Is the bodily resurrection of humans important?

[MyCrows]

Here's a thought. What if we colonize (even small scale) the moon, or establish a large space station, and they launch their dead out into space? What if their bodies are out past Neptune by the time Christ comes?

 

[RamistThomist]

Here's a thought. What if we colonize (even small scale) the moon, or establish a large space station, and they launch their dead out into space? What if their bodies are out past Neptune by the time Christ comes?

Jesus snatches them on his way back to earth.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I have long wondered about one aspect of this topic: what about my children (and millions of others) who perished in the womb? How will they appear? When Christ appeared in His resurrected body people obviously recognized him and I can only conclude He looked as He did during His final days, or else I would think it would have been noted and recorded if He looked as He did when, say, He was a child.

But I'm not sure a record of how unglorified eyes saw a glorified body is really the place to go for an answer. It is the same with the transfiguration. How did the disciples know Moses and Elijah were Moses and Elijah whom they had obviously never seen before? (There is a slim possibility that there were images of them, but the only example of Hebrew art that I know of from that time period that included images of people is the Dura Synagogue, and while it did include images of Moses and Elijah, there is no known legacy of prior images the Dura artists could have drawn from so it is very doubtful they were accurate - probably about as accurate of images of Jesus today). I like what Calvin says: "There is no absurdity in this supposition [that it was actually Moses and Elijah]; for God has bodies and souls in his hand, and can restore the dead to life at his pleasure, whenever he sees it to be necessary. Moses and Elijah did not then rise on their own account, but in order to wait upon Christ, and with respect to the last resurrection. It will next be asked, How came the apostles to know Moses and Elijah, whom they had never seen? The answer is easy. God, who brought them forward, gave also signs and tokens by which they were enabled to know them. It was thus by an extraordinary revelation that they obtained the certain knowledge that they were Moses and Elijah." Yet note: Calvin said "restore" (my emphasis) not "resurrect," but he does then use the word "rise," and he then (in the Fr. edition) adds a reference to "the last resurrection" (italics mine). I'm not really sure what he means by the part I italicized. I do not think Moses and Elijah had to die again after the transfiguration as Lazarus or Jarius' daughter (I think it was argued somewhere else on PB that these were resuscitations, not resurrections - I searched but couldn't find the thread). Is there any other explanation other than that the disciples were seeing their glorified bodies out of time and understood who they were "by an extraordinary revelation [through which] they obtained the certain knowledge that they were Moses and Elijah"? (I know some translations of Matthew's account refer to the transfiguration as a "vision," but this is the same Greek word used both by Stephen to describe the burning bush Moses saw (a real - albeit extraordinary - event) and to describe what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus (another real event, though only Paul sensed all of it, Acts 22.9), and in the parallel version in Mark (9.4, 9.9) Christ refers to what they had "seen.")

If Christ could appear seemingly (to us operating in this created thing we call "Time") out of Time (from our perspective - i.e. before the final resurrection of the dead) in His glorified body, couldn't the same have been true for the appearance of Moses and Elijah?

All that to say I don't what my children or my wife or my sister or my parents will look like in glory, but I believe I will know them because I will have glorified eyes and will be given the knowledge I need to discern them in the same way I am sure I will know Christ when I see Him even though I don't presently know what He looks like.

 

[py3ak]

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:

http://www.rescuetheperishing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RCUS-Synod-Study-Report-on-Cremation-with-updated-recommendations-adopted-by-the-273rd-Synod.pdf

FYI, the reason this report is linked from a rather odd website is that the RCUS did not approve its publication on the denominational website.

From Abstract 2019:70
"Recommendation 7. The RCUS commends the study and use of this study paper in its churches in order to teach its members the proper means of caring for the dead as demonstrated in the Word of God, the Reformed confessions, and the history of the Christian Church."

The original wording included posting it on the website, but that was removed during discussion on the floor.

 

[Phil D.]

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.

