I Cor 15: The Nature of the Resurrection Body

"But someone will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’ 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body....
42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.

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."

Introduction

When I was in the pastorate and talked to people about death, I never recall any of them raising the question of the nature of the resurrection body. Not one of them was concerned with whether they were first sown "psychical" and then became "spiritual;" not one asked why it was so important that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." In fact, their major concern was with providing for loved ones left behind as well as the uncertainty of their future. Thus, the passage for this morning, where Paul goes through an intricate argument regarding the form of the resurrection body, will not find lots of resonance "out there" among typical Christians.

To make matters worse, Paul broaches a controversial subject when we are not sure of the position of his opponents. My thesis in previous essays on I Cor. 15 is that Paul is locked in a struggle with people over the meaning of spirituality. Some may be arguing that by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection they are spiritual already; all that remains is to slough off this body of flesh and then perfection will occur. Paul, in contrast, will emphasize themes of continuity and transformation: that there will be a body of sorts in the heavenly kingdom, but the body will be a transformed body, a glorified body.

But all of this talk about different kinds of bodies brings to mind an observation that people make about life. Perhaps you have heard it: two things you don't want to observe are the way that beef and laws are made. But I would add a third. You also don't really want to know how basic doctrines of theology are made. This is a case in point. Let me give you one other theological case in point so you see what I mean. Central to Christian faith is that Christ's death effects forgiveness of sin. But how, exactly, does that happen? I have asked theologians this question repeatedly over the years (what I call the "mechanism of salvation" question), and they have yet to provide me a good answer. Is it Christ's death or his blood that enables forgiveness? If the former, what kind of death was required? If you argue for crucifixion, aren't you just engaging in post hoc rationalizations from OT passages? If crucifixion isn't necessary, would it have been sufficient if Christ died of old age? Well, let's go down the other path. Suppose that blood needed to be shed because "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.." How much blood? A thimbleful? or did he have to die of blood loss? And, how did the blood have to flow? Would it have been sufficient if Christ had stubbed his big toe while carrying the cross and that stubbing led to bleeding? We think we have all the answers because we have repeated the answers so long without thinking about them.

The same type of questions obtain when we turn to the resurrection of the dead. What type of post-resurrection existence will we have? Or, have I even framed the question properly? Do we, instead, have an immediate continuity of existence after death, when the body is in the ground? Or, do we have to wait until the "general resurrection"? Lots of more specific questions can be raised here, all of which are really not easily soluble, in my judgment. Paul will give some answers in this passage, but the theological heft of his argument isn't immediately apparent. He will argue for a body in heaven, but a transformed body, a spiritual body. He will argue from the analogy of the two Adams (Adam and Christ): Adam was at first a "living soul" (Gen. 2:7) but then Christ became a "lifegiving spirit." But Christ's "spiritualness" doesn't mean that the body has been or will simply be sloughed off; it will be transformed.

What really does this mean? And why is it so important? Well, let me hold off on these questions until I make one point about the flow of the text.

The Flow of I Cor. 15:35-38, 42-50

Paul confronts those who ask about the nature of the resurrection body (v. 35) with a peremptory, "Fool!" (v. 36). Actually, I thought it was a pretty good question, but Paul "hears" it in the context of the controversy which lies hidden behind I Cor--the question over what constitutes spirituality. Paul's way of answering the question is to talk about a common human activity--that of sowing seeds in the ground. In my judgment this is the most helpful part of Paul's answer. He takes something that is "in your hands," as it were, and builds an analogy. The Greek of vv. 36-37, however, is very "unPauline." It is not that it isn't written by Paul, but the language doesn't flow smoothly at all. It literally reads, "Fool! you, that which you sow, is not life-giving unless it dies; and that which you sow, is not the body which is coming to be, you sow, but a naked seed perchance of wheat or of certain other grains." Yep, that is it. But the point should be clear. Paul is putting the emphasis on the "you" (who sow and therefore ought to know) who sow. Seeds have to die in order to come back to life as a plant; they both die and are transformed. That, really, is the essence of Paul's argument on the resurrected body. It has to die in order for it to be transformed, but there is a continuity between the new form of body and the old one (the body we currently have).

Once this point is made, Paul will return very much to his "Pauline" form in vv. 42-50. The force of his rhetoric builds up through four contrasts in 42-44, and the contrasts lead to an affirmation of the centrality of the "spiritual" body. We have to have a spiritual body because "flesh and blood" can't inherit the kingdom of God (v. 50); but it is a spiritual body that we will have.

Conclusion--What is at Stake

The heart of the Gospel is at stake for Paul. Not only will there be resurrection, but it will be resurrection of the body, even though a different body than the one we currently wear. Yet, there will be continuity between it and the spiritual body of the future. This belief affirms the importance of life here and now, even though it recognizes, for Paul, the ultimate importance of that future spiritual body and life.

Finally, however, I wonder if the terms of debate in our own world about faith have changed so radically that this discussion is obsolete or passe. Very few people I know want to go to the wall on the nature of the resurrection body. Even if we just memorize and repeat Paul, most people, including me, won't have a clue regarding what he means. I guess we will just have to wait...

2442