The Empty Tomb: Anchor of Unmerited Grace
1 Corinthians 15:12-14
"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."
As a trained Pharisee (Philippians 3:5; Acts 23:6), Paul would have been deeply immersed in one of the most heated theological debates in first-century Judaism...whether there is a resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees strongly affirmed the resurrection of the dead, along with angels, spirits, and an afterlife. This belief was rooted in their acceptance of the full Hebrew Scriptures (including the Prophets and Writings, like Daniel 12:2) and oral traditions. In contrast, the Sadducees rejected it entirely, holding only to the Torah (the five books of Moses), where resurrection is not explicitly taught, and denying any afterlife beyond Sheol. The New Testament even records the Sadducees challenging Jesus on the topic with a hypothetical about marriage in the afterlife (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27), trying to make resurrection sound absurd.
Likely there were some in the Corinth church who had at least some connection to these schools of thought (probably influenced by Greek ideas dismissing bodily resurrection).
For Paul, this hits close to home. He had spent years as a Pharisee upholding resurrection as a core "hope of Israel" (Acts 26:6-8, 28:20), only to see it fulfilled and transformed in Jesus as the "first-fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20). It’s a powerful reminder that the gospel doesn’t discard Paul’s Pharisaic roots...it, at least in part, fulfills them.
Today, many "Christians" (influenced by modern science, reason, and skepticism about supernatural claims), liberal/progressive Christians (who often reinterpret or symbolicize the resurrection and afterlife) view bodily resurrection as mythical or symbolic. They view this as a metaphor for hope/justice...rather than historical fact. Figures like John Shelby Spong, Borg, or some in mainline Protestantism question literal afterlife, focusing instead on ethical living now.
This divide isn’t absolute; many mainline Christians still affirm creeds with "resurrection of the body", but surveys show growing skepticism, especially in liberal circles. Outside Christianity, secular humanism or materialist atheism plays a "Sadducee-like" role; no resurrection/afterlife possible, given natural laws. Just as Paul (ex-Pharisee) saw denial of resurrection as undermining everything, conservatives today argue liberal views empty the gospel of its power. Liberals counter that reinterpreting it makes faith relevant in a scientific age.
In this new age thinking we really see nothing new under the sun. These progressives reframe the core beliefs about Christian faith. They'll teach that the resurrection is metaphor for a life transformed (echoing the serpent's garden theme). They couch their faith in the "rising" which isn’t about escaping death to an afterlife but dying to old ways (ego, fear, injustice) and rising to new life now; compassion, justice, love (humanism). Their theory sees Jesus’ story as an inspiration for personal and societal renewal. As one progressive source puts it, believing in the resurrection means "no matter how dead someone may appear, new life is always possible." Faith isn’t vain because it empowers ethical living and hope in the present (again focused on the humanism aspects in regard to grace). And you see, this is the crux of the issue, they cannot deal with the supernatural gift of grace.
All these debates echo ancient ones, like the Pharisees affirming supernatural resurrection against Sadducee skepticism, or early church battles with Gnosticism downplaying the bodily, which nows lives in many new iterations. Today, progressives don’t completely reject grace outright; they just reframe it through the lens of humanism, influenced heavily by relativism.
Notice the common theme, progressives often describe grace as an unearned, opening gift...God’s accepting love that empowers questioning, inclusion, and ethical growth in the here-and-now. It's always about how one can deal with the here-and-now. It’s framed as transformative presence in the relative here-and-now. Always affirming human dignity, fostering justice/compassion, and seeing humanity through "original blessing" rather than deep fallenness which assumes an absolute need for divine grace.
This always leans humanistic. Grace is viewed as divine empowerment for human flourishing, heavily influenced by postmodern relativism where truth is experiential and contextual. It's the old tree of the knowledge of good and evil draw. They view godliness as an expression of their own humanity.
