Loading...I’ve been trying to show that Paul thought eternal life would be lived not in some kind of bodiless spiritual existence, but in the physical body. How is *that* supposed to work? And didn’t he say that “flesh and blood” would NOT inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50)? Here I explain how Paul understood it was all to happen. I pick up with the last bit of my last post, taken from Heaven and Hell (Simon & Schuster, 2020).
******************************
The future resurrected body Paul imagines will be utterly and completely transformed. It will be a different kind of body. Paul argues that the human body that goes into the ground is like a “bare kernel” of some kind of grain that grows into a plant. What grows is intimately tied to and related to what went into the ground; but it is also vastly different. When you plant an acorn it doesn’t grow into a forty-foot acorn, but into an oak tree.
So too the human. When the body comes out of the ground it is transformed into “the body that God gives it, as he wishes” (15:38). That is because “there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies” and they have different kind of glories, just as there is “one glory for the sun, another glory for the moon, and another for the stars; even the stars differ in glory from one to the next” (15:40-41).
Paul insists that this is how it will be at the future resurrection. The body that does into the ground is
If you were a member of the blog you would get five posts like this every week — going back ten years! There’s a small membership fee, but every penny goes to charity. So why not join? Click here for membership options
Is this how the notion of eternal suffering for the wicked evolved? An immortal body thrown into the fire never dies?
Yeah, kind of. It’s a longer story than that, of course. It’s the topic I deal with in my book Heaven and Hell.
It seems to me Paul has a very vivid imagination.
Hello Bart. I wonder if we have a terminology issue? The sense I get from my readings is that many critical scholars want to draw a clear distinction between the zombie Jesus body that apologist proclaim in the Gospel resurrection stories versus the angelic, spiritual body that Paul describes. As you say, for Paul, the glorified body is nothing at all like the body put into the ground at death. Certainly it is a body of some type that is resurrected, but in no way human. Both sides use the term, body, but mean very different things by it. Your thoughts? Thanks.
Yes, I’d say that’s pretty much right. Luke and John are imagining a revivified corpse, and Paul thinks of a glorified body. It is in a *sense* like the body of Jesus before his death — it *looks* like it — but it is not just the corpse returned via something like a Near Death Experience, it is an immortalized body now made out of “pneuma” (spirit)– a more refined and indestructible kind of “stuff.”
What about 1 Thessalonians 13-14? Doesn’t that answer the question of “what then”?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. (or which chapter of 1 Thess). Are you talking about the passage of Jesus’ return in 1 Thess. 4. Yes, that is one of the sequences Paul lays out of what will happen.
Jesus said that the current generation would not pass until the Kingdom of God returned in power. The current generation did pass away. Therefore it can be argued that Jesus did not speak for God. (Deuteronomy 18:22)
If Jesus did not therefore speak for God, how could he have been God? All knowing, all powerful, but bad at understand time? If Yahweh is real, and I sincerely doubt it, it sure seems like he/she/they have a convoluted way of getting the word out. Its like he/she/they used up all their ability to interact with their creation a long time ago, and moved on to something else to smother with their jealousy, wrath, and love.
I’m afraid that’s a theological question; theologians, of course, have answers for it, but I’m not a theologian.
How do apologists explain the current generation passage?
You’ll need to spll out your questoin and quote the passage for other readers of the blog to understand what you’re asking.
Okay. I will look up the verse and share it.
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place”. Matthew 24:34 (NKJV).
One interpretation of this saying is that the Kingdom of God’s coming happened when the Spirit came upon the people at Pentecost, just 50 days after the Resurrection. Another is that the fulfillment of a new era came when the Temple was destroyed just barely within a generation after Jesus (~30 or 33 to 70 CE).
I understand that the doctrine of atonement developed after the experience of the Resurrection. The latter showed that Jesus was the Messiah and the need for the atonement explained why the Messiah had to suffer and die.
Did the earliest Christians see the Resurrection as somehow part of the atonement process itself? Or did they see it simply as proof of atonement?
