The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
Dr. William Lane Craig
William
Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in
It has been argued on the
basis of Paul’s testimony that Jesus’s resurrection body
was spiritual in the sense of being unextended,
immaterial, intangible, and so forth. But neither the argument appealing to the
nature of Paul’s
Source: "The Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham.
There are
probably few events in the gospels for which the historical evidence is more
compelling than for the resurrection of Jesus. Historical-critical studies
during the second half of this century, increasingly freed from the lingering
Deistical presuppositions that largely determined in advance the results of
resurrection research during the previous 150 years, have reversed the current
of scepticism concerning the historical resurrection,
such that the trend among scholars in recent years has been acceptance of the
historical credibility of Jesus's resurrection.
Nevertheless, there is
still one aspect of the resurrection that a great number of scholars simply
cannot bring themselves to embrace: that Jesus was raised from the dead physically. The physicalism
of the gospels' portrayal of Jesus's resurrection
body accounts, I think, more than any other single factor for critical
skepticism concerning the historicity of the gospel narratives of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus. Undoubtedly the prime example of this is Hans Grass's
classic Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte.
{2} Inveighing against the 'massiven Realismus' of the gospel
narratives, Grass brushes aside the appearance stories as thoroughly legendary
and brings every critical argument he can summon against the empty tomb. Not that
Grass would construe the resurrection, at least overtly, merely in terms of the
survival of Jesus's soul; he affirms a bodily
resurrection, but the body is 'spiritual' in nature, as by the apostle Paul,
not physical. Because the relation between the old, physical body and the new,
spiritual body is totaliter- aliter,
the resurrection entails, not an emptying of the tomb, but the creation of a
new body. Because the body is spiritual, the appearances of Christ were in the
form of heavenly visions caused by God in the minds of those chosen to receive
them.
It is difficult to
exaggerate the extent of Grass's influence. Though few have been willing to
join him in denying the empty tomb, since the evidence inclines in the opposite
direction, one not infrequently finds statements that because the resurrection
body does not depend upon the old body, we are not
compelled to believe in the empty tomb. And it is everywhere asserted, even by
those who staunchly defend the empty tomb, that the spiritual nature of the resurrection
body precludes physical appearances such as are narrated in the gospels. John Alsup remarks that '. . . no other work has been so widely
used or of such singular importance for the interpretation of the gospel
accounts. . . as Grass'. . .' {3}
But, Alsup protests, Grass's insistence that the
heavenly vision type of appearance underlies the physical appearances of the
gospels 'is predicated upon the impossibility of the material realism of that
latter form as an acceptable answer to the "what happened" question. . . . Grass superimposes
this criterion over the gospel appearance accounts and judges them by their
conformity or divergence from it.'{4}
As a result, '. . . the contemporary spectrum of research on the gospel
resurrection appearances displays a proclivity to the last century (and Celsus of the second century) in large measure under the
influence of Grass' approach. In a sense the gospel stories appear to be
something of an embarrassment: their "realism" is offensive.'{5}
What legitimate basis can
be given to such a viewpoint? Those who deny the physical resurrection body of
Jesus have developed a line of reasoning that has become pretty much
stock-in-trade:
The New
Testament church does not agree
about the nature of Christ's resurrected body. Material in Luke and John
perhaps suggest this body to be corporeal in nature.43 Paul, on the
other band, clearly argues that the body is a spiritual body. If any historical
memory resides in the accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts, he must not have
understood the appearance of Christ to have been a corporeal appearance. Most
critics identify this conversion with the event referred to in I Cor. 15:8: 'Last of all, as to one untimely born, he
appeared also to me.44 The arguments in verses 47-50 of this chapter
for the identity between Christ's body and the spiritual body of the
resurrection indicate that for the Apostle his Lord rose from the dead in a
spiritual body. Most importantly, Paul has equated the appearance of Christ to
him with the appearances to the other apostles. The resurrected Christ, as he
was manifested to the church is thus a spiritual body . . . .
------------------
43Luke 24.39-43; John 20.26-38. There are, of course, contradictory
elements in the stories which imply the body is more than physical. 44. . .{6}
We can formulate this reasoning as follows:
1. Paul's information is at least prima facie more reliable than the gospels. a. For he stands in closer temporal and personal proximity to the original events. 2. Paul's information, in contrast to the gospels, indicates Jesus possessed a purely spiritual resurrection body. a. First Argument: (1) Paul equated the appearance of Jesus to him with the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. (2) The appearance of Jesus to Paul was a non-physical appearance. (3) Therefore, the appearances of Jesus to the disciples were non-physical appearances. b. Second Argument: (1) Paul equated Jesus's resurrection body with our future resurrection bodies. (2) Our future resurrection bodies will be spiritual bodies. (3) Therefore, Jesus's resurrectionbody was a spiritual body. 3. Therefore, Jesus possessed a purely spiritual resurrection body.
In this way the gospel
accounts of the physical resurrection may be dismissed as legendary.
Now it is my conviction
that this reasoning cannot bear the weight placed upon it by those who would
reject the physical resurrection. I shall not in this essay contest the first
premise. But I wish to take sharp issue with the second. Neither of the two supporting
arguments, it seems to me, is sound; on the contrary, they embody serious
misconceptions.
With regard to the first
supporting argument, concerning the appearance of Jesus to Paul, it seems to me
that both premisses (1) and (2) are highly questionable.
Taking the premisses in reverse order, what is the
evidence for (2) The appearance of Jesus to Paul was a non-physical
appearance? Usually appeal is made to the accounts of this incident
in Acts, where, it is said, the appearance is to be understood as a visionary
experience (Acts 9.1-19: 22.3-16 26.9-23). As a matter of fact, however, the appearance in Acts, while involving
visionary elements, cannot without further ado be characterized as purely
visionary, since in all three accounts it is accompanied by extra-mental
phenomena, namely, the light and the voice, which were experienced by Paul's
companions. Grass dismisses these as due to Luke's objectifying tendencies.{7}
This is, however, very doubtful, since Luke does not
want to objectify the post-ascension
visions of Jesus; it is the pre-ascension
appearances whose extra-mental reality Luke emphasizes. Had Luke had no
tradition that included Paul's companions, then we should have another vision
like Stephen's, lacking extra-mental phenomena. And secondly, if Luke had
invented the extra-mental aspects of the appearance to Paul, we should have
expected him to be more consistent and not to construct such discrepancies as
that Paul's companions heard and did not hear the voice. These inconsistencies
suggest that the extra-mental phenomena were part of Luke's various traditions.
