Now that I’ve discussed the major themes and emphases of 1 Corinthians, explained when and why Paul wrote it, and given some bibliography to check out if you decided to dig deeper, I’d like to explain the one passage of 1 Corinthians I get asked about more frequently than any other.

It involves Paul’s view of the future resurrection of the dead.  I have repeatedly stated on the blog that Paul believed that ultimate salvation did not entail dying and your soul going to heaven or hell or any other kind of purely “spiritual” existence, but an actual bodily resurrection that, for the saved, would lead to a bodily existence for all time in the presence of God.

How is *that* supposed to work?  And didn’t he say that “flesh and blood” would NOT inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:50)?  Here I explain how Paul understood it was all to happen. This is taken (slightly edited) from my fuller discussion in my book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife (Simon & Schuster, 2020).

******************************

For Paul, the future resurrected body (of humans) will be utterly and completely transformed.  It will be a different kind of body.  Paul argues that the human body that goes into the ground is like a “bare kernel” of some kind of grain that grows into a plant.  What grows is intimately tied to and related to what went into the ground; but it is also vastly different.  When you plant an acorn it doesn’t grow into a forty-foot acorn, but into an oak tree.

So too the human.  When the body comes out of the ground it is transformed into “the body that God gives it, as he wishes” (1 Corinthians 15:38).   That is because “there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies” and they have different kind of glories, just as there is “one glory for the sun, another glory for the moon, and another for the stars; even the stars differ in glory from one to the next” (1 Corinthians 15:40-41).

Paul insists that this is how it will be at the future resurrection.  The body that does into the ground is corruptible and temporary; it will be raised incorruptible and eternal.  “It is sown in weakness but raised in power; it is sown a natural [Greek: psychic] body it is raised a spiritual [Greek pneumatic] body” (1 Corinthians 15:44).  It will still be a body, but it will be made up of the most highly refined “stuff” there is: pneuma, or spirit.   And so the resurrection is a glorious transformation, in which the raised body will be a spiritual body, one that can never grow infirm or die.

Paul goes on then to the most mind-stretching passage of the chapter, indeed, of the entire book, in which he describes, in greater detail than in 1 Thessalonians, what will actually occur at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:50-53), when something happens to the mortal body to make it immortal.  He calls this a great “mystery”:

We shall not all sleep [that is, die], but we will be changed.  In a moment, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet! For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we [the living] will be transformed.  For this corruptible body must put on incorruptibility and this mortal body must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

When that happens, “death will be devoured in victory.”  Death, then, will no longer have its fatal “sting.”

And so for Paul there will indeed be a resurrection.  It will be bodily.  But the human body will be transformed into an immortal, incorruptible, perfect, glorious entity, no longer made of coarse stuff that can become sick, get injured, suffer in any way, or die.  It will be a spiritual body, a perfect dwelling for life everlasting.

It is in that context that one of the most misunderstood verses of Paul’s entire surviving corpus occurs, a verse completely bungled not just by many modern readers but throughout the history of Christianity.  That is when Paul insists: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50).  These words are often taken – precisely against Paul’s meaning – to suggest that eternal life will not be lived in the body.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.   For Paul it will be lived in a body.  But in a body that has been glorified.

For Paul, the term “flesh and blood” simply refers to embodied human beings who were living in this world (see Galatians 1:16).  For Paul, people will certainly not enter into God’s kingdom as they are now.  They need to be transformed.  The gross earthly matter of their body needs to be transfigured into spiritual matter.  Otherwise they cannot be immortal.  And so the contrast he is drawing is not between “bodily” existence that cannot enter the kingdom and “non-bodily” that can.  It is instead between “flesh-and-blood bodies” made up of the coarse stuff to which we are restricted now (to our constant dissatisfaction and even misery), and “spiritual bodies” glorified at the culmination of all things when Jesus returns from heaven.“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50).  These words are often taken – precisely against Paul’s meaning – to suggest that eternal life will not be lived in the body.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.   For Paul it will be lived in a body.  But in a body that has been glorified.

As a result, in addition to the ancient dichotomy of “immortality” of the soul and “resurrection” of the revivified body, Paul now offers a third alternative:  “resurrection of the transformed, immortal, spiritual body.”  That is how eternal life will be lived.

