One has to do forensic work in I Cor 15. The oft repeated analogy is that of listening to one end of a phone conversation and trying to figure out the other end. Deductions, clues, hints, implications and inferences can be drawn so that a fairly accurate construction can be had. It was “made known” (vdhlw,qh) to Paul from "the ones of Chloe" that "selfish rivalries" (;ridej) had broken out among the Corinthians (1.11). No doubt, those rivalries were theologically driven at bottom, manifesting ethical and practical differences which began to wreak havoc in the way the Corinthian households gathered together for worship and fellowship.

For our concern here, Fee notes that a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the resurrection of the "dead ones" (nekrw/n)1 led to "aberrant ways" which only a "belief in the resurrection" could "mend".2 Paul sought, then, not only to correct their doctrinal understanding on this matter, but also their behavioral manner in the process (15.32b-34). They were sinning as a result of their erroneous denial (15.34). One could, then, see that Paul's major doctrinal exposition in this letter forms its end, for all the "matters" that had been discussed previously may be somehow linked to the actions and influences of the "some" (15.12) upon the other households, either in sympathy for or bitterness against, leading to "contentions" and "divisions".

From this, many have noted the Jewish/Gentile nature of the divisions, and even the opening list of "party leaders" portrays this distinction (1.12). Paul, in 15.1-11, sought to mend these divisions by appealing to his solidarity with Cephas (using his Aramaic name) and the other Jewish apostles and witnesses who resided in Jerusalem. If Paul was a champion to the Gentiles, and Cephas, James and John were apostles to Jerusalem and the Jews, Paul boldly made known in the opening attack on this error that "whether I, Paul, or Cephas, James, and the others preach, so we preach.3 Is, then, the resurrection of the dead ones or persons somehow related to the promises given to Israel? Since the resurrection of the dead was the "hope of Israel" (Acts 24.15; 26.6-8), was a denial of the resurrection of the dead a denial of Israel's hope? Interestingly enough, Paul uses the verbal form of the noun evlpi,zw (hope) in 15.19, noting that "we" apostles – Jewish apostles – who have preached this gospel by the resurrection of Christ (and through his resurrection is the hope of Israel to be realized) are to be pitied "above all men". Why? Because only Israel was promised resurrection from the dead "according to the Scriptures" (which Paul will cite). To hope in something that was never promised is one thing, but to hope in that which was promised by God himself only to have it fail to come to pass would be a failure from which Israel would not recover. All would be lost, including the resurrection of Christ. And, "if Christ is not raised, then you are still dead in your sins" (15.17). If Paul is writing to Gentiles, who came into Israel's promises through faith for the forgiveness of sins, then they could not boast, either!

What has often been missed is that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible severally make mention that when God restores the "House of Judah" with the "House of Israel", then "the Gentiles will know that I am the Lord who makes Israel Holy" (Ezk 37.28 and many like passages). In the Ezekielian passage the resurrection of the dead primarily concerns "all the House of Israel", which primarily has to do with the northern tribes.4 Therefore, if Israel and Judah are not “gathered together” (37.21), then the Gentiles cannot obtain forgiveness of sins, either. If Christ is the fountain head of the resurrection/restoration of Israel and Judah into “one nation” under “one king” then one can clearly reason that if this resurrection/restoration is not, then the purpose of the resurrection of Christ is null and void. Paul stated it like this, “If the dead ones are not raised, then Christ has not been raised, either.” That is, If Israel is not raised/restored into one nation, then Israel’s Messiah is not raised, either. And, if Israel’s Messiah is not raised, then you Gentiles are still in your sins, for the salvation of the nations depends upon the resurrection of Israel, which depends upon the resurrection of Israel’s Messiah. It appears that the deniers affirmed Messiah’s resurrection, but skipped the connection and solidarity of his resurrection to Israel’s. They affirmed the forgiveness of sins that came through the cross and resurrection of Messiah (“so [they] believed” – I Cor 15.11), affirming their own coming to life in the Spirit, but denied the connection to Israel. By not seeing this connection, one can see how these “some” would have had no regard for the Jewish practices intermingling within the house gatherings for worship, fellowship and eating and drinking.

