Life-Giving Spirit: The Ontological

Implications of Resurrection
Luke Timothy Johnson
Emory University
L j oh nO I emory. ed u
Close analysis of Pauls language concerning the resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor-
inthians 15, and the hope for the future resurrection of believers, shows the
importance of the designation of Christ as *Life-Giving Spirit, and leads to
an appreciation of the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers, for which
the only appropriate language is ontological (existential) rather than histori
cal or even moral. For Paul, the resurrection alters the very structure ofexis-
tence, in a anew creation *
The resurrection is the foundation for all Christian confession and practice.
The statement, Jesus is Lord (1 Cor 12:3) definitively distinguished the first
believers from other Jews and continues to demarcate Christianity from all other
religions. The confession has three essential parts: first, it states something about
Jesus, a historical Jewish man of the first century who was executed under Roman
authority. Second, the implied verb is makes a declaration about a present situa-
tion, rather than a past event: the confession concerns the status of Jesus now.
Third, it declares that the one who was crucified (a historical fact) is now Lord.
That is, he fully participates in divine life and rule, since the term (kyrios)
bears with it the full weight of the divine name, following the Septuagints use of
to render the tetragrammaton.1
Two further preliminary observations should be made about this simple but
all-important confession. Linguists term this a performative statement; that is, it
does not merely state a fact potentially observable to all but declares a personal
commitment to a reality that perhaps others cannot perceive.2As Paul says in 1 Cor
8:6, although there are many so-called gods and lords in the world, for us there
is but one Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul insists that no one can make the perfor-
mative utterance, Jesus is Lord except in or through the Holy Spirit (
, en pneumati hat; 1 Cor 12:3).
1As in Gen 2:4; Exod 3:15-16; 34:6; Ps 24:1; Isa 53:1.
2 See J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard
University in 1955 (ed. J.O. Umson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962).
Stone-Campbell Journal 15 (Spring, 2012) 75-89
SCJ15 (Spring, 2012): 75-89
The significance o f the title , moreover, is clarified by the NTs frequent
use of Psalm 110:1 (LXX 109:1) with reference to Jesus resurrection: The Lord
() said to my Lord ( , kyri mou), sit at my right hand until I place
your enemies beneath your feet.3The Lordship of Jesus, that is to say, the resur-
rection of Jesus, is understood as royal exaltation: Jesus enters fully into the life and
rule of God. The confession Jesus is Lord is the resurrection confession, involv-
ing or implicating both Jesus and the one who confesses.4
Jesus resurrection/exaltation is the starting point, the good news from God.
Such good news, however, is both amazing and confusing in that a singular human
being, to say nothing of an executed criminal,5should after his death enter into the life
and power of God. Small wonder then that almost from the start, even Christians have
struggled to grasp the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14) in its fullness and have tended, in
a variety of ways, to slip away from the full paradox of the resurrection faith.
Some have diminished the confessions power by making it exclusively about
the believer: Jesus lives on in some spiritual fashion in the lives of his followers
through the memory of his teaching or the imitation of his acts or the continuation
of his prophetic program or even through a form of self-knowledge that constitutes
an elevation of the individual psyche. But while the earliest Christian writings do
attest to these postmortem presences of Jesus, they are never identified with the res-
urrection presence.
Others, concerned that the subjective interpretation seems too subjective, seek
to secure the objective character of the resurrection by insisting that it was, on some
level, a historical event. Jesus was not killed, someone else was. Or Jesus got really
sick but then got better. Or more often, Jesus died but was resuscitated, proof of
which was found in the empty tomb and Easter appearances. Making the resurrec
tion historical, that is, making it an event in time and space that can be empirically
verified also falls short o f the confession that Jesus is Lord. In resuscitation, mor-
tality is not transcended but deferred; it means simply continuing on the same plane
of empirical human existence rather than sharing in Gods rule of the universe.6
Christians today are likewise unsteady in their grasp o f the central truth of their
existence, the reality that alone makes real everything they say and do in the name
3D.M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1973).
4For a discussion of the resurrection as the fundamental experience that generates the Christian
movement, see L.T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (id ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010)
95-107.
5See M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Cross (trans. J. Bowden;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
6For these options, see L.T. Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).
76
Luke Timothy Johnson: Lift-Giving Spirit
o f Jesus. Rather than being the ground and power of every act of preaching, the res-
urrection becomes a past event proclaimed once a year as part of the liturgical cycle.7
Rather than being a celebration of the greatest display of Gods power to bring into
being that which is not (Rom 4:17; 1 Cor 1:28), enabling use of the language of
myth and mystery (1 Cor 2:1-5), the resurrection becomes an embarrassment that
must be defended or explained away, using the very Enlightenment-based episte
mological instruments that make its serious interpretation impossible.8
A key element in the present diminished appreciation for the resurrection
among Christians to the extent that some seriously consider a reconstruction of
a historical Jesus to be an adequate norm for Christian identity9 is the lack of
an appropriate language. It is difficult to speak of Holy Spirit with no phenom-
enology.10 In a world that rejects the notion of soul and in which intellectuals
eschew talk about mind for brain chemistry, how can spirit be discussed in
any meaningful way? How can spiritual body be addressed without first consid-
ering the meaning of embodied existence apart from the default Western image of
body derived from Descartes?11 The same conceptual/linguistic flattening affects
the very reading of the NT witness concerning the resurrection so that even when
the text is plainly speaking of something more than resuscitation, Christians insist
on thinking it is speaking of something historical.
