Modern Scholars Viewing the Resurrected Christ as a Life-Giving Spirit with a Literal Body Concurrently

The query focuses on modern scholars (primarily 20th-21st century biblical experts) who interpret the resurrected Christ as a “life-giving spirit” (from 1 Corinthians 15:45, where Paul calls the “last Adam” a pneuma zōopoion) while affirming a literal bodily resurrection. This integrated view reconciles the spiritual dimension—Christ as a source of life through the Holy Spirit—with physical continuity, arguing that the resurrection involves the transformation (not replacement or etherealization) of the mortal body of flesh and bones into an imperishable, Spirit-animated form. This contrasts with purely spiritual or metaphorical interpretations (e.g., by Borg or Crossan, as noted in prior responses) and aligns with traditional orthodox readings, emphasizing that “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44) means a body empowered and directed by the Spirit, not immaterial or non-physical. These scholars often draw on historical, exegetical, and linguistic analysis of Paul’s Greek terms (sōma pneumatikon vs. sōma psychikon), rejecting Gnostic or Platonic influences that dematerialize the body.

Below are key figures holding this concurrent view, based on contemporary scholarship.

1. N.T. Wright (1948–)

A British New Testament scholar and former Anglican bishop, Wright is a leading advocate for a historically grounded bodily resurrection. In The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003) and other works, he argues that Paul’s “life-giving spirit” describes Christ’s role in animating new life, but within a transformed physical body—evidenced by the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances where Jesus eats and is touched. Wright sees the resurrection as a mutation of physicality, where the body is “spiritual” because it is sustained by God’s Spirit, not because it lacks materiality. This view integrates Jewish eschatology with early Christian witness, countering modern demythologizing trends. 2 3

2. Richard Hays (1954–)

An American New Testament professor (Duke Divinity School), Hays emphasizes narrative theology in Paul’s writings. In The Moral Vision of the New Testament (1996) and his 1 Corinthians commentary, he interprets the “spiritual body” as a somatic (bodily) reality transformed by the Spirit, maintaining physical continuity from the crucified flesh. Christ’s becoming a life-giving spirit signifies empowerment for believers’ resurrection, not a disembodied state. Hays critiques ethereal readings as influenced by modern dualism, affirming that Paul envisions a literal, tangible body glorified through divine action. 2 3

3. Anthony Thiselton (1937–)

A British theologian and hermeneutics expert, Thiselton’s massive commentary The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) argues that Paul’s language affirms a physical resurrection body animated by the life-giving Spirit. He stresses that pneuma (spirit) in Paul denotes divine agency and vitality, not immateriality, drawing on linguistic parallels in Jewish texts. The resurrected Christ is literally embodied—imperishable flesh and bones—but concurrently a source of spiritual life, transforming believers similarly. Thiselton opposes subjectivist interpretations, aligning with gospel narratives of a touchable, eating Jesus. 2 3

4. James P. Ware (Contemporary)

Professor of New Testament at the University of Evansville, Ware has written extensively on 1 Corinthians 15, arguing in articles and books that Paul envisions the “eschatological restoration to life of the mortal body of flesh and bones, and its transformation to be imperishable.” Christ’s role as life-giving spirit highlights the divine origin and empowering function of the resurrection, not a non-physical nature. Ware critiques revisionist scholars (e.g., Dale Martin) for imposing Platonic categories, affirming instead a concurrent spiritual-physical reality in line with early church fathers and gospels. 2 3

5. Martin Hengel (1929–2009)

A German New Testament historian, Hengel influenced the “Third Quest” for the historical Jesus. In works like The Son of God (1976) and collaborations, he supported a bodily resurrection where Christ as life-giving spirit infuses physical transformation. Hengel saw Paul’s theology as rooted in Jewish apocalypticism, where the Spirit revivifies the literal body without negating its materiality, countering Gnostic-like modern views. 3

Additional Notes on the View

These scholars often respond to critics who cite 1 Cor. 15:50 (“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”) as evidence against physicality, clarifying that Paul means perishable mortal flesh, not transformed resurrection flesh. They integrate “life-giving spirit” as Christ’s functional role in vivifying believers, concurrent with his literal embodiment (e.g., Luke 24:39: “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have”). This position is common in evangelical and some mainline Protestant circles, contrasting with liberal views that prioritize spiritual metaphor over historicity. 0 3 5 6 8 For deeper dives, see Wright’s book or Ware’s exegetical essays.