This relativizes grace, making it more about human potential and cultural adaptation than God’s sovereign, unmerited intervention that rescues from sin through Christ’s atoning work. And so it's no surprise they'd reject the resurrection which is the foundation for all grace.
Fact of the matter is, if grace is primarily inclusive affirmation or ethical enablement (achievable via our reason/justice efforts), it risks becoming naturalistic...diluting the supernatural "gift" (Sola gratia) that declares sinners righteous apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:17). Conservative Christian voices contend this undermines the gospel’s particularity. Arguing that grace isn’t generic humanistic love but tied to historic, bodily events (the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection) that objectively conquer sin/death.
It’s a recurring tension; spiritual/experiential "freedom" vs. anchored, revealed truth, that Jesus came to testify about.
In todays readings I can see the connection to the Garden, and the serpent’s subtle shift toward human-centered "knowledge" (Genesis 3:5, "you will be like God, knowing good and evil" ) and it's striking. When grace becomes primarily about affirming human dignity, ethical growth through our own efforts, and contextual truth, it does echo that ancient temptation ("you will be like God" ). Little gods defining godliness on their own human terms, rooted in "original blessing" (God called them good) rather than acknowledging their deep fallenness and the absolute need for sovereign rescue. In this view, relativism softens divine absolutes, making resurrection a metaphor for present renewal rather than the historical vindication of Christ’s atoning work; the very event that seals unmerited grace (Romans 4:25). Without the literal empty tomb, Paul’s chain of logic collapses; no resurrection means no victory over sin/death.
Jesus testified to the truth (John 18:37); anchored, revealed, particular, not a fluid experiential freedom. Not leaning on our own understanding versus trusting the historic events that declare sinners righteous by grace through faith.
1 Corinthians 15 is a modern cautionary tale because progressive theology and even extra-Christian religions (Islam) hold to this idea that Jesus Christ is not resurrected. In both cases, the literal, bodily resurrection; the empty tomb that Paul ties inseparably to the gospel’s validity (1 Corinthians 15:12-14), is not affirmed. One to support their relativistic theory and the other to uphold supernatural elements elsewhere, rejecting Jesus' divinity. One an internal humanistic reinterpretation, the other is a different religion attempting to preserve monotheistic beliefs, and rejecting Trinitarian beliefs. The net effect; both move away from the supernatural, historical resurrection that Paul (as ex-Pharisee) saw as the fulfillment of Israel’s hope and the guarantee of grace in Christ Jesus.
Honestly, this leaves conservative/evangelical Christianity as the primary defender of the literal event today.
Theologian, N.T. Wright argued that the best explanation for Christianity’s explosive origins is that Jesus was actually raised bodily from the dead; not as a metaphor, vision, or spiritual survival, but as a transformed physical reality that mutated Jewish eschatological hopes and defied pagan expectations. Wright calls these progressive views we've been exploring "pure fantasy", echoing the Gnostic heresies the early church rejected.
Hallucinations don’t explain the empty tomb or the apostolic group’s convictions that spread throughout the entire known world. Theft theories ignore the vast Jewish mutation as multitudes convert to Christ. Historically, the tomb was empty (women witnesses). Disciples encountered a "well and truly alive" Jesus (multiple, diverse appearances). There's no better explanation than the event itself.
As conservative Christians we just need to butter this toast, slice it and eat, and be done with it.
Closing Prayer:
Heavenly Father,
We stand in awe of the empty tomb; the historical, bodily resurrection of Your Son, Jesus Christ, that forever shattered the power of sin and death. Thank You for the unmerited gift of grace, not earned by our efforts or wisdom, but freely given through the cross and the risen Lord. Guard our hearts against every subtle temptation to redefine Your truth on human terms, and keep us anchored in the revealed, particular hope fulfilled in Christ; the firstfruits of those who sleep.
Strengthen us to proclaim boldly that because He lives, our faith is not in vain. Fill us with the joy and confidence of this resurrection reality today and every day.
In the name of the risen Jesus, our Savior and King,
Amen.