Yesterday evening I attended a lecture by Candida R. Moss, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame. She spoke at the University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas, on the subject, “Heavenly Bodies: What does it Mean to be Resurrected from the Dead?” I had high expectations, because I have heard nothing but positive reviews of her scholarship, but this talk proved to be more insightful and challenging than I had imagined. My wife attended with me, and while she has a general interest in something like hypothetical ideas about doctrines like the resurrection, she has connected her Christianity closer to the earthy implications of the Gospel for social action and relationships. Afterward, she mentioned to me how she was both impressed by Moss’ lecture as well as challenged by it. I felt the same way. Moss was able to address the ethereal and the earthy making both angles relevant.
Moss began by noting that while the Creeds, the writings of the early Church, and the Jesus tradition talk about resurrection, there is little exploration into the nature of resurrected bodies. The assertion that we will have resurrected bodies, combined with the lack of details about those bodies, opened the door for much speculation. Often Christian ideas about the resurrected body have been influenced by the immediate cultural context of the writer. For example, the Gospel of Thomas 114 reads, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.'” Moss emphasized that this isn’t pure, baseless misogyny, but rather it is based on the Graeco-Roman “science” of the day, where the body of a woman is seen as a necessary deformation. The perfect body is that of a man. A woman’s body is inferior. When some early Christians talked about the resurrected body it didn’t make sense to depict it as feminine. How could a perfect, resurrected body be feminine? It must be that women who are resurrected are made whole, given masculine bodies.
Moss addressed how there was a Greek idea that the shape of a person existed after their body decayed. In some literature characteristics of the body remained true to this shape. So if someone was born blind, their shape in the afterlife would be blind, or if someone had been hacked to pieced in war, well, their afterlife will be problematic. Even some early thinkers feared things like being cremated. The body needed to be buried intact, with the bones in place, lest this impact the body of the person in the afterlife.
Where a shift occurs is places like 2 Maccabees 7:10-11, a passage about Jewish martyrs under the the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes where one martyr is remembered as dying defiantly, “After him, they tortured the third, who on being asked for his tongue promptly thrust it out and boldly held out his hands, courageously saying, ‘Heaven gave me these limbs; for the sake of his laws I have no concern for them; from him I hope to receive them again.'” The idea here is that even if tortured, dismembered, or torn apart, God was powerful enough to reconstitute the human body. God could restore perfection.
This marked a major change since the Hebrew Scripture seem to foreshadow concepts about resurrection, but there isn’t as much said about the idea as what we find from later interpreters. We have passages such as Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 37, and others. Then we see views of the resurrection like that expressed in 2 Maccabees. Christianity comes along, and we see in places like 1 Corinthians 15, written by Paul, the basic Christian understanding of resurrection: resurrected bodies will be like Christ’s, the first to resurrect; resurrected bodies will not be “flesh and blood”, i.e., sustained naturally as present bodies; resurrected bodies will have continuation with the old body and discontinuation, like a seed to a plant; resurrected bodies will be imperishable, immoratal, spiritual. Moss noted that Paul is not describing a “soul”. Embodiment is present here. When Paul speaks of the body being spiritual this doesn’t deny physicality, but it does tell us that the future body is different from the present body. We cannot know the “material” of a spiritual body.
Since Paul was vague, many throughout the history of Christianity have provided their ideal images of the body. Dr. Moss showed us this picture from San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy, where resurrected women are presented in this sixth century mosaic as equestrian women, all very light skinned.
As you can see, all the women are the same. All share the clothing of the upper class. All are light skinned because upper class women were afforded the opportunity to lounge inside rather than work outside. The idea here is that this is the pinnacle of beauty in this life, so it must foreshadow beauty in the afterlife.
