Paul, Mortality, and Evolution

A while ago, my Bible study group watched the documentary by Conor Cunningham (who is based at the Theology Dept here at Nottingham) entitled “Did Darwin Kill God?”  There was some vigorous discussion afterwards.  To be honest, this is not an issue that really super interests me – but it did get me thinking afterwards. 

I think Conor was right to point to Augustine as an early Christian interpreter who insists that the “days” of Genesis 1 are not to be taken “literally”… but I don’t think that this is the the most pressing issue that Christian creationists have with evolution: I think the bigger stumbling block is Paul, because of his insistence in Romans & 1 Corinthians that death came into the world due to sin: If death came into the world as God’s response to human sin, how could the creation of the creatures of the world (including humans) have depended upon death and mutation – as would necessarily be the case with evolution?  I think this is the bigger question that Christian readers of the Bible face.

But how true to Paul is this tension?  Here are a few thoughts:

• It is arguable that for Paul, humans were created mortal: It is God alone who is immortal (1 Timothy somewhere)
• God provided the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden, so that humans would be able to eat of it and so live off his immortality indefinitely.  Sin resulted in removal from this source of life – thus the (eventual) onset of death.  Thus Paul can say “death came through sin” (Romans 5)
• For Paul, humans are still mortal… in fact, this ought to be obvious to us from the fact that we die.  But when Christ appears, those who belong to him will be raised and clothed with his immortality.

Between death & resurrection: the problem of 2 Corinthians 5

As I’ve just said in my previous post, I’m convinced that most of the Pauline Corpus can be read in a way that envisages the believer’s death as the termination of their experience, before Christ appears and resurrects them, clothing them with the immortality that comes with a resurrection body.  But what about 2 Corinthians 5?  I’ve just had another look at it, and I am beginning to wonder whether this text might be able to be read in a way that also fits the scenario above.  Here are some points that have raised this question for me:

• Verses 1-5 sound very much like the logic of 1 Corinthians 15 – looking ahead to being clothed with immortality
• In v.4, Paul emphasises that we do not wish to be “unclothed” – which I take to mean bodiless.  Rather we wish to be further clothed – which I take to mean a resurrection body.  Being “at home in the body” then, may mean being at home in THIS present body, as opposed to the “heavenly” body that is still to come
• In v.9, Paul strikingly says, “So whether we are in our home or out of our home, we make it our aim to please God” – which seems to imply that it is possible to be out of the bodily “home” in this present life.  Indeed, Paul describes such an experience in 12:2-4, where he mentions a possible out-of-body interaction with God

Perhaps what this section is getting at is that we would rather be “with the Lord” – an experience which can only presently be thought of as extra-bodily, given that the Lord is not accessible to our earthly sight.  Thus, we seek to please him in the present - whether in our bodies, or, a la 12:2-4, out of our bodies; and we look ahead to being further clothed at the resurrection.

Poor Blogging Attendance – and what happens when we die?

Unfortunately I haven’t been doing much in the way of posting or interacting with other bloggers recently.  I have several excuses, which I shall list in alphabetical order:

1. Annual Review: Yesterday I had to submit materials for an annual review for my PhD – about 20,000 words all up, including a chapter, PhD overview, bibliography, that sorta thing…
2. Conference Papers: In early July I’ll be presenting a paper at the Rome SBL and the Tyndale Conference on different aspects of Paul/1 Corinthians, so I’ve been doing preparatory work on those papers
3. Epicureans & Stoics: I’ve been trying to properly come to grips with these philosophical schools, taking time out to read primary literature and a little secondary literature
4. Uncertainty about soul/body/immortality/resurrection in Paul: I’d like to post about what happens between death & future resurrection.  If I only had to draw from 1 Corinthians, I’d say that Paul expects that when believers die, they are utterly dead, because they are mortal.  And when Christ appears, he will raise the dead bodies and clothe them with his immortality – thus there is nothing to be experienced in between death and resurrection.  I think almost everything else in Paul can be made to fit with this way of seeing things – EXCEPT the one spanner in the works that is 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, where Paul says he would prefer to be “away from the body and at home with the Lord”, implying that he holds to that Platonic-sounding belief that the body is a prison for the soul, which awaits release….

Did Christians in Corinth deny the resurrection because of a preference for the immortality of the soul?

It is important to consider which views of the plight of the dead may have been influential in Roman Corinth – particularly for those who had yearnings for Roman respectability.  One obvious parallel is Josephus, who, it seems, consciously attempted to present Jewish conceptions of the afterlife in a way that would make sense and appeal to his Greek-reading Roman readership.

