Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Freddy Johns]

> Then you have grossly mis-read Paul. His entire theology is based on a physical resurrection of Christ, not just a spiritual one. His book of Romans is saturated with physical resurrection theology, as are the Corinthian letters, climaxing in chapter 15.

Let's take this portion first. The risen Jesus story is not a physical/bodily reality, i.e. what you are thinking actually appears nowhere in the Bible. The resurrection stories in the New Testament are clear. The risen Jesus appears in a locked room (John 20). He journeys with two of his followers for a couple of hours and is not recognized, and when he is recognized, he vanishes (Luke 24). He appears in both Jerusalem (Luke and John) and Galilee (Matthew and John). He appears to Stephen in his dying moments (Acts 7). He appears to Paul in or near Damascus as a brilliant light (Acts 9). He appears to the author of Revelation on an island off the coast of Turkey in the late 90s of the first century (Rev. 1). These texts are not about Jesus being restored to his previous life as a physical being. If such events happen, they are resuscitations: resuscitated persons resume the finite physical life they had before, and will die again someday. Whatever affirming the resurrection of Jesus means, it does NOT mean this.

Moreover, what would it mean to say that the risen Jesus is a physical/bodily reality? That he continues to be a molecular, protoplasmic, corpuscular being existing somewhere? Does that make any sense? How can the risen and living Jesus be all around us and with us, present everywhere, if he is bodily and physical?

[jimwalton]

The message of a spiritual resurrection, or even of visions, would not have been radical or objectionable. The Jews, Greeks and Romans all believed in such things. In addition, some Jewish sects also believed in a physical resurrection, but long in the future after death and then an interim period of death as a state (a future hope). What was stunning (and totally unacceptable to many hearers) about the resurrection narrative is that they were claiming something not only unheard of, but impossible: A physical resurrection from the dead back to this life. This is what the contemporaries of the apostles found to be unbelievable. You are right that the resurrection stories in the NT are clear, but somehow you have breezed right past them in blindness. The resurrection of Jesus was told as a counter-cultural motif: instant physical resurrection. The apostles surely believed in a future hope, but that was not this story. The message of the Gospel was clearly a "resurrection" movement. If it was merely a spiritual or visionary resurrection, a body and the empty tomb would be irrelevant.

If we start with Paul, with 1 & 2 Thessalonians being some of his earliest work (AD 49-50), we go first to 1 This. 1.10: "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus..." His present location in heaven and his future return were commonplace conversations. But his description of how this future arrives is in 4.13-5:11. What does Paul mean by "resurrection"? In the passage he clearly states those who have already died will, at some future date, be raised from the dead (4.14). We don't need Jesus for that; they all believed that anyway. But then Paul adds something completely different: those who are still alive will see instant resurrection, based on the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. (*Anastesontai* in 4.16 has never meant anything other than bodily resurrection in any Greek reference.) The close parallel of 4.16-17 and 1 Cor. 15.51-52 speak of an instant physical change from corruptible flesh to incorruptible flesh—of the same type as Jesus' body.

In Galatians, Paul starts off by mentioning Jesus' resurrection (1.1). His whole case in Galatians is incomprehensible without a physical resurrection. God had initiated a plan "to rescue us from the present evil age" (1.4). Paul is functioning in current Judaistic understandings, except he claims that something different than expected had happened because "the age to come" had broken into "the present age"—Jesus' resurrection. This is impossible to understand if Jesus' resurrection was merely spiritual or visionary. The death and resurrection of Jesus are the inauguration of this promised new age. The Jews always believed in restoration after exile, but what Paul sees supersedes that in that it includes Jews and Gentiles. This is not Jewish theology, but a new (and unexpected) addition.

In Philippians, he speaks again of a transformed body (Phil. 3.20-21, unnecessary if it is only a spiritual resurrection).

