Friday, February 18, 2022

Robert Gundry Answering "Proof-Texts" Against Jesus' Resurrected Body (and our future resurrected bodies) Being Physical

 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)