Is the bodily resurrection of humans important?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Reformed Church in the United States (the old German Reformed Church) did an outstanding job of dealing with the question of creamation and how bodies should be disposed of in a synod report they released some years ago. Here is a link:


Thank you Zach, that was a good position paper. It has definitely changed my thinking. Some highlights to me:
  1. 1 Cor 6:19b-20: "You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

  2. "Our Lord Himself, too, though He was to rise again the third day, applauds, and commends to our applause, the good work of the religious woman who poured precious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial. And the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who were careful to take down His body from the cross, and wrap it lovingly in costly cerements, and see to its burial. These instances certainly do not prove that corpses have any feeling; but they show that God’s providence extends even to the bodies of the dead, and that such pious offices are pleasing to Him, as cherishing faith in the resurrection." Augustine, "The City of God", Book I, Chapter 13

  3. "For to what end was the rite of burial, as we have already seen, unless to teach that new life was prepared for the bodies thus deposited?" John Calvin, "Institutes", Vol. III, Chapter 25, p. 622

  4. Destroying the body by burning is wholly inconsistent with the illustration of hope set forth in Christian burial. Note that it is the depiction of hope, not hope itself, that is obscured in cremation. (Emphasis in the original)

  5. Laying the bodies of the faithful to rest in the earth is a triumphal statement of our faith and hope in God, that the believer's death (an apparent loss) will indeed be swallowed up in victory at the return of Christ from heaven.

  6. In observing this practice, we self-consciously follow Christ, whose mortal body was buried and whose glorified body was raised. We follow Jesus in death (burial of our bodies) as we do in life (suffering of our bodies), in hope that we will also be raised from the dead when He returns (glorification of our bodies).

  7. The practice of burning corpses is common to these religions because in the Eastern way of thinking, the physical body is little more than a temporary vessel to carry the soul. It has no lasting significance, and therefore Eastern religions see no reason to cherish or preserve the body after death.

  8. "To reject symbolism is to say the thing it symbolizes is not important. An attack on the symbol of burial and the anticipated resurrection of the body is an attack on important Christian doctrines." Geisler, Norman L., and Douglas E. Potter. "From Ashes to Ashes: Is Burial the Only Christian Option?." Christian Research Journal 20 (1998): 28-35.

  9. "There is an important difference between what God can do and what we should do." ibid.

  10. Since mutilating and burning our bodies is not a God-honoring thing for us to do in life, then we ought not do such things after death.

  11. Every Christian has the opportunity to witness this gospel comfort to his family and friends when his body is buried, communicating hope in the bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:42-49) at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Th 4:13-18).
 
Thank you Zach, that was a good position paper. It has definitely changed my thinking. Some highlights to me:
  1. 1 Cor 6:19b-20: "You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

  2. "Our Lord Himself, too, though He was to rise again the third day, applauds, and commends to our applause, the good work of the religious woman who poured precious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial. And the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who were careful to take down His body from the cross, and wrap it lovingly in costly cerements, and see to its burial. These instances certainly do not prove that corpses have any feeling; but they show that God’s providence extends even to the bodies of the dead, and that such pious offices are pleasing to Him, as cherishing faith in the resurrection." Augustine, "The City of God", Book I, Chapter 13

  3. "For to what end was the rite of burial, as we have already seen, unless to teach that new life was prepared for the bodies thus deposited?" John Calvin, "Institutes", Vol. III, Chapter 25, p. 622

  4. Destroying the body by burning is wholly inconsistent with the illustration of hope set forth in Christian burial. Note that it is the depiction of hope, not hope itself, that is obscured in cremation. (Emphasis in the original)

  5. Laying the bodies of the faithful to rest in the earth is a triumphal statement of our faith and hope in God, that the believer's death (an apparent loss) will indeed be swallowed up in victory at the return of Christ from heaven.

  6. In observing this practice, we self-consciously follow Christ, whose mortal body was buried and whose glorified body was raised. We follow Jesus in death (burial of our bodies) as we do in life (suffering of our bodies), in hope that we will also be raised from the dead when He returns (glorification of our bodies).

