This is my term paper for my Christianity and Evidence course. The topic is the philosophical basic for the Christian belief in Resurrection of the Body. It’s pretty theological and intellectual, so read at your own risk. (P.S. I got an A 🙂

            N. T. Wright’s argument for the bodily resurrection of Christ is compelling, providing substantial evidence for the philosophical framework of Christianity.  But for Christians, Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning of the story.  An essential tenet of Christian faith is that the faithful will resurrect on the last day, just as Jesus did.  This belief was controversial from the beginning among disciples and nonbelievers alike.  None demonstrated this dissonance better than St. Augustine when he commented, “On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body” (CCC, 996).  Though a significant point of contention, this doctrine deals with a future event (the end of the world) rather than a past event; because of this, questions about the resurrection of the body classically fall under eschatology rather than philosophy.  Wright’s abduction argument fails to address this issue in great depth, restricting any claims about the bodily resurrection of believers to discussion of 1 Corinthians 15.  For the sake of this argument, let’s suppose Wright’s conclusion is true.  After considering this and exploring evidence from multiple disciplines, I will attempt to demonstrate that belief in bodily resurrection is logically sound and extends benefits to those who accept it.  Indeed, this precept provides meaning to the Christian life while increasing comfort, hope, and an urgency to live a meaningful life.  To begin this discussion, the origins of resurrection belief must be explored.

           Resurrection has always been a radical concept, largely because it seems to oppose the laws of nature.  Though the tradition was promulgated by first century followers of Jesus, it has Jewish roots and was most popular among the Pharisees, a major group during the time of Jesus.  The Jewish people had been victims of oppression for thousands of years, but the Pharisees held that one day oppressors, both Jewish and foreign, would be overthrown by a revolt of resurrected righteous believers (Wright, 2003).  All Jews believed that creation was good (Gen. 1:1–2:4a); however, the world God created is filled with choices.  Some people chose to live a life pleasing to God, while others rejected God and lived for their own gain.  Resurrection meant that, somehow, those favored by God would one day rise from the dead bodily, overthrow the selfish, oppressive rulers, and live in the glorified city of Israel (which was in the created world).  While there was no consensus throughout Judaism, this tradition stems from interpretations of various Old Testament texts.  Such passages include the psalmist’s soul being saved from Sheol (Ps. 49:16), Ezekiel’s account of dry bones coming to life (Ezek. 37: 1, 14), and the accounts of persecuted Jewish leaders receiving their bodies again (2 Macc. 7).  Though these passages can be understood in different ways, they are the original inspiration for belief in bodily resurrection.

            In essence, Jews who believed in resurrection believed all righteous people would rise at once and lead a revolt.  This perspective shifted when people started believing in Christ’s resurrection.  The best accounts of the early Christian view on resurrection are within Saint Paul’s epistles, specifically 1 Corinthians 15.  Paul’s resurrection accounts clarify concerns among early followers, namely that resurrection will be bodily, transformative, and have some continuance of personal identities (Mercer, 2017).  As opposed to Jewish belief, the Christian understanding became that Christ was the “firstfruits”—the first portion of harvest, sacrificed to consecrate the rest of the harvest—of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20ff).  So Christ rose first, and all others would rise, as he did, during the second coming of Christ, the consummation of history (CCC 1001).  Though Paul admits the how of the resurrection is cannot be fully known, he describes what he believes the “resurrection body” will be like.  He compares the resurrection body to a seed, maintaining that our earthly bodies, which are sown in rebellion to God, will be transformed to “spiritual bodies” (in Greek, soma pneumatikon) that will be raised in harmony with God (Wright, 2003).  Paul believes that our resurrection must logically follow Christ’s, for God showed that it is possible and we are made in His image, both earthly and spiritually (1 Cor. 15:49).

            Belief in resurrection is drastically different the from pagan convictions at the time, with the Platonic hypothesis of an immortal soul continuing in a disembodied afterlife being the predominant idea (Rausch, 2008).  Plato’s dualism generally held that the material world inhibits the accessibility of the world of the forms.  This concept of devaluing the material world—and even seeing created reality as evil—was adopted by the gnostic tradition as well (Brown, 2017).  Acceptance of a non-material afterlife has sustained popularity throughout history, including early Christianity.  In fact, Wright argues that Paul believes in a two-stage afterlife: a spiritual afterlife with God after death, and a bodily resurrection at the end of time (Wright, 2003).  Joseph Ratzinger, one of the most prominent eschatologists in the modern age, contends that this first stage isn’t merely the continuance of our once corporeal existence; rather, one’s soul transforms into a new creation (Gavin, 2017).  So, in a way, the Christian belief in resurrection is an amalgamation of previous traditions.  It honors the goodness of the material world, hoping that the faithful can one day enjoy the fruits of creation once again.  At the same time, it accepts Plato’s world of the forms and the possibilities of a disembodied, spiritual reality after death.

