|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2014 15:38:07 GMT -8
Why The Belief in a Future Bodily (Physical) Resurrection of all Humanity is an Essential Christian Belief
Firstly, I should clarify that when I say “essential” belief I don’t mean a belief required for salvation. What I mean to explain is why I believe the Bible teaches plainly the expectation of a future bodily resurrection for mankind at the time of the last judgment.
Here is the chain of arguments I would put forward in support of this view:
1) Scripture is clear that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. That is, his corpse was changed from something dead to something alive, something with new abilities and features, but nonetheless in continuity with the body that came before.
In support of this, the gospel accounts of the resurrection emphasize the fact of the empty tomb (which would not have been necessary if Jesus’ resurrection was a mere casting aside of his physical body for a new dis-embodied existence).
They also emphasize that whereas the disciples were at first tempted to think they were encountering a ghost (that is, a disembodied spirit), Jesus specifically assured them both verbally and through his actions that indeed his resurrection self was corporeal- touchable, able to eat, exhibiting similarities to his old pre-death self.
This is in line with Jewish expectations about the Messiah formed from David’s statement in the Psalms about God not “letting his holy one see decay”. Both Peter and Paul in Acts apply this to Jesus on two separate occasions, emphasizing the importance that Jesus’ dead body was resurrected rather than remaining in its tomb, as David’s own body had.
Paul, of course, goes on in 1 Corinthians 15 to hammer how the reasons that Jesus’ bodily resurrection is essential to the faith. And it’s there that he maintains that not only was Jesus’ resurrected, but because he rose from the dead, we have a sure hope that we will also, in like fashion, be raised from the dead. In that chapter Paul explains how Jesus’ resurrection body is the pattern for ours; some kind of physical continuity with the original body, like a seed going into the ground, dying, and sprouting into a tree, that in the end looks a lot different than the original seed, but is still made of the same stuff. The first body can be described as natural and mortal, the second body can be described as spiritual and incorruptible, but it remains a body.
2) The most common hope for the afterlife among Jews of Jesus’ day was the belief in a physical resurrection, in which faithful Jews would, at the last day associated with God’s judgment, rise from their graves to inherit eternal life. This belief was developed and encouraged among the people by the Pharisees (and Essenes) as opposed to the minority view held by the Saducees that after death, existence would either cease or be similar to the ancient nearly universal expectation of a shadowy, bodiless, ghostlike existence somewhere. Now, that it was the popular view or the view of the Pharisees doesn’t in and of itself indicate its accuracy. But, it was the worldview/ backdrop expectation of the fate of mankind that Jesus and the apostles taught in. It is significant that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught contrary to this view. But not only that, they made several positive statements in support of it, such as:
John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
It is especially instructive that Paul specifically sides with the Pharisitical view on the subject of a future resurrection in Acts 23:6-8:
Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
3. When Paul spoke at the Aeropagus in Athens before the Stoic, Epicurean, and other Greek philosophers, he brought up Jesus’ bodily resurrection:
31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.”
If Paul had simply meant some kind of spiritual but non-corporeal resurrection body, the philosohers would not have scoffed, for many of them believed in such a thing. It was the odd (to them) Jewish notion of re-animated corpses that made them laugh. This is primarily because many Greek philosophers, influenced by the likes of Plato/Socrates equated physicality with weakness and saw bodies as cages for the spirit that they hoped one day to be released from. These attitudes, of course, would later resurface among Christian gnostics, who denied a physical resurrection for similar reasons. Which leads me to:
4. Physicality has always been important to God. This is more of a “felt” or “intuitive” argument, but from the get-go in Scripture we see God’s delight in the physical world. He seems to like matter. I don’t see any reason why he would ever obliterate it or make it obsolete. Or, as Chris says, "the physical creation is so dang cool and fun".
