The Resurrection, "the Rez," and 1 Cor 15

Been around the blogosphere lately? Take a look at the comments to Dan Phillip’s post here. In this post, Dan documents NT Wright’s infamous statement and offers some quick commentary. Obviously, this didn’t pass by Wright-supporters altogether smoothly. And yet those who accuse Dan of assessing the situation unfairly seem to always want to have their cake and eat it too: In one breath, they’ll claim that Dan is ignorant of Wright’s scholarship, portraying Wright as single-handedly defending the doctrine of the Resurrection. But then in the next breath they’ll portray Wright as unable to get his head straight in a simple interview. Or, they’ll say that they disagree with Wright’s statement, but then they’ll defend him for his statement. Or, while they wish to convince us that they take the Resurrection seriously, Michael Spencer then refers to the premier event in Christianity that single-handedly proves the person, work, and claims of Jesus Christ as being divinely approved as “the rez.” In any case, I think Dan’s summary of the details is unavoidable: “Given that I was commenting, statedly and specifically, on an interview in which Wright in fact and in so many words states that Marcus Borg both (A) is a Christian who (B) loves Jesus and (C) passionately believes, and (D) denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus, my comment is undeniably accurate.”

Joel Hunter from BHT has a post on 1 Corinthians 15 and what implications this passage has for people like Borg. I believe he also, to coin my own phrase, wants to “have his cake and eat it too” (boy this post is just spewing with original idioms!). What I mean by this is that in the introductory statements of his post, he seems to agree that Wright was in error in his statement. But then he seems to argue that it is Biblically legitimate–that we can call someone who denies the bodily Resurrection of Jesus as a fellow believer and worshipper of our one true Lord. I may be incorrect, but that’s what seems to be the case when Hunter makes the effort to distance this situation from Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 15. So here is my curiosity question for Mr. Hunter, Mr. Spencer, and others: was Wright’s statement wrong, or was it not wrong? And if it was wrong, what, exactly, is your beef with Dan Phillips?

Anyway, since Hunter’s post is a fair attempt to speak into the issues, let’s look at a couple of his statements and offer some thoughts as a way of reply:

Paul is giving a stern warning to his sheep, but it is in the context of pastoral encouragement, not anathematizing. He has no problems doing the latter when a false gospel is making the rounds (as other Pauline texts show clearly enough), so the fact that he is not anathematizing these errant Corinthians is notable, it seems to me.

1. So, was NT Wright correct or incorrect in his statement concerning Marcus Borg? Mr. Hunter seems to be comparing the two, arguing that Paul welcomed the Corinthians as fellow believers and therefore Wright is justified in welcoming Borg as a fellow believer. So would Mr. Hunter, then, agree with Wright’s statement?

2. The text of 1 Cor 15 does not necessitate that the Corinthians denied the Resurrection of Christ, only that they denied the resurrection of the dead. Seem inconsistent? It is. Paul makes it clear in the opening context of this chapter that 1) he had proclaimed the Resurrection of Christ to the Corinthians as truth and as the gospel (and that this is the very gospel that they received and believed), and 2) Christ’s Resurrection had been affirmed by eyewitnesses. Paul, then, seems to start with an established fact, and moves from there.

And he transitions into this discussion by stating, “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” (v. 12-13). You see, Paul points out a logical inconsistency in the Corinthians beliefs. They, to coin another phrase, wanted “to have their cake and eat it too.” It would be logically inconsistent to accept Christ’s bodily Resurrection as gospel truth and then claim that there is no resurrection of the dead. Paul notes that both can’t be believed at the same time. So the Corinthians must choose one over the other. Paul then explores the implications of choosing against Christ’s Resurrection.

Paul says that if Christ has not been raised, then:

* my preaching is in vain
* your faith is in vain/futile
* you are still in your sins
* we have spoken falsely about what God has done
* those who have died in Christ have actually perished
* we of all people in the world are most to be pitied

Lots of bad consequences follow if the antecedent is true. But the antecedent is false. So does that mean that someone like Borg who thinks the antecedent is true is “still in his sins,” for example? It does not seem unreasonable to interpolate from Paul’s argument a response very much like Wright’s: “the poor guy [Borg] believes in Jesus vainly, he’s totally muddled and confused about the gospel, and if he’s right, then the church is wasting its time preaching and embodying the gospel we have received. Pity those who hold a futile faith.” Paul does not explicitly address in this text what to make of someone like Borg, one who does genuinely hold to the reductio and yet considers himself a Christ-follower. Since we all agree that Christ is risen indeed, how has God dealt with someone like Borg? 1 Cor 15 doesn’t seem to address such a person at all. It does not say that someone like Borg is unregenerate (although he and everyone else obviously would be if Christ is not raised). It seems to me that 1 Cor 15 is more about exhorting the Corinthians to hold fast to the mystery of the perishable inheriting the imperishable that has been declared to them than it is about declaring who is in and who is out of the party. Any of you real theologians care to help me out here?

1. Mr. Hunter is correct in his assessment that the notion that if Jesus was not raised we would all be dead in our sins and the notion that someone who believes Jesus has not been raised is dead in his sins are two different notions. One does not necessarily follow to the next, at least in the limited context.

2. Nevertheless, Mr. Hunter fails to consider the preceding verses:

1 Cor 15:1-4 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 first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

Two things stand out:

1. This Gospel was the gospel that the Corinthians received and believed in, and this was the gospel by which they were being saved.
2. The content of the Gospel included the Resurrection of Christ.

This seems to push this back into the “Galatians” category. And notice that in Galatians, Paul doesn’t merely state, “If your false gospel is true, then you cannot be saved because you cannot obey the whole law.” Yes, Paul explores the implications of the Galatian gospel. But he doesn’t end there. He then explores the implications of believing in a foreign gospel.

So here’s my question for Mr. Hunt: 1 Cor 15:1-4 seems to be a pretty good summary of the Gospel. So, is something that deviates from this summary a false gospel, or is it a perfectly legitimate, saving gospel?

Evan May.