To speak of resurrection in I Corinthians means that, first and foremost, one must speak of the resurrection of Jesus. For Paul the resurrection of Jesus constitutes the very basis upon which we may speak about the resurrection at all. I Cor. 15 (especially vv. 1-23) makes abundantly clear the inextricable connection between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers. Before considering that connection, however, there is a prior question that must be considered, namely the interpretation that a man such as Paul would have put upon the appearance to him of a resurrected person. That is, it is clear that for Paul the beginning of his Christian faith and of his apostolic mission was on the road to Damascus, when he saw the resurrected Lord (cf. Gal. 1:11ff.; I Cor. 9:1).^[1]This thesis has been espoused by many over the years and has been updated in a very learned fashion in the recent and excellent work by Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), done originally as a doctoral dissertation under the direction of F. F. Bruce. Paul’s interpretation of that experience of seeing the risen Lord was not, however, without a theological, historical, and/or intellectual context. It was, for example, Saul the Pharisee (cf. Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil. 3:5) who saw the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. The zealous Saul did not experience the vision of the resurrected Lord in a theological and/or religious vacuum. In subsequent years, according to Acts and the various autobiographical snatches in the Pauline corpus, the apostle repeatedly avowed that he had impeccable Jewish credentials, having been reared according to the strictest sect of his religion, educated in Jerusalem and, moreover, “zealous” for the Law.^[2]The evidence for Paul as a “Hebraist,” and/or a “nomistic Phari­see” is convincingly presented by Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964), pp. 21-105. We must ascertain at least something of the interpretative background, field, and/or horizon that Saul the Pharisee brought with him on his journey to Damascus.

The Horizon of Pauline Thought

Recent studies have either assumed^[3]E.g., H. Ridderbos, Paul (London: SPCK, 1975). or else argued with increasing persuasion that the proper milieu against which to understand the thought of Paul is that of apocalyptic Judaism.^[4]Cf. not only Kim and Longenecker but the recent comprehensive analysis of the structure and center of Pauline thought by J. Christiaan Beker Paul the   Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). While one cannot hope to understand fully, or even recover, many, if not most, of the historical and intellectual details of Paul’s life as a Jew, it is at least clear that he regarded himself (and even years later as a Christian still regarded himself) as a Pharisee (cf. Acts 23:6). Furthermore, while many of the particular practices and details of Paul’s own thought and religious experience as a Pharisee cannot possibly be known,^[5]There is lively debate still over the nature and origins of Pharisaism in and about the New Testament era. See, e.g., E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978). it is nevertheless clear, at least from the depiction of Paul in Acts, that when he made reference to his own background in Pharisaism he was quick to· focus his Pharisaical theology at one primary point: the resurrection from the dead. Note the repeated references in Acts (see below) to Paul’s Pharisaism with specific reference to this point.

In Acts 23: 1-10, where Luke presents Paul’s defense before the Jewish Council, it is particularly the hope of the resurrection of the dead that is at issue. In v. 6 Paul sizes up the breakdown of the Council, that is, that one party was Sadducees and the other Pharisees. Luke subsequently informs us editorially (v. 8) that “the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.” Paul, having sensed the makeup of the Council, appeals for solidarity and support from his own party of the Pharisees by claiming, “I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” It is not as a diversionary ploy to create dissension in the Council that Paul refers to his Pharisaical hope of the resurrection of the dead, but it is because he seeks the support and solidarity of a group whose theological framework is essentially compatible with his: i.e., the Pharisees who agree that there is a resurrection of the dead. In his subsequent defense of himself before his Jewish accusers (Acts 24: 1-21), which took place in Caesarea due to the plot against Paul’s life (Acts 23:12-35), Paul himself referred to his previous defense before the Council and again focused upon the central (background ) feature of his theology: “But this I admit to you that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our Fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and is written in the Prophets; having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Acts 24: 14-15; cf. 24:21).

The next occasion (Acts 25:23 to 26:32) in which Luke presents one of Paul’s extended defenses of himself also illustrates the same general line of argumentation. Paul asserts that he is glad to make his defense before King Agrippa especially because Agrippa is familiar with Jewish customs and theology (26:2-3). Paul then, as was his custom, appealed to his own religious training and upbringing as a Jew, and that indeed at Jerusalem. He points out to Agrippa, as others could verify if they were willing so to testify, that he lived as a Pharisee and that “now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our Fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hoped to attain. . . . And for this hope, 0 King, I am being accused by Jews.” It is here a supreme irony for Paul that he, a Jew, should be accused by Jews merely for affirming the resurrection hopes to which particularly he as a Pharisee and, indeed, most of popular Judaism, had longed to attain (26:4-7). In such a frustration of heart Paul cries out (v. 8), ”Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?” Paul maintains that he proclaims nothing but what Moses and the Prophets said was going to take place (v. 22). To be sure, Paul’s Christian experience has colored his interpretation and perception of his non-Christian days. It would, however, be more than idle to suggest that Paul’s hope of the resurrection from the dead was entirely a result of his Christian experience. While certainly no longer trusting in his Jewish pedigree Paul certainly was neither hesitant nor averse to mentioning (or even using) his own background in Judaism (Phil. 3:5-6; Gal. 1:11ff.; II Cor. 11:22ff.). Paul continued to understand himself as a physical descendant of Abraham whose faith in Christ constituted him a member of the people of God, and moreover, as one of the current Jewish “remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Rom. 9:24-29; 11:1-5).

