.

Dear Friends,

We are continuing our journey through Part 4 of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. Part 4 addresses additional objections to the Christian resurrection story.

Last time, I addressed attempts to reinterpret some gospel resurrection accounts in spiritual rather than physical terms (see strikethroughs below); today, we’ll look at a similar attempt related to Paul’s writings.

More arguments against the Resurrection

• About those texts used to deny a bodily resurrection
  • “Mark 16:7 could say that Jesus’ spirit will meet the disciples.”
  • “Matthew 28:16-17 indicates that there were doubts.”
  • “John 21:12 hints that the disciples didn’t recognize Jesus.”
  • “Galatians 1:16 seems to say Paul’s experience was not physical.”
  • “First Corinthians 15:37-50 contrasts the natural physical body with the spiritual.”
  • “First Peter 3:18 seems to say Jesus’ spirit was made alive, not his body.”
• Naturalistic arguments
  • “If atheism is true, then Jesus did not rise”
  • “The Resurrection doesn’t prove God’s existence”
  • “Jesus never died, so there was no resurrection”
  • “Reports of Jesus’ appearances differ little from the reports of the angel’s appearance to Joseph Smith”
  • “Reports of the Resurrection are no more believable than today’s reports of Elvis and alien sightings”
  • “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

He is risen…ish: Paul edition

So help me God, I will try to address just the first Paul-related objection today:

• “Galatians 1:16 seems to say Paul’s experience was not physical.”

As I mentioned last time, some professing Christians (1) actually argue for a spiritual rather than physical resurrection based on Paul’s writings (more on that later). I had not heard of this view until I read the Habermas book, but, in any case, it seems like an odd position to take. Wouldn’t such a discord between the various resurrection-related passages undermine them all, and logically lead to a renunciation of Christianity altogether?

In any case, let’s start by quoting the cited verse:

[Gal 1:16 KJV] 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

A red herring

Again, here is the first objection we’re dealing with today:

• “Galatians 1:16 seems to say Paul’s experience was not physical.”

Now, Paul’s episode of physical blindness (Acts 22:11) makes it clear to me that there was a physical aspect to his Damascus road experience. 

However, I also have to keep in mind that Paul himself, in Acts 26:19, refers to his experience as “a heavenly vision.” This, along with other passages in Acts, indicates to me that the resurrected Jesus was not literally standing there in front of Paul. If you had walked by in the moment, you would not have seen Jesus.

So, what is the key question at the moment? I don’t think the key question is whether there was a physical aspect to Paul’s experience; that’s a red herring for the present discussion. Instead, the key question should be about his takeaway.

Did Paul’s Damascus-road vision convince him that Jesus had resurrected fully, or just spiritually?

Cue the almost undisputed record of Paul’s writings!

I’ve discussed this before (see Post #11 in linked outline above), but 7 of Paul’s letters are considered by most scholars to be the actual words of Paul. His letter to the Galatians, which contains one of today’s contested passages, is one of those 7 letters.

However, Galatians 1:16…

[Gal 1:16 KJV] 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

…is simply insufficient to tell us what type of resurrection Paul’s vision convinced him of. Sure, the verse sounds like it’s describing a vision rather than a purely physical experience. But that’s not the real question; what did the vision convince him of?

Could the answer be found in his other writings?

Do you see what I see?

Let’s check I Corinthians 15:4-8 first; not only is I Corinthians one of the 7 undisputed letters, but chapter 15 discusses the resurrection extensively. So, here’s I Corinthians 15:4-8:

[1Co 15:4-8 KJV] 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 AND LAST OF ALL HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO, as of one born out of due time.

Honestly, what is the more natural interpretation of Paul’s point in that passage? Isn’t it that Paul and the apostles all saw the fully resurrected Jesus (allowing that Paul saw Him through a vision rather than with his natural eyes)?

It seems to me that you have to work really hard to come up with a different interpretation of this passage; if you want to take on the challenge, I’m waiting… but meanwhile, let’s see if we can find any further detail about the version of Jesus that Paul saw.

“Change”, not jettison   

Philippians is another of the 7 undisputed letters, and it gets even more directly to the heart of our question.

[Phl 3:20-21 KJV] 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who SHALL CHANGE OUR VILE BODY, THAT IT MAY BE FASHIONED LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

So there you have it. According to Paul, our bodies will be changed, not left to rot into oblivion. And since our bodies will be made like Jesus’s, the most natural interpretation, again, is that Jesus resurrected fully, not just spiritually.

By God, not “by man”

As a defensive measure, let’s consider the objection that Paul’s view of the resurrection was influenced by the testimony of others. How likely is it that Paul’s belief in the full resurrection of Jesus was really driven by the apostles rather than by his vision?

Based on the very first verse of Galatians 1…

[Gal 1:1 KJV] 1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

…I’m going to say not likely. And I should also point out that I didn’t have to venture very far to find this verse. It’s just a few verses prior to verse 16, the one that supposedly exhibits discord between Paul’s and the other apostles’ resurrection beliefs!

O death, where is thy sting?

I’ve probably used that heading before, but I don’t care. It’s just that good. And it comes from…you guessed it…Paul!

I have heard death described as the separation of the soul from the body. So, when Paul tells us that “Death is swallowed up in victory.”, could he be telling me that…wait for it…my soul and body will be reunited?

Amen, brother Paul!

TFOTF

Links:

(1) The New York Times on Reginald H. Fuller