Write-up1 (as at 23/08/2026 23:58:34): 1 Corinthians: 15
General Notes
- As part of my research into the topic of Resurrection2, a sub-plot of my Thesis on Personal Identity3, I have taken a look at what one of the primary New Testament texts has to say on the matter. This is Chapter 15 of Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.
- My general philosophical thoughts on Resurrection in a Christian context were given in a paper presented at an Open Bible Trust (OBT) Fellowship weekend in May 2026. See "Todman (Theo) - Resurrection".
- I’ve interacted with "Ozanne (Charles) - If there is no resurrection of the dead … What then? An exposition of 1 Corinthians 15" below, not because it’s a great work but because it was appropriate in the above event. Charles Ozanne had earned his PhD under F.F. Bruce’s supervision, so is no lightweight either from an academic or Christian viewpoint.
- My intention in this paper has been to be fairly succinct in the first instance, and to avoid commenting on verses irrelevant to the theme in hand. I’ve also treated this Chapter purely as an exercise in philosophical reasoning, whether or not Paul so intended it (though he clearly intends to be arguing). I have been reverent towards the text but have not treated it other than I would any other serious philosophical work.
- This discussion is not an exercise in spiritual exhortation, so includes none of the ‘gee whiz – how wonderful’ elements that are important in commentaries and are prevalent in the work alluded to above.
- I have proceeded by adding footnotes to the verses. I intend – one day – to add more substantive comments but have not had the time as yet.
- For copyright reasons, I’ve taken my Text from the English Standard Version, obtained from the Bible Society’s website (Bible Society ESV: 1 Corinthians 15).
- The interlinear Greek text is available on-line at BibleHub: 1 Corinthians 15; Greek/English Interlinear.
Text & Footnotes
- Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
- and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.
- For I delivered to you as of first4 importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
- that he was buried, that he was raised5 on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
- and that he appeared6 to Cephas, then to the twelve.
- Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
- Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
- Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me7.
- For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
- But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
- Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
- Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no8 resurrection of the dead?
- But if there is no9 resurrection of the dead, then not even10 Christ has been raised.
- And if Christ has not been raised, then11 our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
- We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
- For if the dead are not raised, not even12 Christ has been raised.
- And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile13 and you are still in your sins.
- Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished14.
- If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied15.
- But in fact16 Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits17 of those who have fallen asleep.
- For as by a man came death18, by a man has come also19 the resurrection of the dead.
- For as in Adam all die20, so also in Christ shall all be made alive21.
- But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits22, then at his coming23 those who belong to Christ.
- Then comes the end24, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father25 after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
- For he must reign until26 he has put all his enemies under his feet.
- The last enemy27 to be destroyed is death.
- For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who28 put all things in subjection under him.
- When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him29 who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all30.
- Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead31? If the dead are not raised at all, why32 are people baptized on their behalf?
- Why are we in danger33 every hour?
- I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day34!
- What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus35? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die36."
- Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals37."
- Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
- But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised38? With what kind of body39 do they come?"
- You foolish person! What you sow40 does not come to life unless it dies41.
- And what you sow is not the body that is to be42, but a bare kernel43, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
- But God gives it a body44 as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body45.
- For not all flesh is the same46, but there is one kind47 for humans48, another for animals49, another for birds50, and another for fish51.
- There are heavenly bodies52 and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind53, and the glory of the earthly54 is of another.
- There is one glory of the sun55, and another glory of the moon56, and another δόξα of the stars57; for star differs from star in glory58.
- So is it59 with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable60; what is raised is imperishable61.
- It is sown in dishonor62; it is raised in glory63. It is sown in weakness64; it is raised in power65.
- It is sown a natural body66; it is raised a spiritual body67. If there is a natural body, there is also68 a spiritual body.
- Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being69"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit70.
- But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
- The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven71.
- As was the man of dust, so also72 are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also73 are those who are of heaven74.
- Just as75 we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image76 of the man of heaven.
- I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood77 cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable78.
- Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep79, but we shall all be changed80,
- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet81. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable82, and we shall be changed83.
- For this perishable body must put on the imperishable84, and this mortal body must put on immortality85.
- When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory86."
- "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?87"
- The sting of death is sin88, and the power of sin89 is the law.
- But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
- Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain90.
In-Page Footnotes
Footnote 1:
- This is the write-up as it was when this Abstract was last output, with text as at the timestamp indicated (23/08/2026 23:58:34).
- Link to Latest Write-Up Note.
Footnote 4:
- The ensuing doctrinal statement is introduced because of the apparent denial of personal resurrection by the Corinthians, as we shall see. Paul wants to stress that resurrection is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, and cannot be lightly denied, as it generally was at the time (eg. by Greek philosophers – who disliked being embodied – or Sadducees, who thought the doctrine absent from the Pentateuch).
Footnote 5:
- I have no great philosophical worries about the raising of Jesus. In Jesus’ case we have bodily continuity, and not too much time between death and resurrection. Consequently, I will not discuss it further in this place. It is our potential resurrection that I am primarily interested in, and which presents greater philosophical problems.
Footnote 6:
- Again, evaluating the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is not my topic here. Enough to say that the “appearances” present some problems in reconciliation, however certain some exegetes are that they can be resolved. But we will ignore these issues here.
- The important point is that Jesus resurrection is said to be bodily, and the tomb was empty. So, it is the same body that is resurrected, albeit “glorified” in some way.
- I don’t know whether anything is to be made of the request by Jesus to Mary Magdalene not to “handle him” as he had not yet ascended. See John 20:17. Modern translations imply that he doesn’t want to be clung on to, so as to prevent him ascending, though this wasn’t scheduled for another 40 days. However, it has been suggested to me that the ‘ascension’ Jesus is referring to isn’t that which took place 40 days after his resurrection, but an earlier one soon after his resurrection where he was to present himself before the Father as the ‘firstfruits’ of those raised from the dead (which is prefigured in the Jewish feast of the same name).
Footnote 7:
- The appearance to Paul is – or has the potential to be – qualitatively different to the earlier appearances to the other disciples.
- The reason is that it is post-ascension and a vision. Jesus is said not to be visible to Paul’s companions on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:7).
- As it’s a vision, it says nothing about the corporeal state of Jesus either at the time, or in his post-ascension abode wherever that might be.
Footnote 8:
- This is an argument: “If … (then)”. The argument, to be elaborated, is that if it is impossible for the dead to rise, then Christ has not been raised, and the cornerstone of the Christian’s faith is undermined.
Footnote 9:
- The Corinthians – being either gentiles or highly Hellenised Jews – might well be expected not to believe in the resurrection, but belief in resurrection was not universal in Judaism. The Pharisees – of whom Paul had been one – believed in it but – notoriously – the Sadducees did not.
- It would be comforting to think that the concept of resurrection is found in the OT, but if it had been that clear, the Sadducees wouldn’t have denied the doctrine. Why would you?
- Jesus’ choice of ‘proof text’ in Matthew 22:32 may seem slightly odd. On the surface, as far the language is concerned, the expression ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ says no more than that ‘I am the God of your fathers – the same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worshipped’. It’s not really talking about the present existence of those worshippers, though you could – as Jesus did – take it that way. You might choose a clearer text if you had one.
- Maybe Daniel 12:2 would do: “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” or alternatively Job 19:26 “I know that my redeemer liveth’ … discussed later on, with regard to what ‘flesh’ Job would see God in. However,
- The Jewish Study Bible claims that Dan. 12:2 is the only clear reference in the Bible to the doctrine of post-mortem survival, and even this isn’t clear on the form – spiritual or corporeal. The commentator takes the idea of resurrection to have arisen in the times of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in whose reign many righteous and learned Jews were martyred, and is the time the commentator takes the pseudepigraphal Daniel to have been written, and it was felt – in Paul’s words – that they had died ‘in vain’ if they had no reward in an afterlife.
- It is surprising that this cracker of a proof text (Job 19:26) – if that is what it is – is left to Handel’s Messiah and passed by in the NT. The Jewish Study Bible takes the ‘redeemer’ (‘go’el’) to be a kinsman-redeemer – a family member who will take up Job’s case against God after his death. Job had just said that he wished his words of complaint could be written down indelibly. He would prefer – and expects to – continue his complaint directly to God ‘in his flesh’, but if not, a relative will do it. Maybe; these poetic books are capable of multiple interpretations. But if Job would indeed see God ‘in his flesh’ (biblegateway: Job 19:26; biblehub: Job 19:26 (Hebrew)), what ‘flesh’ – in the light of Paul’s discussion – is he thinking of? Is he thinking of a resurrection into the same – ‘his’ – flesh or some new flesh that will then be his. What sort of flesh might this be?
- But, whatever the cogency or otherwise of such passages, they’d cut no ice with the Sadducees who gave much stronger prominence to the Torah than to the Prophets or the Writings (to which Daniel and Job are consigned).
Footnote 10:
- Another “If … then” argument. But, it might be said, there may be special cases. As I noted above, there is bodily continuity in the case of Jesus (and Lazarus) but not usually in our own cases. So, it might be true that we are not raised, because (say) it is a metaphysical impossibility, but still true that Jesus was raised.
Footnote 11:
- Another “If … then” argument.
- Read on for why the preaching and faith are “in vain”.
Footnote 12:
- This is a repetition of verse 13.
Footnote 13:
- There seem to be two reasons for this ‘futility’, as this verse itself indicates. Firstly, “your faith is futile“ – which may or may not equate to a lack of a future hope. Secondly “you are still in your sins” – the resurrection of Christ is essential in procuring forgiveness of sins (says Paul).
Footnote 14:
- There is much that could be said here about the nature of the Christian post-mortem “hope”. If the Corinthians were Platonists, they would not at all equate the lack of a resurrection with “perishing”, for the (immortal) soul would carry on existing, freed at last from the shackles of the body. Eternal life would be possible without resurrection if it were in disembodied form.
- So, the question is – just why is resurrection so important?
- Is resurrection important for evidential reasons – in Christ’s case – to demonstrate that he had survived death – or for metaphysical reasons – because eternal life will be in an embodied state – for Christ as well as for us?
Footnote 15:
- Why is this so? Why are ‘we’ ‘of all people ‘most to be pitied’ if we have hope only in this life? Most people only have – or think they only have – ‘hope in this life’. Is the Christian’s lot worse than the non-Christian’s? Was this the case just for the persecuted Christians at the time? Are the ‘we’ only Paul and his fellow missionaries?
- Lots of groups of people are – and were – deluded, so why should the early Christians be more pitied than others should they be deluded? Presumably because the transient benefits of being a Christian – at least then – weren’t as great as for other groups?
Footnote 16:
- Paul had provided the evidence for Christ’s resurrection at the start of the Chapter.
Footnotes 17, 22:
- There had been – according to Scripture – earlier resurrections, though these individuals were raised in their pre-mortem state, just repaired a bit, not with ‘imperishable’ bodies.
Footnote 18:
- Paul is arguing by analogy and parallelism here. He is assuming the real existence of Adam, with death coming into the world as a result of his sin. This is not really credible to modern sensibilities, but does it really matter to the argument? The fact is that all die, for whatever reason.
Footnote 19:
- The completion of the analogy / parallelism: Adam versus Christ.
Footnote 20:
- Comparisons can be made with Paul’s Epistle to the Romans here. The reason for all dying can be debated. It would not be impossible for an organism to repair itself indefinitely, but from an evolutionary perspective this is not a good thing as it prevents the gene shuffling and mutations necessary for the variation to allow evolution to have purchase.
- Charles Ozanne (in "Ozanne (Charles) - If there is no resurrection of the dead … What then? An exposition of 1 Corinthians 15", hereafter referred to as ‘Ozanne’) picks up the parallelism in v. 22 – ‘all’ applies – as the text says – to all men. He has it that not all, however, take advantage of the offer. Also, he correctly invokes a trans-temporal interpretation. All die at various times, and all will be raised at various times – including the first and second general resurrections (Ozanne cites Revelation 20:5,12-13 and blames the amillennialism of commentators such as CK Barrett for failing to see this).
- This may explain an otherwise odd excursion by Paul later in the chapter.
Footnote 21:
- At first sight, Christians are in view here, though maybe not. If it’s only Christians, it spoils the parallelism.
Footnote 23:
- This is not the general resurrection, but of Christians only.
Footnote 24:
- This – sort of – implies that the end is immediately after Christ’s return, but read on … the Millennium intervenes between the return of Christ and the End.
Footnotes 25, 29:
- All this is interesting, but not relevant to my concerns here.
Footnote 26:
- This excursion is probably necessary because not ‘all’ are raised at Christ’s second coming – only those that ‘belong to him’.
- The rest of the dead are not raised until the end of the Millennial kingdom.
Footnote 27:
- ‘Death’ is here personified, just as in Revelation where Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire. Presumably this is after the ‘second death’ – the fate of unbelievers. Note that ‘Death’ is not supposed to be tortured indefinitely, but to be destroyed.
Footnote 28:
- All this is interesting, but not relevant to my concerns here.
Footnote 30:
- All this is interesting, but not relevant to my concerns here.
Footnote 31:
- This supposed reference to vicarious baptism is obscure but – maybe – only because it sounds silly.
- I was pleased to see that Ozanne adopts the traditional translation and interpretation of the odd practice of ‘being baptised for the dead’ rather than Bullinger and some others’ repunctuation (‘why are people baptised – it is for the dead if the dead aren’t raised’).
- In any case, the point is the futility of the practice (our own or a vicarious baptism) if the dead aren’t raised.
- There’s a sensible discussion here: Dan Doriani: What Does Paul Mean by ‘Baptism for the Dead’?
Footnote 32:
- Paul’s point is that – in some way – the dead can be benefited which – he says – only makes sense if they are to live again. Resurrection isn’t the only means of living again but is the one Paul has firmly in mind.
Footnote 33:
- Paul argues that accepting the risks he and his fellow missionaries are taking only make sense if he is to live indefinitely, if there is a ‘reward’. Yet most virtuous people do what they do because it has to be done and is of immediate – if transitory – benefit to others (and is fulfilling for the virtuous person). This is a sharp divide between Greek (and modern) ethics and Paul’s. Also – I suppose – Jesus’ … ‘what reward have you if you only love your friends?’.
Footnote 34:
- I don’t know what to make of the reference to ‘death’ here. Did Paul literally ‘die every day’?
Footnote 35:
- I’d always thought that when Paul says “Humanly speaking” … (he) “fought with beasts at Ephesus” the “Humanly speaking” indicates a figure of speech and he’s being derogatory about his (human) opponents, for the reasons given by a commentator Ozanne dismisses. Ozanne says Paul isn’t prone to exaggeration, despite the fact that he says ‘he dies every day’. Maybe he did die, once, when stoned, but it can hardly have been a daily routine. But, I don’t really care.
Footnote 36:
- This is a quotation from Isaiah 22:13. But this Isaiah isn’t recommending this attitude or saying anything about resurrection, but that the Israelites should be doing something to avert the coming catastrophe.
- It’s not at all the case that hedonism is the best way to lead a finite life.
Footnote 37:
- This is said to be a quotation from Menander’s Thaïs, but had been collected, together with other aphorisms, into a school-book and would therefore presumably have been authoritative for the Corinthians without us having to suppose that they were aesthetes.
- See Wikipedia: Menander: “An admirer and imitator of Euripides, Menander resembles him in his keen observation of practical life, his analysis of the emotions, and his fondness for moral maxims, many of which became proverbial: "The property of friends is common," "Whom the gods love die young," "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (from the Thaïs, quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:33). These maxims (chiefly monostichs) were afterwards collected, and, with additions from other sources, were edited as Menander's One-Verse Maxims, a kind of moral textbook for the use of schools.”
Footnote 38:
- The ‘how’ – as immediately becomes apparent – is not asking for a mechanism – but means ‘in what form’ or ‘with what body’.
- This is disappointing, in that the mechanism is important for the preservation of identity, and Paul says nothing on this matter.
- Ozanne sees two questions put by the Corinthians … “how are they raised” and ”with what body”. I view them as the same question – the “how” is asking “in what form” and the so-called second question is a clarification of the first. Doubtless we’d like to know how the ‘magic’ is performed, but Paul doesn’t provide an answer to that but focuses on the “what”. Ozanne thinks the agricultural cycle of planting and growing provides the answer to the ‘how’, but not really. The acorn is the seed of an oak that produces another oak of the same form as the parent. Not so in the resurrection, where the pre- and post-mortem bodies are significantly different.
- There are three proposals by modern Christian philosophers who are (or – in Zimmerman’s, a dualist’s, case – can adopt the stance of) ‘materialists’ – in denying the existence of incorporeal souls – not put forward as ‘actual’ but to show the logical possibility of resurrection:-
- Body Snatching ("Van Inwagen (Peter) - The Possibility of Resurrection"): God miraculously swaps out our pre-mortem ‘corpse-to-be’ with a simulacrum and whisks away the original to the future world where it repaired and ‘spiritualised’.
- ‘Falling Elevator’ (think ‘Looney Tunes’ – the hero hops out of the falling elevator just before it crashes to the ground; Dean Zimmerman: "Zimmerman (Dean) - The Compatibility of Materialism and Survival: The “Falling Elevator” Model", "Zimmerman (Dean) - Bodily Resurrection: The Falling Elevator Model Revisited" and "Zimmerman (Dean) - Personal Identity and the Survival of Death"): God sets up a miraculous mechanism that causes the dying body to connect to – and be continuous with – the future resurrection body in the next world. This is really a slightly less ludicrous version of the above.
- Luz Bone ("Chisholm (Roderick) - Which Physical Thing Am I? An Excerpt from 'Is There a Mind-Body Problem?'"): there is some ‘atom’ or other small particle that survives corruption and is the ‘continuity particle’ on which the resurrection body is built (much like a pearl on a grain of sand). Some ancient Jews equated this, absurdly, with the Coccyx. This attempt isn’t completely without motivation. It can be considered to be an analogy to the recently-discovered existence of ‘imaginal discs’ in the caterpillar that ensure the continuity of its development into pupa and thereon to imago.
- It is often said that Scripture doesn’t go into much detail – or indeed, any detail – about ‘the next life’ because ‘our minds aren’t up to it’.
- It is true that God’s revelation would need to be accommodated to what could be understood at the time of revelation. That’s why we shouldn’t take a lot of what we read in Scripture literally.
- I doubt we’d understand ‘all’, but we could have a go at understanding ‘some’ and try to come to some rational view. I imagine most people have some view of what the future life may be, so it’s worth discussing the matter. It’s disappointing that we haven’t been given a bit of a head start.
Footnote 39:
- This is an important question. If it’s not the same kind of body that died, we have questions about the identity-preservation of metamorphosis.
- It is important that the resurrected person be ‘identical’ to the person that died. That is, the very some person, not someone else. ‘Identical’ is a slippery term. I am the same human organism as I was yesterday despite ‘my body’ having lost and gained various bits of matter in the course of metabolism, growth, decay and repair. The ‘persistence conditions’ for organisms differ from those of ‘masses of matter’. So, ‘bodies’ are not self-identical from day to day despite being ‘the same body’. I’d like to know just what the continuity is between the mortal and eternal bodies and what makes them bodies of the same individual.
- There are different degrees of metamorphosis – that of frog-spawn → frog (and maybe even frog → prince) is a continuous process involving a transition from one form to another with a continuing distinct individual. Not too much different to human gestation from fertilised egg through to neonate. But egg → caterpillar → chrysalis → butterfly involves a stage where the body of the caterpillar turns to gloop before being reconstituted as a butterfly. I’d have thought this analogy would be more apposite than the ‘seed’ analogy, as we will see, though the ‘gloop’ is not completely formless.
- This butterfly metamorphosis is a natural suggestion, but not one Paul himself adopts. It is the most challenging example of metamorphosis.
- Usually, there’s an obvious continuous development of structures – much as is human development from an embryo onwards.
- Egg to tadpole to frog involves the reabsorption and repurposing of body parts to remove a tail, add legs and replace gills with lungs … but it all looks somewhat continuous.
- But the development of an egg to caterpillar to pupa to butterfly seems to involve a complete loss of structure during the latter metamorphosis.
- However, the popular view that the caterpillar is converted into amorphous goo is overly simplistic. It seems that there are ‘imaginal discs’ (‘imaginal’: from ‘imago’, the adult form of an insect, in this case, the butterfly) in the body of the caterpillar that are not broken down like the rest of its body but are built upon to form the body-parts of the adult butterfly. See Wikipedia: Pupa and Wikipedia: Imaginal disc.
- So, the ‘amorphous goo’ analogy isn’t available to explain how a human being can be reduced to dust and dispersed and yet be resurrected as the very same being.
- As well as the ‘how’ question, Paul doesn’t address questions of ‘where’. Where are the dead raised, and where is their eternal abode?
- The ‘where’ question is particularly pressing in the case where the corpse of the deceased has become dispersed, has had its atoms incorporated into the bodies of other individuals who have subsequently died – or who – maybe – are still alive and are to be ‘changed’, and so on. A ‘dispersed’ corpse cannot step out of its grave, as it hasn’t got one.
Footnote 40:
- Ozanne addresses Paul’s use of the ‘seed’ analogy. He seems to suggest that the seed is the corpse and – indeed – this has been the traditional view and led to a reluctance to adopt cremation as against burial. But resurrection doesn’t depend on the location of a corpse, so this can’t really be Paul’s point. Rather, there is something in what we were that leads on to what we will be. The resilience of seeds is also not the issue.
Footnote 41:
- Again, this is some sort of analogy.
- It’s a classical philosophical conundrum whether the oak tree is the same individual as the acorn.
- Even though there is great physical difference between the acorn and the oak tree – just as there is between the early-term fetus and the human neonate – and between the latter and the adult human being – there is continuity of form and matter (though with the addition of extra matter).
- But in no sense does the acorn, or early-term fetus – ‘die’. Rather, it ‘develops’.
- As Paul later suggests, while death is a necessary precursor for resurrection – by the very meaning of words – it is not necessary for the assumption of the resurrection body – ‘change’ will do.
- I would suggest that the acorn is ‘changed’ into the oak tree. But even if the acorn doesn’t literally die, it is no longer there in the same form at the end of the developmental process.
Footnote 42:
- The ‘sowing’ is in the farming sense, nothing to do here with any supposed ‘sowing’ of a corpse.
Footnote 43:
- This is presumably referring to the whole seed.
- However, some philosophers – and the medieval Jews – thought that there is some indestructible ‘kernel’ in the human being’s body that survives cremation or corruption and forms the link between the corpse and the resurrected body. See Wikipedia: Luz bone.
- It’s nonsense, of course. The sacrum is not indestructible and we’ve no reason to believe – anatomically-speaking – that any bone or substantive particle within the body is indestructible.
- This is a failed wheeze – like the medieval suggestion that human flesh is indigestible to cannibals, so doesn’t form part of their bodies causing problems for reassembly of the same matter.
Footnote 44:
- Whether the ‘giving’ of the body is by supernatural creationist means or natural evolutionary ones does not matter for these purposes.
- This idea is reminiscent of Hebrews 10:5, which alludes to the LXX version of Ps. 39:7. ‘A body you have prepared for me’.
- Question 1: The quotation above implies either that the pre-incarnate Christ had a different body to that of his incarnation, or was incorporeal. Was his resurrection body ‘created for him’, and is he now eternally corporeal?
- Question 2: If our resurrection bodies are ‘created for us’, what sort of thing are we? What is it of us that can be given a new body?
- I’m assuming throughout this discussion that we are souls rather than have them. Adam became a living soul. Immaterial souls – which the Corinthians placed their hopes in – are just – in the light of modern science – just another impossible thing to believe before breakfast.
Footnote 45:
- This seems to refer not to the bodies of the seeds themselves but to the individual the seed (allegedly) dies and then develops into.
Footnote 46:
- We slide from vegetable to animal matter.
Footnote 47: Footnote 48:
- Much debated today, where humans are classed along with the other great apes (albeit as special ones).
Footnote 49:
- ‘Animals’ is a very wide term in modern biology – and would definitely include birds and fish. I suppose Paul has livestock or beasts of burden in mind – familiar mammals – but the details don’t really matter. The Greek word κτῆνος (ktēnos) has these meanings.
Footnotes 50, 51: Footnote 52:
- I have no idea what sort of bodies Paul thought the ‘heavenly bodies’ had. From our modern perspective, they ‘are’ bodies; they don’t ‘have’ them (like we are often said to ‘have’ bodies being – it is often supposed – fundamentally something else).
- The Greeks – and therefore the Corinthians, who are supposed to be following Paul’s argument – had all sorts of wrong ideas about heavenly bodies. It was only Galileo’s telescope that revealed they weren’t perfect spheres.
Footnotes 53, 54, 55, 56, 57:
- What is meant by ‘glory’ (Greek δόξα) here?
Footnote 58:
- No doubt ‘glory’ (δόξα) has a meaning here analogous to ‘majesty’. The term is important in the ensuing argument.
- What is certain is that ‘glory’ isn’t a place. This verse isn’t saying that the stars in ‘glory’ differ from one another but that the stars differ from one another in majesty.
- Paul is presumably unaware that the sun is a fairly nondescript star, important though it is to us.
- Ozanne doesn’t take ‘glory’ to be a place, but a characteristic. So far so good. But he takes Paul to be saying that the resurrected believers will be variously ‘glorious’ according to their various callings (and maybe accomplishments). I can’t see that Paul has this in mind. He’s merely pointing out that God provides bodies as he wills, and that there are different kinds of bodies. So, there’s no reason to believe that the resurrection body would be the same as that which died.
Footnote 59:
- Here we have the explanation or clarification of the analogy.
- Ozanne summarises the four differences between the mortal and resurrection bodies – the first three are uncontroversial (perishable vs imperishable; dishonour vs glory; weakness vs power). The fourth (natural vs spiritual) requires some unpacking. To quote: “Our Lord’s resurrection body was spiritual, but not in the sense of non-material. He could eat fish and be touched, but at the same time He could pass through closed doors, appearing and disappearing at will”.
- There’s something deeply incoherent about all this. What is ‘matter’ in this context and what is ‘spirit’? Is the fish rapidly metabolised into some new form of spiritual matter so that it doesn’t get stuck when passing through a closed door? Presumably the resurrected Christ could be touched – else he wouldn’t have forbidden it ‘as he’d not yet ascended to the Father’, but what would he have felt like?
- Some of these appearances sound like visions. Others as demonstrating something rather than showing what our resurrection bodies will be like.
- At the last supper Jesus implies that he will drink wine with his disciples in the Kingdom of God. Is this literal or the language of condescension, figurative in some way? Or is it supposed that they would still be alive – and on the old earth – when the millennial Kingdom is inaugurated?
Footnote 60:
- Well, yes, especially as it has already perished, but this sets off a series of contrasts.
- Ozanne tries to address the question of how similar we will be in our resurrected state to what we were like before and whether we’d recognise one another – making an analogy with Christ not being initially recognised on the road to Emmaus.
- He says our bodies will be somewhat similar to those we had pre-mortem, again presumably by analogy with Christ’s resurrection body being to some degree recognisable.
- But the resurrection appearances don’t seem to present the resurrected Christ as ‘glorious’ – how can you think you’re chatting to a regular guy ignorant of the recent events if he looks like lightening? See Wikipedia: Road to Emmaus appearance for a discussion of the account of this episode in Luke 24:13–35. I would add the episode where Mary Magdalene mistakes the risen Jesus for the gardener. See John 20:11-18 (NIV).
- Of course, there is a question as to what stage of life the resurrected body is similar to. If you’ve only known great grandma as an old crone, you’ll presumably find it difficult to recognise her, as she will find it difficult to recognise little Johnny who died age 5 but presumably doesn’t spend eternal life as a tiny tot. No doubt there are answers to these questions, but they are not addressed by Paul (or Ozanne).
Footnote 61:
- Presumably this means that it’s not subject to decay as our ‘earthly’ bodies are. Presumably it is not immortal – in the sense that God could destroy it (as presumably he will do with Satan and the wicked angels).
- I say this not because it’s at all likely in the case of resurrected Christians but to raise the question of what sort of body it is.
Footnote 62:
- In what sense ‘dishonourable’? Because it was a corpse? Or are healthy human bodies ‘dishonourable? This would be in stark contrast to the Greek view – think of all those statues – and might be in line with the views of the ascetics about to mount their pillars in the desert. But not likely.
Footnote 63:
- Again, ‘glory’ is not a place, but a state.
Footnote 64:
- Another contrast. Even the strong-man’s body is – presumably – weak in comparison to the resurrection body, but it’s not clear what sort of power is presupposed.
Footnote 65:
- See the footnote immediately above.
Footnote 66:
- Greek: σῶμα ψυχικόν. Literally ‘soulish’ – the body of the ‘living soul’ that we are.
Footnote 67:
- What sort of idea is ‘spiritual’ in this context. Is it some form of super-duper matter, some extra life-force, or something of which we’re given no clue to form a conception of?
- As is well know, this ‘spiritual body’ has some odd properties. It can walk through walls, fly through the air but can consume fish.
- It’d be nice to know whether it is an organic body ‘fixed up a bit’ or whether it is of a completely different make-up, and in what sense it will be ‘ours’. Will it be something we ‘have’ or is it ‘us’. Elsewhere Paul talks of clothes and tents. This ‘clothing’ is analogous to the idea of our bodies as a ‘tent’ in 2 Cor. 5:4 and thereabouts.
- But just what sort of thing is the being that inhabits a tent of whatever sort?
- Ozanne states “The flesh will be of a more refined texture and the blood will be replaced by the life-giving Holy Spirit. Our Lord could pass through closed doors (John 20:19), yet Thomas was able to feel the nail holes and put his hand in the Lord’s side (20:27) .” Well, Thomas was given the opportunity to do as Ozanne says, but the passage doesn’t suggest that he did so. What does it mean to say that the blood is replaced by ‘spirit’ (much like ichor in the Greek gods) and just what is this flesh of refined texture? This sounds purely speculative to me.
Footnote 68:
- What is this ‘If … (then)’ sentence meant to mean? It is not a logical consequence of there being a natural body that there should be a spiritual one, though it might be a fact.
- Maybe – if we are essentially corporeal beings that live on indefinitely – some such ‘spiritual’ body is a prerequisite.
Footnote 69:
- This was written (in Genesis). The NT Greek is ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.
Footnote 70:
- This was not written but is Paul’s supplied parallel.
- ‘Became’ (Greek Ἐγένετο) is understood as carried forward from the parallel clause, though ‘is’ might be understood.
Footnote 71:
- We might ask just where ‘heaven’ is. Is it a place in our universe?
- John 3:13 states that “No-one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man.”
- There is the question of Elijah and Enoch who were supposed to have ‘gone into heaven’ based on Biblical passages, with Elijah being expected back.
- I had thought that Moses was popularly supposed to have been ‘assumed’ into heaven based on the ‘assumption’ that Jude 1:9 is referring to the pseudepigraphal book ‘the assumption of Moses’ and that ‘assumption’ is a bit like an ascension (as in the Roman Catholic belief in the ‘assumption’ of Mary; Wikipedia: Assumption of Mary). But things may be more complicated (see Wikipedia: Assumption of Moses).
- Maybe there are supposed to be different ‘heavens’. The Greeks and other ancient civilisations thought there were seven (see Wikipedia: Seven heavens; the ‘seven’ comes from the ‘spheres’ of the then seven known planets, which included the sun and the moon – see Wikipedia: Classical planet), but the popular ‘Berean line’ on Paul (presumably) being caught up to ‘the third heaven’ (in a vision, presumably, 2 Corinthians 12:1-5; Paul is unsure whether it’s in the body or not) is that it’s the third in time rather than space. This suggestion depends on the view of Biblical catastrophism (‘the Earth became without form and void’ in Genesis 1:2, taken to coincide with the fall of Satan). So, there’s the ‘former’ world, that which now is, and the world to come – which includes the new heavens into which Paul was supposedly caught up. But even if the was/became ambiguity in Hebrew is relevant, it’s only the Earth that’s said to be formless, not heaven, so there would be only two heavens – unless there was a heaven in which God dwelt before the heaven created in Genesis 1:1.
- It seems the contemporary exegesis is that ‘heaven’ is in some sense ‘spatial’ but not entirely so: the ‘first heaven’ is the sky; the ‘second heaven’ is ‘outer space’ and the third heaven is where God dwells, wherever that is. See, for instance, Got Questions: What does it mean that Paul went to the third heaven?. Doubtless more scholarly accounts are available.
Footnote 72:
- This is clearly a valid suggestion; whatever is predicated of one human being is true of another cateris paribus. Presumably the tendency to physical corruption – returning to dust – is what is in mind.
Footnote 73:
- The parallel case. This is not obvious, so is a ‘revelation’.
Footnote 74:
- In what sense – and when – are Christians ‘of heaven’?
Footnote 75:
- This parallel is a revelation, not a logical consequence of the transition to resurrection.
Footnote 76:
- Again, in what sense are ‘we’ to bear the heavenly image?
- Strictly, in Philippians 3:21 Paul says our body will be ‘like’, not ‘just like’ Christ’s resurrection body (or, more accurately, his ‘glorious body’, should the two not be identical).
- I find Christ’s resurrection body – if eternally and essentially ‘inhabited’ – somewhat problematical. Can ‘God’ really be essentially embodied? It seems like an eternal ‘humiliation’, however ‘glorious’ that body might be.
- I had previously construed the idea of Christ’s resurrection body as demonstrative of his survival after death, and his ascension as demonstrative of his leaving this earth, rather than blasting off and going somewhere with whatever body he then had.
Footnote 77:
- I remember some quibbles about the passage not mentioning ‘flesh and bones’, and it’s the blood that’s the impediment. This is very doubtful. Even though the Jews were forbidden from eating ‘flesh’ with the blood in it, ‘because the soul is in the blood’, whatever this is meant to mean, it was never really possible to drain the blood out entirely, and flesh without blood in its capillaries cannot function.
- The point – presumably – is that purely biological life isn’t kitted out for the heavenly realm, wherever or whatever this is.
Footnote 78:
- Necessarily so for an endless life.
Footnote 79:
- This ‘secret’ may have occurred to Paul given the supposed then closeness of the return of Christ. What happens to those still alive?
- Paul had earlier argued that death was essential for the transformation from this life to the next (the seed must die).
- This ‘mystery’ sounds like a forehead-slapping moment. What about those still alive at the Lord’s return? Would they need to die? No – but they would need to be ‘changed’.
- Well, yes … but doesn’t this contradict the earlier argument?
Footnote 80:
- Rather than have them die and be resurrected, they would need to change in some way to be fit for the heavenly life.
- Ozanne mentions Enoch and Elijah being taken up to heaven, but not that they are counter-examples to Paul’s argument. He says they have “not yet put on the imperishable and immortality as described here” but is there any evidence for this? The NT teachings deal with the general case, not with exceptions.
- Ozanne seems to suggest that Jesus was ‘transformed’ much like those alive at his return. Though he had truly died, his body hadn’t corrupted. Fair enough, but then his transformation would differ from that of those who are alive at his return.
- Maybe – it occurs to me – it is possible to ‘die’ but not ‘sleep’. Was Jesus ‘asleep’ in the grave or active – either showing himself in heaven or ‘harrowing Hell’ according to your preference. Similarly, those alive at Jesus’ return might die but not sleep (not be in a state of death for a protracted period). Just a thought.
Footnote 81:
- When is the last trumpet?
Footnote 82:
- Is this the general resurrection of all the dead, including the unredeemed, or just those who ‘died in the Lord’. Does it include the OT saints?
Footnote 83:
- This changing is evidently to be instantaneous rather a gradual metamorphosis. This raises problems for identity-preservation, where gradual change is expected. You can’t just instantaneously swap X for a completely different Y and say X=Y, though if X gradually and continuously changes into Y, you might.
Footnote 84:
- What is the sense of ‘putting on’ here. Is something added to our perishable bodies to make them imperishable?
Footnote 85:
- So, do these new or enhanced bodies now possess intrinsic immortality?
Footnote 86:
- An inexact allusion to Isaiah 25:8. It’s not clear where Paul got his citation from, in particular ‘victory’.
- The LXX seems to have it that it is death that is swallowing the strong (κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας), though the Hebrew has the same sense as 1Cor. 15:54.
- In the original languages:-
→ BibleHub - Isaiah 25:8
→ LXX: Isaiah 25
Footnote 87:
- If this is taken from Hosea 13:14, Paul has turned the sense of the passage on its head:
Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death?
O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion is hidden from my eyes.
Most Christian translations treat this passage positively in the light of 1 Cor. 15, but in the original context this verse sounds like a collection of rhetorical questions demanding the answer ‘no’, and threats as in the ESV quoted above – also the NASB and the JPS version. Death and Sheol are being invoked as punishments rather than banished. Why else the closing ‘Compassion is hidden from my eyes’?
Not that this matters. Presumably Paul’s exegesis was popular at the time. Footnotes 88, 89:
- Popular Pauline tropes. How are they relevant to the context?
Footnote 90:
- This is a repetition of an earlier suggestion that labour is ‘in vain’ if it has only transitory consequences. Is this really the case?
- I suppose it depends what the Corinthians ‘labour’ is. If it’s ‘spreading the Gospel’ and the Gospel is false (because there is no resurrection) then the labour would be in vain.
- But I think that taking the line that human life is ‘in vain’ or empty of meaning if there’s no ‘life after death’ is a mistake.
- I presume the idea is that – if there is no resurrection (or, strictly, no post-mortem survival) then we have no reward for our labours.
- This – or the idea that all our creativity and production ultimately turns to dust – is a popular theme in some nihilistic philosophers as well.
- However, we can take the view that life is for living and that what we do has significance and value at the time, irrespective of the fact that it has no eternal consequence, if this is so.
- There is some OT support: Ps. 115:17-18. “It is not the dead who praise the LORD, those who go down to the place of silence; it is we who extol the LORD, both now and forevermore.” Presumably the ‘we’ here is the living and on-going people of Israel.
- Does a father who ‘takes a bullet’ to save his child ‘die in vain’ if he has no resurrection?
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)