It is worth noting that, although Josephus generally highlighted a dualism between body and soul (with the soul being immortal)[1], he apparently did not consider the idea of future inhabitation of new bodies to be inaccessible to his readership.

Josephus’ presentation of the views of the Pharisees in this regard (two posts ago) are evocative of the reception of both Pythagoras and Socrates, in allowing for the return of the soul to an earthly body.  Elledge cites Poseidonius’ summary of Pythagorean teachings:

For the teaching of Pythagoras is strong among them…, that the souls of men are immortal… and after an ordained number of years they come to life again…, as the soul enters into a different body.[2]

Similarly, Socrates is presented by Plato as holding that “the living come to life again from among the dead, a concept that Elledge identifies as “an ancient tradition of palingenesis“[3] – or reincarnation.

Josephus himself puts forward the view that virtuous souls will return to human bodies:

Do you not know, then, that (as for) those who exit from life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the obligation received from God, when the one who has given (it) chooses to receive (it), theirs is eternal fame, their houses and families are secured, their souls remain pure and obedient, having been allotted (by God) the holiest region of heaven, from which as the revolution of the ages they return again to inhabit undefiled bodies.[4]

This reminds of similar wording in the Wisdom of Solomon:

I was a good child, receiving a good soul [psuchēs… agathēs], or rather, being good, I came into an undefiled body [sōma amianton].[5]

It seems that the idea of a soul entering a body was not necessarily objectionable in a “Jewish Hellenistic” context, so long as it was a body fit to receive a pure soul.  Such a possibility also appears to be the case in Seneca’s (notably, first century Roman) Stoicism.  Elledge points to Seneca’s conception of future bodily restoration following a cosmic conflagration: In the future,

when the time shall come in which the world extinguishes itself in order to be renewed, these things will destroy themselves by their own powers, and stars will clash with stars and whatever now shines forth from the (current) order (of the world) will burn, as all matter blazes in a single fire – us too.  When it will seem good to God to set these things in motion once again, as all things are falling, we who are blessed souls and who have been allotted eternal things shall be turned again to our former elements as a small appendage to this vast ruin.[6]

It should not be immediately assumed, then, that philosophically-inclined inhabitants of first-century Roman Corinth would have found the idea of the future enlivening of “our former elements” utterly inaccessible.  Bruce Winter is too sweeping when he claims:

[R]esurrection would have been a complete enigma to the first-century Gentile who believed in the immortality of the soul and the cessation of the body’s senses at death.[7]

It may be that alongside a denial of “the resurrection of the dead” in Corinth was a belief in the immortality of the soul, but this is by no means the only possibility.  It may be that the Corinthians considered themselves to have entered immortality already.  Indeed, one conception of “immortality” in the first century was that of a present divine quality of existence.  Epicurus insists that this quality will be borne by those who practise his ways:

But you [the follower of Epicurus' ways] will live as a god [theos] among humans [en anthrōpois].  For a person living amidst immortal [athanatois] goods is nothing like a mortal [thnētō] being.[8]

The fact that Plutarch refers to Epicureans as those who call themselves immortal/imperishable indicates that such a concept of qualitative immortality was alive in the first century:

What great pleasure [hēdonēs] belongs to these people [the Epicureans], and what blessing they enjoy, rejoicing about their lack of suffering and grief and pain!  Therefore, is it not fitting, on account of these things, also to think and to speak as they do speak, calling themselves immortal [or 'imperishable': aphthartous] and equal to gods [isotheous]…![9]

Indeed, the Epicurean “rejoicing” in personal immortality went hand-in-hand with their lack of hope for the dead….

Anyway, given that this whole little series is getting the silence treatment (apart from Steph, to whom I am grateful for a most-pleasing comment!), I will wrap up my thoughts here…  To sum up: Ummm… oh my brain’s fried – go read the whole lot again and make your own summary

 

---

[1] Elledge draws attention to this: “The majority of Josephus’ comments on immortality present a dualistic anthropology.  This anthropology preserves the immortality of the soul by accentuating the mortality of the physical body.”  Elledge (2006) 128; emphasis original

[2] Cited in Elledge (2006) 104

[3] Elledge (2006) 107; emphasis original

[4] War 3.372-76 (not my own translation, for once!)

[5] 8:19-20

[6] Cited in Elledge (2006) 112; emphasis mine.

[7] Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001) 104.

[8] Letter to Menoeceus, 135

[9] Against Epicurean Happiness, 1091b-c

Did Greeks believe in the immortality of the soul?

