as being “first fruits.” The first fruits were the beginning> of the harvest which was offered as a sacrifice before the beginning of> the real harvest. Thus, while it has a temporal significance as well,> its real meaning is that of a dedication to God. One cannot simply> ignore its usage in the literature. It would also be well to remember> that there is always a two-fold designation in the harvest. There is > the> wheat, and there are the tares.First of all, I never said APARCH should be taken “simply” as being first. What I said was that the ordinal aspect of the word must not be discounted. It is undoubtedly the case in 1 Cor 15 that Christ rises before those who are his in the sequence delineated.Second, the idea that APARCH was a foretaste and promise of anything but good grain is, in my opinion, quite mistaken. Is the harvest of good grain *and* tares what was being celebrated at Pentecost? Indeed, the first portion of the harvest offered in thanksgiving to God implies the consecration of the harvest to come, which consecration cannot include tares. And in the parable to which you refer, the tares were purposely planted by an enemy, so a harvest consisting of a sizable proportion of tares doesn’t seem to be a common occurrence and thus wouldn’t have been considered in connection with APARCH. At any rate, the idea of tares is another theological idea that must be imported into the text with which we are now concerned. As I think I have shown in some detail in my last response to Harold, the only resurrection in view in 1 Cor 15 is the resurrection to glory and eternal life in its fullest sense.I’ll let you have the last word, George, since it will likely be another week or two before I can put together a decent post. Thanks for the stimulating dialogue.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] Hebrews 1:2[] re. I Cor 15,22 — CORRECTION

[] re. I Cor 15,22 — CORRECTION Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jul 11 19:12:20 EDT 2004

[] re. I Cor 15,22 [] Hebrews 1:2 On Jun 16, 2004, at 11:07 AM, George F. Somsel wrote:> I just realized what the reference to “ways” was about. Yes, I did> mention “the two ways.” This was not as an explication of anything in> the text itself directly but rather indirectly in regard to the manner > in> which this concept developed in the sub-apostolic period as evidenced > by> Barnabas and other writings.Thanks for the correction, George. I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, but if I am not mistaken, you mentioned this twice, once in connection with the sub-apostolic period and once as an observation that seemed for all the world your own appraisal of the text:> 1. hEKASTOS EN TWi IDIWi TAGMATI “each in his own group”> > This is “each in HIS OWN” TAGMATI . The implication is that there is> more than one TAGMA and that one may belong to one or to the other > TAGMA.> Who is it that belongs to these TAGMATA ? PANTES APOQNHiSKOUSIN the> “all [who] die” or PANTES ZWiOPOIHUHSONTAI the “all [who] shall be made> alive.” The two ways. It does not refer to Christ.I’m not sure how else I could have taken this than as your own appraisal of the text.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] re. I Cor 15,22[] Hebrews 1:2

[] Syntax of 1 Cor. 15:22 truthseeker921 at comcast.net truthseeker921 at comcast.net
Tue Jan 1 18:28:03 EST 2008

[] Reading Greek in messages [] Reading Greek in messages I’ve heard both universalists, and non universalists appeal to the word order of 1 Cor. 15:22 to support their interpretation.Is there anything in the bare grammar that demands the second “all” l be either restricted, or unrestricted?–Michael Burke

[] Reading Greek in messages[] Reading Greek in messages

[] Syntax of 1 Cor. 15:22 Hugh Donohoe Jr. justusjcmylord at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 1 21:44:58 EST 2008

[] Reading Greek in messages [] Munnich OG Daniel While syntax and grammar are valuable in theologicalinterpretations, questions of this sort are usuallynot definitively decided by such. There are many Greekscholars who are Universalists and many who are not.Same could be said for Calvinists and Armenians.Presuppositions and hermeneutics factor more intothese issues. At the lexical level though, PAS consistently refersto an ‘all, each, every’ idea. The limiting of lexicalmeaning in these debates is typically performedbecause of the reasons I mentioned above.Hugh J. Donohoe Jr.Michael,I’ve heard both universalists, and non universalistsappeal to the word order of 1 Cor. 15:22 to supporttheir interpretation.Is there anything in the bare grammar that demands thesecond “all” l be either restricted, or unrestricted?–Michael Burke ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[] Reading Greek in messages[] Munnich OG Daniel

[] EN TW CRISTW in 1 Cor 15:22 Carol & David Weiner cdweiner at comcast.net
Fri Mar 25 10:52:02 EDT 2011

[] Thread closed: Mt 6:15 AFHTE vs. AFIETE [] EN TW CRISTW in 1 Cor 15:22 1 Cor. 15:22 EN TW ADAM PANTES APOQNHSKOUSIN OUTWS KAI EN TW CRISTW PANTES ZWOPOINQHSONTAIIs there a grammatical argument for why EN TW ADAM or EN TW CRISTW are either adjectival or adverbial in 1 Cor. 15:22?David Weiner

[] Thread closed: Mt 6:15 AFHTE vs. AFIETE[] EN TW CRISTW in 1 Cor 15:22

[] EN TW CRISTW in 1 Cor 15:22 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Mar 25 11:12:01 EDT 2011

[] EN TW CRISTW in 1 Cor 15:22 [] Adverbs On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Carol & David Weiner wrote:> 1 Cor. 15:22 EN TW ADAM PANTES APOQNHSKOUSIN OUTWS KAI EN TW CRISTW PANTES ZWOPOINQHSONTAI> > Is there a grammatical argument for why EN TW ADAM or EN TW CRISTW are either adjectival or adverbial in 1 Cor. 15:22?Ordinarily a prepositional phrase like this is adverbial unless it is within an articular nominal phrase (e.g. if it were PANTES hOI EN TWi CRISTWi).On the other hand, some say that that’s a principle of Classical Attic that doesn’t necessarily apply to the Hellenistic Koine. There’s been lively discussion over the phrase EK PISTEWS cited by Paul in Rom 1:17 hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI should construe with hO DIKAIOS (adjectivally) or with ZHSETAI (adverbially).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] EN TW CRISTW in 1 Cor 15:22[] Adverbs

1 Cor. 15:22 EN TW ADAM PANTES APOQNHSKOUSIN OUTWS KAI EN TW CRISTW PANTES ZWOPOINQHSONTAI

Is there a grammatical argument for why EN TW ADAM or EN TW CRISTW are either adjectival or adverbial in 1 Cor. 15:22?

David Weiner