  7. The practice of burning corpses is common to these religions because in the Eastern way of thinking, the physical body is little more than a temporary vessel to carry the soul. It has no lasting significance, and therefore Eastern religions see no reason to cherish or preserve the body after death.

  8. "To reject symbolism is to say the thing it symbolizes is not important. An attack on the symbol of burial and the anticipated resurrection of the body is an attack on important Christian doctrines." Geisler, Norman L., and Douglas E. Potter. "From Ashes to Ashes: Is Burial the Only Christian Option?." Christian Research Journal 20 (1998): 28-35.

  9. "There is an important difference between what God can do and what we should do." ibid.

  10. Since mutilating and burning our bodies is not a God-honoring thing for us to do in life, then we ought not do such things after death.

  11. Every Christian has the opportunity to witness this gospel comfort to his family and friends when his body is buried, communicating hope in the bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:42-49) at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Th 4:13-18).
I, for one, heartily disagree with the conclusion of the position paper. This has all been hashed out in another thread, but to speak briefly to several of the points:
1: We must glorify God in our bodies while we live and still have control over them. In death, whatever is done with our corpses cannot reflect on us, for our wishes may not be honored.
7: If pagan religions are being appealed to to show what not to do, what about the legions of heathen nations that embalmed and buried with no regard at all to God, but to an imagined afterlife?
8: This one is just stupid. No important doctrine is being attacked in cremation--God's power to resurrect even someone whose body has been destroyed by worms, as Job testified, is not doubted by the cremator. It begins to reek of superstition to think that one means of disposing of bodies will give them a better resurrection than another. And as far as worms VS ashes: The flesh eaten by worms becomes the worm itself, and is later eaten by other beasts, or gets burned in a forest fire, or dies and decomposes. What matter if the process is accelerated by combustion? There's less left of Job, now, I reckon, than of someone cremated ten years ago. But the hope of the resurrection doesn't rest in the smallest remnants of some carcass, but in the power of God.

Away this foolish superstition!
 
The question wasn't motivated by cremation vs. burial, but it's certainly related. If I wouldn't mind having my resurrection body reconstituted from the few atoms that remained after cremation (or nuclear evaporation), why would I mind if God just gave me a resurrection body from scratch? Either one is more than I deserve in the first place.
A body made from scratch would not be you. "You" would still be in the ground somewhere.
 
I, for one, heartily disagree with the conclusion of the position paper. This has all been hashed out in another thread, but to speak briefly to several of the points:
1: We must glorify God in our bodies while we live and still have control over them. In death, whatever is done with our corpses cannot reflect on us, for our wishes may not be honored.
7: If pagan religions are being appealed to to show what not to do, what about the legions of heathen nations that embalmed and buried with no regard at all to God, but to an imagined afterlife?
8: This one is just stupid. No important doctrine is being attacked in cremation--God's power to resurrect even someone whose body has been destroyed by worms, as Job testified, is not doubted by the cremator. It begins to reek of superstition to think that one means of disposing of bodies will give them a better resurrection than another. And as far as worms VS ashes: The flesh eaten by worms becomes the worm itself, and is later eaten by other beasts, or gets burned in a forest fire, or dies and decomposes. What matter if the process is accelerated by combustion? There's less left of Job, now, I reckon, than of someone cremated ten years ago. But the hope of the resurrection doesn't rest in the smallest remnants of some carcass, but in the power of God.

Away this foolish superstition!
Hi Ben, please link that thread so that I can see if these specific points have been addressed; then perhaps we can discuss our views on it.
 
Yes, Ben @Ben Zartman ,

I'd like to see that thread (couldn't find it in my search). The RCUS paper was the most thorough thing I have read against cremation, and yet I am not convinced cremation is sin. In my country now, from what I have learned so far, as I'm not Greek Orthodox (even though I am a citizen), I cannot be buried here. Even when in the U.S., in New York, my state of residence, the costs – and even availability – were prohibitive. So far, there are not even any cremation facilities here in Cyprus. The cost to have that done in England is high (getting the body there, etc) – around €5000 euros.