Grass further maintains
that Luke had before him a tradition of Paul's experience that could not be
assimilated to the more physical appearances of Christ to the disciples and
that therefore the tradition is reliable; the extra-mental aspects are the
result of mythical or legendary influences.{8}
But one could argue that precisely the opposite is
true: that because the appearance to Paul is a post-ascension experience Luke
is forced to construe it as a heavenly vision, since Jesus has physically
ascended. Grass's anthropomorphic parallels from Greek mythology (Homer Illiad a
158; idem Odyssey p. v. 161;
Apollonius Argonauts 4. 852)
bear little resemblance to Paul's experience; a genealogical tie between them
is most unlikely. Thus, no appeal to the Acts accounts of the appearance to
Paul can legitimately be made as proof that that appearance was purely
visionary in nature.
Paul himself gives us no
firm clue as to the nature of Christ's appearance to him. But it is interesting
to note that when Paul speaks of his 'visions and revelations of the Lord' (II Cor 12.1-7) he does not
include Jesus's appearance to him. Paul and the early
Christian community as a whole were familiar with religious visions and sharply
differentiated between these and an appearance of the risen Lord.
{9}
But what was the difference? Grass asserts that the only difference was in content: in an appearance the exalted
Christ is seen.{10}
But surely there must have been religious visions of
the exalted Christ, too. Both Stephen's vision and the book of Revelation show
that claims to visions of the exalted Christ which were not resurrection
appearances were made in the church. Nor can it be said that the distinctive
element in an appearance was the commissioning, for appearances were known
which lacked this element (the Emmaus disciples, the 500 brethren). It seems to
me that the most natural answer is that an appearance involved extra-mental
phenomena, something's actually appearing, whereas a vision, even if caused by
God, was purely in the mind. If this is correct, then Paul, in claiming for himself
an appearance of Christ as opposed to a vision of Christ, is asserting to have
seen something, not merely in the mind, but actually 'out there' in the real
world. For all we know from Paul, this appearance could conceivably have been
as physical as those portrayed in the gospels; and it is not impossible that
Luke then 'spiritualized' the appearance out of the necessity of his pre- and
post-ascension scheme! At any rate, it would be futile to attempt to prove that
either Acts or Paul supports a purely visionary appearance to the apostle on
the
But suppose this is
altogether wrong. Suppose the appearance to Paul was purely visionary. What
grounds are there for believing premise (1), Paul
equated the appearance of Jesus to him with the appearances of Jesus to the
disciples? Usually appeal is made to the fact that Paul places
himself in the list of witnesses of the appearances; hence, the other
appearances must have also been visionary appearances like his own. This,
however, does not seem to follow. First, in placing himself in the list of
witnesses, Paul does not imply that the foregoing appearances were the same
sort of appearance as the one to him. He is not concerned here with the how of
the appearances, but with who appeared. He wants to list witnesses of the risen
Christ, and the mode of the appearance is entirely incidental. But second, in
placing himself in the list, Paul is not trying to put the appearances to the
others on a plane with his own; rather he is trying to level up his own experience
to the objectivity and reality of the others. Paul's detractors doubted or
denied his apostleship (I Cor 9. 1-2; II Cor 11.5; 12.11) and his having seen Christ would be an
important argument in his favor (Gal 1.1, 11-12, 15-16; I Cor
9. 1-2; 15.8-9). His opponents might tend to dismiss Paul's experience as a
mere subjective vision, not a real appearance, and so Paul is anxious to
include himself with the other apostles as a recipient of a genuine, objective
appearance of the risen Lord. By putting himself in the list, Paul is saying
that what he saw was every bit
as much a real appearance of Jesus as what they
saw. In fact, one could argue
that Paul's adding himself to the list is actually a case of special pleading!
At any rate, it is a non sequitur
to infer that because Paul includes himself in the list of witnesses,
all the other appearances must be of the same mode as the appearance to Paul.
Hence, the first argument
against Jesus's physical resurrection seems doubly
unsound. Not only does the evidence run against a purely visionary appearance
to Paul, but there is no indication that Paul equated the mode of the
appearance of Jesus to himself with the mode of the appearances to the other
disciples.
Let us turn then to the
second supporting argument for a purely spiritual resurrection body of Jesus:
the argument from Paul's term swma pneumatikon. Premise (1), Paul equated Jesus's resurrection body with
our future resurreation bodies, is surely
correct (Phil 3.21; I Cor 15.20; Col 1.18). But the
truth of premise (2), our future
resurrection bodies will be spiritual bodies, depends upon how one
defines its terms. Therefore, before we look more closely at Paul's discussion
of the resurrection body in I Cor 15.35-57, a word
ought to be said about Paul's anthropological terms swma,
sarx, and yuch.
The most important term in the second half of I Cor 15 is swma.{11} During the nineteenth century under the influence of idealism, theologians interpreted the swma as the form of a thing and the sarx as its substance.{12} In this way they could avoid the objectionable notion of a physical resurrection, for it was the form that was raised from the dead endowed with a new spiritual substance. Hence, in the old commentaries one finds that the swma pneumatikon was conceived to be a body made out of himmlischer Lichtsubstanz. This understanding has now been all but abandoned.{13} The view of swma as merely form and sarx as its substance cannot be exegetically sustained; swma is the body, form and substance. This does not mean, however, that twentieth century theologians take swma to mean the physical body. Rather under the influence of existentialism, particularly as adopted by Bultmann, they take swma, when used theologically, as the whole person conceived abstractly in existentialist categories of self-understanding. Thus, swma does not equal the physical body, but the person, and hence, a bodily resurrection means, not a resurrection of the physical body, but of the person. In this way the doctrine of physical resurrection is avoided as adroitly as it was in the days of philosophical idealism. It is the burden of Gundry's study to show that this understanding is drastically wrong. Even if his exegesis suffers at times from over-kill,{14} Gundry succeeds admirably in carrying his main point: that swma is never used in the New Testament to denote the whole person in isolation from his physical body, but is much more used to denote the physical body itself or the man with special emphasis on the physical body. Gundry's conclusion is worth quoting:
The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with 'flesh' in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives and acts in the world. It becomes the base of operations for sin in the unbeliever, for the Holy Spirit in the believer. Barring prior occurrence of the Parousia, the soma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer. But it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worth and necessity to wholeness of human being, and the reason for its sanctification now.{15}
T he
importance of this conclusion cannot be overemphasized. Too long we have been
told that for Paul swma is the ego, the 'I' of a man.
