The relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection
in 1 Corinthians 15:12–19 is a central debate among modern Bible scholars. It
need not be. Christian debates are often about over-thinking and fogging
because there is something they want to hide.
Many scholars reason this
way:
Some Corinthian Christians were arguing that "there is no
resurrection of the dead" (v. 12). To expose the flaw in their thinking, Paul
applies a strict logical deduction: if the category of "resurrection" is an
absolute physical impossibility, then Christ—being human—could not have risen
either.
Scholars like Gordon Fee note that Paul frames this to show
the Corinthians that denying the future resurrection completely undermines the
very foundation of the gospel they already accepted.
This is nonsense.
What they accepted is not a gospel at all. Without the prospect of the
glorious resurrection of all persons there is no gospel.
If the
scholars are right about the Corinthians then the letter has to be lying.
Would you believe a report that said a British group denied the USA currency
is money and that had to be told, GBP is not money either? You wouldn't
dignify such brazen nonsense with a denial.
I say there is a difference
between saying it is logically impossible and impossible on other grounds. We
say it is impossible for Aunt Jane to resurrect tonight even if we do think
God could raise her. We mean it is as good as impossible not that it is
literally impossible.
Paul as an ordinary man not a philosopher was not
thinking of logical impossibility. There is no hint that the Corinthians were
into philosophical thinking.
I now want to revise the point.
To
expose the flaw in their thinking, Paul uses this argument: if the category of
"resurrection" is not worth believing even if it is technically possible, then
Christ—being human—should not be considered risen either.
Scholars
heavily emphasize Paul's use of the term "firstfruits" (aparchē) in 1
Corinthians 15:20.
Prominent New Testament scholars like N.T. Wright argue that Paul viewed history as having broken into two halves. Jesus’ resurrection was not just an isolated miracle; it was the actual banging open of the door to the general resurrection. For Paul, the general resurrection has already begun in Jesus. Therefore, it is because Jesus rose as the "firstfruits" that the rest of the harvest (believers) will inevitably rise. In other words, Jesus rose earlier but his is part of the general resurrection.
Ultimately, Paul’s argument is emotional. It is a simple "all will rise, therefore Jesus rose". It could be called theological, but not historical or evidential.
His argument moves from the general to the specific not from the Jesus resurrection to the general. The general matters so much that even Jesus' does not matter except in how it supports and connects to it.
Paul does not use the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection as evidence for the
general resurrection. Appealing to witnesses can be about a conversation
rather than evidence. That is telling.
In the ancient world, listing
living, verifiable eyewitnesses (v. 6: "most of whom are still alive") was the
best people could do but it is not equivalent to inviting a jury to
cross-examine the data. Paul surely knew that. And Paul surely is not
supplying addresses to write to.
It would be unthinkable for Jesus to
appear to his disciples without impressing upon them that one day they would
be like him. They would even lose interest if his rising seemed to be only
about his afterlife. Consider how nobody centres on the raising of Lazarus.
It is thinkable if the resurrection was a lie or legend.
The
Corinthian crisis shows that Paul concocted a new doctrine - Jesus'
resurrection is part of the general resurrection and a foretaste. Earlier
letters expressed the same notion so it seems he tried to mainstream the
doctrine he had invented in 1 Corinthians. You would expect it to be pretty
basic and well-known had it arisen from the start of the Church.
Bible
scholars see Paul as offering theological comfort in saying, "Because Christ
broke through death first, the final resurrection of all humanity is now an
unstoppable reality. His resurrection is part of the general resurrection."
But the Corinth sceptics never asked for comfort. He is trying to manipulate.
Verse 19 supposedly includes the Corinthian sceptics. "If for this life
only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied above all men." If so, they
are happy as they are in Jesus without anticipating a resurrection. Paul
trashes their attitude. Plus saying they are to be pitied is patronising. It
is an insult to pagan famine and plague victims who had no thought of
resurrection either.