Criswell Theological
Review 4.1 (1989) 57-76.
Copyright © 1989 by The
DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP,
AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES:
2 COR 5:1-10-ONCE AGAIN
Roy
METTS
I. Background and Issues
New
Testament scholarship commonly maintains with dogmatic
tenacity that Paul anticipated the end of world
history ("this age";
hz,.ha
MlAOfhA) and the consummate inauguration of "the
age to come"
(MlAOfhA xBAha)
within his own lifetime1 even though he proclaimed that
the salvific realities of
the coming Age proleptically had been inaugu-
rated in the person and work of Christ, from whom NT
eschatology
derives its meaning and in whom there has
arrived an interruption of
and irruption into Jewish expectations. In fact, it
is said,
Ever since the eschatological
understanding of the New Testament re-
placed the
idealistic interpretation, we can and must determine the
various
phases of earliest Christian history by means of the original
imminent
expectation of the parousia, its modifications and
its final
extinction.2
1 J.D. G. Dunn (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament
[
345-46)
observes the imminent parousia
in Thessalonians; denies it for 1 Corinthians,
Romans,
Philippians; detects no urgency in Colossians and identifies no reference to it
in Ephesians.
2 E. Kasemann,
New Testament Questions of Today
(London: SCM, 1969) 236-37.
But
W. C. van Unnik ("Luke-Acts, a Storm Center in
Contemporary Scholarship,"
Studies in Luke-Acts [ed. L. E. Keck and J.
L. Martyn;
demurs: "Has the delay of the parousia really wrought that
havoc that it is sometimes
supposed to have done? In the light of the
history of early Christianity this effect of the
Parousieverzogerong is highly overrated.
The faith of the early Christians did not rest
on a date, but on the work of Christ."
58
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Hence,
proceeding with a developmental hypothesis, many, observ-
ing the nature of Paul's
eschatological proclamation in Thessalonians
of an imminent parousia
which he and the majority of his readers
would live to see, detect in 1 Corinthians a slight
modification from
the majority to the minority being alive with him
at the advent,3
though "he has not yet freed himself from the
inherited incubus of
Pharisaic eschatology."4 In these two initial
stages of development,
Paul
has moved from the common Jewish expectation of a fleshly
body resurrection (1 & 2 Thessalonians) to the
concept of a spiritual
body resurrected at the parousia
(1 Corinthians 15).5 At stage three,
2
Corinthians and Romans, Paul has altered both the (1) scope of the
kingdom and (2) time of the resurrection, which
now follows as an
immediate sequel to death--an implication of 1 Cor 15:34-39--with
the resurrection body acquired at death now
manifested, not received,
at the parousia. Hence,
the shift has been "from an apocalyptic to a
non-apocalyptic form of
eschatology";6 or, accepting Colossians and
Ephesians
as representative of a fourth stage, from apocalyptic to
hellenistic mysticism.7
3 Cf.
C. K. Barrett, "New Testament Eschatology," SJT 6 (1953) 136-54.
4 A. M.
Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 100.
5 H. A. Guy, The New Testament Doctrine of the Last Things
(
University Press, 1948) 117.
6 J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming: The Emergence of a
Doctrine
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958) 161. At the opening of his
essay "The Structure of
Pauline
Eschatology: II Corinthians v. 1-10," (Paul
and His Recent Interpreters [Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmahs, 1961], 35-48), E. Ellis observes,
"Since the days of Pfleiderer,
II
Cor. v. 1-10 has been commonly regarded as showing a hellenization of Paul's
eschatology, or in today's language, a transition
from a futuristic to a realized. . .
eschatology."
7 However, for the
determinative significance of apocalyptic for Pauline thought,
see J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life
and Thought (Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1980;
idem, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The
Coming Triumph
of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 76. "The center
of Paul's thought is to be
located in his christologically
determined future apocalyptic." With this, cf. G. R.
Beasley-Murray,
"New Testament Apocalyptic--A Christological Eschatology," Rev
Exp 72 (1975) 317-30. E. Kasemann,
Perspectives on Paul (tr. M. Kohl;
1971) 123-34; idem, New Testament Questions Today, 108-37; 236-51). Especially see
the following by G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future (
1968);
"The Place of Apocalyptic in Biblical Religion," EvQ 30 (1958) 75-85; "The
Revelation
and Jewish Apocalyptic," EvQ 29 (1957) 94-100; and especially his "Why
Not
Prophetic-Apocalyptic," JBL 76
(1957): 192-200, wherein he concludes that pro-
phetic and apocalyptic are not
as antithetical as commonly ascertained, and although
the eschatology of Jesus was indeed apocalyptic, he
nevertheless recovered the positive
prophetic assessment of this present age. But L.
Morris cautions (Apocalyptic [Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972] 97), that apocalyptic does not constitute
an appropriate
medium for the gospel, for "granted that both the
incarnation and the end are impor-
tant, both cannot be the
really significant thing. For the apocalypses there is a concen-
tration on the future. In
Christianity there is the recognition that the incarnation, with
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 59
Although this evolutionary approach
to ascertaining the semantic
intent of Paul's eschatological language still knows
its advocates,8 many
present-day scholars find promise for explicating
Paul's varied and
different eschatological language in the different
polemical situations of
his epistles.9 Historical
reconstructions of a polemical communication
situation, it is contended, promise a more
adequate heuristic for
the Pauline corpus, and especially for explaining
the variety
in his eschatological language.
But even here it becomes essential
to determine the legitimacy of
(at times almost disparate) historical reconstructions of the
Corinthian
context that would specifically account for the
language of 2 Cor 5:1-
10.