But what about in the meantime?  What about all those Christians who have died before it could happen?  What is happening to them?

This was never an issue with the historical Jesus, so far as we know.  Possibly Jesus never spoke about what would happen in the meantime because he thought there would not be much of a meantime:  the Kingdom of God was to arrive right away.  But Paul had to think about it.  At first he believed the end was to appear very soon with the return of Jesus from heaven: he himself would be alive when it happened (note how he speaks of “we who are alive” when Jesus returns, 1 Thessalonians 4:17).  But he knew that others had died before that climax of history.  And eventually he began to wonder if he too might die before the end came.  What then?

That is when Paul started thinking that since he was so closely united with Christ in the here and now, he surely would be at the point of death as well.  If he died before the resurrection came (say, next month) he would for the brief interim period be in the heavenly realm with Christ, possibly with an interim body until the resurrection.  That, then, is the view he begins to develop, notably already by the time he wrote one of the letters now found in Philippians (1:21-26) and 2 Corinthians (5:1-4), the latter of which will be my the focus of my next discussion in this “New Testament in a Nutshell” series.

Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!

We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.

Become a Member Today!

2025-04-08T11:08:42-04:00April 9th, 2025|Public Forum|

Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms

32 Comments

  1. paul.wright April 9, 2025 at 7:03 am

    Three reflections:
    (1) Lk 24:39 describes Jesus’ raised body as “flesh and bones”. Does that contradict Paul?
    (2) Both Luke & John describe a “not very glorified” body still bearing the wounds from the crucifixion. Be thankful Jesus was not beheaded (like John the Baptist)! (I can’t help envisioning the headless hunt in Harry Potter.)
    (3) As often happens in the New Testament, the Old Testament seems to be quoted out of context. Hos 13:14 is not about Death losing its sting; it is an invitation to Death to use its sting (at least in the NRSVue: other translations differ): “Compassion is hidden from my eyes.”

    • BDEhrman April 11, 2025 at 3:25 pm

      1. Yes, I think Luke has a different view from Paul. It was not a glorified body of Pneuma.
      2. Good point
      3. Historical interpretatoin was not a big deal back then…

  2. cherylmlyle April 9, 2025 at 8:31 am

    This was excellent. And, I’m enjoying the BSA. Question: Do you think it’s plausible that gospel author of Matthew may have also written Hebrews since they both were writing primarily to a Jewish audience?

    • BDEhrman April 11, 2025 at 3:29 pm

      Thanks. I’m actually not convinced Hebrews was written to a Jewish audience. He indicates that the audience once had to be reminded of basic matters such as “repentance” “resurrectoin of the dead” and “judgment” (6:2); that makes it appear they were converts from pagan religions. The letter is urging them not to TURN to Judaism, not to not return BACK to Judaism. Or at least that’s how I read it.
      In any event, the writing style is very different from Matthew, and has very different thematic concerns….

  3. Wayne April 9, 2025 at 10:05 am

    I am loving these string of nutshell posts!

  4. jhague April 9, 2025 at 11:23 am

    Do we have an idea of how Paul developed his ideas of the resurrection?
    Are his ideas similar to any other ideas of the day?

    • BDEhrman April 11, 2025 at 3:31 pm

      Yes, they are the widespread views of apocalyptic Judaism as altered by what Paul had come to believe about Christ.

  5. nanuninu April 9, 2025 at 12:57 pm

    Will our resurrected bodies all be equal in strength, ability, intelligence etc.?
    Will I be able to go one-on-one with LeBron James?

    • BDEhrman April 11, 2025 at 3:33 pm

      Yes, but probably not with me.

  6. RonaldTaska April 9, 2025 at 3:46 pm

    Growing up in the Texas Bible belt, I am used to people saying they believe or think such and such because the Bible says so. Being trained as a scientist, I am, likewise, used to people saying that they think such and such because of scientific evidence, Where did Paul contend that he got his beliefs, views, and theology?

    • BDEhrman April 11, 2025 at 3:34 pm

      From God! First from the Hebrew Bible and then from his revelation of Jesus.

      BTW, you are now in the 2000-comment club! So far as I know, it’s a club of one….

  7. balivi April 10, 2025 at 9:55 am

    Dear Bart!