Like a dash of cold water, Gundry's study brings us back to the genuine
anthropological consciousness of first century man. The notion of body as the
'I' is a perversion of the biblical meaning of swma:
Robert Jewett asserts, 'Bultmann has turned swma into its virtual opposite: a symbol for that structure
of individual existence which is essentially non-physical.'{16}
Hence, existentialist treatments of swma, as much as idealist treatments, have been a positive impediment
to accurate historical-critical exegesis of I Cor 15
and have sacrificed theology to a philosophical fashion that is already passé.{17}
To say that swma refers
primarily to the physical body is not to say that the word cannot be used as synecdoche to refer to the whole man by
reference to a part. 'The soma
may represent the whole person simply because the soma lives in union with the soul/spirit. But soma does not mean "whole person," because its use is designed
to call attention to the physical object which is the body of the person rather
than the whole personality.'{18}
Nor does this preclude metaphorical use of the word,
as in the 'body of Christ' for the church; for it is a physical metaphor: the
church is not the 'I' of Christ. When we turn to I Cor
15 and inquire about the nature of the resurrection body, therefore, we shall
be inquiring about a body, not
about an ego, an 'I', or a 'person' abstractly conceived apart from the body.
I have already alluded to
Paul's use of sarx , and it will not be necessary to say much here.
Theologians are familiar with sarx as the evil
proclivity within man. This touches sensitive nerves in German theology because
the Creed in German states that I believe in the resurrection of the Fleisch, not of the body as in the English translation. Hence, many theologians
are rightly anxious to disassociate themselves from any doctrine that the flesh
as a morally evil principle will be resurrected. But they seem prone to
overlook the fact that Paul often uses sarx in a
non-moral sense simply to mean the physical flesh or body. In this morally
neutral sense the resurrection of the flesh = resurrection of the body. Now in
I Cor 15 Paul is clearly speaking of sarx in a physical, morally neutral sense, for he speaks of
the flesh of birds, animals, and fish, which would be absurd in any moral sense.
Hence, understood in a physical sense, the doctrine of the resurrection of the
flesh is morally unobjectionable.
Finally a brief word on the
third term yuch:
Paul does not teach a consistent dualism of swma-yuch,
but often uses pneuma and other terms to designate
the immaterial element of man. In fact in the adjectival form, yuchikoV has a meaning that does not connote immateriality
at all, but rather the natural character of a thing in contradistinction to the
supernatural character of God's Spirit. Thus in I Cor
2.14-3.3 Paul differentiates three types of men: the anJrwpoV
yuchikoV or natural man apart from God's Spirit; the anJrwpoV pneumatikoV or spiritual
man who is led and empowered by God's Spirit; and the anJrwpoV
sarkinoV or carnal man who, though possessing the
Spirit of God (I Cor 12. 13), is nevertheless still
under the sway of the sarx or evil principle in human
nature. This makes it evident that for Paul yucikoV
did not have the connotations which we today associate with 'soul.'
With these terms in mind we
now turn to Paul's discussion in I Cor 15.35-37. He
begins by asking two polemical questions: How are the dead raised? With what
kind of body do they come? (v 35; cf. II Bar 49.2-3).
Paul's opponents seemed to have been unable to accept the resurrection because
the resurrection of a material body was either inconceivable or offensive to
their Greek minds (cf. Bultmann's 'resuscitation of a
corpse'). Paul's answer steers a careful course between the crasser forms of
the Pharisaic doctrine of resurrection, in which the raised will, for example,
each beget a thousand children and eat the flesh of Leviathan, and the Platonistic doctrine of the immortality of the soul apart
from the body. Paul will contend that the resurrection body will be radically
different from this natural body, but that it will nevertheless be a body-- Paul contemplates no release of
the soul from the prison house of the body. Paul's answer is that the
resurrection body will be a marvellous transformation
of our present body, making it suitable for existence in the age to come-- a
doctrine not unusual in the Judaism of Paul's day and remarkably similar to
that of the contemporary II Bar 50-51, which should be read in conjunction with
Paul's argument.{19}
It is highly instructive, particularly if we accept that the author of
Luke-Acts was an associate of Paul that Luke specifically identifies Paul's
doctrine of the resurrection with that of the Pharisees (Acts 23.6; cf. 24.14;
16.6, 21-23).
In the first paragraph, vv
36-41, Paul searches for analogies to the resurrection of the dead (v 42). The
first analogy is the analogy of the seed. The point of the analogy is simply to
draw attention to how different the plant is from the seed that is buried in
the ground (cf. Matt 13.31-32 for Jesus's use of a
similar analogy in another context). It is a good analogy for Paul's purposes,
for the sowing of the seed and its death are
reminiscent of the burial of the dead man (vv 42-44). To criticize Paul's
analogy from the standpoint of modern botany--saying, for example, that a seed
does not really die--presses the analogy too far. Similarly some commentators
criticize Paul's analogy because he lacked the modern botanical notion that a
particular type of seed yields a particular type of plant; Paul thought God
alone determined what plant should spring up from any seed that was sown (v
38). But this is quite unreasonable, as though Paul could think that a
date-palm would conceivably spring from a grain of corn! He specifically says
that God gives 'each kind of seed its own body' (v 38), which harks back to the
Genesis account of creation according to kinds (Gen 1.11). At any rate this
loses the whole point of the analogy: that from the mere seed God produces a
wonderfully different plant.
Paul then appeals to the
analogy of different sorts of flesh again in order to prove that if we
recognize differences even in the physical world then the resurrection body
could also be different from our present body. Paul's analogy may have in mind
the creation account, but I think the Jewish distinction between clean and
unclean food is closer (cf. Lev 11; animals: 1-8; fish: 9-12; birds: 13-19;
insects: 20-23; swarming things: 29-30).{20 } So I do not think sarx
here is precisely identical with swma. Not only would
that reduce Paul's argument to the rather banal assertion that men have
different bodies from fish, but it would also entail the false statement that
all animals have the same kind of body. Rather in the present connection, sarx means essentially 'meat' or 'organic matter.' The old
commentaries were therefore wrong in defining sarx tout simple
as 'substance,' for inorganic matter would not be sarx;
Paul would never speak of the flesh of a stone. To say that the resurrection
body has therefore a different kind of flesh than the present body probably
presses the analogy too far; all Paul wants to show is that as there are
differences among mundane things, analogously the supernatural resurrection
body could also differ from the present body.
