.

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 the claim that Paul’s letter to the Galatians supported “objective vision theory” (1), which is the idea that Jesus rose again spiritually, but not bodily. Today, we’ll look at a similar attempt related to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

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 (Part 2!)

So help me God, I will try to address this objection today:

“First Corinthians 15:37-50 contrasts the natural physical body with the spiritual.”

As I keep emphasizing, it’s not just card-carrying atheists alleging that Paul taught a spirit-only resurrection. Prominent church leaders have been known to make the same allegations (2). So, you’re going to want to have an informed position on this critical area of Christian doctrine.

Let’s start by quoting the cited passage:

[1Co 15:37-50 KJV] 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. 40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. 41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory. 42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 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 natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The first problem

Again, this is the objection we’re looking at today:

“First Corinthians 15:37-50 contrasts the natural physical body with the spiritual.”

The first problem I would like to point out is that the passage does not contrast body with spirit. Rather, it directly contrasts “a natural body” and “a spiritual body”:

[1Co 15:44 KJV] 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So, the resurrection Paul is talking about is not a spirit-only resurrection. It is the resurrection of an actual body, but in a new form.

Oh, wait, there’s another obvious problem, based on that verse. Did you notice what happens to the natural body? It’s not discarded! Instead, it is raised!

Not sure how much plainer he could be…

We’ll get back to I Corinthians, but let’s pause for a survey of Paul’s other writings. We will only look at epistles which are widely considered by scholars to be authentic letters from Paul.

I mentioned Philippians 3:20-21 last time, but I think it bears repeating at this point:

[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, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

But this time, I’m not stopping with Philippians. Lest you still harbor any doubt that Paul believed in bodily resurrection, consider two verses from Romans 8:

[Rom 8:11 KJV] 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead SHALL ALSO QUICKEN YOUR MORTAL BODIES by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

[Rom 8:23 KJV] 23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY.

If you’re still not sure whether or not Paul believed in bodily resurrection, I implore you to tell me why. Or perhaps the following will help?

Moses the friendly ghost?

Enough beating around the bush.

Let’s directly address the allegation made by Reginald H. Fuller, according to his obituary (2) in The New York Times. I don’t have it front of me, because there is a paywall, but his argument is that the Greek word used to describe the appearances in the earlier part of I Corinthians 15 is the same word used elsewhere to describe spiritual apparitions. The same paragraph in the obituary mentions that Fuller disputed the corporeal resurrection of Jesus.

The more I ponder this argument, the weaker it becomes.

First of all, as I discussed last time, Paul already describes his Damascus road experience as a “heavenly vision” in Acts 26:19. So, we should readily grant that Paul was allowed to see something on that road that no one else present could see. The important question is, what did he see? And it should be very clear, based on the Romans and Philippians passages I cited above, and especially based on I Corinthians 15:8 where he includes himself in the list of post-resurrection eyewitnesses, that he saw the risen Jesus.

Secondly, I don’t know which underlying Greek manuscript Fuller is alluding to, but I checked the Textus Receptus (the manuscript used by the King James translators) and discovered that the word translated “seen” in I Corinthians 15:5-8 is optanomai (ὀπτάνομαι). And yes, that word refers in many verses to spiritual appearances, but not always, as seen here:

[Act 7:26 KJV] 26 And the next day he SHEWED himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another? 

No, this isn’t the story of Moses the friendly ghost. This is actually a retelling of the story of real-life, flesh and blood Moses interacting with his Hebrew brethren. And the word “shewed” in that verse, is, you guessed it, translated from optanomai. Not a spiritual appearance!

Greek is very different than English, but there is one thing they clearly have in common. A word can mean different things depending on the context.

So, yes, I reject Fuller’s argument, based on my best understanding of Scripture, despite all his degrees and his fancy obituaries.

Plan B

If you’re still skeptical of the possibility that a random Joe could have a better grasp of Biblical hermeneutics/translation than a Cambridge scholar, I get it. And so does Habermas, which is why he marshals a neutral, nay, a hostile scholarly source to support his claims.

From the atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann (and if you want more on him, see post #18 in the linked outline above), quoted by Habermas from a debate between William Lane Craig and Lüdemann:

Lüdemann:

“Let me hasten to add that I do not question the physical nature of Jesus’ appearance from heaven. … In the rest of chapter 15 Paul develops his idea of a bodily resurrection, which according to the apostle can be deduced directly from the proclamation in I Corinthians 15:3-5.”

And one for the road, again from Habermas:

“In addition, the highly critical New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, ‘For Paul … bodily resurrection is the only way that Jesus’ continued presence can be expressed.”

So, yes…Paul saw the fully resurrected Jesus.

A solution in search of a problem

Here is what I consider the strongest argument, based on I Corinthians 15, in favor of a spirit-only resurrection:

[1Co 15:50 KJV] 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I saw this verse and wasn’t sure what to say. How could our bodies be resurrected if this verse says our bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God? Wouldn’t this verse make more sense if only our spirits rose again?

The first problem with that line of questioning is that it goes against all the other clear passages, written by Paul and cited above, which do allege a bodily resurrection.

The second problem is that flesh and blood is not a catch-all term for any and all human bodies. It’s specific. See if you can’t tease out the sense of “flesh and blood” from this passage:

[Heb 2:14-15 KJV] 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of FLESH AND BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through DEATH he might destroy him that had the power of DEATH, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

For 10 points, what type of body does “flesh and blood” refer to?

It should be obvious at this point; “flesh and blood” refers to mortal bodies. Get it? “Mortal”? “Mortal wound”? “Death”? (a word that is mentioned 3 times in the passage above).

For another way of seeing this, check out the two paraphrases below and see which one makes more sense:

[Heb 2:14-15 KJV] 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of [perfected glorious bodies that will never die], he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through DEATH he might destroy him that had the power of DEATH, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

[Heb 2:14-15 KJV] 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of [bodies that decay until finally and completely ceasing to function], he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through DEATH he might destroy him that had the power of DEATH, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

The first paraphrase makes it sound like Jesus was a solution in search of a problem. Why would He need to do anything for us if we already had glorious, immortal bodies? That can’t be right.

The second paraphrase clearly presents a problem (we live in bodies destined to die), and then the solution: Jesus takes on human form and experiences death Himself, saving us from fear of death via hope of resurrection. For more on that passage, you may want to read my other blog post on it (3).

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death

My wife is so beautiful that she makes me stammer sometimes; I Corinthians 15 has a similar effect.

I would call I Corinthians 15 a masterpiece, except that “masterpiece” seems woefully inadequate for such a thing of beauty. Paul just drops one headline-ready, mic-drop-ready, tombstone-ready (even Harry-Potter-ready! (4)) verse after another.

And it’s one of these epic verses…

[1Co 15:26 KJV] 26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

that I’ll use as my final evidence of Paul’s actual beliefs about the resurrection.

What is death? I heard long ago that it’s the separation of the soul from the body, and finally decided to look up who said it. Wouldn’t you know, it comes from Socrates (5), the famous Greek philosopher. And it jives perfectly with I Corinthians 15 if you understand the chapter in terms of bodily resurrection!

If death is the separation of the soul from the body, then what better way to destroy death than…

the reunification of the soul and body?

Links:

(1) Objective vision theory on wikipedia (click, then scroll down)

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

(3) On being freer

(4) A gem from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

(5) Socrates on death