It’s only the first Sunday in February and Easter is still a way off.

So…

if you were feeling a little confused a short time ago…

when you heard this morning’s reading from Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians…

then that’s okay.

You would think that…

if we were going to have readings from First Corinthians chapter fifteen––

which we’re going to have for the next three weeks––

then it would be during the Easter season.

And, while our section this morning is also set in the lectionary…

as one of the readings for Easter Day in one year of the cycle…

I can’t say that I have ever heard anyone preach on it.

And, in a way, I can understand why.

When we read a story there’s always an inherent sense of ambiguity.

Stories can be interpreted in different ways…

especially if they contain legendary elements…

or…

shall we say… 

mythological ideas or language.

One branch of literary theory argues that…

within any story, there is an intended or implied meaning…

that is…

the meaning that the author of the story was trying to convey––

without specifically naming it;

as well as the affective meaning…

that is…

the meaning that I–– 

as a reader–– 

experience or create for myself…

in my reading or hearing of that story.

The implied meaning and the affective meaning need not be the same.

When we come to First Corinthians chapter fifteen…

however…

we don’t have nice stories––

at least not as such.

We seem to have Paul’s theological reflection on the Easter tradition.

And that’s a bit harder to deal with.

But we’ll come back to that.

 

Here, at the outset of this chapter…

Paul reminds the Corinthians of what he taught them when he was among them…

in particular, that “Christ died for our sins”…

or, to give cognisance to the ambiguities of the original Greek…

that could mean either ‘Christ died because of our sins’…

or ‘Christ died on account of our sins’––

which are quite different;

and that Christ “was raised…and that he appeared”…

to a whole range of people…

including Paul.

Now, despite having taught this to them…

it seems that some of them had problems with it.

And…

like virtually everything else in First Corinthians…

it seems to be the wealthy and well-to-do––

who all came from a strongly Roman background––

who objected.

Within Roman religious thought…

the concept of ‘eternal life’ was in no way central or important.

When they prayed to their gods it was for help with this life––

with things like health and healing…

financial success…

rescue from danger or personal adversaries…

or help in finding runaway slaves––

and not with some sense of post-mortem existence.

Where such a belief existed, it was frequently very rudimentary.

But for very many Romans––

and probably most of the educated and well-to-do––

the concept of an afterlife was lacking.

Indeed, there was a common expression that was often found on tombstones––

so common that it was abbreviated to just the first letter of each word––

which went, “I was not, I was, I am not, I care not”.

 

That said…

however…

they don’t seem to have had a problem with the resurrection of Christ…

as such.

Paul’s whole recitation of what he had told them––

about all of the people to whom the risen Christ had appeared–– 

would be meaningless if they didn’t accept that.

And he acknowledges that they “received” it…

and “have come to believe” it…

unless they had believed “in vain”.

But, in the Greek, the word that is usually translated as “in vain”…

more frequently means “rashly”, “thoughtlessly”, or “without proper consideration”.

In other words…

Paul is suggesting that the Corinthians who deny the resurrection…

have not thought through their belief.

 

So, what’s actually going on?

 

Among the Romans––

and especially among the more well-to-do Romans…

who benefitted from it the most––

there was a specifically Imperial religious ideology.

According to this belief system…

Augustus’ victory in the Civil Wars…

had inaugurated a divinely-ordained era of peace and prosperity.

And…

as a result…

Augustus––

and many of the Emperors who followed him––

was described as “saviour” and “son of god”.

And, upon their mortal death, they underwent a process whereby they were divinised.

That is, they became a god.

That’s probably the belief structure… 

under which these well-to-do Corinthians understood the death and resurrection of Christ.

But the significant point is that…

according to this belief structure…

the divinisation of the Emperor––

or, in this case, Christ––

had no implications for them in their everyday lives…

apart from acts of religious worship, such as the offering of prayers.

Just because Christ had experienced this process…

did not mean that they would experience some form of “resurrection” or post-mortem existence––

a belief that Paul will tackle in next week’s reading.

Nor did they believe that it had any implications for them in an ethical sense.

And that…

in reality…

is the point that Paul is making here.

According to Paul…

the resurrection makes a fundamental difference.

That’s why––

throughout our reading this morning––

Paul is labouring the point about the risen Christ appearing to Peter…

the twelve…

to James…

all the apostles…

and another five hundred…

and to Paul himself.

In listing them, he doesn’t make some claim about them having seen an empty tomb…

or witnessing a process that might be called “resurrection”.

Paul’s emphasis, here, is on their experience of the risen Christ.

That…

he suggests…

is the key thing.

 

And yet…

in so describing his own experience he uses an odd expression…

claiming that the risen Christ appeared to him as to “one untimely born”.

The word, in the Greek, is the word for an aborted or still-born foetus.

It’s an unpleasant image to consider.

But Paul’s point in using it is not to emphasise the timing of his experience…

but his unformed or incompletely-formed nature when he experienced it.

In effect…

he suggests that he was not ready for his experience of the risen Christ when he had it.

And, given that he links that to his persecution of the church…

he’s either referring to his belief or his morality.

The latter is much more likely…

given that he also describes himself as having been “unfit”. 

But…

he then speaks of the grace of God that has made him who he is now.

In other words…

for Paul…

it was the transformative nature of his experience of the risen Christ that mattered.

And that––

he implies––

is the whole point:

what matters for any of us is that the resurrection is a transformative experience.

 

As such, chapter fifteen is not Paul’s “theology of resurrection”.

Rather…

it’s a resurrection-centred ethical exhortation.

Here…

we are being called to live as people who have genuinely experienced new life;

and we are called to make that new life available to others––

like Paul did.

And that’s not just a matter of personal ethics.

It’s also a matter of corporate ethics.

The implied contrast that Paul draws between Christ and the Emperor…

throughout this chapter… 

is not accidental.

If our experience of the risen Christ…

doesn’t drive us to make our social and political structures truly life-giving…

then… 

have we really experienced the resurrected Christ?