This aspect brings us to reconsider the prophet Hosea and Paul’s quotation of that prophet in I Cor 15.55. There he quoted Hos 13.14. What is vital interest to us is that this prophet deals primarily with the northern tribes of the House of Israel. The opening of the book, the only one like it, announces Hosea’s vocation under the two divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1.1). 1.11, sounding exactly like the Ezk passages above, notes the reunification of Israel and Judah together under “one leader”. Israel, unlike Judah, is completely cut off (1.4). Although throughout the prophecy Judah is also to be scattered, God “loves” Judah and will gather her into the land much sooner than Israel (1.7). The point, however, is not to be missed. Even though Israel is scattered among the nations and cut off entirely, God also has promised to bring her back and reunite her with her sister, Judah. It is within this context that Hos 13.14 is spoken to Ephraim, the kingdom now “not a nation” nor a “people”, but will, one day, become a “people” when God raises them from the dead (as spoken by Ezk previously).

It is interesting, as well, that Paul begins his argument by, what some see, as an allusion to Hos 6.2 in I Cor 15.4.5 Preston has argued for an inclusion in I Cor 15.4 and 15.55 (Hos 13.2), and that all in between is to be related to Hosea.6 This, then, will be the “test” to see if such a conclusion can be maintained. It would state, more or less, that the “some” among the Corinthian Christians were denying that Israel would not be raised from the dead ones. God was not restoring Israel and Judah as one nation. The Gospel and the resurrection of Jesus was for “everyone who believed” and completely severed from its ties for a future hope (“the hope”) of Israel and Judah as a nation. The Gentiles, along with Jews, have the same access without distinction, and, therefore, distinctions are not to be “respected” among them and their differences. The parousia would bring about a change in status with God and would consummate salvation in the fullest sense, but it would not be on Israel’s account or to Israel’s, as a nation, benefit. In short, a denial of the hope of Israel was a prejudiced response against the Jewish Christians that had this hope, stating that the coming parousia held no special prominence for Judah or Israel since it now equally belonged to “whoever believed” without distinction.

If this be the case, then Paul must argue that the parousia (to which the resurrection is directly tied) is directly related to Israel’s promises and that the Gentiles are included in what is happening to Israel. It is the same argument of Paul in Rom 11 concerning the Gentiles “boasting” over the cut off branches. Paul reminds them that they are a “wild olive shoot” grafted into Israel, the “natural branches.” It was important that Paul show that Israel was the “root” and the “sap” that nourishes the Gentile branches is thoroughly and entirely of the promises that “belong” to Israel. What was being done in Romans was also being done in Corinth. It was a diminishing of the importance of the Israel-salvation history up to the time of the parousia. Sure, the benefit of Israel’s “fullness” would mean “riches for the world”, but Paul is saying something to the effect of, “let’s keep in mind that the riches of salvation that come to you Gentiles is the result of Israel’s coming fullness. So, treat them according to God’s election – for on that account, they are beloved by God.” Evidently, in the letter of Paul to the Corinthians, the “divisions” that had arisen centered around Gentile disregard for their Jewish and Israelite brothers.

In Hosea we first encounter that God calls Israel (the northern tribes) Jezreel. This appellative comes from a combination of two Hebrew words, zra (to plant) and el (God). Thus, “God sows or plants” has been the long agreed upon translation of this name. The name, at first, is meant in terms of judgment. God will sow (speivrw) Israel “among the nations” (8.8). This is because she sowed wind and reaped the whirlwind. She plants, but no stalk is raised (8.7). Israel “planted” wickedness and “reaped” evil (10.13). She has “changed” her “glory” (doxa) for “dishonor” (ajtimiva). She is "weak" (ajsqenei'n) or "stumbles" (5.5 – one stumbles because they are weak). She is "like Adam" (a[nqropo" or <da) in that she has “broken the covenant” (6.7). They have broken the covenant and have rebelled against “the torah” (tou/ no,mou mou). Israel, covenantally speaking, is mortal, having been killed by the Lord himself. This is depicted as Israel being slaughtered by the Assyrians.

However, each of these images are reversed when the prophet speaks of her restoration /resurrection. Her name, Jezreel, originally denoting being sown by God among the nations, would then be Jezreel, sown by God “in the land” (i.e. when he restores her to Judah in the land under one leader). Instead of the imagery of a stalk having no head, “the land will respond to the grain (oito)… and will respond to God sows (Jezreel)" (2.22). Instead of reaping the wind for their sowing, they will sow righteousness and reap unfailing love. The ground will be plowed up and God will come and shower them with "righteousness" (10.12). This is "the harvest" appointed for Judah and Israel when God "restores" their fortunes and "heal" Israel (6.11-7.1). During their exile they lived "many days" without king or priest "among the nations", but "in the last days" (evpV evsca,twn tw/n h`merw/n) God would bring David their King (the "one leader"). It is in this context of restoration that the "in the third day he will restore us that we may live in his presence" (6.2) When this occurs, God would "redeem them from the power of sheol, from death I will redeem them. Where, O' Death, are your plagues? Where, 'O Sheol, is your destruction?" (13.14). This redemption/restoration/resurrection would occur, in the Hosean prophecy, "in the third day." "They shall live (zh,sontai) as grain, and they shall bloom as the vine, and his fame will be like the wine of Lebanon" (14.7). This "fame" is to be related to the "fame" among the nations where there once was "corruption" and "ridicule."

