Does the bodily resurrection of Jesus matter for Christianity? Is a physical resurrection of the believers part of faith?
It’s what we’ve been talking about this week.
Many now say, “No. A physical resurrection is immaterial to the truth of Easter and the power of Christianity.”
Marcus Borg is a good example. Here is what he says (from a debate with N.T. Wright) (and see this video):
“I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I’m just skeptical that it involved anything happening to his corpse…The truth of Easter really has nothing to do with whether the tomb was empty on a particular morning 2,000 years ago or whether anything happened to the corpse of Jesus. I see the truth of Easter as grounded in the Christian experience of Jesus as a living spiritual reality of the present.”
For Borg, the truth or the meaning of the Jesus’ resurrection is separate from the history or facts of the resurrection.
FAITH IS VAIN?
But then many, like myself, point to 1 Corinthians 15:14 where the Apostle Pauls says, “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain?”
OR IT’S SPIRITUAL?
But then defenders of revising the historic view of the resurrection will says, “Yes. Of course the resurrection is important. But not a physical resurrection!”
And they will point to a verse later in 1 Corinthians 15, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” (verse 44).
Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:44, Marcus Borg claims that the Apostle Paul “explicitly says that the resurrection “body” is not a “physical” body but a “spiritual” body, a “glorified” body. What that means is not transparently clear, but, as Paul says, it is not a flesh and blood body.”
Or another time, more concisely, Borg states that “Paul not only affirms that the resurrection of Jesus as essential (…), he also says near the end of the chapter that the resurrected body is not physical but spiritual – a glorified body.” (elipsis in original, emphasis added).
And this isn’t just some unique view articulated by one professor.
This is a common view among theologically progressive and liberal Christians (not to be confused or equated with politically progressive Christians who may or may not hold to Borg’s view).
Mystical Sight vs. Historical Event?
“We don’t need to debate the possibility of a reanimated corpse. We need to reimagine our whole understanding of the material world.”
This is the subtitle of an article published this week in Christian Century titled “The mystical significance of Jesus’ resurrection” (of course the title and subtitle might be from an editor and not the author, but it is an accurate summary of the article nonetheless).
This article—while talking much philosophy and theology—makes the same argument that Paul’s understanding of resurrection should be read through the “spiritual” lens found in 1 Corinthians 15:44.
The article quotes Catholic priest and theologian Michael H. Crosby saying,
“It is my conviction that we need to reclaim this Pauline meaning of Resurrection from our futile debates about the meaning of any physical resurrection of Jesus. . . . Moving from a concentration on the Gospel narratives stressing the “bodily” resurrection to a reclamation of the mystical experience of the Risen Christ will help us grasp the heart of the mystery of faith in the Resurrection which, indeed, is the heart of our belief.” (emphasis added)
— I’ll return to the idea of positioning the Gospel accounts against Paul’s theology in a moment.
The emphasis for Christians, as this argument goes, should be on the mystical experience of Jesus our Lord, not on the historical event of his resurrection (or not). The author argues that we should not embrace a “naive materialism” or debate the “possibility of a reanimated corpse” of Jesus.
Instead of the historic Christian view of resurrection, we need to understand “the body with which Jesus rose is one we can perceive only with our spiritual senses, honed through contemplative practice.”
This is the “mystical significance of Jesus’ resurrection”—that in contemplative prayer we too can see Jesus.
Now, to that last point, I agree that in prayer we continue to see and even speak to Jesus, because he is alive and working. So I’m not against mystical experiences. Not at all.
But is that all the resurrection means?
Does a bodily resurrection matter?
No. The resurrection cannot be reduced to mystical experiences.
And Yes. A bodily resurrection is important for life and faith.
Let me explain.
Placing 1 Cor. 15:44 in Context
FIRST: It’s odd to appeal to Paul (for progressive-liberals)
First off, it is odd for more left-leaning scholars and Christians to appeal to Paul in this instance. Usually they drive a wedge between Paul who created the “religion of Christianity” from the Jesus who started a “movement” around the morality of love.
