Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Big Clocks]

Paul and other early Christians thought Jesus was returning immediately (1 Cor. 7:29, Rom. 13:11-12, 1 Cor. 10:11 amongst many others) and it was only when he didn't and believers started dying that this came up at all.

Paul's solution is a pragmatic one; those of us who are still alive when he returns will be taken up, those of us who have died will get a new body of some kind.

There isn't a true dichotomy - an argument between a physical resurrection or a purely spiritual one - more of a blurring of the lines between the two, depending on circumstances. 1 Corinthians 15:52 sums it up nicely, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

2 Cor 5:2 is explicit, "For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling—" and indicates Paul's thoughts about what will happen to the dead may also happen to the living.

Add in 1 Cor. 15:42, "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable." and 1 Corinthians 15:50, "What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Alongside what you've quoted from Paul what we have is some fleet of foot, ad hoc, on the hoof reasoning to try and make sense of a Saviour who hasn't come back rather than any kind of profound theology about the nature of immortality.

I don't really have a side in this debate because I think it's dishonest to even say there are sides to take. It's just a mess. An understandable mess but a mess none the less.

[jimwalton]

> Paul and other early Christians thought Jesus was returning immediately

Agreed, but that doesn't change what he thought the resurrection was about (physical) and what kind of body it was (incorruptible). He wrote these things while still believing Jesus was coming back soon. The eschatological perspective didn't change his resurrection theology.

> There isn't a true dichotomy - an argument between a physical resurrection or a purely spiritual one

But that's what I'm saying: There is. A spiritual resurrection accomplishes nothing. It's contrary to everything Paul taught and negates his theology of salvation. If Christ is not physically risen from the dead, our faith is in vain.

> 2 Cor. 5.2

It still needs to be interpreted.

"Meanwhile" - the duration of life on this earth

"We groan" - impatient for the resurrection. Paul is frustrated with the corruptibility of mortal existence.

"longing" - He is not longing for death, but for his resurrection body.

"to be clothed" - A metaphor of transformation. Similar to Lk. 24.49. It speaks of Paul's resurrection hope.

"with our heavenly" - N.T. Wright says, "Why does Paul speak of the new body as being in the heavens? Does this not mean that he thinks of Christians simply going to heaven after their death? No. Heaven for Paul, here as elsewhere, is not so much where people go after they die—he remains remarkably silent on that, with the possible exception of Col. 3.3-4—but the place where the divinely intended future for the world is kept safely in store, against the day when, like new props being brought out from the wings and onto stage, it will come to birth in the renewed world, 'on earth as it is in heaven.' If I assure my guests that there is champagne for them in the refrigerator, I am not suggesting that we all need to get into the refrigerator if we are to have the party. The future body, the non-corruptible (eternal) house, is at present 'in the heavens' (as opposed to 'on earth'), but it will not stay there. It will come to earth to be fitted on top of what is."

"dwelling - The heavenly body is put on over the earthly body not only to cover it but to transfigure it.

Paul is distinguishing between the present corruptible body and the future incorruptible one. The language of nakedness was used in the wider Hellenistic world to refer to a soul divested of its body. This is what Paul is repudiating.

> 1 Cor. 15.42, 50

There is just no good evidence for belief in a non-physical resurrection in Paul, much less in the apostles. Even when Paul is defending the notion of a spiritual body, he is teaching the transformation of corpses into other physical entities, not the abandonment of the corpse for a spiritual (numinous) existence.

"Sow" (sown) is never used for burial in the Bible. "Sow" means "create." "Sowing doesn't evoke images of death, but life. The "body that is sown perishable" is the natural man as he was created by God: perishable, corruptible, mortal. Paul uses the metaphor of sowing and harvesting to contrast the present corruptible body with the future non-corruptible body (both being bodies). It's Paul's whole point; it's his only point.

Verse 50: "Flesh and blood." Paul is not contending there is no resurrection of the body. "Flesh and blood" is referring to ordinary, corruptible, decaying, mortal human existence. It doesn't mean physical humanity as opposed to a ghostly spiritual existence. The referent of the phrase is not the presently dead but the presently living, who don't need to be raised but to be changed. Both categories of humans (dead and still living) need to acquire the new, transformed type of body.

It's not a mess at all. You are totally misreading Paul. Jesus physically rose from the dead and had a new body, and it shall be the same for us. If we deny that, we throw Christianity in the trash can.