In para 5:1-5, Paul's intricate argument from a developed pneu-
matology might suggest his
opponents emphasized receiving the gift
the atonement as its
Corinthians [AB 32A;
pological and ecclesiological
backgrounds for 2 Cor 5:1-10, and stressing the impor-
ance of apocalyptic for
discerning Paul's eschatological language comments, "The
interpretation most congenial to the
context is the one that understands Paul's image
against the background of Jewish and early
Christian apocalyptic traditions."
8 M. Harris (Raised Immortal: Resurrection and
Immortality in the New Testa-
ment [
he view that Paul has changed his eschatology.
9 See R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco, TX: Word,
1986) 100-2;
M;
Conzelmann and A. Lindemann,
Interpreting the New Testament: An
Introduction
the Principles and Methods of N. T. Exegesis (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1988)
87 -88. Historical reconstruction of a polemical
communication situation does not
require the author's continuing retranslation of
the kerygma into the language of the
new situation until the original authorial intent
submerges in a sea of conflicting
eschatological expressions in a single
letter due to changing situations or shifting
theological motifs, contra J. Baumgarten
(Paulus und die Apokalyptik,
WMANT 44
[Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975] 225,
who, regarding resurrection,
writes that "Paulus bringt seine Zukunfts-Erwartung
stets konkret und je nach Situation
und Intention-differenziert
sowie ohne Bemuhung urn systematische Einheitlichkeit
zur Sprache."
See also C. F. D. Moule, "The Influence of
Circumstances on the Use of
eschatological Terms," JTS 15(1964) 1-15. Cf. R. Funk,
"The Hermeneutical Problem
and Historical Criticism," in The New Hermeneutic: New Frontiers in
Theology (2
vols.; ed. J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb (New York:
Harper & Row, 1964) 2.164-67.
the implausible reconstruction of J. C. Hurd (The Origin of
First Corinthians [New
methodologically combining the
evolutionary approach of C. Buck and G. Taylor
(Saint Paul: A Study of the Development of
His Thought [New York: Scribners, 1969])
and the chronological interests of J. Knox (Chapters in the life of Paul [
Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950]). Hurd
attempts to demonstrate through a radical, histori-
cal reconstruction of the communication situation
of the Corinthian church that Paul's
radical reversals and representations of the
gospel thoroughly confused them and
evoked the 1 Corinthian correspondence. Hence, a
perusal of this correspondence
proves that Paul had actually departed from the
authentic gospel more greatly than
they, in Hurd's view.
60
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
of the Spirit through the fulfillment of the law;
and their other tenet,
the inferiority of gentiles to the Jew, might
account for motifs within
the section constituent (4:7-5:10). Within the
overall discourse this
reconstruction accounts for less,
especially other important motifs
within section 4:7-5:10.10 Additionally, the
hypothesis of Hellenistic
“divine
men" (qei?oi
a@ndrej) who show their celestial nature by charis-
mata, visions, miracles, and
ecstatic speech11 meets the fate of the
reconstruction depicted above, as does
the thesis that they were
Jewish-Christian
preachers who respected the law and regarded Jesus
as qeoi?oj
a]nh<r, “a divine man."12 Georgi sees 2 Cor 5:1-10 as a
Pauline
rectification of these opponents in a
language sympathetic with Corin-
thian gnostics,
but 2 Corinthians 5 cannot be explained as a polemic
against gnosticism.
Explaining Paul's opponents
everywhere as Jewish-Christian
gnostics, W. Schmithals13
argues that 1 Corinthians 15 expresses Paul's
misunderstanding of his opponents'
eschatological expectation of
bodiless existence beyond death, and in 2
Corinthians 5 he still does
not comprehend their hope. Rather, Paul argues that
belief in in-
corporeal existence is an absurdity, In 2 Cor 5:6-8, Paul's polemic
surfaces against the gnostic
aberration that the eschaton has arrived.14
Furthermore,
the disparate conclusions entertained by the schol-
arly community regarding the
communication situation and the se-
mantic content of 2 Cor
5:1-10 immediately dispel any optimism that
the exegetical task is less than difficult. First,
some have proposed that
it is a “watershed in Pauline eschatology”15
since Paul had definitely
shifted from an imminent parousia
expectation accompanied by
superinvestiture with a body (1 Corinthians
15), to a position in
2
Corinthians 5 of death before the parousia
and the possibility of an
intermediate existence. Others have
maintained with equal enthusi-
asm that from the chapters
the structure of a Pauline eschatology may
be adduced.16 R. F. Hettlinger17
argues that 2 Corinthians 5 represents
10 Cf. H. Schoeps, Paul: The
Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish
Religious History (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1961); see C. K. Barrett, The Second
Epistle to the
Corinthians
(HNTC; New York: Harper, 1972).
11 R. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (
1966).
12 D. Georgi,
The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians
(
tress, 1980).
13 W. Schmithals, Paul and
the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972).
14 Ibid.,
223-27.
15 M. J. Harris, "2
Corinthians 5:1-10: Watershed in Paul's Eschatology?" Tyndale
Bulletin 22 (1971) 32-57.
16 E. Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961)
35-48.
17 F. Hettlinger, "2 Corinthians 5:1-10" SJT 10 (1957) 174-94.
Metis: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES
61
a brief, aberrant departure from Paul's parousia expectation to which
he comfortably returned in Phil 4:6, following his
thought-provoking
brush with death in
comprises a digression in Paul's thought, is on
the periphery of his
theology, and has nothing to do with his
apostolic ministry.
From the title it may be concluded
that this article maintains that
the nature of Paul's ministry does figure into the
discourse strategy of
this semantic unit. Furthermore, including death in
the title seems at
first an audacious, indefensible, a priori judgment on the author's part
even though traditional exegesis has long recognized
its presence
(along with resurrection and other anthropological and apocalyptic
motifs belonging to the semantic domain of death,
although they are
not present among the non-metaphorical lexical
concepts in the
surface structure).