What must be understood in all of this, and what Paul him­ self seems to have emphasized in his pre-Christian experience, is that he started upon the road to Damascus as nothing less than a zealous Pharisee who was awaiting the resurrection of the dead. It is certainly within no less a framework that Pauline thought is to be understood. Scholarly attempts^[6]See the discussion of this point by T. F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 41-45. to read the theology of Paul either primarily upon the basis of Greco-Roman philosophy, the Greek mystery religions, and/or other religious myths (usually encumbered with metaphysical dualism) apart from Paul’s own avowed Jewish context, and, indeed, his own avowed Jewish eschatological hope for the all-encompassing reign of God characterized by the age of the resurrection from the dead, are, at best, misguided. For Paul, the gospel is not only that which has been “predestined before the ages of our glory,”^[7]Note that it is the gospel (or “Christ and Him crucified,” I Cor. 2:2-8) that is “predestined before the ages” and not the salvation of individual believers. The other four occurrences of the term in Paul (Rom. 8:29, 30; Eph. 1:5, 11) refer to the assured resurrection of be­lievers: i.e., they are “predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29b). indicating that Paul understands the death and resurrection of Jesus in terms of the historical and eschatological fulfillment and/or revelation of God’s mysteries, but it is explicitly declared by Paul to be “according to the Scriptures” (I Cor. 15:3,4).^[8]The use of the phrase “according to the Scriptures” with reference to the resurrection of Jesus “on the third day” has aroused some discus­sion. Bruce Metzger has argued, “A Suggestion Concerning the Meaning of I Cor. XV. 4b,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 8 (1957), 118-23, that it need not refer to “on the third day,” but only to the verb ren­dered “He was raised.” Others disagree; cf. R. Sider, “St. Paul’s Under­ standing of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in I Corin­thians XV 1-19,” Novum Testamentum 19 (1977), 136f. In any case it is probably not certain texts of Scripture that are here envisioned, but rather the “essential meaning” of Scripture taken as a whole. M. E. Dahl, The Resurrection of the Body (London: SCM, 1962), pp. 20-2. It is only against this kind of Jewish background that Paul’s ideas of resurrection can be properly understood and appreciated.

The Resurrection of Jesus
(I Cor. 15:1-11)

Nowhere is Paul’s apocalyptic world view, his hope for the glorious inbreaking of the age of resurrection, more clearly seen as an assumption than in the course of his argument in I Cor. 15:12-23. For Paul there is a logical/historical relationship between the two foci of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the last day. Before addressing explicitly, however, the Corinthian error reflected in v. 12 (“how do some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?”), Paul establishes in vv. 1-11 the logical/historical basis upon which he will refute it. In these verses Paul is concerned to re­ mind the Corinthians of the message (the gospel) which he “preached” to them, which they had also “received,” which was also the very basis of their present relationship to God, and by which, unless their faith was a vain faith, they were currently being “saved” from both the powers of darkness and the wrath of God. While he does not fail to mention the first two elements of this traditional characterization of the gospel, namely, that Christ both died for our sins according to the Scriptures and was buried, it is Paul’s primary concern to establish, on as common a footing as possible, the resurrection of Christ and, as substantiation thereof, his manifold appearances to his followers. In this connection, it is the fourth element of the argument “that he appeared,” that receives the greatest amount of attention in the argument. While in another context Paul is anxious to argue that his gospel was given to him by no man, that it was given him, moreover, via a revelation of Jesus Christ ( Gal. 1:11ff.), here Paul is concerned to demonstrate the consensus of preaching and testimony that he shares with the apostles and other resurrection witnesses. For this reason Paul gives expression to the gospel with language that is not typically Pauline,^[9]G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1962), pp. 186f. Cf. also F. F. Bruce, Paul and Jesus (Lon­don: SPCK, 1974), pp. 40ff. The message is, of course, consistent with the “Pauline gospel” of revelation. appeals to many (presumably well-known) resurrection appearances of Christ, and concludes his argumentation with the assertion that the message which he originally preached to the Corinthians is one that would find a unanimity of proclamation among all of the apostles (v. 11).

With regard to the list of resurrection witnesses there are at least two important observations to be made. First of all, it does seem that Paul is concerned to remind and/or re-establish for the Corinthians the factual certainty of the resurrection of Jesus,^[10]Sider, “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV 1-19,” has cogently and convinc­ingly argued for the importance of historical factuality for Paul regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Sider may, however, have slightly overstruck the blow when he deduces that there was at Corinth “serious questioning or unacceptable reinterpretation of the nature of Jesus’ resurrection.” It seems more plausible to say simply that the Corinthians had accepted the gospel traditions (15:1, 11b) but had either not heard, or least did not understand, the connection between Jesus’ resurrection and the final res­urrection (see below). hence the broad appeal to authoritative witnesses^[11]An interesting bit of silence here occurs with Paul’s failure to men­tion any female witnesses to the resurrection, in spite of the unanimous insistence in the Gospel narratives that women were first at the empty tomb. Could the general disregard for the public and/or legal testimony of women have motivated Paul’s glaring (and thus intentional) omission here? Cf. Bruce, Paul and Jesus, p. 45. as well as numerous resurrection appearances. Karl Barth has argued^[12]Karl Barth, The Resurrection of   the Dead (New York: Revell, 1933), pp. 130-40. that Paul’s appeal here to resurrection witnesses was not primarily for the purpose of confirming the fact of Jesus resurrection but to emphasize the agreement of the apostle regarding the resurrection testimony.^[13]Their agreement is certainly a motif in the passage. Rudolf Bultmann disagrees with Barth at this point, conceding that Paul does think that he can guarantee the resurrection of Christ as an objective fact by the listing of witnesses, though Bultmann deplores the attempt.^[14]R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scrib­ner’s, 1951), 1:295, 305. Without concurring with Bultmann’s regrets, one may on this occasion more readily agree with his analysis of Paul’s purpose. It must not be forgotten, however, that the passage is directed to Christians. It is not an attempt to prove the resurrection for those who have never heard the gospel traditions. Indeed the Corinthians have “received” (v. 1) and “believed” (v. 11) the message pertaining to the resurrection of Christ, though Paul does show some concern as to the genuineness, i.e., permanence, of their faith (v. 2). It seems, then, that we are dealing here with a rather straightforward attempt to establish the historicity of the resurrection by appeal to eyewitnesses,^[15]The reference in 15:6 to the 500 brethren “most of whom remain until now, though some have fallen asleep” implies that they “presumably, can be questioned about their experience.” George Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 105. Cf. also A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., in International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), pp. 336f. though, at least in this context, it is done more for the purpose of challenging and confirming faith than initiating it.