    The “soma pneumatikon” is by definition not flesh and blood (Romans 8:3; Phil 2:6-8). It cannot be crucified, broken, or killed, man cannot do that. There is an entity who can give this body to death, who is none other than God. We have clear indications that according to Paul it was God who handed it over, gave his Son over to death. This act is nothing other than the incarnation, where the “soma pneumatikon” becomes “flesh and blood” during the ‘giving up’. The blood indicates that the giving up, the giving up to death, has taken place.

    So, with a thorough knowledge of the Pauline epistles, we can state that in Pauline theology, blood does not “signify the end of the physical life,” as was stated in the article, but rather the end of the life of the spiritual body, the “soma pneumatikon.” After all, what is the essence of the Lord’s Supper?

    “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s DEATH until he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26).

  8. stevenpounders April 10, 2025 at 2:35 pm

    Is Paul the source for these ideas about a psychic body and a pneumatic body, or can elements of these resurrection ideas be founder in older religious writings?

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:22 pm

      So far as I know, this precise formulatoin goes back to Paul himself.

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:22 pm

      So far as I know, this precise formulatoin goes back to Paul himself.

  9. DharmaWalker April 11, 2025 at 4:50 am

    You make a strong case that Paul believed in a transformed body, not a disembodied soul. I’m curious—how much of this interpretation hinges on the original Greek wording, like psychikon vs. pneumatikon? Would English translations today be clearer if they captured more of that nuance?

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:28 pm

      It’s hard to do; some scholars speak about psychic vs. pneumatic bodies, but psychic carries the wrong connotations these days.

  10. efales April 11, 2025 at 10:01 am

    This all seems right, but for me raises more questions than it answers. What in the name of heaven is Paul talking about? *Sarx* denotes the “corruptible (carnal, subject to sin) flesh,” which presumably decays in the grave. (But, interestingly, can also denote kinship.) A “soul-ish body” – soma pseukikon – is possessed by the unsaved, who cannot enter the Kingdom. The saved, by contrast, are transformed to have a soma pneumatikon – a “spiritual” body. They no longer possess the image of the first Adam, but that of the second. Yet, Yahweh vivified Adam by breathing into him His pneuma (ruach). What does all that mean? Do we find this terminology only in Paul, or can it be found in other surviving contemporary contexts, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan?

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:32 pm

      I think he’s the only one who digs into the weeds like this, at least that I know of. The main distinction is between sarx (which for Paul is not just the meat on our bones, but is that part of being human that is enslaved to sin and is therefore more like an feature of the human being rather than a substance) and the pneuma.

  11. bsteig April 11, 2025 at 11:50 am

    Bart,

    I don’t dispute that your description of what Paul believed is correct, but when he used the Greek word for “spiritual body,” what did he mean?

    The statements of an unknown number of individuals (some claim “more than a thousand”) report having had an NDE (Near-Death Experience) in which they — while “bodyless” as we use the term, but yet having sight, hearing, and memory capabilities — travel to heaven, experience a life-review, and then are informed by a brilliant light that they must return to life on earth because their heart resumed beating, (e.g., ongoing resuscitation efforts to restore heart function when their “spirit” left their body, were successful).

    Many people believe the reported events actually happened, but other believe they are an illusion created by the brain — every person assigns a subjective percentage to the extent they believe either event is true.

    Paul claims to have had such an experience — be met with Jesus in heaven and was told he should be an apostle and travel to Roman territory, preaching and getting “Believers.” Paul and other “preachers of this religion,” most in widely different geographic territories, each put a somewhat differentsand believed Jesus .

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:37 pm

      Oh yes, way more than a thousand peole have had NDEs. There are, as you probably know, physiological explanations fro the phenomenon, and they almost certainly have happened since homo sapiens came into existence. We don’t know Paul’s precise understanding of what it mean tfor him to have a visoin by being taken up to the 3rd heaven, but he did not talk about it as NDE but as a kind of living trance.

  12. RICHWEN90 April 11, 2025 at 12:43 pm

    Of course, Paul had no way of knowing that the heavenly bodies he refers to are made of the same stuff as earthly things– elements from the periodic table. Assuming that the spiritual bodies have components that are differentiated, so they are not just blocks of one spiritual “stuff”, you’d have to suppose a spiritual periodic table. You would also have to suppose some spiritual analog of the natural laws that operate in this earthly realm. With the spiritual realm being essentially a mapping of the earthly realm into another medium, why suppose any qualitative difference?

