The body and hope for its resurrection are integral to Paul’s theological thinking and pastoral purposes. That hope put him right at home among other Jewish writers from the second temple period who expected their God to return their bodies to them at the dawn of the new age. One thing that distinguished Paul was his view that the new age had already been inaugurated with the resurrection of Jesus. That event ensured that those who belong to Jesus would also be raised. It also carried significant implications for the use of the body by believers who live between the resurrection of Christ in the past and their own resurrection in the future. In this final chapter, we will summarize our findings with regard to Paul’s expectations for bodily practice in light of his hope for bodily resurrection, and we will point to a few possibilities for further research along the way.
5.1. Bodily Resurrection in Social Perspective
One aim of the present study has been to open up more generally the social dynamics at work in Paul’s hope for future bodily resurrection. Those dynamics can be discerned in a variety of ways. For one, Paul deploys the hope of future bodily
resurrection to reinforce boundaries between the Christ-following ingroup and outsiders. This was evident in Phil 3:12–4:1, where the recipients were portrayed as the group that will be raised in contrast to outsiders who would face destruction. The difference between denial of future bodily resurrection and belief in it marked a boundary between subgroups within the community of Christ-followers in Corinth (1 Cor 15:12). It is striking that, in Philippians, future bodily resurrection marks the difference between the ingroup and outgroup, but in 1 Corinthians, denial and affirmation of future bodily resurrection marks the difference between subgroups within the Christ-following community. Paul is certainly willing to devote considerable energy to persuading those who reject future bodily resurrection to consider embracing it. He even argues that if the deniers are correct, then it overturns the whole of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, while hope for resurrection was a key marker of group identity, its denial did not necessarily mean expulsion from the group. The question remains open, however, how Paul might have responded if the deniers of resurrection continued to hold their position after his attempt to persuade them of it? Would unrepentant rejection of future bodily resurrection warrant exclusion from the
community? One wonders how long he would tolerate an error of such significant proportions.
The social aspect of future bodily resurrection can be discerned in the concept of incorporative Christology. That is to say, resurrection is a benefit of membership in the “in Christ” group. This is evident in 1 Cor 15:20–28 and in Rom 5 and 6, where Paul sorts the human race into two basic groups based on their association with Adam or Christ. Membership in the Adam-group means death. Membership in the Christ- group means participation in the resurrection. In 2 Cor 4:14, resurrection is portrayed as something that happens to the community (“with you”) by virtue of union with Christ (“with Jesus”). This should not overshadow the importance of individual faith in Paul’s soteriology. The individual and the corporate must be kept in balance. The key thing to remember is that the benefits of participation in Christ, resurrection included, come not in the context of an individualistic relationship to Christ but as a member of the group of which Christ is representative head. Resurrection is
participatory.
If the social dimension of Paul’s understanding of resurrection can be seen in his Christology, it is also apparent in his use of pneumatic language. We looked at several ways pneumatic language functioned as a tool to define early Christ-followers as those who have the Spirit in contrast to those who do not. It is our contention that Paul’s use of pneumatic language, a marker of social identity, in association with future bodily resurrection fills that future hope with social significance. This is a major feature of Paul’s attitude toward bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians. The future resurrection body is distinguished from present ordinary bodies in that it is a σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor 15:44), a body enlivened by the Spirit. That future experience is anticipated in the present with the notion of the body as a temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). In Romans, the indwelling presence of the Spirit enables believers to cease walking according to the flesh; that is, the Spirit enables transformation in the present in anticipation of the day when God will raise believers through the power of the Spirit (Rom 8:9–12). It might be tempting to slide into an individualistic interpretation of the role of the Spirit with regard to renewal and resurrection, and it is certainly the case that Paul sees the Holy Spirit at work in individual believers and in the raising of individual bodies. My point is that the individual work is located within a communal context. That this reflects Paul’s understanding is illustrated in the close association of familial language with the work of the Spirit; having the Spirit makes one an adopted member of God’s family (Rom 8:14, 23), and this is preparation for resurrection as the
redemption of the body (8:11, 23). Those who have the Spirit and are led by the Spirit constitute the social group that will be raised through the Spirit and given bodies perpetually enlivened by the Spirit.