If both, what did the Resurrection add to the crucifixion as part of atonement? Could the Resurrection have been seen as God’s “acceptance” of the offered sacrifice—thus completing the process of being made “right with God?”
I’m not sure the early Christians differentiated the two into discrete events; it wa the death and resurrection together as a unit that brought salvation, if you see what I mean.
Is the Jewish conception of the “kingdom of God” actually described extensively in the Hebrew Bible? I understand that, for example, it includes a big banquet. Where might I go for a substantial list of citations? Have you posted on this in the past?
Is the “kingdom of God” always or normally brought about by a Messiah?
God is certainly described as a ruler in the Hebrew Bible, and his kingdom is the one that he administers through the rulers he appoints. But in the apocalyptic sense of a future rule of God, the idea develops only at the very end of the Hebrew Bible period, first in the book of Daniel, and then in other apocalyptic books that appeared after that. The term “messiah” refers simply to the future “anointed one,” that is the king God will set over his peole.
Paul wrote his letters to churches he started to encourage them in their faith. What ‘authority’ did Paul have that his words were to be for ‘all’ people and for ‘all’ time?
I don’t think Paul thought about it like that. He didn’t think about the distant future and the need for authorities then, since he thought the end was coming soon.
A member of my family joined a church that does not believe in Jesus’ resurrection, but believe in Jesus message. I did not know there was such a thing.
You noted that 1st Thessalonians was written two decades after Jesus death, calculating a growth rate of 3% annually, if we start with say 500, after 20 years we have a little more that 900 believers world wide. Of course this number all depends on how many you start with initially.
I imagine Paul was trying to get everyone on the same page. A page that would not self-destruct. i.e. Holy Rollers, Heavens Gate.
If I do the math, or at least read about how someone else who did the math on the probability of creation and life. It’s learning process, this philosophy of intelligent design. It is a lot to grasp, but so was God.
I do not think this subject would work on this blog.
Neither did I! I wonder if the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus?
Bart, I think your autocorrect dinged you here:
“it is sown a natural [Greek: psychic] body”
“Psychic” comes from Greek PSYCHE, meaning soul, which is pretty clearly NOT what you want here. I don’t have my Greek NT at hand, but Paul must have written something like PHYSIKA — according to PHYSIS, i.e. nature — right?
Nope. Look it up. The problem is figuring out how to render it into English.
I’m confused by the translation of the “psych” word as “natural,” since the most common sense, at least as an element in English words (I don’t know Greek), has to do with “soul” or “mind.” Are there other instances, either in the Bible or elsewhere, where it has this sense of “natural,” and in what way would this sense have developed.
It’s one of those words with a broad meaning, in part because of the complicated world of philosophical physics in antiquity. What is the nature of material reality? How is HYLIC matter different from PSYCHIC different from PNEUMATIC? I actually don’t think “Natural” is a helpful translation, but apart from rendering it “Psychic” (which has it’s own problems) I’m not sure what to suggest.
I stand corrected. Very interesting. PSYCHE also means “breath” as well as soul, so I guess the idea is that it is sown a body-depending-on-breath, and is resurrected a body-depending-on-pneuma . . . however one translates pneuma!!
I see that Jerome renders this as “seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale” — which draws on the similar dual meaning of “anima”, as breath and soul. “Animals” are “things which breathe.”
But of course, pneuma in Greek and spiritus in Latin ALSO mean “breath” or “wind” or basically “blowing” (so we have English words like “pneumonia” and “pneumatic”), so the precise distinction between psyche (breath/soul) and pneuma (breath/wind/spirit) remains murky. I see that Bauer’s Lexicon of NT Greek has FIVE full, closely-printed pages on Pneuma . . .
Hi, Dr. Ehrman. The description in Rev. 14:4 of the 144,000 as being both individuals who have “not defiled themselves with women” and also “virgins” seems kind of redundant. Is that just the standard way special fellows like the 144,000 might be described in this kind of text, or is the writer also throwing in a bit of misogyny as well? I know lots of people and things are described as being “defiled” or “defiling” in the Bible but I don’t think women are ever described as being “defiled by men” in the way the writer means here. But perhaps I’m reading too much into it? Thanks!