5. The Jews and the apostles did believe that there was some kind of intermediate existence between death and resurrection. Whether we argue that this state should be seen as “soul sleep” or a more alert and conscious non-bodily existence, we find that Jesus and Paul made statements about it (Jesus calling it paradise in Luke 23:43, Paul calling it being with the Lord in Philippians 1:23). That this state was different in their minds from the resurrection is indicated by their belief that the resurrection was said to be after this state (the thief on the cross would be in paradise the day he died, but not yet resurrected, Paul believed he’d be with Christ if he died, but still awaited a resurrection at the same time as the rest of mankind). If the resurrection isn’t bodily, but merely spiritual, how does it differ from this intermediate state?
6. This leads to a comment on Rev. 20 and its two resurrections. I’m open to seeing the first resurrection as a reference to the intermediate state, but if that is so, then, again the second resurrection must be different yet. Those in John’s audience would have been well familiar with the Jewish expectations of a future bodily resurrection, so when he wanted to talk about the departed saints “living on” he called that the “first resurrection” to differentiate it from the resurrection they already knew about.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 8, 2014 18:49:16 GMT -8
Quick question. I'll give a better treatment of your post later when I have more time. Why does resurrection have to be in this realm? Obviously Christ's resurrected body was really otherworldly although it could hold substance here as well. But we see that it requires no glorified body for spirit being to hold substance here. See Jacob wrestling the angel or Abraham entertaining God for a meal. Why does the resurrection necessarily require resurrection into a body within the properties of this physical realm? I have 1% batt left, so I hope this is coherent, no time to proofread.  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2014 20:00:25 GMT -8
What exactly do you mean by this realm? Can you unpack that a bit more?
But we see that it requires no glorified body for spirit being to hold substance here. See Jacob wrestling the angel or Abraham entertaining God for a meal. My educated speculation :
I think I would argue that angels only take on the appearance or illusion of substance/matter (note we have no examples of demons becoming physical, which, it seems if they could, they would do. In fact I think it's instructive that they seem to have to possess a medium to gain connection with the physical world) I'd put forward that Instances of theophanies involving physicality (such as Jacob wrestling the angel) are Christophanies in which Jesus appeared in the flesh. Since the risen/glorified Jesus transcends the time dimension, he can make appearances in the Old Testament no problem. He was, after all, slain from the foundation of the world.
I don't expect these thoughts to be convincing in and of themselves. But I think they are a reasonable way of explaining your questions within the larger framework of my comments on the nature of resurrection.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 8, 2014 20:07:47 GMT -8
Well done Josh. All and all a very well layed out argument for the physical resurrection position. I would just add that the physical creation is so dang cool and fun. Though I tend to agree with the position, I personally stop short of calling it "essential" or "plainly" taught in the bible. But that's probably just me and my anti-establishment personality.  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2014 20:27:39 GMT -8
Nice suggested add-in. I stuck it in on #4 |
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 9, 2014 11:30:41 GMT -8
What exactly do you mean by this realm? Can you unpack that a bit more? I mean realm as in this physical realm vs. the spiritual realm in which angels, demons, and God exist. By physical resurrection, you are looking for a resurrected body that will re-inhabit this earth, or a remade one, with similar scientific properties as we see now? So, you would believe the risen, post-crucifixion Christ went back in time to wrestle Jacob, then that event was recorded in the annals of history before Christ actually existed bodily? It would be an interesting concept, and would certainly make a great movie. Since I do not believe Christ is the eternal-past son of God, then I would struggle to see Christ as existing in flesh before Mary's conception. I believe it was in the conception that Jesus became flesh and son. However, this in no way reflects upon my believe that Christ has been, and always will be, a member of the trinity. I just believe the trinity before Mary's pregnancy was God/Word/Spirit. I suppose my belief still leaves room for your idea, since it seems you are claiming Jesus went back in time post-sonship. I'm not entirely decided on the resurrection topic myself. I