[todaysdate]
By Corbin Croy
The biggest argument I hear against considering a spiritual resurrection is how marginalized it has been throughout the entire history of Christian theology, evangelism, and doctrine. From Ignatius onward the general consensus of Christian belief has centered on the historical reality of resurrection narratives. In the previous chapter I suggested that there were no prima facie reason for not considering the spiritual resurrection as being an authentic description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I suggest this based on the fact that we have to relate to Jesus’ resurrection theologically before we relate to it objectively. However, I will consent that the contextual information available is considerable, and if the argument succeeds then it will become extremely difficult in considering the possibility for a spiritual resurrection. As far as I can tell the general argument being made follows as such.
If Christians have always believed in a historical resurrection then belief in a spiritual resurrection is highly unlikely without further information or arguments to consider. Christians have always believed in a historical resurrection, so it is highly unlikely that a spiritual resurrection is a genuine description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I propose that the source material itself is not as important in coming to a conclusion about this argument, for I would clearly use the source material differently than one who would use it to support a historical resurrection. Thus, the most accurate information will be from the historical records we have which come directly after the New Testament books were written. From that we have three main sources, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius. There is also Early Jewish literature and early Christian literature to consider. And there is one more consideration which must be accounted for, which is a doozy. We have to accommodate our argument for our modern bias.
It could be argued that any “historicity” attributed to the resurrection of pre-modern societies was taken for granted and not used to preserve the exactness or integrity of whatwe have come to accept as a scientific field. So to appeal to a fact that someone thousands of years ago believed the resurrection to be historical may have some weight, but not the weight it would have of representing the rigor and precision we put into historical claims made today. There is little to no evidence to suggest that the distinction between historical and spiritual resurrection even existed, or was important until the emergence of our modern system of science and analytic philosophy. So it would seem that even if an argument can be formed that shows that historical belief has always been a part of resurrection belief there would need to be a supplementary argument which could prove that spiritual belief has not been a part of resurrection belief.
The purpose of our inquiry is to consider whether or not the spiritual resurrection can be considered as a genuine description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Proving that the historical resurrection has been the dominant form of belief is insufficient to exclude the spiritual resurrection for consideration unless you can prove that historical belief was chosen at the expense of spiritual belief through all time. This raises the bar considerably, and it is a bar that is raised often and for good reason. In studying the past we have to accept that we are looking into cultures and times completely foreign to us. So we should have a high standard for evaluation to ensure that the most reliable and highest probable events get included as being what is the general history to be recorded. Historians will often make reconstructions based on their own value judgments, and this is a common enough practice, but it is always assumed that such a thing is taking place, and is rarely ever thought to be a substitute for the conclusions which can come about without such biases. The point of history is to admit out biases and to eliminate them as much as possible.
We find at a very early juncture that early Christians believed in the historicity of the resurrection narratives found in the Gospels and New Testament epistles. Both Clement and Ignatius believed the resurrection narratives as being historically accurate. Ignatius says, “For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and his company, he said to them, ‘Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.’ And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto his flesh and his blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after his resurrection he [both] ate with them and drank with them as one in the flesh, though spiritually he was united with the father.” I take this to mean that Ignatius believes in the historicity of the resurrection narrative as being normative for the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Elsewhere, Ignatius says, “He promised that he would drink of the produce of the vine with his disciples, thus showing both the inheritance of the earth, in which the new produce of the vine is drunk, and the physical resurrection of his disciples. For the new flesh that rises again is the same that has received the new cup” (Work Against Heresies V). I take this to mean that he believed that the risen Christ possessed the same body that died and was buried, and that our bodies will rise in a similar fashion.
It is important to note a few distinctions. In most ways my belief in a spiritual resurrection is not, too, inconsistent with Ignatius’ account for a historical resurrection. My belief is adaptable to a physical and bodily Jesus Christ that appears to others, as well. My belief would only hold that since we have no reliable information to affirm that it actually is the same body as the one that was buried then we should be open to a resurrection belief which can hold that Jesus’ body is still buried in the ground.
It is also important to note that Ignatius’ general premise is NOT to maintain historical belief in the resurrection, but to maintain that in Christ’s resurrection flesh is united with Spirit (Letter to the Magnesians). Ignatius may simple believe that the resurrection narratives are historically reliable, but the heresy he warns of has nothing to do with the actual historicity of the resurrection narratives. Ignatius is writing against Gnostic who believed that Jesus only existed as pure spirit and that his body of flesh was an illusion. Just as he said to the Smyrnaeans, “It is not as some unbelievers say, that his passion was a sham. It’s they who are a sham! Yes, and their fate will fit their fancies — they will be ghosts and apparitions.”
Lastly, I would point out, that Ignatius as being ultimately committed to the Sovereignty of God and to the supremacy of spiritual principles in the matter of salvation then he is open and adaptable to revision should future arguments overpower his secondary biases. The fact that Ignatius believed in a historical resurrection is secondary even to Ignatius, and as long as his general principles can be maintained in another version of resurrection belief then I think even Ignatius would accept it. For he says in his Work Against Heresies, “For weakness and suffering were brought about by ignorance, and everything that has come from ignorance is destroyed by knowledge, and knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This is not bodily, since the body is corruptible; nor is it psychic, since the soul came from deficiency, and is as it were a mere dwelling place of the spirit — therefore redemption must be spiritual. So the inner spiritual man is redeemed by knowledge, and they need nothing more than the knowledge of all things — and this is true redemption.” And elsewhere he says, “For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge.” There is nothing in a belief in the spiritual resurrection of Jesus that would betray this sense of “perfect knowledge” that Ignatius is referring to.
Clement says, “Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that he showeth to us even by a bird [the phoenix] the magnificence of his promise? For he saith in a certain place, ‘And Thou shalt raise me up, and I will praise Thee’; and; ‘I went to rest and slept, I was awaked, for Thou art with me’. And again Job saith ‘And Thou shall raise this my flesh which hath endured all these things’. Clement’s quote is odd, because in it he shows no partiality between the historicity of the resurrection narratives and of a mythical creature called the phoenix. But it does demonstrate on a certain level that Clement believed in a resurrection of flesh. It does not however clearly demonstrate that resurrection belief must entail the historicity of the resurrection narratives, even if one believes that it must be of the flesh. It is however most likely the case that Clement did believe the resurrection narratives to be authentically historical, and that our flesh will be raised up, like Christs.
Furthermore, Clement holds to no particular commitment for holding to the historicity of the resurrection narratives as being essential for resurrection belief to the exclusion of a spiritual resurrection. For Clement brother love and humility in the face of future judgment were the essential qualities of redemption that have no bearing concerning one’s historical beliefs.
