Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus is unquestionably central to the earliest strands of apostolic preaching.

 [For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received], that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time [most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.] (1Cor. 15:3-8)

Paul presents an interesting dilemma which could apply to all the witnesses in that list:

[1] …if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are also found to be false witnesses of God because we witnessed  of God that He raised Christ….

[2] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. …Why am I in peril every hour? …I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1Cor 15:14-32).

One can see the makings of a classical dilemma which has the objective of verifying the witness value not only of Paul, but also of the Twelve, the 500, James, and the “other apostles.” From a legal perspective, the most objective way of validating a witness’ testimony is to show that that witness has “everything to lose, and nothing to gain.”.

The first part of the dilemma assumes that Paul (and the other witnesses) believe in God. If Paul truly believes in God, He does not want to bear false witness of God, because this would not only disappoint the Lord whom He adores, but also might, in fact, jeopardize his salvation. This problem is compounded by the fact that his false testimony would be leading hundreds, if not thousands of people astray, which would not only be a colossal waste of his ministry and time (“our preaching is in vain”), but also a colossal waste of the time and lives of the people he is affecting by his false testimony (“your faith is in vain”). If Paul really does believe in God, why would he waste his life, waste the faith of believers, bear false witness, and risk his salvation? This does not seem to be commensurate with someone of genuine faith (or common sense).

The second part of the dilemma hypothesizes that Paul does not believe in God. In other words, that Paul’s preaching of the resurrection is not for the sake of converts to God, but for converts to Paul. But Paul presents a poignant objection: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” Paul is saying that the cost of preaching a false resurrection (without any belief in a God who saves) is simply too high. He and the other witnesses are not only being challenged by Jewish and Roman authorities, they are being actively persecuted. As he puts it, he is dying every day and is being subject to trials with substantial risk of martyrdom.

Paul is probably using this dilemma to show (in a quasi-legal fashion) that he and the other witnesses have everything to lose and nothing to gain by bearing false witness to the resurrection of Christ. The above dilemma makes clear that the witness’ self-interest could not be furthered (in conditions of persecution) if their testimony to Christ’s resurrection were untrue.

Paul not only believes that he is speaking the truth, but that he is speaking the truth about the Lord he loves (that is, the Lord who has loved him first). He endures persecution not simply because he believes he has a duty to bear witness to the truth about the resurrection, but also because he loves the One about whom he bears witness. If Paul’s love is true, then it can hardly be thought that he is preaching a falsity about his Beloved.

The early Christian view of resurrection does not resemble the pagan notion of the “afterlife.” Indeed, the pagan notion of afterlife (disembodied immortality) does not resemble the Jewish notion of resurrection. No pagans known to us ever imagined that resurrection could or would really take place, let alone offered any developed framework of thought on the subject.

Though Paul views the resurrection through the lens of his Jewish background, he alters it considerably, “indicat[ing] that he thought he knew something more about what resurrection was, something for which his tradition had not prepared him.” He develops and changes the Jewish tradition in four respects:

[1] Resurrection was now happening in two stages (first Jesus, then all his people); [2] resurrection as a metaphor meant, not the restoration of Israel (though that comes in alongside in Romans 11), but the moral restoration of human beings; [3] resurrection meant, not the victory of Israel over her enemies, but the Gentile mission in which all would be equal on the basis of faith; [4] resurrection was not resuscitation, but transformation into a non-corruptible body.

What is the theological significance of Jesus appearing in this spiritual/transmaterial and corporeal form? It reveals God’s loving plan in the Incarnation by showing that Jesus’ humanity continues; that His transmateriality transforms, but does not annihilate His embodiment; that the resurrection is the fulfillment of the Incarnation – not the overcoming of it. His spiritual/transmaterial state does not remove the human state through which he is interpersonally accessible (as peer) to the apostles in His ministry. Jesus is still human in this sense. He is still empathetically related to us as brother.

For more details: 
http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Resurrection_Accounts#Paul.E2.80.99s_Experience_of_the_Risen_Jesus_.E2.80.93_Implications_in_his_Writings