believe we will be resurrected, but I do not know how it will look. I believe it could be a new physical body with new dynamics, and my biggest reason to see this possibility is the idea that all of creation is anticipating freedom from corruption. It appears that it could be claimed all of creation will be completely set free of its current corruptible state, just as we will be - Rom 8:19-23. Everything physical will be physically remade, just the corruption will be removed. As for your first point: I am undecided as to how much of Paul's writings are to be understood literally, to include 1Co 15. In one area of 1Co 15, Paul seems to equate our resurrected body with our spiritual being: A perishable body is sown/An imperishable body is reaped - v42 A natural body is sown/A spiritual body is reaped - v44 Thus, the parallel might be that our imperishable body is our spirit which is still given life by God, so our resurrected existence is in the spirit realm. This would seem to be supported by Paul in 1Th 5:13-18. An event I believe has already been completed. I believe the resurrection of v16 is already done, and then I believe v17 can be taken to indicate Paul saw no time he or the other resurrected would ever return to earth. They would always be with the Lord, seemingly "in the clouds." A phrase that could refer to heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2014 13:28:44 GMT -8
I don't really see it as realms, if by that you mean they are distinctly separate. More like overlapping dimensions. The resurrection body I'm describing is material (made of matter, as is Jesus' resurrection body) but will, probably like Jesus, be able to access dimensions beyond our current limitations, so it will be able to do things that we would now think of as miraculous. As to renewed or remade earth, not sure. But I tend to think the Romans 8 passage might indicate some massive restructuring of the universe's fundamental laws. But not so much that matter is abolished.
Regarding the past-eternal sonship stuff, why do you not believe it? Just curious what makes that hard for you? And do you see God as existing in time or out of time?
As to 1 Cor. 15, I think we need to be careful not to read Paul's use of the term spiritual to be synonymous with not-physical. Here's how I see Paul defining these terms:
Bodies= Physical Bodies Natural Body= Corruptible Physical Body Spiritual Body= Incorruptible Physical Body
The only apparent problem would be when Paul says that "flesh and blood cannot inherent the kingdom of God". But I don't think he means that bodies cannot inherit it, I think he means "corrupted bodies" cannot inherit it. Lest this seems arbitray, remember that all over the place elsewhere Paul speaks of the flesh vs. spirit antagonism, but by that he never means bodies versus souls, he means flesh=worldly desires spirit=godly desires. When Paul wants to talk about "bad, worldly, flesh" he says sarx, when he wants to talk about bodies in a neutral or positive light he uses the word soma. If I remember correctly, in 1 Cor. 15 He tells us that sarx cannot inherit the kingdom of God but he is affirming that soma will. Ill check my interlinear tonight.
Don't have much time to break that down. Does it need more explaining or exampling?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 9, 2014 14:18:56 GMT -8
I don't really see it as realms, if by that you mean they are distinctly separate. More like overlapping dimensions. The resurrection body I'm describing is material (made of matter, as is Jesus' resurrection body) but will, probably like Jesus, be able to access dimensions beyond our current limitations, so it will be able to do things that we would now think of as miraculous. As to renewed or remade earth, not sure. But I tend to think the Romans 8 passage might indicate some massive restructuring of the universe's fundamental laws. But not so much that matter is abolished. It is interesting to contemplate if spiritual beings should be considered to lack mass or substance in their own "world." I see that Christ is said to have existed in eternity-past as the personification of God's word. In Luke, Mary is told she will bear a son, and then he will be called the Son of God (1:31-32). Additionally, Mary is told it is specifically because of the conception and birth of a child, that the child is known as the Son of God (1:35). A son must be born before a son exists. I think this is why John writes about Christ's preexistence as the Word of God, but nothing in the Bible talks of Christ's preexistence as the Son of God. It is only upon his conception and birth that he is seen as God's son. Christ as son is something that happens during the opening events of the gospels. As far as God being outside of time, that is another subject of itself. I say both. I think God chose with creation to voluntarily subject himself to a degree to the course of events which happen on a timeline. But I think titles of God are acquired by him through the course of time. It was only