I Corinthians 15:12-20 (NRSV)
Paul turns from witness to Christ's resurrection to its implication for faith. The text represents a portion of Paul's major disposition on the relationship of the resurrection of Jesus Christ proclaimed in the early Christian kerygma, and the general resurrection of the dead at the second coming of Christ. Is it possible for someone to affirm his or faith, using the Apostle’s Creed, convinced that “on the third day he rose again from the dead,” but doubting “the resurrection of the body”? What is the connection between Christ’s resurrection and our own? Why is Paul so insistent that Christians then and now make this connection? As with all of Paul's discussion of such doctrinal notions, his treatment of the resurrection in I Corinthians 15 has its basis in practical matters within the church. Paul was dealing at Corinth with some serious skepticism on the issue of resurrection. Because we are hearing only one side of this discussion — namely Paul’s side — it is unclear what the Corinthians to whom he is referring had come to doubt. Therefore, while some in Corinth say there is no resurrection from the dead, scholars debate what this denial means. Paul will offer an opportunity to reflect upon our theology of death. The hope of which Christians speak rests on the bedrock of the resurrection of Jesus.
12 Now, if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? At the center of the Christian proclamation is that God has raised Christ from the dead. Paul will answer the question forcefully in verse 20. Nowhere do Paul’s doubts about the theological maturity of the Corinthians emerge more clearly than in his impassioned discussion of the resurrection of the dead in this passage. It has apparently come to Paul’s attention that some of the members of the church in Corinth do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Paul uses the pedagogical style of his age to build what he hopes will be an incontestable argument that will persuade his opponents. What were the opponents of Paul proposing? Did they doubt that God would raise anyone from the dead, Christ included? Alternatively, did they doubt that anyone besides Christ could escape the grave? Either way this raises some serious theological difficulties for Paul. Albert Schweitzer thinks that what makes these opponents of Paul interesting is that they did not doubt the resurrection of Jesus.[1] They doubted their own resurrection. Those who have hope are those who are alive at the time of the return of Jesus. It seems as though some within the Corinthian community deny the existence of the general resurrection. Paul has just shown that the resurrection of Jesus is consistent apostolic testimony. Nevertheless, a favorite opposition text is that dead people do not rise. One possibility is that these people probably believed the general Greek philosophy of the impossibility of resurrection. At the least, what one can discern is that, though the early Christian kerygma proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus, it did not stipulate the connection of his resurrection to the general resurrection at the end of history. This Jewish apocalyptic belief was widely held by other Jews at the time of Paul. Certainly, upon the spectrum of Jewish belief there were those Jews who held to a general resurrection of the dead. Paul would agree. However, to Paul, only the resurrection of Jesus gives any belief in a general resurrection of the dead any significant meaning. The resurrection of Jesus defeats the power of sin and death and is a sign of inclusion of the Gentiles into the promises given to the Jews. Yet, the idea of bodily resurrection was relatively rare outside ancient Judaism, and even in Jewish circles there was some dispute; remember that Jesus at one point is questioned by the Sadducees, “who say there is no resurrection” (Mark 12:18; Matthew 22:23; Luke 20:27). The Stoic and Epicurean philosophers who listened to Paul’s famous speech on the Areopagus are unimpressed with Paul’s claims about the “resurrection of the dead” (Acts 17:32). Since Paul is writing to a community that recognizes itself as a Christian community - in fact, many in the Corinthian community see themselves as "super-Christians" - it may seem a bit odd that he needs to stress the resurrection. However, there were in the Corinthian church those who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. It may be true, as some scholars suggest, that there were a variety of options concerning the meaning of resurrection accepted in early Christianity. Therefore, Paul might not have been arguing solely against a strictly materialistic view that dead bodies do not come back to life. If, on the one hand, they believed that Christ walked out of the tomb and appeared to many people as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9, but do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, that would imply that they do not believe Christ was a real human being. They might have been laboring under one of the many heretical misconceptions of the day, such as Docetism, which taught that Jesus was never fully human, but rather a divine being merely visiting the earth and appearing human to our eyes. Denying the humanity of Jesus would be one way of accepting the resurrection appearances and the divine nature of Christ while at the same time denying that God might resurrect human beings after the example of Christ. It appears that the community proclaims Christ risen but rejects the idea of the resurrection of the dead. That implies that they believe that Christ was never truly dead, and likely, never truly human.
