Why we need theologians...

A few weeks ago I slipped in a few explanatory notes on 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10. This is a passage that intrigues me and one that has been discussed frequently as a place where Paul's thought might have developed from 1 Corinthians.

I thought I might catalog today several of the interpretations of this passage. All of the following suggestions were made by card carrying PhD's in New Testament who not only know Greek--they likely know/knew it better than anyone you've ever met. Not only that, they probably know/knew ancient Greek literature better than anyone you've ever met.

In short, each of these positions have been held by people who know/knew how to interpret the Bible in context better than you or me, hands down. I say that so that no one says, "I clearly know more about the Bible than the person who said that does/did."

1. Between 1 and 2 Corinthians Paul has changed his mind on whether he will still be alive at the second coming. In 1 Corinthians he thinks he'll still be alive. In 2 Corinthians/Philippians he thinks he'll probably die first. (C. H. Dodd)

2. Between 1 and 2 Corinthians Paul has changed his mind on when resurrection will take place. In 1 Corinthians he thinks it will happen at the second coming. In 2 Corinthians he thinks it will be at death. (F. F. Bruce)

3. Between 1 and 2 Corinthians Paul has changed his mind on what the state of a person is in between death and future resurrection. In 1 Corinthians it is a sleepy, shadowy existence. In 2 Corinthians it is a more blessed state of union with Christ.

4. Between 1 and 2 Corinthians Paul has changed his mind on what the nature of the resurrection will be like. In 1 Corinthians he still has the Jewish idea of an embodied resurrection. In 2 Corinthians he has a more Platonic sense of immortality. (C. F. D. Moule)

5. 1 and 2 Corinthians are about two different things. 1 Corinthians is about individual resurrection, while 2 Corinthians is about the body of Christ as a group reality. (Victor Furnish).

6. There is no difference between 1 and 2 Corinthians. Although 1 Corinthians uses the imagery of sleep for death, Paul has in mind the same thing as what he means by nakedness in 2 Corinthians (a disembodied intermediate state). (N. T. Wright)

Now here's the punchline. It is not likely that many if any people reading this post, including myself, is anywhere near as qualified as any of the scholars I mention above to interpret this passage in context. Yet they have all come to different interpretations.

This is why we need theologians. The more you dig into the possible interpretations of these words--especially if you're honest and don't pretend like anyone who disagrees with you must be evil or stupid--the more ambiguous passages like this one seem.

The thing is, though, Christians throughout the ages have dug into these issues and on many many of them, they have hammered out points of agreement on the meaning we find in these words (whether they are the original meanings or not). For each individual to go back to the drawing board and ignore 2000 years of Christian theology is the heighth of foolishness. Here's what Christian theology has to say:

Christians believe in a future, bodily resurrection. We also believe that we will be conscious in between our deaths (should we die before Christ's return) and our resurrections--we will be "with Christ."

That's what we Christians believe, whether it was what Paul was thinking or not.