            This progressive revelation of resurrection is important.  It posits that early Christians didn’t merely adapt Jewish interpretations of resurrection, but they developed a mature, thoughtful concept about afterlife existence.  However, though Paul’s accounts are thorough they are eschatological in nature and based more so in faith than reason.  Luckily, philosophers like Saint Thomas Aquinas have considered resurrection of the body.  Montague Brown’s analysis of the Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians can shed light on how this belief, namely the philosophical basis for bodily resurrection and transformation, can be logically established.

            Grounded in Aristotelian physics, Aquinas’s life work was to justify how the Christian faith can exist in the natural world.  One point of dispute between Aquinas and Plato is the relation of body to soul in the human being.  Plato postulates that the body hinders the soul, while Aquinas argues that the body is good for the soul because it allows for the soul to seek, learn, and grow within the human community (Brown, 2017).  He furthers this discussion by holding that the soul isn’t one’s primary substance, but the individual is.  Put in another way, the soul is a part of one’s body: just as I use my eyes to see, I also use my soul to direct my will (Brown, 2017).  The body, too, is an intrinsic part of the individual.  Aquinas claims that human beings are rational animals, unique throughout creation because we possess an intellect and a will.  This dichotomy—a rational animal that has a body and soul—is the very essence of humanity (Brown, 2017).  Justification for resurrection comes when Aquinas details the soul’s separation from the body after death.  Though the soul transcends the body after death, it exists in a state where the individual, which exists as a unity of body and soul, is not complete, not in full actuality (Brown, 2017). 

           Aquinas proposes three reasons why this separateness cannot exist forever, eventually concluding that there must be a reunion of body and soul through resurrection.  First, Aquinas deems this separated state to be unnatural, and no unnatural state can exist forever (Brown, 2017).  The body has allowed the soul to express and discover one’s individual identity, so a soul devoid of its body—its mode of being—is imperfect and unnatural.  Secondly, Aquinas talks about happiness.  He says that complete happiness cannot be generalized to a population but must concern the individual (Brown, 2017).  Aquinas argues that happiness is the pursuit of God, so complete happiness would be union with God, something only possible in death (Aquinas, 1975).  Because of this, an individual’s complete happiness can only exist if that individual shares life with God as a complete person, both body and soul.  If just of the soul continued, happiness would be incomplete.  Aquinas’s last justification for the resurrection considers final causality.  An individual makes decisions in life through free will, so the individual (body and soul) should be held accountable for his choices if there comes a time of final judgement (Brown, 2017).  In all three of these arguments, Aquinas shows that the unity of body and soul within the individual points to bodily resurrection as a necessity for afterlife existence.

            These defenses add merit to the theoretical possibility of bodily resurrection, but Aquinas must still deal with the questions Paul raises in 1 Corinthians 15, specifically how and what kind of body.  One of the main objections to the resurrection of the body is the lack of an efficient, natural cause to restore body to soul.  To this, Aquinas agrees that there is no natural cause; rather, resurrection can only occur through divine power (Brown, 2017).  Nature doesn’t create the same thing twice, so just as God creates each soul ex nihlo, He will so recreate each union of soma pneumatikon to soul ex nihlo (Brown, 2017).  The specific how and what kind questions of the resurrection cannot be known by human reason but are based in the faith in God’s power (CCC, 1000).  If God raised Jesus in a glorified body, he is also able to raise humanity in this way.  Because God is full actuality, God is anything that He can be and God does anything that He can do (Aquinas, 1975).  So our resurrection is an effect of, and is made possible by, Christ’s.  To summate the remainder of Aquinas’s justification, we must reconsider two aforementioned points: that creation is good and that humans have free will.  Aquinas contends that creation is good, but because the first humans freely chose themselves over God, death entered the picture (Brown, 2017).  It’s only at the consummation of history that creation’s full goodness can be restored and the potential of humanity can be actualized, all through the resurrection of the body.