Yes, the author is clearly misogynist. AS if a “woman” will “defile” a man….
I’m fascinated by Pauls referral to “Sleep”(maybe better defined as “dormant”.. What is Paul saying that “sleeps”? It can’t be the biological body as Paul admits it rots thus cannot be raised again. It can’t be glorified vessel as one who recieves such does not sleep. So it seems that the essence or spirit/soul of a person sleeps when not contained within a vessel. That pretty much scuttles any view that Paul believed or taught any sort of hell. Unless… Jer 1:5 is a very interesting passage inferring God knowing the essence/spirit/soul before forming the vessel for it in the womb. Scripture does not address the creation of such essence/spirit/soul, but rather just creation of the Vessel in which God breathed into it the essence/spirit/soul. I can see how Origen could view reincarnation What if Hell was life on Earth and that our souls returned over and over till we got it right? If we got it right, a new Spiritual Vessel was created at the death of flesh
This is not a bad hypothesis for why God lets the Flesh suffer… Origen may have had the same question and orthodox judaism opens the door on reincarnation also
“Sleep” in the early Christian tradition (including the NT) is typically a euphemism for “death.” (Since in apocayptic terms death is reversed by resurrection, so it is temporary, not eternal)
Hi Bart,
This is probably a weird question but what would Paul’s stance be about those who left no body whatsoever to resurrect–say in the event of a cremation, or a person whose remains were devoured in a shipwreck or a catastrophic disaster? I get the part about a superior physical form but what if there is no form?
It’s a question later church fathers wrestled with a great deal, though Paul doesn’t. Basic answer: it’s all a miracle anyway. God assempbles whatever little is left (think: molecules; though ancient peope wouldn’t put it that way) into the original body.
It seems that Acts and Paul differ on what the power of speaking in tongues is. Acts 2 is the Pentecost where the disciples start speaking in a language which everyone else could understand as there own language. It’s said that they were drunk which infers they were speaking in a way that sounded like “gibberish” and randomized sayings.
But with Paul, it seems people in his church were speaking in a language but it needed an gifted interpreter for the church to understand what they were saying instead of naturally undertaking them like in Acts 2. Tongues sounded like randomized sayings.
Is there a difference between these 2 signs of the spirit in the text? Perhaps they are both speaking in tongues but subsets of it. One can be naturally understood, and one needs an interpreter.
Yes, they appear to have different understandings about what the phenomenon entails.
When Paul says “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom”, do you think it’s a possibility that Paul could be speaking figuratively here, rather than literally? In the sense that he may be saying that earthly possessions and desires of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom. I remember being taught this when I was a bible believing Christian, but can’t remember where I had heard this interpretation from. What are your thoughts on this reading of the text?
“Flesh and blood” is Paul’s way of saying “humans as they are now on earth.” For Paul, humans would have to be transformed into immortal beings before they inherited the kingdom of heaven.
I assume Paul never discussed the kind of weird account in Matthew of the saints rising from the grave when Jesus died. I always visualize that as a Night of the Living Dead scene.
Nope, not in any of his surviving writings.
Off-topic question: You once posted “What Do I Think of the New Revised Standard Version?” You mentioned John 3:22 as a mistranslation, an attempt to fix the geography problem of Jesus and his disciples already being in Jerusalem. You said the RSV translation got it right. When I discovered there is a “NRSV Updated Edition,” I checked John 3:22 in it (at BibleGateway.com) to see if it had been updated. It had:
RSV: “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea . . .”
NRSV: “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside . . .”
NRSVUE: “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea . . .”
Would you say “region of Judea” fixes the mistranslation? Is there some distinction between “land of” and “region of,” such that the NRSVUE is more accurate than the RSV? “Region of” doesn’t seem quite as jolting as “land of.”