This essay engages some difficult texts in Pauls first letter to the Corinthians,
the first extended and explicit discussion of the resurrection, dating from about 25
years after Jesus crucifixion,12in order to show how Pauls language demands an
ability to think and speak in ontological rather than exclusively historical terms.13
7See L.T. Johnson, Preaching the Resurrection, in The Living Gospel (ed. L.T. Johnson; New York:
Continuum, 2004).
8So, despite every effort to the contrary, N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
9See especially L.T. Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the HistoricalJesus and the Truth
of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).
10The work of Karl Rahner has had a great influence on me; for an orientation, see the short entries
by L.B. Puntel, Spirit, and K. Lehmann, Transcendence, Encyclopedia of Theology: the Concise
Sacramentum Mundi (ed. K. Rahner; New York: Seabury, 1975) 1619-1621 and 1734-1742.
11See especially the important monograph by W.C. Placher, The Domestication ofTranscendence: How
Modem Thinking about God Went Wrong (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996).
12For my position concerning the date, occasion, and argument of 1 Corinthians, see Johnson,
WHtingsof the New Testament, 261-277. The date of this discussion is all the more important, when it
is remembered that Paul here speaks of events within the communitys experience that had occurred
some 15 years before the most plausible date for a narrative gospel.
13I speak of ontological in the looser philosophical sense, roughly equivalent to metaphysical,
that is, thought engaged with questions of existence/being (esse), rather than with the study of individ-
ual existents or events; see A. Keller, Ontology, Encyclopedia of Theology, 1106-1110.
77
SCJ15 (Springy 2012): 75-89
This essay begins with 1 Corinthians 15. Although Pauls statements concerning
the resurrection come at the end o f the composition, they provide, like the truth of
the confession itself, the ground for everything he has said previously.14
Pa u l s Ar g u m e n t i n 1 Co r i n t h i a n s I S 15
The first 11 verses of Pauls discussion are a robust reminder to the
Corinthians of both dimensions of the resurrection confession: as it concerns them
and as it concerns Jesus. First, as it concerns them, the good news o f Christs death,
burial, and resurrection is (en prtois) among the first things (or
things of first importance) that Paul proclaimed to them (15:3). They accepted
this good news (15:1 ); they stand in it and are now being saved by it, if they indeed
remain in it (15:2). Second, as it concerns Jesus, the Scriptures attest to his death
and his resurrection on the third day (15:3-4). He was seen as resurrected by many
witnesses, some of whom are still alive (15:5-6), and he was seen by Paul himself
(15:8; see also 1 Cor 9:1), who has expended all his efforts on the basis o f this gift
(15:10). Paul draws the two dimensions together when he declares in 15:11,
whether then it was I or they (the other witnesses), so we preach and so you
believe. The death (and burial) and resurrection of Jesus are the bedrock o f the
shared apostolic proclamation and of shared Christian identity, what Paul calls ear-
lier in the letter, fellowship with [Gods] son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1:9).
Paul next reasserts the centrality of the resurrection against the claim, appar-
ently made by some among his readers, that there is no resurrection of the dead
(15:12-19). It is not clear who made this declaration or what precisely they meant
by it.16Following Pauls logic in the subsequent argument, however, it seems safe to
conclude it involved these peoples perception o f their own present and future. They
saw no need for a resurrection of the body because they were so impressed by the
already of Gods rule active among them. Paul begins his letter, in feet, with an
acknowledgement of being enriched with every kind of knowledge and speech ( 1:4),
and his discussion of (ta pneumatika, spiritual powers) in 1:12-14
recognizes the existence o f such impressive displays of speech and knowledge among
them. If Pauls mockery of them in 4:8 is read in this connection, then they saw
14See, for example, A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 1169.
15I offer my own reading of 1 Corinthians 15 in the following paragraphs. For analysis of specific
issues, see especially R.F. Collins, First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1999) 525-584; G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987) 713-809; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (trans. J.W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976) 248-293; and A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1169-1314.
16For a survey of theories, see Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 7-15.
78
Luke Timothy Johnson: Life-Giving Spirit
themselves, in their present bodily condition, as already ruling, that is, already
having fully entered into Gods kingdom and exercising authority within it.17
Pauls response in 15:13-19 has a powerful rhetorical structure, built on three
conditional sentences (15:13,15:16, and 15:19). The first two are identical: If the
dead are not raised, then neither is Christ raised, and are followed by but if Christ
is not raised. In each case, the protosis is followed by three apodoses that deal not
with Christ but with the state of believers.
