> This must be my week for people to fix my phrasing for me. "Bodily" resurrection, as
> opposed to "spiritual" resurrection, is exactly the concept I wanted to emphasize.
I don't want to be pedantic about phrasing, but some care is
needed here. "It is sown a physical body [_soma psychikon_], it is
raised a spiritual body [_soma pneumatikon_]" (I Cor.15:44). As often
in Paul, the fundamental idea of "spiritual" is not that something is
non-material but that it fully in the proper relationship with God.
Paul's argument in the latter half of this chapter is that there is
_continuity_ between "physical" and "spiritual" bodies, as between seed
and plant (so that the resurrection body is indeed a _body_, albeit a
"spiritual" one), but that this is a continuity maintained in a
transformation. This transformation is necessary because "flesh and
blood [our present state of existence] cannot inherit the kingdom of
God."
This concept of resurrection, based on that of Jesus, is thus
quite different from those of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter, for there is
no hint in Scripture that those involved any such transformation.
SHALOM,
George Murphy