In this chapter we will conclude our sub series on the question of whether there will be male and female bodies in the resurrection of the saints. We will look further into the meaning and ramifications of Galatians 3: 28 in this chapter and observe what some other bible teachers have said on that verse and that question. Following this chapter we will begin a look at what the scriptures teach about the resurrection bodies of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
Following that we will look at some other aspects of life in the eternal ages that follow the resurrection of saints at the second coming of Christ. We will look at how the millennial age will see the full realization of the new covenant and its effects on the ongoing race. We will also look at what is meant by "the powers of the world to come" (Heb. 6: 5) and look at the kinds of power and supernatural gifts that the resurrected and glorified saints will possess. We will also discuss the psychological changes and transformation of nature that must exist in order to insure that there will be no longer any possibility of sin or losing eternal life and salvation, and what is integral to that question, which is to what extent people will have "free will." We will then close this long book with an examination of some other questions that people have about life in eternity.
Wrote one commentator on Galatians 3: 28 (emphasis mine):
"Many interpreters have read 3:28 as if Paul had written “you are all equal in Christ.” Many have considered 3:28 a “Magna Carta” for a new humanity in which the differences between men and women, slave and free, and Jew and Greek are abolished. Paul the apocalyptic thinker envisions a new age in Christ and his Spirit which invades and abolishes the distinctions of “the present evil age” (1:4). Nevertheless, that change of the eras is not yet fully realized. An “already–not yet” tension characterizes Paul’s thought. Where exactly is the emphasis to be placed? On the “already” side of the equation or on the “not yet”? In 3:28 the apostle is stressing the state of affairs that exists now in Christ. Thus the verse closes “you are all one in Christ”—present tense. Baptized believers are already enjoying these benefits." (Dr. A. Andrew Das commentary - See here)
This commentary alludes to the view which I have been upholding. The elimination of distinctions between male and female, Jew and Greek, bond or free, is not yet fully realized. That equality is in some respects already begun in miniature, but the full realization of that "Magna Carta for a new humanity" is to be realized in the resurrection of the righteous and in the coming of the new heavens and earth.
We see this "already-not yet" thought in several instances in the writings of the Apostle Paul. We see it in the idea of oneness, as we have seen. We see it also in the work of perfection of believers. We see it also in enjoyment of the kingdom of God or Heaven, where some experience of that kingdom is a present reality for believers but yet the full experience of it is yet future. An example of this is in these words of the Apostle John:
"Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." (I John 3: 2 nkjv)
When a person believes in Christ and is born of God, he at that time becomes made in the likeness of Christ or God likeness. Yet, this likeness is not yet complete, for that awaits the apocalypse (revelation) of Christ, his second coming.
Also, children of God begin their glorification when they are born again, and it continues to increase as they are further sanctified and live the Christian life and yet full glorification comes when the saints are resurrected. (See II Cor. 3: 18)
Wrote one writer (See here):
"...some early Christians described a resurrected flesh that lacks sexual desires and is incapable of sexual practices such as intercourse and reproduction.
The question about how resurrected bodies will differ from mortal bodies concerns sexuality. In brief, we will see how for early Christians, sexual acts and desires, and sexual reproduction did not have any place in the resurrection. This difference between the mortal and resurrected spheres produced a set of problems for thinking about and describing not only the relationship between resurrected bodies and sexuality, but also the place of sexuality in mortality. What does it mean to speak of a flesh that does not desire and is incapable of any sexuality? How are sexuality and sexual difference related, if at all, in resurrected bodies? If there is no sexuality, on what basis is sexual difference established?" (“Carnal Resurrection: Sexuality and Sexual Difference in Early Christianity” A dissertation presented by Taylor Grant Petrey; page 4)
So, the question we have been examining about whether resurrected saints will still be male and female or have genitalia is not a new or novel question but has been contemplated and discussed for centuries. I doubt, however, that the average Christian has spent much time investigating this question. Perhaps even many bible teachers, who are not novices, have studied the question.