The RCUS paper did not convince me it was sin, though possibly better to be buried. Even that is not certain to me. Some years ago here it was reported in the papers that grave robbers exhumed a man's grave and held his remains hostage, I think for monetary gain. In this world of growing madness, I can see other wicked persons doing the same to other ends. To use a saint's (all true believers are such) bones for evil purposes is easily possible. I will do what I think best, and – according to the light I have – God-honoring.

"Burial at sea" was an option (in the paper); so what do I do, get my wife and friends to tie weights around me and cast my body overboard wherever the water is sufficiently deep? My death would be trauma enough for her.

I will ask my Saviour for light in this matter. Tomorrow, the 21st, I'll be 81. I am slowing down, especially noticeable when I get up and walk.
 
Last edited:
The RCUS paper was the most thorough thing I have read against cremation, and yet I am not convinced cremation is sin...

The RCUS paper did not convince me it was sin, though possibly better to be buried. Even that is not certain to me...

I will do what I think best, and – according to the light I have – God-honoring...
Amen. I would say I like the symbolism, and I would like to reflect more on this issue, but I am also not convinced that it is a sin.
 
Amen. I would say I like the symbolism, and I would like to reflect more on this issue, but I am also not convinced that it is a sin.
A subject like this is where the biblical category of wisdom is more than a bit useful. It may be the wisest course, more often than not, to bury. But we shouldn't allege sin, even if people choose a less-wise option. Not even all unwise options are sinful, unless we think any rash act must be wicked. Sometimes, a prudential act, the best option of a less-than-ideal set, an imperfect choice done in faith is still an act of obedience coram deo.
 
Let me begin by clearly affirming that I believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an essential element of the Christian faith (not because it prefigures what will happen to us but because it confirms Jesus' claims), and I also believe in the bodily resurrection of humans in general. I'm also not asking whether the bodily resurrection of humans is biblical but whether it's important whether the Bible speaks of it or not.

There have definitely been some people (take Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example), including some Christians, who were essentially vaporized when they died. My current suspicion is that God will, in His infinite knowledge, find a few of their atoms and change that into their resurrection body. But I find myself thinking, if He can do that and He can, why would I care HOW He creates my resurrection body? I only really care that my spirit is in it. Thoughts?
Do you agree that for Jesus to save us by causing the death of death, it was necessary for Jesus to become con-substantial (body and soul) with human beings and resurrect after dying so that HIs people could live body and soul ?
 
Hi Ben, please link that thread so that I can see if these specific points have been addressed; then perhaps we can discuss our views on it.
Sorry, I don't know which one it was specifically of the several threads on cremation, and I'd probably not be able to link to it if I knew....I'm terrible at this geek stuff. No doubt someone more handy could, er, resurrect it in a flash.
 
On the question of the "how" with respect to the resurrection of an obliterated body, I find it remarkable how we often limit God more than our own imaginations.

What I mean is, just as an example, is there any particular reason why God couldn't reach back into the past for the raw materials that constituted our bodies prior to death and bring it forward to the future for transformation?

Should this be possible for our sci-fi but impossible for our God?

Note, I'm not proposing this as a serious possibility, just confused as to why a failure of imagination should be taken as a theological difficulty.
 
In terms of cremation, we shouldn’t oppose it on “scientific” grounds in terms of the resurrection. That is, it’s not as if a body reduced to ashes can’t be reconstituted by God in the resurrection. Rather, it is opposed on theological grounds. Pagans burn their dead. A Christian buries both out of respect/dignity for the body created by God, and in faith as a seed planted.
If this is the case shouldn't there be a push for local bodies to procure benevolence funds to ensure their congregants are buried as opposed to cremated? We often times see in the Bible non-relatives burying the dead; especially as it regards Israel; and even a non-familial believer purchased the tomb of our Lord. Many people are left to cremation not as a first choice, but a financial necessity given the cost of funerals, grave sites, coffins; etc. We no longer, I am pretty sure, live in an age where one can bury a person on their property; nor do many districts have common cemeteries where the dead are afforded the respect of burial even if they cant afford it. Cremation is the poor mans passage to the yonder.