The third analogy is that
of terrestrial and celestial bodies (vv 40-41). There can be no doubt from v 41
that Paul means astronomical bodies, not angels. Again the point of the analogy
is the same: there are radical differences among bodies in the physical world,
so why should not the body in the world to come differ from the present body?
Paul's analogy is particularly apt in this case because as the heavenly bodies
exceed terrestrial bodies in glory, so does the resurrection
body the natural body (v 43; cf. Phil 3.21).{21}
The doxa of the heavenly
bodies is their brightness, which varies; there is no trace here of Lichtsubstanz. When applied to the resurrection body,
however, doxa seems to be honor (v 43). Paul has thus
prepared the way for his doctrine of the world to come by three analogies from
the present world. All of them show how things can be radically different from
other things of the same kind; similarly a swma pneumatikon will be seen to be radically different from a swma yuchikon. Moreover, Paul's
analogies form an ascending scale from plant to animal to terrestrial bodies to
celestial bodies; the next type of body to be mentioned will be the most
wonderful and exalted of all.
From vv 42-50 Paul spells
out his doctrine of the swma pneumatikon.
The body that is to be differs from the present body in that it will be
imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual; whereas the present body is
perishable, dishonourable, weak, and physical (w
42-44). These are the four essential differences between the present body and
the resurrection body. What do they tell us about the nature of the
resurrection body?
First, it is sown en jJora, but it is raised en ajJarsia.
These terms tell us clearly that Paul is not talking about egos, or 'I's,' but about bodies, for (1) the speiretai-egeiretai
has primary reference to the burial and raising up of a dead man's body, not
the 'person' in abstraction from the body and (2) only the body can be
described as perishable (II Cor 4.16), for man's
spirit survives death (II Cor 5.1-5; cf. Rom 8.10;
Phil 1. 23), Rather the disjunction under discussion concerns the radical
change that will take place in our bodies:
Paul teaches personal bodily immortality, not immortality of the soul alone
(cf. vv 53-54). Strange as this may seem, the Christian teaching (or at least
Paul's) is not that our souls will live forever, but that we will have bodies
in the after-life.
Second, it is sown en atimia, but it is raised en doxh.
Our present bodies are wracked by sin, are bodies of death, groaning with the
whole creation to be set free from sin and decay; we long, says Paul, for the
redemption of our bodies (II Cor 5.4; Rom 8.19-24).
This body, dishonored through sin and death, will be transformed by Christ to
be like his glorious body (Phil 3.21). In a spiritual sense we already have an
anticipation of this glory insofar as we are conformed inwardly to the image of
Christ and are sanctified by his Spirit (II Cor
3.18), but Paul teaches that the body will not simply fall away like a useless
husk, but will be transformed to partake of this glory also.
Third, it is sown en asJenia, but it will be raised en dunamei.
How well Paul knew of weakness! Afflicted with a bodily malediction which was
offensive to others and a burden to those around him, Paul found in his
weakness the power of Christ (Gal 4.13-14; II Cor
12.7-10). And on his poor body which had been stoned, beaten, and scourged for
the sake of the gospel, Paul bore the marks of Christ, so much so that be dared
to write '. . . in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.
. .' (
Fourth, it is sown a swma yucikon, but it is raised a swma pneumatikon, By a swma yucikon
Paul clearly does not mean a body made out of yuch.
Rather just as Paul frequently uses sarkikoV to
indicate, not the physical composition of a thing, but its orientation, its
dominating principle, so yucikoV also indicates, not
a composition, but an orientation. In the New Testament yucikoV
always has a negative connotation (I Cor 2.14; Jas
3.15; Jude 19); that which is yucikoV partakes of the
character and direction of natural human nature. Hence, the emphasis in swma yucikon is not that the body
is physical, but that is natural. Accordingly, swma
yucikon ought rightly to be translated 'natural
body;' it means our present human body. This is the body that will be sown. But
it is raised a swma pneumatikon.
And just as swma yucikon
does not mean a body made out of yuch, neither does swma pneumatikon mean a body made
out of pneuma. If swma pneumatikon indicated a body made out of spirit, then its
opposite would not be a swma yucikon,
but a swma sarkinon. For
Paul, yuch and pneuma are
not substances out of which bodies are made, but dominating principles by which
bodies are directed. Virtually every modern commentator agrees on this point:
Paul is not talking about a rarefied body made out of spirit or ether; he means
a body under the lordship and direction of God's Spirit. The present body is yucikon insofar as the yuch is
its dominating principle (cf. anJrwpoV yucikoV I Cor 2.14). The body
which is to be will be pneumatikon, not in the sense
of a spiritual substance, but insofar as the pneuma
will be its dominating principle (cf. anJrwpoV pneumatikoV-- I Cor 2.15). They
do not differ qua swma; rather they differ qua orientation. Thus,
philological analysis leads, in Clavier's words, to the conclusion that '. . .
le "corps pneumatique" est, en substance, le même
corps, ce corps de chair, mais
controlé par l'esprit, comme le fut le corps de Jésus-Christ.'{22}
The contrast is not between physical body /
non-physical body, but between naturally oriented body / spiritually oriented
body. Hence, I think it very unfortunate that the term swma
pneumatikon has been usually translated 'spiritual
body,' for this tends to be very misleading, as Héring
explains:
En français toutefois la traduction littérale corps spirituel
risque de créer les pires malentendus.
Car la plupart des lecteurs
de langue française, étant
plus ou moins consciemment cartésiens, céderont à la tendence d'identifier le spirituel avec l'inétendu et naturellement
aussi avec l'im-matériel, ce qui va à l'encontre
des idées pauliniennes et crée de plus une contradictio in adjecto;
car que serait un corps
sans étendue ni matière?{23}
H éring therefore suggests that it is better to translate swma pneumatikon as the opposite
of natural body ( swma yucikon ) as supernatural
body. Although this has the disadvantage of ignoring the connotation of pneumatikoV as 'Spirit-dominated,' it avoids the inevitable
misunderstandings engendered by 'spiritual body.' As Héring
rightly comments, this latter term, understood substantively, is practically a
self-contradiction. By the same token, 'physical body' is really a tautology.
