PAUL’S DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTIONA term paper written by Lionel Trujillo, Jr.

December 3, 1997

INTRODUCTION

“20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23) 1

Death begins its destructive work in people long before they physically die whenever they

allow the fear of it to cripple their zest for life. Death does not wait until the end of life before

discharging its devastation upon it. It should not surprise us then that man often attempts to cheat

death in some way with hopes of either extended longevity or some expression of immortality after

death. Hope for non-Christians is normally little more than wishful thinking because they cannot be

certain of attaining what they hope for. They anxiously cling to imaginative speculations,

particularly in their struggles with the inevitability of their mortality. Their ideas of immortality, or

even of its possibility, range from the fanciful to its utter denial. The fear of death grips them

tenaciously.

It is utterly untenable that Christians should suffer from this sort of fear and uncertainty

because the scriptures give assurance of eternal life. The faith of Christian rebirth is faith in the hope

that salvation is unto eternal life (1 John 5: 10-12) through the resurrection of the body. It is sadly

ironic that so many Christians who affirm their hope in the resurrection from the dead remain vague

and confused concerning what is actually going to happen to them when they die. Heller calls it a

“strange anomaly” that can even be seen in the controversy and doubt found in the New Testament

church as well.2 This uncertainty has the potential for defiling the life of faith, misshaping its image

of God as the Creator and Sustainer of life and robbing the saints of peace as they await the

consummation of their God-given hope.3

PURPOSE

This paper is a general overview of the Apostle Paul’s presentation to the early Church of his

doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. By examining Paul’s explanations of the issues related to the

resurrection, we hope to see what it is he wanted the early Church to understand concerning their

hope for eternal life. Limited in scope, this paper is not a detailed systematic examination of the

doctrine of the resurrection or of its history, but a survey of Paul’s teachings and how they impact

modern-day perspectives on the subject.

THE BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S AUTHORITY

“Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1)4

Background for Paul’s belief in the resurrection would have come first from his having been

a Pharisee (Acts 23: 6-8). While it is known that the Pharisees believed in the idea of a resurrection,

it cannot be established exactly what Paul, when he was still Saul, would have inherited as a

resurrection doctrine because opinions on this subject varied widely among Paul’s contemporaries.5

It is apparent, however, that whatever Paul’s early thoughts on the resurrection were, they were

significantly modified by his conversion experience on the road to Damascus when he was

confronted by the risen Christ.6

2

2

Paul rightfully claimed authority as an apostle to the church of Jesus Christ on par with the

other apostles, for like them, he too was an eyewitness of the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) and chosen by

the Lord to “carry my name” to the Gentiles.7 His conversion experience on the road to Damascus

made him both a follower of Jesus and one of His apostles. Before his conversion to Christianity,

Paul’s sources for his ideas on the resurrection from the dead may have been limited to his classic

Judaic rearing, possibly affected by Hellenistic philosophical influences. However, afterward Paul

may have revised his Old Testament traditions through his exposure to fellow believers, including

the other apostles. Foremost among his sources, however, Paul claimed special revelation received

directly from risen Lord through the Holy Spirit (Gal. 1: 11-12) making him unquestionably

qualified to authoritatively teach the new Church.8

THE GROUND OF RESURRECTION HOPE

“16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Cor. 15:16-19) 9

Paul’s past Pharisaical theology and his life-changing encounter with the resurrected Lord on

his way to Damascus worked to cement his hope in the eventuality of his own resurrection and that

of his fellow believers as well. As the apostle to the Gentiles, people who had no background for a

belief in a resurrection, Paul set out to preach that the hope for which sinners are saved is indeed

nothing less than the redemption of their bodies through the resurrection from the dead at Christ’s

3

3

return. Murray calls the advent of Christ the “focal point of the Christian hope.” 10 Echoing this,

Ridderbos states that the “expectation of the coming of the Lord and what accompanies it is one the

most central and powerful motifs of Paul’s preaching.”11

But, Paul knew that hope in the resurrection from the dead had to be grounded in the

historical raising of the slain Christ Himself; therefore, before instructing the Church (specifically,

the Corinthian believers) concerning any hope they could have in their own resurrection, he needed

to remind them that the Gospel he preached would be mere vanity if Christ had not been bodily

raised from the grave Himself (1 Cor. 15: 14, 17-18). To authenticate the factual certainty of

Christ’s resurrection, Paul reminds the Corinthians of the already established historicity of Christ’s

resurrection with his “broad appeal to authoritative witnesses (1 Cor. 15: 4-8).”12 Thus, Paul grounds

the believers’ hope in the resurrection in the fact that Christ died, was buried and was raised.

