The Resurrection: Physical Body or Disembodied Spirit?

Posted by Clark Bates
April 16, 2019




This week is Holy Week, when the Christian church reflects on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  As everyone knows, even if they are not Christian, the week culminates with Easter Sunday, long believed to have been the historical day of the week when Christ rose from the grave.  Special occasions such as this are essential for life within the church as they remind us of the reality of our core beliefs.  At the same time, public celebrations such as this also create a target of sorts for nonbelievers and skeptics, wherein they can attack what they perceive as “foolishness” within Christianity.  While this has taken many forms for millennia, one of the more recent attacks related to the resurrection of Jesus is the nature by which he was raised.

I am referring to the belief that Christ was not raised bodily, but that the disciples only saw visions of him.  This argument has waxed and waned through the years, finding adherents in the likes of Rudolf Bultmann, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and even Bart Ehrman.  It has recently been “resurrected” (pun intended) by the modern Jesus mythicist movements.  While not quoting from any one skeptic in particular, the form of this argument often traces to the statements of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.  In what is arguably a favorite passage for Christian apologists because of its antiquity and its presentation of the resurrection, 1 Cor. 15:3-9 contains the earliest recorded creed of the Christian church.  While this might seem like fool-proof evidence in favor of the bodily resurrection, some skeptics have argued that it is the exact opposite.  The argument follows these general premises:

---

In vv. 5-8 Paul relates the resurrection appearances of Christ, including himself at the end.
Paul is implicitly comparing these appearances with his own, suggesting that he saw Christ in the same way that the apostles and these others did.

However, according to Acts 9:5-7, Paul only had a vision wherein he heard the voice of Jesus.

What’s more, Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 15:44 that the believer’s resurrection body is a “spiritual body” not a natural one.

And, in 1 Cor. 15:50, Paul unequivocally states that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.

Therefore, according to the apologist’s favorite resurrection passage, Paul is arguing for a spiritual resurrection or type of vision, NOT a physical, bodily resurrection as is often claimed.

---

Based on this argument, it is reasoned that the belief in a spiritual resurrection preceded belief in a physical resurrection.  The strengths of the argument are that it appears to follow the evidence within the text and it hinges on the oldest creed in Scripture, making it prior to any other writing.  Because of this, it cannot be argued that because the Gospels record a physical resurrection of Jesus, that Paul means that he too saw Jesus bodily, because the creed Paul uses in 1 Corinthians predates every Gospel.

So, what do we do with this claim?

The best response is one that takes the claim seriously and examines each line of evidence.  The first few arguments are not really deniable.  It is true that Paul is comparing his experience with the risen Lord to that of the apostles.  It is also true that the recording of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 only recounts a voice, not a bodily appearance.  For this reason, I see no need to argue against the first points.  The real question comes with the context of the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians.  What does Paul mean by “spiritual body” and “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”?

 

What Was Paul Thinking?!

Immediately following Paul’s use of the creed, in vv. 12-34, he responds to an unknown question posed by the Corinthian church.  He states,

---

“Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?”

---

It would seem that there are some, perhaps a Christian faction, within the church at Corinth that are claiming that there is no resurrection from the dead.  The apostle’s response is to point out that if there is no resurrection from the dead then neither is Christ raised, so why are you preaching the resurrection of Christ?!  What follows is the adamant assertion that without the resurrection of Christ there is no Christian faith.  He then follows that point by arguing that Christ was the “firstfruits” (i.e. one to come first) of all believers that die, meaning that His resurrection is emblematic of the Christian’s resurrection.  This is followed by another critique of those who are baptizing for the dead.  While nothing is known about this practice, it can be presumed that the same individuals arguing against the resurrection of the saints are the ones performing this baptismal ritual because Paul’s point is that it’s nonsensical to baptize for the dead if there is no resurrection! What’s more, he will go on to say, there is no reason to live in any other way than licentiousness, for without the resurrection, life is fleeting.

Natural Body or Spiritual Body?

In vv.35-54, we have the statements quoted by the skeptic.  In v.44, Paul states that “it” (i.e. the body

of the saint) is sown a natural body and raised as a spiritual body.  In Greek it is the apposition of two terms ψυχικὸν (natural) vs. πνευματικὸν (spiritual). However, v.44 doesn’t stand alone.  It is the continuation of a thought that really begins as far back as v.35 wherein the Apostle begins discussing the different types of bodies in the created world.  The point of this digression is to persuade the reader that a “body” can take on multiple forms.  This is especially true in the case of a seed that has one kind of body when it is laid in the ground, but a completely different type of body when it springs forth from the ground.  Both bodies are different, but they are still bodies.

That being said, the immediate context of v.44 begins in v. 42 where Paul writes,

---

“It is the same with the resurrection of the dead.  What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.  It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

---

It is clear that there is a pattern of comparison being made here:

Perishable vs. imperishable = dishonor vs. glory = weakness vs. power = natural vs. spiritual

To put it another way:

Perishable = dishonor = weakness = natural
Imperishable = glory = power = spiritual

There is one final comparison made in v. 45:

---

“So also it is written, ‘the first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

---

What we have in this portion of Paul’s argument is not a discussion of bodily resurrection versus a disembodied spirit, but a discussion on that which was made in Adam but restored in Christ!  That which was sown a natural body is that which was under Adam; that which was raised a spiritual body is that which is under Christ.  In both cases there are bodies, but the difference is who has control.[1]

What about the Flesh and Blood?

Moving to v. 50, we come to the last claim.  Paul writes,

---

“Now this is what I am saying brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”

---

As we have just seen above, the argument Paul is using in the preceding verses is still being applied here.  The use of “flesh and blood” clearly means physical in the same sense as the “natural body” of v.45, but it is again qualified with the same language.  The perishable does not inherit the imperishable, therefore it must be changed from perishable to imperishable; from mortal to immortal.  The emphasis in chapter 15 is not on the corporeal or a disembodied spirit, but the transference of a sinful body to one renewed in Christ Jesus.  A different body, but not the lack of a body.

Conclusion

Without appealing to the Gospels for support it is possible to diffuse the power of this skeptical claim, simply by letting Paul speak for himself.  While the argument seems weighty at first blush, a closer look at the text reveals that it stands on sinking sand.  It could be noted as well that the idea of a physical body ascending to the gods is not foreign to Greeks[2] or Jews[3] and thus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and his subsequent ascension was not without general precedent.  What would be striking to them is how this action of Jesus’ could affect anyone else.  This is why Paul’s argument carries the weight that it did.  Not only did this Jesus rise bodily from the grave and was seen, but his resurrection guarantees that those who are “in Christ” will share in the same victory over death.
The resurrection of Jesus is the most important part of Christian belief not only because it is the culmination of who Jesus is, but also because it is the promise to all those who follow after Him.

Happy Easter!

[1] It should also be noted that the use of ψυχικὸν can mean a great many things, but one which fits this context best is that of “creaturely”.  The body under Adam was creaturely, but raised as spiritual under Christ.  Meaning, no longer a slave to the creaturely desires of old.

[2] Achilles (except in Homer), Memnon, Asclepius, Melicertes, Menelaus and Ino are Grecian examples.

[3] Elijah and Enoch are Jewish examples.