Thus, natural body/supernatural body is a better rendering of Paul's meaning
here.
Having described the four
differences between the present body and the resurrection body, Paul elaborates
the doctrine of the two
o prwtoV anJrwpoV ek ghV coikoV
o deuteroV anJrwpoV ex ouranou
There is
something conspicuously missing in this parallel between to yucikon
and to pneumatikon (v 46): the first Adam is from the earth, made of dust; the second Adam is from heaven, but made of-- ?{24}
Clearly Paul recoils from saying the second Adam is made of heavenly substance.
The contrast between the two
In the following paragraph,
Paul tells how this will be done. When he says 'We
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed' (v 51), it is not clear
whether he means by 'all' either Christians in general or Christians alive at
his time (cf. I Thess 4.15, 17). But in either case,
two things are clear: (1) Paul held that the transformation would take place
instantaneously at the moment of the resurrection (v. 52). In this he differs sharply from II Bar 50-51 which
holds that the resurrection yields the old bodies again which are transformed
only after the judgement.{28}
Paul's doctrine is that we are raised imperishable and glorified. (2) For Paul
the resurrection is a transformation,
not an exchange. Klappert draws the distinctions nicely:
Es geht also in der Auferstehung nach Paulus weder
1. um eine Wiederbelebung,
d. h. um eine Neuschöpfung aus ( ! ) dem Alten,
noch 2. um eine Shöpfung aus
dem Nichts, d. h. um eine Neuschöpfung anstelle ( ! ) des Alten, Sondern 3. um eine
radikale Verwandlung des sterblichen leibes, d. h. um eine Neuschopfung an ( ! ) dem alten.
{29}
I n the
resurrection the 'ego' of a man does not trade bodies. Rather the natural body
is miraculously transformed into a supernatural body. The metaphor of the
sowing and raising of the body points to this. In
fact, the very concept of resurrection implies this, for in an exchange of
bodies there would be nothing that would be raised. When Paul says 'We shall
all be changed,' he means the bodies of both the dead and the living
alike. Paul's doctrine is that at the Parousia, the dead will rise from their
graves transformed and that those who are still alive will also be transformed
(vv 51-52; I Thess 4.16-17). The concept of an
exchange of bodies is a peculiarly modern notion. For the Jews the resurrection
of the dead concerned the remains in the grave, which they conceived to be the
bones.{30}
According to their understanding while the flesh decayed, the bones endured. It
was the bones, therefore, that were the primary subject of the resurrection. In
this hope, the Jews carefully collected the bones of the dead into ossuaries
after the flesh had decomposed. Only in a case in which the bones were
destroyed, as with the Jewish martyrs, did God's creating a resurrection body ex nihilo
come into question. It is instructive that on the question of the resurrection,
Jesus sided with the Pharisees. He held that the tomb is the place where the
bones repose and that the dead in the tombs would be raised (Matt 23.27; John
5.28). It is important to remember, too, that Paul was a Pharisee and that Luke
identifies his doctrine of the resurrection with that of the Pharisees. Paul's
language is thoroughly Pharisaic, and it is unlikely that he should employ the
same terminology with an entirely different meaning. This means that when Paul
says the dead will be raised imperishable, he means the dead in the graves. As a first century Jew and
Pharisee he could have understood the expression in no other way.
Thus, Grass is simply wrong
when he characterizes the resurrection as an exchange, a re-creation, and not a
transformation.{31}
He mistakenly appeals to v 50; his statement that Paul has no interest in the
emptying of the graves ignores the clear statements of I Thess
4.16 (which in light of v 14, which probably refers, according to the current
Jewish idea, to the souls of the departed, can only have reference to the
bodies in the graves) I Cor 15.42-44, 52. be attempts to strengthen his case by arguing that the
relation of the old world to the new is one of annihilation to re-creation and
this is analogous to the relation of the old body to the new. But Grass's texts
are chiefly non-Pauline (Heb 1.10-12; Lk 13.31; Rev
6.14; 20.11; 21.1; II Pet 3.10). As we have seen, Paul's view is a
transformation of creation (Rom 8.18-23; cf. I Cor
7.31). According to Paul it is this
creation and this body which
will be delivered from bondage to sin and decay. Paul, therefore, believed that
the bodies of those alive at the Parousia would be changed, not discarded or
annihilated, and that the remains (the bones?) of the dead bodies would
likewise be transformed.
But this at once raises the
puzzling question: what happens to those Christians who die before the
Parousia? Are they simply extinguished until the day of resurrection? The clue
to Paul's answer may be found in II Cor 5.1-10. Here
the earthly tent = swma yucikon,
and the building from God = swma pneumatikon.
When do we receive the heavenly dwelling? The language of v 4 is irresistibly
reminiscent of I Cor 15.53-54, which we saw referred
to the Parousia. This makes it evident that the heavenly dwelling is not
received immediately upon death, but at the Parousia. It is unbelievable that
had Paul changed his mind on the dead's receiving
their resurrection bodies at the Parousia, he would not have told the
Corinthians, but continued to use precisely the same language. If the body were
received immediately upon death, there would be no reason for the fear of
nakedness, and v 8 would become unintelligible. In short this would mean that
Paul abandoned the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: but his later
letters show he continued to hold to it.
In I Cor
15 Paul did not speak of a state of nakedness; the mortal simply "put
on" (endusasqai) the immortal. But in II Cor 5 he speaks of the fear of being unclothed and the
preference to be further clothed (ependusasqai), as
by top-clothing. It is evident that Paul is here describing losing the earthly
body as being stripped and hence naked. He would rather not quit the body, but
simply be transformed at the Parousia without experiencing the nakedness of
death. In this sense, putting on the new body is like putting on top-clothing;
namely, one need not undress first. Taken in isolation, this might be thought
to imply that the resurrection is an exchange of bodies, not a transformation;
but this presses the metaphor too hard. Paul is not trying to be technical, as
is evident from his use of the ordinary endusamenoi
in v 3; and the notion of 'putting on' is not inconsistent with the concept of
transformation, as I Cor 15.53-54 makes clear.