But, mere belief in the historicity of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is insufficient

without its appropriation to the Church itself. Ridderbos sees Paul establishing this necessary

connection between the crucified Lord and the Church as having been crucified with Him in 2

Corinthians 5:14 (and consequently in Col. 3:3 and Rom. 6: 2) where Paul appeals to the Church’s

inclusion in the death of Christ rather than to their conversion as the ground for their exaltation in

heaven at His Parousia.13 In this, Paul is saying that solidarity exists between Christ and His Church

because when He died, those who are His also died with Him and when He was raised, likewise,

they were raised with Him.

Gaffin also asserts that Paul identified the union that exists between the crucified and risen

Christ and all Christians as the “central theme” for the hope believers have for their resurrection

from the dead.14 Through his exegesis of several Pauline passages (I Cor. 15:12-20ff; Col. 1:18; 2

4

4

Cor. 4: 14), Gaffin demonstrates that Paul makes an organic connection between the past

resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of the Christian using the agricultural metaphor of

the “firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15: 20) and of Christ as the “firstborn from among the dead” (Col. 1:18).15

Paul’s also illustrates this central theme of the solidarity between Christ and His Church in

his comparison of the first man, Adam, to Christ as the second man and the last Adam. Just as all

humanity suffers death through their solidarity with Adam, all who are in Christ stand in solidarity

with Him in His resurrection life.16

Paul explicitly ties the conversion of believers to their hope for the redemption of their

bodies through their resurrection from the dead. He sets out to demonstrate that the surety of this

resurrection lies in the inexorable union that exists between Christ and those who are His. Christians

are baptized into Christ and therefore, into his death being buried with him through that baptism.

Likewise, just as Christ was raised from the dead, they will also be raised to a new life. Believers,

according to Paul, have been united to Christ in his death, burial and resurrection and therefore, can

look forward with confident hope to their resurrection from the dead. Just as surely as they know

they will some day die because of their union with the first Adam whose disobedience brought them

death, Christians are assured of their resurrection because of their union with Christ, the Second

Adam, whose obedience brought them eternal life through the redemption of their bodies. This

union with the risen Lord is the ground for their hope for eternal life. They will be raised because He

was raised (Eph.2: 6; Col. 3: 1). In fact, Gaffin points out that Paul considered the past resurrection

of Christ and future resurrection of the Christians as “two episodes of the same event.”17

5

5

THE RESURRECTION : DUALISM

“8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.” (2 Cor. 8-9)18

Classical Christianity contends that man is comprised of both physical (the body) and

spiritual (the soul) elements. The physical dies and suffers decay while the spiritual continues to live

in a sort of immortality as it awaits its reunion with the resurrected body. Taken for granted is the

metaphysical duality of two separable elements, a body (material) and a soul (immaterial) 19. In his

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, that bulwark of Reformed theology, confidently

posits: “1.15.2. Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an

immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part”.20

Traditional Christianity accepts Paul’s ideas of the resurrection of the dead that presupposes

this dualistic nature of man. In 2 Corinthians 5: 1-10, Paul directs our thoughts primarily to the

separability of the two human elements of body and soul explaining that being alive means being in

the body and being dead means leaving the body (the soul’s temporal home) and going to be with the

Lord. When we die our bodies are no longer the homes for our soul, thus, for Paul death is described

as a departure of the soul from the physical body (the earthly tent). This idea of death as departure of

the soul from the body is further seen in Philippians 1: 20-23 where Paul tells the believers in

Philippi that while he prefers to depart (in death) so that he can be with the Lord, he knows that for

their sake he will remain (in life). For Paul physical death obviously does not mean the extinction of

the person since he talks of the continued existence of the soul elsewhere, in the case of a believer,

with Christ.

6

Modern critics reject this traditional view that dichotomizes man into two separate and

distinct elements, one material, the other immaterial, holding to a scientific psychosomatic unity of

existence21. The immortality of the immaterial component of human existence (the soul), is not seen

as detachable from the material (the body), and is therefore denied and considered unbiblical. Thus,

traditional Christianity and Paul are accused of embracing the philosophy of Platonic dualism.