Although Plato certainly held to the immortality of the soul (as opposed to the body), it seems noteworthy that the two main Greek philosophical schools of the time of Paul - the Epicureans and the Stoics (whom Paul had addressed in Athens) – both believed in the mortality of the soul. 

The Epicureans appear to have believed, following Epicurus himself, that the soul was extinguished with the death of the body.  This is because the soul itself was corporeal, being intermixed with the bodily parts in such a way that post-mortal survival was impossible.  On the corporeality of the soul, Epicurus writes:

So those who say that the soul [psuchēn] is incorporeal [asōmaton] are speaking vainly.[1]

Lucretius, writing in Rome in the first century BCE, similarly argues:

Therefore the soul [animi] is necessarily of a corporeal [corpoream] nature, as it labours under the impact of corporeal spears.[2]

Intermixed with our members and entire body is the power of the soul and of the spirit.[3]

Epicurus consequently reasons about death:

Therefore death [thanatos], the most fearsome of evils, is nothing to us, seeing as when we exist, death is not present; and when death is present, we do not exist.  So death is nothing to those who are living or to those who have died, seeing as for the one, it is nothing, and for the other, they are nothing.[4]

And again, Lucretius concurs:

Death, therefore, is nothing to us – of no concern at all, if we understand that the soul [animi] has a mortal nature.[5]

Stoicism similarly appears to have held to the non-eternality of the soul, although this did not necessarily mean immediate extinguishment upon the death of the body.  Like the Epicureans, they held that the soul could not be usefully thought of as independently incorporeal, given that it was inextricably linked to sensation and activity – characteristics of the corporeal.  Sextus Empiricus reports:

For according to them [the Stoics] the incorporeal [asōmaton] is not such that it can either act or suffer.[6]

Plutarch reports:

And the proof he [the Stoic Chrysippus] uses that the soul [psuchēn] is generated [gegonenai] – and generated after the body – is mainly that the manner and character of the children bears a resemblance to their parents.[7]

Eusebius elucidates a Stoic conception of the afterlife:

They [Stoics] say that the soul [psuchēn] is both generated [genētēn] and mortal [phthartēn].  But it is not immediately destroyed upon being separated from the body.  Rather it remains for some time by itself – that of the diligent remains until the dissolution of all things by fire; and that of the foolish remains only for a limited time.  About the endurance of the soul they say this: That we ourselves remain as souls which have been separated from the body and have been changed into the lesser substance of the soul; whereas the souls of irrational beings are destroyed along with their bodies.[8]

It would certainly be too simplistic, then, to claim that a “Greek” notion of the afterlife in the first century generally involved the liberation of the incorporeal soul into utopian immortality.  It is consequentially unhelpful to say that the resurrection-denial in Corinth simply involved a clash of “Jewish” and “Greek” views about the afterlife – particularly when you throw in the fact that Corinth was a Roman colony.

---

[1] Letter to Herodotus, 67

[2] 3.175-6

[3] 3.275

[4] Letter to Menoeceus, 125

[5] 3.830

[6] Against the Professors, 8.263

[7] On Stoic Self-Contradictions 1053d

[8] Evangelical Preparation, 15.20.6

Did early Judaism believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead?

It seems to me that we could say this: Early Judaism did not involve a common orthodoxy concerning the bodily resurrection of the dead.  Alongside beliefs in bodily resurrection (exhibited in 2 Maccabees, for example), was a range of beliefs about the immortality of the soul and the nature of the afterlife.

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides evidence a Jewish belief in immortality of the soul:

For souls [psuchai] remain unharmed in those who have perished.  For the spirit [pneuma] is God’s loan to mortals [thnētoisi], and his image.  For we have a body from the earth; and then after we are released to earth again, we are dust [konis].  But the air receives the spirit.[1]

The soul [psuchē] is immortal [athanatos] and ageless, living forever.[2]

Likewise, the Wisdom of Solomon envisages the afterlife as involving immortal souls:

They [that is, the immortal souls of the once-persecuted righteous] will judge the nations [krinousin ethnē], and rule over peoples [kratēsousi laōn], and the Lord will rule [basileusei] over them for eternity.[3]

I was a good child, receiving a good soul [psuchēs… agathēs], or rather, being good, I came into an undefiled body [sōma amianton].[4]

The Epistle of Enoch looks ahead to the blessed survival of good souls after death:

I swear to you: I understand this mystery [mustērion]…. That goodness and joy and honour have been prepared and written down for the souls of those who have died [apothanontōn] while godly [eusebōn].[5]

Similarly, Josephus appears to hold to the immortality of the soul, as opposed to the temporality of the body:

For [in the act of sex] the soul [psuchēs] is divided, departing to another place; for it suffers [kakopathei] when being implanted in bodies [sōmasi] and similarly at death when it is divided from them.  Therefore purifications for all of these things are commanded.[6]

According to Josephus, even the Pharisees, like the Essenes, held to a Greek-like idea of an immortal soul for all people.  Unlike the Essenes, they held that good souls would also receive new bodies:

For this is their doctrine [that is, the Essenes]: That bodies [sōmata] are mortal [phtharta], and their material is not permanent; but that souls [psuchas] are immortal [athanatous] and endure forever; and that they come out of thin air, so that they are bound to their bodies as to a prison, drawn in by a certain natural [phusikē] enticement; but being released from their fleshly bonds [tōn kata sarka desmōn], as set free from a long slavery, they then rejoice and rise upwards.  And this is similar to the opinions of the Greeks who hold that good souls have a dwelling beyond the ocean.[7]

[The Pharisees say that] every soul [psuchēn] is immortal [aphtharton], but that only those of good people are removed into another body [sōma]; while those of the simple are subjected to everlasting punishment.[8]

The Psalms of Solomon, arguably representative of Pharisaic thought, only once refer to resurrection, and there the reference is not unambiguously to a bodily experience:

The destruction [apōleia] of the sinner is forever [eis ton aiōna] and such a person will not be remembered when God visits the righteous.  This is the fate of sinners forever; but those who fear the Lord will be raised [anastēsontai] to eternal life [zōēn aiōnion].  And their life will be in the light of the Lord, and it will not go out.[9]

In contrast, Paul appears to hold that even those who belong to Christ lack immortality until they experience bodily resurrection.  The reason seems to be that Paul’s conception of the future/afterlife has become utterly Christocentric: Until Christ’s cosmic vindication is completed with his appearance and judgement of death, it is inconceivable that those who belong to Christ will pre-empt the sharing of his immortal exaltation.  Rather, they must follow in his footsteps and, at his appearing, share his bodily glory:

But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ.  (1 Cor 15:23)

And just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, so also we will bear the image of the one of heaven.  (1 Cor 15:49)

For this mortality must be clothed with immortality (1 Cor 15:53)

---

[1] Sentences, 105-108

[2] Sentences, 115

[3] Wisdom of Solomon 3:8

[4] Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20

[5] 1 Enoch 103:1-3

[6] Against Apion, II, 203

[7] Jewish War: BJ II, 154-155.

[8] Jewish War: BJ II, 164.

[9] PsSol 3:11-12.

We too with him are dead

I’ve been looking through some Christian hymns, trying to find any that emphasise our sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection.  I just came across this brief, really interesting Eucharist hymn by Charles Wesley:

1 LET all who truly bear The bleeding Saviour’s name Their faithful hearts with us prepare, And eat the Paschal Lamb.

2 This eucharistic feast Our every want supplies; And still we by his death are blessed, And share his sacrifice.

3 Who thus our faith employ, His sufferings to record, Even now we mournfully enjoy Communion with our Lord.

4 We too with him are dead, And shall with him arise; The cross on which he bows his head Shall lift us to the skies.

The Resurrection of the Dead

I’ve continued pondering the problem raised by the deniers of the resurrection of the dead in Corinth….

The main problem addressed in ch.15 (or at least the presenting problem) is textually clear (in v12), but interpretively problematic:

 

Why do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

 

The interpretive problem is that it is hard to imagine how first-generation Christians, whose lives had been turned around by a message about one who had been resurrected from the dead, could see no problem in saying “There is no resurrection of the dead.”  Certainly, Paul’s argument relies on the fact that they do not consciously aim to deny Christ’s resurrection from the dead; nevertheless a conscious denial of general resurrection seems astonishingly bold.  A number of explanations have been put forward.  Thiselton groups these as follows:

1. Certain people in Corinth found themselves unable to believe in any kind of postmortal existence
2. Certain people in Corinth believed that the resurrection had already occurred
3. Certain people in Corinth had difficulties with belief in the resurrection of the body

Each of these alternatives carries problems with it – for example, the latter two alternatives involve re-interpreting the straightforward statement “There is no resurrection of the dead” to mean either “There already was a resurrection of the dead” or “There is no resurrection of bodies but there is immortality of the soul”.  In considering this, it may prove worthwhile to keep in mind that Paul has chosen to represent his opponents in a certain way, and to frame his correction correspondingly.  This decision by Paul may tell us more about his rhetorical intention than about the historical problems of the Corinthian church.