Also doesnt this verse make a stark distinction on the value of the body once dead, and the soul:
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
 
Last edited:
Also doesnt this verse make a stark distinction on the value of the body once dead, and the soul:
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
The defense that the RCUS report makes includes that we do try to honour a person's body; for instance, we do not chop up a body so that it takes up less space for burial; for the same reason we should not burn it. Now, I have not formed a strong opinion yet as to whether I agree with the reasoning, but although the soul is of much more value on earth than the body, it does not follow that we should treat it any which way.
 
If anyone is interested, there are a few threads in the past where this issue of the body is discussed in relation to both burial and organ donation (the kind that occurs after being pronounced dead). It’s always interesting and thought-provoking to find MW’s comments on the topic of the body, in particular.
 
If this is the case shouldn't there be a push for local bodies to procure benevolence funds to ensure their congregants are buried as opposed to cremated? We often times see in the Bible non-relatives burying the dead; especially as it regards Israel; and even a non-familial believer purchased the tomb of our Lord. Many people are left to cremation not as a first choice, but a financial necessity given the cost of funerals, grave sites, coffins; etc. We no longer, I am pretty sure, live in an age where one can bury a person on their property; nor do many districts have common cemeteries where the dead are afforded the respect of burial even if they cant afford it. Cremation is the poor mans passage to the yonder.

Also doesnt this verse make a stark distinction on the value of the body once dead, and the soul:
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Scripture honors the body both alive and dead. Yes, local assemblies should do their part to help the faithful bury, and not burn, their dead.
 
The thing about "destroying both body as soul in hell" is that, 1: every unrepentant sinner, regardless of how he was buried/cremated/eaten, whatever, will have a resurrected body joined again to his soul to be cast into hell with for a destruction that will never end.
2: That we are not to fear what people will do with us in life or in death, for in either state the Christian belongs to God, who will raise him up incorruptible at the last day.
If a dead body is dishonored, it is usually done for the sake of the living that remain: to insult the relations, or for the self-aggrandisement of the killer. Once dead, there is no more harm that can be done to a person.
Also, in connection with all this, how is an unceremonious burial in a mass grave, such as has been perpetrated within living memory, better than a respectful cremation? People talk as though cremation was just an offhand way of burning stiffs to get them out from underfoot, but all the public carryings-on in honor of a decedent can be done whichever method is chosen to dispose of the corpse.
 
Do you agree that for Jesus to save us by causing the death of death, it was necessary for Jesus to become con-substantial (body and soul) with human beings and resurrect after dying so that HIs people could live body and soul ?
Yes. I'm just not sure why it is so important that our glorified bodies be made out of the molecules of our current physical bodies, especially since we know that some believers have had their physical bodies literally vaporized and that our molecules change over time ala Ship of Theseus.
 
Let me begin by clearly affirming that I believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an essential element of the Christian faith (not because it prefigures what will happen to us but because it confirms Jesus' claims), and I also believe in the bodily resurrection of humans in general. I'm also not asking whether the bodily resurrection of humans is biblical but whether it's important whether the Bible speaks of it or not.

There have definitely been some people (take Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example), including some Christians, who were essentially vaporized when they died. My current suspicion is that God will, in His infinite knowledge, find a few of their atoms and change that into their resurrection body. But I find myself thinking, if He can do that and He can, why would I care HOW He creates my resurrection body? I only really care that my spirit is in it. Thoughts?
Well because of the good creation as a demonstration of it.
 
Yes. I'm just not sure why it is so important that our glorified bodies be made out of the molecules of our current physical bodies, especially since we know that some believers have had their physical bodies literally vaporized and that our molecules change over time ala Ship of Theseus.

Paul was aware of that difficulty in 1 Cor 15, and he didn't seem to think it was too big a challenge for God.
 
