A question of continuity and discontinuity.
I was reading 1 Corinthians 15, and something struck me that I had not previously considered. Jesus was physically raised from the dead. This is a historical fact. Christ died, was buried, was raised, and appeared to witnesses. If that did not happen, the Christian faith collapses. No Christian can question the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The standard orthodox position is simple enough. Jesus was raised physically, and because he is the firstfruits of those who sleep, those who belong to him will eventually be raised physically in the same way. But our understanding of how the old and new covenant relate to one another may provide a reason to rethink this time-honored understanding.
The Old Testament constantly used physical realities to communicate truths that are greater than the physical form itself. The temple was a real building, but it pointed beyond itself to the dwelling of God among his people. Circumcision was a real physical act, but Scripture later speaks of circumcision of the heart. Israel really came out of Egypt, but that deliverance became a pattern for a greater redemption. In other words, these physical things were not unreal, but their ultimate purpose was to represent new covenant spiritual realities.
Consider the following: Jesus was physically crucified on a Roman cross, but Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ.” He obviously does not mean that he was physically nailed to the same cross. But participation in Christ’s crucifixion is nevertheless real. Romans 6 takes the same idea even further. We have both died with Christ and been buried with Christ. We now walk in newness of life. Colossians tells us that we have been raised with Christ. Our crucifixion with him is not physical. Christ physically died, but our death with him is not biological. Christ was physically buried, but our burial with him did not involve being placed in a tomb. Yet all of these things are spoken of as real participation in what Christ accomplished.
So why do we assume that resurrection must work differently?
The fact that our Lord’s resurrection was physical does not by itself prove that ours must duplicate its physical form, because Paul does not require that kind of duplication when he speaks of our participation in Christ’s crucifixion, death, or burial.
The Lord’s Supper seems to reinforce the same point. Paul says that the cup is a participation in the blood of Christ and the bread a participation in his body. That communion is real without being physically identical. We are not literally consuming Christ’s flesh or drinking His blood. The bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine, yet our communion with Christ is genuine.
Spiritual communion is still communion. Being raised with Christ is still resurrection. Christ is the identified firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, so there is undeniable continuity between Christ’s resurrection and ours.
So “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” Rather than clearly stating that we receive the same kind of physical body Jesus had when he emerged from the tomb, Paul contrasts seed sown with what it becomes. There is continuity, but there is also transformation.
That seems to be Paul’s emphasis all the way through the chapter. He contrasts what is perishable with what is imperishable, what is weak with what is powerful, and the natural body with the spiritual body. The first man, Adam, is from the earth, while the second man, Christ, is from heaven. We have borne the image of the earthly man, and we shall bear the image of the heavenly man.
Maybe the traditional interpretation is right, and all of this describes the transformation of our physical bodies into immortal physical bodies. That is certainly possible. But what kind of physical body does not need oxygen or food or rest, no one can say. It seems to me that Paul’s concern is broader than physical composition. Paul states definitively that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and that the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable.
So what if Christ’s physical resurrection was the historical, visible manifestation of something even greater than a dead body coming back to life? What if the empty tomb was the visible sign of an even greater spiritual reality? That would not make the physical resurrection less important. The empty tomb would not merely prove that Jesus had power over biological death. It would mark the beginning of a new creation, a new mode of human life in Christ.
I would not call this “merely symbolic,” because that would make it sound like the physical resurrection was only an illustration. It was not. It actually happened, and it actually accomplished something. The question is whether what it accomplished is greater than the physical form in which it appeared. Christ physically died on a cross, but his death becomes my death in union with him without my physically reenacting Golgotha. In the Lord’s Supper, physical bread and wine communicate a real spiritual participation in Christ without becoming Christ’s literal flesh and blood. So is it at least possible that Christ’s physical resurrection is likewise the visible and historical form of a greater resurrection reality that those united to him already.
Does Paul’s identification of Christ as the first fruits of those who are asleep require physical duplication, or does it mean that Christ is the representative beginning of a new humanity whose life is shared by everyone who is in him?
I do not have a dogmatic answer, but the more I reread the text in light of the continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, the less satisfied I am with simply saying, “Jesus rose physically, therefore we must rise physically in the same way,” and leaving it there. Paul’s theology of union with Christ seems richer than that. Maybe the traditional bodily resurrection view is still the best reading. But I think the question deserves to be asked without fear of where it might lead. I can live with questions that cannot be answered, easier than I can with answers that cannot be questioned.
Article posted with permission from Bill Evans
