On the use of “spiritual” in 1 Cor 15:
Earlier, in 1 Cor 2:13, 15; 3:1,
Paul used the word to describe a certain class of Christians as different from
fleshly ones. He certainly was not contrasting ghostly Christians with physical
Christians, and nobody understands him thus. As he himself said, spiritual
Christians are those who are informed by the Holy Spirit (see the whole of 1
Cor 2:10-16). In Col 1:9 “spiritual” similarly describes understanding as given
by the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere in Paul “spiritual” describes gifts as given by
the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:1; 14:1; Rom 1:11); a blessing as given by the Holy
Spirit (Eph 1:3; cf. vv. 13-14); songs as inspired by the Holy Spirit (Eph
5:19; Col 3:16); the manna, the water-supplying rock, and the law as given by
the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 9:11; Rom 15:270. Only Eph 6:12 forms an exception by
putting “the spiritual things of evil” (τα πνευματιχα της πονηριας) side by side with “rulership,”
“authorities,” and “the cosmic rulers of this darkness,” all of which stand in
contrast with “blood and flesh.” But the contrast does not thus lie between
immateriality and materiality; rather, between the weakness of human beings and
the strength of superhuman beings.
Since throughout his letters Paul
uses the word “spiritual” not for immateriality but in reference to various
functions of the Holy Spirit, we should understand that the spiritual body of
resurrection is brought into being by the supernatural operation of the Holy
Spirit rather than by natural generation. (Robert Gundry, “The Essential
Physicality of Jesus’ Resurrection according to the New Testament,” in The
Old Is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 178; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005; repr.,
Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2010], 184)
On “flesh and blood” not inheriting the kingdom of God:
True, “flesh and blood will not
inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). But “flesh and blood” connotes the
frailty of the present mortal body, as Paul’s next, synonymously parallel
clause indicates: “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” He simply
means that the present mortal, corruptible body will not inherit God’s kingdom;
and he goes on to say that this present mortal, corruptible body will put on
incorruption and immortality (1 Cor 15:51-55; B.B. the neuter gender as
referring to the body in v. 53 and cf. Rom 8:23). This statement sounds not at
all like an exchange of physicality for nonphysicality, but like an exchange of
inferior physicality for superior physicality—a physicality so superior, in
fact, that in 2 Cor 5:1-4 Paul will come to speak not merely of an exchange of bodily
characteristics but of putting on a new, more substantial body over the old,
less substantial one. (He mixes the metaphors of dwellings and garments.) So
once again, we must not infer an essential nonphysicality for the risen Jesus
from the incorruptibility and immortality of the bodies of raised believers.
Quite the reverse! (Ibid., 185)
On Phil 3:21:
By the same token, the glory of
Christ’s risen body does not exclude physicality, but adorns it. It is argued
to the contrary that the contrast between “the body of his glory” (Phil 3:21)
and “the body of his flesh” (Col 1:22) shows the resurrected Jesus to be
essentially unfleshly even tough he might appear on occasion to have flesh and
bones. But this argument overlooks that in Phil 3:21 “glory” contrasts with
“humiliation” and therefore does not in the least denote an unfleshly material
out of which the resurrected body is made. In Col 1:22, conversely, “flesh”
does not identify the material out of which the crucified body of Jesus was
made. Perhaps this identification militates against an incipiently gnostic
denial of the incarnation (cf. 2:9). Almost certainly it distinguishes the
crucified body of Jesus from his metaphorical body, the church, mentioned both
before and after in the passage (1:18, 24; 2:17, 19; 3:15). There is no
contextual reason to think that Paul means to distinguish between the crucified
and resurrected bodies of Jesus as essentially material and essentially
immaterial, respectively. (Ibid., 185-86)
On 2 Cor 5:1:
Paul’s description of the
resurrected body as αχειροποιητον,
“not hand-made” (2 Cor 5:1) does not deny physicality. It denies human origin.
God’s Spirit brings the resurrected body into being; the present mortal body is
procreated humanly. Similarly the temple not handmade (Mark 14:58) is a work of
divine rather than human artisanship (cf. Acts 7:48; 17:24). The circumcision
not handmade (Col 2:11) is divinely performed rather than humanly performed.
The tabernacle not handmade (Heb 9:11) is divinely constructed rather than
humanly constructed (cf. Heb 9:24). The stone cut out of a mountain without
hands (Dan 2:34, 45) represents the kingdom of God as opposed to a human
kingdom. Since this stone smites an image and breaks in pieces its iron, brass,
clay, silver, and gold, the description of the stone as cut without hands
causes point to immateriality. If circumcision not handmade is nonphysical, it
is so because of the description “in the divestment of the body of the flesh”
(cf. Eph 2:11), not because of the description “not handmade.” This latter
description does not touch the question of materiality or physicality. (Ibid.,
186)