In 15:14, the set is the emptiness of the proclamation, the emptiness o f their
faith, and the preachers as false witnesses against God. In 15:17, it is the foolish-
ness o f their faith, the continuation of the condition of sin, and the loss of those
who have already died in Christ.
The point of stressing the resurrection of Christ as the test-case for the truth
of the resurrection is that, without Jesus resurrection, the good news they
received, in which they stand, and by which they are being saved (15:1-2) is total
fantasy. The resurrection is not simply about Jesus but about them, their present
wayofbeing in the world. Thus the force of Pauls final conditional sentence in
15:19, If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, then we are the most pitiable
o f humans. For Paul and all those who preach as he does, the resurrection of Jesus
is not about Jesus alone, it is not simply an event of the past, it is an existential real-
ity that at once determines their present existence and shapes their future hope.18
Having secured the link between Christs resurrection and their present condi-
tion, Paul turns to the future hope intimated by 15:19: their future is to go where
Christ has already gone. He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.19Christ is
as paradigmatic for humanitys elevation in life as the first human was paradigmatic for
humanitys standing under death (15:21-22): in Christ all will be brought to life
17 You are already satisfied (, kekoresmenoi), you have already grown rich
( , eploutsate), you have become kings (, ebasileusate) without us. Indeed, I
wish that you had become kings, so that we might also become kings with you (NAB), Pauls argu -
ment of chapter 15 is here contained in mce:the presence of resurrection power does not yet mean the
full realization of Gods (baHleia, kingdom). They are like pretend-monarchs sitting on
imaginary thrones .
18Using a term such as reality illustrates both the necessity and difficulty of using ontological Ian -
guage. Christs resurrection as his exaltation to Gods presence is, for Paul, real in a way that tran -
scends empirical categories and at the same time, it creates a new state of existence among humans
still very much within empirical constraints. Yet neither aspect of this conviction can be adequately
expressed in historical terms .
rshit) in ) 19Pauls use of (aparch) here and in 15:23 echoes the LXXs translation of
passages such as Ex 23:19; Lev 2:12; 23:10; Num 15:20-21; 18:12; Deut 18:4; 26:2; 33:21. Whereas
the offering of the sacrificial first-fruits represent the part for the whole, however, Pauls use here
and in Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5 and 1 Cor 16:15 indicates that (aparch) means first of the
whole, as is made clear in 15:23: Christ the first-fruits, then, at his coming, those who belong to
(. Christ (01 , hoi tou Chrtstou
79
SCJ15 (Spring, 2012): 75-89
( , ptrntes zopoithsontai) .2 But by saying that each one will
be brought to life in his own rank (15:23), Paul reminds those who think they already
have the fullness of resurrection that they are wrong. Indeed, not even the exalted Lord
has yet reached (to telos) of Gods plan (15:24). Christs dominion has yet to
conquer all inimical powers and authorities or even the ultimate enemy of death; when
all that has been accomplished, then Christ will hand over rule to God, who will be, at
the last, [] {[ta]panta enpan; 15:2421.(28
During the course of his argument, Pauls language has shifted from the his
torical (what was preached to them/Jesus death and resurrection) and the experi
ential (those who witnessed him/the present faith and salvation of the believers) to
the mythological (the parousia of Christ/his enthronement/his triumph over all
enemies/his handing over the kingdom to God). How could it not?22The matters
of which Paul now speaks are not on the present empirical plane of Paul and the
Corinthians but on a future, cosmic plane, where the exalted Christ, spiritual pow-
ers, and God are the contenders. When Paul concludes with the statement, so that
God might be all things in all things, however, his language becomes unavoidably
metaphysical/ontological/existential. He makes a declaration concerning the invis
ible but real cause o f all that exists with respect to all things (visible and invisible)
that exist, in a relation (, en) suggesting immediate power and presence, or even
identity: God being all that is with, or within all that is. The resurrection/exalta-
tion of Jesus as Lord, it appears, has consequences for the very structure of reality.
After a series o f statements in 15:29-34 rhetorically connecting to the earlier
objection to the reality o f the resurrection (15:12) and pointing forward to the
arguments final moral exhortation (15:58),23 Paul returns to the mystery of
Christs (and their) future exaltation. He responds to questions posed by an imag-
ined interlocutor, How will the dead be raised? With what sort o f body do they
come? (15:35). His first response is a dismissive, You fool!
Given Pauls assumptions, the question appears foolish on two counts. First, it
seems to assume that the dead who are raised will have empirical bodies like those
20The same verb, (zopoioun), recurs decisively in 15:45.
21The MSS evidence for the inclusion or exdusion of the definite article is well split, making the pre-
cise rendering of the phrase even more problematic. The avoidance of ontological language among
scholars is illustrated by Fees agreement with C.K. Barrett that the words are to be understood sote-
riologically, not metaphysically, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 760.
