Two things have stood out to me as I’ve considered this question. The first is the Jewish view of what happens to the soul after death; the second is the literary evidence in the epistles and gospels for the evolution of the doctrine of the resurrection.
The Jews believed that when a person died their soul went down to Sheol, the place of the dead. This was not a place of eternal judgment (unlike hell) but a place where one loses all agency. Psalm 115:16-18 is a good example: “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to humankind. It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to the place of silence.”
I think it’s quite reasonable to say that the earliest understanding of Jesus’ resurrection was that God did not leave him in Sheol, but exalted him to heaven. This is in line with Paul’s very clear teaching that the resurrection is spiritual, not physical.
What I really find interesting is reading the New Testament in chronological order paying particular attention to the doctrine of the resurrection. You will quickly see that the earliest writings put very little emphasis on the resurrection. The earliest Gospel (Mark) barely mentions it. When it is mentioned in the Gospel there is good evidence that the phenomenon is something other than physical as the disciples don’t recognize him, he walks through walls, suddenly disappears, etc. The main focus of the earliest writings was not the resurrection, but the crucifixion and imminent (and I mean VERY imminent) return of Christ.
That being said, there are clear places in the Bible that seem to talk about Jesus’ physical resurrection. There isn’t much need to discuss the empty tomb and the conspiracy to explain it away if there is only a physical resurrection. So were these people lying? I don’t think so, but I do think they (eventually) remembered it wrong. After years of talking about Jesus spiritual resurrection, it’s quite possible the memory evolved into the idea of a physical resurrection. That would explain why they told themselves they didn’t quite recognize him at certain times, and some of the other strange bits.
I know that almost any devout Christian reading that last paragraph will interpret it as a weak attempt to explain away the heart of the gospel message. I would have had the same opinion myself not long ago. Before you dismiss it though, I would recommend doing some research into human memory and how malleable it is. For a quick and fascinating summary, listen to Malcom Gladwell’s podcast “Revisionist History.” Episode 3 (A Polite Word for Liar) and 4 (Free Brian Williams) of season 3 will be particularly relevant to this discussion.
Genesis isn’t being “rejected”, it’s being correctly interpreted in its literary and historical background. It’s allegory, not history, and no one here rejects the allegories of Genesis.
No, I was talking about the resurrection of everyone at the end of the age. A physical resurrection is part of orthodox Christian tradition. Gnostics reject a physical resurrection, for they see all matter as evil.
Oh, I get it. Well, didn’t we talk once about what happens with cannibals and those who have been eaten by people? I really don’t want to get my own body back, thank you very much–but it doesn’t really matter what I think. God will figure that out.
I came in toward the end of that thread on the Resurrection, I think. It’s one of those things that I’m glad I don’t have to worry about.
it’s interesting how emphasis changes over time–the Gnostics were a problem, so Paul and the others argued against the licentiousness and frank weirdness I think, that they had.
What do you think, @beaglelady, about going deeper on the other thread posted by @jpm, and taking on some broccoli? What is your favorite passage on that/study? Wright? Beatitudes?
Well, like I said, a physical resurrection is part of the orthodox Christian tradition. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox believe it. Evidently the belief is waning in Evangelical circles.
Back in May, around the feast of the Ascension, I posted some thoughts on the resurrection from my pastor:, the Rev. Joel C. Daniels, PhD:
We continue to celebrate the Ascension for the ten days between that day and Pentecost. The bodily ascension is as essential to Christian salvation history as the bodily resurrection. And both are as scandalous to the pagan religious imagination as the bodily incarnation, the idea of God taking on flesh. This isn’t a new scandal. Along those lines, I was recently sent an article on Evangelical Gnosticism , written by a friend of a friend, on the widespread Gnosticism of modern life - even and especially within Christian communities.
Gnosticism here is defined as a distrust of, and even feelings of disgust at, the body and embodiment. But, as the article points out, the source of sin isn’t the body, but the soul. This has been the classical Christian theological position since the time of the patristic authors, including Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria. To summarize Augustine, “to see the flesh as more sinful than the soul is to follow the way of the flesh.” The author writes
The apostolic tradition carries a radical message that defends the truth of human personhood against the secular tide of pessimism about the flesh. Safeguarding that message requires entering into the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Resurrection…
I think you are wrong. I think all of these denominations believe in the Bible and so they don’t contradict what Paul says so easily as you do. I think you are confusing bodily resurrection with physical resurrection. Paul certainly says it is a bodily resurrection but that it is a resurrection to a spiritual body not a physical body.
Well as much as I like to flatter myself that the Evangelicals have a deeper commitment to the Bible than these other denominations. I really think the problem here is you. But let’s investigate.
I looked it up in the Catholic Catechism and nowhere are the words “physical resurrection” to be found. Again like Paul, it is a bodily resurrection not a physical resurrection. 996 it says the life of a person continues in a spritual fashion after death. And in 999 it says Christ will change our lowly body into a spiritual body.
Next I looked it up in the Westminster confession. There it says, “the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities).” Again the words "physical resurrection is not to be found. Instead it says they are the same bodies but with different qualities. I take this to mean they will be recognizable as our bodies but in accordance with the words of Paul in the Bible they will be spiritual (imperishable, powerful, and made of the stuff of heaven) rather than physical (perishable, weak, and made of the stuff of the earth).