Also of interest in this context is the fact that Paul includes himself among the resurrection witnesses. He notes, to be sure, that the appearance of Christ to him was “as it were to one untimely born,” but that Paul understands the appearance of Christ to him as similar in kind to the resurrection appearances that took place prior to the ascension seems clear. This fact is consistent with Paul’s assertions elsewhere (e.g., Gal. 1:11ff.) that both his gospel and his apostleship were based upon the appearance to him of the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. This fact is further suggested by Paul’s frequent use of terms related to light and vision in reference to his perception of the resurrected Christ. It is virtually certain^[16]S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 5-11, 229-33, has a very convincing discussion at this point. that the references in II Cor. 4:4,6 to the fact that “the God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God,” in contrast to the true God who “has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ,” represent a rather direct reminiscence of Paul’s Damascus road experience. I Corinthians has not only the reference here in 15:8 to, the resurrected Lord’s appearance to Paul, but certainly 9:1 is also a recollection of that experience and so probably, though morn indirect, is the reference in 2:8 to Christ as “the Lord of Glory.”

It was this experience of seeing the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus that changed the zealous Saul from a persecutor of the church to the apostle of the Gentiles. To believe Paul’s own autobiographical statements with regard to his former life in Judaism (Phil. 3:4-6; Gal. 1:11ff.) is to know that no psychological account of the conversion of Paul will suffice.^[17]G. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection, p. 122. Nothing less than the Christophany on the road to Damascus will explain the radical change in Paul’s perception of Jesus as an accursed blasphemer, (cf. II Cor. 5:16) to the perception that he himself was the blasphemer, a persecutor of the true people of God (15:9; Phil. 3:6; I Tim. 1:13), and that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the very fulfillment of Paul’s apocalyptic/resurrection hopes.

The Resurrection of the Dead
(I Cor. 15:12-23)

It is at this point, in the context of Paul’s understanding of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him on the road to Damascus as the fulfillment of his Pharisaical hope, that the logic of Paul’s argumentation in vv. 12-23 takes on coherence. For Paul the resurrection of Jesus was not merely the resuscitation/resurrection of one man, as if God had performed some striking but absurdly improbable feat; nor was it an event that occurred in isolation from Paul’s own Jewish apocalyptic understanding of history. For Paul it was an event that signaled the beginning of the resurrection from the dead. To read vv. 12-23 from a western or rationalistic point of view is to ask Paul why the resurrection of Christ should demand the future resurrection of the dead. To ask the question thus is to misunderstand not the Pauline logic but the Pauline assumption.^[18]Cf. J. Christiaan Beker’s illuminating discussion of world view as it relates to the truth and coherency of the Pauline gospel, Paul the Apostle, pp. 163-73. For Paul the resurrection of Jesus is not merely the promise of the resurrection from the dead, it is itself the beginning of the resurrection of the dead. Paul sees the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of believers, as organically related. They are not two separate events. Rather, the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of believers are the beginning and the end, respectively, of the same event, “the resurrection of the dead.”^[19]Richard Gaffin, The Centrality of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), p. 35, describes the relationship “not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event.” The Corinthian problem, therefore, was not that they rejected Christ’s resurrection (cf. 15:1, 11), though Paul seems to have feared that their misunderstanding regarding the future dimension of the resurrection of the dead portended serious implications with respect to their retention of the gospel traditions regarding the resurrection of Jesus, nor that they rejected the concept per se of resurrection since they obviously did accept the fact that Christ was raised from the dead. What seems to have been lacking in their understanding of resurrection was the perception that as Paul is concerned to emphasize throughout 12-23 the resurrection from the dead had begun already (cf. v. 21), Christ’s resurrection being that of the “first fruits” (vv. 20-23).

Paul’s development of his argument in vv. 12-23 is straightforward and reflects his eschatological assumption regarding the continuity between the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection. First, he asks incredulously-given the fact that Christ is preached as having been raised from the dead—how can any among the Corinthians maintain that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12)? Here it may be seen that for Paul the phrase “the resurrection of the dead” is a phrase that includes the resurrection of Christ, whereas apparently for some in Corinth the connection between the resurrection of Christ and “the resurrection of the dead” as the beginning and end, respectively, of the same event had not been perceived. Paul continues: If there is no resurrection of the dead then of course not even Christ was raised (v. 13). Further, if Christ has not been raised then both the apostolic preaching and the Corinthians’ faith was in vain (v. 14). In vv. 15-19 the argument essentially repeats itself, though in something of a reverse order and with some slight variation: if the dead are not raised, then God has not raised Christ, which makes the apostles false witnesses because they have indeed preached that God has raised Christ (v. 15). If the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised (v. 16); and if Christ has not been raised, then (1) the Corinthian faith is worthless, (2) they are still under the power of sin, and (3) those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (vv. 17-18). In conclusion Paul argues that if hoping in Christ has no future, then those who now believe in Christ deserve pity (v. 19).

Verse 20a reaffirms strongly what for Paul is the rebuttal to and very antithesis of all such negative consequences arising from the assumption that there is no resurrection of the dead: i.e., “Christ has been raised from the dead.” The real advance, however, in the argument takes place in the synthetic parallelism of v. 20b when Paul uses an agricu1tural metaphor from the Jewish cultus to illustrate his assumption regarding the inextricable connection between the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection. Christ’s resurrection is the “first fruits of those who are asleep,” the beginning of the end times resurrection “harvest.”^[20]See Delling’s article on “aparche”, in TDNT, 1:484-6, and H. G. Link and C. Brown, “First Fruits” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. by C. Brown, ( Grand Rapids: Zonder­van, 1978), 3:415-7. The metaphor of “first fruits” is not in the first instance intended to emphasize the temporal distinction between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of others, though that notion is not absent (cf. v. 23). The metaphor is chosen first of all because it expresses well, using the imagery of a seasonal harvest, the fact that there are two decisive moments comprising the total event of resurrection: one, the celebration of the first fruits (Christ), and two, the great ingathering at the end. For Paul to confess that Christ has been raised from the dead necessarily means that the harvest has begun.