  13. R_Gerl April 11, 2025 at 7:29 pm

    Bart, I just want to say thank you for all your hard work, the blog, the courses, and the information. I know lots of people appreciate this as much as I do. You are tops. Also, I’m glad to hear that the money raised has gone to worthy charitable causes. I think it’s important for you to know that your work is appreciated. Keep up the great work.

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:46 pm

      Thanks! yes, we want to grow the blog — now more than ever, given the difficulty charities are having. But we’re on it!

  14. AdamHouse April 11, 2025 at 8:46 pm

    Do you think baptism over came the prince of the air in ephesians since after noahs flood (the figure of baptism according to peter) god moved the life from air to the blood? I just realized this other and we’re all overlooking it. Is that what first john was arguing about antichristcoming by water only? Heberews talks about resisting unto blood.Compare the rapture with the covenant of death mentioned in wisdom of solomon I think thats the prince their talking about in ephesisans? Its sounds almost Identical with the rapture in thessalonians to me. To back it up more yaweh told eve her husband would rule over her i think how jesus knew in the afterlife we become angels. Ruler angels maybe or the sons of god? I also just realized tonight that when peter mentions christ preaching to flood ppl he may be refering to 2nd enoch it calls noah melkizedek.

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:48 pm

      I don’t know of any ancient texts that think of it this way.

  15. Brand3000 April 11, 2025 at 10:01 pm

    Dr. Ehrman,

    To make the point that Paul and the early community believed in a bodily resurrection (of some type) in an expeditious manner, can 1 Cor. 15:5-8 be cited with the indication that there was someone there to be seen?

    • BDEhrman April 15, 2025 at 6:48 pm

      As I’ve said many times, yes!

  16. kirbinator5000 April 12, 2025 at 4:43 pm

    The resurrected body’s attributes (incorruptibility, eternity, and power) reflect divine qualities. In Genesis, humanity is created in God’s image, but only divine beings are called “bene Elohim,” suggesting a similar form to God.
    Just as a sculptor can create a statue in his likeness and have a son who shares his resemblance, the statue (humanity) and the son (divine beings) are fundamentally different in nature, despite both reflecting the sculptor’s (God’s) image.

    Romans 8:14-23 implies that being led by God’s spirit leads to sonship, but full adoption as sons occurs at resurrection, when our bodies are transformed to share divine-attributes.

    This transformation aligns our entire nature with God’s. Romans 1:3-4 specifically refers to Christ’s human nature, which became divine at resurrection, elevating him to sonship. Paul believed Christ’s divine nature predated his human form (Philippians 2), but at his resurrection his entire nature (even his human body) was elevated to sonship.
    Paul’s views on sonship and resurrection suggest that while believers can experience sonship before resurrection, their bodies aren’t fully divinized until then. Given this context, Romans 1:4’s reference to Christ’s human nature doesn’t imply he became divine only after resurrection; rather, it highlights the transformation of his human nature.

  17. c.kennethbauer April 13, 2025 at 10:41 am

    dimensionally speaking all of this was written before the resurrection addressing and referring to disciples of Christ and the good law keeping “jews” of then and before.

  18. efales April 15, 2025 at 8:20 pm

    Bart – I entirely agree with your reading of ‘sarx.’ But it is interesting (and curious) that wider usage of ‘soma pseukikon’ and ‘soma pneumatikon’ appears, you indicate, to be rare at best. If there’s anywhere that “reading the weeds” is essential, I should think that this would be the place. It is our only Pauline exegesis of what the resurrection involves. Surely Paul had something definite in mind, and wasn’t just using obscure fancy terminology to impress, but trying to communicate something to his readers?

    • BDEhrman April 17, 2025 at 10:28 am

      You might be interested in seeing Dale Martin’s discussion in The Corinthian Body. (As you probably know, there are entire books written on Paul’s use of terms such as soma, sarx, pseuche, etc…. Most of them are rather tediously exegetical, but that’s what it takes. Martin is more well versed in Greek philosophical discourse than most others)

Leave A Comment