On the basis of the semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and the nature of resurrected bodies in ancient Judaism and ancient paganism, one can conclude that Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection of Jesus unless he believed the tomb was empty.

The present essay offers a fresh contribution to the long-standing debate regarding the nature of the resurrection of Christ within the pre-Pauline formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5. The article first provides an analysis of the current state of the discussion, offering new observations and lines of evidence which suggest that a number of common arguments on both sides of the debate are lacking or inconclusive. The essay then offers a new proposal regarding the verb used within the formula for the resurrection event. The article presents previously neglected evidence significant for the debate regarding Jesus' resurrection within this primitive confession.

Arthur Peacocke, a biochemist turned theologian, accepted Christ's personal resurrection but not his bodily resurrection from the grave. He argued from Paul's silence about the discovery of the empty tomb, from Christ's sharing fully in our human condition, and from the irreversible processes of nature. John Polkinghorne, a physicist turned theologian, has maintained that Paul's view of resurrection implies an empty tomb, that Christ's resurrection from the grave has revealed the transformed destiny of matter, and that, for good reasons, God can suspend and change the laws of nature. In Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's vision of an evolving world, Christ's resurrection from the grave released a new force of love and revealed the spiritual destiny of matter. With Polkinghorne he shared a hope for the transformation of the universe, a process initiated by the glorious raising of Jesus’ crucified body.