A Matured Consideration of the Concept of Vivification, Part 3 (Conciliation Series, Part LIX)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

The next consideration of ‘vivification’ can be found in 1 Cor. 15:36. This is, in context, the beginning of a response to an objection that will not be concluded until 1 Cor. 15:49. As such, it will certainly be too much to go into every individual verse in this chapter, and you will simply have to wait until I have uploaded my study on 1 Cor. 15 in order to have a thorough breakdown of the Greek (of course, if you would rather read another book now, I recommend A.E. Knoch’s “Studies in 1 Corinthians 15,” which you can find on his website, concordant.org, under ‘Free Media,’ and ‘Digital Publications.’)

Let’s start with 1 Cor. 15:35–

But someone will be protesting, “How are the dead being roused? Now with what body are they coming?”

This is a perfectly rational question. In this part of the story, this modernist-nihilistic view that most of popular culture has been subjected to, this question is far more reasonable, in my mind. In fact, I daresay: why wouldn’t you ask this? What about people who’ve been cremated? What about those who’ve been smushed flat as a pancake, or shredded to bits by a wood chipper? I figure we can grasp that God would be able to resurrect lost bodies (like Jimmy Hoffa, I guess,) but… deformed bodies? Bodies shot to hell by bullets, or deteriorated over thousands of years?

Well, even though I find this question rational and fair, it apparently really pisses off our apostle. Check it out:

Imprudent one! What you are sowing is not being vivified if it should not be dying.

Paul does not take this question lightly; he presumes that you are not asking to know, but asking because you want to argue against the teaching he is bringing. The answer, however, is not flippantly angry – just angry. He still answers the question (though I think he does it begrudgingly.)

First, to clarify, the question that the Corinthian doubters are asking is in relation to rousing of the dead. The reason Paul may have gotten so upset here is because Paul could not have more clearly laid out vivification and its effects in 1 Cor. 15:20-28, and yet this question deliberately brushes past it, in favor of a technical aspect. They are not concerned with the vivification of 1 Cor. 15:22, because they are still hung up on the rousing of the dead of 1 Cor. 15:20.

Now, on the surface, Paul’s immediate reply does not seem to answer their question. And, in a sense, you are correct! This verse does not immediately answer the previous objection of the Corinthian saints. Instead, Paul lays the foundation for his reply. He takes things a step further by pointing out the lack of logic in the question itself – how are they being roused? With what body are they coming?

The first issue with this question is that it doubts God. This is the foremost issue, and it is why the question is asked. Notice how each and every objection we have read, from Romans, and here in 1 Corinthians, has been doubting God? The worst of it is that, after answering them, the objector exposes their bias by saying, “Nuh uh!” And going about their day. Yet God did answer the objection, clearly and definitively.

The next issue with the question is that it can only be asked if vivification is being ignored (hence, why Paul intentionally reveals more concerning vivification, instead of rousing.) To clarify this, he explains that you cannot sow something that is already dead, but is only dying. Sure enough, it is fascinating to look at our universe and find that this concept is present all over the place.

Paul points at the seed. The seed is sown. The seed is dying. Inside of a seed, there is a radicle (which will become the first root,) and the plumule (which will become the first shoot.) These make up a tiny fraction of the entire seed. The rest of the seed is full of ‘cotedylon,’ which is a food storage for the seed. Alas, this food storage will not last forever, and eventually the seed will die. The seed needs water, oxygen, and a warm temperature in order to nurture the plant.

Why is the analogy of the seed so perfect here? Well… because the seed will die, no matter what. Eventually the roots and the shoot grow into a real plant, and the seed is no longer necessary, as the plant’s new source of food is photosynthesized sunlight. The seed, by nature, must exclusively be in its dying state in order to produce life.

None of this answers the Corinthian doubter’s question – it only exposes the lack of logic in their question. They are basing their thought on a false premise: ‘life only comes from previous life.’ This is, obviously, absurd, for the nature of our human birth very much denies such an idea. Your mom? She is dying. She is currently alive, yes, but that life is waning. When she gave birth to you, she did not ‘unlock an extra 30 years’ by gaining the right amount of experience points. She is still dying. This ‘dying’ state of your mom will eventually end, and she will be ‘dead.’ While dead, she cannot give birth. In fact, her reproductive system will die before her death, disabling the ability for a man’s (dying) seed to impregnate her again (sorry to speak about your mom like this; it’s for educational purposes only, but I also want to drive the point home about this intimate process of dying –> life.)

