III. Aberdeen’s Hunter-Pauline Truth Exposes Platonic Error

Scottish theologian Dr. ARCHIBALD M. HUNTER, ^{4646) ARCHIBALD MACBRIDE Hums (1906-), Presbyterian, was trained at Glas ow and Oxford. After ministry in several churches he became professor of New Testament at Mansfield College, Oxford, and professor of Biblical criticism, Aberdeen University (1945-). He was also Master of Christ’s College, Aberdeen. He is author of ten books.} of King’s College, Aberdeen University, gave the James Sprunt Lectures at Union Theological Seminary in America in 1954. ^{4747) Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting Paul’s Gospel (1954), Preface, p. 9.} These were published under the title Interpreting Paul’s Gospel. Chapter five, “The Hope of Glory,” it should be added, was first published in Interpretation. In the key chapter, early in the lecture series, Hunter made this statement:CFF2 898.3

“Paul holds that the life to come is a gift of God, not (as the Greeks held) a natural possession of man. Not the immortality of the soul but the resurrection of the body is his concern and hope.” ^{4848) Ibid., p. 54. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 898.4

The distinction is vital.CFF2 898.5

1. REVIVAL OF ESCHATOLOGY UNMASKS GREEK INFLUENCES

In his final lecture Dr. Hunter emphasizes the contemporary revival of the “Christian eschatology” phase of “biblical theology,” with a resultant awakening to the fact of the strong influence that “Greek views of time and eternity” had exerted upon the church over the centuries. Here are Hunter’s exact words:CFF2 898.6

“We have witnessed in this generation a notable revival in biblical theology, which has led us to rethink many of our cardinal doctrines. Christian theologians, long more deeply influenced than they knew by Greek views of time and eternity, are beginning to study again the biblical conceptions of these things. And it is growing clear that the time is ripe for a fresh approach to the whole subject of Christian eschatology.” ^{4949) Ibid.,. 123.}CFF2 898.7

This very exposure of Platonic innatism by Hunter is simply part of the restudy conducted by scores of other contemporary scholars.CFF2 899.1

2. IMMORTALITY “GIFT OF GOD,” NOT INNATELY OURS

In the significant section “The Heart of the Christian Hope,” Dr. Hunter makes “two simple points.” The first is that “immortality” is a gift, not a natural possession:
“As ‘God alone hath immortality,’ immortal life for St. Paul, as for all the New Testament writers, is the gift of God in Christ. We are not immortal beings in our own right, so to speak. Just as St. John says, ‘He that hath the Son hath life,’ so Paul holds that our hope of immortality is bound up with belonging to Christ-with ‘Christ in us, the hope of glory.’” ^{5050) Ibid., p. 133. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 899.2

3. NOT “DISEMBODIED” SPIRITS BUT “WHOLE MEN.”

The second point is closely akin—that the Platonic fallacy has all too often set aside the historic faith. The two concepts are totally opposed:
“Plato’s hope was set on the immortality of the soul. Paul’s is set on the resurrection of the body—‘the spiritual body,’ as he explains in 1 Corinthians 15, for manifestly our present frame of flesh and blood is doomed to dissolution. Soma, ‘body,’ as Paul uses it, has its nearest English equivalent in the word ‘personality.’ It is not as disembodied souls but as whole men, Paul would teach us, that we shall live hereafter. But this ‘body,’ this ‘frame’—call it what you will—will be marvellously transformed in the world to come.” ^{5151) Ibid. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 899.3

These are significant statements and constitute highly competent testimony.CFF2 899.4