The Resurrected Body, WillScrinium It Be 11Of (2015) Flesh 225-241 Or Spiritual? 225 Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography www.brill.com/scri The Resurrected Body, Will It Be of Flesh or Spiritual? Theological Discussions from the Time of the Apostle Paul up to the Sixth Century AD Antonia S. Kakavelaki University of Athens, Athens, Greece [email protected] Summary The resurrection of the dead according to Origen and Philoponus is spiritual and not of the flesh. Their opinion, contrary to the official Christian view, was influenced by the neo-Platonic doctrine of “the subtle body of the soul” and based upon Aristotelian logic. Origen’s argumentation was formed as a personal interpretation of the passage of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:39–47) where Paul mentions that the risen body will be spiritual. Philoponus argumentation, on the other hand, was mostly based upon the Aristotelian logic and he thus directed his polemic against the irrationality of the arguments of Cyril of Alexandria and of Gregory of Nyssa. Keywords bodily resurrection – anthropology – Origenism – Gregory of Nyssa – Cyril of Alexandria – John Philoponus 1 Introduction In this article we are attempting to give a comparative account of the theo- logical thought mainly of Origen and John Philoponus upon the subject of the resurrection of the dead. In the long history of the Eastern Church this sub- ject matter received different interpretations from the time of the Apostle Paul up to the sixth century (which will be the chronological limit of our pres- ent study). We are aiming to show first of all, the difference of approach the ISSN 1817-7530 (print version) ISSN 1817-7565 (online version) SCRI 1 ©Scrinium koninklijke 11 (2015) brill 225-241 nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/18177565-00111p20Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 08:01:17AM via free access 226 Kakavelaki Pre-Origenic theologians had from Origen, mainly the Apologists, for they conceived the resurrection as resurrection of the flesh, while he insisted in a non corporeal, spiritual resurrection claiming that that was Paul’s opinion upon this question. We then proceed to Methodius of Olympus, and Gregory of Nyssa, who continued to support the aforementioned conception and in- terpreted it each one in their own way, and we mention very briefly Evagrius Ponticus, who seems to be influenced by Origen’s thought. Finally we conclude with the work of John Philoponus, who used the same philosophical argument with Origen in order to support a spiritual and not a fleshly resurrection. Our study focuses upon the neo-Platonic and Aristotelian influences on Origen’s and Philoponus’ thought. 1.1 Brief Pre-history from the Apostle Paul to Pre-Origenic Theologians The notion of the “spiritual” (πνευματικόν) body appears in the New Testament in the first Epistle of Paul, addressed to the Corinthians. There Paul refers to this type of body while examining the issue of the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection of the dead was in fact one of the questions that seem to have perplexed Timothy, whom Paul had left in Corinth during his second peregri- nation, in order to organize and help the Corinthian Church. The Apostle Paul mentions “But some man will say: How do the dead rise again? With what manner of body shall they come?1 In other words, in this passage Paul raises the question: “What shall the composition of the dead bodies be when the resurrection of the dead takes place?” This was actually one of the issues that led Paul to write his first Epistle ad- dressed to the Corinthians. In ch. 15, 35–49 Paul talks precisely about the “way of being” of the resurrected bodies. In contrast to the earthly bodies people bear during their life, which are subject to corruption, the future bodies, he says, will be heavenly and incorruptible.2 The earthly body is called by Paul “psychic body,” while the heavenly body is called “spiritual” (πνευματικόν).3 He thus distinguishes the soul from the spirit and, in order to further clarify this question, he adds that the psychic body is the one that is created first, and the formation of the spiritual body follows.4 As it seems, this reference of the Apostle Paul was a cause of puzzlement already to the early Christian theologians, who tried to clarify this question, each one in his own way. Certainly, this question contained the pre-supposi- tion of a body different of the material one, that is of a spiritual body, and that cor related the thought of the Christians with the wide-spread doctrines of the 1 1 Cor 15:35 : Ἀλλ΄ ἐρεῖ τις! πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται. 2 1 Cor 15:39–42. 3 1 Cor. 15:44–45. 