Yes, “region of” is a way of saying “land of.” Countryside is just plain wrong. (“Land of” used to be a more common phrase than it is now)
Was there thought to be even a shred of evidence about spiritual bodies and what they might look like? Or was that just the sort of question that would never be posed in those days? How were imaginary concepts debated?
I’m not sure what you mean about there being evidence? What kind of evidence could there be? In any event, for Paul they don’t exist yet (except in the case of Jesus). (I’m not sure what he thinks angelic bodies aree made of)
You write here that Paul believed “the human body will be transformed into an immortal, incorruptible, perfect, glorious entity, no longer made of coarse stuff that can become sick, get injured, suffer in any way, or die. It will be a spiritual body, a perfect dwelling for life everlasting.”
However, in the gospels we read that Jesus’ body was indeed evidently still made of ‘coarse stuff’ ie wounds and all, as shown in the story of Doubting Thomas who was invited to thrust his hand into Christ’s side etc.
If Paul argued that our resurrected bodies will be just the same as Christ’s resurrected body how can these two views be reconciled, please?
THat’s right. Luke and John have a different view of the matter than Paul.
So please tell me if I understand Paul’s view correctly: Christians die and get buried. At that point, they are simply dead and non-existent. But when the day of judgment comes (very soon), then those dead physical bodies will crawl up out of their graves, but with a physical upgrade, and the previously-dead consciousness of the person will return. And then those physical bodies will walk around on Earth happily ever after. Is that right?
Yes, that’s the view Paul had and preached most of his ministry, until near the end when he realized he might die first and started thining that he might die first and came to think that he would surely then be in the presence of Christ until the resurrection (Philippians 1 and 2 Corinthians 5)
Eternal life was a restored covenant relationship between Israel and their god. John 17:3 clearly defines it as a relationship with God. According to Amos 3:2, God only had a relationship with Israel. Non-Israelite nations never had a relationship with God that needed restoring.
According to Jesus, eternal life was a present possession, not something that would happen after death. Jesus said…
(Joh 3:15) that whoever believes in him may [present tense] have eternal life.
And….
(John 6:47) Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has [present tense] eternal life.
Passing from death to life was about transitioning from being under the curse of the law (death) to being raised through Christ’s new covenant which according to Rom 11:26-27 and Heb 8:8, was a covenant made with and for those who had been under the old covenant. That’s not anyone today. This is why every mention of having eternal life, being raised and resurrection at the time of the end was associated only with Israelites.
Hey Bart. With all of this in mind, what does Paul mean then when he says “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” in 2 Corinthians 5:8? Isn’t Paul referring here to a state where the soul is separate from the body and is in heaven with Christ? Did apocalyptic jews like Paul think anything was going on with the soul between death and the future resurrection of the dead?
-Thanks for the post as always.
Yes indeed. IN my book Heaven and Hell I argue that Paul at the end of his life came to think there was an interim period between his death and the future resurrection where he in some sense would be in the presence of Christ. The big quesiton is: would he have a termporary body or not?
I see. So his own theology was evolving. Last question if you don’t mind. Is it plausible to say that Paul believed christians would end up in heaven? I know you and other scholars have written that the kingdom of God was supposed to be on earth, but Paul believes Christ is in heaven per Romans 8:34 and if we consider 1 Thessalonians 4:17, he states that believers will meet in the air and be with Jesus.
He appears to think they will go into the presence of Christ during the short interval before Christ returns to earth in judgment. The believers he meets in the air in 1 Thessalonians are goijng up to greet him, apparently to escort him down to his reign on earth (just as in the first century cities being visited by their King would go out to meet him to bring him into the walls to celebrate his coming.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
What is the cultural background to the question in Mark 10:17; i.e. when the rich man asks: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (NRSVue)? I assume he means heaven, but didn’t know if there was a more nuanced cultural answer.
Thank you for your work, and time to answer this.
– Rob
If it actually happened in Jesus’ day, the question would have been about how to inherit the kingdom of God that was soon to arrive on earth. It’s not clear if Mark means that or what we think of as heaven, the destination for souls. Mark does speak a good deal about the Kingdom, but never explicitly about the immortality of the soul.