Thus, matters regarding the resurrection in the Christian faith are for Paul both elementary and ultimate. He was not willing to surrender the Jewish apocalyptic hope in order to become more appealing to the Greek intellectual world. The character and content of the body of Christ has its foundation upon the hope and faith that God has raised Jesus from the dead and through Christ will defeat death and raise those who are in Christ from the dead. What Paul does here and in other places (e.g., I Thessalonians 4:13-18) is to work with established apocalyptic expectations, and connect the Christian kerygma with them. In this sense, Jesus' resurrection becomes an inaugural moment in a new phase of salvation history. The description of the scope of this moment, and its unfolding implications, is what concerns Paul in these verses. The preaching of resurrection from the dead is inseparable from that of the judgment of God, for God brings the dead to account for their former deeds.[2]
Paul’s goal, of course, is to persuade those who disavow the resurrection of the dead to change their view in order to achieve consistency with their belief in Christ’s resurrection. To fail to do so would be in Paul’s eyes a great tragedy. Paul uses what the logic of syllogism in the following passage. In philosophy, the logic goes like this. Human beings are mortal. Socrates is a human being. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. In this case, the syllogism goes like this. The dead do not rise. Jesus died. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Of course, Paul will reverse this logic of his opponents. God raised Christ from the dead. Christ was a human being. Therefore, God will raise the dead. Paul employs two simple logical conditions in order to construct his case. He states his first logical condition: 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. He will repeat it in verse 16. Paul then offers the second conditional statement that follows from the first: 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. He will repeat and expand the point in verses 17-18. Paul is going to stress that the denial of Christ's resurrection means the denial of apostolic teaching. Christ appeared to them is the content of the apostolic preaching and the theme of the faith of the community that it awakened. This preaching tells us that God has ratified that which took place for us, for our redemption, and for our salvation. It alters the human situation. It reveals the obedience rendered by the Son. It reveals the grace shown by the Father to the Son and to humanity. Because it has happened, our justification follows. The resurrection is the verdict of the Father that radically alters the human situation. The community understands itself and its time in the world in the light of the resurrection. It looks forward to its fullness in the second coming of Jesus Christ. In fact, the cross is light for Christians because of the resurrection.[3] 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. Paul considers only truth or falsity, not a "pious illusion." Christians would be providing false and misleading information about God if God has not raised Jesus from the dead.
If it be all for naught, for nothingness
At last, why does God make the world so fair?
Why spill this golden splendor out across
The western hills, and light the silver lamp
Of eve? Why give me eyes to see, and soul
To love so strong and deep? Then, with a pang
This brightness stabs me through, and wakes within
Rebellious voice to cry against all death?
Why set this hunger for eternity
To gnaw my heartstrings through, if death ends all?
If death ends all, then evil must be good,
Wrong must be right, and beauty ugliness.
God is a Judas who betrays His Son,
And with a kiss, damns all the world to hell,--
If Christ rose not again.[4]
16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. If God has not raised Christ for our justification, his death becomes null, for there is no redemptive power. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. To state it plainly, Paul is asserting that the Corinthians cannot have their cake and eat it, too. If they want to maintain that there is no resurrection from the dead, then they cannot continue to claim that God raised Christ from the dead. Paul does not consider the possibility that what happened to Jesus was unique to him. Rather, he assumes it has implications for humanity. Paul intends to show the logical necessity of the resurrection given the Corinthians’ own proclamation about Christ. To Paul this is more than interesting theological chatter or ethical exhortation. He is very clear that if there is no resurrection of Jesus, not only is there no resurrection for the believer but one would legitimately find the entire proclamation of Christianity to be invalid. For Paul, the essence of Christianity is not a morality or an ethic but a statement about the nature and purpose of God and the power of Jesus Christ over sin and death. If there is no resurrection, then the old connection between sin, judgment and death remain. His point seems to be that if death has swallowed up Jesus, if Jesus is truly extinct, if the curse of sin overwhelmed him, one has subverted then the entire Christian notion that God has revealed the saving intent of God through Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah. Salvation will not come through Christ if death and sin have their victory over Christ. Paul is suggesting that the entire gospel consists in the cross and resurrection. The church must stand here if the gospel is to make progress in the world.[5] If there is no resurrection, then Gentiles are not included in the promise. If there is no resurrection, for all their sophistication the Corinthians are in no better position than they were before Christ. If there is no resurrection, then Paul's proclamation is not only a chimera but in fact those who hold to the belief anyway are actually embracing an historical event of a grisly death - not celebrating a life - and there is no hope. The foolishness and pitifulness of such a proposition is self-evident to Paul. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied (ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων). Paul takes it for granted in this whole passage that the resurrection of the dead belongs to the core of Christian faith. If there is no such thing, the preaching and faith of the early church are invalid, according to this passage. Denial of resurrection means the destruction of Christian hope. Christians would lead a pathetic life if this hope were not true. Paul is not afraid of the charge of offering, “pie in the sky, by and by.” The Christian hope overcomes the misery and evils of this life. The scope of God's saving work in Christ goes way beyond what we can see now. Hope that only encompasses what Christ means for the present life is pitiable hope. It is small hope. Paul calls the church to greater hope. Yet, what he finds interesting is that this message is so incredible to his Corinthians audience that he has to prove its right to receive a hearing. Paul is arguing that what God has done in Christ in rising him from the dead is not an exceptional case. Paul has argued that his death was “for us,” and now he argues that his resurrection has implications “for us” as well. Modern theology has tried to go another direction, basing the hope of life beyond death on the fellowship of believers with Christ now. Our present experience of Easter as a symbol is more important than whether God physically raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. Truth becomes a matter of personal belief and preference. The fact that Easter occurs in the spring is not helpful, for the reduction of the message of Easter to the repeated cycles of nature is tempting. The symbol shields us from the stark uniqueness of the event of Easter.