Indeed, the 'putting on' consists precisely in being transformed. Neither the ecomen nor the aiwnion of v 1
indicates that the new body already exists; rather they express the certitude
of future possession and the subsequent eternal duration of the new body. The
idea that the new body exists already in heaven is an impossible notion, for
the idea of an unanimated swma pneumatikon,
stored up in heaven until the Parousia, is a contradiction in terms, since pneuma is the essence and source of life itself. Rather
from I Cor 15 we understand that the heavenly
dwelling is created at the Parousia through a transformation of the earthly
tent, a point concealed by Paul's intentional contrast between the two in v 1,
but hinted at in v 4 (cf. also Rom 8.10-11, 18-23). What Paul wants to express
by the metaphor is that he would rather live to the Parousia and be changed
than die and be naked prior to being raised.
The nakedness is thus the
nakedness of an individual's soul or spirit apart from the body, a common
description in Hellenistic literature. This is confirmed in vv 6-9 where Paul
contrasts being at home in the body and being at home with the Lord as mutually
exclusive conditions. Paul is saying that while we are in this natural body we
sigh, not because we want to leave the body through death and exist as a
disembodied soul, but because we want to be transformed into a supernatural
body without the necessity of passing through the intermediate state. But
despite the unsettling prospect of such an intermediate state, Paul still
thinks it better to be away from the body and with the Lord (v 8). Christ makes
all the difference; for Paul the souls of the departed are not shut up in caves
or caskets until the end time as in Jewish apocalyptic, nor do they 'sleep':
rather they go to be with Jesus and experience a conscious, blissful communion with
him (cf. Phil 1.21, 23) until he returns to earth (I Thess
4.14). This overrides the dread of nakedness.
Paul's doctrine of the
nature of the resurrection body now becomes clear. When a Christian dies, his
conscious spirit or soul goes to be with Christ until the Parousia, while his
body lies in the grave. When Christ returns, in a single instant the remains of
the natural body are transformed into a powerful, glorious, and imperishable
supernatural body under the complete lordship and direction of the Spirit, and the soul of the departed is simultaneously
reunited with the body, and the man is raised to everlasting life. Then those
who are alive will be similarly transformed, the old body miraculously changed
intro the new without exess, and all believers will
go to be with the Lord.
This doctrine teaches us
much about Paul's conception of the resurrection body of Christ. In no sense
did Paul conceive Christ's resurrection body to be immaterial or unextended. The notion of an immaterial, unextended body seems to be a self- contradiction; the
nearest thing to it would be a shade in Sheol, and
this was certainly not Paul's conception of Christ's glorious resurrection
body! The only phrases in Paul's discussion that could lend themselves to a
'dematerializing' of Christ's body are 'swma pneumatikon' and 'flesh and blood can not inherit the
So it is very difficult to
understand how theologians can persist in describing Christ's resurrection body
in terms of an invisible, intangible spirit; there seems to be a great lacuna
here between exegesis and theology. I can only agree with O'Collins
when he asserts in this context, 'Platonism may be hardier than we suspect.'{32}
With all the best will in the world, it is extremely difficult to see what is
the difference between an immaterial, unextended,
spiritual 'body' and the immortality of the soul. And this again is certainly
not Paul's doctrine! Therefore, the second supporting argument for Jesus's having a purely spiritual resurrection body also
fails.
We have seen, therefore,
that the traditions of the appearance of Jesus to Paul do not describe that
event as a purely visionary experience; on the contrary extra-mental
accompaniments were involved. Paul gives no firm clue as to the nature of that
appearance; from his doctrine of the nature of the resurrection body, it could
theoretically have been as physical as any gospel appearance. And Paul does
insist that it was an appearance,
not a vision. Luke regarded the mode of Jesus's
appearance to Paul as unique because it was a post-ascension encounter. Paul
himself gives no hint that he considered the appearance to him to be in any way
normative for the other appearances or determinative for a doctrine of the
resurrection body. On the contrary, Paul also recognized that the appearance to
him was an anomaly and was exercised to bring it up to the level of objectivity
and reality of the other appearances. Furthermore, Paul conceived of the
resurrection body as a powerful, glorious, imperishable, Spirit-directed body, created through a transformation of
the earthly body or the remains thereof, and made to inhabit the new universe
in the eschaton. The upshot of all this is the
startling conclusion that Paul's doctrine
of the resurrection body is potentially more physical than that of the gospels,
and if Christ's resurrection body is to be conceived in any less than a
physical way, that qualification must come from the side of the gospels, not of
Paul.
So although many
theologians try to play off the 'massiven Realismus' of the gospels against a Pauline doctrine of a
spiritual resurrection body, such reasoning rests on a fundamental and drastic
misunderstanding of Paul's doctrine. One cannot but suspect that the real
reason for scholarly scepticism concerning the
historicity of the gospel appearances is that, as Bultmann
openly stated, this is offensive to 'modern man,' and that Paul has been made
an unwilling accomplice in critics' attempts to find reasons to support a
conclusion already dictated by a priori
philosophical assumptions. But Paul will not allow himself to be put to this
use; a careful exegesis of Pauline doctrine fully supports a physical
resurrection body. And, it must be said, this was how first century Christians
apparently understood him, for the letters of Clement and Ignatius prove early
wide acceptance of the doctrine of physical resurrection in first century churches,
including the very churches where Paul himself had taught. The ground is thus
cut from beneath those scholars who object to the historicity of the gospel
resurrection narratives because of their physicalism.
But more than that: given
the temporal and personal proximity of Paul to the original witnesses of the
resurrection appearances, the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
can scarcely be denied. For the physicalism of the
gospels cannot now be explained away as a late legendary or theological
development; on the contrary, what we see from Paul is that it was there from
the beginning. And if it was there from the beginning, then it must have been
historically well- founded--otherwise, one is at a loss how to explain that the
earliest witnesses should believe in it. Though it is constantly repeated that
the physicalism of the gospels is an anti-docetic apologetic, scarcely a single piece of evidence is
ever produced in favor of this assertion--and mere assertion is not proof. We
have seen that both Paul's personal contact and temporal proximity with the
original disciples precludes a late development of the notion of physical
resurrection, which is implied by the anti-docetic
hypothesis. And Paul's doctrine can hardly be explained away as an anti-docetic apologetic, for it was the crass materialism of the
Jewish doctrine of resurrection that Paul's Corinthian opponents probably
gagged at (I Cor 15.35), so that Paul found it
necessary to emphasize the transformation of the earthly body into a
supernatural body. An anti-docetic apologetic would
have been counter-productive. Hence, the evidence of Paul precludes that the
physical resurrection was an apologetic development of the gospels aimed at Docetism.