Guthrie accuses those who believe in a distinct and separable immortal soul of being “falsely

optimistic” by not taking death seriously enough and of basing their hope for the future, not in God’s

power to raise the dead, but in their confidence in the intrinsic capacity of the soul to survive death

through its own immortality. For him, death comes to the whole man who is utterly “dead and gone”

until re-created by God in the resurrection.22

Heller, uses an epistemological syncretism of modern science and recent biblical research to

resolve controversial issues concerning the resurrection of man.23 Regarding the immortality of the

human soul, he claims the Bible essentially agrees with science that, “finds no evidence of a

separable nonphysical entity in man which has such an inalienable connection with life that it can

survive the dissolution of man’s physical being at death.”24 Heller states the ground for the hope of

eternal life for the Christian is not the immortality of the human soul itself, but the immortality of

God as Savior thus defending his view of the New Testament emphasis on man’s dependence upon

God as the one who gives and sustains life.

Hannah also argues against the immortality of the human soul, consistently referring to it as

fundamental dualism, defining resurrection as “the reuniting of the ‘never-dying soul’ with a newly-

created body,” a definition he ascribes to the traditional Christian view.25 He claims that death has

been redefined as “continued existence in separation from God” by ascribing death only to the

body26

7

Davis makes a distinction between what he calls “classical dualism” (Platonic) and biblical

dualism (traditional Christian view) to answer the modern critics who fail to make this distinction

themselves when reproving the traditional Christian view for holding to a belief in the immortality of

the human soul, a view they label unbiblical.27 Davis’ definition clears the traditional view of any

inclusion of unbiblical notions such as; (1) the soul as the essence of a person that is temporarily

imprisoned in the body, (2) the body as essentially evil and (3) that the soul enjoys immortality as a

natural property apart from God’s miraculous intervention.28 If the assumption by modern critics

that the traditional Christian view objectionably embraces these notions in its conception of dualism

is what poses the problem for acceptance of the soul of man as capable of existence after death, then

the clarifications made by Davis should open the way for dismantling such objections.

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE: TEMPORARY DISEMBODIMENT

“Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.”(2 Cor.5: 1-3)29

If the removal of these objections brings acceptance that a human soul can survive death

independent of the deceased body, then what must follow is a discussion of the state of the surviving

disembodied soul existing between death and the resurrection, or what Davis calls the theory of

“temporary disembodiment.”30 Naturally, the modern philosophers deny the possibility of the

existence of a state of temporary disembodiment having rejected the likelihood that the soul has

separated from the deceased body to survive death.

8

Through a careful exegesis of Paul’s message in 2 Corinthians 5: 1-10, Osei-Bonsu makes a

case for a disembodied state of existence for the surviving soul of the deceased body. The following

is a synopsis of this exegesis.31

Paul’s reference to the destruction of the earthly tent (v.1) at this point, implies his

expectation of death before the Parousia with the building from God representing the resurrection

body. At death the soul is stripped “naked”, a state of existence Paul considers undesirable;

therefore, the soul groans longing to be clothed with the resurrection body (vv. 2-4). That Paul finds

disembodiment undesirable stands in conflict with the accusations made by modern critics that

traditional Christianity favors Platonic dualism (which saw escape from the material body as

desirable) as the basis for their belief in an immortal soul. Paul’s dread of temporary disembodiment

argues against immediate and individual resurrections and argues for a form of conscious awareness

during the intermediate state. Although Paul clearly preferred to avoid disembodiment (avoidable

only if the Parousia preceded his death), he is confident God will fulfill His promise of resurrection

because of the pledge of the Holy Spirit. Because his absence from his mortal body means being

present with the Lord, this disembodied state, as unnatural and undesirable as it is to Paul, is still

preferable to living in the body, a state that precludes this intimate communion with the Lord (v. 6).

