Book Review: The Final Triumph of God

James Ware has written an important commentary on 1 Corinthians 15, “the great resurrection chapter.” After setting the context of 1 Corinthians 15 within the entire letter, Ware analyzes each verse and phrase in the chapter in the original language. In addition, four excurses are interspersed throughout the commentary.

While working methodically through the chapter, Ware addresses important questions, including the following:

• Does ancient literature contain other examples of resurrection?

• Does Paul teach that Jesus rose from the dead bodily?

• How do resurrection bodies compare with our present bodies?

• Is fact detached from meaning?

• Will Christ relinquish the kingdom to the Father?

• What is baptism for the dead?

• Did Paul survive combat with wild animals?

Does ancient literature contain other examples of resurrection?

Ancient literature does not provide parallels to the resurrection of Christ because the relevant figures gained immortality apart from their physical bodies. For example, “the body of Osiris remains in the tomb” while he rules in Hades (103). Ware writes, “This gospel did not provide yet one more variation on the hope we find in the Orphic teachings, the mystery cults, and the philosophers—the survival and immortality of the soul. It replaced all of this with a new doctrine and a new hope—the resurrection of the body” (209). Near the end of the book, Ware sums up the distinctiveness of the gospel:

The conception of the conquest of death is absolutely unique in antiquity. In the ancient pagan, polytheistic world into which Paul’s gospel came, death was believed to be an eternal and unchangeable reality of the cosmic order, unalterable even by the gods. Although a variety of beliefs existed regarding soul survival, heavenly afterlife, and reincarnation, neither the common person nor the philosophers believed that a human being, once dead, might live again. All were agreed on the impossibility of resurrection—the return from bodily death to an everlasting embodied life. (396)

I don’t know the ancient literature well enough to have a strong view on this topic, but Ware seems to have all his ducks in a row with everything cited in the footnotes.

Does Paul teach that Jesus rose from the dead bodily?

According to Ware, the unrivaled alternative explanation to the bodily resurrection of Christ is the “apparitions/legends” theory. This is a two-stage theory in which the apostles began having visions or apparitions of Jesus after his death then stories and legends of an empty tomb and physical resurrection were developed (144). Hence, the resurrection accounts in the Gospels were not original to what actually happened.

However, a close look at the confession in 1 Cor 15:3-7, which goes back to no later than AD 34 or 35, undermines this theory because it affirms a bodily resurrection. (More on this below.) After defending the reliability of 1 Cor 15:3-7, Ware says,

Here we see the explosive nature of the evidence provided by the ancient confession in 1 Cor 15. For as we have seen, the primitive confession in 1 Cor 15:3-7, which took shape within months of the founding events, presupposes a narrative of the kind we see in the Synoptics and John, involving an empty tomb and encounters with a Jesus in flesh and bones. The apparitions/legends theory championed by Grass, Yarbro Collins, Allison, and so many others is not historically plausible, for it fails to account for this most crucial piece of evidence, the apostolic confession of 1 Cor 15:3-8, and what the ancient Greek of this formula, in its historical context, actually says. (148)

In response to those who minimize the confession in 1 Cor 15, claiming that it is a secondhand witness, Ware writes, “This is historically misleading in the extreme” then he discusses Paul’s interaction with Peter, James, and John (146-7). He concludes, “It is thus beyond historical controversy that Paul had heard the content of the apostolic testimony that he transmits to the Corinthians in 15:3-7 from the lips of the apostles themselves” (147).

The confession in 1 Cor 15, however, is still secondhand testimony. Paul claims that he received it so it did not originate with him. Based on other data, it makes sense for Paul to have received it from the leaders in Jerusalem (see Gal 1-2), which makes it important testimony but still secondhand. This makes Ware’s expression, “historically misleading in the extreme” over-the-top hyperbole. It’s worth noting, though, that verse 8 is eyewitness testimony: “and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Ware contends 1 Cor 15:3-7 affirms a bodily resurrection in several ways. For instance, Paul uses the Greek verb egeiro meaning “to rise.” Building on the work of Wright and Hengel, Ware says this verb cannot refer to elevation or ascension. So “he was raised on the third day” does not mean he ascended. Instead it means “to get up or stand up, that is, to raise from a supine to a standing position” (85). The body that was in a horizontal position moved to a vertical position. Jesus got up and left the tomb. As I was reading this section I was thinking about other verses like Ephesians 2:6: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms.” In this case, the Greek verb sounds like it relates to ascending to be seated with Christ.

According to Ware, verse 50 is the “holy grail” for those who think Paul did not believe Jesus rose in the flesh. It says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” He then lists four main views of “flesh and blood”: (1) physical substances—the “stuff” of the human body (2) sinful humanity (3) creaturely humanity (4) mortal humanity.

After exploring the six occurrences of “flesh and blood,” Ware concludes it is a Jewish idiom that refers to “humanity in its perishability and mortality” (376). In sum, the phrase sounds like a reference to the substances of the body—”flesh and blood”—but it refers to nothing of the sort. This should not completely surprise us. “It’s raining cats and dogs” says nothing about cats and dogs. Ware then helpfully contrasts the phrase “flesh and blood” with the phrase “flesh and bones” in ancient literature.

The delineation into four views seems too neat and tidy. There are only six references to “flesh and blood” and they often don’t specify exactly what is meant by the phrase. I agree, however, that the phrase seems to be a Jewish idiom with a negative connotation about “the whole embodied human person” (375).

How do resurrection bodies compare with our present bodies?  