Finally, the title indicates the
methodological employment of a
model of discourse analysis as a possible way forward
in the exegeti-
cal task. The textlinguistic
theory employed in this analysis recognizes
a fundamental distinction between surface
structure (phonology, lexi-
con, and grammar; the forms of a language that are
language specific)
and deep structure (semantic structure, which is
universal), which
corresponds to the "expression--plane/context--plane"
bifurcation of
Hjelmslev, the semantic/surface hierarchies of
generative semantics,
and the semantic stratum/morphotactics
of stratificational grammar.
Stratificational
textlinguistic theory, as developed by I. Fleming,
(l)
envisions a universal deep structure which includes
both the
communication situation (pragmatics)
as well as the semantic stratum;
(2)
assigns stratal status to
phonology and grammar; (3) differentiates
the various kinds of communication elements unique
to that stratum;
and (4) attempts to relate the elements of each
stratum by means of
realization relationships. Every stratum includes
constructions consist-
ing of one to numerous
constituents at that level. Fleming's string-
constituent analysis in the tactics, consisting of
constructions that have
part constituents ([1] position or function, [2]
which in turn is
filled by a stratal
distribution class, reflecting the influence of Pike's
earlier two-cell, slot-class tagmemes)
distinguishes her model from
the immediate-constituent analysis models practiced
variously by
Pike,
Longacre, and most tagmemic
grammarians.19
18 See R. Bultmann, The Second Letter to the
Corinthians (
burg, 1985).
19
Analysis (2 vols.;
Concepts and Constraints
for a Stratified Communication Model (
62
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The textlinguistic
theory developed by J. Beekman, J. Callow,
and M. Kopesec,20 owing much in
theoretical development to Flem-
ing's model will be adapted
to the exegetical concerns of this paper.21
Hopefully,
this model of semantic structure analysis (SSA)-at least as
one heuristic-may provide a way forward in the
debate over the
technical and highly interrelated exegetical and
theological issues
pertinent to this paper.
Strictly honoring the linear and
hierarchical structure of the text
calls for analyzing propositions, configurations of
propositions, and
the paragraphs which they comprise, as well as
units of thought, or
concepts--one of which is nuclear, through which
the others are role
related. Concepts combine to form propositions
in order to com-
municate processes, experiences,
actions, and states, yielding two
types, event and state propositions which employ the
illocutionary
perspective of statement, command, or exhortation.
However, our
space-limited procedure, along with
meeting exegetical and theologi-
cal objectives, will not allow a complete semantic
analysis of all
morphosyntactic construction types, nor
does it--as is conventionally
done in the employment of this theory--permit a
display of all lower
levels of propositional embedding within the paragraph
structure and
of all the levels of thematicity.
This is done only where the author
feels it serves the purpose of this paper.
II. Higher Level Discourse
Constituents and 5:1-10: SDC 4:7-5:10
(Section); (Role: Grounds 2 of 2:14-3:6).
THEME: By continuously
bearing witness to faith and by not losing
heart (even though we suffer), we (exc)
make it our constant ambi-
tion to please the Lord, for we (inc) must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ.
The compositional character of this
opening division indicates
that semantic unit 5:1-10 could be erroneously
construed, as a com-
posite unit functioning in
some semantic role within the larger cop-
figuration, 4:7-5:10. However, as most translations
and commentaries
20 J. Beekman,
J. Callow, and M. Kopesec, ed., The Semantic Structure of Written
Communication, (5th rev.;
21 See the popular
exposition of this theory in M. L. Larson, Meaning-Based
Translation: A Guide to
Cross-Language Equivalence, (
of
J.
Callow, Translating the Word of God,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974). Excellent
from the same theoretical orientation is
Analysis (Summer Institute of
Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 64; Dallas: Summer
Biblical Interpretation [
lent discussion but misinformed chapter title,
"Sentences and Sentence Clusters," which
reflects morphotactics,
not semantic structure, though their development is accurate,
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 63
SC4:7-12
SC4:13-15 SC4:16-18 SC5:1-5 SC5:6-10
para para para para para
conc CONTRA HEAD ampl PURPOSE
MEANS RESULT
MEANS
Grounds
2 OF 2:14-3:6
Fig.
1
SC=Section
Constituent para = paragraph
conc= concession HEAD
(all caps = most prominent; can
CONTRA
= contraexpectation function
in more than one role con-
MEANS
(all caps = most prominent) currently)
SDC=
Sub-Division Constituent amplif =
properly attest, 5:1-10, as a stretch of text,
comprises two semantic
paragraphs: para 5:1-5
and para 5:6-10. This is assumed because of
limitations in this paper, but viewed from the
perspective of the
analytical features of meaning (1. unity; 2. internal coherence, which
is indicated by [a] referential coherence: grammatico-lexical indi-
cators, etc:, sameness of
semantic domain, and sameness of experi-
ential domains; [b] situational
coherence; [c] structural coherence;
and 3. prominence), the
propriety of this decision is commended.
The same analytical features
determine the compositional char-
acter of 4:7 -5:10, which
constitutes a semantic Section, the immediate
constituent of a construction (configuration) which
is itself composi-
tionally a Sub-Division (SD).
The role of the Section indicates the
semantic function it has in the relational
structure of its Sub-Division.
Theme
(Longacre's macroproposition)
derives from the analysis of
the relational structure of propositions and the
weighting of one role
over another in communication relations.
The Constituent
Organization and Relational Structure of SDC 4:7-
5:10 (Section)
Hopefully, this analysis will serve
as an adequate reference for
the subsequent discussion even though at this point
conclusions with-
out proofs are given in order to preserve the
linear and hierarchical
but without due recognition of K. Barnwell (Introduction to Semantics and Translation
[2nd.
ed.;
discussion of possible simultaneity of a subsidiary
cause-effect relation in condition-
Consequence configurations.