[6] The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a specific instance of a universal human promise and possibility. Yet, the presence of Jesus in resurrection is more radical and unique by virtue of the way he influences the way the world is.[7] Clearly, the emphasis upon this fellowship is important for the continuation of the influence of Christ upon the world. Yet, the basis of such hope relies upon the prior demonstrated power of God to overcome death.[8] Truth is event rather than a pious longing or illusion.
According to Paul, without the resurrection of Jesus all who thought themselves part of the new dispensation of grace, freed from sin and death, remain locked in the prison of the old dispensation: Gentiles are not part of the kingdom promise. It is the fact of the resurrection that gives meaning and weight to every other issue according to Paul. Hence, even more important than proper practice is proper proclamation.
I Corinthians 15:20 begins a section that extends to verse 28 dealing with the theme of accepting the consequences of the resurrection, applying the resurrection of Jesus to the resurrection of humanity.
20 Nevertheless, in fact, God has raised Christ from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. Paul reasserts his claim with no hesitation. Significantly, the idea of rising from the dead to a new and eternal life has its roots in Jewish eschatological hope. For passages like this, we have the idea of the resurrection of the just as a transition to eternal life. It was clearly not a return to earthly life. It calls Christians to righteous, hopeful and faithful living. The verse implies a bodily resurrection. Note the shift to a joyful note. Christ is the first fruit of human resurrection. The mood shifts to triumphant. In what sense could Paul say that Christ is the "first fruits?" It might refer to the Passover, since the ceremony of the first fruits occurs during that week. In Deuteronomy, God commands for an offering the first fruits of the crop with a profession of gratitude to God for deliverance from Egyptian bondage and the possession of the fruitful land of Palestine. Christ is the first fruits of a new redemption. Having shown that claiming there is no resurrection of the dead is an untenable theological position, Paul confidently asserts what he believes to be the correct belief. Christ’s resurrection marks the beginning of a great harvest season during which those who have died God will also eventually raise. He places the resurrection of Jesus in a temporal frame. For those who might claim their libertine rights in a Christology and eschatology that views resurrection as fully realized in the present, Paul demonstrates that God will reveal more. This is a process, like the harvest, in which there is an early, promissory crop. Christ's resurrection is like that crop. This is good news indeed for any age, and offers a power of living that lifts the believer beyond and above any pressure of life.[9]
Paul does not seem to think that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a matter of indifference. He does not invite Christians to believe it or not to believe it. Rather, he suggests that if you take it away, the whole picture is different. The go-to prophets of our time could be right about Christianity. Karl Marx could be right in accusing Christianity of offering a future illusion of happiness that makes them ignore their present suffering at the hands of capitalists and thus impedes their willingness to change their situation. Sigmund Freud could be right in saying Christianity is nothing more than a wish-fulfillment belief that invites people to ignore their harsh reality. Friedrich Nietzsche could be right in saying Christianity is only for the weak.[10]
Belief in the resurrection of the body is a leap of faith, to be sure. Yet, I would like to invite you to a brief bit of speculation. If we are ensouled bodies, as Karl Barth and many other theologians have come to believe, then the resurrection of the body involves admirable consistency within the biblical witness. Today, we think of the soul as “within” the body. The resurrection of the body may well envision a time when the body will be within the soul. The means by which we know bodies and the world will change. We have an analogy of this in our experience of memory. Our memory of past events keeps alive the painful and joyful events of our past. Memory may well be a feeble anticipation of the future resurrection of the body, in which soul (memory) will now embrace body. In philosophy, one can affirm that the Infinite and Eternal embrace the finite and the temporal. As space-time is “in” God, so our little, insignificant, and individual space-time will be “in” soul. The new heaven and new earth will be the same, yet, not the same. Such speculations can only be that. The Bible itself is largely poetic about eternal life with God will be like. However, the resurrection of Jesus and the creedal affirmation of the resurrection of the body understandably invite us to such speculation. We are wondering, questioning beings, after all. What happen if the sensuous life rose from its death to new life in the soul? We would then have a powerful image of Christian hope for the redemption of all that God has made.[11]
I do understand the difficulty in believing the apostolic witness concerning the resurrection of Jesus and its implication for us. Death is final. We can go to any cemetery and see how final death is. The finality of death confronts each of us. When death comes, that is it. You log off. Screen fades to black. Game over. Beyond that, our science confronts us with the cold, death-like existence of the universe. It no longer thinks life is everywhere in the universe. Life, if we do find it somewhere, is not in the Milky Way galaxy. So far, the galaxies in our neighborhood of the universe do not appear to have life. While such reflections can be depressing, they also provide a context for the nature of the hope contained in the witness to the resurrection of Jesus and its implication for our lives. Such a discussion can feel like diverting attention away from life here and now. Yet, it can also deal with the practical question of whether death has the final word. If death is that final word, do our lives have an ultimate meaning or purpose?