22Pauls language in 15:24*28 is mythic in the proper sense: it has a narrative form (this will happen,
then that will happen). God and Gods agent are actors; death and sin are personified as cosmic ene-
mies; and none of the statements is even potentially verifiable.
23Paul poses two Why? questions based on practice: Why does the community practice baptism for
the dead if the dead are not raised? (15:29); Why does Paul endure dangers rather than simply pursue
pleasure, if mortal life is all there is? (15:30-32). He concludes by exhorting them to virtue rather than
be influenced by the bad morals of those who are ignorant of God (15:33-34).
Luke Timothy Johnson: Life-Giving Spirit
of the presently alive Corinthians. Perhaps this is for some of them, as it is for many
present-day skeptics, a major stumbling block to a wholehearted acceptance of
future resurrection. Besides sounding a bit like the classic horror movie, The Night
o f the Living Dead, the misconception of a steady increase of material bodies sim-
ply leaves no room. A simple coming back to empirical life is not good news for the
earth or for the ones awakened. Second, the question is also foolish because no more
than any other human on this side of mortality, Paul was scarcely in a position to
describe what sort o f body the resurrected might possess or be possessed of.
But Paul does have a way of getting at the question that will also address the
arrogant assumptions of those Corinthian believers who consider themselves
already to rule. Paul can argue for the future resurrection of all by drawing an
analogy between it and the resurrection of Jesus, since he has already intrinsically
linked the two. What does not work analogously is the status of Christ as Lord or
his exaltation to Gods right hand. But on the question of the kind of body
again, an inescapably ontological queryPaul can offer some analogies.
He prepares them for his central analogy by drawing them into observations
of the natural world (as they understand it). Seeds that are sown must die before
they come back to life, and when they do, God gives the bare seed that was sown
a proper body ( , idion soma, or body of its own) as he wills (15:36
3 8).24He reminds them of the different kinds of flesh (, sarx) to be observed
in humans as distinct from birds and beasts and fish (15:39), and of the qualitative
differences between the bodies (, somata; 15:40) on the earth and those
in the heavens. Here, Paul introduces the term glory or radiance (, doxa)
to distinguish the heavenly bodiesthe sun, moon starsfrom the earthly; indeed,
he says stars differ from stars in their radiance/glory (15:41).25
The effect of these comparisons is to emphasize two points. The first is that
while there is some continuity between what is sown and what is raised, there is
even greater discontinuity. The second is that God can surprise with new bodies,
and his range of inventiveness with respect to bodies is displayed not only on the
earthly level, the diverse meanings o f flesh when applied to animals and humans,
but on the heavenly level, where radiance/glory defines the meaning o f body.
With the transition, Thus also it is with the resurrection of the dead in
15:42, Paul turns to his main analogy between the resurrection of Christ and the
future state of the resurrected dead. The adverb thus (, houts) suggests
24This is not really an argument from nature in the scientific sense, because Paul inserts Gods will
directly into the choice of the plants body ( . . . , theos didsin... kaths
thelsen; 15:38).
25Elsewhere, Paul uses primarily with respect to God (see Rom 1:23; 2:7; 3:7; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4;
1 Cor 11:7; 2 Cor 3:8-10,18; Phil 2:11; 1Tim 1:11; 3:16) and the human future with God (Rom 8:18
21; 9:23; Phil 3:21; Col 1:27).
81
SCJ15 (spring, 2012): 75-89
that the same two points made by his earlier analogies (continuity/discontinuity;
Gods range of creativity with respect to bodies) carry over as well to this prime
example. He begins with three dramatic contrasts that not only echo his earlier
comparisons but also reflect language that he used earlier in the letter when speak-
ing o f Gods surprising creation of the Corinthian community.26The body is sown
in corruption but is raised in incorruptibility, sown in dishonor but raised in glory/
radiance, sown in weakness but raised in strength. These three sets anticipate the
fourth, for Pauls language clearly points to the contrast between the merely mate-
rial, which is always corruptible, weak, and liable to shame, and the more-than-
merely material, a body that shares in incorruption, glory and strength.
The fourth contrast is between the (psychikos) and the
(pnmmatikos). Both terms are more obscure than those preceding them, but if
Paul is consistent in his contrast, then must align with the merely mate-
rial or empirical, that is, always corruptible, subject to dishonor, and weak. By the
same logic, must align with the strength, incorruptibility, and radiance
of the more-than-merely material, or the super-empirical.
Paul insists on the seriousness of this last, most important contrast by adding,
if there is a (psychikos soma), there is also a (pneumatos
sma) (15:45).27All these disjunctions contrast the kinds of flesh or bodies with which
the Corinthians and Christians today are familiar, bodies that are fleshly, corruptible,
liable to dishonor and weakness, with bodies with which they are unfamiliar, unless
they think of those far-off bodies of the sun, moon, and stars and think of them as
radiant, incorruptible, and strong because they partake of . By using the term
(sma pmumaton)y however, Paul pushes the Corinthiansand
modern Christiansbeyond the range of the empirical and verifiable to the realm of
the ontological and nonverifiable. A spiritual body is at the very least oxymoronic.