Where Moss made it most interesting is when she shifted the discussion to disabilities. She emphasized that in the Jesus tradition part of the coming Kingdom of God was the removal of blindness, lame limbs, and other infirmities. Moss asked if our modern understanding of resurrected bodies without infirmities is similar to ideas like the Gospel of Thomas where a perfect resurrected body must be male, or that of the creator(s) of this mosaic where if feminine, it is upper class, light skinned, equestrian bodies. While the Gospels and the Book of Acts show healing as part of the Kingdom, sometimes we make the mistake of telling people with infirmities that their bodies are somehow further from resurrected bodies than our own. We perpetuate the idea that some bodies on earth are more like resurrected bodies than other bodies on earth. How do we know this though? Might resurrected bodies be something quite unique?
Moss postulated that infirmities may be part of our identity. Christians have worried about the height, the skin color, the shape, the age, and other features of the resurrected body. Some images of the resurrected body are very muscular, very fit, but are our ideals of the body true representations of the resurrected body? If not, is it possible that someone blind on earth, or someone with a mental health issue on earth, might take that with them into their resurrected body, but because the nature of bodies has changed something like blindness doesn’t prevent true sight, and what was seen as a mental health defect in this age is proven to be something unique and beautiful in the age to come?
At the end Moss asked four questions for our consideration:
(1) What is disability? She noted that impairment isn’t the same as disability. Disability is caused by exterior circumstances. Someone may be impaired in their ability to walk, but the disability comes when buildings are accessible only for the able bodied. Another example she gave is that height is generally considered good, but it becomes a disability of sort in a commercial flight. Could it be that in the age to come an infirmity like blindness isn’t a negative, because the circumstances in the age to come prevent blind eyes from being disabled, and there is a “sight” that goes beyond what is provided by the eyes?
(2) What is the context for disability in heaven (or the age to come)?
(3) How does heaven work (or the new creation)? Do we need all our faculties from this age to function in that age?
(4) Would we be ourselves without our impairments?
Moss closed her lecture by noting how the Gospel of Luke 24:38-39 and the Gospel of John 20:26-27 depict Jesus as retaining his wounds. In fact, he is identified by things like breaking the bread, and showing his wounds, lest he wouldn’t have been recognized. Maybe impairments are part of our identity, even in resurrected bodies, but impairments don’t “disable” us in the age to come?
__________
For friends and readers in Berkeley and San Francisco, California, or Washington, D.C., these are some upcoming lectures you may want to attend:
3/12 “The Myth of Persecution,” 7:30pm, Berkeley Arts and Letters@First Congregational Church of Berkeley, Calif.
3/13 “The Myth of Persecution,” 6pm, Commonwealth Club Gold Room, San Francisco.
3/21 “You’re Such a Martyr!”: The History and Controversy of Persecution in the Early Church, Washington National Cathedral, 7:30pm.
Also, for those interested in further reading on disabilities and Christian theology, Moss edited a book with Jeremy Schipper titled Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. Also, Amos Yong’s The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God was on sale at the event (my wife purchased a copy), so I presume this is an endorsement of the work!
the archives near Emmaus 
Fascinating. Thanks for giving us the gist of this talk.
Thanks for this, Brian.
I would like to direct you to the work of Dr. Amos Yong in his important contribution to this field, “Theology and Down Syndrome.” Yong also worked with a former professor of mine, Steven M. Fettke. Dr. Fettke has a son with severe autism and has written out of that particular context.
Craig
You’re welcome!
Daniel
Amos Yong’s The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God was being sold there last night. My wife purchased a copy.
I’m jealous. Ill manage this weakness though …
Thanks for the summary Brian. Thorough, as always. I think most Christians (with “traditional” assumptions re. revelation and reliability of Scripture) come up with unwarranted assumptions about resurrection “bodies” and even about resurrection itself from the Gospel/Acts accounts of Jesus’ appearances to the disciples. These are seriously diverse, sometimes in conflict, and show, to me, clear signs of being expanded and embellished from what were probably originally individual and/or group visionary experiences. This fits well with Paul’s testimony from the lore HE “inherited” (I Cor. 15) and his personal visionary experience (I Cor. 15, elsewhere). Of course his account is the earliest written one we have re. resurrection “appearances”, and they don’t seem to tell us much about actual resurrection.
