This is probably the section where Hart departs most sharply from what many Christians assume Paul believed.
Section 2: Resurrection and the Continuity of the Self
The Question Behind the Discussion
Curt Jaimungal asks what happens to a person after death and whether Christianity offers a coherent account of personal survival. How can the same person continue to exist if the body dies? What exactly is raised in the resurrection? And how can there be both continuity and transformation? These questions lead Hart into one of the most technical portions of the interview.
What Curt Asks
Curt’s questions revolve around several related issues:
- What did Paul actually mean by resurrection?
- Is the resurrection body the same body that died?
- How can personal identity survive death?
- What relationship exists between the present self and the resurrected self?
- Is consciousness or personal identity merely an illusion, or is there genuine continuity between the person who dies and the person who is raised?
What Hart Argues
Hart argues that many Christians unconsciously read later theological ideas back into Paul. According to Hart, Paul was not describing the resuscitation of a corpse. Nor was Paul teaching the immortality of a disembodied soul in the Platonic sense. Instead, Paul envisioned a radical transformation of embodied existence. The person who dies is the person who is raised, but the mode of existence is profoundly changed. For Hart, Paul’s emphasis falls not on restoration but on transformation.
Paul’s Resurrection Body
Hart focuses on Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul contrasts:
- perishable and imperishable,
- dishonor and glory,
- weakness and power,
- psychical body and pneumatic body.
Hart argues that these contrasts describe a transformation rather than a simple continuation of ordinary biological existence. According to Hart, Paul believed that mortal existence belongs to one order of reality, while resurrected existence belongs to another. The resurrected person remains the same person, but participates in a different mode of life.
The Meaning of “Psychical Body” and “Pneumatic Body”
Hart places considerable emphasis on Paul’s Greek terminology. He argues that “psychical body” is often mistranslated as “natural body.” For Paul, according to Hart, a psychical body is a body animated by psyche—a principle of ordinary biological life. By contrast, the pneumatic body is a body animated entirely by spirit. This does not mean the resurrected person becomes a ghost. Paul is still speaking about embodiment. The difference lies in the principle of life animating the body.
Stoicism and Paul’s Thought
At one point Hart remarks that scholars have written important studies arguing that Paul’s language reflects elements of Stoic metaphysics. This does not mean Paul was a Stoic. Rather, some scholars believe Paul shared certain assumptions common in the intellectual world of his time. In Stoic thought:
- spirit (pneuma) was real,
- spirit was active,
- spirit was not simply immaterial,
- spirit organized and animated living beings.
Hart suggests that this background may help explain Paul’s language about transformation into a pneumatic body. Several modern scholars have explored this possibility, including Dale Martin and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Whether one accepts their conclusions remains a matter of debate.
Continuity and Transformation
This is the heart of Hart’s position. Hart repeatedly emphasizes that resurrection involves both continuity and discontinuity. The person who dies is genuinely the person who is raised. Yet resurrection is not merely a repair job performed on a corpse. The transformation is so radical that ordinary categories begin to fail. This is why Hart says resurrection is:
“continuous in one sense, but in another sense, not.”
He is attempting to preserve two truths simultaneously:
- The resurrected person is not a different individual.
- The resurrected person is not merely the old mortal individual unchanged.
For Hart, Paul’s seed analogy illustrates this point. A seed and the mature plant are connected. Yet the plant is not merely a larger seed. Transformation occurs without destroying continuity.
Hart’s Claim that Paul Did Not Teach a Resurrection of the Flesh
This is one of the most controversial claims in the interview. Hart argues that later Christian theology often speaks of “the resurrection of the flesh.” According to Hart, however, Paul himself did not describe resurrection in those terms. Hart points to Paul’s statement that:
“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”
From this Hart concludes that Paul did not expect mortal fleshly existence to continue unchanged into the age to come. Instead, Paul envisioned transformation into a pneumatic mode of embodied existence. In Hart’s reading, resurrection does not preserve flesh as flesh. It transforms mortal existence into something higher and more glorious.
What Hart Rejects
1. Mere Resuscitation
Hart rejects the idea that resurrection simply means reviving a corpse. The resurrected Christ is not merely a returned corpse. Neither are resurrected believers.
2. Purely Disembodied Survival
Hart also rejects the notion that Christianity teaches eternal existence as disembodied souls. Resurrection remains fundamentally embodied.
3. Simple Material Continuity
Hart rejects the idea that the same physical particles must be reassembled in order for resurrection to occur. For him, continuity of personal identity does not depend upon preserving every material component of the earthly body.
Points of Controversy
1. Did Paul Really Reject the Resurrection of the Flesh?
Many scholars and theologians disagree with Hart’s interpretation. Critics argue that Paul intended to affirm bodily resurrection even while describing transformation. They contend that Hart exaggerates the discontinuity between mortal and resurrected existence.
2. How Much Did Stoicism Influence Paul?
Some scholars see significant Stoic influence. Others regard Paul’s thought as fundamentally Jewish and believe Stoic parallels have been overstated. This remains an active scholarly debate.
3. What Makes the Resurrected Person the Same Person?
Hart clearly insists on continuity of identity. However, he spends less time explaining precisely what guarantees that continuity. Readers seeking a detailed philosophical account of personal identity may find his treatment suggestive rather than definitive.
4. Does Transformation Become Replacement?
Critics sometimes worry that Hart’s emphasis on transformation risks making the resurrected person a different being altogether. Hart rejects this conclusion, but the tension remains one of the central philosophical challenges in resurrection theology.
Hart in One Sentence
The person who dies is the person who is raised, but resurrection transforms that person so radically that the result is not merely restored mortal life but a new mode of embodied existence animated entirely by the Spirit. (Terry’s note: this section comes closer to my own interests than any other part of the interview. The unresolved question at the end is the same question that keeps resurfacing in my reading of Paul, Wright, van Inwagen, Hart, Martin, Engberg-Pedersen, and others:
What exactly remains continuous through the transformation?
Hart insists that something does.