Paul was aware of that difficulty in 1 Cor 15, and he didn't seem to think it was too big a challenge for God.
Nothing is too difficult to God, to be sure, but I'm not sure that that was Dan's question. Given that the Scriptures teach that we will be raised with physical bodies that are recognizably and genuinely "us", does that entail "molecular identity"? What does molecular identity even mean, given the fact that our bodies change over time? There are some things that are clear about our resurrection body and other things that are less clear, and I'm not sure we help ourselves if we go beyond what is written on some of these topics. For example, physical bodies here on earth imply age - what "age" will we be in the resurrection? I don't have a strong opinion on the answer to that, since I don't think Scripture addresses it, though equally I don't think it is an objection to the clear doctrine of bodily resurrection.
 
Nothing is too difficult to God, to be sure, but I'm not sure that that was Dan's question. Given that the Scriptures teach that we will be raised with physical bodies that are recognizably and genuinely "us", does that entail "molecular identity"? What does molecular identity even mean, given the fact that our bodies change over time? There are some things that are clear about our resurrection body and other things that are less clear, and I'm not sure we help ourselves if we go beyond what is written on some of these topics. For example, physical bodies here on earth imply age - what "age" will we be in the resurrection? I don't have a strong opinion on the answer to that, since I don't think Scripture addresses it, though equally I don't think it is an objection to the clear doctrine of bodily resurrection.

I understand. I would say molecular identity is not necessary, since it really isn't necessary while we are alive. The Christian tradition saw the category of "substance" as unifying our properties and giving us identity throughout change. Demar's question (not necessarily Dan) is a smokescreen.
 
Yes. I'm just not sure why it is so important that our glorified bodies be made out of the molecules of our current physical bodies, especially since we know that some believers have had their physical bodies literally vaporized and that our molecules change over time ala Ship of Theseus.
I'd like to address your "Ship of Theseus" point. You're calling into question whether a body can be identified as substantially identical if it has gone through endless molecular changes.

Have you ever looked at your hand and wondered whether it's the same hand that you had when you were a child? Common sense tells you that it is. The body you have now is the same body you will die with, and the same body that will be buried. It is the same body that God has promised to raise.

I wonder, however, if the "Ship of Theseus" notion really applies at all, however. I have scars that I obtained in early childhood. There are Egyptian mummies that show evidence of skin diseases. When an ancient grave is unearthed, and bones are found within, nobody questions whether those bones ever properly belonged to any living person; indeed, they often show the marks of injuries incurred during the person's life.

As for people who were "vaporized," I'm content to leave that to God. It's certainly the exception, and not the rule. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."
 
If you are given a new body, then you have not actually resurrected: the body that you died with remains dead. Instead, it is clothing your soul with a new body that was not previously your own, even if it looks identical. The bodies that our souls separate from must be the ones that they are clothed with later (however that works out in the Lord's plan and power), even if they are transformed after that to put on immortality: else, it is not truly a resurrection.
 
This question has gigantic implications for what a human being actually is. Is our body a part of what we are as human persons, or merely a dispensable suit/shell? Consider the implications of that question for the creation of man, male and female, the fact that he sinned with his body, and that Christ, as the Last Adam, suffered bodily on the cross and was afterward raised.

I frankly don't see how any view that denies the actual resurrection of our actual bodies can't descend into Gnosticism.
 
I'm sure the ancients had little to no concept of DNA. Yet they had faith that God was able to raise the dead, and he did not need a sliver of material that materially preserved one atom of the substance of the man who died in order to do it. Today, we know more about how our bodies constantly regenerate physically, disposing of dead cells and other waste, until energy fades and we experience bodily death, the last enemy (which will be defeated).

We also know that our existence and presentation is predicated on information, not raw material. That information, coded in our cells' DNA, predates our existence. We are fully conceived persons, unique and individual, in the mind of God before we are a one-celled zygote formed from the seed of our parents. While our lives are yet potential, they still have a certain reality due to a confident predestination. If anything should relieve us of any anxiety about future reconstitution according to our design, the unfailing mind of God is it.
 
The whole question of whether or not
I'm sure the ancients had little to no concept of DNA. Yet they had faith that God was able to raise the dead, and he did not need a sliver of material that materially preserved one atom of the substance of the man who died in order to do it.