Another observation is that earlier Hebrew Scripture, Intertestamental lit, and the NT all seem to convey a mixed (lack of consensus or specificity) view of resurrection and some form of expected “return” of certain people (Elijah particularly), apparently in typical bodily form. Some time ago, on a cple occasions, I read a few studies by scholars on the Bible and early Fathers as to reincarnation. As I recall, not much to work from, either to confirm or deny whether reincarnation may have been an acceptable or perhaps even common view among Jews. And I recall that a recent post (Feb. 4) by Scot McKnight re. Pharisees, listed one Pharisee view, per Josephus that “…the soul of the good alone passes into another body while the soul of the wicked suffer eternal punishment…” Now, this may have been thought of as a “resurrected body” but I’d think not, as the Pharisees expected a judgment day and resurrection of bodies at that time. Anyway, there ARE some hints even in the NT that one form or another of “reincarnation” (tho not of the typical “Eastern” version) may have been at least held open.
I’d couple that with what you cited by Dr. Moss re. common views of a carry-over of bodily form to resurrection form. I’ll now relate that to a significant and growing body of empirical evidences that seem now to approach solid scientific proof (though not quite so in not yet being significantly replicated by multiple independent studies). The more scientific lines of evidence are not widely publicized (for dubious reasons of bias, etc.) as much as the single or few-case studies of supposed past lives corroborated historically and such. (The “Bridey Murphy” case being an early famous one.)
There are additional and probably stronger lines of evidence, especially when they are taken together. One of them, developed initially by Dr. Ian Stevenson of U. of Virginia, involves the carry-over of unique and often unusual body markings presumably carried over from one lifetime into another. Often this involved trauma at the time of death, and/or the cause of death (gunshot, stab wound, etc.). But it goes further, including an apparent carry-over of certain appearance features that can be scientifically measured and compared and do not change with aging, weight changes, etc. (facial bone structure, e.g.). This all is written up in detail in at least one book, the author of which I know some and highly respect for his acumen, his character, care of thought, etc. The book is “The Soul Genome” by Paul Von Ward.
I mention this for its correspondence to some of the concepts Dr. Moss shared with you all. Our common intuition re. the importance and relative “permanence” of our body structures, in some form, though not necessarily a fully “set” form, may actually have some basis in the real nature of bodily existence relative to “soul” or “spirit” existence. Additionally, it is significant, I believe, that the Bible really does NOT rule out the possibility of some kind of reincarnation. At the same time I recognize that for most of Xn history the orthodox position on both resurrection and on atonement and judgment based on a single human lifetime has trumped the other religions’ input as well as (especially in the late-20th century to present) the scientific indicators that reincarnation, in some form, may well be a common (if not automatic) occurrence. I think that is an unfortunate mis-weighing of the complex evidences, growing out of supposedly “systematic” theology. I strongly believe Xn theologians (and all others) should NOT continue discounting reincarnation as though it had really little if anything to substantiate it. That is no longer the case.
Howard
Indeed, resurrection accounts are diverse. There are aspects that connect though. It seems quite evident to me that there is a sense that the resurrected body is not a ghost, nor a disembodied existence, so continuation must be emphasized, but it is superior to the old body, so discontinuation exist as well. Personally, I see no reason to drag reincarnation into the category of resurrection. While there are similarities these similarities are not very helpful when compared to the dissimilarities. If reincarnation is a reality then talk about resurrection is quite silly, even speaking of Jesus’ resurrection as unique in any way, or Jesus’ person being preserved, or there being an eschatological preview inherent in Jesus’ resurrection. For comparative religious studies it may be somewhat interesting, but attempts to synthesize the two seem like a waste of time to me. If there is resurrection, then it says something about human existence and the future. If there is reincarnation it says very different things.
Brian
I agree with what you are saying about the relation of reincarnation to resurrection. In the broader “worldview” or spiritual cosmology picture, they do not seem to be able to co-exist. I think I poorly conveyed that in my comment. Indeed, it illustrates the fairly clear difference in Jewish/Christian “linear” views of human/divine history and the “cyclical” views which lack the sense of an “end point” or “culmination” in a final state. I had to think through that in depth, and look at many aspects of evidence, look through additional “portals” than my Western/orthodox Christian upbringing and education had brought me (done primarily 20-15 years ago, though ongoing still). I had to ponder a lot as to whether I could still legitimately call myself Christian if I favored reincarnation over various resurrection concepts, and eventually decided I could (and would)….