But this consideration
aside, there are other reasons to think that in the gospel narratives Docetism is not in view: (1) For a Jew the very term
'resurrection' entailed a physical resurrection of the dead man in the tomb.
The notion of a 'spiritual resurrection' was not merely unknown; it was a
contradiction in terms. Therefore, in saying that Jesus was raised and
appeared, the early believers must have understood this in physical terms. It
was Docetism which was the response to this physicalism, not the other way around. The physical
resurrection is thus primitive and prior, Docetism
being the later reaction of theological and philosophical reflection. (2)
Moreover, had purely 'spiritual appearances' been original, then
it is difficult to see how physical appearances could have developed. For (a)
the offense of Docetism would then be removed, since
the Christians, too, believed in purely spiritual appearances, and (b) the
doctrine of physical appearances would have been counter-productive as an
apologetic, both to Jews and pagans; to Jews because they did not accept an
individual resurrection within history and to pagans because their belief in
the immortality of the soul could not accommodate the crudity of physical
resurrection. The church would therefore have retained its purely spiritual appearances.
(3) Besides, Docetism was mainly aimed at denying the
reality of the incarnation of Christ (I John 4.2-3; III John 7), not the
physical resurrection. Docetists were not so
interested in denying the physical resurrection as in denying that the divine
Son perished on the cross; hence, some held the Spirit deserted the human Jesus
at the crucifixion, leaving the human Jesus to die and be physically raised (Irenaeus Against
Heresies 1.26. 1).
An anti-docetic apologetic aimed at proving a
physical resurrection therefore misses the point entirely. (4) The
demonstrations of corporeality and continuity in the gospels, as well as the
other physical appearances, were not redactional
additions of Luke or John, as is evident from a comparison of Luke 24.36-43 with
John 20.19-23 (it is thus incorrect to speak, for example, of 'Luke's
apologetic against Gnosticism'), but were part of the traditions received by
the evangelists. Docetism, however, was a later
theological development, attested in John's letters. Therefore, the gospel
accounts of the physical resurrection tend to ante-date the rise and threat of Docetism. In fact, not even all later Gnostics denied the
physical resurrection (cf. Gospel of Philip, Letter of James, and Epistle of Rheginus). It is interesting that in the ending added to
Mark there is actually a switch from material proofs of the resurrection to
verbal rebuke by Jesus for the disciples' unbelief. (5) The demonstrations
themselves do not evince the rigorousness of an apologetic against Docetism. In both Luke and John it is not said that either
the disciples or Thomas actually accepted Jesus's
invitation to touch him and prove that he was not a Spirit. Contrast the
statements of Ignatius that the disciples did physically touch Jesus (Ignatius Ad Smyrnaeans
3.2; cf. Epistula Apostolorum
11-12). As Schnackenburg has said, if an anti-docetic apology were involved in the gospel accounts, more
would have to have been done than Jesus's merely showing the wounds.{33}
(6) The incidental, off-hand character of the physical resurrection in most of
the accounts shows that the physicalism was a natural
assumption or presupposition of the accounts, not an apologetic point
consciously being made. For example, the women's grasping Jesus's
feet is not a polemical point, but just their response of worship. Similarly,
Jesus says, 'Do not hold me,' though Mary is not explicitly said to have done
so; this is no conscious effort to prove a physical resurrection. The
appearances on the mountain and by the
And it must be said that
despite the disdain of some theologians for the gospels' conception of the
nature of the resurrection body, it is nonetheless true that like Paul the
evangelists steer a careful course between gross materialism and the
immortality of the soul. On the one hand, every gospel appearance of Jesus that
is narrated is a physical appearance. {34}
The gospels' unanimity on this score is very impressive, especially in view of
the fact that the appearance stories represent largely independent traditions;
they confirm Paul's doctrine that it is the earthly body that is resurrected.
On the other hand, the gospels insist that Jesus's
resurrection was not simply the resuscitation of a corpse. Lazarus would die
again some day, but Jesus rose to everlasting life (Matt 28. 18-20; Luke 24.26;
John 20.17). And his resurrection body was possessed of powers that no normal
human body possesses. Thus, in Matthew when the angel opens the tomb, Jesus
does not come forth; rather he is already gone. Similarly, in Luke when the
Emmaus disciples recognize him at bread-breaking he disappears. The same
afternoon Jesus appears to Peter, miles away in
Many scholars have stumbled
at Luke's 'a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have,' claiming
this is a direct contradiction to Paul. In fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and
blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is!
'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human
nature and has nothing to do with anatomy. Paul agrees with Luke on the
physicality of the resurrection body. But furthermore, neither is 'flesh and
bones' meant to be an anatomical description. Rather, proceeding from the
Jewish idea that it is the bones that are preserved and raised (Gen R 28.3; Lev
R 18.1; Eccl R 12.5), the expression connotes the physical reality of Jesus's resurrection. Michaelis
writes,
Wenn nach Lukas ein Geist weder Fleisch
noch Knochen hat, der Auferstandene aber kein Geist
ist, so besagt das nicht, dass der
Auferstandene, mit der paulinischen Terminologie zu reden, kein "pneumatisches (verklärtes, himmlisches) Soma," sondern ein "psychisches (natürliches, irdisches)
Soma" habe. Mit Fleisch und Knochen in der lukanischen Aussage ist vielmehr
(wie zugeben werden muss, in einem kräftigen Ausdruck, den Paulus aber nicht
unbedingt als "lästerlich" empfunden haben müsste) das ausgedrückt, was Paulus mit dem Begriff
"Soma" (Leib, Leiblichkeit)
ausdrückt. Durch den Hinweis auf Fleisch und Knochen soll nicht
der pneumatische Charakter dieses Soma bestritten,
sondern die Realität des Somatischen bezeugt werden. Auch Lukas steht, wie sich
zudem aus der Gesamtheit der bei ihm
sich findenen Hinweise ergibt (vgl. 24.13ff; Apg. 1.3), unter den Voraussetzung, dass es sich
bei den Erscheinungen nur um Begegnungen mit dem Auferstandenen
in seiner verklärten Leiblichkeit handeln kann.{35}
T he point
of Jesus's utterance is to assure the disciples that
this is a real resurrection, in the proper, Jewish sense of that word, not an
appearance of a bodiless pneuma. Though it stresses
corporeality, its primary emphasis is not on the constituents of the body.