            So far, based on the acceptance of Wright’s argument, I have discussed the historical and philosophical evidence that suggests bodily resurrection is plausible.  At the very least, it can be logically justified on the grounds that Jesus was raised from the dead bodily.  The conversation to follow will be about what this belief means for the Christian faithful.  To better grasp the significance of this belief, we must explore both the eschatology of the end times and what philosophers have to say about death as part of the human experience.

            Before going any further, I must state the obvious: people are afraid to die.  Human consciousness allows us to be aware of the life we’re living and to question when that life will end.  What is the meaning of life? is one of the most important human questions.  Most of us want the answer to inspire hope, but for many, asking this unanswerable question yielded a great deal of despair.  When Søren Kirkegaard sought the meaning of life in the 19^th century, it made him so distressed that he identified existential angst as a prevalent human problem (O’Brien).  Kirkegaard supposed that having this angst about life and your inevitable death can be a good thing, for it can spur you to live with a sense of urgency.  Later in the 19^th century, the esteemed novelist Leo Tolstoy had everything a man could want in life, but sustained a profound crisis of meaning.  He was on the verge of suicide when he discovered what he believed made life meaningful: the faith of unlearned, working-class people (O’Brien).  These people lived in humility and kindness, and a deep connection with their passion was enough for Tolstoy to continue living.

            The work of these two men suggests that life may need meaning to be bearable and that the imminence of death can ignite one to live with urgency and purpose.  For Christians, the meaning of one’s life is deeply interwoven with what happens when we die.  As these events are in the future, they fall under eschatology where the four last things—death, judgement, heaven, and hell—are theorized.  Though seemingly daunting, these four last things provide personal and communal hope to the faithful.  Christians are encouraged to desire death because it means union with Christ in some form in the afterlife (CCC, 1010).  A final judgement means that what was done on earth, both the good and the bad, matter, all counting amidst God’s justice (Ryan, 2017).  Lastly, heaven offers promise to those who lived for God while hell helps Christians understand that it’s not too late to take responsibility for their shortcomings (Rausch, 2008).  But if these last four things were merely for the soul, they would be imperfect, for the full expression of a human being is the union of body and soul.  So stands the Christian belief: bodily resurrection enables the continuance of individual identity in a way that a disembodied afterlife couldn’t support.  At the same time, the soma pneumatikon promised in resurrection consoles believers into considering that the suffering endured on earth will be worth it in the end (Rausch, 2008).  Indeed, the resurrection promises to bring humanity to its fullness and make persecution whole.

            For the Christian faithful, death is to be rejoiced in.  Paul’s letter to the Philippians accounts, “For to me life is Christ and death is gain” (Phil. 1:21).  Likewise, St. Theresa of Avila declares, “I want to see God, and in order to see him, I must die” (CCC, 1011).  Death means union with the creator through a resurrection with and in Christ, but this doesn’t mean that life on earth is meaningless.  On the contrary, Christianity holds that earthly existence is a chance to secure eternity with God through righteous living, generous loving, and compassionate stewardship.  If Christians lived with the regular remembrance of why they are living—for the eventual share in the resurrection with Christ—then this belief would have tremendous power.  A global community that honors the goodness of creation, accepts the suffering of life, and applies meaning to daily interaction has the power to change society at large.  This radically improved reality is what belief in resurrection of the body could mean if Christians fully believed it.

            The work of Wright, Aquinas, and a number of other philosophers provides evidence suggesting the bodily resurrection of human beings could happen in the future.  Indeed, if God rose Jesus from the dead then he could raise ordinary humans at the appointed time, too.  I find the evidence presented in this paper to be significant and substantial for belief in bodily resurrection, but not conclusive (no prediction of the future can ever be stated with certainty).  Because this is a future event, it requires belief more than intelligent philosophical reason.  As philosophers of death would conquer, it is acceptable—for the betterment and bearableness of one’s life—to make existential conclusions based on faith once given enough thought.  This is often the only way forward given questions of meaning and death.  Coupled with Wright’s argument for the resurrection of Jesus, faith in the resurrection of the body seems reasonable and helpful, if not comforting.  In the end, belief in bodily resurrection can inspire in one a sense of urgency to live a better life, a personal hope for one’s individual continuance after death, and a deepened appreciation for the goodness of creation.  If Christians around the world came to a consensus on this philosophically sound belief, the power of Christian witness may be enough to bring lasting change to society.