In verse 37 Paul employs this comparison: the resurrection body is like a seed that grows into a plant, indicating dynamic growth. In verse 51 Paul says, “we will all be changed.” Ware comments, “For x to change, x must continue to exist. The language of change implies the continued existence of that which is changed” (385). This change will involve adding a clothing of immortality. Ware says, “Paul does not describe resurrection as an event in which x (the present body) is sown, but y (a body distinct from the present body) is raised, but rather as an event in which a single x (the present body) is sown a perishable x but raised an imperishable x” (314).

What then does Paul mean by “a natural body” and “a spiritual body” in verse 44? Contrary to many who think Paul is teaching an ethereal resurrection body, Ware asserts Paul is not referring to the body’s composition but to the source of its life (325). He translates verse 44 as “It is sown a body of the soul, it is raised a body of the Spirit” (322). A body of the Spirit is a body “animated by the Spirit of God” (327). He writes, “In the resurrection, the Spirit who now dwells in the body will be given to the body” (329). The resurrection is not a subtraction of our physicality; it is an addition of imperishability to that physicality. As Thomas Aquinas says, “the divine glory given to the soul will overflow into the body” (332).

Understanding the continuity and discontinuity between present and resurrected bodies is not easy, but Ware clarifies some things based on misleading translations.

Is fact detached from meaning?

Ware notes, “The apostles did not give testimony to a fact in isolation . . . They did not say, ‘we have witnessed a miraculous event, make of it what you will.’ Rather, their testimony included both the fact and its meaning” (150). In the apostolic testimony, fact and meaning are inseparable. “This fact comes with its own meaning” (151). And the theological meaning is this: God raised Jesus from the dead.

If we want to devote ourselves to the apostles’ teaching, Ware is right that we must accept the fact along with its given meaning. However, how effective is this insight for outsiders? Ancient writers attributed many events to the gods, such as floods and famine, but today we usually accept the event but reject the meaning. How would this be any different?

In this section, Ware critiques Dale Allison’s views as he does several times in the book, but I think he may have misunderstood Allison’s project. Allison has repeatedly pointed out the flaws of historical criticism—it can’t access the meaning or agency behind historical events so if we get to the meaning we must do so by some other means. In sum, Allison is not saying there is no theological meaning in the resurrection as Ware claims; he is saying historical criticism cannot access that meaning.

Will Christ relinquish the kingdom to the Father?

Chapter 8 tackles a difficult passage: “Then the end will come, when he [the Son] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. . . When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:24-28 NIV). Does this mean Christ’s kingdom is temporary?

While many interpreters think this passage teaches the temporary nature of Christ’s kingdom, Ware says this interpretation is impossible. Why? (1) God already reigns as king and Christ reigns at God’s right hand. (2) “Handing over” or “delivering” does not indicate relinquishment: “The verb . . . means to transmit or deliver, not to lose, abandon, or relinquish. . . Christ’s deliverance of the kingdom to the Father does not mean that he will cease to reign” (220). (3) “Until” does not necessarily involve cessation. “He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” does not mean Christ will cease to reign. Rather it refers to the goal of his reign. “His reign must bring about the defeat of all his enemies, including the last enemy, death” (227).

Moreover, 1 Cor 15:24 shows Christ’s exalted nature because “it is the only verse in the entire Bible in which God is said to receive something from a human being!” (220). Ware then explains the Son’s submission to the Father in terms of his human nature not his divine nature. Finally, Ware argues that God in the phrase “so that God may be all in all” includes the Father and the Son (241). Ware’s insights shed new light on this challenging passage.

What is baptism for the dead?

Regarding baptism for the dead in verse 29, Ware gives four views prior to defending this perspective: “those baptized for the sake of the dead were those who, moved by the courageous witness of martyrs to the point of death, united themselves to the Christian community through confession of faith and baptism in the immediate aftermath of these martyrdoms and at great risk to themselves” (253). I’m not sure about this one, but Ware makes a strong case. A lot rides on one Greek preposition, which is usually translated as “for.”

Did Paul survive combat with wild animals?

Intriguingly, Ware takes a minority view in arguing that Paul’s fighting with “wild beasts” at Ephesus is not metaphorical (v. 32). He gives compelling reasons to think Paul was condemned to fight with wild animals and he survived. Surviving this type of contest was not heard of in antiquity (259-60). I’m siding with Ware on this one.

Reflection

This book contains many helpful insights, but I think it can be improved in the following ways:

• Include the transliteration of Greek words for those who haven’t studied Greek.
• Cut down on the opening chapter. The 44-page chapter on the relation of chapter 15 to the rest of the letter was slow reading for me.
• Incorporate additional data. For example, engage more deeply with 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 because it contains many similar ideas in a follow-up letter to the same audience. Also, some scholars use it as support for the idea of immediate resurrection—as soon as believers die, they are raised in their new bodies. I also expected to read more interaction with Gregory of Nyssa’s understanding of “all in all” as a reference to universal restoration. Lastly, while “vanity” is mentioned in relation to Ecclesiastes, I was expecting to see something about how the resurrection overturns the conclusion of Ecclesiastes that all is vanity.
• State certain things less dogmatically.

The strengths of this study are the following:

• Stays close to the text of 1 Cor 15
• Focuses on Greek grammar and syntax
• Engages with ancient literature and how it compares with the concepts in 1 Cor 15
• Interacts with scholarship on 1 Cor 15
• Written clearly with well-supported conclusions
• Sensitivity to the sounds of Greek words (e.g. assonance, alliteration, etc.)
• A robust defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus

I own several commentaries, but this is my first on a single chapter of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15 is well worth this kind of attention. At 400+ pages this commentary shows how deep scholars can go when given the opportunity. I hope Eerdmans publishes more single chapter commentaries.

My thanks to the publisher for providing me with a review copy.