Within contemporary cosmology, the two terms do not seem to go together.
But Pauls next statements make dear that his speaking of a spiritual body is
not language he has stumbled into. Rather, it is where his entire argument has been
26In 1 Cor 1:20-28, Paul opposes foolishness and wisdom, strength and weakness, glory and shame,
and uses for Gods election language that which echoes creation itself: God chose ,
, ta me onta bina to onta katarys).
27This disjunction also appears earlier in Pauls distinction between persons in the Corinthian com-
munity: the (psychikos anthrpos) does not receive the things of the spirit of God
( , ta tou pneumatos tou theou\ 1 Cor 2:14), For discussion, see B.A. Pearson,
The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian
Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973). Notice
that this distinction corresponds to that between (sarkinois, 4*fleshly) and in
1 Cor 3:1: I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as fleshly. The Corinthians engaging
in rivalry are fleshly, that is, all too human. Paul again contrasts fleshly and spiritual with respect to
the collection in Rom 15:27.
Luke Timothy Johnson: Life-Giving Spirit
heading, as he shows immediately by supporting it with a scriptural citation from
LXX Gen 2:7, which he reads retrospectively from the perspective of the resurrec-
tion. The text of Genesis has, The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the
ground and blew into his nostrils the breath o f life, and so man became a living
being. Paul quotes only the last line, (eis psychn zsan). As earlier,
the term psychic, refers here to ordinary human existence. Paul has this term
characterize . . . (ho protos. . . Adam) in order to set up the typology
(employed also in Romans 5:12-21) between the first and new creations.28
The first Adam became a living being because Gods breath animated the clay
from which he was formed. But Paul contrasts the first human (a paradigm for all
humans) with the one he calls , {ho eschatos Adamy the last
Adam), who became (eispneuma zopoioun> 15:45). The
phrase is important not simply because it opposes and , but because
the adjective , life-giving can be applied properly only to God.29 The
contrast between Adam and Christ, then, is between natural life and resurrection
life. But in the case of Christ, resurrection means exaltation into the presence and
power of God, since God alone is the giver o f life.
Paul drives home his point in 15:46-48: the was not first (with respect
to humans) but the ; the first human was drawn from clay, while the second
(Christ) was from heaven. And as before, he makes the connection between the
paradigmatic human and those in his image30: as with the earthly one, so with
those who are earthly; as with the heavenly one, so with those who are heavenly. If
humans have borne the image of the one made from clay, so do they now also
bear the image of the one from heaven. Once more: although followers of Christ
have not reached the state of being life-giving like the exalted Jesus, they do par-
ticipate somehow in his imageand Paul suggests that the medium o f this partid-
pation, both for the future and the present, has to do specifically with .
281have already pointed to Pauls use of creation language concerning the election of the Corinthians
in 1:28. The reality brought into being through the resurrection of Jesus is understood by Paul as a
new creation, See above all 2 Cor 5:17: If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things
have passed away; behold, they have become new (, miM)\ see also Gal 6:15, and the startling
statements in Rom 4:17-25: Abraham believed in the God who gives life to the dead and calls into
being what does not exist (
, episteusen theou ton zopotountos tow nekrous kai kalountos ta m onta hs onta\ 4:17); God
brought life to the womb of Sarah, although Abraham was as good as dead and Sarahs womb was
dead (4:19); God raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (4:24).
29See LXX 2 Kgs 5:7; Neh 9:6; Job 36:6; Ps 70:20; As pointed out in the previous note, Paul uses
the verb for Gods creating power in Rom 4:17 and specifically with reference to the future resurrection
in Rom 8:11, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life (, zopoisei) also to
our mortal bodies. In Gal 3:21, he denies this life-giving ability to the Law, and in 2 Cor 3:6, he
declares, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life ( , to de pneuma zopoioei).
30For Pauls use of (eikon\ see Rom 1:23; 8:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; Col 1:15; 3:10.
83
SCJ15 (Spring, 2012): 75-89
Paul closes his argument in 1 Corinthians 15 not with exposition but exhor-
tation. He turns to the behavioral correlates of standing in the good news of
Christs resurrection. The message is simple: they must change. Full participation
in Gods rule is not available to flesh and blood, that is, ordinary human exis-
tence, much less such an existence defined precisely by flesh. The corruptible
that is the mortalcannot without change inherit immortality (15:50). Whether
believers die before the coming of Christ or not, all will necessarily be changed
(15:51). The dead will rise (, aphthartoi, incorruptible) and we will be
changed (15:52): this corruptible being will be clothed with incorruptibility and
this mortal being will be clothed with immortality (15:53).