For the Eastern Orthodox, I went to this site. And immediately it went to 1 Corinthians 15 just like I do and bases its explanation entirely on what Paul says there. What a surprise, another issue on which the Eastern Orthodox think just like I do.
All the material substance of the body is continually being recycled. It is the pattern not the actual matter which makes us who we are. But there I go trying to be scientific and reasonable, when it seems like a lot of these Christians go out of their way to contradict science and common sense whenever they can – even if they have to contradict the Bible itself to do so. Sometimes I think it is like a publicity gig where they do it just get attention. Other times I wonder if it is like they think the sacrifice of their intelligence is the price of salvation.
Oh no, I don’t think it’s a big deal for folks here–you’ll have to read the thread from earlier; I did read some of the end of it. Most folks here know that our molecules and body are continually being replaced. I know @beaglelady and I talked about it. Sometimes, Mr McKain, it’s not what we believe, but how we interact about it that matters.
Tim Keller strikes me as a grace-filled man with whom I don’t agree a great deal in terms of predestination–but he has his ear to God by first listening to others’ concerns, and that’s the best way to learn, isn’t it? Have you seen his dialogue with John Piper on Youtube? It was fascinating how he agreed with CS Lewis’ great compassion, though not with every belief, and recounted how Lewis wrote 4 letters to Keller’s wife when she was a teenager. Now in Heaven, when they find out which was right, they’ll laugh about it, because they were on the same page all along.
I like the idea that we’ll eventually be with God–I remember George Macdonald’s character Duncan who was afraid he would lie for decades in his grave before the rapture–where he “will be fery cold, howefer…”
You are, of course, correct and I apologize for the lack of clarity. I specified Mark as the earliest Gospel since that’s where we generally look to for the history of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. I believe the earliest New Testament epistle was James which makes no mention of the resurrection. In Galatians Paul makes passing reference to it. I Thessalonians mentions the resurrection but II Thessalonians does not. These last two books are mostly concerned with the return of Christ which was expected any moment. In fact, some thought it had already happened. Mark was most likely written sometime after that.
There is more than one definition of the word “physical.” As a physicist, the word tends to mean something quite different to me – i.e. connected with the laws of nature. In some translations, the word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians is “natural.” Then his teaching comes out as, bodily resurrection to a spiritual (or supernatural) body and not a natural body. Again Paul nails this down by describing all the attributes of the two. The natural (or physical) body is perishable, weak, and made of the stuff of the earth (molecules, atoms, particles, and such), while the spiritual (or supernatural) body is imperishable, strong and made of the stuff of heaven (whatever that may be).
If you are not willing to examine words carefully, then I suggest you leave such things to the experts or take yourself off to a religion that wasn’t written in a different language than your native one, because otherwise all the word troubles of translation and interpretation are unavoidable. AND let’s remind you that YOU are the one who started this with snarking on Evangelicals and YOUR words “physical resurrection” which are not in the statements of faith by Protestants, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox despite your claim that they were.
You accused me of confusing a bodily resurrection with a physical resurrection. And I pointed out that the word physical means bodily. Therefore, a bodily resurrection means a physical resurrection. Read N. T. Wright.
And I explained that “physical” has more than one definition, which is why the word in what Paul said is also translated as “natural” rather than “physical” in some translations. You continue to ignore this and what Paul says in 1 Cor 15, where he is quite insistent that it is a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body and not a physical body. This makes the use of the words “physical resurrection” incorrect and so all the statements of faith by Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox do not use those words. So the question is why do you keep insisting on doing this? I am not interested in replacing the words of Paul with those of N. T. Wright. You can read Paul as saying “bodily resurrection to a supernatural body and not a natural body” if you want to avoid the connection of “physical” with “bodily”, but I will likewise not go along with the words “physical resurrection” because of the connection of “physical” with “natural” for that would contradict the words of Paul in 1 Cor 15.
P.S. An internet search on N.T. Wright tells me that he too uses the words “bodily resurrection” and not “physical resurrection”. Why are you going out of your way to contradict Paul?
In Merriam Webster the one you use is third in their list, so can you not see why people avoid using this term as you do?
physical adjective
phys·i·cal | \ ˈfi-zi-kəl
1a : of or relating to natural science
b(1) : of or relating to physics
(2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
—Thomas De Quincey
b : of or relating to material things
3a : of or relating to the body
physical abuse
b(1) : concerned or preoccupied with the body and its needs : CARNAL
physical appetites
(2) : SEXUAL
a physical love affair
physical attraction
c : characterized by especially rugged and forceful physical activity : ROUGH
a physical hockey game
a physical player
Genesis 1 itself, at least to me, makes clear that the text is a theological narrative and not a description of historical events, with the sun created on day 4 and days 1 and 4 describing the same events, for instance. It seems also to be based on the science of day - for comprehension of its ancient audience - describing a 3-tiered universe with a solid sky and founded on the primordial waters (see 2 Peter 3:5). Lastly, it doesn’t need to concord with history or science to have spiritual import.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is essential to the Christian faith, as others here have stated, and was clearly believed in by the early church. So it’s not a matter of believing in science over scripture, but, as proper exegesis should do, making interpretations based on all of the available evidence.