My current, recently-clarified conception of the situation behind 1 Corinthians 15 may be considered, in terms of being a distinctive alternative to other conceptions, to have three essential components:

Firstly, I suggest that the denial of resurrection was focused not primarily on the present or future experience of the deniers themselves, but on those who were presently the dead.  Secondly, I suggest that this denial was not primarily driven by logical problems with postmortal existence or celestial physicality; but by political and existential issues of status and superiority.  Thirdly, I wonder whether the Corinthian denial was implicit in certain claims and activities, rather than an explicit theological point of dispute.

In other words, the claim that “there is no resurrection of the dead” was one more example of spiritualistic Corinthian superiority, pouring disdain on those who were presumably going to miss out on the benefits of being personally present for Christ’s parousia because they had died.  This proud, superior attitude toward the status of “the dead” is the climactic example of Corinthian cruci-phobia; and the Corinthians need to learn that the dead are not at a disadvantage – rather, the Corinthians themselves are called to embrace present death and look ahead to future resurrection.

There is no resurrection of the dead

I’m working on 1 Corinthians 15 at the moment, and a number of interesting things keep striking me.  Significantly, I’m considering what might have been meant by those who said that there was no resurrection of the dead.

Many commentators seem to think that this can be explained by reasoning that the resurrection-deniers in Corinth preferred the idea of the immortality of the soul to the idea of the raising of bodies: The chief problem, it is said, is a Greek distaste for physicality.  However, I find this problematic for a few reasons:

• Of the six generally agreed upon sections in ch15, only one carries the theme and terminology of bodies – vv35-49… and within this section, it’s only from 35-44 that bodies are central.
• I don’t see why a problem with resurrection based on a general distaste for physicality wouldn’t have been dealt with by Paul in the 18 months that he had spent in Corinth
• The most consistent problem in ch15 seems to be a distaste for death itself – and indeed, a Corinthian distaste for cruciformity has pervaded the whole letter…

Here in the climactic chapter, Paul brings his response to Corinthian cruciphobic pride to a fitting conclusion: Those who are proudly claiming that there is no resurrection of the dead need to learn that, on the contrary, there is no resurrection of the living: They are called to embrace the labour of cruciformity, knowing that human death is the pre-requisite for the divine gift of resurrection.

It’s Academic

Little bird: Explain how you understand the way in which your role as an academic functions as a part of being a disciple of Jesus in today’s world.

Matthew: Birds can’t talk

Little bird: [Sigh...] I get this all the time.  Hey, if Balaam’s ass can talk, then so can I.  Just answer the question.

Matthew: Hmmmm….

This is an important question.  I recall hearing a talk by Os Guinness years ago (entitled ‘The Call’), in which he urged people in all situations to consider God’s call upon their lives to use HIS gifts in HIS service.  The phrase came to mind: “Of those to whom much is given, much will be expected.”  So I think one reason for a disciple of Jesus to become an academic is the desire to love God with all of one’s mind, putting all of one’s opportunities and resources and gifts to work in God’s service. 

From that starting point, let me consider the example of the apostle Paul, widely regarded as having a brilliant theological mind.  He appears to have been the most rigorously intellectual of the apostles, trained as a Pharisee, able to give public speeches, utilise rhetoric, invent new epistolary forms, and “take every thought captive” in Christ’s service.  But here’s the interesting bit: How did this intellectual heavyweight seek to use his influence as a Christian leader?  How did he direct his own desire to use his gifts in Christ’s service?

By testifying to the cross of Jesus in word and deed.  Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians could be summed up like this: “Come die with me, as I follow Jesus.”  That’s not what the Corinthians wanted to hear – they wanted a proper academic, with his PhD on the wall, his lapel microphone turned up, and his hearers gaining the benefit of his master-crafted speeches.  But no… “I die every day… come join me, as I follow the crucified one.”  Paul undeniably used the wealth of his intellect, but in the service of cruciformity.

Let me put it another way: Did Paul expect the Corinthians to learn the gospel by hearing him tell them about Christ’s death and resurrection, or by seeing him flogged and shipwrecked and stuttering, and pouring himself out for the sake of other people?  The answer is: both.

So I suppose that if I want to be a teacher like Paul, and use whatever intellectual gifts I have in the service of Christ, I could learn from that example.  This raises all sorts of questions for me:  How can I ensure that I testify to the cross of Christ not only in my words but in my deeds?  What countries of the world are most needy – even if it means ’slumming it’?  Am I willing to give up the opportunity for particular academic recognition, if it means I can pour myself out for the sake of others?

These are starting points, rather than settled conclusions.  I’m not sure what all of my answers are.  I’d be curious to hear if others struggle with similar questions…