Moreover, keep in mind, again, that Paul is speaking of ‘vivification’ in his reply – not rousing (at least, not yet.) For now, he kicks off his reply by pointing out to Corinth, “Hey… guys, so you know how I contextualized ‘vivification’ for you, not one paragraph ago, and you guys are already objecting nonsensically, which you wouldn’t be doing if you had paid attention to ‘vivification?’ Yeah, so here’s a basic, fundamental law of nature that will not only prove vivification’s efficacy, but also clarify and contextualize the nature of ‘rousing.’

One more issue that the Corinthian objectors have: by exclusively leaning back on ‘rousing’ instead of acknowledging vivification, they are falsely presuming that these two concepts are one in the same (like most of our favorite churches today.) Yet, when considering how the seed functions, we knew that the seed dies, and the plant takes its place. The plant, as we know, is very different from the seed. The plant looks different, acts different, and functions differently from the seed. So it is with ‘vivification’ and ‘rousing.’ ‘Vivification’ and ‘rousing’ are two fundamentally different ideas. The plant does have a different body than that of the seed, which stemmed from the dying seed – but this is not the only aspect on display, here. Vivification does a great deal more than stand the body up again.

And, what you are sowing, you are not sowing the body which shall come to be, but a naked kernel, perchance of wheat or some of the rest.

Yet God is giving it a body according as He wills, and to each of the seeds its own body.

Again, briefly considering the verse following Paul’s declaration gives us a wealth more information on the idea of vivification. When we ‘sow’ a seed, we are not sticking a big ass sunflower in the ground. We are sticking a seed in the ground. We are not sowing an already future body, but the naked kernel.

It is, again, God Who gives the body. According as He wills. His sovereignty over His creation, and His story, has not escaped Paul’s view, nor should it escape ours. The source of vivification is God, and always will be.

Here also, Paul stretches from ‘seed’ to ‘seeds,’ making the discussion plural. Why does he do this?

Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one, indeed, of men, yet another flesh of beasts, yet another flesh of flyers, yet another of fishes.

Paul clarifies for us in the next verse that we are now speaking of ‘seeds’ to clarify that there are different kinds of seeds. Thus there are also different kinds of flesh. Our flesh is not a fish’s flesh. Our flesh is not a cat’s flesh. Our flesh is not a birdie’s flesh. This is more simple ‘law of nature’ stuff, as different animals produce different kinds of sperm (some don’t even use ‘sperm’ at all!) This is a pretty impressive statement that God can make (the sheer variety in His story is unmatched,) but Paul doesn’t stop here.

There are bodies celestial as well as bodies terrestrial. But a different glory, indeed, is that of the celestial, yet a different that of the terrestrial, another glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for star is excelling star in glory.

Thus also is the resurrection of the dead.

A.E. Knoch puts it best, calling this a startling statement, for in one sentence Paul dramatically broadens the scope of what he is talking about. Just as there are different kinds of bodies on this earth, there are also different kinds of celestial bodies. We have jumped from an earthly scope to a universal one. I don’t want to comment too much on this now, but I’ll have much more to say about it later. For now, we can see that, just as there are different kinds of seeds sown, and thus different kinds of plants generated, so also there are different kinds of flesh created, and thus different kinds of bodies that can be produced.

Science has shown us that there are tons of different kinds of stars and other celestial bodies. We differentiate between ‘planets’ and ‘stars,’ ‘asteroids’ and ‘comets,’ ‘black holes’ and ‘nebulas,’ and more. There are undoubtedly different hierarchies to these concepts, but there are also hierarchies within these concepts, too! There are different kinds of celestial bodies that exist, and some excel the other. It’s beautiful, isn’t it?? This shows us that everything is contrastive, and this hierarchal nature of everything contributes to our understanding of vivification. There are different seeds, different flesh, different celestial bodies, and this contrast shows us that there are different kinds of ‘resurrection’ as well! There are different kinds of bodies that we will be vivified into. Your ‘celestial’ body is not my ‘celestial’ body.

