Resurrection Fragments

Fragmentary response to a fragmentary document.

(1) Justin adopts what can be called a christological hermeneutic. Christ is the Word, proceeding from the Father who is the truth. Hence, Jesus needs no proof to back him up, for he is the proof by which all else is judged.

(2) In many ways Justin sings from the emerging/missional choir. He denies that there is any "secular" sphere "because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship;" and hence he feels free to employ philosophical arguments. On the same line, he emphasises the goodness of the body as God's creation. Nonetheless, there is some of the anti-sexual ascetism of later Christian tradition in his claim that some refuse to marry, (and Jesus was born of a virgin) to abolish "lawless desire". This seems to be a reference to marriage not for the sake of having children and suggest that maybe not all the blame can be laid upon Augustine after all.

(3) Justin points to the futility of arguments between trichotomists and dichotomists, for at times he is able to speak of humans as "Body and Soul" and at other times as "body, soul and spirit."

(4) The arguments against the resurrection that Justin faced seem to be similar to ones we see today (i) it is impossible (ii) it is undesirable (iii) Jesus' resurrection was spiritual.

Justin on the resurrection

Rather appropriate theme considering the claims of titanic proportions being made elsewhere...

Ch. 18-19
Justin clearly defends the resurrection of the body, and sees the wicked as being condemned to hell. What is interesting is the way he tries to establish links with pagan philosophy, and even religion to strengthen his position. Although this is anachronistic, his arguments in chapter 19 reminded me of statements by one of my teachers Rob Cook, [quoting K. Ward if I am not mistaken], of the resurrection being not a breaking of the "laws" of nature, but the operation of a higher law.

Clement and the Resurrection

Having mentioned the return of Christ in chapter 23, Clement wishes to guide his readers into a greater trust in the future resurrection in Chapter 24.

Clement's first argument is quite sound, that one can trust in the future resurrection based on Christ's resurrection, "the first-fruits" of what is to come. However, he does seek to back this up with natural examples, which end up being much more metaphors for the resurrection, rather than evidence.

Clement's second argument rings strange in modern ears, as he provides the example of the phoenix as an analogy for the resurrection. It seems to be that he really believed that the phoenix existed, possibly influenced by sources such as Herodutus and Pliny.

In Chapter 26 Clement moves unto firmer ground using OT passages to back up his belief in the resurrection. His argument may not pass the author-centred canons of the historical critical method, but a more reader sensitive approach will appreciate the thrust of his argument.

Finally in chapter 27 he emphasises that our hope in the resurrection should be strengthened focusing on the omnipotence and omniscience of God. For those who are interested in philosophical hair-splitting, Clement, whilst referring to God as omnipotent, is still able to say that it is impossible for God to lie.