Frankly, if we view ourselves as isolated individuals, meaning and purpose will be impossible to find. Connecting our lives with eternity assures us that we are accountable for the way we live our lives. Our lives are not simply about temporality. Our individual lives have meaning only in the context of the story of our lives, and the influence that story has on the lives we touch. The story that other people tell intersects with our story, and influences us. Our individual lives have meaning in such webs of relationships, where we influence each other far more profoundly than we imagine. Even then, our lives will have little meaning, for most of us influence the lives of a relatively small number of persons. Within our immediate families, after a few generations most will not know our names. They will not know what we did with our lives. Our ancestors lived and died, having influences upon our lives in ways most of us will never explicitly know. For me, belief in the resurrection is as simple as this: God loves each of us individually to such extent that God will not allow eternity to forget any of us. God is the one who connects our finite, time-bound lives with eternity. Therefore, we are accountable for how we live our lives. Accountability to the ultimate means the vices and virtues that are part of our lives matter to God. I do not pretend to know all the details of the nature of that life. My only confidence of that kind of love is the life-giving power of the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. As hard as it may be at times for me, here is the truth to which I cling. I do not pretend to understand the nature of the resurrection of Jesus. I do have the confidence that this connection between Father and Son is a connection Jesus established with humanity. In Jesus Christ, we learn that death will not have the final word. The final word belongs to God, and that word is life.
[1] Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 93)
[2] Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament, Volume 1, p. 77)
[3] Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1, p. 334 [59.3])
[4] ... Anonymous, Unknown soldier, killed in World War I,
included in Masterpieces of Religious Verse, James
Dalton Morrison, ed., New York: Harper & Bros., 1948,
p. 205
[5] John Calvin, in his commentary on this passage, makes all of this quite clear.
For what remains if Christ has been swallowed up by death — if he has become extinct — if he has been overwhelmed by the curse of sin — if, in fine, he has been overcome by Satan? In short, if that fundamental article is subverted, all that remains will be of no moment. … in the death of Christ, considered in itself, — “That is to say, apart from his resurrection.” there is seen nothing but ground of despair, for he cannot be the author of salvation to others, who has been altogether vanquished by death. Let us therefore bear in mind, that the entire gospel consists mainly in the death and resurrection of Christ, so that we must direct our chief attention to this, if we would desire, in a right and orderly manner, to make progress in the gospel ...
[6] -Loren Wilkinson, "How Green Is Easter?" Christianity Today, April 5, 1999, 48-49.
[7] Peter Hodgson (Winds of the Spirit, p. 274) The risen Jesus becomes “a co-determining factor in the present constitution of the world,” at least, when his “Christ-gestalt” takes shape in the world. For him, the identity of Jesus of Nazareth is borne through history by this gestalt. However, this identity is so intense that Jesus himself is felt to be personally present and active in the work of liberation involved in reconciliation. This takes place through the power of God. God contains within the divine life both the individual self and the world in which the risen self is newly emobodied. In rising into the world we rise into God.
[8] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, p. 534)
[9] W. D. Davies (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 106)
[10] -N. T. Wright, "Grave matters," Christianity Today, April 6, 1998.
[11] Lewis, C.S., Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. G. Bles: 1964, 121-22, 158.
No comments:
Post a Comment