A lot of
Christians use the phrase "die and go to heaven." Though it may hold
some truth, it is a misleading phrase. Why? Because the only concrete clue we
have about our future is the first-fruits of our
resurrection: the raised body of Jesus. And Jesus certainly did not “die and go
to heaven.” If he didn’t, why should we expect to? The fact of the matter is,
Jesus died and went to hell. Now he went to hell for us, but that does not mean
we just die and flitter off as disembodied souls. No. We die and are raised
like him. So although we may consciously experience our heavenly future
immediately, the fact of the matter is that our hope lies in the restoration of
our bodies, not just in our souls going to heaven after we die.
If there is one consistent thing across the resurrection accounts, it is that
the post-Easter Jesus had a body, and it was his body, the same
body that had died. Was it changed? Certainly. It was
a transformed and glorified body. That’s what makes it good news for
us. But this transformation is a predicate of his same body. The resurrection
is not some replacement of our identity or a leaving behind of this life
altogether. If so, then it wouldn’t really be us who are experiencing it. The
resurrection is the transformation of this life. That’s what makes it good news
for us.
Of course, the phrase “die and go to heaven” does not necessarily need to be
abandoned. That is the bottom line. But it helps to be complemented by the phrase,
“die and yet will be raised like him.” Such speech reminds us that we are not
just imprisoned souls awaiting the end of this embodied life. Rather, we are
embodied souls awaiting the redemption of all things, including our own bodies.
What implications does this have for how we relate to our bodies?
Once we have retrieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, how do we
continue to speak coherently about the “soul”?
Am I missing something major in this account?
At 10:01 AM, September 15, 2005, Amanda said...
“die and yet will be
raised like him.”
I like that addition.
When I was little, my biggest question was, "What age will I be in
heaven?" (to which a nervous Sunday school teacher
would reply, "Uh...whatever age you were the happiest at.")
The question on my mind now is, if Jesus is resurrected with earthly scars,
will we too bear marks of pain of earth? Will crippled feet still look
crippled? Will we be relieved from pain but still bear the marks?
If only my Sunday school teacher were here now to say, "Uh...whatever
stage you were the healthiest at." :)
At 10:33 AM, September 15, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
You were the little girl who always stumped the sunday school teacher, weren't
you?!
Some inconclusive thoughts:
Age presupposes two things which will be transformed in the eschaton:
corruption and time. If we will have incorruptible bodies (I Cor 15), then they will not "age". If our time
will be characterized by eternal life, then we will not pass through ages and aeons, though we will remain time conscious in some sense
as embodied creatures.
It is crucial to remember that what is resurrected is our whole earthly life
transformed anew. So we won't be raised at a certain stage (last time, best
time, worst time, conversion time). Rather, our whole life histories will be
raised anew in the presence of God. This is how I understand it at least.
As for scars, we may very well bare the marks of our former corruption (other
wise we wouldn't be ourselves), but these marks will no longer impede our full
incorruptible life. It seems to be that this is how the scars function for
post-Easter Jesus: he has them so that his identity is contiguous with him
pre-resurrected self, yet they do not keep him from walking around and even
walking through walls. In other words, they don't bleed. So does this mean the
man with palsy will still have a bend hand a limp foot, yet will be able to
write and run and jump with these very marked hands? I don't now, since I am
just speculating at this point. But it seems to be an educated guess that is
coherent with Christ our firstfruits.
At 11:58 AM, September 16, 2005, Anonymous said...
Just a quick question. Is
Acts 2 the text that's used to explain Jesus' descent into hell, or are there
other passages. I'm not trolling here, but I've always been confused on that
Biblical account. Thanks.
At 2:10 PM, September 16, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Acts 2
Romans 10
Eph 4
1 Peter 4
plus the Apostle's Creed to boot
Of course, what exactly Christ "accomplished" among the dead is
another question all together.
At 4:03 PM, September 16, 2005, Just .