And I think I have some good company in at least certain Process Theology Christians (almost certainly, David R. Griffin, who I highly respect personally and academically) who do the same. For what it is worth, you or others might find interest in Griffin’s “Parapsychology, Philosophy and Spirituality”, in which he takes a lengthy chapter considering the evidences pro/con on reincarnation (prior to some of the later work, by Von Ward and others I referenced). Note this book is written mainly for a non-religious scientific-oriented audience rather than an orthodox Christian one, who he more focuses on in other books. So his “apologetic” is toward them mainly, but the book is still an incredible and important read for serious students of science, the Bible and theology (not for the casual lay reader in most cases). Griffin, here and elsewhere, is a master at understanding and analyzing/describing major paradigms and helping tweak them (as Process overall does) toward something more workable than any of the existing inadequate models.
One thing that came to mind reading your summary is “Hasn’t some type of resurrection already happened already?” based on the idea that just as we abode in death in Christ’s death, we abide in his resurrection in His resurrection.
Isn’t baptism ‘resurrection’ as the new life in the Spirt [Rom 7:6]? (The idea being that since one has died, all have died [2 Cor 5:14] and as He rose, so must we all consider ourselves resurrected in new life, alive to God [Rom 6:11]. If we died to the law (daily) in Christ’s death so that we might live in God ([Gal 2:19]).
If we die to self (daily), in some sense, as spirit and flesh struggle against each other, doesn’t that mean we are also being ‘resurrected daily‘ through sanctification? There seems to be room enough to make the argument Christian living is resurrection (spiritual rather than bodily – though).
The question “ How can we who died still live in sin?” [Rom 6:2] seem to be a resurrection question. More clear, the claim that ‘as we’ve been united with Him in death, so are we united with him in resurrection‘ ([Rom 6:5]) seems to be more a baptismal reference than a bodily resurrection reference since that whole argument is contrasting mortal bodies with spiritual life. Our body is not what is made in the image of God otherwise baptism would be about cleaning dirt.
Side question about Greek: in [2 Tim 2:11], what is the sense of the Greek tense in ‘also live with him’?)
When we speak of resurrection, it seems reasonable to suggest we be clear about what resurrection we are speaking about. It’s not clear bodily resurrection is emphasised at the expense of spiritual resurrection. If we immerse ourselves in the blood of Christ yet while we live (being spiritually resurrected), it seems we pre-empt the final judgement by accepting God’s scrutiny while we live (through repentance). Final judgement is really the only thing bodily resurrection prepares us for .. and if our spirit has already been sanctified before God while we live, even then it the important resurrection has already taken place.
Thoughts?
Howard
Personally, I think reincarnation is terrifying. It lacks eschatological perspective, unless escaping the cycles of rebirth it eschatology, and it offers no great hope than to come back to this particular mode of existence, or worse. Many westerners have been quick to grab reincarnation, because for us, who live relatively comfortable lives, the thought of another “go-at-it” isn’t too bad an idea. For most people the goal was to escape. The reincarnation was not a positive thing, it was something to avoid if possible. I may be a western Christian seeing the world through western eyes, but I remain far more invested in the near eastern idea of resurrection that was gifted to us than a westernized baptizing of reincarnation that only benefits those whose present existence has been somewhat enjoyable.
Andrew
There is definitely the idea that resurrection has begun. In 2 Cor. 4.13ff., there is this idea that having the Spirit allows out inner person to be renewed even as our outer person perishes. In 1 Cor. 15.42ff., there seems to be this idea that the body will be restored because the spiritual inner person has been restored. In other words, the outer person “catches up to” the inner person, so that a redeemed inner person is provided with a redeemed outer person. Romans 8’s language about having the Spirit of God as a guarantee for resurrection like Christ resurrected leads me to think that Paul saw the human spirit as united with the divine Spirit so that the human spirit is preserved in order to be reunited with a spirit-animated body (contrasted with a “flesh and blood” animated body).