Although Paul expects to experience joy during this intermediate state (being present with the Lord),

he expects his joy to be complete only at the Parousia when he is reunited with his resurrection

body.32

Traditional Christianity accepts Paul’s view of a disembodied soul awaiting a future

resurrection to reunite with its body at the Parousia. Because the soul has survived death (though

exactly how is not known to us), and enjoys an uninterrupted presence with the Lord, personal

identity is guaranteed. That is to say, the person who died will be the same who is raised. He will be

9

recognizable as his ante-mortem self and not someone else. Cooper is careful here to mention that

while it will be the same person, there will be necessary changes in personal attributes.33

The critical modern, or monistic, view is a bit more troublesome due to its denial of the

soul’s existential continuity. Resurrection for them is immediate and individual since there must not

be an unbreakable connection between persons and their bodies.34 Thus, they argue against a future

general resurrection. The monistic alternative to immediate resurrection is extinction of the

personality with a subsequent resurrection which Cooper calls re-creation. Because this alternative

involves a re-creation from nonexistence, there is the possibility of the loss of personal identity.35

Davis calls this the “temporal gap theory” agreeing with Cooper that this interruption of

continuity of the existence of the person introduces serious difficulties regarding the retention of

personal identity.36 He offers some rather intricate and complex formulas to accommodate both the

traditional and modern views on the intermediate state, but ultimately remains vague in his

conclusion regarding the effects a temporal gap would have on the retention of personal identity

ending by claiming there is no way to know for sure what happens to a person when he dies.

In summary, acceptance of an interim state of existence between the death of an individual

and his resurrection implies biblical dualism and allows for a delayed general resurrection of the

corporate body of Christ rather than the immediate individual resurrection endorsed by those who

disavow separability of body and soul and the consequent intermediate state. Paul’s sees

disembodied believers as fully conscious, despite 1 Corinthians 15: 18 and 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-15

referring to them as having fallen asleep, because they are enjoying a closer communion with the

Lord 37. At the same time, they are groaning as they long for the end of their “nakedness” by being

clothed with their resurrected heavenly bodies. Therefore, although their joy is not complete, being

10

with the Lord in death is still preferable to life apart from Him in this “earthly tent.” Beyond this,

however, Paul gives no other detailed instruction concerning the nature of the intermediate state.

THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY

20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. (Phil.3: 21)38

Paul calls the mortal, ante-mortem body of the believer “lowly” and speaks of its

transformation to a state of gloriousness that will be like that of the resurrected Lord (Phil3: 21). In

1 Corinthians 15: 35-54, Paul describes the nature of the believers’ resurrection body, the heavenly

body, contrasting it to the one left behind in death, the earthly body. The former is perishable,

dishonorable, weak and natural in its relation to Adam who was made of dust of the earth. The latter

is imperishable, glorious, powerful and spiritual having been fashioned after the heavenly body of

the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gospels record the disciples’ encounters with the risen Lord and give some insight into

the nature of His glorious resurrection body through the accounts of these appearances (Lk. 24: 13-

43; Jn. 20: 17-30; 21: 1-14). The appearance of the risen Lord to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts

9: 3-7; 1 Cor. 9:1) served to accredit him both as an apostle equal to the other apostles and as an

eyewitness who could attest to the nature of Christ’s resurrection because of a personal encounter

with Him. Without diminishing this point, it is understood that Paul also drew upon those believers

who preceded him in the faith, such as the other disciples themselves, as additional sources for his

teachings,39 therefore, it is not entirely outside this examination of Paul’s teachings on the

11

resurrection to take a brief look at what the Gospel records say about the Lord’s resurrection body ,

Paul’s paradigm for the nature of the Christian’s resurrection body.40

That resurrected persons will retain their recognizable personal identities is demonstrated by

the Lord’s appearance to the two men on the road to Emmaus. At first, they were actively prevented

from recognizing Him until later when, at last, they were permitted to recognize that He was the

risen Lord (Lk. 24: 13-35). Afterwards, Jesus appeared to the disciples inviting them to touch Him

in order to demonstrate that He was not a ghost, but a “flesh and bones” physical body (v. 39). He

also ate fish with them as an additional indication to them that He was corporeal (v. 43).

That the resurrected Lord was still recognizable as Jesus is again confirmed in John’s account

of His appearance to the Disciples. In John 20, the risen Jesus invites Thomas to feel the wounds He

had received at His crucifixion indicating both corporeality and retention of physical features

retained from his ante-mortem life (v.27). John 21: 12 explicitly states that the disciples knew it was

the Lord who was with them. They had no apparent difficulty recognizing Him.