Petrey also writes:
"Chapter two discusses Ps. Justin Martyr, who was engaged in a dispute with another set of Christians who denied the resurrection of the flesh, specifically because such a resurrection entailed the resurrection of the genitals. As evidence, these rival Christians pointed to Jesus’ saying that “in the resurrection there shall be neither marrying nor giving in marriage” (Mark 12:18`23, and par.). Ps. Justin argues in favor of the resurrection of the flesh, including the genitals, but insists that these “parts” will be free from sexual desires. He points to the resurrected flesh, including the genitals, as the model proving that it is possible to live a virginal life. He defends morphological sexual difference as a key aspect to validating virginity." (pg. 31)
There is no evidence that the resurrected bodies (what Martyr called "flesh") will have male and female body parts. The only argument for it is to say that it is necessary to retain those distinctions in order for a saint to remain the same person. But, this argument has little weight, as we have previously shown.
Petrey also writes:
"As for the content of this text, we shall see that Ps. Justin argues for the resurrection of the flesh (τῆς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν) with all of its “parts,” specifically including the genitals, against some Christians who imagined a resurrection from the flesh, explicitly without the genitals. While all sides agreed that the resurrection would occur, they disagreed about the nature of the resurrection. In this dispute, rival Christian teachings about the resurrection posit different bodies, ones in which sexual difference, sexual desires, and reproduction were central points of debate. Sexual difference is not assumed to be a natural, biological given, but something that must be argued for as something that is essential to one’s identity in resurrected form. Every level of defining the resurrected body, including the substance, the morphology, and the physiology or functions of the body, was in dispute. We shall see that Ps. Justin’s defense of the resurrection of the genitals comes not in the service of a dyadic male female binary as self evident, but rather another alternative entirely of dimorphic bodies which lack (or are free from) reproductive capacities." (Pgs. 36-37)
That is a good summary of the early Christian debate on our question. Again, I lean strongly to the view that the resurrected body of a saint will not have all the parts and characteristics of the body he or she had while they lived on earth. We have already seen how they will not have stomachs, and in some sense not have flesh and blood as they did.
Petrey also writes:
"The problem with the “parts” is central, so that Ps. Justin reports that the objection to the rising of the “whole” person is that it would entail the rising of the genitals as well." (pg. 40)
But, we have overthrown this reasoning by Justin Martyr. Identity does not entail that the resurrected body be in every respect the same as the natural body. But, of this we will have more to say in the next few chapters.
Petrey also writes:
"The term “parts” functions metonymically here to refer to the genitals, but this notion of the centrality of the “parts” is central to the other thinkers discussed in later chapters as well. Ps. Justin suggests that his opponents say that the resurrected body will not have “parts and portions,” and in this way would lack not only sexuality, but also any morphological markers of sexual difference. In this view, to be “like angels” is to transcend sexual differences marked on bodies." (pg. 41)
The debate over what "parts" of the natural body become part of the spiritual body is the crux of the matter. If we can show how one part is missing from the glorified body, then the whole thesis of Justin and those of his view is overthrown. A person can miss a body part and still be the same person. We have people today who are without certain limbs and organs but this does not mean that they are not the same person. A butterfly comes from a caterpillar but it does not look at all alike nor have the same body parts but it is the same creature, a connection between the two forms of butterfly and caterpillar existing.
Petrey also writes:
"The connection between the lack of sexuality and the elimination of differences between males and females was one made by other early Christians too." (pg. 41)
So, this debate is not new. It may be new to many of our readers, but it is not a novel question. Further, it is one that many Christians have been curious about.
Petrey also writes:
"Ps. Justin stakes their entire argument for the resurrection of the flesh on the salvation of the genitals. In contrast, his opponents argue that if the genitals will be resurrected, then resurrected bodies would procreate, which is absurd in their view since they associate reproduction with sinful desire and death. For them, the “whole” resurrected body would be raised with its parts and their teleological functions, which seems unsuitable. Just as, for instance, an eye is for seeing, and a nose for smelling, the opponents insist that the genitals are for procreating. For this reason, they do not consider the genitals to take part in the future resurrection." (pg. 44)
So, why it is so important to Justin that the resurrection of the bodies, or the flesh, have the genitals? "The salvation of the genitals"? That is an usual way to express the view of Justin! Notice the argument that asks why are genitals preserved if they serve no purpose and are actually a hindrance to joy?