[Freddy Johns]

> Paul explains it

How on earth would Paul know? He wasn't there in the days following the crucifixion and his supposed encounter with the risen Jesus was a 'brilliant light'.

[jimwalton]

God spoke to Paul directly. 2 Corinthians 12.1-10 mentions special visions and revelations where God communicated directly to him, probably much as God had done with Moses. It seems clear from later in the passage (vv. 7ff.) that Paul is talking about himself, though he uses this deliberately detached manner to distance himself from the possibility of spiritual pride at such experiences. It is also obvious this cannot be a reference to his Damascus Road experience in Acts 9; it is chronologically far too late and belongs in a different category.

> his supposed encounter with the risen Jesus was a 'brilliant light'.

I've already mentioned to you: "As far as Paul in Acts 9, the text doesn't say Jesus appeared *as a brilliant light*. It says a light flashed around him. 1 Corinthians 15.8 says he actually saw Jesus. The light was something different." He says (Acts 9.3) that a light from heaven flashed around him, like a flash of lightning. He never claims that the light was Jesus or that Jesus was the light. The light from heaven indicates God's glory (as is often the case in the OT). A light and a voice are two features one might expect in a divine revelation. It doesn't explicitly say here that he saw the risen Jesus, but that idea is confirmed in Acts 9.17 & 27; 22.14 & 26.16 as well as in 1 Cor. 9.1 and 15.8.

[Robot by Day]

Lots of references there but, I missed the part where those documents show that they (the individuals being executed) were given the option to recant instead of being killed. I did not bother reading or searching through those sources because, I assumed you would know them well and be able to give the best examples for your case.

[jimwalton]

The sources aren't that specific. They don't include the dialogue, but only the events. For instance, 1 Clement says, "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." This one is pretty general—just that Peter was persecuted for his faith and (implied) was killed for it. Eusebius wrote, "Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: 'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.' I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.

So we are not given a courtroom manuscript by the court stenographer. The documents just don't say what the OP is requiring to believe it. But Peter and Paul both zealously preached the crucifixion and resurrection, and they died for their faith, so by reason they died for preaching the resurrection.

[Freddy Johns]

> God spoke to Paul directly.

This doesn't come even remotely close to passing the "baloney detector" test. So, God authenticated himself and then with his voice (vocal cords?) explained to Paul that Jesus' body was brought back to life but, instead of being a mere resuscitation, had some added enhancements which were also explained?? C'mon, do you really believe this?

[jimwalton]

It is only irrational if you presuppose two biases: (1) God doesn't exist, and (2) even if he does, he doesn't or can't communicate to people. The story of the Bible is that God is there and He is not silent. He is a personal being who desires a personal relationship of love with the people who he has made, and he communicates what he is like and how a relationship works. It's called the covenant. God has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan, as I mentioned, is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God undertook, as a primary objective, a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God. Do I believe that God communicated to Paul what was true about life and resurrection? You bet I do.

[Freddy Johns]

> Do I believe that God communicated to Paul what was true about life and resurrection? You bet I do.

But my point is that you have no rational basis for this belief. It is purely emotional "wishful thinking". Furthermore your first sentence simply reveals your confirmation bias. When you say "God" you mean this image you have in your mind as the God of the Bible. Deity is a better word and there have been plenty of those. If deities (or a single deity) exists that wants to communicate with us why doesn't he do so? Your story about Paul is NOT a communication with us but rather one of hundreds of stories/myths in various world cultures throughout history.

Do I believe this pen in my hand will fall to the ground if I let go? You bet. Your "you bet" is a different sort altogether and is based purely on wishful thinking and confirmation bias I'm sorry to say.

[jimwalton]

Oh, but I disagree. Not everything is science. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly convinced that what we can prove by science is probably less than half of what we all know. A pen falling to the ground is one kind of knowledge. Whether a man is innocent or guilty in a court of law is another. Science can't predict who will win the Super Bowl, but it's not irrational to believe that someone will win. My belief in the reliability and credibility of Paul isn't emotional wishful thinking or confirmation bias in the least. I have found Paul to be a source of reliable information on many fronts, but particularly spiritually speaking, and that's not measurable like gravity, but that doesn't mean it's irrational wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Artists and investment brokers often work by intuitions. Musicians do their work apart from science. Judges make judgments that have nothing to do with science. Even historians, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists have to perceive and interpret; it's not all just raw data. I have plenty of rational basis for my belief.