after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob existed on the timeline, that God is then known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As well, why can it not be only after the birth of Jesus' fleshly body through Mary that he is then the Son of God? It has nothing to do with Christ's extra-timeline existence, but his intra-timeline existence dynamic changes as he changes the entire course of the timeline. I guess I always pictured that angels and demons even have bodies, just with different dynamics than ours. I suppose I was picturing that a body does not have to mean physical. When I die, I believe I will still have embodiment, only spiritually so. This left the door open for me to believe that Paul can be talking about embodiment in a corrupted form, and embodiment in an incorruptible form, as having a physical body (earthly) or having a spirit body (heavenly - like an angel). As for the flesh vs. spirit, I always considered it could be Paul's literal spirit being wishes to follow God, but his body still finds itself weak in a world of sin and corruption. Spirit to Paul seems to be more than his godly desire, it is his spirit being held captive within his fleshly being. I think Paul shows this in the language of, say, Rom 8:10, 16, where it seems spirit is more personified by Paul than to just say it is his desire. You are getting into an area I have been meaning to explore more. Perhaps a discussion through Rom 7-8 would be in order. Where Paul talks of bodies, flesh, spirit, mind, etc. Maybe I'll launch a new thread tonight... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2014 16:08:27 GMT -8
Okay, we're going in a couple directions here. Good ones, but, maybe better on different threads.
I'm gonna comment further on the "eternal sonship of Jesus" here: Eternal Sonship of Jesus?
I'll be back here with some further thoughts on Paul and "spirit vs. flesh". |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2014 16:41:02 GMT -8
Okay, back to Paul and his terms.
For body, Paul sometimes uses the word soma, which usually means "a body, a material substance". This is usually translated "body" in English.
The word sarx, which can also mean body, is also expanded in the NT by Paul and others to mean "the human condition/ human nature/ the sinful nature". So when Paul speaks negatively of the body, he is always using the word sarx, not soma, because he is NOT making the point that the human body itself is bad, but human nature that has been corrupted and is in need of repair. This is usually translated "flesh" in English.
So, even though in English, "body" and "flesh" seem identical, one is more clearly about physicality and the other is more about the "human condition/ sin condition"
It's instructive to look at 1 Cor 15:35-50 in light of these alternating meanings:
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body SOMA will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body SOMA that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body SOMA as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh SARX is the same: People have one kind of SARX flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies SOMA and there are earthly bodies SOMA; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies SOMA is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies SOMA is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body (HERE NEITHER WORD IS USED, A GENERIC BODY IS IMPLIED) that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body SOMA, it is raised a spiritual body SOMA.
If there is a natural body SOMA, there is also a spiritual body SOMA. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh SARX and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
[/a][/p]
As to my earlier definition of spirit ("Godly desires"), chuck that. I just threw that out there to contrast it with the definition of sarx that was in my mind at the time which was "sinful desire". But desire wasn't really the focus. The focus is on Nature. SARX is sinful nature, SPIRIT (PNEUMA) is Godly nature.
This crops up all over the place, like in John 6:63:
John 6:63
The Spirit (PNEUMA) gives life; the flesh (SARX) counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
Here Jesus isn't saying that bodies don't matter. If he wanted to say that he could have said that the SOMA counts for nothing. Instead, he is saying the corrupted human nature counts for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2014 16:44:20 GMT -8
But if this is the case, then why did Jesus' corpse disappear at the resurrection? Why couldn't it simply have been left behind if it had no continuity with his new immaterial body?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2014 16:54:37 GMT -8
BTW, another possibility is that angels DO have material bodies, that are just different than ours. I mean, maybe that would just be easier for me to grant as a possibility. then I don't have to insist on the eternal sonship of Jesus. Lightbulb moment for me?