64
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
development of the information content. However, as
can well be
imagined, not all conclusions nor all proofs can
be included (these
will follow in a subsequent paper) since this
represents an attempt to
adapt a model of textlinguistic
theory as a heuristic for the exegetical
and theological issues of 2 Cor
5:1-10, while maintaining sensitivity to
the linear organization and hierarchical structure
of SDC 4:7 -5:10
within which para 5:1-5
realizes the role of amplification of para 4:16-
18,
and para 5:6-10 is thematically prominent as PURPOSE
to its
MEANS.
Paul is maintaining, according to
this analysis of the semantic
structure, that though God has entrusted the
treasure of the gospel to
fragile human vessels (para
4:7-12), yet contrary to what might be
expected (by his opponents), by keeping his faith
in God (pisteu<omen)
he is compelled (even in suffering) to bear
testimony to his faith (para
4:13-15)
and so refuses to lose heart (para 4:16-18). By so
maintaining
a ministry of faith, proclamation, and
perseverance, he intends, in
fact, he is ambitious to please the Lord since he
must surely give an
account (of his ministry, as will his opponents;
cf.
have our lives laid open"--at which time the
true nature of their
ministry will also be revealed) at the judgment
seat of Christ.
In completely dismantling the argument
set forth by Bachmann
for the structural integrity of 5:9-6:10 as a
distinct semantic unit,
Fumish22
notes Paul's insistence, accompanied by a sustained, polemi-
cal tone, on the validity and rectitude of his
apostolic ministry
throughout 4:7-5:8. Moreover, instead of continuing
a digression,23
SDC
4:7-5:10, realizes the semantic role of a second argumentative
grounds for SDC 2:14-3:6, and these two semantic
sections combine
with grounds one (SDC 3:7-4:6 [Section]), to form
Sub-Division.
2:14-5:10,
which realizes the role of grounds for Sub-Division 5:11-
6:10.
Hence, Paul's discourse strategies in Division Constituent 2:14-
6:10,
through the employment of logical cause-effect communication
relations, reveal an argumentative tone.
Information Content and
Constituent Character
The concession-CONTRAEXPECTATION
communication rela-
tion between paras 4:7-12 (conc) and 4:13-15
(CONTRA) sets the
argumentative tone of 4:7-5:10,
anticipates the redundant employ-
ment of this set of
communication relations, and begins Paul's devel-
opment of the progressively
deteriorating condition of corporeal
existence. Within concession para
4:7-12, Paul reasons that God has
22 P. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1984) 304.
23 R.
P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40;
Waco, TX: Word, 1986) 114.
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 65
entrusted the treasure of the gospel to earthen
vessels (mortal beings)
even though they are subject to external pressure (qlibo<menoi, v 8),
inner consternation (a]porou<menoi, v 8b), interpersonal
conflict (diw-
ko<menoi, v 9) and excessive
danger (kataballo<menoi,
v 9b). Then em-
bedded within the main topic and comment of para 4:16-18 (HEAD),
to which para 4:7-12 and
para 4:13-15 realize a MEANS role, is a
concession-CONTRAEXPECTATION configuration
presenting the
second stage in Paul's presentation of corporeal
disintegration: "Even
though our physical nature is wasting away,
nevertheless, our spiritual
nature is being renewed day by day." Hence, Paul
has moved (1) from
fragile earthen vessels as treasure chests of
divine truth, (2) to the
progressive deterioration of physical existence, (3)
to physical death
and its implications in para
5:1-5 and para 5:6-10.
Within para
4:13-15, ei]do<tej, a cognitive orienter, and its CON-
TENT
(the o!ti clause), realize a
truncated reason proposition em-
bedded within the RESULT (lalou?men) proposition and lying
off the
main event line. Oi@damen, 5:1, brings this proleptic anticipation of it
onto the main event line with its content as focal
topic and comment,
which with the grounds configuration at 5:5 realizes
the theme of para
5:1-5.
The content of ei]do<tej—o!ti o[ e]gei<raj to>n ku<rion ]Ihsou?n kai>
h[ma?j . . . --should be suggestive, if
not determinative of the perlocu-
tionary (purpose) function of
5:1-5: death, resurrection, and life in the
interim. Moreover, parasth<sei su>n u[mi?n would
then anticipate the
role judgment (5:10) plays in the thematic topic and
comment (5:9) of
para 5:6-10. Further, in
fact, Paul views his testimony to faith and the
gospel (lalou?men, 4:13) even in the
midst of suffering, as an eschato-
logical event (Isa
49:8//2 Cor 6:1, 2)-not a parading of charismatic
endowment—which is inseparable from the gift of the
Spirit (cf. 5:5,
the a]rrabw?na tou? pneu<matoj).
III. SC5:1-5 (Paragraph)
(Role: amplification of para 4:16-18).
THEME: We (inc) have
confidence of an abiding relationship (with
God) that shall result
in resurrection, because God has given us the
Spirit as a guarantee of
what is to come.
The Consituent
Organization and Relational Structure of SC 5:1-5
(
Fig. 2 represents the informational
and relational structure of
most of the semantic propositions whose nuclei are
realized in the
surface structure by participles and finite
verbs. On the node that
joins P7 -PI0, no node label appears because both the
construction
introduced by ei]
ge kai> (P7, v 3) as well as the
kai>
ga>r construction
(P8-P10,
v 4) are taken as embeds within stena<zomen
(P4, v 2). The
66
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 67
former construction realizes a reason function to stena<zomen (P4,
v 2a) which plays a dual role, hence the role
labeled HEAD. It is the
RESULT
of P7 (ei@
ge kai>), but at the same time
it is clarified by
amplification (P8-PI0). The RSLT
(RESULT) role of P4, stena<zomen,
is however not to be confused with the role of the
entire configuration
(P4-P6)
of which it is a constituent and which serves as RESULT to
P7
(v 3), the reason proposition realized by the ei@
ge kai> construction.
