So
also is the resurrection of the dead.
It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible.
It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious.
It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.
It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible.
It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious.
It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.
It’s odd to me that the resurrection of the
just is so very important in our Christian tradition and of secondary
importance to the Jewish tradition. At the time of Jesus the Pharisees
believed in a personal afterlife for the just; Herodians and Sadducees rejected
the new doctrine.
The Pharisees, despite their reputation in the
Christian gospels, were the most faithful of the various Jewish sects at the
time. They were neither wealthy nor influential but they were more adaptable
and progressive when Judaism needed to adapt to the changing times. The
controversy of Jesus and his disciples with the Pharisees, which grew more heated as
the gospel spread throughout the Roman empire , was exaggerated precisely because Pharisaism represented the best
alternative for those who sincerely sought the Truth. When Jerusalem was crushed by Roman armies in 70 A.D and
the entire Jewish world reacted with consternation and grief, the Pharisees had
the wherewithal to respond to the new situation.
To this day many faithful Jews show little interest in the
resurrection of the just. They are content to know that God is good and that God
in his infinite mercy has chosen them as his people.
But the doctrine, as Saint Paul insisted, is
essential for us:
If
there is no resurrection of the dead,
then neither hasChrist been raised.
And ifChrist has not been raised, then
empty too is our preaching;
empty, too, your faith.
then neither has
And if
empty, too, your faith.
We believe in and rightfully
expect an eternity of bliss with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We look
forward to singing God’s praises with all the saints and angels, to an ongoing
revelation of astonishing mysteries, to a growing sense of wonder within hearts
that are ever-expanding with gratitude for pure goodness.
But it is, when we sit back and
think about it, hard to imagine. Where will all those people go? Where will they
all come from? The Catholic Church no longer believes that only those who were fortunate
to hear the name of Jesus Christ will be saved; we suppose that God’s grace reaches to “anonymous
Christians” who lived as Jesus lived wherever they might have been. If they were basically
decent human beings, seeking goodness and truth and beauty and avoiding egregious
sin then God will surely show mercy to them.
The apocalyptic traditions of
our religion would divide the human race into good and evil, sheep and goats.
That’s a worthy metaphor because it reminds us that salvation, which didn’t
come easily for Jesus or Mary , will not come easily for anyone else. But that
either/or paradigm may be too simplistic to describe the mercy of God.
Returning to the question of
imagination, it’s clear that some of Saint Paul ’s contemporaries were trying to imagine how the dead
might appear when they are raised. If they could not imagine it, they supposed,
then it’s nonsense.
“Have you ever successfully
predicted the future?”
No one can see the future. No one
can imagine the limits of God’s merciful creativity because there are none! How
God will pull this off we do not know. We can have fun with it, imagining
family reunions and streets of gold and so forth. Personally I am hoping for a
good set of eyes, good hearing, and a slim 36-inch waistline.
But it will be
wonderful, in any case, because God is good and nothing is impossible with God.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.
Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.
I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.
You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.