At v. 21 Paul’s argument picks up a new metaphor (the Adam-Christ analogy) as another affirmation-virtually a proof from Scripture for Paul-of the organic continuity between the resurrection of Christ and the rest of the dead. The two references to “man” in v. 21 anticipate the contrast between Adam and Christ in v. 22. In v. 21the real point of contrast lies in the words “death” on the one hand and “the resurrection of the dead” on the other. Paul’s point is that just as death entered the world through Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12ff.), so also “the resurrection of the dead” came through Christ. Note well that Paul’s use of the expression “the resurrection of the dead” in v. 21 includes the resurrection of Christ. The two uses of “through man” in v. 21 are changed to the much more theologically loaded phrases “in Adam” and “in Christ” in v. 22. The main point is that of solidarity between Adam and his “all” and Christ and his “all.”^[21]Swee-Hwa Quek, “Adam and Christ According to Paul,” in Pauline Studies, ed. by D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids:   Eerd­mans, 1980), p. 68 argues that the two references to “all” in v. 22 go with the prepositional phrases instead of the verbs: i.e., “all in Adam die… all in Christ shall be made alive.” In any case, the point is the solidarity of the all (however extensive or limited the term) with the person and history of Christ.

Paul concludes this portion of the argument by granting that the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of all in Christ are not temporally simultaneous, for there is an order, namely “Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at his coming.” Nevertheless, Paul has not dropped his insistence that, while different in sequence, the resurrection of Christ, as first fruits, is the beginning of “the resurrection of the dead” (cf. 10:11b).

The Resurrection Body
(I Cor. 15:35-39)^[22]22Paul’s intriguing reference to those “who are baptized for the dead” is not within the purview of this article. It may be noted, however, that since it is such an obscure reference, one should certainly not make much of it. In any case Paul apparently does not approve of it. He is primarily concerned to show the inconsistency of those who would deny the future resurrection and yet baptize for the dead. See the excellent summary in G. R Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 185-92.

Given the logic of Paul’s argument, i.e., that the resurrection of Christ and resurrection of believers form the two coordinate foci^[23]Beker, Paul the Apostle, pp. 159-63. of the same event (the resurrection of the dead), one could deduce from the general discussion in vv. 35-49 Paul’s perceptions (gained no doubt from the Damascus road experience) of the resurrection body of Jesus though that is not, strictly speaking, the point of his argument here. In these verses Paul is particularly concerned to elaborate the nature of the resurrection body of those who will rise from the dead ”at his coming.” Though he regards as foolishness the kind of question that says, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” Paul is nevertheless concerned in the last half of the chapter before us to answer the question. The supposed questioner is not seriously interested in the nature of the resurrection body, but is, on the obvious assumption that the dead no longer have a body, sarcastically giving another reason why there is no resurrection of the dead.^[24]The sarcastic quality of the (supplied) question is suggested by its connection both to the following question (tantamount to “How can those who have no body be raised?”) and to the Pauline ‘retort “You fool!” Cf. Ron Sider, “The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in I Corinthians XV. 35-54,” New Testament Studies 21 (1974-5), 429, who points to the grammatical clues that also suggest satiric skepticism. Paul is still concerned to take this question seriously because it is another way of denying the fact of the resurrection, and is, therefore, on Paul’s assumptions, a contradiction of the gospel traditions he has preached and the Corinthians have espoused. The apostle attacks the question by maintaining that the intervention of death does not at all preclude another body, which he argues, is easily illustrated by the natural process whereby the death of a seed issues forth in wheat or some other plant growth. From this point (vv. 38-41) Paul argues that God’s covenant with nature^[25]See Dahl’s discussion of the idea of God’s “covenant with nature,” in contrast to an idea of objective natural law, in The Resurrection of the Body, pp. 51-58. includes giving to each kind of seed a “body” of its own. Here Paul is primarily arguing for the fact of different kinds of bodies, though the fact of continuity between seed and plant should not be overlooked^[26]Paul’s “seed” metaphor seems particularly well chosen to express continuity and discontinuity. Cf. Sider, “The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in I Corinthians XV. 35-54,” pp. 428-39, who argues well for some kind of continuity. (see below). Paul uses, the natural order in vv. 39-41 to illustrate the fact that there is ample evidence (from the world of beasts and birds and fish, as well as from the world of heavenly bodies) to assert that it is not at all unusual to find different kinds of bodies, indeed bodies of different “glory.”^[27]When drawing illustrations from the heavenly sphere Paul switches from the word “flesh” (v. 39) to “glory.” The basic point seems to be that the need for a different kind of body, i.e., the fact that the original body has decayed does not rule out the possibility of a resurrection body, given the fact that God’s control of the universe includes already the fact of bodily/ somatic differentiation among the various earthly and heavenly bodies. In v. 42a Paul relates his examples of bodily distinctions to “the resurrection of the dead.” Here Paul pursues the argument by a series of four contrasting pairs extending from vv. 42-49. The fourth pair, “a natural body . . . a spiritual body,” is itself elaborated with another of Paul’s Adam-Christ analogies. The earlier contrast between Adam and Christ in this chapter was for the purpose of highlighting the solidarity of each “man” with the creation of which he is the head. In this case, however, the point of the Adam-Christ analogy is to contrast, indeed, justify, the distinction in body (soma) between the body of this order, characterized by Adam, and the body of the new order characterized by the resurrected body of Christ.

The four pairs mentioned above, together with Paul’s exegetical development of the fourth pair, constitute the apostle’s description of the resurrection body. These four pairs are:

This series of contrasts illustrates for Paul the fact, still in response to the sarcastic question of v. 35b, that the death of the body, since one already may observe in nature different kinds of bodies, does not rule out a resurrection body. In other words the resurrection body is unlike the body that is “sown.”

To leave the matter there, however, as do many modem commentators on this passage,^[28]See the discussion of the “accepted exegesis” in M. E. Dahl, The Resurrection of the Body, pp. 11-36. is not to do justice to the full range of Paul’s thought. While indeed it is the point of contrast that is here primarily in view, this fact may not obscure the even clearer fact that there is for Paul a profound kind of continuity between “that” which is sown and “that” which is raised. Indeed, the word “that” in the above phrases reflects the tension and/or ambiguity in Paul’s own language with regard to the continuity between the old order in Adam and the new order in Christ. Put another way, the tantalizing, eight-fold use of “it” in vv. 42b-44 reflects on a grammatical level this very problem of continuity. The “it” cannot mean either the body of the old order or the body of the new order (i.e., either to the exclusion of the other). Whatever “it” is, ill: represents a measure of continuity between the two orders. The uses of “that” in vv. 36-7, and the “it” as it appears as the subject of the verbs “sown” and “raised” in vv. 42b-44, will not allow the assimilation of the “that” or the “it” to one or the other of the bodies. Only the term “soma,” “body,” is comprehensive enough to be appropriate to both of the uses. Indeed, the question of 35b suggests that it is the issue of soma that is most immediately to hand. The word “body” is the only word used on both sides of the contrasts, apart, of course, from the words “man,” “Adam,” and “image,” in vv. 45, 47, and 49. These latter terms with their modifiers are, however, elaborations of the more basic contrast between “natural body” and “spiritual body” (v. 44) and as such are suggestive for the meaning of “soma.”