These accounts show the risen Christ as the same Jesus the disciples knew prior to His

passion and resurrection, yet there were differences, too. Paul refers to the resurrection body as

heavenly and spiritual (though also physical, as just illustrated above) differentiating it from the

earthly ante-mortem body. The spiritual quality of the resurrection body is demonstrated in John’s

narrative where he is careful to tell us of risen Lord’s apparent capacity to pass through solid objects,

in this case a locked door (Jn. 20: 19, 26), a phenomenon previously not seen by them.

In summary, Paul was sufficiently aware of the nature of the resurrection body to stress that

it will be similar enough to the ante-mortem body of the believer that the one who is raised will be

the same person who died, yet it will also have the qualitative differences necessary for eternal life

with the Lord in Heaven.41 Thus, Paul speaks of the old, natural bodies of believers as being

12

transformed at the resurrection into the glorious likeness of the new heavenly body exhibited by the

risen Lord Jesus Christ. What was sown as perishable, is made imperishable (1 Cor. 15: 42).

Some wonder curiously how this transformation can significantly change the body without,

at the same time, affecting retention of personal identity. Others are troubled because they do not

understand how a body having undergone complete dissolution after death by decay, burning by fire

or even consumption by wild beasts can be raised essentially the same person. That Paul does not

give us a more detailed characterization of the nature of the resurrection body is problematic to those

who want to know more. Paul calls these questions “foolishness” (1 Cor. 15: 35, 36) concluding that

believers in Christ simply need to stand firm in their faith in the power of God.42

13

CONCLUSION: THE PAROUSIA

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words. (1 Thess. 4: 16-18) 43

With utmost confidence, Paul consoles the bereaved Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4: 13-5: 11)

with straight forward instruction concerning the fates of those Christians who died before the Lord’s

promised return to take them to the place He had prepared for them (Jn. 14: 3; Acts 1: 11). He

assures them that what Christ, as the “firstfruits,” inaugurated with His own resurrection, He will

consummate on the day of His return when He first raises the Christians who have died, and then

take with Him, those who have remained alive. None who trusted in Him will be lost.

Paul asserts this will occur one day as a singular event (1 Thess. 5: 4) which argues against

belief in immediate resurrection of individuals upon their deaths throughout history. On that day,

“there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (John 5: 28,29; Acts 24: 15). He

mentions a resurrection (a singular event) not multiple resurrections. Paul maintains it is the last

day, immediately followed by the last judgment and leaves no room for speculation concerning

multiple resurrections with temporal gaps between them of one thousand years or of any other

duration.44

Murray calls the Lord’s return, or His Second Advent, “the pivotal event of collective

eschatology and characterizes it as bodily, public, visible, powerful and glorious. It is “the blessed

hope” of all Christians.45

14

He points out concerning the resurrection of the wicked, that in Acts 24: 15, Paul

affirms a resurrection for the unregenerate sector of humanity as well as for the righteous

in Christ.46 The unregenerate will not be left behind following a “rapture” of the risen

Church. The Day of the Lord is for them too, but for the non-Christian it is a terrible day

of destruction and final judgment unto condemnation as Christ repays them for their

disobedience and unbelief in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 1: 6-10). This

is a far cry from the event popularly called “the rapture” in which the Lord secretly spirits

away the Church leaving behind an unbelieving world that wonders what happened.47

Probably no other subject receives as much attention nor generates as much

speculation as the second coming of Christ, or the Parousia, and its attendant resurrection.

For Paul the eschatological event that he simply calls “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”

is so significant it requires no explanation.48 Yet, today there is a great need for

explanation due to the proliferation of books and preachers espousing end times

prophesies that, according to Ronald Nash, capitalize on “Christians’ gullibility.”49

Though currently accepted by the vast majority of Christians, the popular “end times”

dogmas of today cannot stand intact under the careful scrutiny of the Pauline doctrine of

resurrection. This paper, in its constrained scope, cannot even begin to serve as mediator

between the two, having presented only a cursory outline of the main controversial points

of the doctrine of resurrection.

It ends as merely an introduction to a topic about which much more needs to be said.