The process of this ontological transformation through the (pneuma),
however, begins already in this mortal, empirical existence that believers share. They
simultaneously bear both the image o f Adam and Christ. It is entirely legitimate to
read in this connection a passage from Pauls second letter to the Corinthians, which
serves as a virtual commentary on the argument Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 15:
Now the Lord is the Spirit ( , ho de kyrios to pneuma
estin), and where the Spirit o f the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, gazing
with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same
image ( , tn autn eikona metamorphoumetha),
from glory to glory, as from the Lord, who is spirit ( , apo
kyriou pneumatos) (2 Cor 3:17-18). Reading the passages from the two Corinthian
letters side by side, it seems evident that Paul sees the process of ontological trans
formation as already at work through the resurrection spirit that defines the resur-
rected Jesus as life-giving spirit.
For Paul in 1 Corinthians, however, such ontological change demands a moral
change. He speaks of death as the last enemy conquered by resurrection in the end-
time, but insists that the sting of death is sin (15:56). He declares that if the resur-
rection is not real, then the Corinthians are still in their sins (5:17), and he says of
those who live as though there were no future resurrection (Let us eat, and drink,
for tomorrow we shall die) that they are self-deceived, and their influence is dan-
gerous: bad company corrupts (, phtheirousin) good morals (1 Cor
15:33).31 He admonishes them, Become sober righteously and stop sinning. For
some o f you do not know God (15:34). Such insistence on moral change extends
throughout the letter (see especially 14:20). But 1 Corinthians 15 provides the
eschatological-ontological assumptions underlying Pauls moral exhortations and
makes of them something much more than mere moralism.
This essay has shown how Paul refers to the exalted Lord Jesus as Life-Giving
Spirit ( ) and o f the future bodies of the resurrected believers
31The choice of corrupt (, phtheirousin) in the present context cannot be accidental (see
15:42,50).
84
Luke Timothy Johnson: Lift-Giving Spirit
as spiritual bodies ( . It is appropriate, then, to pursue the
question of the ontological implications of the resurrection by inquiring into the
role of the throughout 1 Corinthians.
T h e F u n c t i o n s o f t h e H o l y Sp i r i t
Since Paul nowhere defines , we are required to learn how he under-
stands it from the terms he uses in association with it and by the functions he
assigns to it. The eschatological discourse of chapter fifteen has linked to
the incorruptible rather than the corruptible, to the immortal rather than the mor-
tal, to strength rather than weakness, to glory rather than shame; it has been
described as life-giving. That discussion, in short, connects to the divine
rather than to ordinary human existence.
Earlier parts of Pauls composition, however, demonstrate that he confuses the
issue slightly by speaking with some frequency of not as an eschatological,
divine reality but as a presenttime dimension of ordinary human psychology. Thus,
Paul can speak of being holy both in body and spirit (1 Cor 7:34) or of having his spir-
it refreshed (1 Cor 16:18) or of someones spirit praying when speaking in tongues
(1 Cor 14:14) or of an excommunicated man having lois flesh destroyed so that his
might be saved (1 Cor 5:5). When he says he will come to the community in
a spirit of mildness, he refers to his own human disposition (1 Cor 4:21).
Even some of these statements, though, suggest that Paul understands the
human spirit to have characteristics that correspond to Gods spirit. Thus, in 1 Cor
2:11, he speaks of the human spirit in terms of a power of introspection: among
human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person
that is within ( , et m to pneumct tou
anthrpou to en a u to i)^ And in 5:3, Paul tells his readers that although he is absent
in body he is present in spirit ( , par de toi pneumati),
suggesting that even at the level of human psychology, is not confined by
space or the individual body. The same passage, indeed, describes a gathering of the
community in which, Paul says, I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord
Jesus (5:4).32
Most of the time in 1 Corinthians, however, Pauls language of refers
to the Holy Spirit (6:19; 12:3) or the Spirit from God (2:11-12; 2:14; 3:16;
6:11; 7:40; 12:3), even in cases where he omits such specific qualification. At least
three aspects of such usage require attention in relation to the ontological implica-
tions of resurrection.
32The passage reads, []
(en t onomati tou kyriou hrnn Isou symchthentn
hymn kai tou mou pneunmtossyn t dynami tou kyriou hrnn Isou).
85
SCJ15 (Springy 2012): 75-89
(1) Paul closely associates with Jesus, not the Jesus of human history,
but the Jesus who is (kyrios). Most dramatically, Paul makes the Spirit the
basis for the confession o f Jesus as Lord: Nobody speaking by the spirit of God
( , en pneumati theou) says, Cursed be Jesusthat is, sees Jesus
simply as a false messiah cursed by Godand nobody is able to say Jesus is Lord
except by the Holy Spirit ( , en pneumati h agio) (12:3). Similarly,
when speaking of the Corinthians transition from their former vice to a state of
being cleansed, made holy, and made righteous (6:11), Paul combines the instru-
mentality of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit o f our God. This
Spirit of God is thus closely linked to the risen Jesus as Lord.
(2) The Spirit also mediates the presence of Jesus as risen Lord to believers.