At
this lower level, then, in the semantic hierarchy, P4 realizes
RESULT
to P5- P6, the reason configuration consisting of the orienter
(P5) and its CONTENT (P6).
The constituent propositions of para 5:1-5 then combine to real-
ize configurations at the
next level in the semantic hierarchy. These
collocate compatibly in relational structure until
the entire configura-
tion of propositions
(P4-PI0) introduced by kai>
ga>r (v 2) is em-
bedded within P1-P3 and realizes an amplification
relation to the
HEAD configuration, P1-P3 (v 1).
In both amplification units
introduced by kai>
ga>r (vv 2, 4), the
kai>
continues
the amplification role introduced by ga>r at the onset of
this paragraph. The lowest node in the inverted
hierarchical tree of
Fig.
2 indicates that the configuration of constituents introduced by
ga>r (5:1) realizes the
semantic role of amplification. And if this is true,
the constructions introduced by kai> ga>r yap both at 5:2 and
5:4, upon
meeting semantic data for justification, may in
fact realize amplifica-
tion roles, and the kai> in each case continues
this initial function of
ga>r (5:1). Concepts within
amplification units advance the informa-
tion content of the HEAD
proposition by restatement of old informa-
tion, the introduction of
new information, and by realizing either
time, manner, or locative case roles within their
case frame. In P8(4a),
introduced by kai>
ga>r, stena<zomen
referentially restates the nucleus of
P4(2a), stena<zomen.
In fact there is tail-head linkage
that exists between 5:1, where
ai]w<nion
("eternal";
sg.) narrows to a specific example the ai]w<nia
(“eternal”, pl.) of 4:18. In turn,
the generic proposition realized by the
participial construction, ta>
de> mh> blepo<mena ai]w<nia
("the
eternal things
that
are not seen," 4:18), is clarified by a forefronted
specific configu-
ration that consists of two contrastive propositions: o[
e@cw h[mw?n a@n-
qrwpoj
diafqei<retai ("our outer nature
is gradually decaying," 16a),
and a]lla> o[ e@sw h[mw?n a]nakainou?tai ("but our inner
nature is being
renewed," 4:16b). Generic propositions
ordinarily precede specific
ones and are naturally more prominent unless only
one specific occurs
following them. Here there is only one SPECIFIC,
and it is fore-
fronted to mark it as well. Hence, theme
derivation for para 4:16-18
must factor the SPECIFIC into the macrostructure of
its paragraph,
which is then clarified by amplification in para 5:1-5.
68
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
As mentioned above, P7 (rsn) introduced by ei@
ge kai>
(v 3),
embeds within P4 (RSLT), whose nucleus is stena<zomen (v 2). Usually
P7
is construed to express either doubt or assurance regarding Paul's
desire for superinvestiture
(to receive his resurrection body at the
imminently expected parousia
without the intervention of death, since
he supposedly faces an interim of bodiless
existence if death over-
takes him before Jesus returns) and is interpreted to
modify tnl-
poqou?ntej (P5),
"longing:"
P10(4c) is
realized by the construction introduced by e]f ] &$
pressing the reason for the groaning of P8(4a),
the RESULT. Some
(e.g.,
Thrall) maintain that this implies Paul's fear of nakedness in a
disembodied state since he is groaning under a great
burden (barou<-
menoi) because (e]f
] &$)
he does not want to be unclothed (e]kdu<sasqai).
Consequently
she renders it as a condition proposition, so that groan-
ing is legitimate to the
believer on the condition that at death further
incorporation into the body of Christ
takes place instead of divesti-
ture of somatic existence.24
The particle de> (v 5), within this
discourse configuration (para
5:1-5)
does not analyze, under this theory, either as an adversative or
as a continuative conjunction. Rather, after
succeeding amplification
configurations introduced by kia> ga>r, the de< construction realizes
in
the information structure a topic switch to the nominalized participle,
katergasa<menoj, functioning in the
subject tagmeme and realizing the,
role of Identified. The purpose (i!na) proposition preceding
the de<
construction likewise is
characterized by the topicalization of death
(qnhto>n) by the passive finite verb, katapoq^?, "death is
swallowed
up." Since death is now topicalized,
the implication is that it has been
previously present in some role in the semantic
structure of the previ-
ous propositions. The
presence of the i!na clause in v 4 drawing
the
argument to conclusion with a purpose, the topicalization of the
nominalized participle, and the
uncertainty of the anaphoric point of
attachment for ei]j
au]to> tou?to "for this very purpose"--all point to
a
referential point of attachment prior to 5:4.
But the most outstanding feature of
P11 (v 5) that highlights it
and permits an anaphoric reference prior to v 4, is
that the nucleus of
P11(5) is realized by a stative
verb, the most salient in expository dis-
course. No finite verb form is expressed in the
surface structure, so the
third person singular, e]stin,
is understood with qeo<j; as subject comp-
liment while the nominalized katergasa<menoj,
the truncated nucleus
of an event proposition, realizes the role of
Identified in the subject
24 M. E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament
(NTTS 3;
Eerdmans,
1962) 94.
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 69
tagmeme. This, together with
the above evidence, and the colloca-
tional compatibility of a
GROUNDS role for P11 with the CON-
CLUSION
(HEAD) stated in PI-P3, commend this analysis.