References?
 
The whole question of whether or not


References?
Reference ancient literature? Perhaps you misunderstood me? I'm not saying that some ancient person might not have thought God would use a fleck of someone's remains to raise them, but that God in fact has never needed a material relic to do his work. God commanded the light to shine out of darkness.

As a modern man, my ideas are probably different from whatever the ancient man might have conceived as possible process for bodily restoration. I am sure that God created the information about my bodily substance before the resulting formation's first material existence; and consequently though there were nothing left of me physically in the universe at the resurrection, that information (now a prior record) will bring MY one-of-a-kind body back into being again.

If I haven't understood you, or the debate properly, feel free to rephrase for my benefit (and others')...
 
Reference ancient literature? Perhaps you misunderstood me? I'm not saying that some ancient person might not have thought God would use a fleck of someone's remains to raise them, but that God in fact has never needed a material relic to do his work. God commanded the light to shine out of darkness.

As a modern man, my ideas are probably different from whatever the ancient man might have conceived as possible process for bodily restoration. I am sure that God created the information about my bodily substance before the resulting formation's first material existence; and consequently though there were nothing left of me physically in the universe at the resurrection, that information (now a prior record) will bring MY one-of-a-kind body back into being again.

If I haven't understood you, or the debate properly, feel free to rephrase for my benefit (and others')...

Sure, by references I wasn't intending to insist on specific passages, more in the broader sense of supporting evidence.

Some rambling thoughts...

It seems to me an important distinction needs to be maintained between God's work in creation and his work in re-surrection. The former is clearly revealed and even scientifically best-explained as ex nihilo, while the latter is, by definition, a re-constitution and re-vitalization of something already created. So while the idea that God doesn't need a single atom to supplement his work in resurrection is technically true - He's transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and utterly sovereign - such doesn't seem to best comport with the power and purpose he displays in the miracle of resurrection, as revealed in scripture. Basically, its the difference between He could, and He does.

I'm no physicist, but my understanding is that matter is never utterly annihilated, though in extreme conditions it can be turned into energy. As Einstein put it (paraphrasing) light/energy and matter are variable aspects of the same thing - matter is more-or-less frozen light, and light is matter (photons) on the move. In terms of the ancients (believers), the concept as revealed and conceived by them is simply dust-to-dust Gen. 3:19; Psalm 90:3 ESV; Job 34:14-15.

The Bible places an emphasis on our physical body being resurrected, unless of course we are among those who remain living when the saints meet Christ in the air 1 Thes. 4:17. The principle of re-vitalizing a pre-existent body is seen in every instance of resurrection in the Bible, not least with Christ John 20:9; Matt 28:5-7, and this is the proto-type, the firstfruit of our own resurrection 1 Cor. 15:20-23 cf. Matt. 27:52.

I believe these truths should orient our thinking. God can and will resurrect our bodies even though they are returned to dust. He will of course do the same in extraordinary circumstances where a body may be floating around as particles of light. But it will be our bodies, resurrected, reconstituted, revitalized.

1 Cor. 15:35-38, 42-43 ESV But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ... So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.​
 
Last edited:
Sure, by references I wasn't intending to insist on specific passages, more in the broader sense of supporting evidence.

Some rambling thoughts...

It seems to me an important distinction needs to be maintained between God's work in creation and his work in re-surrection. The former is clearly revealed and even scientifically best-explained as ex nihilo, while the latter is, by definition, a re-constitution and re-vitalization of something already created. So while the idea that God doesn't need a single atom to supplement his work in resurrection is technically true - He's transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and utterly sovereign - such doesn't seem to best comport with the power and purpose he displays in the miracle of resurrection, as revealed in scripture. Basically, its the difference between He could, and He does.

I'm no physicist, but my understanding is that matter is never utterly annihilated, though in extreme conditions it can be turned into energy. As Einstein put it (paraphrasing) light/energy and matter are variable aspects of the same thing - matter is more-or-less frozen light, and light is matter (photons) on the move. In terms of the ancients (believers), the concept as revealed and conceived by them is simply dust-to-dust Gen. 3:19; Psalm 90:3 ESV; Job 34:14-15.