Romans, as I mentioned before, drips with resurrection theology—bodily, physical resurrection. Starting in Rom. 1.4, his claim cannot possibly mean (as it normally would in its second-temple context) that Jesus was exalted spiritually to a place of honor, like the martyrs, awaiting resurrection, or that his soul was in the hands of God. No. Paul's point is that the resurrection has declared Jesus of Nazareth, descended from David, to be the true Messiah, the "Son of God." His point only makes sense—only has political ramifications and life significance—if a physical resurrection has marked Jesus out as the true world ruler, the one of whom Caesar is a mere parody.

We could go on for hours tracing through Paul's theology of physical resurrection. I haven't even touched on the Corinthians, as full of the necessity of physical resurrection as Romans and the rest of Paul's writings.

What about the Gospels? Same story. The Gospel of Mark is infused with resurrection (by my count, no fewer than 30). Baptism (1.9) was a symbol of resurrection; the man of 2.1-12 was "raised up" (same word as resurrection); the man of 3.1-6 "raised up" his hand to "save life"; Jairus's daughter was physically raised from the dead (5.42), and on and on.

This is an almost endless inventory. Matthew and Luke speak of a great eschatological reversal, unexpected in Jewish theology. The only way to understand their teachings is in the context of a physical, bodily resurrection. Mere spiritualization renders all of it moot. Matthew 10.28-31 and its parallel in Luke 12.4-7 only make sense with physical resurrection as the reference point. There only reason to tell people not to be afraid of those who kill the body is if there is a life beyond bodily death. Jesus confirms such an understanding in Matt. 11.5. As I said, it's almost endless.

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.

> Moreover, what would it mean to say that the risen Jesus is a physical/bodily reality? That he continues to be a molecular, protoplasmic, corpuscular being existing somewhere? Does that make any sense? How can the risen and living Jesus be all around us and with us, present everywhere, if he is bodily and physical?

Absolutely that's what it means, and that's what was so radical, then and now. 1 Corinthians 15.12-54 insist on exactly that understanding. How can he be all around us and with us, present everywhere, if he is bodily and physical? Because his presence is not confined to his body, as ours is. He is present with us in the Holy Spirit, a different Person of the Trinity (In Jn. 14.16, he sends the Spirit; in v. 18, he says he himself will come. He and the Spirit are different persons, but one essence, as are he and the Father).

[Big Clocks]

> First of all, 1 Corinthians 15.3-7 is verifiably the oldest historical record of the resurrection witnesses

In the very next verse, 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul continues, "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

We know from his own writings that Paul's experience of Christ was in a vision and Paul seems to believe that his mystical experience was the same as, or on a par with, the encounters he describes Cephas, then the Twelve (Cephas wasn't a member of the Twelve, it seems?) and then the crowd of 500.

Paul is describing non-physical, spiritual visionary encounters. These are not proof of a literal, physical resurrection. If that is what Paul meant he would surely have said so plainly and yet he does the opposite and clearly equates the early sightings of a raised Christ with his own, internal and non-physical visions.

[jimwalton]

I beg to differ. It's true that the word "appeared" can mean a wide range of concepts, so we have to decipher its meaning from the context and from what else we know. Let's look at it.

1. In 1 Corinthians 9.1, he uses the same word, in reference to himself, in the sense of "seeing" that is on par with normal human "seeing." In this verse he says He saw Jesus.

2. "Last of all" (1 Cor. 15.8) makes it clear that his "seeing" was the last part of a sequence. It wasn't part of an ongoing set of spiritual experiences that he or anyone else were having, or were likely to have (and such things have continued to the present day). Paul was speaking of something different than a vision or a mystical experience.

3. 1 Corinthians 15.1-11 as a whole clearly speaks of a public event for which there were physical evidences and eyewitnesses who saw something and could be interrogated about it. If you claim it was a non-physical, spiritual, visionary experience, you undermine Paul's entire point.