After declaring the intimate unity that results from sexual relationsthe one who
clings/adheres to a prostitute becomes one body, for it says, the two become one
fleshPaul makes this remarkable statement about another form of intense inti-
macy: And the one who cleaves/adheres to the Lord is one (we must sup-
ply with him) (6:16-17). Note how this pneumatic unity has somatic implica-
tions for believers, a theme pursued later in this essay. Note, for now, another text
pointing to the spirit as mediator of presence: For by means o f one spirit we have
all been baptized into one body, whether Jews or Hellenes, whether slaves or free,
and we have all been made to drink the one spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
(3) Paul sees the Spirits relation to humans as a form of intimacy or even inte-
riority. The Corinthians have received the Spirit that comes from God (2:12), the
Spirit that penetrates the deep things of God in the way that a persons own spirit
examines the self (2:10), so that they can know the gifts given them by God. The
Corinthians are to discern spiritual things ( , ta pneumatika) spir-
itually () because they are spiritual people () who have
been taught by the Spirit ( , didaktoispneumatos, 2:12-13).
Or at least, that is the ideal if they are mature (, teleiois).
In fact, Paul regards them as immature, as babes, as fleshly and as psychic,
because their competitive behavior shows them to not get what the Spirit is
about (3:1-4; see 2:14). He needs to remind them repeatedly about the ontologi-
cal implications of resurrection. Do you not know that you (plural) are Gods
sanctuary and that the Spirit of God dwells in/among you ( , oikei en
hymin> 3:16). This is something they should know but they act as though they did
not, so he warns them, If any one destroy/corrupt (, phtherei) Gods sane-
tuary, God will destroy this one (3:17). He tells them again in his discussion of
sexual immorality, Or do you not know that your (plural) body is the sanctuary of
the Holy Spirit within/among you, which you have from God, and you are not
your own? (6:19).
These three aspects are closely interconnected. If Paul uses spirit-language for
the designation o f Jesus as Lord, and for the intimate presence of Jesus to believ
Luke Timothy Johnson: Life-Givin/ Spirit
ers, this has implications for other places in this letter where Paul speaks of
Christians being in Christ (11 times) and in the Lord (9 times). Just as he can
speak o f drinking the one spirit and of the Spirit dwelling in them, so he can
speak o f them being in Christ and in the Lord. The manner suggests a shar-
ing or communication at the level o f being, rather than at the level of shared phys-
ical space or a sphere of moral influence. The conclusion that seems to be demand-
ed by the way in which Paul uses language in 1 Corinthians is that the mutual
indwelling o f the risen Lord Jesus, the Spirit, and the Corinthians is, at the very
least, a mutual influence at the level o f energy, power, and presence.
Such an impression is not diminished with respect to the functions Paul ascribes
to the Spirit. Thus, in 1:5-6, he thanks God for the enrichment of the Corinthians
in speech and knowledge, just as the witness of Christ was confirmed among you.
But in 2:4, he speaks of his kerygma as accompanied not by convincing words of wis-
dom but by the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that the faith of the
Corinthians might be based not in the wisdom o f humans but in the power that
comes from God (2:5). The powerful demonstration of the Spirit is precisely the
way the witness of Christ was confirmed/established among them.
Similarly, in 2:10, Paul speaks o f the Spirit as the one who has revealed the
mysteries otherwise unknowable to humans. Paul and his associates speak with
words taught by the Spirit rather than those taught by human wisdom (2:13). The
contrast here is between mere human capacity and the empowerment given by the
Spirit. Paul is taught the words to say by the Spirit; the Spirits power confirms his
proclamation. He works in an energy field that comes from the risen Lord in whose
name he speaks (see 1:2,10; 5:4; 6:11), and the energy field is the Spirit.
Not only does the Holy Spirit empower the words of the Apostle so that he
can declare, I think that I too have the Spirit of God (1 Cor 7:40), but he also
lifts and transforms the words of the community as it engages in worship. The Spirit
bestows and energizes all the gifts within the community. PauPs explicit elabora-
tion of this truth in 1 Cor 12:4-11 falls between two statements concerning the
spirit described above. The first, in 12:3, declares that only in the Holy Spirit is it
possible to declare that Jesus is Lord. The second, in 12:13, states that Paul and his
readers have all drunk of the one spirit, and have been baptized in one spirit into
one body. Between these statements, which intimately link the power of the Spirit
both to Jesus and to the community, falls PauPs declarations concerning the spiri-
tual gifts (ta charismata, ta pneumatika) given to the community.
This well-known passage offers three points that are particularly pertinent.
First, and most obviously, all the manifestations o f the Spirit (
, h i phanersis tou pneumatos, 12:7) and gifts (, chatis-
matn, 12:4) of which Paul speaks serve to elevate human existence through the
exercise of powers not ordinarily available to them. Some are notably exceptional
to normal human experience, such as the gifts o f healing and the performance of
87
SCJ15 (Spring, 2012): 75-89
wonders, prophecy, tongues, the discernment of spirits and the interpretation of
tongues (12:9-10). Others appear as a heightened expression of more ordinary
human capacities: words of wisdom, words of knowledge, even faith (12:8-9). But
all are elevations o f human ability through the spirits power.