It is at this point that a general divide in the history of exegesis, and/or the history of exegetical theology, takes place. M. E. Dahl has characterized the two great camps of interpretation with regard to the resurrection body as “the traditional view” and the “accepted exegesis.” The former espouses a kind of “auto-somatism,” while the latter champions “hetero-somatism.”^[29]Ibid., pp. 7-10. The traditional exegesis emphasizes the continuity between the body of the old order and the body of the new order and tends in its extreme forms towards resuscitation views. The accepted exegesis seems not so concerned with the question of continuity as with the reality of the utterly new body. The traditional view has in its favor the basic meaning of the word “resurrection,”^[30]Cf. A. Oepke, “Anastasis” in TDNT, 1:368-72 and C. Brown, “Resurrection,” in NIDNTT, 3:259-308. while the latter view can point to such passages as I Cor. 15:38, “but God gives it a body just as he wished,” and 15:50, “. . . that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The problem is reflected in the very terms discussed above, the “that” of vv. 36-7 and the repeated “it” of 42b-4. Again, as indicated above, the word “soma” is the term that is used on both sides of the contrast, and reflects, the dominant issue in the context of the passage (v. 35). How to resolve and/or clarify these contrary tensions is the difficult but necessary task before us.

The term “soma” represents a category in Pauline theology that reflects much more than “man” in his physicality; indeed, it is at certain points virtually a synonym for the “I.” There is a general consensus among New Testament scholars^[31]Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952), pp. 26-33; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:194f.; George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd­mans, 1974), pp. 464-66. that the term “soma” in Paul is generally a reference to the total person seen under the aspect of the physical.^[32]For an opposing view see R. H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). The problem occurs, however, not when one wants to see soma as the total person under the aspect of, the physical, but when one seeks to understand soma apart from any connection with the physical.^[33]Even though Gundry is unconvincing in his attempts to limit the word “soma” to the physical, he has reminded us of the inextricable link between soma and physicality. Cf. Ibid., pp. 243-44. What then are we to make of Paul’s comprehensive idea of soma in 15:35-49? Granted the term “soma” marks the verbal continuity between the two orders and their respective bodies, what is the idea of soma that will allow the term to be applied to the bodies of both orders and yet not be exclusively identifiable with either? The simple answer is the rather abstract appeal^[34]As this author has often done in the classroom for want of a better description. to “continuity and discontinuity.” But wherein does the continuity lie? Surely Paul’s series of contracts (see above) are sufficient to establish the difference between the two bodies, a difference that precludes even the dissolution of death from arguing for the impossibility of a resurrection body (as the Corinthians were wont to do). Yet we must suggest the kind of continuity that does not ignore the persistent “that” and “it” of this passage (nor would, on reflection, seem to leave the tomb of Jesus unempty) as if the life of the new order had utterly nothing to do with the life of the old (cf. also in vv. 53-4 the fourfold reference to “this perishable . . . and this mortal”).

The following observations are offered as both summary and, possibly, a way forward in the discussion.

(1) The dissolution of the natural body does not mean the obliteration of soma. Soma in some sense survives. The spiritual body (as soma) is not, however, to be identified with the natural body (as soma). On the other hand, we may not think of soma in this survival sense as a “third thing” extrinsic and/ or apart from both the natural soma and the spiritual soma, for in that case we would have merely built a kind of terminology canopy that covers both sides of the contrast but which is neither natural nor spiritual, in which case the notion of “change” in v. 15 becomes obscured.

(2) While soma is the concept that carries the “continuity,” it is also a term that is inextricably linked to the physical. Yet passages such as I Cor. 6:15-20, wherein Paul interprets the word “sarx” (“flesh”) of Gen. 2:24 (LXX) by means of the word “soma,” and does so for the purpose of extending the term to include conception beyond “physicality,”^[35]F. F. Bruce, I & II Corinthians, in The New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 63f. seem to suggest that the term “soma” cannot be limited to the physical.^[36]As Gundry Soma in Biblical Theology, pp. 51-80, attempts to do.

(3) It is not so difficult to conceive of the continuity of physicality (via “soma”) in the dramatic and mysterious “change” from ,the natural body to the spiritual body, or, more precisely, from the physicality of this order as experienced by the living to the physicality of the new order as experienced by the resurrection, when it is a question of the mysterious transformation of the living “in the twinkling of an eye,” i.e., the changing “at the last trump” of those who do not “sleep.” The difficulty arises when one seeks to conceive of the continuity of soma, from the order of those in Adam to the resurrected order of those in Christ, in the case of those who have experienced the decaying powers of death, i.e., when not ,the living but “the perishable”^[37]See J. Jererias, “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God,” New Testament Studies, 2 (1955-6), 151-59, who has convincingly sketched the consistent Pauline distinction between the “perishable” (the dead in Christ) and the “mortal” (those alive at the parousia) as it occurs, with varying terminology, from 15:50-53. inherits “the imperishable” (v. 50). If “soma” as a concept is inextricably linked to physicality, does the interval between the dissolution of the corpse (i.e., the apparent loss of, this physicality) and the restoration of physicality by means of the spiritual body, mean that, at least temporarily, the somatic reality has lost its link to physicality? If so, is it not in danger of also losing its connection with the notion of “person”? Again, the very term “resurrection” warns us against too great a break with physicality. The question seems relevant, though we cannot presume that Paul knew anything near what modern scientists know with regard to the chemical and/or molecular breakdown of the physical body at death. However, we would surely be wrong to assume that Paul was unfamiliar with the process of decay. Indeed, it would seem that the process of decay is the very basis for the sarcastic question in v. 35b (“and with what kind of body do they [the dead] come?”) which Paul seeks to counter. Paul, moreover, seems to insist that death and decay (note the repeated use of “perishable” in vv. 50-54) do not preclude the perpetuation of soma. Yet, our dilemma is still that, as far as possible, we do not want finally, or even temporarily, to separate soma from some notion of physicality. If such a condition occurs only temporarily, what then, again, is the basis of continuity between the natural body and the spiritual body?