Paul alludes and quotes many Scriptures from the Hebrew in I Cor 15. It has been our focus to stay within the Hosean content and note if we can find any parallels there from possible allusions or "echoes." I have noted the Greek terms from the LXX above since we find those same terms in Paul's "seed analogy" in 15.36-50. Included in those verses is a mention of "Adam", who, like Israel, broke a covenant with God. This was taken up by Paul in Rom 5.12-ff. It is because Israel is like Adam, the "natural body" that she is "corrupt," "weak," and "without honor." Yet, being in this state does not deny the fact that the promise made to her is of no effect or annulled. All die in Adam. Those "in Christ" were once in the same wretched condition as Israel, yet that did not prohibit God from saving them. Therefore, so Paul reasoned, why should it prohibit the dead ones who were promised resurrection and died hearing the word of the Lord through Hosea that one day, "in the last days", they would be raised from the dead? Was the hope "of the twelve tribes of Israel" a lost hope (Acts 26.7)?

Israel was "sown" as a seed among the nations. There, she "died" because she is like "Adam." Yet, once more, like "grain" she would "come alive" and blossom into a "spiritual body" of the risen Messiah. The same body that those "in Christ" belonged to (as well as those fallen asleep in Christ) is the spiritual body that Israel and Judah are reunited in and raised into so that they may be "in the presence of the Lord" (Hos 6.2). It is not a separate body! It is the same body of Christ that Paul instructed them earlier as having "many members" (I Cor 12). The question, then, is foolish, because it failed to take into account the solidarity of Israel's restoration with the risen Messiah and the Gentile salvation as a result. There is only "one body" and "one leader."

Now, Paul must be careful here because the hope of the Jewish antagonists was a literal restoration of the fleshly nation of Israel, under a fleshly and earthy constitution, looking something like Solomon's kingdom, only bigger and with more glory. It is possible that the Gentiles were reacting to such crass literalism very well current in their day. The resurrection was understood as spiritual (of the Spirit), but not in terms of Israel's restoration. Paul is saying that the "seed" that was planted among the nations, the seed that must die, is the fleshly, earthy, natural aspect of Israel's economy and existence as defined by ho nomos, ha torah or "the law." This aspect is changed from "dishonor" to "glory", from "weakness" under the Law, to "power" in the new covenant, from "corruption" inherited from Adam's sin ("the sin" in Rom 5.12-ff), which was defined as being estranged from God to incorruption in the spiritual body, the new covenant people of God; transformed Israel.

Thus, Paul, on one hand, must defend that it is Israel's restoration under the Messianic, Davidic king (hence the psalms allusions in I Cor 15.24-28) and the Gentiles are beneficiaries of what God is doing for Israel through Messiah. Yet, on the other hand, he must defend the equal footing granted to the Gentiles as a result of Israel's restoration. Israel was "being raised" or "restored" as Paul penned this response, but the Israel that was "sown" and "died" would not "look like" the Israel and Jerusalem to be. Israel looked forward to restoration in terms of a fleshly, earthy kingdom like the good, old days. That died. That was sown. But, it was being raised into a spiritual kingdom with David as its one leader over all the nations. There is continuity and discontinuity and both had to be maintained by Paul's well balanced analogy.