Yet the occurrence of this stative proposition, when coupled with
the observation that the same occurs in 5:9, 10 (P11,
P12) of para
5:6-10,
means that within these two paragraphs Paul is reaching a
possible peak (climax) in SPC 2:14-6:10 (Div).
Something is going on
grammatically to highlight the
information content of para 5:1-5 and
para 5:6-10, possibly as
pre-peaks to 5:11-21. If this is true, then
Blomberg's conclusion that Paul has employed
chiasmus to outline
2
Cor 1:12-7:16,25
with 5:11-21 (the middle member of an unbalanced
chiasmus and hence the most prominent
information) functioning as
the theological climax, warrants commendation.
Morphotactics and Possible Semantic Realizations
The different denotations of the
concepts that combine to form
the propositional content collaborate with the many
possibilities of
compatibility in collocating the
communication relations of the pro-
positions to make the task of understanding 2 Cor 5:1-5 an extremely
difficult one. An exegetical roll call however
reveals that the majority
of scholarship recognizes 5:1 as the crux interpretum.
The issues
raised at the onset of para
5:1-5 interact at all levels in the semantic
hierarchy either coloring, prejudicing, or
determining meaning. For
example, one of the most controversial concepts
is oi]kodomh>n (v 1).
The
process component of oi]kodomh>n may be nuclear in 5:1-a
usual
denotation for it, since it is employed of the
process of edifying the
church (Rom 14:19; 15:2; 1 Cor
14:3, 4, 12; 2 Cor 12:19). Since kata-
luq^? denotes
the process of dismantling, the opposite would be the
process of erecting. This imagery may have
suggested Calvin's inter-
pretation that oi]kodomh>n is the blessed state of
the soul after death,
the beginning of this building, with its completion
lying in the glory
of the final resurrection.26
Although the evidence of exegetical
tradition is weighted in favor
of
a synonymity of denotation for oi]kodomh>n = oi]ki<a
ai]w<nion = oi]kh-
th<rion, not only may kataluq^? suggest
marked prominence on the
process component in oi]kodomh>n, but Paul's intentional choice of
oi]khth<rion,
a housing metaphor stressing the permanency of the
eschatological residence, may be a
discourse clue to the denotation of
oi]kodomh>n as a process term.
Moreover, if the phrase “the eternal
25 See in this issue, C. Blomberg, "The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7."
26 J. Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
(CNTC 10: Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964) 67.
70
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
things not seen" (4: 18) realizes a generic
statement of the forefronted,
emphatically marked SPECIFIC
(4:16b), and the positive contrast,
the process of the renewal of the inner man (o[
e@sw h[mw?n a]nakai-
nou?tai), is thematically
prominent, then it is this meaning and the out-
come of it that receive amplification in para 5:1-5. Hence, oi]kodomh>n
may express the process of transformation because
of the work of the
indwelling person of the Holy Spirit (P11 realizes
the role of Grounds
to Paul's Conclusion, P1-P3) who guarantees the
resurrection of the
body. Thus, present transformation through the work
of the Spirit
proleptically anticipates future
transformation, and the Holy Spirit
guarantees continuity between the somatic existence
of this age and
that of the age to come.
Furthermore,
several possible referents for katalhuq^?
are also
suggested: (1) death before the parousia, (2) the dismantling, or
destruction of the body at the parousia,
or (3) the process of dying. If
kataluq^? (P2) refers to death
before the parousia, is e@xomen (P3) to
be interpreted as a descriptive present or as a
futuristic present? If its
rhetorical function is descriptive, then oi]kodomh>n can denote one of
several referents: (1) body, (2) mansion, (3) a
symbol of new age
existence, or (4) collective reality, e.g., the
body of Christ.27 If oi]ko-
domh>n refers to mansion and e@xomen is descriptive, then Paul is saying
that one's home in heaven presently exists to be
possessed at death. If
the referent is body, however, and e@xomen again is construed descrip-
tively, then the body
presently exists, probably in heaven, for investi-
ture at death. If oi]kodomh>n does refer to a
presently existing
body to be inherited at death, is this body an
interim one, or an
eternal one? If it is permanent, then what is
the significance of Paul's
expectation of the parousia
and the resurrection hope? Is it for mani-
festation of the eternal body
previously acquired at death? But if the
body is a temporally intermediate one between death
and resurrec-
tion when the glorified
eternal body is received, then how can Paul
qualify it as ai]w<nion
"eternal," and does this not relinquish the parou-
sia to a role of secondary
importance?
If katalhuq^? refers
to death before the parousia and e@xomen is a
futuristic present, then Paul avows the certainty
of future possession
of the resurrection body at the parousia. What then is the state of
existence of the believer between death and
resurrection? Soul-sleep?
Annihilation? Bodiless
existence? If, however, one interprets the
anthropology of Paul as
unequivocally monistic (holistic, monadic),
the incorporeal intermediate life is excluded. On
the other hand, a
dualistic anthropology permits the bodiless
existence of man as soul.
So
anthropology influences exegesis.
27 See Harris, "2
Corinthians," 349.
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 71
Yet again, if kataluq^? refers
to "dismantling" at the parousia,
does it mean destruction of the present body, or
does it, in conjunc-
tion with the eschatological
hope, parallel the denotation of the alla-
gn?nai of I Corinthians 15,
since it appears that Paul's clothing imagery
in 2 Cor 5:2-4 develops
the transformation motif of I Cor 15:53-54?
If
it can only be used of destruction of the body, then in what sense
can Paul anticipate the parousia
which in I Cor 15:51 means a change
of corporeal existence for the believer? In fact, kataluq^? can refer
to
the death of believers before the parousia and cover as well the
transformation at the Advent.
