Toward Reclaiming an Authentic Biblical-Christian View of the Body

Of course, what the students mean by “spiritual entity” is quite vague - but that is part of the point! They are convinced that resurrection of the dead means only some impersonal amorphous spiritual immortality. I often ask the same of catechists, or Joe and Jane Parishioner, even the adult candidates in the catechumenate originally from other mainstream Christian churches, and still I usually get a similar answer. Sadly, many college seminarians I have talked with think that the Frank de Capra theology is the Catholic teaching on immortality. Man Christians mistakenly think, too, that the Biblical-Christian view is that the body is intrinsically bad.

So much so that I have been accused of making it up or of being “a heretic”!

In this view, which is essentially Gnostic, two extremes are manifest: either the body can be denigrated and largely ignored as something in the way, or it is put on a pedestal and therefore the sole object of one's concern. This latter manifestation is of course a sort of escape. (In America this latter view is often coupled with the fascination of the superficial image of the body beautiful.) In both extremes, since the body is a mere outer shell, suffering and pain are to be avoided at all costs. Thus, suffering in the body has no value.

It is ironic that so many of our Christian students will drink bottled water, eat vegetarian, work out daily, but also will, for example, smoke, get drunk on a regular basis, fornicate, or take the contraceptive pill. Many do not recognize the inherent contradiction in this lifestyle until it is pointed out to them. Yet, in living in this self-conflicted way they seem to acknowledge implicitly that the body is constitutive of the whole person.

The time may be ripe in reclaiming the authentic Biblical-Christian view of the body and the resurrection because of so many popular movements toward holistic medicine and lifestyles.

This rule was first articulated to me by my teacher, Bro. Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C.

Incidentally, Pope John Paul II's theology of the body is very consistent with the Biblical theology of the body: when he speaks of being able to tell the truth or lie with one's body, he sees man in his bodily activity very much as the Bible sees him. Of course, his theology of the nuptial meaning of the body is likewise Biblically rooted.

It is not within the scope of this paper to be exhaustive, since there is an enormous body of material relevant to the subject (just in the Bible alone!). Only representative examples will be provided here.

For the fundamental data on various key words used here in A through G, like “Body”, “Soul”, etc., the author has consulted, ad loc: Wolff H.W. Anthropology of the Old Testament (Fortress: Minneapolis, 1974); J.L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible (Bruce Publishing: Milwaukee, 1965); Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD; 6 vols.; Doubleday: Garden City, NY, 1992); Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Supplement (IDBS; Abingdon: Nashville, 1962); Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT; 10 vols.; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1964-76; see the index in vol. X for the English equivalents of the Greek); Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT; 5 vols.; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1974-); and the (New) Jerome Biblical Commentary ([N]JBC; Prentice-Hall: Englewood, NJ, 1968 and 1990); see the index, various topical articles and commentary on various Biblical texts. For Paul, see the article on “Pauline Theology” by J.A. Fitzmyer, S.J., NJBC 82, or the handy Pauline Theology, A Brief Sketch (Prentice-Hall: Englewood, NJ 1967). My references are to the latter version, which is extracted from the JBC version.

See Fitzmyer J.A. Luke X-XXIV (AB 28A Doubleday: garden City; 1985) 1399; he is quoting Bultmann.

See TDNT, s.v. “sôma.” For further specifics, see this same entry.

This is also true of Paul. See Fitzmyer , “Pauline Theology.” Where the New Testament seems to go beyond the Old in regard to speaking of the human body is when Paul speaks of the sôma in a pejorative sense with regard to “desires or passions” (cf. Rom 6: 6, 12; 8: 13). [Fitzmyer, Pauline, 61]. What Paul really means in these cases, according to Fitzmyer, is the whole man under the sway of some power like sin or death - personified. In these instances sôma is the sin-ruled self (cf. Rom 7: 23); this self is the condition of man without Christ [Ibid.]. In general, for Paul, body belongs either to Christ or to other powers (sin, death). For Paul, the terms sôma, sarx, psychë, pneuma, kardia, and nous “do not really designate parts of man but designate, rather, aspects of the whole man as seen from different perspectives.”[Ibid.}.

The New Testament also uses “body” in a metaphorical and mystical sense to speak of the Church and of the Eucharist. These senses are not within the scope of this investigation.

So McKenzie, s.v. “flesh.”

When most people think of Paul and the flesh they think of his viewing the flesh in opposition to the spirit. Going beyond the Old Testament, then, Paul sees flesh as the seat of concupiscence or worldly tendencies, and is man's natural condition. [Fitzmyer, Pauline, 62.] Flesh connotes evil self-dependency. Sin originates in the flesh not because of sensual temptations, but because one seeks salvation in trusting it. In this way Paul develops the Old Testament fundamental notion that flesh is dependent on God, the natural condition of man, but fleeting. Man in his flesh must turn to God for salvation. [IDBS, s.v. “Flesh in the NT”.]

Somehow even the medieval and Thomistic notions of the immortal soul seem to have been lost by many modern American Christians, seemingly as a result of confusing and conflating the Hellenistic notion of immortality with that of the authentic Biblical-Christian view.

See McKenzie, s.v., “soul.”

See Wolff, 10–25, upon which this material relies.

See McKenzie, s.v. “soul”, for this point and for what immediately follows.

I owe this insight to Edward G. Mathews, Jr., Ph.D.

Compare, Ps 103: 1 “Bless the Lord O my nephesh” or Ps 42: 5 “why are you cast down, O my nephesh…” Of course, the Greek of Lk 1: 46 is psychë.

McKenzie, s.v., “spirit.” See also Wolff, 32-9.

Wolff , 40.

Wolff , 40.

Wolff, 44. This section relies on Wolff, 40-55.

Wolff , 47.

She could also mean he does not love her. But remember, she is a harlot and she is willingly being used to get Samson for the Philistines.

See Wolff, 40–55.

See Wolff, 40–55

See e, g, Mt 12: 34; Mk 7: 21; 11: 23; Jn 12: 40; AA 7: 23; 28: 27; 2 Cor 5: 12.

Fitzmyer , Pauline 63.

Fitzmyer , Pauline 63.

See Fitzmyer , Pauline, for the full exposition of the Pauline anthropology, upon which I have relied.

Wolff, 64. See Wolff 63-66, upon which I have relied for material for this section.

TDNT, vol. VII, s.v., “splangchnon,” for the full exposition of this material. I have relied on it for this section.

The use of “guts” is my emphasis.

Wolff , 61.

McKenzie, s.v., “blood.”

On the sacredness of blood, see especially Lev 17: 1-16. It is not within the scope of this paper to treat these texts.

“My mouth will declare your praise” (Ps 51: 15) is another fine example of this: the whole person is meant and represented by the part of the anatomy that actually utters the praise.

It is obvious that any Christian ethic must be built on the authentic Biblical view of the body and not on the popular cultural view of what is mistaken to be the Biblical-Christian view.

Just look at the whole Sermon on the Mount and its emphasis on the morality of the person as expressed in what he does in his body, with the whole person represented in only one of his bodily members!

I am using the term here in the popular American sense to mean “untrue”, not in the proper Biblical genre sense.

See the exquisite discussion by Ratzinger J. [Introduction to Christianity (Herder and Herder: NY, 1969)], especially the section on “Two Major Questions: 2. The Resurrection of the Body”. His exegesis is sound and his philosophical distinctions incisive and timely.