That brings us to a distinctive contribution of this study. Drawing on the work of Marco Cinnirella, I have argued throughout that Paul’s vision of future bodily resurrection is accurately described as a future possible social identity. That is to say, Paul sees future bodily resurrection fundamentally in terms of the group, and
individual identity derives from that group membership. For Paul, the believer’s future self is the self as a member of the group of resurrected persons. As noted above, this distinguishes the believing ingroup from outgroupers destined for destruction (Phil 3:19) and highlights again the participatory nature of future bodily resurrection. The social nature of future bodily resurrection is also apparent through its association with the language of citizenship (Phil 3:20). Paul repeatedly highlights the attractiveness of the future identity by portraying it positively in terms of glory and honor, which were values of highest importance in the Greco-Roman world (1 Cor 15:43; Rom 8:17–18; Phil 3:21). It is also a means of escaping the power of death and participating in the victory of Christ (1 Cor 15:26, 50–58). Further, the future resurrection-oriented identity is evaluated favorably in that it is instrumental to the future liberation of creation from bondage to decay (Rom 8:19–23). One advantage of this approach has been its ability to shed light on the relationship between future bodily resurrection and Paul’s present expectations for believers’ use of their bodies. When a future possible social identity is salient, the individual is more likely to be motivated to behave in a way that anticipates that future identity, a point we will say more about below.
That future bodily resurrection functions as a possible social identity in multiple letters is significant. Given that our study was limited to passages involving expectations for the use of the body, one potential avenue for further research is to consider whether resurrection can be described as a future possible identity elsewhere in Paul’s letters where hope for bodily resurrection is discussed (e.g., 1 Thess 4:13– 17). And if resurrection can be described as a future social identity in other contexts, then how does it function? How does Paul portray the past and the present given this particular future identity? To what extent does it create positive distinction for Paul and the recipients? How does it relate to Paul’s pastoral and persuasive purposes? Another question to consider is the relationship of Paul’s perspective to other NT authors. Do other NT documents show evidence that they perceive future bodily
resurrection in social categories?1 If so, to what extent does their attitude reflect Paul’s
view? To what extent are they distinct?
5.2. Resurrection and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation
All four of the letters under consideration in this study are addressed to situations involving conflict. In 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians, there is conflict among subgroups within the congregation. The situation in Rome is distinct in that the conflict is primarily between diverse ethnic groups, and the situation of
conflict within the Philippian community is compounded by additional struggle with outsiders. Second Corinthians involves conflict between Paul and the recipients, which will be reviewed below in the discussion of Paul’s suffering. In 1 Corinthians,
Romans, and Philippians, I argued that the future resurrection-oriented social identity functions in part to form and maintain a common ingroup identity that supports Paul’s rhetorical goals of mitigating factionalism and cultivating concord. In Philippians, this relates to the apparent conflict between Eudodia and Syntyche. In 1 Corinthians, Paul portrays the factionalism in various ways, and the most we can say is that a perception of common ingroup identity with regard to the future resurrection would support, but probably not fulfill, the overall deliberative aim of producing concord among the recipients.
The situation reflected in Romans was somewhat clearer than that in 1 Corinthians or Philippians. The recipients of Romans appear to have divided along predominantly ethnic lines over the matter of table fellowship. Taking that conflict in light of the resurrection-oriented future identity, I have argued that table fellowship can be interpreted as a bodily practice. For Paul, the believer’s union with Christ in his death anticipates future union with Christ in his resurrection and frees the believer from the power of sin in the present. Based on this theological principle, Paul can call upon believers to resist the temptation to submit the parts of their body to
unrighteousness and sin instructing them instead to submit their bodies in holiness to God (12:1). I also argued that if the general exhortation with regard to bodily practice in 12:1 is particularized in the various instructions that follow, then the matter of table fellowship should be understood in light of Paul’s theology of the body and bodily resurrection in Rom 6 and 8. For Paul, bringing ethnically diverse bodies together at
1 For attention to social dynamics in the eschatology of Hebrews, see Matthew P. O'Reilly,
"Rest Now or Not Yet? Temporal Aspects of Social Identity in Hebrews 3:7–4:11," in Listen,
Understand, Obey: Essays on Hebrews in Honor of Gareth Lee Cockerill (ed. Caleb Friedeman;