The argument that people like Marcus Borg or Bart Ehrman makes is that Paul’s “version” of Christianity is earlier than that expressed in the Gospels which we written latter. So the earlier Paul gives us access to a more “pure” Christianity (uncorrupted by all this bodily resurrection language we get at the end of the Gospel stories).
But again, from their perspective, if we are trying to get back to the “real Jesus”, then why bother with Paul at all (which most of the time they don’t, except when talking about 1 Corinthians 15 to substantiate their view of a non-bodily resurrection)?
SECOND: Doctrine doesn’t move from easier to harder affirmations
Second, it is hard to square with the development of doctrine that the idea of a “spiritual” resurrection was first part of Paul’s idea of Christianity (along with all the churches that he planted and ministered to), and then this view was replace by the later “bodily” resurrection as expressed in the Gospel.
This would require moving from an easier to believe and explain doctrine of Paul (spiritual resurrection) to harder to believe and explain doctrine in the found in the Gospels (bodily resurrection).
But doctrinal development rarely moves from easier to harder ideas.
It usually move from harder to believe ideas to easier to believe ideas.
If Paul’s communities dominated the early Jesus movement, then how did these Gospel stories win out? And why did most of early Christianity (which was build by Paul) turn from him on this issue? For the “spiritual” reading to be correct, scholars would have to make a plausible argument about how this “reverse doctrinal drift” happened.
That is difficult to explain. Very difficult.
Most people just ignore this problem.
It makes more sense that a bodily resurrection was always affirmed in the early church (by Paul and the original disciples), and that whatever 1 Corinthians 15 means for Paul, he was speaking from and to this established view.
THIRD: Specifically about 1 Cor. 15:44
To this specific verse, this is what Paul says, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
We get into trouble when we think this opposition between “natural” and “spiritual” has to do with the material (or immaterial) composition of an object. But it doesn’t.
These terms capacity and orientation.
Things that are called “spiritual” by Paul were also physical and natural. Like the spiritual food and spiritual drink God provided for Israel in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:3-4).And spiritual things come to spiritual people (who are still embodied) by being receptive to the Spirit of God.
Earlier in 1 Corinthians Paul contrasts the “natural person” who can’t understand the things of God because they do not have the Spirit of God with the “spiritual person” judges all things in the Spirit, culminating in us having the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:14-16).
So what Paul seems to be saying in regard to a “spiritual body” in 1 Corinthians 15;44 is a body suited to work of the Holy Spirit, suited in a way that our current bodies are not. But this doesn’t mean we will lack a body.
Of course, so much more could be said. But I’m taking a more pastoral and popular approach right now. See this for fuller explanation. And for a long, exegetical exploration, see this.
Transformation, not an Exchange: Life For Our Mortal Bodies
Regarding Paul, I want to end by turning to Romans.
Romans 8:10 is an essential passage for understanding what Paul might have meant in 1 Corinthians 15.
“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”
First, the power of the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. Because of this the life-giving Holy Spirit will also give life to our bodies.
Paul is making an essential connection between the raising of Jesus and life in our current (mortal) bodies. This requires that Paul understood Jesus’ resurrection as bodily also. For how would a non-bodily resurrection bring life to our mortal bodies now?
Similarly is Romans 8:22-23 which speaks of the renewal of creation, the Spirit, and the “redemption of our bodies.”
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.”
With all this in mind, it seems 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of a glorious transformation of our bodies as material bodies, rather than an exchange of one kind of body (material) for another kind of body (immaterial).
Not Making the Fundamentalist Mistake of Proof Texting
All in all, when we focus on one verse to the exclusion of the clear direction of Paul and the Gospels, progressive-liberals make the same mistake that fundamentalists do. They end up proof-texting from one verse in contradiction of the larger message of the Bible.
Conservative-fundamentalist often do this in their atonement theology.
Progressive-liberals often do this in regard to resurrection.
In Place of a Conclusion
I’ll end with the words of Sarah Coakley:
“We are by definition embodied beings. And all our delights, and all our woes, and all our agonies and all our joys, are embodied agonies and delights and joys. And I take it that that’s what God intends…and God intended for this mortal flesh to be capable of transformation. That, I think is the great hope set before people in the Christian faith.”