This brings us to Paul's conclusion about "the death", "the sin", and "the law." These are the same subjects in Rom 5.12- ff when dealing with Adam. The Law was added to Moses to "increase" the fact of "the sin" under Adam. It was not added to bring salvation, but to point to the need of salvation apart from "works." Hosea's charge to Israel was that they "depended on [their] own strength," (10.13) and, as a result, "broke the law" (8.1). This is because all men, Israel included, were under the "power" of the Sin and the Death that was afforded by the Law. Israel illustrated this fact in her history. For Paul, when the parousia occurred, the "sting" of the Death mentioned in Hosea 13.14 would be swallowed up. The sting is the Sin that came through Adam, the First Man. The strength of his sin came from the fact that he, like Israel illustrated, "broke the covenant" or "the law", and the Law gave the Sin its judicial power to condemn all men born out of Adam and Eve. The parousia of Messiah would bring about the end and disintegration of the Law, the old covenant, (Heb 8.13). Thus, reversely, if the Law is fulfilled (Rom 8.3,4), then the Sin has lost its strength the condemn. If the Sin has lost its strength to condemn, then the Death has lost its sting. If the Death has lost its sting, then the dead (Israel) would be restored, those having fallen asleep in Christ would be brought with him, and those in Paul's day "alive and remaining" would be changed together with all of them, forming the "one new man", the "spiritual body" of God's newly created, new covenant people, the Israel of God. Since, then, they were becoming one body made new, then they should not have these divisions among them, but already begin to live in unity and peace as they looked forward to the parousia. It is for this reason that after Paul finishes his argument here, he goes on to immediately raise the issue of collecting monies from his churches to give to the poor in Jerusalem! Solidarity indeed!

In conclusion, it was not the resurrection of corpses that was denied (since Paul never envisioned such a thing since the OT never taught it). The "dead ones" were not being seen as not being raised to eternal life. Abraham, Moses and Isaac were surely regarded as men of faith in God. What was denied was that the OT faithful would be raised in terms of a restored Israelite kingdom. The kingdom of God was disassociated from the future kingdom of Israel. Israel as Israel was not being restored and raised to life. Rather, mankind in general would participate apart from any connection to Israel. But, for Paul, this meant a denial of the resurrection of the dead. The faithful of the past as well as Paul's present were being raised precisely because God was "raising the dead", i.e., restoring Israel and Judah in the one new Man. The kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem, is distinctively Israelitic in nature. It must be seen, so Paul argued, that God was saving "the world" through demonstrating his righteousness through Israel. He had to answer and restore Israel because he precisely made explicit announcements that he would save them in spite of their waywardness. He would be the Just and the Justifier alone by fulfilling Israel's eschatology within the framework of the old covenant promises (up to when that covenant "faded" and was "destroyed" in 70 C.E.). The New People of God would be characterized as New Israelites and Priests, and it was this that was resented, misunderstood through ignorance (I Cor 15.34), or opposed. By acknowledging that Israel and the nations would be raised as New Israel, the Gentiles would have to make concessions to the Jews within their congregations since the promises of the salvation of all belonged to them.


FOOTNOTES

1 The word occurs 14 times in this letter in which all of those are found in this chapter alone. This has led some to conclude that those who constituted "the dead ones" (not "the dead corpses" for there is another Greek word for "corpse") would not be granted "life" at the parousia of Christ.

2 Fee, Gordon D., NICNT, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 716-717.

3 khruvssomen is present indicative noting to his readers that what they (Peter and James) preach is what he also is currently preaching. Thus Paul reminding these "some" concerning the good news (15.1) is tied directly to the preaching of the Jews in Jerusalem, namely Peter and James. We also know that for Paul the "good news" is directly excavated from Israel's promises contained in her Scriptures (Rom 10.13-21).

4 larvy tyb-lk (all the House of Israel) is repeated in 37.16 associated with the northern “kingdom” (37.22) to be united with the “House of Judah” (37.19). It is primarily the resurrection of the northern tribes to Judah, forming “one nation” (37.22) that is in view here. Certainly, Judah is also represented in this resurrection image and was in need of “restoration” as well. But, it appears that the House of Israel, in context, refers to the northern tribes.

5 The LXX reads, evn th/| h`me,ra| th/| tri,th| avnasthso,meqa kai. zhso,meqa which contains two verbs (anistemi and zao) used throughout I Cor 15. Interestingly, Paul used egeiro for Christ’s resurrection. If the allusion stands, it shows the solidarity between “he was raised in the third day” and “in the third day we will be raised and we will come to life”). Since Paul boasts of his “labors” among the nations, where Israel has been long scattered, his mission can be seen as bringing about the restoration of Israel among the nations through the Gospel-preaching, uniting them “in Spirit” to the House of Judah in Jerusalem. That is, Paul’s going to the nations was primarily for reaching the “lost sheep of the House of Israel” and to unite them in Spirit with the “House of Judah” in Jerusalem. Since it was, in Paul’s mind, the calling for the regathering of Israel to Judah in Christ (“one leader”), the Gentiles would be a sign that this was that since they were coming into the promised salvation as well. The coming in of the Gentile meant that Israel and Judah were being restored – raised from the dead.

6 Preston, Don, The Book of Hosea: A 30 Lesson Series, www.eschatology.org/audio/index_hosea.html. I am greatly indebted to Preston for much of the work here.