Jay said...
i
am fascinated.
i have always been
"waiting till i dump this stupid body" and
go to heaven. but a friend challenged my thinking
recently and i agree... our bodies will be made new,
not replaced. does that sound more appropriate? yep. does it sound more in-line
with Jesus' experience? it seems to.
can i assume it is the same
for the Earth? a Home Makeover without the annoying
cast - not total destruction (as i have heard).
---> any feedback?
At 10:44 PM, September 16, 2005, Ken Schenck
said...
Amanda, since I believe in eternal security :) , I think God will simply resurrect us at the point when
we were right with him before we went apostate or backslid.
Oh, and now that I'm a universalist
:), I think God will raise bin Laden at some point before he reached the age of
accountability.
Fun with resurrection, by Ken Schenck
At 10:49 PM, September 16, 2005, Ken Schenck
said...
More seriously, these are questions on which the NT
needs particular help from later tradition. The NT gives us conflicting
signals. So Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the
At 11:26 AM, September 17, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
just . jay,
nice call on "extreme makeover" ... of course this makeover will be
quite extreme, but it will have some continuity with the old, namely the
preservation of identity.
At 11:31 AM, September 17, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Ken,
You are dead on that the NT heads us off in different directions. The later
tradition at its best moments has tried to keep the tension by holding BOTH to
the immortality of the soul AND the resurrection of the body. How one keeps
these together is up for debate, but generally both are accepted. Although I
did not address it in my original post, there is the opposite danger to
"die and go to heaven" immortality and that is a materialist belief
in the resurrection of the body alone. There are a number of Christian
materialist out there who are united by this conviction even if they get there
for different reasons (e.g., Nancey Murphy, Joel
Green, NT Wright, Robert Jenson, Jurgen &
Elizabeth Moltmann). I consider this movement just as
dangerous, as I have outlined elsewhere. Suffice it to say that a soulless body
is as much a half-truth as a disembodies soul.
At 5:35 PM, September 18, 2005, Samuel Bills said...
Should I give up on my idea of being cremated and
having my ashes spread out over a corn field in
The resurrection of the body seems to have a lot to do with how we handle
death. What about the implications of the resurrection of the body and the
reality of the bodies of the dead floating in the flod
waters in
At 10:25 PM, September 18, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Sam,
It is definitely the case that the popular emphasis on the resurrection of the
body has led to an emphasis on burial versus a popular emphasis on the
immortality of the soul leading to cremation and other practices. However,
bodily resurrection is understood properly as a miracle of God. I don't think
he needs our help to reconstitute and/or recreate our body parts. Buried or
cremated, God will put you pack together again on his own.
At 12:21 AM, September 19, 2005, Sniper said...
I seem to have read an article in Theology Today
that pertains to this discussion. Something about Nyssa and Macrina
(his sister) discussing how you can hold both the resurrection of the body, and
the immortality of the soul in tension with one another. Hmm...who
wrote that?
At 8:36 AM, September 19, 2005, Keith.Drury
said...
For most of my students (and the vast majority of
their parents in today's Sunday School classes) this
is the hardest part of orthodox belief to accept. They can take "descended
into hell" far easier than the resurrection of the body." The
almost-universally held belief is simply this: “When we die our body rots in
the soil and our 'Soul' goes to Jesus in heaven.”
When presented with orthodox claims of resurrection of the body they treat it
like it is a preposterous outdated silly idea that needs discarded. (I’m speaking
of evangelicals here!) Of course the doctrine is impossible and unscientific.
But so is the incarnation and the virgin birth. I’ve
always wondered why “evangelicals” have fought for the virgin birth as if it
were critical orthodoxy yet are willing to discard the resurrection of the
body. It mystifies me.