As to whether or not this is for judgment alone? I think judgment, but more. I understand Romans 8:19-25 as presenting a restored physical cosmos. So we need a restored physical body to participate. That said, both the restored cosmos and the restored body share continuation with the old cosmos and old body and discontinuation. I like to think of new creation as something better than the present creation, but nothing less than the present creation.
Actually Brian, I agree with you pretty well again…. In at least its most popular (or popularized) forms, reincarnation is NOT a very happy prospect, at least for much of the world. I tried to use language that referred to only the basic idea and cited a bit of the relevant research, as I myself observe these and numerous other “problems” with a too-ready or unthinking acceptance of reincarnation, and without putting appropriate “boundaries” around what we reasonably can infer and what has often been made of it via speculation, religious assumptions, etc. I certainly didn’t get there quickly or easily myself, and I still seek further corroboration of even basic concepts. (I see no reason whatever to buy “transmigration” as in from animal to human bodies or vice-versa, e.g., although I can’t say I can fully rule it out as never happening either.)
Now the following is not evidence FOR reincarnation, but it is something I’ve noted and studied a bit (not great depth) which moderates a bit our “Western” eschatological perspectives; I think somewhat undercutting our typical relative confidence that “history is going somewhere” (good, ultimately) under the knowledge and control of God, per God’s pre-established plan. It is that our human record-keeping has trouble surviving the ages and likely earth catastrophes which hit probably every several thousand or tens-of-thousands of years (cf. ice ages, biblical/multiple-culture acct’s of massive flooding, Plato re. Atlantis, civilized ruins well under sea level, etc., etc.). What is left to us is frustratingly minimal and much of THAT suppressed or censored before getting into “establishment” academia for broad study and publicity (cf. the lengthy “Forbidden Archaeology” or its shorter, later version, by Michael Cremo, for one of many resources). But enough survives to give a definite picture of humanity and CIVILIZATIONS having “extreme antiquity” (way beyond the typically advertised 6-10K years, which happens to conveniently coincide with Ussher’s 6K since Adam and Eve plus a few K often allowed by Genesis literalists now-a-days).
I’m not feeling offended Brian, as I’d not expect you or anyone to assume credible status for my views, but I do want to “support”, in a general sense, my positions a bit (such as on reincarnation as above): I have not moved from being well-versed in and highly committed to Christian orthodoxy, “standard” science, mainstream archaeology/anthropology and related “orthodoxies” without first discovering and multiply-analyzing LOTS of data which END UP presenting the high likelihood of other (alternate) models better making sense of the range of data, and yet being consistent with “common sense” psychology, philosophy, etc., along with what resonates on a yet deeper level of trust in God, providing me (and others) with a joyful, assured outlook for this life and beyond. When I’ve not had the chance to lay out that data a bit, document sources that are credible, etc., I realize it is hard to fathom or extrapolate what I’m getting at or why I think what I do. And I don’t consider myself particularly brilliant — I actually KNOW I’m not via testing, slow reading speed, etc… just curious and persistent to keep finding better “answers”. (But natural analytic skills ARE a help, and then having developed them.)
That people are working on a theology of “disability” is very significant and God honoring. And I note this on a personal level as I am hearing impaired (which in a lot of ways is an “invisible” “disability.” Thanks for posting! I want to I need to do some more reading on this.
I don’t know if you’ve seen it already, but Suzanne McCarthy at BLT (see pingback link above your comment) has done two posts on a theology of disability since I wrote this post. I plan on posting links to here series on Monday afternoon.
For now: http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2013/02/09/a-theology-of-disability/ , http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2013/02/09/a-theology-of-disability-part-2/ , http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2013/02/10/a-theology-of-disability-jean-vanier/
If you’re in the Fort Worth area and are interested in disability criticism and biblical studies, Jeremy Schipper will be speaking at Brite Divinity School on the 21st. Professor Moss helped him write a book called Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. Here is the link to the event:
http://www.brite.tcu.edu/programs.asp?BriteProgram=ministersweek