A Glorious Physical Body: The Goal from the Beginning
Michael Brown
14 Comments
Whatever happened to the article in the Apostles' Creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the body"? Listening to some evangelicals talk, one can almost get the idea that it has been exchanged for a Platonist eschatology, that is, when you die, your soul escapes the prison house of the body and flies away to heaven to live in an ethreal existence happily ever after.
But the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) teaches otherwise. God does not save us from being human; rather, he saves us from being sinners and the eternal penalty which that status brings. Redemption is not redemption from creation. In fact, our redemption will not be completely applied to us until our physical bodies are raised from the dead and gloriously transformed to enjoy the glory of the age to come.
But here's the real kicker: a transformed body was the goal for which we were created. In his argument against the Corinthian heresy, which affirmed salvation in Christ but denied our bodily resurrection on the Last Day, Paul makes the point above. In vv.44-46, he says that, from the beginning, Adam had held out to him as a goal the transformation of his body and all those whom he represented. He did not achieve that goal when he broke the Covenant of Works.
Notice that Paul makes a distinction between these two stages of human existence. He calls them "natural" and "spiritual" bodies. By "spiritual," Paul does not mean an immaterial body. When we read in our English translations the adjectives “natural” and “spiritual,” it might seem at first glance as if Paul was contrasting between a physical body and a non-physical body, something that you cannot touch or see with ordinary eyesight, as if it were angelic or ethereal. But Paul is saying nothing of the sort. He is saying that there are two different stages of physical bodies – in the Greek: soma yucikion - a “soulish” (“natural”) body, and a soma pneumatikon - a “spiritual” body. The “soulish” body is the body that the first Adam was originally created with, the man made from the dust. It is not evil, because none of God’s creation is evil. God’s creation is good. And being human is good. Being an embodied human is good. What is evil is being a sinful human, the consequence of which brings decay and dishonor to creation.
Because the first Adam was disobedient and did not earn the right to eat from the Tree of Life, he did not earn the right to advance himself and all those whom he represented from the good natural body that God originally gave, to the glorious “spiritual” body that God held out as a promise for obedience to the Covenant of Works.
Notice very carefully what Paul does in v.45: he quotes Genesis chapter 2: “Thus it is written, ‘the first man Adam became a living being’;” and then he says, “the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” What is so significant about Genesis chapter 2? It occurs before the Fall. Notice that Paul is not pointing out to his readers that the first Adam became a sinner, and the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. He certainly could have said that; but that is not the point that he wants to make. Rather, he wants to make the point that there was always something more for Adam to move on to from the beginning. The goal was not to live in the Garden forever, status quo, on perpetual covenant probation. No, the goal was to earn the right to eat of the Tree of Life and bring the whole creation to its glorified existence through his faithful covenant obedience.
Christ, of course, is the One who accomplished that goal on our behalf. He is the one who came as the eskaton Adam - the last Adam – to be our probation passer and penalty payer. And his resurrection 2000 years ago is the testimony and evidence that a glorified body was the goal for mankind from the beginning. There was an order designed in creation: the “soulish” or “natural” body FIRST, THEN the “spiritual” body. These are the 2 great acts of God: creation and re-creation. It was because of sin that we could not advance from one to the other. But that is what Christ's work solved for us.
Now, we live this life in this present evil age with a living hope. As Paul says in Romans 8, There is a “glory that is to be revealed to us…For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.”
Reader Comments (14)
TIME had a cover story on the Dalai Lama. One line caught me eye: "I don't want freedom from this world but freedom in it." Now, I know this was mainly a political statement, and the latter clause has nothing to do with what we might mean by liberty. But it seems the Dalai is more Christian than most evangelicals.
Yeah, dispensationalism comports nicely with a Platonist "worldview."
I am amazed by the amount of Christians I have met who were surprised to find out that they and (even more shocking) the earth will be physically resurrected. Even more shocking to some is to find out that a glorified creation was the goal from the beginning, not an ethreal existence.
This is awesome! I can't wait for that spiritual body and the new earth!
These kinds of presentations of this subject always seem so 'off' to me. It's like the Calvinist is so worried and concerned to not want people seeing him as being 'anti-flesh' that he makes statements the Bible gives no warrant for. Turretin (somewhere in his Institutes) touches on this subject and the nature of Adam's body and how it was less dense and 'fleshy', if you will, than fallen man's body especially today so far in time from the fall and the garden. It's speculation, but it's obvious. And any Christian who is so adamant to praise their physical bodies and seem cool in the process I wonder if you've never been ill or injured (or even have begun experiencing age). Flesh is not so cool. Flesh withers as the grass. Flesh doesn't enter the Kingdom of God. These discussions seem to always assume body means one thing, what humans beings have and experience now.
Jesus was resurrected with a body that could pass through a wall. And his case may even be unique - regarding his maintaining so much of a seeming flesh body despite its ability to pass through a wall - in that it was part of God's plan that people 'saw' him after He was resurrected. No one needs to see us when we die.
What a glorified body is is not something God has revealed to any basic degree in His Word. We know it is immortal (an immortality contingent on God's immortality of course). It will be a microcosmos of some sort as our bodies are now (i.e. it won't be an apparition of ethereal wispy-ness). A tabernacle for our soul. But let's not feel a necessity to associate the glorified body with our flesh bodies we possess now. The Bible doesn't give warrant for this, and it's not necessary.