At 8:49 AM, September 19, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Your insight shows that piety rules doctrine, not
the other way. People reject the resurrection of the body because it doesn't
match up with how they conceive their future, which is essential to the motives
for their beleif, which belies an emphasis on the
benefits over the truth of Christ. Fortunately, Evangelical biblicism can be use against this tendency by simply
pointing out that Jesus did not die and go to heaven. Evangelicals tend to
believe strongly in the resurection of Jesus' body,
just not ours (which is what I am trying to correct). How we got in this tangle
I am not certain.
At 8:49 AM, September 19, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Dad,
Yours is an instructive contrast, especially since Christ's Virgin Birth and
Bodily Resurrection are kind of a pair - the miracles at the beginning and end
of this human life that sets it apart as united to God. I tend to see them
going together, and I believe in the Virgin Birth in some sense only because I
first believe in the Ressurection. It is the light
that illumines the whole life of Christ.
At 6:20 PM, September 19, 2005, Keith.Drury
said...
Nice picture--"bookend miracles "(with
the right bookend being more critical).
Good insight on how many folk separate the bodily resurrection of Jesus (which
is defended with ferocity) and our own bodily resurrection (which is denied as
simplistic and unrealistic—(e.g. “How could God find and reassemble all those
atoms from the 9-11 people?”). So one wonders how Christ’s resurrection is a “firstfruit” to those with this scheme.
Perhaps there are a series of concentric circles when it comes to beliefs…
those in the outside ring that are about the Trinity and the past (creation,
incarnation, life, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus) are defended
most vigorously, but matters relating to the present and future are less
important and more negotiable?
At 12:28 PM, September 29, 2005, Just .
Jay said...
so... I'd like to hear you
all mull over this question.
---
why DO so many evangelicals have the notion that we
die and our bodies rot, then the real US goes to heaven - our spirit?
---
i admit i had this view for
a long time... probably because it was what i had
always heard growing up. of course, study and interraction with those who are studied has a way of
correcting false assumptions. the "firstfruits" comment is a great one.
so... what is it in us that so desperately wants our
bodies to rot and have a new spirit-only being?
At 12:49 PM, September 29, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Great questions just.jay,
Here's an initial list. there are certainly many more:
- its in our western philosophical heritage
- we don't like this world very much
- we construe salvation in anthropocentric terms (what happens to you after you
die?) in stead of theocentric terms (what has God
does for us?).
- we don't think through our doctrines from a christological center (ala firstfruits
comment), but rather flatly approach biblical text. thus
when their are contrasting tendencies in the texts, we pick what we prefer on
non-biblical grounds (like the ones above) and explain the others away.
At 1:01 PM, September 30, 2005, Just .
Jay said...
hmmmm.
i need to ponder what you
said. i need to think about
the answers you gave.
basically, your answers almost point back to your post
on "it's not all about me" don't they. WE don't LIKE something so WE
come up with something WE like better. silly people :)
thanks! i'll keep watching
to see what other people have to say.
At 7:52 PM, October 15, 2005, Glen Robinson said...
It's amazing how many, even in my local church,
have already arrived at their own conclusions about this question.
Many young and old Christians are wrestling with dividing the body and soul.
They just seem to believe that everything in this life will be forgotten,
including our bodies.
I would like to ask a question that may take this a step further. Where is
heaven? And does the Church play a much bigger role in the redemption process
of this world? Isn't this a part of living in the
I wonder how we would live our lives differently as the Body if we believed
that God is using us to be a part of the blooming process of the kingdom into it's redemptive fullness.
When we separate body and soul, Christians feel as if there is nothing left to
do here and now - even as a Church. It seems we're fighting Gnosticism all over
again.
What are your thoughts on this, John?
At 9:30 PM, October 16, 2005, JohnLDrury
said...
Glen,
The gnostic bit is dead on. good
call.
as for where heaven is, I would throw back the
question "when is heaven?" Heaven is the earth's future, where/when
God is already full present and revealed. I think that reframes the question so
that we can include the restoration of this world while still holding that
heaven is something different (even redically so)
than our current existence.
and least that's how I work it out.