Second, Paul here speaks of the Spirit in distinctly personal terms. In 12:11,
he declares that the Spirit gifts each one as he wills. The Spirit is not simply an
impersonal energy, but freely chooses in the manner o f God (1:28). The rhythmic
assertions of 12:4-6 also assert the personal character of the Spirit: There are a
variety of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are a variety of ministries, but the
same Lord; and there are a variety of activities, but it is the same God who activates
them all in every way ( , ta punta en ) Scattered references
are concentrated here in a single affirmation: God, the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit
join in providing the elevation o f human capacities.
Third, Paul insists in 12:7 that the manifestation of the Spirit to each individ-
ual is (pros to symphcron, for the common good) a theme that
he will develop explicidy in his discussion of tongues and prophecy in chapter 14,
and is stated as a fundamental principle in 1 Cor 6:12, 7:35,10:23 and 33.
C o n c l u s i o n
Observations concerning Pauls discussion of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians
15, and his use of spirit-language throughout that composition, lead to five con-
elusions and two questions.
Conclusions
(1) The resurrection is, for Paul (and those who preach as he did) more than
a historical event o f the past concerning Jesus. It is an eschatological reality that
affects believers in the present and anticipates the character of their future existence
in which God will be all things in all things.
(2) The exalted Lord Jesus is life-giving Spirit and the source of the power
that touches and transforms the Corinthians. The confession of Jesus as Lord and
the possession o f the Holy Spirit are correlative and mutually defining realities.
(3) The Holy Spirit that examines the deep things of God and is the medium
of the risen Lords presence to the Corinthians is also the medium o f an intense and
mutual indwelling among God and humans: the Corinthians have drunk the one
Spirit, and the Spirit dwells in them. They are in the spirit, and in Christ and in the
Lord. The consistent use of such locative prepositions connotes a deep and inter-
subjective relationship.
33The use of the same phrase for the distribution of gifts in the community and for the final eschato-
logical victory of God in 15:28 cannot be accidental.
Luke Timothy Johnson: Life-Giving Spirit
(4) The presence of the Holy Spirit among and within the Corinthians is the
basis for the process of their personal and social transformation. Once sinners, they
are now made clean, made holy, made righteous (6:11); the Spirit from the Lord
has empowered them to know, speak, and perform in ways not available to, and not
grasped by, the merely natural man.
(5) The resurrection, therefore, initiates what Paul elsewhere calls a new ere-
ation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15) and indeed a new humanity (Col 3:9-10; Eph
4:24) based on the last Adam who became Life-Giving Spirit. Not a forgive-
ness of sins from the outside is here meant, but an ontological change in the struc-
tures of human existence.
(Questions
Such conclusions, in turn, raise important questions, two of which form a
transition to a study o f the Body in Question: the Social Consequences of the Res-
urrection in 1 Corinthians.34
(1) If the end-point (, telos) of the new creation is a spiritual body
( , soma pneumatikon), what are the implications here and now,
in the perdurance of the empirical body, for the understanding and use o f the body?
How does the ontology of resurrection require a reconsideration of body? How
seriously should we take Pauls calling the Corinthian assembly Christs body
( , sma Chnstou)?
(2) If, as Paul states, we must all be changed, how does the process o f moral
growth work for the transformation of the individual and social self?35Or, to put it
another way, how can living according to the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16) direct
Christs body to its proper goal (, telos)>sCj
34An essay with this title will appear shortly in a scholarly festschrift.
35See the effort to follow this line of thought in Romans, in L.T. Johnson, Transformation of the
Mind and Moral Discernment in Paul, in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies
in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. J.T. Fitzgerald et al,; NovTSupp 110; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 215
236.
Copyrigh t and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
Th is j ou rnal is mad e available to you th rou gh th e ATL AS collection with permission
from th e copyrigh t h old er( s). Th e copyrigh t h old er for an entire issu e of aj ou rnai
typically is th e j ou rnal owner, wh o also may own th e copyrigh t in each article. However,
for certain articles, th e au th or of th e article may maintain th e copyrigh t in th e article.
Please contact th e copyrigh t h old er(s) to requ est permission to u se an article or specific
work for any u se not covered by th e fair u se provisions of th e copyrigh t laws or covered
by you r respective ATL AS su bscriber agreement. For information regard ing th e
copyrigh t h old er(s), please refer to th e copyrigh t information in th e j ou rnal, if available,
or contact ATL A to requ est contact information for th e copyrigh t h old er(s).
Abou t ATL AS:
Th e ATL A Serials (ATL AS ) collection contains electronic versions of previou sly
pu blish ed religion and th eology j ou rnals reprod u ced with permission. Th e ATL AS
collection is owned and managed by th e American Th eological L ibrary Association
(ATL A) and received initial fu nd ing from L illy End owment I nc.
Th e d esign and final form of th is electronic d ocu ment is th e property of th e American
Th eological L ibrary Association.