But does not the construction
introduced by e]a>n (P2, v 1b) guar-
antee the probability that
Paul would die before the parousia, and so
indicates a shift from his previous eschatological
expectation of super-
investiture at the parousia
to a present expectation of death? Inter-
preters suggest that e]a>n with the subjunctive
modality of kataluq^?
expressing probability is a way forward, since it
confirms that Paul
changed his mind from an imminent resurrection
at the parousia
(I
Corinthians 15) to the probability of death before the parousia
(2 Corinthians 5). Yet Boyer's analysis28
with
the significance of this construction more
accurately than older gram-
mars. Boyer's research determines that in the NT,
third-class condi-
tional constructions
constitute a formulaic mode of expressing all
future contingency, all implied notions of probability
of fulfillment
having vanished: So Paul expresses that a dismantling
(lata;iq^?) will
take place, either at the parousia,
which will mean a]llagh?nai, or in
death before.
Moreover, e]n tou<t& (p (v 2) is just as
controversial, with suggestions
ranging from (I) an anaphoric referent to skh<nouj; (5:1), to (2) a
temporal orienter
rendered "meanwhile" (Hughes, NIV), to (3) a
cataphoric reference to the content
of P6, e]pendu<sasqai, the gram-
matical object of e]pipoqou?ntej. Does the groaning (P4) that realizes
the RSLT of the desiring (P5) refer to groaning
because of tent-life
existence (e]n tou<t&=skh<nouj)
or an eschatological groaning of
anticipation produced within the
believer by the eschatological pres-
ence of the Holy Spirit who
is not only the guarantee of future
consummation, but the proleptic participation (a]parxh<) in and the
foretaste of end-time, salvific
benefits? The groaning is eschatological
in anticipation of e]pendu<sasqai, superinvestiture
at the parousia, and
is in fact produced by it-all resulting from
Paul's experience of the
Holy
Spirit as a person within who guarantees that when death
28 J. L. Boyer,
"Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions," Grace Theological Journal
3 (1982) 163-75.
29 D. L.
72
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 73
dismantles (P2) his present earthly dwelling, the
ultimate outcome of
the present process of inward transformation
carried on by the Spirit
will be corporeal existence in a resurrected,
glorified body (P3).
]Ependu<sasqai (P6) does not carry a synonymity
of denotation
to e]ndusa<menoi (v 3; Nestle-Aland 26th ed. and UBSGNT attest to the
questionable
e]kdusa<menoi),
but refers to Paul's eager desire for his
Lord
to return, not just to experience superinvestiture
because of
some morbid fear of death and bodiless existence,
but because of the
eschatological anticipation of a
fuller experience at the eschaton since
the present experience produced by the Spirit is
only foretaste. This
present experience of the spirit began with
Paul's conversion (e]ndusa<-
menoi, v 3). He groans (P4)
for that day of e]pendusa<sqai
(P6) since (ei@
ge
kai>) he is guaranteed eschatological vindication (ou] gumnoi>; P7)30
and approval of his ministry (ou] gumnoi>) because of the work of
the
Spirit
in his life and ministry, something his opponents cannot claim.
P8 further clarifies Paul's groaning
by amplification with the
introduction of barou<menoi (P9) as the reason for
his groaning. Since
para 5:1-5 comprises an
amplification of para 4:16-18, it is best to
interpret P9, which realizes a reason to P8 (RSLT)
both of which are
constituent propositions of an amplification
configuration, in light of
ba<roj
do<chj "the load of glory" in para 4:16-18, v 17. Consequently,
his life is one of Holy Spirit-inspired,
eschatological groanings
accompanied by a pervasive divine glory in the midst
of obstacles.
Even
though the substructure of Pauline theology may be eschato-
logical, holy history, it is pneumatology
that determines Paul's per-
sonal eschatology.
IV. SC 5:6-10 (Paragraph); (Role: Purpose of 4:7-5:5)
Theme: Even though we (exc) are persistently courageous (while at
home in the body), yet because we (exc)
really prefer to be at home
with the Lord, we (exc) make it our
constant ambition to please him.
For we (inc) must all have our lives exposed before his tribunal.
The Constituent
Organization and Relational Structure of SC 5:6-10
(
It is apparent from the node
generating para 5:6-10, that the role
of PURPOSE of 4:7-5:5 does not meet the usual role
expectation of a
consecutive paragraph introduced by ou#n. The anticipated communi-
cation relation between para 5:1-5 and para 5:6-10 would
be some
30 See D. Wenham,
"Being Found on the Last Day: New Light on 2 Peter 3:10 and
2
Corinthians 5:3," NTS 33 (1987)
477-79; E. E. Ellis, Paul and His Recent
Interpreters
(Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 35-48.
74
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
specific set of cause-effect communication
relations and in all prob-
ability, grounds-HEAD best realizes that role
relation. That is, qar-
rou?men, "we are
confident," (P6, v 8) realizes the Conclusion which
Paul
draws from the previously assured hope of a resurrection body
(P1-P3;
v 1 of para 5:1-5) and the presence within him of the
Holy
Spirit
as a guarantee of present transformation and ultimate acquisi-
tion of all God has prepared
for him.
If, however, the process of theme
derivation employed in this
model of textlinguistic
theory has determined that the most salient
information is P10(v 9)-P11(v 9), "We (exc) make it our constant
ambition to please him," then Paul would be
avowing that his ambi-
tion to please the Lord is
based upon his assurance of a resurrection
body (P1-P3 v I of para
5:1-5) and his present possession of the Holy
Spirit (P11; v 5 of para
5:1-5).
Neither is entirely wrong; the latter
collocating more readily as an evidential grounds
for Paul's consum-
ing desire to please the
Lord. Can either, however, suggest completely
satisfactorily the cause of Paul's
consumed life? The problem is more
acute when oi]kodomh>n "building" is read as a symbol of new-age
existence (Furnish), collective reality (Ellis, J.