Petrey also writes:
"Ps. Justin characterizes his opponents as rejecting the resurrection of the flesh because the flesh is problematically bound up with sexuality, including desires and reproduction. Rather than defend desires and reproduction as part of God’s created order, or as ordained for mortality, Ps. Justin actually shares his opponents’ negative views of sexuality, but not their vision of the angelic body lacking sexual difference. He consistently praises models of those who are free from desires and reproduction, such as virgins. Virgins exemplify the highest values with respect to sexuality." (pg. 44)
Are genital parts essential to being "flesh"? As we will see, the apostle Paul says that there are all kinds of "flesh." (See I Cor. 15: 39-40) Both the caterpillar and the butterfly are flesh, or physical bodies, and yet they do not look anything alike.
Petrey also writes:
"Ps. Justin looks to mules, who like virgins, do not reproduce despite possessing genitals as examples of what resurrected bodies will be like." (pg. 46)
So, Justin thinks that resurrected saints will be like mules? That they will have genitalia that they cannot use? I don't see why this view is so attractive to Justin and others.
Under "Conclusion" Petrey wrote:
"In both Ps. Justin and his representation of his opponents’ materializations of the resurrected body, the human being is depicted as desexualized. For their views of the non sexual resurrected body, they turn to the saying of Jesus that “in the resurrection there shall be neither marrying nor giving in marriage.” What they disagree on is what “parts” constitute the human being who shall be raised. In his emphasis on the resurrection the flesh as a resurrection of the “whole” person including the genitals, Ps. Justin’s definition of the “whole” is necessarily selective because it excludes sexuality. For Ps. Justin, the resurrected body consists of flesh, but a flesh that is quite different from the flesh that his opponents imagine. They imagine a flesh that is full of weakness, imperfections, and desire. Such a substance is not possibly worthy of the heavenly realm. Ps. Justin agrees with this evaluation of sexuality, especially desire and reproduction, as a problem that impedes salvation. Yet, he is committed to the salvation of the flesh. As a solution, he constructs a flesh without desire that is not only characteristic of the resurrection, but also which can also be achieved “before the coming age.” (pg. 65-66)
It may be true that resurrected saints will have all their male and female parts, but I don't think so for the several reasons stated in this current section of chapters. I rather believe that the resurrected saints will be neither strictly male nor female. Some have pointed out that Adam had genitals surely before he had Eve as his wife. But, surely it was in anticipation of his having a wife. It could also be said that Adam also had Eve the female as part of him prior to her being taken from him. So we read:
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (I Cor. 11: 8-12 kjv)
In the above text Paul uses two words that mean a male, being "aner" and "andros." He uses them interchangeably. The female was once part of the male and not vise versa.
Besides Petrey, another writer who has examined the history of the debate on this question may be seen in the treatise "The Monastic Ideal and the Glorified/Spiritual Resurrection Body: An Exercise in Speculative Theology" by Aaron Raverty (See here). He writes (emphasis mine):
"The nature of glorified spiritual body that human beings will take on (according to Christian tradition) in their post resurrection existence remains a
fascinating mystery. The meager biblical data suggest that our biological integrity will be maintained insofar as we will still be recognizable in terms of our previous earthly identity, but that we will also be changed. Jesus himself was mysteriously transformed after his resurrection, and he was not always immediately recognizable even to his closest followers (John 20:14; 21:4; Luke 24:16, 37). Can we speculate about the ultimate nature of glorified, spiritual, post resurrection bodies by extrapolating from our current human biological condition? I believe we can gain some insight into our post resurrection bodies by examining the gendered agency
of the monastic life."
The celibate or monastic life does in some respects picture that condition of resurrected saints as I have previously observed. However, affirming this does not equate to retaining the male and female reproductive parts.
Citing Luis Ladaria, the same writer says:
"According to Tertullian, “[genitals] will have no function in the resurrection, but they will survive for the sake of beauty.”
Again, I find that hard to believe for the reasons I have already mentioned. I do not believe, per scripture inference and deduction, that the resurrected saints will have body parts that serve no function.
Raverty says, citing Bynum:
"It is noteworthy that early Christian commentators provided little reflection on the gendered nature of the resurrection body. “With the partial exception of Jerome . . .
the most materialistic of fourth and fifth century writers on bodily resurrection do not focus on maintaining distinctions
owing to gender . . .” On the face of it, why should eschatological gender distinctions of masculinity and femininity
divide monastic agents at all?"
In the next chapter we will begin a more detailed look at the nature of the resurrected and glorified bodies of the saints.
No comments:
Post a Comment