By the way, the constant fear of anything 'gnostic' or anything smacking of 'gnosticism' has been bred into people mostly by various types of heretics. If you, for instance, hold to the biblical doctrine of the invisible church you are being 'gnostic.' If you practice any kind of discipline of the flesh to have control over it rather than it having control over you you are being 'gnostic.' I could go on with these examples, but it may just upset more people methinks.
J. Smith,
Why don't you deal with the exegetical argument of 1 Cor 15.45 which you conveniently ignored. And if you are going to quote or allude to Turretin, give me chapter and verse.
Turretin in vol. 3, pg. 618 and on discusses your subject. My point was a side point, and for that you can reference Turretin vol. 1, pg. 468, paragraphs XVI. and XVII. where the discussion is the image of God. Prior to that reference vol. 1, pg. 465, paragraph V. In all that there is allusion to degree regarding Adam's body and its qualities regarding the image of God and how that image differs by degree after the fall "Yet this must be understood only relatively (as to certain natural remains of that image) and not absolutely (as to spiritual and supernatural qualities which are evidently lost and must be restored to us by the grace of regeneration).
The point is: setting fallen man's flesh body as a standard for seeing what a glorified body is all about may get you points from the 'anti-gnostics' who like to go around challenging Christians in this manner ("So you think sex is not 'good'? You don't think God created good food to be enjoyed?" etc., etc.), but it's not warranted by Scripture.
JS,
Thank you for the Turretin ref. I will have a look at it when I am in my study later.
Again, though...1 Cor 15.45. You are not dealing with the text.
1.) The rather Gnostic idea Jesus "passed through a wall" is an exegetical error - John 20:19, for instance, does not teach this: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, '"Peace be with you.'" (ESV). A wooden translation of the Greek text reads "...came Jesus and stood in the midst [of those assembled]" - the assumption he "passed through the wall" in order to stand among those assembled is entirely absent from this passage and thus an unwarranted leap.
2.) "Flesh withers as the grass." Here you assume “flesh” (in this passage) refers merely to the physical body - yet Peter's quotation of Isaiah here refers not to the mere physicality of human "flesh," but rather to the entirety of "fallen" (better "failed" or "un-glorified" since the idea humans "fell" down from some previous high state is an un-Scriptural and rather Gnostic idea) humanity. Paul's use of "flesh," moreover, almost always refers to un-glorified human nature as well. Peter and Paul's use of this term is normally a reference to "Adamic" human life in general, meaning the entire human nature in its current un-glorified state. This idea fits very well with Rev. Brown's excellent post relative to the hope of resurrection life.
3.) Your statement, "If you, for instance, hold to the biblical doctrine of the invisible church you are being 'Gnostic'" is ignorant of confessional "Calvinism." All Reformed confessions argue this position against the medieval hierarchical position (which, ironically, assumes a rather neo-Platonist and thus Gnostic ontology!).
4.) After your statement, "What a glorified body is is not something God has revealed to any basic degree in His Word," you then proceed to make statements about what is basic a biblical understanding of what, in your opinion, is the biblical idea of "a glorified body.”
5.) I am interested in your repose to Rev. Brown’s question as to 1 Cor 15
AG
Oops, I made an un-glorified and generally "Adamic" error - I forgot to add the heading to my post - which should read "Dear JS,..." So yes, my post was directed to Mr. J. Smith
AG
The invisible church is a confessional belief, but listen to, for instance, Federal Visionists and they will call that 'gnostic', which was my point about heretics.
Your reading of John 20:19 is self-serving. And there are other indications Jesus was able to not be seen and to appear suddenly and so on. But, again, thanks for making my point.
You write: 2.) ***"Flesh withers as the grass." Here you assume “flesh” (in this passage) refers merely to the physical body***
Silly me. I'm starting to think you are joking. In any case, I'm a Bible-believing Christian, and I take the Word of the Bible seriously and value them at face value. I don't lawyer their meaning away when something goes against my demands. Liberal theologians do that.
J.Smith,
Since you believe the Bible, what do you believe about 1 Cor 15.45?
I'm not sure how it relates to my comments. I'm with Vos and Kline on Adam having before him an eschatological event if he'd have finished the probationary period (or fulfilled the Covenant of Works). To make it clearer perhaps, that Adam was to experience an eschatological glorification by an act of God just as regenerated man will be glorified. This doesn't go against anything I was saying above.
If you thought that in my comments I was imply that man will recover *to the level* of Adam, i.e. saying that glorification is no higher than what Adam had in the Garden then you are reading that into my words without me not only having not said it, but not even being aware of touching on the subject. Glorification takes us - as it would have taken Adam - higher than the level we are created at.
OK, I've just reread your original post, and I offer my apologies. I see you are making a different point than I read at first. You are, as I stated above, stating what Vos stated and Kline regarding eschatology and Adam in the Garden (what I said in the previous comment), and you aren't really even commenting on the subject I wrongly implied you to be commenting on. Apologies. Maybe the title of your post influenced me unduly. "Oh, another Reformed person with a fat cigar in his mouth and a glass of wine saying that when we are resurrected we are going to have these same flesh bodies we have right now because God created them and they are good. And if anyone disagrees, or says that our bodies will be in any way - by degree or otherwise - less dense or whatever they are being gnostic and Platonic!" You're not saying this in your post (and neither does Turretin of course).
Thank you, J. Smith. I accept your apology.