9. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-16
"12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised." [NASB/NIV]
There are some devastating implications to be drawn from this passage. Paul expresses himself as though the raising of Christ from the dead is a matter of faith, not of historical record as evidenced by eyewitness to a physical, risen Jesus at Easter.
1. Silences in passage/challenge to a historical Jesus:
Witnesses saw Jesus resurrected in the flesh.
2. Relevancy within context:
The context is very relevant. Here are the primary points Doherty makes:
1. Paul emphasizes faith in the resurrection, and not the historicity of it. A rhetorical denial doesn't make sense.
Paul is addressing doubts by some Corinthians about resurrection. The Corinthians didn't see a risen Jesus, so there is nothing unusual about the need for Paul to appeal to their faith. They already know Paul claims to have seen a risen Jesus himself, and they already know others claimed to see him (15:3), but some have doubts.
2. Paul says knowledge of resurrection comes from God through revelation. Denial of it is "contradicting God", not human witnesses. The witness is that of faith.
Again, the early part of the chapter says otherwise: Paul names witnesses. And, Doherty says that the word used martureo can refer to human witnesses. So far no problem. What about kata tou theou? If this means "against God", does it make any sense to say that human witnesses were testifying against God or in contradiction to God? It does sound strange but when one turns around the phrase to reflect the idea that human witnesses testified FOR God, there is no problem. God's message is one of salvation through the resurrection of Jesus. As such the Greek appears to support the idea of Paul and others testifying to being human witnesses in agreement with God's plan.
3. Doherty says that Paul twice says that his gospel is derived from scripture, for such a meaning can be taken from the kata tas graphas.
I would first object to calling this "his gospel" since Paul doesn't call it that. He calls it "the gospel". And Paul says in verse 3 that he received the following information, which was clearly not all scriptural "revelation" since it included then-alive individuals. We cannot therefore conclude that Paul is saying that his gospel is derived from scripture. Rather, we can conclude that the information Paul received from others is "according to the scriptures". What was that information that was "according to the scriptures"? 2 things: 1. Christ died for our sins and 2. He was raised on the third day. Since these claims preceded Paul (how could they not if it was part of information he received that had been corroborated prior to his receipt?) we can rule out scriptural revelation to Paul. Can we rule out scriptural revelation to those who passed along the information to Paul in the form of this creed? No. But, neither can we rule out historical events of Christ's death and resurrection on the third day. Notice too that "and that he was buried" is not followed by the phrase "according to the scriptures". This silence could indicate a possible historical basis.
What Doherty doesn't point out is that Paul doesn't appeal to scriptural support for those parts of this creed--a creed received from others--that do. He doesn't quote passages that say the Messiah or Son of God must die, other than a very vague reference in Galations to the curse of ANYONE who hangs from a tree. He doesn't quote passages that say the Messiah or Son of God must be buried. He doesn't quote passages that say the Messiah or Son of God must be raised. And he doesn't quote passages that say the Messiah or Son of God must be raised on the third day. What an interesting silence by Paul! Yet Paul reminds the Corinthians that these events are of "prime importance". Paul was very familiar with the OT. He quoted from it 56 times in his 16 chapters to the Romans. Yet he didn't use it to support these critical articles of faith. Why? There are passages that he could have used as support but he didn't. Might this be another indication of the dangers of appealing to silence as evidence of a lack of knowledge?
4. The list of appearances refers to a series of visions of the spiritual Christ.
Paul includes his own, an acknowledged "revelation", using exactly the same language for them all. Paul doesn't say the appearances to the others were visions, and the Greek word doesn't require it. Paul also makes a point of saying that he also saw Christ, but "last of all, as to one abnormally born." Paul gives no indication of others having seen Christ after himself over the 20 years or so since his own conversion, as might be expected if all of the appearances were visions. He also gives no explanation for why there was a time delay between all of the initial appearances and to himself. The fact that "on the third day" is followed immediately by the list of appearances suggests that the appearances to Peter and the others occurred soon after the death and burial, and that they were much earlier than the appearances to Paul.
These certainly could be visionary, but the use of the same "ophthe" doesn't require that the early appearances were of the same nature as to Paul. The segregation of the appearance to Paul could be seen as an implication that they were not of the same nature. Why would Paul's sighting, and only Paul as far as we know, have been separate? Could not others have visions or revelations? In any case, the language allows for either the traditional Christian teaching or an another mode of revelation. I find it interesting that the creed does not use the word for "revealed", as he so does elsewhere, as though the appearances to others were of the same nature as Paul's own revelatory experience. Had Paul wanted to make the other appearances look like his, why didn't he just use the word he normally used for "revelation" for the appearances to the others? I might also point out that Paul speaks well of Apollos (3:6,22), but does not include Apollos in the list of appearances, which is consistent with how Apollos is portrayed in Acts as a late convert (after Paul) without having received a resurrection appearance.
5. Paul doesn't appeal to Jesus' miracles of raising the dead, nor statements of resurrected life.
All we know from Paul is that some of the Corinthians were saying that there is no resurrection of the dead. Paul clearly sees and tells them that they were in effect denying that Christ wasn't raised from the dead (a clear implication that Christ had been a human being). Paul begins the chapter then with reminding them of the tradition of Christ's own resurrection they were taught in the form of the creed of prime importance. To do so he appeals to the authority of the scriptures and to the testimony of well-known leaders in the Christian community including Cephas--whom Paul implies they knew (3:21-22) and admired(1:12), as well as the testimony of a large number of people. He follows this with appeals to his own witness to the resurrection. From there he appeals to the example of his own hard work (15:10) and suffering that they might have faith in Paul's own word and example.
Paul was their spiritual father, the one who originally planted the faith in them (3:6). He then follows with references to scripture that indicate Christ rose from the dead first, which then is followed by men: Verses 21-22: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive". Paul is appealing to a number of different means at his disposal to provide evidence for the resurrection of the dead through providing evidence for the resurrection of Christ himself, the first. Did Paul miss an opportunity to provide evidence from Jesus' own life and teachings for the resurrection? Perhaps, but clearly Paul saw a need first to provide evidence for Christ's OWN resurrection. If they doubted that, why should they believe stories about that same man or stories about teachings from that same man who they never knew or saw, having lived 25-30 years prior and some 1,000 miles away? As Paul said in 15:14 "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." What faith did Paul mean? It appears that Paul is referring to the faith they had in the resurrection of Christ when Paul had first been with them: Verses 1-4: "..the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are save, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain I delivered..that Christ died..was raised..and..appeared..last of all..to me."
3. Related information in other early writings:
The author of 1 Peter says Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached.." There are few other references in the earliest writings.
4. Conclusion
1 Cor 15 is a curious chapter which is missing detail one might expect if Jesus had been bodily resurrected. However, the arguments Doherty raises all have reasonable counter-arguments. For those in Corinth who doubt the resurrection, Paul doesn't fill us in on what it is they already knew about the nature of the original witnesses experiences. His appeal to their faith, however, is not helpful for us to have further understanding as Doherty suggests. The creed includes information not found in scripture and Paul in all of his writings provides precious little scriptural support for a prophesied Messiah's death and resurrection. The resurrection appearances seem to be of a different nature than Paul would describe had they only been scriptural revelations. We can reasonably assume that the Corinthians knew what the witnesses claimed they saw, but unfortunately all of the silences leave us in the dark. The silences of this passage are frustrating, but at the same time must be seen as a reminder that Paul wasn't writing to us and we therefore need to be careful not to project our expectations onto the Corinthians.
|