4 1 Cor. 15:46–47. DownloadedScrinium from Brill.com10/02/202111 (2015) 225-241 08:01:17AM via free access The Resurrected Body, Will It Be Of Flesh Or Spiritual? 227 mystical beliefs of that time, and particularly with the neo-Platonic doctrines which were related to the notion of the spiritual body. The primary issue that occupied the Christian thought was that of the resur- rection of the body of Jesus Christ. How could the mystery of his resurrection be interpreted? With which body did that take place, the natural/fleshly one, or, as Paul mentions, one of a different type, a spiritual one. And if the latter is the case, what would its particular composition be? In other words in what would it differ from the natural/fleshly body? In addition to all these, how could the question of the resurrection of the dead at the time of the Second Coming be interpreted. In the Orthodox East, various opinions concerning the resurrection of both body and soul were formulated from a very early time, in order to reject the ideas, initially of the Gnostics, (which were basically anti-cosmic dualists and thus could not accept the resurrection of the flesh), and later of Origen and his followers, who believed in the resurrection of a spiritual subtle body – influ- enced by their contemporary medio-Platonic doctrines. But let us examine these in more detail. In a text which had in the past been attributed to Clement of Rome, i.e., the second sermon or homily in Corinth (most probably around the end of the first century AD),5 we witness for the first time a new conception of the resurrec- tion, namely the resurrection of the flesh. The author of this text mentions precisely the following: And should not any one of you say that the flesh itself is not being judged or resurrected. For you should know inside what you were saved, inside what you opened your eyes if not by being inside this flesh. We must thus guard the flesh as temple of God. For in the same way as you were called inside the flesh, you will come <again> to it. <The> one Christ, the Lord, he who saved us, which is the first spirit, became flesh, and he called us in this way. So we too, shall receive the recompense.6 5 Ο.G. Stanton, “2 Clement VII and the origin of the document,” Classica et Mediaevalia, Kopenhagen, 28 (1970), pp. 314–320 claimed that the text should be dated around 180 AD. K. P. Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity, Leiden, 1974, pp. 1–48 dates it around 98 to 100 AD. The same opinion is also held by B. Schmisek, Resurrection of the Flesh or Resurrection from the Dead, Implications for Theology, Collegeville, Minnesote, 2013, p. 7. 6 Pseudo-Clement, Second Epistle addressed to the Corinthians, in PG 1, col. 341C: Καὶ μὴ λεγέτω τις ὑμῶν, ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σάρξ οὐ κρίνεται οὐδὲ ἀνίσταται. Γνῶτε ἐν τίνι εσώθητε, ἐν τινί ἀνεβλέψατε, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ σαρκῄ ταύτῃ ὅντες. Δεῖ οὔν ἡμᾶς ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ φυλάσσειν τὴν σάρκα. Ὅν τρόπον γὰρ ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἐκλήθητε, καὶ ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἐλεύθεσθαι. Εἶς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σάρξ, καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν! οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σαρκὶ ἀποληψόμεθα τὸν μισθόν. Scrinium 11 (2015) 225-241 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 08:01:17AM via free access 228 Kakavelaki In the work of the Apologists (second half of the second century) also, we find the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead n flesh. Justin the Martyr (100–165 AD) in his First Apology claimed that: “Human bodies, even when they are destroyed, and are decomposed like germs into the earth, it is not impossible, when the time comes and God commands, to resur- rect and to be clothed in incorruptibility.”7 Tatian (ca. 120–180 AD) too, in his Address to the Greeks, while referring to the resurrection says the following: “Therefore the soul of man is composed by many parts and is not of one part. For it is composite, as it become visible by means of the body. For it would never appear without the body, nor does the flesh rise without soul.”8 Irenaeus (130–202 AD), in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, refers at length on the question of the resurrection of the flesh, because his Gnostic opponents seem to have used the fragment of the Apostle Paul 15.449 to argue for a spiritual resurrection and to reject the doctrine of fleshly resurrection. He thus mentions: “If the flesh was not to be saved, the Word of God would have never been flesh. And if the blood of the just was not greatly sought after, the Lord would never have had blood.”10 Athenagoras (ca.