He is Risen! What Does That Mean?

The resurrection of Jesus, in some sense, is foundational to Christianity. From the beginning followers of Jesus pointed to his resurrection as the authentication of his divine authority (Romans 1:1-4). The resurrection of Jesus is viewed as essential to the gospel which believers must hold firmly (1 Cor. 15:2). Paul even argues that if Christ is not raised his preaching is useless and so is faith (1 Cor. 15:14). But what is meant by the resurrection of Jesus? How are we to understand it? In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul offers a primitive Christian “creed” which likely dates to near the time of Christ. In this text, and the verses which follow, we have the earliest written tradition available concerning the nature of Christ’s resurrection (predating the Gospels and Acts by several years). Paul writes:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Cor. 15:3-8)

Among those who acknowledge the “reality” of Christ’s resurrection there are at least three major theories concerning its nature: (1) a “spiritual” resurrection; (2) a physical resurrection, in which Jesus was raised in the same kind of body; and (3) a physical resurrection, in which Jesus was raise in a glorified body.[1]

It has been argued that, since Paul considers his encounter with the risen Christ equal to those experienced by Peter and the other Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), Paul’s experience reveals the true nature of these extraordinary encounters.[2] From what can be gathered about the nature of Christ’s appearance to Paul from Acts (Acts 9; 22; 26) and his letters, some have argued for a purely spiritual (none physical/bodily) resurrection. John Dominic Crossan prefers to use the language of “visions” or “apparitions” in speaking of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ, considering the meaning (relevance, significance, implications) rather than the mode (literal vs. metaphorical) of Christ’s resurrection to be the most important issue.[3] Some have further argued that the Greek word translated “appeared” in the 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is commonly used of mystic visions of a subjective, rather than objective, nature.[4] This, it is claimed, accounts for why some of those who experienced the resurrected Christ were unable to recognize him or still doubted (Luke 24:15-16; Matt. 28:17).

It is countered by those who hold to a physical resurrection of Jesus that the word “appeared” can also be used of objective bodily presence such as, “Paul appeared in court.”[5] In debating Crossan N. T. Wright argues that: “(1) the resurrection of the body is properly understood as life after ‘life after death,’ i.e., a renewed bodily existence that follows the non-bodily interim between death and resurrection; (2) Paul truly believed in bodily resurrection…; and (3) early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus did not arise from private, mystical experiences…”[6] If Paul is quoting a very early tradition in 1 Corinthian 15 it is argued that an empty tomb is clearly implied. If there was an empty tomb, then it follows that the resurrection of Jesus was understood to be a literal bodily resurrection. Lee McDonald points out the significance of Paul’s use of “it” in 1 Corinthians 15: “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:42-44). “It” in this text clearly refers to a body. To account for Jesus’ unusual abilities after the resurrection, ie., walking through walls (John 20) and disappearing (Luke 24), some appeal to 1 Corinthian 15 to make a case for a glorified bodily resurrection. While there is an organic connection between the earthy and glorified bodies, the glorified body is qualitatively different from the earthly one.

In the end, a purely spiritual “resurrection” may leave one wondering, in the words of Clayton N. Croy, “about the interrelationship of mode and meaning. Is it possible that the latter is in some measure dependent on the former? What is the meaning — for history and for creation — of an “event” that is non-historical and did not involve the stuff of creation, namely, Jesus’ body?