The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Resurrection

Is it essential to believe in the general resurrection (bodily) of mankind?

I guess the answer to your question would depend upon what you mean by essential ?

OK Say as compared to the Trinity.?

No, not as compared to the Trinity. To say the least, to deny the general resurrection of the dead would be strange and of course in error according to biblical teaching which all the historic confessions attest to.

Strange yes ,but Im not talking about denying the general resurrection except the insistence on it being bodily. Some folks think the resurrection body need not be made from the same one that died.

The example we have of course is Jesus and Ive always said that is our pattern. There is though the matter of the passage of time and bodily decay. I dont know of any instance of a long dead body being raised.

I hope that clarifies the over all question .

I dont know of any instance of a long dead body being raised.

Would the appearance of Moses and Elijah count as "long-dead bodies being raised"? (cf. Lk 6:9:32,33) And/or how about the many bodies of the saints that came forth out of their tombs during the crucifixion and after Christ's resurrection? (Matt 27:51-53) Would they qualify?

We dont know whether Moshe and Eli were 'in the flesh'. Just as there is no reason I know of from the text to assume the M27 event is talking about long dead saints. We do know that a fair number of folks were raised by Jesus and the disciples Laz being the best example. As above I dont know of any of those who were reported as having been dead more than 4 days. It seems that if the disciples could have done so at least one specific example would have been recorded.

1. RE: Matt 27, the onus would be upon you to show that all that were raised from the grave were recently buried

If one wants to argue that one's original earthly body will not be raised particularly one which has decomposed, may I remind you that there was a time when all things didn't exist. All things are God's creation. It would be no more 'difficult' for God to raise a body from the grave after 2000 years than it would be to create Adam and Eve.

What little we do know is that each person will be recognizable, i.e., they would seem to retain some of their physical characteristics. The new body will not be subject to aging; it will be incorruptible. It will be a spiritual body vs. a natural body, 1Cor 15:44. The soul of the individual will reside in this body, i.e., there will be no "free spirits" floating around either on the New Earth or in Hell.

Here are some passages that deal with resurrection in a general way. As you will see, the emphasis is upon a BODILY resurrection.

Job 14:12-15; 19:25-27; Ps 16:9-10; 17:15; 49:15; Isa 25:8; 26:19; Eze 37:1-14; Dan 12:2-3,13; Hos 13:14; Matt 22:23-32; 24:31; 25:1-13; 27:52-53; Mr 12:18-27; Lk 14:14; 20:27-38; Joh 5:21,25,28-29; 6:39-40,44,54; 11:23-25; 14:19; Acts 2:26-31; 4:1-2; 17:18,32; 23:6,8; 24:14-15; 26:6-8; Rom 4:16-21; 8:10-11,19,21-23; 1Co 6:14; 15:12-32,35-57; 2Co 4:14; 5:1-5; Php 3:10-11,21; 1Thess 4:14,16; 2Tim 1:10; 2:18; Heb 6:2; 11:19,35; Rev 1:18; 20:4-6,13.

Here are some examples of bodily resurrections.

The son of the widow of Zarephath - 1Kgs 17:17-23

The Shunammite woman's son - 2Kgs 4:32-37

The young man laid in Elisha's grave - 2Kgs 13:21

The widow's son - Lk 7:12-15

Jairus' daughter - Lk 8:49-55

Well all five of your examples below were recent deaths Yup. Thats the obvious and I think best argument and the one I use as well. Actually it is this fact that has been used as a base to say physical resurrection of the body that died is not necessary and is what brought up the original question. God no more needs the old body,or what ever is left, to make a new 'spiritual body' than He needed anything at all at the beginning. But physical resurrection certainly seems to be expected by every author of the scriptures as you point out below .

Methinks I have what the 'doctor' ordered!

This article, "The State of Man After Death and the Resurrection" by A.A. Hodge specifically addresses this issue as well as the resurrection of the body in general. I think you will really appreciate what he wrote, particularly in sections VIII and IX.

Clicky here:

Would this be enough to show that belief in a future resurrection is an essential?

1 Tim 1
18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Tim 2
6 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

Another question: Do you think that the Hymenaen heresy applies to full-preterists? And were only their babblings shunned, or were they shunned themselves? When Paul says it will spread like cancer, was he speaking of only in his time period, or for all ages? The reason I ask is because we have had a few full-preterists (a woman and her children) attending my church for awhile. The leadership knows, and I've discussed the issues with her (I think I got a little ways with her- though she still denies the activity of Satan in this age- dangerous!!) I'm inclined to think this heresey would have been more dangerous in Paul's day because of the the gnosticism of the pagans.

1. Not sure if one could force the "essential" element on the matter of a future resurrection, although I tend to do that myself. I mean, the Bible in many places teaches a future resurrection based upon the resurrection of Christ. Deny a future resurrection and one is basically forced to deny or diminish the significance of Christ's resurrection and glorification, wherein He now sits at the right hand of God the Father and rules the present earthly and spiritual kingdoms.

2. Yes, I definitely think the Hymenaen heresy applies, in fact, it is a forerunner and father of hyper (full)-Preterism. Somehow you must have missed: The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of ‘Dispensable Eschatology’.

3. Yes, Gnosticism was prevalent during the time of the Apostles, but don't you think it has grown many times over since then, although it is called different names today, e.g., Pentecostalism, Word-of-Faith, etc., etc., ad nauseam. People continue to claim they have direct revelation from God which is far superior than the words contained in some book, even the Bible. Oh, and aren't there far more pagans now then there were in Paul's day, many of whom claim to be "born again Christians".

Thanks for the article, Pil!

And you are right about Gnosticism having so many more names today. I actually just spoke to one this morning (Christian Scientist). It was the second time I'd talked to her, and probably the last. The first, I talked about the death of Christ and why it would be cruel of God is sin didn't actually exist and if God wasn't holy. This time, I asked a more philosophical question- why do you have to eat if matter isn't real? The answer I got was, "Well, I can't answer such a deep theological question, but if you have to eat, that's fine. Maybe some day you'll have a revelation that you don't have to eat." I told her she should try not eating, and she just laughed. Of course, thinking back on it, 'm afraid she might try because of how seriously they take the no-medication thing.

The old joke about Christian Scientists' mind over matter is much like this woman's response about getting a revelation from God saying you don't have to eat. Mary Baker Eddy was seen in Hell, sitting in a secluded corner and muttering to herself over and over, "I am not here! I am not here! I am not here!"