[todaysdate]
By Corbin Croy
We have spent a lot of time discussing the matter of simply how we *think* of the resurrection, perhaps too much, and I will soon end this discussion so we can move on to the arguments at hand. Why is it so important to lay this much ground work? Well, it is important because in order to propose that a spiritual resurrection is a better explanation than a historical resurrection we have to be very methodical as to what we mean exactly.
I ended my last article saying how I am certain that the historical model, aka physical regeneration, is more cognitively convenient. As such, it should be expected to possess a majority of the resurrection belief, but this ease of thinking is not a logical virtue. I intend to make my final argument for the virtue of the spiritual resurrection by addressing this common sense approach to the resurrection.
Now it should be noted that at this juncture the only thing that I need to prove, or validate, is that the idea of a spiritual resurrection is of equal merit to that of a historical resurrection. I have no commitment at this point in proving that a historical resurrection is good or bad, in fact, I think it is neither. It could be good to some, and it could be bad to others. My only proposal is that the historical resurrection model is the weakest example of genuine resurrection belief, but I maintain that it is still genuine, in a sense. My proposal simply states that the spiritual resurrection model is the strongest genuine resurrection belief for today.
Even though I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated how and why a spiritual resurrection model should be considered in the calculation of evidence that we use to construct a model, I will rise to the occasion and make a common sense argument as to why a spiritual resurrection ought to be preferred over a historical or physical regenerative model. I make this argument under certain assumptions which have been implicit throughout the other articles, but must be made explicit in this argument. The general synthesis that I am working under is that there is an intrinsic relationship between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the future resurrection of God’s people. Hence, in the manner in which Jesus rose from the dead, so too will we be raised from the dead.
It is, thus, a reliable method to speculate to our own resurrection and conceive if whether or not Christ’s resurrection could have happened in the manner in which it is said to have happened. In the same way, if we had good information that Christ rose in a certain manner then we could reliably speculate that in the future we will be raised in a like manner. If this general assumption is false then my argument would most likely be false. But if this general assumption is false, then I would dare to say that much of Christian soteriology is false as well.
The basic theological principle that connects Christology to soteriology is that Jesus Christ identifies with humanity, or to put another way: The binding theological principle of Christianity is that God identifies to humanity through Jesus Christ. Thus, it is an accurate and correct portrayal of Christianity to think that if something applied to Christ then it would also apply to us in a relative sense. Since Christ’s resurrection is ground zero for the completion of human salvation, I would think that the correlation between Christ and humanity would need to be at its highest ratio for Christian theology to even be possible.
If we want to make exceptions to Christ’s resurrection then we run the risk of making Jesus’ glorification unrelated to humanity, and we loose the hope that we have in Christ. So I think it is a fair assumption to make that there exists a two way road in connecting the realities of Christ to the realities of human history and humanity. If we find something that seems impossible for our own resurrection then we must reasonably assume that it was also impossible for Christ’s.
What will happen to the organs of Christians that go into unsaved people at the rapture? Will hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys jettison themselves from the bodies of unbelievers and fly through the air to be reconnected to the heavenly-physical tissue of those being regenerated? What will happen to the cremated ones? The ash that goes into the water and gets absorbed by all kinds of plant life and animal life, or drifts hundreds of miles apart. Will small particles of ash swirl through the air like bullets as physical regeneration takes place? If a shark eats a Christian right before the rapture, will that person be able to rip a hole in the sharks gut with one fist and fly out of the shark like superman? If someone gets poured into concrete, and they were a Christians, how would they get out during the regenerative process? Would the concrete crack and open up to let the regenerative body free, or would the body simply be able to transport itself out of the concrete? What about a body that is liquefied in acid? Will the chemical bonds be able to regenerate themselves back together in the acidic compound? What chemicals would be raptured in order to regenerate?
Do you see the problem?
My guess is that for most of these problems you would accept that a new body, or heart, or organ that got donated would simply pop into existence without the old organ jettisoning itself out of another persons body. I would hope that this is what your response would be, because if it is the other way around then common sense would definitely be on my side and not yours. So when we think about the resurrection it may seem that on a prima facie basis the common sense thing to believe is that our old bodies get regenerated and glorified, but then again, it really would not make sense to think that hearts and organs that get donated would have to evacuate from the body which holds them at that point in time. So we are willing to accept that while physical regeneration is the common sense way to believe in the resurrection it is not sufficient for being monolithically authentic.
Hence, we have to be open to consider that a spiritual resurrection could in fact be a better genuine belief about the resurrection for today should good reasons warrant the consideration. I think that above questions provide a very good reason to think that a physical regenerative model for the resurrection is highly specious. It may fit the wide majority of humans, but it cannot accommodate all of humanity. In order for a resurrection model to apply to all humanity it would have to most likely be spiritual where no natural or physical constants are required in order to genuinely keep such a belief. If I had to believe that it would be immoral to donate my organs because of the death sentence I could potentially be given someone then I would be working against another call from God to be a vessel for life and happiness for others. Such a state of affairs would lead me to reject the resurrection on moral grounds and accept a non-resurrection belief in order to better humanity more effectively.
So I think it is more of a common sense approach to accept that the resurrection should be considered to be something that cannot be explained or understood in physical and historical terms. We have to appeal to the spiritual in order to even grasp the basic concept, and through the spiritual we must let our belief about the resurrection sustain itself. This is in all things the most primary and basic way to think about the resurrection. It is a spiritual reality, first, and can have physical repercussions, second. A person who thinks that any view of the resurrection which is not physically-regenerative or historical is not a genuine view of the resurrection is simply not being rational about the subject.
However, I did say that a physically-regenerative and historical view of the resurrection could still be authentic, and I will stand by that statement, but such a view cannot exist to the exclusion of the spiritual. So if you believe that only the physically-regenerative and historical view of the resurrection can exist then the above critique applies, but if you just so happen to believe it, because you are convinced of the evidence and are willing to look at any other argument or evidence to change your mind then the above argument does not apply to you.