I think getting caught up in technicalities too often distracts our thinking and too easily even takes over our conduct. I found an exception, therefore I don't have to such-and-such. Exceptio probat regulam. The way Scripture treats the subject of resurrection is both consistent with and related to the practice of burial carried out among God's people. I do think the RCUS statement goes too far in terms of binding people's conscience, but most of the points it draws on are sensible and valid, and sober-minded Christians would do well to give them serious consideration.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I think getting caught up in technicalities too often distracts our thinking and too easily even takes over our conduct. I found an exception, therefore I don't have to such-and-such. Exceptio probat regulam. The way Scripture treats the subject of resurrection is both consistent with and related to the practice of burial carried out among God's people. I do think the RCUS statement goes too far in terms of binding people's conscience, but most of the points it draws on are sensible and valid, and sober-minded Christians would do well to give them serious consideration.

If we begin to allow the notion that one form of corpse disposal is better in God's sight than another, we have to ask: better in what way? Is God more pleased with a buried Christian than a cremated one? Will the buried one obtain a better resurrection than one dumped in the ocean? What about one whose body was eaten by wild beasts in a Roman circus?
If burial is better, then perhaps a splendid mausoleum is better than a shallow, sandy grave. While we're at it, wouldn't a massive pyramid be best?
The sober-minded Christian can consider all these things and conclude that no matter what happens to his body, or where or how it is put, is completely immaterial to his relationship with God. Can the living sin against God by the evil treatment of a dead body?--sure, but the sin is theirs, and they in no wise damage the reputation or standing of the dead with what they do.

 

[Phil D.]

If we begin to allow the notion that one form of corpse disposal is better in God's sight than another, we have to ask: better in what way? Is God more pleased with a buried Christian than a cremated one? Will the buried one obtain a better resurrection than one dumped in the ocean? What about one whose body was eaten by wild beasts in a Roman circus?
If burial is better, then perhaps a splendid mausoleum is better than a shallow, sandy grave. While we're at it, wouldn't a massive pyramid be best?
The sober-minded Christian can consider all these things and conclude that no matter what happens to his body, or where or how it is put, is completely immaterial to his relationship with God. Can the living sin against God by the evil treatment of a dead body?--sure, but the sin is theirs, and they in no wise damage the reputation or standing of the dead with what they do.

You've apparently misunderstood what I've said, based on some non sequiturs in your response.

I am not saying they way one treats a dead body, or chooses to to have theirs treated, affects one's "relationship with God," or leads to a "better resurrection." Where did that even come from? I am suggesting that such does fall in the category of prudence 1 Cor. 10:23. While not essential in the way you insinuated my view posits, the way we comport ourselves does matter. Even basic things like our posture, dress, body language, while not essentials, all matter in various contexts, like in public, or especially worship. Likewise, the way we treat, or have our body treated, dead or alive, expresses values and conveys a message to those around.

Mausoleums and pyramids... seriously... The way a person is memorialized, if at all, has nothing, necessarily, to do with the treatment of the body itself, as in its mutilation or elective, active destruction.

Burial is the historical Christian sensibility. Only in recent times do we see believers taking such an indifferent, careless attitude about such things, with convenience and supposed monetary savings being the main reasons given for cremation.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

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?

I don't believe our resurrection requires the same atoms. I don't want to go as far as to say that the spirit is only important because I think that leads toward gnosticism. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which atoms he uses to rebuild your body. I don't believe we will look identical since Jesus himself was easily recognizable.

 

[VictorBravo]

1 Cor 15 has already been mentioned. I think the Corinthians were asking similar questions. Sometimes we think we can’t believe unless we understand all the details, but Paul makes it clear in 15:35 and following that God has all aspects of his universe under control.

 

[Ben Zartman]

You've apparently misunderstood what I've said, based on some non sequiturs in your response.

I am not saying they way one treats a dead body, or chooses to to have theirs treated, affects one's "relationship with God," or leads to a "better resurrection." Where did that even come from? I am suggesting that such does fall in the category of prudence 1 Cor. 10:23. While not essential in the way you insinuated my view posits, the way we comport ourselves does matter. Even basic things like our posture, dress, body language, while not essentials, all matter in various contexts, like in public, or especially worship. Likewise, the way we treat, or have our body treated, dead or alive, expresses values and conveys a message to those around.

Mausoleums and pyramids... seriously... The way a person is memorialized, if at all, has nothing, necessarily, to do with the treatment of the body itself, as in its mutilation or elective, active destruction.

Burial is the historical Christian sensibility. Only in recent times do we see believers taking such an indifferent, careless attitude about such things, with convenience and supposed monetary savings being the main reasons given for cremation.