4. The rest of chapter 15 never speaks of a non-bodily resurrection, nor infer that Jesus' risen body is made of light or any such thing. The close connection Paul makes between Paul's view of what happened to Jesus and his claim about what will happen to all Christians (consistent with the robustly "bodily" account of the rest of 1 Cor. 15) shows that when Jesus appeared to Paul (v. 8), he didn't mean it as a spiritual vision, an enlightened thought, a mystical experience, or anything short of a physical body seen by physical eyes, as a real human being, truly and bodily raised from the dead. It's true Paul saw him differently than the other apostles had, but he saw him physically nonetheless.

Paul's writings are permeated with teachings about a physical resurrection, and they make no sense if we read them as if it were a spiritual experience.

[1.62]

Thank's for the reply. I want to gather information on Dionysius of Corinth, this is one source that I know almost nothing about. However, I have closely read 1st Clement and read/studied a lot (a lot for an even for an interested layman) of Irenaeus and Eusebius, multiple translations of all the attributed writings of Ignatius, and a little of/about Tertullian.

I definitely want to know whether or not, "Peter's martyrdom is one of the most well-attested facts from the era that we have." Out of all my historical research and reading of the era (2nd Century BCE to 4th Century CE) nothing made me think there was any factual details surrounding either Paul or Peter's death. The only thing I remember at all is just hand me down tradition (he said, he said...). I don't expect a lot of material nor do I expect contemporary counter claims since the early orthodox Christians cleaned house so often (destroyed or removed everything they considered as heresy). Anyway, I always learn something in these conversations and approach this with a heightened awareness of the fallible tendencies of my mind and being aware as possible of my cognitive and confirmation bias potential.

Just didn't want to leave you hanging and to let you know I will be replying asap. Meanwhile if there is something you recommend I read let me know.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for this conversation. You should know that it is debated whether (the writing) First Clement should be linked with (the person) Clement of Rome or not. Mike Licona says, "In summary, there is a tradition that a man named Clement, who was possibly the one mentioned by Paul, became the bishop of the church in Rome at the end of the 1st century. This Clement may have personally known a number of the apostles, perhaps even Peter or Paul. Because there are a number of sources that appear to link Clement to the apostles in some manner, this possible relationship cannot be ignored. On the one hand, we cannot be certain of the reliability of the statements made about Clement. … On the other hand, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the long version of Ignatius's letter to the Trallians are four sources that link Clement to Peter and/or 1 Clement, and there are no competing traditions that claim otherwise."

The truth is, we know almost nothing about the church fathers except from their writings (the few that have survived) and the "traditions" (historians like Eusebius). Nothing else exists, and so this is all we have to go by. The fact that we have half a dozen references to Peter's death is significant. For instance, we have only 5 sources about Alexander the Great. That's all. They, like Eusebius, had access to work that is no longer extant for us, but 5 sources about Peter's death is significant. For Nero (emperor of Rome) we also have no contemporary sources. Everything we have was written 50 years or more after his death (compare to the Gospels which were written 30 years later). And even though we have 12 sources about Nero, the sources contradict each other. Again, 5 sources about Peter that unanimously agree is significant. We have no sources that contradict what the church fathers write about Peter. We wish we had more information, but we wish that about many things.

[Freddy Johns]

So, what is your bottom line? Are you claiming there was a resuscitation, i.e. the same physical body brought back resuming the physical life he had before (like the Lazarus story presumably), or some other kind of body? That wasn't clear in your response.

[jimwalton]

Oh, sorry that wasn't clear. It was a physical body, but not a resuscitation. Instead it was a transformation. The same body (nail holes in hands, spear gash in side) but not the same substance. This one was not subject to decay as a normal human body is. Paul explains it in 1 Corinthians 15.35-58. The first was a natural body (defined as that which is perishable); the second was a spiritual body (defined as imperishable). The first was a normal human body, subject to weakness, disease, injury, decay, what have you. His resurrected body (not merely resuscitated) was still material (not ghostly like and spiritual) but of a different quality. If Paul had wanted to contrast the physical with the numinous he would have chosen different terms.

