Why is Christ the ''second man'' in 1 Cor 15:47 ?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

just as an aside: "from heaven" would mean per definition "not pre-existent"
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I am not sure that I understand well your point.
Are you saying that, since Gen 1:1 mentions the heaven before the earth, then who is from heaven is created before the earth?

In that case you should say that :

"from heaven" would mean per definition "pre-existent"

In the sense of your definition of absolute pre-existence Jesus would have existed before the heaven was made (as in John 1:1-3) and not made from heaven.

... before the same creation of the world

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So James Dunn about 1 Cor 15:47:

“This, I must confess, I find astonishing… if commentators can read such a clearly eschatological/resurrection text as a reference to Christ’s pre-existence it simply underlines the danger we run in this most sensitive of subjects of reading the text with the presuppositions of subsequently developed dogmas and of falling to let the context (in this case the context of the argument itself) determine our exegesis”.

Christology in the Making (London, SCM Press, 1989, xviii)

1 Cor 15:45 (translated by Hering)

The first Adam was created to have a living nature, the second Adam to be a life-giving spirit

According to Dunn, there is no pre-existence of Christ here for Paul, but the translation may well mean that:

- Adam became a living nature from a previous state as not-living nature,

-Jesus became a spirit life-giving from a previous state as pure spirit who doesn't give life.

Naturally, pace Dunn, the idea of pre-existence in Paul is confirmed beyond any doubt in 1 Cor 2:8 :

None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

...meaning that Jesus is the Lord of glory already before the crucifixion and the death.

But then why is Jesus named ''second Man'' in 1 Cor 15:47?

''Second'' in comparison to who, precisely?

The first man is of the earth; the second man from heaven.

ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ


I think that Jesus was pre-existent as pure spirit, not as Man, before the same creation of the world.

Therefore the first man, in absolute chronological terms, was the sinner Adam.

After the fall of Adam, God decided that the spirit Jesus had to become a second man - a man of another class of heavenly men - and in that role, not more merely a spirit, but a life-giving spirit.

Hence Adam will resurrect just as the Second Man (the spirit Jesus wearing a humanoid body) is already resurrected.

Therefore I think that, for Paul, the pre-existent Christ is merely pure spirit, not even a man who wears a spiritual flesh in the paradise. Christ becomes human (better: humanoid), only when he is sent to be killed in the lower heavens and to resurrect shortly after.

Question: can you prove the contrary, that Jesus was a pre-existent Man in Paul and not only merely pre-existent (i.e.: pre-existent but without still being a Man) ?

In Romans 1:4, Paul says Jesus was "marked out as the son of God...by rising from the dead."

Paul has a post-resurrection exaltation Christology. He thinks Jesus was made the son of God by way of his resurrection. I think the citation of 1 Cor.2:8 as proof of Paul believing in a preexistent Jesus is fatuous. Paul thought Jesus had reversed the curse of Adam by being sinless and "obedient" all the way to the cross. This obedience is what exalted him.

[Peter Kirby]

There is another passage that is much easier to understand when trying to answer the questions being asked here.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to cling to,
7but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross.
9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place,
and gave Him the name above all names,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

This tells the story, so why are we trying to wring so much (and so gratuitously) -- or, for that matter, so little, depending on your point of view -- from the sentence in 1 Cor 15 in isolation?

(Also, the comment/argument regarding Gen 1:1 is a dead end that rests on a misunderstanding.)

[Giuseppe]

Paul has a post-resurrection exaltation Christology. He thinks Jesus was made the son of God by way of his resurrection. I think the citation of 1 Cor.2:8 as proof of Paul believing in a preexistent Jesus is fatuous. Paul thought Jesus had reversed the curse of Adam by being sinless and "obedient" all the way to the cross. This obedience is what exalted him.

This obedience is what exalted him, I agree. But this obedience is even more precious in the eyes of the Father to the extent that it required an emptying from a previous condition of eternity.
Romans 1:4 doesn’t suggest that Jesus was elevated to something he hadn’t been before but that following the resurrection he assumed roles appropriate for his divine status in the post-incarnation period.