Anyway, getting back to the immediate subject, I don't think one can underestimate how certain it is that Paul never meant to denigrate the physical body when he spoke of flesh vs. spirit. In its best form body vs. spirit is Platonism, in its worst, Gnosticism, but although Paul was familiar with forms of both, he never left his Jewish tethers on the fact that God made physicality and called it good, and that what is wrong with us isn't our bodies, but our natures*
*and before this launches into a huge discussion of Augustines view of sin nature, I'll just say "human nature" in the Pauline sense doesn't have to involve all of the baggage the term picked up throughout church history. It can be as simple as the "sinful human condition".
|
|
grokit
Intermediate Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by grokit on Oct 11, 2014 17:49:12 GMT -8
I think I'm agreeing with jaybee more on this. I don't doubt that Jesus was raised in human form just like us, but I don't think that means that that is our final form when all is said and done. God made us in his image, and God is something so super-huge that he could never be contained in one of our tiny bodies. So I have to conclude that whatever "bodies" we spend eternity in will have to be a significant upgrade to what we have now or else we couldn't experience the freedom that we are promised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 14, 2014 16:45:51 GMT -8
Grokit,
Thanks for joining in.
A few follow up questions/ points:
God made us in his image, and God is something so super-huge that he could never be contained in one of our tiny bodies
But the phrase being "made in his image" comes from the ancient practice of idols reflecting the deities they represent. Of course physical, inanimate idols were forbidden to Israel. But they had something better: the knowledge that humans were intended to bear God's image within them; little tiny reflections of God.
Still, I hope it was clear that though I'm arguing for a future physical, bodily existence for humanity, I was clear to admit, as Paul does, that this will involve some major upgrades.
But this leads me to ask what specifically you're thinking of when you mention "the freedom we were promised"?
|
|
grokit
Intermediate Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by grokit on Oct 15, 2014 8:34:57 GMT -8
Romans 8:2 - because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
John 8:36 - So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren...
I realize there is context to these examples that may narrow what is meant in each instance, but my main point is that freedom is a very strong theme throughout Jesus' ministry, whether it involves getting circumcised or complete freedom from sin. Logically it could be argued that freedom from sin would require complete freedom. An example might be having enough information to make the correct (sinless) decision. If I don't have free access to all the information that might pertain to a decision how can I make the correct (sinless) choice? To have access to that much information would require a bit of a brain upgrade I think.
I really like what you said: "...humans were intended to bear God's image within them; little tiny reflections of God.
" You mention statues as an example of what was meant back in the day, and the word "image" in English brings to my mind a mirror, or photograph. But what is the reality of the situation? God is limited in his communication with us because our languages are so limited. Does "little tiny reflections" analogously mean a photo, a very detailed statue, a robot that's programmed to be God-like, or something even more elaborate?
Philippians 2:6-8 - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
This quote seems to indicate that we are not currently "reflections of God" because we are "in the likeness of men." And this makes us "obedient unto death" which is definitely not having eternal life. From our experience of this world we see everything is temporary in form. Nothing we experience in the physical universe stays in the same form permanently. The underlying energy can not be created or destroyed, but we have never seen permanent forms created from that energy. This is a very fundamental part of this physical universe. Therefore, it could be argued that God would have to completely change the laws of the physical universe to give us eternal physical bodies. If you throw my body into the sun it will not survive in the form it's in. So, there is very strong evidence that there must be more to us than a physical body. And since we attribute many non-physical traits to God, it makes sense that we would also have non-physical traits, and those might be how we achieve eternal life.
|
|
grokit
Intermediate Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by grokit on Oct 15, 2014 8:46:17 GMT -8
Maybe God just keeps a copy of us in his iCloud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 6, 2015 23:25:11 GMT -8
Jaybee,
I'm curious to hear your current thoughts on this subject (the Ressurection and in addition, what is still on the 'prophetic horizon'?
|
|