[Big Clocks]

You are obviously aware that Paul can be interpreted in such a way that a physical Jesus practically disappears altogether, both before his crucifixion and after his resurrection.

This interpretation of Paul seems to me to take far fewer liberties with his writings.

Such a view of Paul's writings has to be acknowledged, at the very least, as a reasonable interpretation of what he presents us with.

If that acknowledgement is made the question becomes which interpretation becomes the most reasonable?

It's a tough call because Paul said different things to different audiences and his views evolved with time.

Paul certainly isn't a nailed down, cut and dried source for the historicity of the belief in a physical resurrection though.

[jimwalton]

Of course. I know there are wide varieties of stances on Paul's theology, and he has many detractors. I'm obviously quite convinced that those who see a mere spiritual version of resurrection have missed the point completely. They are reading a selection of verses and missing the purpose and point. His letters make no sense if we remove the theology of a physical resurrection.

The message of a spiritual resurrection, or even of visions, would not have been radical or objectionable. The Jews, Greeks and Romans all believed in such things. In addition, some Jewish sects also believed in a physical resurrection, but long in the future after an interim period of death as a state (a future hope). What was stunning in Paul and the apostles (and totally unacceptable to many hearers) about the resurrection narrative is that they were claiming something not only unheard of, but impossible: A physical resurrection from the dead back to this life. This is what the contemporaries of the apostles found to be unbelievable. The resurrection of Jesus was told as a counter-cultural motif: instant physical resurrection. The apostles surely believed in a future hope, but that was not this story. The message of the Gospel was clearly a "resurrection" movement. If it was merely a spiritual or visionary resurrection, a body and the empty tomb would be irrelevant.

1 & 2 Thessalonians were some of Paul's earliest work (AD 49-50). 1 This. 1.10: "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus..." His present location in heaven and his future return were commonplace conversations. But his description of how this future arrives in 4.13-5:11 changes the story. What does Paul mean by "resurrection"? In the passage he clearly states those who have already died will, at some future date, be raised from the dead (4.14). We don't need Jesus for that; they all believed that anyway. But then Paul adds something completely different: those who are still alive will see instant resurrection, based on the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. (*Anastesontai* in 4.16 has never meant anything other than bodily resurrection in any Greek reference.) The close parallel of 4.16-17 and 1 Cor. 15.51-52 speak of an instant physical change from corruptible flesh to incorruptible flesh—of the same type as Jesus' body.

In Galatians, Paul starts off by mentioning Jesus' resurrection (1.1). His whole case in Galatians is incomprehensible without a physical resurrection. God had initiated a plan "to rescue us from the present evil age" (1.4). Paul is functioning in current Judaistic understandings, except he claims that something different than expected had happened because "the age to come" had broken into "the present age"—Jesus' resurrection. This is impossible to understand if Jesus' resurrection was merely spiritual or visionary. The death and resurrection of Jesus are the inauguration of this promised new age. The Jews always believed in restoration after exile, but what Paul sees supersedes that in that it includes Jews and Gentiles. This is not Jewish theology, but a new (and unexpected) addition.

In Philippians, he speaks again of a transformed body (Phil. 3.20-21, unnecessary if it is only a spiritual resurrection).

Romans drips with resurrection theology—bodily, physical resurrection. Starting in Rom. 1.4, his claim cannot possibly mean (as it normally would in its second-temple context) that Jesus was exalted spiritually to a place of honor, like the martyrs, awaiting resurrection, or that his soul was in the hands of God. No. Paul's point is that the resurrection has declared Jesus of Nazareth, descended from David, to be the true Messiah, the "Son of God." His point only makes sense—only has political ramifications and life significance—if a physical resurrection has marked Jesus out as the true world ruler, the one of whom Caesar is a mere parody.

We could go on for hours tracing through Paul's theology of physical resurrection. I haven't even touched on the Corinthians, as full of the necessity of physical resurrection as Romans and the rest of Paul's writings.