The Bible places an emphasis on our physical body being resurrected, unless of course we are among those who remain living when the saints meet Christ in the air 1 Thes. 4:17. The principle of re-vitalizing a pre-existent body is seen in every instance of resurrection in the Bible, not least with Christ John 20:9, and this is the proto-type, the firstfruit of our own resurrection 1 Cor. 15:20-23 cf. Matt. 27:52.

I believe these truths should orient our thinking. God can and will resurrect our bodies even though they are returned to dust. He will of course do the same in extraordinary circumstances where a body may be floating around as particles of light. But it will be our bodies, resurrected, reconstituted, revitalized.

1 Cor. 15:35-38, 42-43 ESV But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ... So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.​
Technically, man was made of dust--a substance created several days earlier, and woman of a rib surgically removed from man. Yet God still says that he "created them male and female." Not sure how this fits into the resurrection argument except as a point of interest in the creation ex-nihilo and re-surrection distinction being made.
I'm interested though, for those who insist that dry bones are important: how much of the body should be preserved intact? Job wasn't too worried that worms were going to eat his flesh. His actual Job-flesh, in which he lived and breathed and sinned and suffered and hoped for his Redeemer, was going to become the substance of worms--his actual molecules were going to become worm-flesh. Those worms would be eaten by other animals, and perhaps somewhere up the food chain, a person would eat molecules once attached to Job and they would become his.
Whose will they be in the Resurrection? How many molecules once carried by saints and sinners make up part of my physical structure? It doesn't matter: the God who could of dead stones have made seed for Abraham will have no difficulty raising up everyone, regardless of how many particles they had in common each in his time, and each in their own flesh will see God.
 
Sure, by references I wasn't intending to insist on specific passages, more in the broader sense of supporting evidence.

Some rambling thoughts...

It seems to me an important distinction needs to be maintained between God's work in creation and his work in re-surrection. The former is clearly revealed and even scientifically best-explained as ex nihilo, while the latter is, by definition, a re-constitution and re-vitalization of something already created. So while the idea that God doesn't need a single atom to supplement his work in resurrection is technically true - He's transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and utterly sovereign - such doesn't seem to best comport with the power and purpose he displays in the miracle of resurrection, as revealed in scripture. Basically, its the difference between He could, and He does.

I'm no physicist, but my understanding is that matter is never utterly annihilated, though in extreme conditions it can be turned into energy. As Einstein put it (paraphrasing) light/energy and matter are variable aspects of the same thing - matter is more-or-less frozen light, and light is matter (photons) on the move. In terms of the ancients (believers), the concept as revealed and conceived by them is simply dust-to-dust Gen. 3:19; Psalm 90:3 ESV; Job 34:14-15.

The Bible places an emphasis on our physical body being resurrected, unless of course we are among those who remain living when the saints meet Christ in the air 1 Thes. 4:17. The principle of re-vitalizing a pre-existent body is seen in every instance of resurrection in the Bible, not least with Christ John 20:9; Matt 28:5-7, and this is the proto-type, the firstfruit of our own resurrection 1 Cor. 15:20-23 cf. Matt. 27:52.

I believe these truths should orient our thinking. God can and will resurrect our bodies even though they are returned to dust. He will of course do the same in extraordinary circumstances where a body may be floating around as particles of light. But it will be our bodies, resurrected, reconstituted, revitalized.

1 Cor. 15:35-38, 42-43 ESV But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ... So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.​
Phil,
I don't think we're really at odds in the discussion. Our bodies while we are using them in the present are part of the material universe with its material essence contained in them; and what they will be when raised will (with some infusion of glory from heaven) persist in a material connection. We are from the dust; only in a mediate sense are the particulars of divine creation "from nothing," God forming the observable constituents from the stuff he produced from nothing, Heb.11:3. It hasn't been my contention to argue that God will recreate our new bodies ex nihilo; only that he knows our individual frame, and won't need a molecule of our DNA to last till the end of time in order to preserve and restore who we are bodily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top