Selected Bibliography

Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. 4th rev., ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1941Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1977. reprint, 1996. Calvin, John . Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, Esq. [CD-

ROM] Available: Logos Library System.Carson, D. A. Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan.1992.Cooper, John W. “ The Identity of Resurrected Persons: Fatal Flaw of Monistic

Anthropology”. Calvin Theological Journal. 23 (Ap 1988): 19-36.Davis, Stephen T. Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans. 1993.________. “Is Personal Identity Retained in the Resurrection?”. Modern Theology. 2 No

4 (1986): 329-340.________. “Was Jesus Raised Bodily?”. Christian Scholar Review. 14 (1985): 140-152.Gaffin, Richard B. Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology, 2nd ed.,

formerly, Centrality of the Resurrection. 1978. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1987.

Gooch, Paul W. “On Disembodied Resurrected Persons: A Study in the Logic of Christian Eschatology [reply, B. R. Reichenbach, 18,225-229 Je 82; rejoiner]. Religious Studies. 17 (Je 1981):199-213.

Guthrie, Shirley C. Christian Doctrine, Rev. Ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). 1994.

Hannah, Vern A. “Death, Immortality and Resurrection: A Response to John Yates, ‘The Origin of the Soul’”. Evangelical Quarterly. 62 (Ja 1990): 241-251.

Heller, James J. “The Resurrection of Man”. Theology Today. 15 (1958): 217-229. Hodge, A. A. The Confession of Faith. Banner of Truth Ed. Avon, UK. 1992.Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1996.Morris, Leon. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1986; pap. ed..

1990.Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. vol. 1. Select Lectures in Systematic

Theology. Banner of Truth Trust Ed. Bath, UK: The Bath Press. 1976; reprint, 1989.

________. Collected Writings of John Murray. vol. 2. Select Lectures in Systematic Theology. Banner of Truth Trust Ed. Bath, UK: The Bath Press.1977; reprint, 1996.

Nash, Ronald. Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies That Come Between Christians. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress. 1993.

Osei-Bonsu, Joseph. “Does 2 Cor 5:1-10 Teach the Reception of the Resurrection Body at the Moment of Death?”. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 28 (O 1986): 81-101.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1975.________. When the Time Had Fully Come. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1957.

Schep, J. A. The Nature of the Resurrection Body: A Study of the Biblical Data. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1964.

Schroeder, Edward H. “Encountering the Last Enemy”. Dialog. 11 (Summer 1972): 190-194.Sloan, Robert. “Resurrection in 1 Corinthians”. Southwestern Journal of Theology. 26

(Fall 1983): 69-91.The New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1984. [CD-ROM]

Available: Logos Library System.

ENDNOTES

1The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.2James J. Heller, “The Resurrection of Man,” Theology Today 15 (Jl 1958) : 217.3Edward H. Schroeder, “Encountering the Last Enemy”,Dialog,11(Summer 1972): 190-4.4The New International Version, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.5F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 1977, reprint, 1996), 300.6Ibid., 304.7D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 219.8Ibid., 220.9The New International Version, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.11Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, (Grand Rapids : 1975), 487.313Herman Ridderbos, When the Time Had Fully Come, (Grand Rapids : Eerdman’s, 1957), 55.414Richard B. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology, 2nd ed., formerly, Centrality of the Resurrection, 1978, (Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 1987), 33.515Ibid., 34-41.616George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 362.717Ibid., 35.818The New International Version, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.020John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, Esq, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.22Shirley C. Guthrie, Christian Doctrine, Rev. Ed., (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 373-99.525Vern A. Hannah, “Death, Immortality and Resurrection: A Response to John Yates, ‘The Origin of the Soul,’” Evangelical Quarterly, 62 (Ja 1989): 242.626Ibid., 244.929The New International Version, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.030Ibid., 87.121James J. Heller, “The Resurrection of Man,” Theology Today, 15 (Jl 1958): 222.727Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 86.828Ibid., 86-87.

131Joseph Osei-Bonsu, “Does 2 Cor 5:1-10 teach the reception of the resurrection at the moment of death?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, No 28 (O 1986): 81-95.232Ibid., 94.33Ibid., 26.535Ibid.636Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection, 335.737John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust Ed., (Bath, UK: The Bath Press, 1977; reprint, 1996), 402-3.838The New International Version, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.939Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, 220.040J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body,(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964),182.141Ibid., 204.343The New International Version, [CD-ROM] Available: Logos Library System.44L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th Rev. Ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 727.545John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, 403.646Ibid. , 410.747Ronald Nash, Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies That Come Between Christians, (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1993), 199.848Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986; pap. ed. 1990), 87.