No Stomach for N.T. Wright (but what about J.P. Holding?)
N.T. Wright on page 290 of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to be admitting the obviousness of a biblical contradiction that many biblical inerrantists (like J.P. Holding for instance) seem loathe to admit. Before reading the passage from N.T. Wright one needs to know which verses he is referring to. They are from a Pauline letter and one of the earliest New Testament discussions concerning what "resurrection" meant, i.e., Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 6:13 & 15:50, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them." About such teachings N.T. Wright wrote:
"There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life."
To comment on Wright's comment, one need only note that the two last Gospels (Luke and John) abandoned Paul's earlier teaching and depicted scenes in which the resurrected Jesus "ate fish" and declared himself "not a spirit," but one "having flesh and bone." Which makes one wonder whether Paul might not have found such late Gospel depictions of the resurrected Jesus "heretical" had Paul lived long enough to read them.
Speaking again of N.T. Wright, in his latest book he preaches that Christians will be resurrected in a new body to live on a new earth, which raises all sorts of questions. Will people be raised with or without sex organs? Will resurrection bodies have the anatomy of Barbie dolls? (In which case, how "PG-rated," finally a "family friendly creation!") Why have that stuff between your legs for eternity if it's to be of no use?
On the other hand, Christians like C. S. Lewis hoped there would be "sex" in the afterlife. And we'd probably require organs of some sort if we were resurrected in "physical bodies" and inhabiting a "new earth." Of course some people might not like being stuck with the same physical organ they once had on earth, either because of its size or shape, or they might like to imagine trying out a different sex organ entirely rather than only having had the experience of one. And what about people born in the old creation with a bit of both sexual organs, the "inter-sexed?" Will God reassign them a gender specific organ after they are resurrected? (Again, a nice PG-rated cosmos, safe from any gray or blurry areas.)
And speaking of a "family friendly" cosmos, how "family friendly" will it be if you can't raise families in it? If new creation resurrcted bodies have sexual organs can the gonads function and conceive children? "Post-resurrection new creation babies?" Such babies wouldn't be born in a fallen cosmos but would have all the advantages of being born in a "new creation" -- all the food, love, and daily miracles anyone might ever hope to see from birth onwards. A bit of an advantage I'd say over all the damned in hell born after Adam's fall.
Of course if giving birth is NOT an option in the "new creation," then God has sterilized the chosen for eternity. (Which is a bit funny after all the lessons Christians keep telling us on earth that sterilization is wrong.)
CONVERSATION OF A SEMI-REBELLIOUS QUESTIONING CHRISTIAN WITH GOD AFTER BEING RESURRECTED IN THE NEW CREATION: "Hey God! Thanks for the resurrected body! Glory! Hey where's my? Oh wait, I've still got it (whew). Does it still work? Yes? But I'm shooting blanks for eternity? I can't make babies? In the old creation You told us to procreate and to have kids which were a tremendous blessing. Now you want us to have sex for pleasure with no baby-making even possible? Weird how you reversed the rules. Almost sounds like a resounding wet dream victory for Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution. Can we have cosmic orgies too? No? I see. So we have to do it for eternity with one spouse, or "spouses" if we'd thought ahead like king Solomon and married a couple hundred while living in the old creation. What if we died without choosing a partner but were still looking for one? Can we date in the new creation? Is heavy petting an option in the new creation? Can we continue dating till eternity ends without settling on any one partner? Oh, and thanks for sterilizing me, since the only children I WAS able to conceive never "came to Jesus" and are now roasting down below. No point risking letting me conceive more souls to fill hell, I guess. So thanks for the blessing of knowing that the only kids I will ever be able to conceive throughout eternity are suffering horrible pains forever."
Then Adam steps up and whispers in my ear, "Tell ME about it."
"There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life."
To comment on Wright's comment, one need only note that the two last Gospels (Luke and John) abandoned Paul's earlier teaching and depicted scenes in which the resurrected Jesus "ate fish" and declared himself "not a spirit," but one "having flesh and bone." Which makes one wonder whether Paul might not have found such late Gospel depictions of the resurrected Jesus "heretical" had Paul lived long enough to read them.
Speaking again of N.T. Wright, in his latest book he preaches that Christians will be resurrected in a new body to live on a new earth, which raises all sorts of questions. Will people be raised with or without sex organs? Will resurrection bodies have the anatomy of Barbie dolls? (In which case, how "PG-rated," finally a "family friendly creation!") Why have that stuff between your legs for eternity if it's to be of no use?
On the other hand, Christians like C. S. Lewis hoped there would be "sex" in the afterlife. And we'd probably require organs of some sort if we were resurrected in "physical bodies" and inhabiting a "new earth." Of course some people might not like being stuck with the same physical organ they once had on earth, either because of its size or shape, or they might like to imagine trying out a different sex organ entirely rather than only having had the experience of one. And what about people born in the old creation with a bit of both sexual organs, the "inter-sexed?" Will God reassign them a gender specific organ after they are resurrected? (Again, a nice PG-rated cosmos, safe from any gray or blurry areas.)
And speaking of a "family friendly" cosmos, how "family friendly" will it be if you can't raise families in it? If new creation resurrcted bodies have sexual organs can the gonads function and conceive children? "Post-resurrection new creation babies?" Such babies wouldn't be born in a fallen cosmos but would have all the advantages of being born in a "new creation" -- all the food, love, and daily miracles anyone might ever hope to see from birth onwards. A bit of an advantage I'd say over all the damned in hell born after Adam's fall.
Of course if giving birth is NOT an option in the "new creation," then God has sterilized the chosen for eternity. (Which is a bit funny after all the lessons Christians keep telling us on earth that sterilization is wrong.)
CONVERSATION OF A SEMI-REBELLIOUS QUESTIONING CHRISTIAN WITH GOD AFTER BEING RESURRECTED IN THE NEW CREATION: "Hey God! Thanks for the resurrected body! Glory! Hey where's my? Oh wait, I've still got it (whew). Does it still work? Yes? But I'm shooting blanks for eternity? I can't make babies? In the old creation You told us to procreate and to have kids which were a tremendous blessing. Now you want us to have sex for pleasure with no baby-making even possible? Weird how you reversed the rules. Almost sounds like a resounding wet dream victory for Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution. Can we have cosmic orgies too? No? I see. So we have to do it for eternity with one spouse, or "spouses" if we'd thought ahead like king Solomon and married a couple hundred while living in the old creation. What if we died without choosing a partner but were still looking for one? Can we date in the new creation? Is heavy petting an option in the new creation? Can we continue dating till eternity ends without settling on any one partner? Oh, and thanks for sterilizing me, since the only children I WAS able to conceive never "came to Jesus" and are now roasting down below. No point risking letting me conceive more souls to fill hell, I guess. So thanks for the blessing of knowing that the only kids I will ever be able to conceive throughout eternity are suffering horrible pains forever."
Then Adam steps up and whispers in my ear, "Tell ME about it."