Thus, neither Paul nor Luke are talking about anatomy,
and both agree on the physicality and
the supernaturalness of Jesus's
resurrection body.
In conclusion, we have seen
that the critical argument designed to drive a wedge between Paul and the
gospels is fallacious. Neither the argument from the appearance to Paul nor the
argument from Paul's doctrine of the resurrection body serves to set Paul
against the gospels. Quite the opposite, we have seen that Paul's evidence
serves to confirm the gospels' narratives of Jesus's
bodily resurrection and that their physicalism is
probably historically well-founded, that is to say, Jesus did rise bodily from
the dead and appear physically to the disciples. And finally we have seen that
the gospels present like Paul a balanced view of the nature of Jesus's resurrection body. On the one hand, Jesus has a
body--he is not a disembodied soul. For the gospels and Paul alike the
incarnation is an enduring state, not limited to the 30 some years of Jesus's earthly life. On the other hand, Jesus's body is a supernatural body. We must keep firmly in
mind that for the gospels as well as Paul, Jesus rises glorified from the
grave. The gospels and Paul agree that the appearances of Jesus ceased and that
physically he has left this universe for an indeterminate time. During his
physical absence he is present through the Holy Spirit who functions in his
stead. But someday he will personally return to judge mankind and to establish
his reign over all creation.
NOTES
{1}
This research was made possible through a generous
grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and was conducted at the Universität München and
{2}
Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte
(4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1970).
{3}
John E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel-Tradition
(Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
1975), 32.
{4}
Ibid., 34.
{5}
Ibid., 54.
{6}
Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 92-3.
{7} Grass, Ostergeschehen, 222.
{8}
Ibid., 219-20.
{9}
See ibid., 189-207.
{10}
Ibid., 229-32.
{11}
The outstanding work on this concept, which I follow
here, is Robert H. Gundry, Soma
in Biblical Theology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
{12}
C. Rolsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus
und des Petrus (Rostock: Stiller, 1868);
Hermann Lüdemann, Die
Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre
(Kiel: Universitätsverlag, 1872); remarkably so also
Hans Conzelmann, Der erste Brief en die Korinther
(KEKNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1969), 335.
{13}
See the six point refutation in Gundry, Soma, 161-2.
{14}
See ibid., 122, 141. Most of Gundry's texts do not
support dualism, but merely aspectivalism; but when
he adduces texts that clearly contemplate the separation of soul or spirit and
body at death, then his argument for dualism is strong
and persuasive.
{15} Gundry, Soma, 50.
{16} Robert Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms (AGAJY 10;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), 211.
{17} Gundry, Soma, 167.
{18}
Ibid., 80.
{19}
Paul's teaching is essentially the Jewish doctrine of glorified bodies,
according to Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (9th
ed.; KEKNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1910), 345: W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (2d ed; London: SPCK, 1965), 305-8; Ulrich Wilckens,
Auferstehung
(Stuttgart and Berlin: Kreuz Verlag,
1970), 128-31; Joseph L. Smith, 'Resurrection Faith Today,' TS 30 (1969): 406.
{20}
On the different types of flesh, see Tractate Chullin 8. 1, where the author explains that one cannot
cook flesh in milk, unless it is the flesh of fish or of grasshoppers; fowl may
be set on the table with cheese, but not eaten with it. See also Davies, Paul, 306.
{21} Cf. II Bar 51.1-10 where the
glory of the righteous seems to be a literal brightness like the stars'.
For Paul the glory of the righteous seems to mean majesty, honor, exaltation,
etc., not so much physical radiance, which is a mere analog. See Joseph Coppens, 'La glorification céleste
du Christ dans la théologie
neotestamentaire et l'attente de Jésus,' in Resurrexit
(ed. Édouard Dhanis;
{22}
R. Clavier, 'Breves remarques
sur la notion de swma pneumatikon,' in The background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. W.
D. Davies and D. Daube;
{23}
Jean Héring, La
première épître de
{24}
Or alternatively, the first Adam is made of the dust
of the earth; the second Adam is from heaven. The first speaks of constitution,
the second of origin. See also TWNT, , s. v. pneuma,' by Kleinknecht, et. al.
{25}
Joachim Jeremias, "'Flesh and Blood Cannot
Inherit the
{26} Karl Bornhäuser,
Die Gebeine der Toten (BFCT 26; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1921), 37.
{27}
It is found in Matt 16.17; Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12; Heb 2.14; see also Sir 14.18 and
the references in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, eds., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch (5th ed., 6
vols.; München: C. H. Beck, 1969), 1: 730-1, 753. The
Semitic word pair sarx kai aima is first attested in Eccelesiasticus
14.18; 17.31 and occurs frequently in Rabbinic texts, especially Rabbinic
parables, as 
{28}
According to Baruch the old bodies are raised for the purpose of recognition,
that the living may know that the dead have been raised. But for Paul,
believers, like Christ, emerge glorified from the grave.
{29}
Berthold Klappert, 'Einleitung,'
in Diskussion um Kreus und Auferstehung (ed. idea;
{30}
See Bornhäuser, Gebeine; C. F. Evans, Resurrection in the New Testament (SBT
2/12; London: SCM, 1970), 108; Walther Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (8th ed., THKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1978), 451.
{31} Grass, Ostergeschehen, 154.
{32}
Gerald O'Collins, The Easter Jesus (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1973), 94.
{33}
Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (3 vols., 2d ed., HTKNT 4;
{34}
Although some critics have wanted to construe
Matthew's mountaintop appearance as a heavenly vision similar to Paul's, this
attempt seems futile. Matthew clearly considered Jesus's
appearance to be physical, as is evident from his appearance to the women (Matt
28.9, 10) and his commissioning of the disciples. Even in the appearance
itself, there are signs of physicality: the disciples' worshipping Jesus
recalls the act of the women in v 9 and does not suit well a heavenly
appearance; and Jesus's coming toward the disciples (proselqwn) seems to indicate decisively a physical
appearance.
{35} Wilhelm Michaelis,
Die Erscheinungen
der Auferstandenen
(Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1944), 96.
Copyright (C)
William Lane Craig. All Rights Reserved.
as of 12-2006