You are judging them indifferent and careless who cannot afford or have not the opportunity to bury. Burial is expensive, and there are circumstances in which God's people find themselves today in which cremation is the only option. Why try to burden their conscience with something on which God has not regulated? "Supposed monetary savings" implies that you, at least, don't regard the financial constraints of people to be real.

 

[DanSSwing]

[Origen has entered the chat]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to pick up briefly on what Phil is driving at, there is a marked difference in today's culture about how we treat our bodies. We don't think, in some contexts, that our assigned sex matters as to how we feel about ourselves. We increasingly pierce and tattoo our bodies. Increasingly it's becoming popular to liquefy the body and treat it as a fertilizer source.

When you read Augustine, one of the arguments he presents about the folly of paganism is the manner in which they treat dead bodies.

The main point isn't to bind one's conscience, but to try to ensure that our thoughts on how our bodies are to be treated as conforming to the Word and not to the world's thoughts about our bodies. They matter. It's the reason why we are naturally incensed if we read of or witness a dead body being profaned or abused in some way.

The point isn't to prescribe, but to think carefully about our choices so that we treat the bodies of the dead with the dignity that they possess as well as the differentiated hope among Christians that we will be resurrected.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Just to pick up briefly on what Phil is driving at, there is a marked difference in today's culture about how we treat our bodies. We don't think, in some contexts, that our assigned sex matters as to how we feel about ourselves. We increasingly pierce and tattoo our bodies. Increasingly it's becoming popular to liquefy the body and treat it as a fertilizer source.

When you read Augustine, one of the arguments he presents about the folly of paganism is the manner in which they treat dead bodies.

The main point isn't to bind one's conscience, but to try to ensure that our thoughts on how our bodies are to be treated as conforming to the Word and not to the world's thoughts about our bodies. They matter. It's the reason why we are naturally incensed if we read of or witness a dead body being profaned or abused in some way.

The point isn't to prescribe, but to think carefully about our choices so that we treat the bodies of the dead with the dignity that they possess as well as the differentiated hope among Christians that we will be resurrected.

It is my belief that cremation is not undignified per se. For that matter, many burials have been undignified and insulting to the families of the dead.
It is my argument that God has NOT prescribed how the dead are to be disposed of, but that He has promised to raise everyone at the last day, in the same body as they had when alive and in which they died. He does not need any remains to do that.

To say that something is better, that God has not stated is better, is to go beyond Scripture. To tell people, "Well, God hasn't regulated on this, but you SHOULD bury rather than cremate," is. to. go. beyond. scripture.

To equate cremation with gender surgeries and tattoos is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To equate cremation with gender surgeries and tattoos is comparing apples to oranges.

I didn't "equate" gender confusion and tattoos to cremation. What I noted is that we are in a culture that increasingly devalues the body and our burial practices in the culture reflect the overall zeitgeist.

There are GNC arguments that relate to non-discursive notions as to why Christians have not historically burned the dead but buried them.

I hope, if you have kids, that you're able to train them to think beyond a "chapter and verse" command that they are or are not permitted to do certain things. You'll find it difficult to argue, for instance, why they ought not to have piercings all over their face or any number of things that deal with the body.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I didn't "equate" gender confusion and tattoos to cremation. What I noted is that we are in a culture that increasingly devalues the body and our burial practices in the culture reflect the overall zeitgeist.

There are GNC arguments that relate to non-discursive notions as to why Christians have not historically burned the dead but buried them.

I hope, if you have kids, that you're able to train them to think beyond a "chapter and verse" command that they are or are not permitted to do certain things. You'll find it difficult to argue, for instance, why they ought not to have piercings all over their face or any number of things that deal with the body.

Well, I think I've made my point clear: I believe that cremation or burial is a matter indifferent, and either can be done decently and respectfully or otherwise, and neither is an affront to God.

Tattoos and piercings are perhaps a subject for another thread, though I see no difference between ear piercings and eyebrow or nose or navel--if you're making a hole in your ear, why not elsewhere? Be comforted though--I have one wife and three daughters, and none of them is inclined toward tattoos or piercings. I have taught then not to desire such things, not because they would be a sin, but because they are impractical and serve little purpose.