Images are powerful.

Consider, for example…

JFK slumped in the large convertible;

a naked, napalm-scarred Vietnamese girl running down the road in terror;

a Prime Minister trickling red dust from his closed hand into the open palm of an elderly Aboriginal man;

a lone protestor standing in front of a row of tanks in Tiananmen Square;

a body of a small Syrian boy face down on a Turkish beach;

a young woman casting side-eye during an awkward photo-op at ‘the Lodge’.

Powerful images that stir emotions.

And…

while they are all open to varying degrees of interpretation––

depending on your perspective––

the underlying sense or message is resoundingly clear.

And we remember the images long after the words written about them have faded away.

It’s not for nothing, then, that good writing seeks to conjure images…

or paint pictures…

in order to convey the fullest sense of meaning.

And, it’s for much the same reason that we also use images––

by way of metaphorical comparison––

to try to explain something complex or difficult:

like the image of a planet orbiting a star…

as an analogy for the relationship between an electron and a nucleus. 

Such an image may be helpful on a simplistic level…

but the more that we try to push it…

or stretch it…

the more that the analogy breaks down…

and it becomes problematic. 

 

In our reading this morning from First Corinthians…

Paul continues his discussion of the resurrection.

So far he’s argued that Christ was raised…

and that many had experienced it;

and he’s argued that if Christ was raised…

then so will we be.

And, here, he confronts the nature of the resurrection itself.

Now, as I have explained…

some of the well-to-do Corinthians didn’t believe in the resurrection.

And…

it would seem from Paul’s response here that…

one of the issues… 

centres on the nature of that…

namely…

“with what kind of body do they come?”

And if…

in listening to our reading this morning you’re a bit confused…

then you were probably paying attention!

 

First, though, it’s worth noting that––

in answering this question––

Paul makes absolutely no mention of Christ and his resurrection.

And that ought to come as something of a surprise.

After all, at the start of this whole discussion––

which we heard read two weeks ago––

Paul lists all of those whom he claimed had experienced the risen Christ…

namely…

Peter…

the twelve…

James…

all the other apostles…

another five hundred followers…

and Paul himself.

But here…

Paul says nothing about the nature of the resurrected Christ that any of them had experienced;

he says nothing about the nature of Christ’s resurrected body.

Bear in mind that…

the post-resurrection stories that we have in the Gospels… 

were all written some twenty or more years after this.

If Paul had known any stories about the bodily nature of the resurrected Christ––

or if he had, himself, experienced the resurrected Christ in “bodily” form––

then, surely, he would have mentioned it here.

That would be logical.

But he doesn’t.

Instead…

he engages in a lengthy metaphorical and analogical argument…

that is, quite frankly, rather confusing.

 

Now…

it would seem that part of the problem for these Corinthians––

aside from what we have already seen––

is that they thought of “resurrection” as though it was the “resuscitation” of a corpse.

And that’s why Paul begins by chiding them for being foolish.

Resurrection is not resuscitation––

certainly not in a literal, physical sense.

But, after that, Paul’s argument gets more problematic.

And a large part of the problem comes from the confines of Paul’s worldview…

and their understanding of things like botany…

zoology…

astronomy…

and cosmology.

His botanical analogy relies on a simple and unscientific understanding of plant growth.

If you look at a seed…

and if you look at the much larger plant that grows from that seed…

then it’s clear that the two are not the same.

They have different “bodies”––

and note, “body” as Paul is using it here… 

has more of a sense of ‘physicality’…

or ‘material existence’… 

or ‘physical form’.

At heart, it’s an argument based on shape and form––

that is, on morphology––

because they didn’t understand about things like genetics.

So, to their way of thinking, the seed itself dies.

Somehow, from that comes the plant.

But how it attains its shape is something of a God-given

and God-controlled miracle.

The form…

the shape…

the physicality…

the “body” of the latter…

is not contained within, or is not inherent to, the former.

That seems to be Paul’s point.

 

Again, his argument that different creatures have different “flesh”…

doesn’t make sense if you see it from the perspective of things like biochemistry…

physiology…

or even genetics.

But it makes sense from the perspective of morphology;

from the perspective of form and appearance.

His argument about the sun…

and the stars…

and the moon…

and the earth…

is of a similar kind.

Again, it’s an argument based on form…

appearance…

and morphology…

and, perhaps, function.

All have a different appearance––

in this case, described by Paul as “glory”––

a different form…

and a different function.

And he’s arguing that the resurrection is like that.

 

But there’s a second problem in all of this as well.

Unlike those well-to-do and educated readers––

who questioned the whole concept of ‘resurrection’;

and who came from a Roman worldview––

Paul operates out of a Hebrew worldview;

and, based on that, he cannot contemplate any form of non-bodily existence.

To exist at all––

within this particular worldview––

is to have some sort of body…

some sort of physicality…

some sort of form that befits its function.

And that’s why he also goes on to talk about the difference between a “physical body”…

and a “spiritual body”;

or the “perishable” and the “imperishable”.

 

In trying to explain how he understood resurrection…

Paul was drawing on images…

metaphors…

and analogies…

that were shaped and formed within the confines of his world and his worldview.

Of course, we don’t share his understanding of botany…

zoology… 

astronomy… 

or cosmology. 

But nor do we share his understanding of metaphysics.

So what…

in the end…

can we take from all of this?

 

First, when we speak of the “resurrection” of Christ…

we need to be very careful.

They understood it––

and hence experienced it––

from within the confines of their worldview.

We should not…

we cannot…

try to impose our questions or our answers onto that.

Second, we have to be honest and say that we don’t know.

In talking about the resurrection––

and in seeking to explain it––

Paul intentionally resorts to metaphorical language…

because––

like all of our language for God––

it’s the only way that we can speak about that which we cannot understand…

and which we only experience in a purely subjective way.

Beyond that, though, Paul’s emphasis throughout this is on the discontinuity of the resurrection.

Whatever it is that we will experience…

it won’t be like what we experience now.

And that’s important!

And, finally, perhaps Paul’s emphasis on bodily existence––

and its application to all forms of mortal life and experience––

is an important corrective to the overly-spiritual emphasis in so much of our religious tradition.

We are not simply immortal souls trapped in a finite body.

And that has huge ramifications…

for how we live as people of the resurrection.