(4) There are two considerations in Pauline language that will perhaps suggest a way forward. First, when Paul calls the resurrection body a “spiritual body,” it is very difficult not to see the connection between the term “spiritual’ and Spirit. The reference in v. 45 to Christ the last Adam as “a life-giving Spirit” borders on, if not repeats, the near synonymity that occasionally exists for Paul between the Holy Spirit (to use the dogmatic title) and the living Christ. In this connection it is interesting to note that this same kind of synonymity and virtual equivalence occurs in a number of resurrection passages in Paul. Rom. 8:9-11^[38]The connection between the thought and terminology of I Cor. 15:45 (“a life-giving Spirit”) and that of Rom. 8:9-11 has frequently been noted. Cf. E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic (Grand Rap­ids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 63ff.; and F. F. Bruce, I & II Corinthians, pp. 153, 193. Cf. also Rom. 1:4. is a brief but notoriously difficult passage, not only for the dogmatician who seeks to articulate as carefully as possible the exact relationship between the second and third persons of the Trinity, but also for those who seek to understand the relationship between the Spirit and the human spirit. At any rate, what is abundantly clear is that it is upon the basis of life “in the Spirit,” that is to say, the indwelling of the Spirit of God/the Spirit of Christ/the Spirit (vv. 9-11) that one has hope of the resurrection of the dead. This Spiritual indwelling is of course a present reality. Note also the reference to the resurrected Lord in the phrase “vindicated in the S/spirit” in I Tim. 3:16,^[39]Cf. also “made alive in the Spirit” in I Pet. 3:18. where again is found (in a confessional/hymnic fragment) the Pauline use of the word “Spirit” in connection with the resurrected Jesus. The way forward, then, may be to suggest that the present gift of the Spirit (which cannot be theologically separated from the resurrection body)^[40]Eph. 1:13-14; II Cor. 1:2; 5:5; Rom. 8:23. means that resurrection power is already at work and is indeed, already transforming this mortal body into the spiritual body. Of course this cannot be understood in such a way that precludes the power of death, since death is the final enemy to be defeated (I Cor. 15:26), but the present transformation of the body of this age, however scientifically unobservable it may be, must not be ruled out. Such indeed seems to be the import of II Cor. 4:7-18. In this passage Paul seems not to be suggesting the creation of a “completely other” man in contrast to the man of this order that is dying, rather it seems that the resurrection order, i.e., “the life of Jesus,” is currently being manifested in Paul’s “mortal flesh” (4:10-12).^[41]The manifestation of “the life of Jesus” in Paul’s “mortal -flesh” is   a point well made by C. F. D. Moule, “St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Concept of Resurrection,” New Testament Studies, 12 ( 1965- 66), 106-23, and E. Earle Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters ( Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 ), pp. 35-40, though Ellis would not agree with the connection to physicality argued for herein, preferring to limit the present transformation to one of a moral and weltanschaulich (or psy­chological) nature (p. 39). The problem with such a view is that it seems to impose an unwarranted distinction in the Pauline categories (between the moral and the physical) and does not seem to reckon with the fact that Paul apparently has no qualms about the present processes of “glorification” (II Cor. 4:17) and/or transformation into the “image”/ “glory” (see following note) of Christ (II Cor. 3:18). To be sure it is the new physicality (the spiritual body) that is being produced and is presently “unseen,” but is it wise to limit the present transformation to the moral/psychological, as if it had no connection with the physicality of the new order, or, for that matter, the physicality of this order? Would that not be yet another example of the imposition of a Greek dualism upon biblical thought? Certainly a moral transformation is a considerable element in Paul’s thought, but Paul’s point seems to be that the powers of death and corruption that dominate this age (which can­ not be separated from the powers if sin, cf. Rom. 5: 12ff.) have been so decisively conquered by the death and resurrection of Jesus that Paul’s (or, the Christian’s) afflictions and consequent physical dissolution are – because of faith union with Christ – the very means whereby the Spirit is creating the “eternal weight of glory,” (II Cor. 4:17), transforming us into the “image” of Christ (II Cor. 3:18; cf. I Cor. 15:49), renewing the “inner man” (II Cor. 4:16), and manifesting “the life of Jesus” (II Cor. 4:10, 11). As Moule says, “The Christian, and especially the apostle [Paul], has to accept ‘wear and tear’. He has to accept ageing, bruising, weakness, decay, as part of the painful process of exchange…. Paul actually conceived of the matter which is being progressively surrendered by the Christian in the process of living, dangerously and laboriously, in the service of God, as being used up, and used up in the creation of the new life, as fuel is used up to produce energy” (pp. 118, 12If.; italics added). Further, in 4:17 the “eternal weight of glory” that is being produced by “momentary, light affliction” is clearly a present reality (“is producing”),^[42]The inextricable connection in Pauline thought between “image”/ “glory” and physicality (particularly that of the “spiritual body”) is me­ticulously and convincingly argued in S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gos­pel, pp. 198-265, especially pp. 214-33. though Paul distinctively avers that it is not a reality that can currently be “seen” but is seen by faith as that which now participates in the eternal order (v. 18; cf. also 5:7,14-17). This present manifestation of the “life of Jesus” i.e., this present producing of an “eternal weight of glory,” may not be understood to be a reality alongside the decaying of the natural body; rather, it is grounded in and based upon the dissolution of this body by the afflictions of this age. It is this mortal flesh that manifests “the life of Jesus”; it is momentary, light affliction that is producing the “eternal weight of glory.”^[43]The beautiful, rhythmic parallels of II Cor. 4:8-9 (“afflicted…but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing….”) anticipate the ten­sions of the remainder of this passage (4:7 to 5:10) by modulating between the death-inducing afflictions of this age and the presence and hope of the resurrection life of the new age. Verses 10, 11, 16, and 17 illustrate well this juxtaposition of the old with the new. The “momen­tary, light affliction” of 4:17 parallels ad sensum the “dying of Jesus” of 4:10, the “mortal flesh” of 4: 11 and the “decaying” of the “outer man” of 4:16. Contrasted to these, respectively, are “the eternal weight of glory” ( 4: 17 ), “the life of Jesus” (4:10), again, “the life of Jesus” (4:11) and the “day by day” renewing of the “inner man” (4:16) . The first three of these juxtapositions merely refer to the simultaneous occur­rence of these phenomena of dying and living anew. The fourth, however, states precisely the logical relationship between these pairs: i.e., “momentary light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory” (4:17) . That is, it is precisely the dissolution of this body that constitutes by the life-giving Spirit the creation of the   body of glory. As the weakness of the cross is the power of God unto salvation (cf. I Cor. 1:18, 24; 2:5; Rom. 1:16-17), now the dying of the believer is “the dying of Jesus” and as such becomes the very means of the scandalous manifestation of the power of God.