A. T. Robinson, and
Thrall), the heavenly temple, or the heavenly
mansion (R. V; G.
Tasker, and C. Hodge).31
So the evidence of "we
(inc)" participant reference and the
collocational problem between the macroproposition (theme) of para
5:1-5
and that of para 5:6-10 suggest the possibility of an
anaphoric
referent prior to para
5:1-5, especially since the latter embeds within
4:16-18
as amplification. Yet, the conclusion that para
5:6-10 realizes
the PURPOSE of 4:7-5:5, as previously attested in
the thematic state-
ment of SDC 4:7-5:10 (cf.
Fig. I), does not preclude a secondary
communication relation between
paragraphs 5:1-5 and 5:6-10, be-
cause of the vast networking of communicatipn
relations that exist
within a discourse. The task of visually mapping all
of them is at best
difficult. Moreover, 4:7-4:17 parallels para 5:6-10 with "we (exc)"
participant reference, but 4:18-5:5, inclusive of para 5:1-5, departs
the pattern of "we (inc)" inclusive
language. Sameness of participant
reference achieved by lexical concepts is an
analytical feature of
meaning indicating referential coherence. The
least, then, that can be
said of this is that although SDC 4:7-5:10 (Section)
comprises a
cohesive semantic unit, there is greater density
that exists between the
"we (mc)" units.
The participle qarrou?ntej P1 (v 6a), occasions an
anacoluthic
construction to highlight P6 (v 8), qarrou?men, "we are confident," and
31 Cf.
Harris, 2 Corinthians, 349 D. 1.
Metts: DEATH, DISCIPLESHIP, AND DISCOURSE STRATEGIES 75
serve as an intensifier--"we are truly
confident." Further, it occurs at
sentence onset and, interestingly, while
functioning as a forefronted
contracted proposition intensifying qarrou?men, returns with a positive
affirmation of confidence to the negative statement
of the same in
4:16,
ou]k
e]gkakou?men, "we refuse to lose heart." With para 5:6-10, it
will be recalled, Paul returns to the "we (exc)" participant reference
that characterizes 4:7-4:17. If in the networking of
communication
relations that serves discourse structure, Paul
intends to clarify addi-
tionally his previous negative
statement because of the amplification
given to the theme of para
4:16-18 by para 5:1-5, he may now be
stating the positive contrast, which is more
naturally prominent in-
formation in a clarification relation of
positive-negative contrast.
Again,
this marks the prominence of para 5:6-10 in the
relational
structure of SDC 4:7-5:10.
Both e]ndhmou?ntej (v 9a) and e]kdhmou?ntej (v 9b) are anaphoric
references to vv 6 and 8, continue the lexical
cohesion of this con-
figuration of propositions, and clarify by
summation across semantic
unit boundaries the corresponding statements to
which they point.
Hence,
e]ndhmou?ntej (v 9a) = P3 (e]ndhmou?ntej e]n t&? sw<mati, v 6a)
=
P4 (e]kdhmou?ntej a]po> tou? kuri<ou, v 6b); and e]kdhmou?ntej (v 9b)
=
P8 (e]kdhmh?sai e]k tou? sw<matoj, v 8b) = P9 (e]kdhmh<sai pro>j to>n
ku<rion,v 8b). To the cohesion
realized by lexical evidence and rela-
tional structure is added the
syntactic device of step parallelism (vv 6,
8).
Realizing the RSL T role in the HEAD configuration, P4 dramati-
cally contrasts with Paul's
preference, realized on the main event line
by the cognitive orienter
eu]dokou?men (P7, v 8) and its positive Con-
tent, P9 (e]ndhmh?sai pro>j to>n ku<rion).
He backgrounds his present
temporal existence by an event proposition
realized by e]ndhmou?ntej
(v 6 = P3 = P4 = v 9a) embedded as a temporal orienter in P4 to call
attention to his present corporeal existence as
life away from the
Lord,
while esteeming somatic existence as the sole medium of min-
istry, relationships, and
ultimate accountability.
P11 (9b), eu]a<restoi
au]t&? ei#nai, "to please
him", a nominalized
infinitival construction with a stative
nucleus, is embedded in the
object tagmeme of filotimou<meqa
("we make it our goal," NIV) and
realizes the CONTENT role. Grammatical verb
catenations often
appear skewed to the semantic hierarchy when the
grammatical ob-
ject tagmeme
is filled by an abstract noun or an event participle so
that the finite verb realizes the semantic
attribute, and the grammati-
cal object encodes the event nucleus. Stative infinitival clauses, it
appears, realize in a skewed relationship to the
semantic stratum, the
anticipated subject of an ambient proposition. In
this example, Paul's
perlocutionary function is to mark as
prominent the importance of
76
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
"pleasing" the Lord, and the present tense finite verb
realizing the
nucleus of P12 (v 10) attributes intensity to
Paul's consuming ambi-
tion. Paul is saying,
"To give the utmost satisfaction to my master is
the consuming ambition of my life."
P12 resumes with Paul's return to
"we (inc)" participant reference
with marked prominence by forefronting
h[ma?j before the event
proposition (P12) realized in the surface structure
by the aorist pas-
sive infinitive fanerwqh?nai. This nominalized
infinitive construction in
turn fills the subject tagmeme
of the ambient proposition realized by
dei?. By topicalizing
the event proposition realized by the infinitive
construction, sentence focus is on
the disclosure of the believers'
conduct by Christ as judge. Judgment for deeds
done through the
body restricts the period of accountability to
"while at home in the
body," involves compulsory attendance for
believers, precludes any
further possibility of pleasing the Lord by
actions in an intermediate
state of existence, and serves as a motivational
reason (P12-P13) for
Paul's persistent efforts at pleasing the Lord
(P10-P11).
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: