It is often contended that the apostle Paul maintained belief in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus. This view renders such arguments as those from the empty tomb irrelevant according to Pauline thought; if Jesus did not rise bodily, the status of the tomb makes no difference whatsoever to Paul and his theology. Arguments in support of Paul holding a view of a spiritually and non-physical Jesus hinge upon Paul's silence regarding much of Jesus' life and his use of the term spiritual body (soma pneumatikon) in 1 Corinthians 15:44. It is on this latter point which we shall focus our attention.
The verse in dispute reads:1
It is sown a soma psychikon; it is raised a soma pneumatikon. If there is a soma psychikon, there is also a soma pneumatikon.
The key is the proper translation of the Greek terms above and their understanding in the context of Paul's thought and the Greek audience in Corinth he was writing to. This is not an easy task for Westerner's in the 21st century, far removed from the philosophical and cultural background of the 1st century Greco-Roman world. Regardless, I wish to draw out a few key points that are relevant to better understanding these terms.
To show the diversity of opinion on this passage, we can look at a number of translations and see how they treat these terms. In both phrases, soma is translated (uncontroversially) as body, whereas pneumatikon has been translated as spiritual, while psychikon has been rendered physical (NRSV, CEV), natural (ESV, NIV, NASB), and beastly (WYC) among others.2 Clearly some of these translations carry very different metaphysical qualities, particularly to the modern reader. Seeing something as "spiritual" is often understood as being non-physical, which may lend some support for understanding psychikon as the opposite, namely "physical." If this is the case, then it does seem that Paul may have a non-physical resurrection in mind, and if so, then the empty tomb and other evidence of Jesus' resurrection is irrelevant for Paul. But is that how he is actually using these terms? Are those the best translations available?
Platonic understanding of spiritual was not as clear cut as the term sounds today. For example, Plato and the Stoics held that the spirit which was trapped by the body was not necessarily immaterial, but would go somewhere upon death. For Plato, the body kept the soul from its full potential and from perfection. Upon death, the soul went to Hades (or on some interpretations, to join the stars) but not the Hades of Homer, although transmigration could occur as well. Plato's concept of the spirit and the soul has a very wispy, immaterial aspect to it, but may not be entirely so in his own thought.
Plato's views on the subject were further modified by Aristotle and seen as the substance of the living thing which animates the plant or animal; it is the form of the creature. Plato clearly saw the soul as being separable from the body, but Aristotle took the opposite approach arguing that the soul does not exist independently from the body, but that these are intimately intertwined to be a type of inseparable unity.3 Thus for Aristotle, there was no clear contrast between an immaterial soul or spirit and the body as such.
Much more could be said and expounded on, but a bit of background context to Greek thought may help to better understand Paul's audience and how they understand his use of the terms at hand.
Paul uses these phrases elsewhere in his writing, notably earlier in the same letter: 1st Corinthians 2. In verse 14, Paul also contrasts psychikos with pneumatikos, but in a clearer context. The verse reads:
The psychikos man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are pneumatikos discerned. The pneumatikos man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
The translation on this point is much less controversial, in part because the context makes it clear. Paul is contrasting how those with the Spirit of God are able to have a deeper understanding of spiritual things versus those people who are lacking the spirit. Thus psychikos is most commonly translated as "natural" or "unspiritual" versus the spiritual pneumatikos. However, there is no inkling of immateriality among the pneumatikos, rather the pneumatikos is spiritual because they are in possession of the Spirit of God (verse 12). Moreover, Paul writes of himself and his audience as having received the spirit, clearly, despite their spirituality, neither are immaterial. The Spirit of God, Paul says, interacts with those who possess it providing them deeper understanding, empowering them. In this way it is much different than simply being a "spiritual person" in the sense of one who is interested in religion or a vague spirituality. Paul is pointing to much more and something more fundamental in his use of the term.
If pneumatikos means spiritual in the sense discussed here and in the context of 1 Corinthians 2 (and the same sense exists in chapter 3), then what does that mean for a body raised a pneumatikos?
We saw that the Greeks did not have as sharp a distinction between the spirit and body as we maintain today. Plato still seemed to have some physical place in mind for the soul after death and Aristotle denied an immaterial soul altogether. In Paul's thought he uses the terms to show the embodiment of the Spirit of God which empowers Christians. So what is Paul getting at in his discussion of the resurrection and this soma pneumatikon?
N.T. Wright argues that pneumatikon is better understood to be something which animates a body pointing not only to Pauline use of the term, but also to how other Greek authors use it.4 This, he writes, "is the difference between a ship made of steel or wood on the one hand and a ship driven by steam or wind on the other." This fits well with both the Aristotilean understanding of the spirit as an animating force and Paul's earlier use of the term in 1 Corinthians 2 where those who are spiritual have greater abilities than the non-spiritual. Moreover, this fits more naturally with later verses in chapter 15 which speak of the transformation that "this perishable body" undergo. He seems to be emphasizing this body as if he is grabbing your arm to make his point.
1 Corinthians 15 makes up one of Paul's longest passages and sustained arguments, and it is tightly connected to the resurrection of Jesus and Paul's view. There are parallels between the resurrection body that the believers will experience implying that the Christians will take on a body that is like Christ's. If this is the case, then Paul does have a bodily resurrection in mind for Christians and for Jesus himself. This would be well understood by the audience Paul is addressing in Corinth, and thus mentioning the empty tomb or similar apologetic points in the earlier kerygma (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) would be as superfluous as mentioning an unoccupied room after a child has moved out for college.
The physicality of the resurrection for Paul is clear throughout 1 Corinthians. There is no sense of immaterial bodies throughout Paul's writing on the resurrection. Only far removed from the first century, through post-Enlightenment lenses have scholars come to such conclusions which are wholly out of place to both the author and his original audience.