Therefore, Paul’s reference in I Cor. 15:45 to Christ as “life-giving Spirit” may open the way to a perception of the present realities of resurrection in the present age and in this mortal body. Indeed, the expression “life-giving” is a synonym elsewhere for the verb “to raise.” Here it is the last Adam, the resurrected (“first fruits”) Christ himself, who is the resurrecting Spirit, and as such—though it is primarily the future eschatological moment that is here in mind—parallels the reference in Rom. 8:22 to the “first fruits of the Spirit,” the presence of resurrection life in the mortal flesh (cf. Rom. 8:10) of those who await the final redemption of the body. Because, then, the transformation to the new order actually begins now by the power of the indwelling Christ who is the life-giving Spirit, the soma, if this line of reasoning is correct, never exists without its link to physicality. Even the soma that survives the “sowing” of this order and awaits .the final “change” to the next order is grounded in, because it is a consequence of, the present process of the dissolving/renewing of the physicality (the natural body) of this age. In this sense, then, one may not speak of an “intermediate soma,” or of some “temporary somatic identity” that is unrelated to physicality for the interval between death and the final resurrection. One may speak only of the “natural soma” or the “spiritual soma,” whether the latter is the “first fruits” reality begun already by the life-giving, indwelling Spirit or the consummated “putting on” of “imperishability” at the last trump (15:53).^[44]It is best then to think of the resurrection as a process, though, to be sure, a process with certain ( at least three) points of intensification. In this way the spiritual body is begun by the Spirit in the midst of the dying of this body, is dramatically intensified in its progress toward Christ at death (II Cor. 5:1 has Paul’s own narrowly escaped [see 1:8- 11] and now anticipated death – not the return of Jesus – as its immedi­ate context, and therefore it is death [recall also the preceding context of 4:7-18] that here marks the passage from “faith” to “sight” in 5:7. See C. F. D Moule, “St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Concepts of Resur­rection,” pp. 109, 119), and is consummated at the return of Jesus (I Cor. 15:52; I Thes. 4:16; Phil. 3:20-21) when the curse of corruption is also lifted from nature (Rom. 8:21) and the sons of God are revealed (Rom. 8:19; Col. 3:3-4). In this way the much-debated differences be­ tween the heavenly body of II Cor. 5:1-10 received at death and the spiritual body of I Cor. 15:50-54 received at the return of Christ are not “contradictions,” but represent dramatic descriptions of different moments in the total process. By grounding the spiritual body in the very process of dissolution, i.e., putting off the natural body, there is avoided any suggestion of a “third” or “intermediate” body “between” death and resurrection, but, at the same time there is established in the process of dying, which is the negative concomitant of resurrection, a continuity of the natural soma with the spiritual soma.

The second way forward with regard to the ongoing physicality of the soma as it survives the death of the natural soma, is possibly reflected in the oft-repeated Pauline reference to “sleep.” The favorite Pauline term for “sleep” or “asleep” is koimao.

Of some eighteen occurrences of this term in the New Testament nine are found in the writings of Paul, and of these nine, six are in I Corinthians (four in chap. 15) and three occurrences are found in I Thessalonians.^[45]Paul has another term for sleep (katheudo) which often means moral sloth though in one occurrence in I Thes. 5:10 it means the same as koimao. On that occasion Paul chose katheudo because in the context it served as a pun to contrast Christian experience (whether alive or asleep) in Christ with the moral stupor of those outside of Christ. It is no accident that all nine of the Pauline occurrences are found in the two letters in which concern over the fate of those who have died in Christ is registered.^[46]Of the other nine occurrences of koimao in the New Testament possibly as many as half of them refer not to normal sleep but to the sleep of those who are to be raised from the dead. Cf. Mt. 27:52; Jn. 11:11; Acts 7:60; and II Pet. 3:4. Cf. also the synonymous use of katheu­ do in the raising of Jarius’ daughter in Lk. 8:52.

It is especially instructive in this connection to note that the ones who are sleeping in I Cor. 15:18 do so “in Christ.” I Thes. 4:14 has an equally, if not more, interesting qualification with regard to those that sleep: i.e., they sleep “through Jesus.” What precisely is to be made of the difference between sleeping “in Christ” or “through Jesus” is not clear. If anything, the use of “through” would seem to suggest a certain activity of the risen Lord in the relationship of union with the risen Lord in which the believer sleeps.^[47]Note the use of “through a man came death” and “through a man, resurrection of the dead” in 15:21, where the preposition dia clearly represents the agency of Christ in initiating “the resurrection of the dead.” Cf. R. Scroggs, The Last Adam (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), p, 83. However that may be, to be asleep in Christ certainly represents a deeper level of intimacy and relationship with the Lord, who is the life-giving Spirit (cf. Phil. 1:23 and II Cor. 5:8). The new somatic personality, i.e., the spiritual body that has been formed (cf. Gal 4:19) and nurtured through the process of dying and death is inextricably linked with the Spiritual body (i.e., the resurrected physicality) of the risen Lord and awaits its final revelation.^[48]The reference in I Thes. 4:16 to the fact that the dead in Christ rise first surely suggests – unless the idea of being “first” is to he child­ishly trivialized – that those who are asleep in Christ have truly “gone on before us,” i.e., their being “first” represents not only a temporal but a qualitative distinction in view of their ongoing relationship, beyond death, with the risen Lord, a further stage which those alive at the time of Christ’s return are bypassing, since in the case of the latter mortality is being “swallowed up by life” (II Cor. 5:4).