[robert j]

I think this is one of the more relevant passages related to this discussion ---

Yet to us [there is] one God the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we through Him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul is not equivocal here --- he says “all things” --- this would certainly include the heavens and the earth.

I think the first part about God the father --- “of whom are all things” --- is generally analogous to the very first passage in Genesis,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)

But in Paul’s system he needed to create a role for his heavenly lord Jesus Christ. In a similar fashion to a heavenly logos or creative agent, it was his heavenly spirit Jesus Christ “by whom are all things”.

And considering this passage in Philippians 2:5-6 ---

… Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped.

I think Paul considered his heavenly lord Jesus Christ to be eternal with God the father, or at a minimum, pre-existent to the creation of the heavens and the earth.

[Giuseppe]

I think this is one of the more relevant passages related to this discussion ---

Yet to us [there is] one God the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we through Him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul is not equivocal here --- he says “all things” --- this would certainly include the heavens and the earth.

I think the first part about God the father --- “of whom are all things” --- is generally analogous to the very first passage in Genesis,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:10)

But in Paul’s system he needed to create a role for his heavenly lord Jesus Christ. In a similar fashion to a heavenly logos or creative agent, it was his heavenly spirit Jesus Christ “by whom are all things”.

And considering this passage in Philippians 2:5-6 ---

… Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped.

I think Paul considered his heavenly lord Jesus Christ to be eternal with God the father, or at a minimum, pre-existent to the creation of the heavens and the earth.

What do you think about this different view of the same passage?

Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Keys to 1 Corinthians, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 68, 73-75:

«Interpretations of 1 Cor 8:6 which find a cosmological meaning in the text ignore the methodological rule that parts of a text retain their intended meaning only within the framework of the whole. […]Since 1 Cor 8:6 is a baptismal acclamation, the hemeis cannot be interpreted as meaning the human race in general; it means Christians. The unified thrust of the verse, therefore, is exclusively soteriological.
In this perspective the meaning of the verse can be summarized in the following paraphrase: From God come all things which enable us to return to him. All these things are given through Christ and in him we go to the Father.
Taken in themselves some elements of 1 Cor 8:6 are susceptible of a cosmological meaning. Hence, it is not impossible a priori that Paul could have given the citation a cosmological dimension when he incorporated it into his discussion with the Corinthians. The question, then, is: Did he in fact do so?
[…]
We have been conditioned to think cosmologically and, in consequence, cannot rely on our first impression of the meaning of ta panta passages in which God appears as subject. The meaning assigned to ta panta
must be justified contextually. In this respect it is important to keep in mind a series of passages which refer ta panta to God in an exclusively soteriological sense, 1 Cor 2:10-13; 12:4-6; 2 Cor 4:14-15; 5:18; Rom 8:28, 31-2 (see also 1 Cor 9:22-3; 2 Cor 12:19).
[…]
It is understandable that some commentators should tend to give primacy to the cosmological aspect. Not only is it the more striking and unusual, but it appears to offer an unusual insight into the person of Christ. The first impression has been well articulated by Dunn, 'it seems to lift early christology on to a wholly new plane—where pre-existence and a role in creation are clearly attributed to Christ... the lines of deity are being clearly sketched into this christology'.
As we shall see, Dunn in reality does not go anywhere as far along this line as Fee, who writes, 'Although Paul does not here call Christ God, the formula is so constructed that only the most obdurate would deny its Trinitarian implications... the designation "Lord," which in the OT belongs to the one God, is the proper designation of the divine Son.'
The methodological error of those who insist on the 'natural meaning' of 1 Cor 8:6 is well spelt out by Dunn, Parting of the Ways, 199-200. From a Pauline perspective this conclusion is unacceptable.
For Paul Christ is accorded the title 'Lord' as a reward (Phil 2:11); it is not his by nature. Furthermore, the power of lordship is given to Christ for a specific purpose, and when it is accomplished, that power will be surrendered (1 Cor 15:20-8). Finally, the sonship of Christ is not his by nature, but is consequent on the resurrection (Rom 1:3-4; 14:9; 1 Thess 1:10) and is the fruit of obedience (2 Cor 1:19-20).
When read in the light of these texts, 1 Cor 8:6 cannot be understood as a statement of the divinity of Christ, unless we are to assume that Paul subscribed to completely contradictory understandings of who Christ was.
This, in consequence, implies that 'pre-existence' cannot be understood simplistically as meaning that Christ was coexistent with the Father from all eternity. Col 1:16 would seem to militate against this conclusion. This verse, however, comes from the Colossian hymn, which Paul quotes only in order to
correct it. He accepts its statements, not because they are true, but because they provide him with highly effective ad hominem arguments against his opponents.
Dunn, who shares my view that Paul never thought of Christ in terms of divinity, stands alone in his effort to determine in what possible sense Christ can be said to be 'pre-existent'. Christ is presented as the instrument of creation, a role that Jewish tradition attributed to Wisdom and to the Word. These 'pre-existents', however, were never seen as threats to monotheism. The Word of God denotes what we would call the rationality of God's dealings with humankind, just as Wisdom denotes their wisdom.'
They were ways of speaking about God's self-revelation. Hence when Christ is identified with Wisdom (1 Cor 1:24, 30), or with the Word, this means not so much that Christ as Jesus of Nazareth had preexisted as such, but that preexistent Wisdom was now to be recognized in and as Christ'.
This may appear overly subtle and convoluted, but only an approach along these lines can satisfy all the data that Paul provides.
Paul's concern with the present rather than the past is underlined by the shift from 'all things' to 'we' in both members of 8:6. In theory 'all things' can reach all the way back into the immensity of the past, but in practice 'we' focuses ta panta on the present. The power displayed in the creation of all things interests Paul only in so far as it now has an impact on the members of the community Creation is evoked, not in or for itself, but because of the inconceivable power therein displayed. Believers are to understand that power of the same magnitude is at work in their redemption.
Despite the intensity of the discussion, it is surprising that greater importance has not been given to the teaching of Deutero-Isaiah, who displays the same intimate association of creation and redemption as 1 Cor 8:6, e.g. 'Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who forms you in the womb: I am the Lord who makes all things' (Isa 44:24).’
Some scholars rightly translate the verbs here in the present tense, 'because the prophet here presents the first creation as an on-going work in the present redemption of Israel' (Z. Stuhlmueller).
The ancients were interested in the creation of the physical world only as an explanation for the appearance of the human race or a particular people. As regards the Jews, creation is clearly subordinate to their redemption. 'Because of what Yahweh does redemptively for and in Israel, he is Israel's creator.' (Ibid.). The finality of creation is redemption. The power that brought their world into being is the same power that saves them. This is not the place to go into further detail. It is sufficient to note that the perspective of Deutero-Isaiah provides an illuminating precedent for the smoothness of the shift from cosmology to soteriology in 1 Cor 8:6. Even though two dimensions may be distinguished, creative redemption is the single movement demanded by the verbs of motion».

[robert j]

What do you think about this different view of the same passage?

Certainly one could expand upon the interpretation I provided for 1 Cor 8:6 to include soteriology, but all that "scholarly" verbiage doesn't change the opinion I offered.

[Giuseppe]

I agree. Adam is named "first" in 1 cor 15:47 because we (mortal people) are that "Adam" and always we, if Christians, will be the "second Adam" insofar we will receive celestial bodies in heaven after the resurrection.

I see that it is becoming a common tactic between apologists insist on the fact that there is not pre-existence of Christ in Paul but only exaltation of Jesus, so to do the following historicist argument:

1) Jesus is not pre-existent in Paul
2) Jesus is exalted in Paul
3) therefore, Jesus existed.