Let me ask you: does this not perfectly contribute to Romans 8:11? In that verse we are told that God will be ‘vivifying’ our mortal frames. Well… your mortal frame is not my mortal frame! We are unique individuals. Why would your frame suddenly be mine in resurrection or vivification? From a God that is so beneficent that He has to create different types of flesh, different tones of flesh, different bodies dressed in flesh, and more, it would be senseless for us to look like nameless, faceless drones all of a sudden, looking the same and having the same fabric.

Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is roused in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is roused in glory. It is sown in infirmity; it is roused in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body.

Pressing on in his argument, Paul now contextualizes the resurrection of the dead, showing the hierarchy in full effect. First comes the corruption, the dishonor, the infirmity. What follows is the incorruption, the glory, the power. What we should be sowing will not be vivified if it is not dying, right? That’s the principle laid out at the start of this response. This is true of vivification, which encompasses resurrection – being the return of the spirit to the body.

The fact is that this body suffers everything that Paul referred to. When Adam, the first man, was created, he was created as a corruptible being. He was not a strong candidate for ‘doing the right thing,’ for he had not eaten from the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.’ Sin was right under his nose, ready to corrupt him unawares at any moment.

Yet Scripture here shows us that Adam was sown this way. God planted a dying seed, so that the plant that springs forth from humanity is living. Indeed, we, the new humanity, have studied Romans 5:12-19, where Paul explained to us why Adam had to fail!

If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, “became a living soul:” the last Adam a vivifying Spirit.

He is the perfect contrast to Christ. Adam became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into him (Gen. 2:7.) The spirit existed, but it did not reign. The flesh is dictated by food, water, sex, and sleep. All four of these concepts lead to the flesh’s comfort. This is all Adam was driven by. In the case of the forbidden fruit, Adam saw food, and saw his lady friend with the food. Driven by sex and food, he goes to the fruit anyway. Adam could not apprehend anything further than this.

Christ, in contrast, is a vivifying spirit. This parallels nicely with Christ’s declarations in John 6:63. Christ’s impartation of life is superior to Adam in every way. Christ, the second Man on the planet to impact all of humanity, is the Spirit that vivifies by joining those He chooses into His death. Eventually, all will be vivified by this Spirit (1 Cor. 15:22.) This spirit can only vivify like this because it is Life itself (John 1:4) – that is, Christ’s own life (Rom. 8:10.)

This passage, of course, is stated in a relative context, as we know that Christ existed for a long time before Adam showed up (John 1:1, 6:62, 8:58, Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:15-17.) Unfortunately, many object to these directly-stated truths using this verse, proclaiming that Christ being ‘last’ automatically means He was not the First. Well, first, we have Unv. 22:13, where Jesus affirmatively states that He is the First and the Last. But, more importantly, we have the understanding that this is in relation to Christ’s authority to vivify, which is a running theme in 1 Cor. 15. God vivified His Son first – 1 Cor. 15:23. If God had not done this, then Christ would not be able to vivify others, as He would have had no guide on how to do so. This is why Christ is called the ‘last Adam,’ as He is the second Man on the stage. He is First, having creation made in Him, and Last, having the new humanity made in Him as well.

All of this does contribute to our understanding of vivification, in peeling back the layers of Who wields such a power. The character, authority, and heart of God is made known through Christ alone, in all the Scriptures. Not a single verse in the text can be properly understood apart from the Father speaking of the Son, and the Son, the living word, proclaiming His Father. To be given life beyond the reach of death exacerbates these qualities to perfection, showing us the true beauty of this dynamic – that God, operating in His Son, is slowly but surely vivifying His entire creation, on His terms, is a truly humbling thought. Christ, the vivifying Spirit, is what He is because His Father crushed Him on the cross (Is. 53:9-10.) He, knowing life, endured the worst (and the worst of) death for all to inevitably receive this beautiful blessing.

- GerudoKing