The Resurrection Life

We have suggested already that for Paul the resurrection future is indissolubly linked to the (already) resurrected Christ. This Christ is, moreover, a life-giving Spirit. If, as also suggested above, it is Arne that Paul’s use in I Cor. 15:45 of the term “Spirit” to refer to Christ is in any way linked to the rather synonymous uses of the terms “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” as they appear in Rom. 8:9-11, then one may say that life in the present is also the resurrection life. We have considered already the possible implications of the present process of resurrection with respect to the linking of soma with physicality, but there is yet another fruitful area of discussion, namely with respect to the ethical implications of the present process of resurrection, i.e., the present work of the Spirit. To speak of either the present process or the present hope of future resurrection is for Paul always to be speaking in a context of ethical lifestyle. The moral implications of the resurrection from the dead are brought om very clearly in 15:32-34, 58 (v. 34a: ”become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning . . .”; v. 58: “therefore my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, . . .”). In this connection it is interesting to note that Paul s term “glory,” a major resurrection term in the Pauline literature, is virtually synonymous on many occasions with the term “image” (I Cor. 11:7; II Cor. 3:18), a term which cannot in his theology be separated from either the work of the Spirit or the work of moral transformation. As a further elaboration of the contrast between the natural body and the spiritual body, we hear in 15:49 that “just as we have borne the image of the earthy [Adam], we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Christ].” Here the reference to bearing the image of Christ is a distinctly futuristic inference (cf. Phil. 3:21), primarily to the resurrection body. Given, however, the ethical exhortations found both within and at the conclusion of I Cor. 15 ( vv. 32- 34, 58), it is not surprising to find in other Pauline contexts the resurrection terms “glory” and “image” used in decidedly present contexts with reference particularly ,to the moral trans­ formation into the likeness of Christ that is occurring by the power of the Spirit in the lifestyle of the one that has faith in Jesus. This transformed life cannot in fact be separated from present transformation into the glory/image of the Lord. The classic text in this regard is II Cor. 3:1 to 4:6 where, having contrasted in the opening verses “the ministry of condemnation” (the old covenant of death/the Law) with the greater glory of “the ministry of the Spirit,” Paul declares that the “hardness”/”veil” that lies over the minds of the sons of Israel at the reading of the old covenant is “removed in Christ.” In 3:16 Paul quotes from Ex. 34:34, ”but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” The reference to “the Lord” in 3:16 is parallel to the reference to “Christ” in 3:14, as is evidenced by the paralleled reference in each to the removal of the “veil.”^[49]S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 12f., 228, n. 4.; and F. F. Bruce, I & II Corinthians, p. 193. To the contrary see J; D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 143f., 320, n. 75. In 3:17 Paul then takes the Old Testament reference to the Lord,” which he has already interpreted in terms of Christ, and makes a transition into the word “Spirit.” Here we have again the virtually synonymous use of the terms “Christ” and “Spirit”^[50]Which does not mean Paul does not distinguish between Christ and the Spirit (cf. I Cor. 12:4f.; II Cor. 13:14). See Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, p. 229, n. 1, where he argues that Paul’s perception (on the road to Damascus) of Christ as a Spiritual being is the historical basis of the identification of him with “the Spirit.” It is his mode of existence as a Spiritual body that is then the primary basis of the near synonymity. that we have already seen attested in Rom. 8:9-11 and I Cor. 15:45. It is precisely this intentionally chosen, dual reference in the word “Spirit” that enables Paul to say in 3:18 that we are being transformed into the glory (image) of the “Lord,” i.e., the Lord Jesus, by the “Lord,” i.e., the Spirit. This present transformation not only parallels the invisible processes of resurrection referred to above as occurring in the context of II Cor. 4:10-11, 17-18, but cannot be separated from it, and is, moreover, clearly related to the moral realities inherent in the fact that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (II Cor. 4:4) . Indeed, those who are being transformed into the glory/image of the Lord have, like Paul, “renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God . . .” (II Cor.4:2).

This same connection between a transformed lifestyle and resurrection hope is reflected in the baptismal passage in Rom. 6. As an introduction to that hortatory context Paul asks, “Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?” (v. 1). The apostle’s answer is a resounding “No!”, which he justifies by reference to the fact that we have died to sin and therefore ought no longer live in its thraldom (v.2). Then, in vv. 3-4, our death to sin is explained in terms of the meaning of baptism, i.e., that we have been baptized into the death of Christ and that we have therefore also been buried with him-and here Paul breaks off before arriving at the third aspect of the believer’s union with Christ, namely our union with him in resurrection—“so that we too might walk in newness of life.” The conclusion to be drawn from this change of structure is not, however, that the believer’s co-resurrection with Christ is being denied^[51]Cf. Markus Barth, Die Taufe-ein Sakrarnent? ( Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1951), pp. 227ff.; but see also G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 126-46, 160-62. or carelessly eliminated. Rather it has been highlighted in terms of that which for Paul is most crucial in this context, namely, the believer’s new lifestyle (“walk”) that is based upon, indeed, is the ethical expression of, his resurrection identity with Christ. Note also Col. 3:1-11, where resurrection with Christ is the basis of the moral exhortations that characterize the entire passage, a passage which is concluded (v. 10) with reference to the (present) renewal of the “new man . . . according to the image of the one who created him.” In short, the present life of the one who has faith in the crucified and resurrected Lord Jesus is a life in which-because the promised resurrection powers of the life­ giving Spirit are already at work in the believer-the “life of Jesus” (II Cor. 4:10-11), i.e., the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-3), is being manifested. For Paul the resurrection life which we now have because we “belong to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:24) and therefore “live by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:25a), is indissolubly linked with the lifestyle that is engendered by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25b).

Thus we have come full circle. There is always an indissoluble link between the resurrection of Christ “the first fruits” and the resurrection of his people, whether their resurrection is the present transformation and renewal or the final consummation. It is upon that basis, therefore, that the victory of Christ over death enables his followers to “be steadfast immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that…(our) toil is not in vain in the Lord” (I Cor. 15:58).