Bruce Charlton's Notions

The coming of Jesus Christ changed the nature of death.

More exactly, I believe that this happened at the point of his baptism by John; the time when Jesus became divine; when the divine spirit rested upon him and stayed with him.

From then; those who loved, trusted, had-faith-in, 'followed' Jesus (those who wanted to be resurrected and dwell in Heaven for eternity) would be resurrected.

So time is real, history is real; the nature of death is divided into before and after that moment. That moment introduced the new possibility after biological death; which was resurrection to eternal life.


Before Jesus, there was no resurrection. When Men died, the spirit was separated from the body. What then?

My understanding is that the body is what enables greater agency, greater freedom; our capacity to be an actor rather than acted-upon. A spirit without a body has a much lesser degree of agency; so when the body dies there is a loss of The Self.

We experience an analogous situation each time we sleep. Sleep itself represents two of the possibilities after death - when we live in the spirit.


Deep sleep is the loss of consciousness. We are alive but don't know it (or barely so); alive but unaware of anything. This is the nearest reality to the subjective perception of death as annihilation.

Genuine annihilation of an individual spirit is impossible since our primordial spirit had no beginning, is eternal, has no end - but self-awareness can be annihilated (which represents a return to our primordial state, before we became Children of God) - alive but unaware.

When this state of alive-but-unaware is pleasurable, blissful - then it is Nirvana; the state of being sought by Hindus and Buddhists. So I am suggesting that deep sleep is a temporary Nirvana.


Dreaming sleep is equivalent to Hades or Sheol; which are seen as conditions of 'delirious', or demented half-being; when men become witless ghosts or similar.

This is seen in the state of dreaming sleep insofar as we are in a passive state of being. Memory constantly slips away, our capacity for agency is feeble so that we 'go along with' whatever is happening.

Dreaming sleep is an experience of passivity, loss of reason and purpose. It is a vision of spirit life without incarnation.


I suggest that these states - Nirvana and Hades, corresponding to deep and dreaming sleep - were the possibilities of spirit life before Jesus.

A further possibility was reincarnation. The spirit could be re-housed in a new body.

Since the body, and its specific nature, affects the spirit - this meant the reincarnated spirit, reborn and leading another life, was 'a different person' - not the same person repeated.

An analogy would be a relative who shares a certain fundamental similarity, the same flavour, deep character - "He's Just Like his uncle John...".


After Jesus a further possibility was introduced, in addition to 'Christian resurrection' - and this was Paradise.

Paradise takes various forms - Valhalla, or the Muslim Paradise. Implicitly, Paradise is a state in which our-selves are retained and our agency; so paradise is a kind of resurrection.

But Paradise is not a resurrection to the presence of God and the participation in the work of creation that is Heaven. It is a place where one's favourite activities become possible, in principle eternally (and subject to the limits of that aspiration, and the constraints of mutual existence).

Paradise (in its variants) is, indeed, pretty much the lower or 'Telestial' Heaven as described in Mormon theology. It is pleasurable and enjoyable, but in Paradise men are not qualitatively different from how they are in this mortal life - there is no ascent to a higher, more conscious and creative and loving, form of life.

In sum; Paradise is essentially uncreative, passive ('contemplative', appreciating, consuming) a reversion to childhood or adolescence; to Original Participation. And I believe it is possible that some people in Heaven are actually experiencing Paradise - e.g. those who are resurrected as (in their essence) children, but who live (as children) with their families who include those who are participating with God in the work of creation.  


What about Hell? Well some will choose that, on the basis of how they choose in mortal life - maybe even a large majority of people in the modern West.

These are self-excluded from heaven, and self-excluded from resurrection; Hell is the exclusion of Love.

Such remain spirits in the condition of Sheol, but isolated by the perspective and priorities of those who choose Hell.

Their state seems terrible to me; and is based upon a primary (pride-full) dishonesty of denying that they are God's children living in God's creation... but Hell is what they get, having rejected all the above.

So, Jesus brought Hell, as well as resurrection in Heaven - because it is deliberate, conscious rejection of the world of God, Good, Creation and Love that makes Hell hellish.

Note added: Resurrection is the single most astonishing, incredible, mysterious thing about Christianity. That is my point. What that means is that resurrection is Not something that can be 'explained' in common-sensical, ordinary, easily intelligible, procedural terms as if it was a chemical manufacturing process. It is incredible. I am not At All surprised if people don't believe it. Nonetheless, resurrection is something near the core of what Jesus taught (and did). I think resurrection is probably a much more important fact of Christianity than commonly regarded. We should work from that, rather than try to make the incredibility go away.
 

My metaphysical understanding is that the fundamental nature of reality consists of (eternal) Beings in relationships - these Beings transform through time; and such transformation is of the nature of Beings.

But the transformations are of different kinds. One transformation was from spiritual pre-mortal beings to incarnate as mortals - as we are now. We can ask what 'ingredients' go-into any such transformation - and I think the answer is that there is a variable mix of internal and external influences. We are transformed both from-within and from-without.

(Transformation from-within is possible, because Beings exist only in-time, hence there is no cross-sectional Being; hence a Being never ceases to be even when transformed in totality in terms of structure and function. Despite transformation, agency is never 'broken', but persists continuously throughout. Hence it is not a contradiction that a Being can participate in its own transformation - although transformation always requires some external transforming agent. In sum; both are needed.)

So, when we transformed from spirits to incarnated mortals, the main agency was God (our Heavenly Parents), but not solely God. We are divine Beings, potentially of the same kind as God; so we cannot be (and should not be) transformed against are will or passively. Therefore, our consent to incarnation was necessary.

However, this consent could not be full, because we could not know fully what it was like to be incarnated as mortals. Full consent would have required experience - but we could not experience mortal incarnation without actually undergoing the transformation.

So, we consented, but it should not be surprising that there seem to be many people who do not like the experience of mortal life, when they actually need to live-through it.

However, there are further transformations necessary before we can move further toward becoming fully-divine. One is death. We must, I think, consent to our own death - or else we will move off the path to full divinity.

In the Fourth Gospel, this is emphasised by Jesus; that death of the mortal body ought not to be feared but rather welcomed as a portal to something far greater; resurrected eternal life.

Now, when it comes to resurrected life, I think we are talking about a full state of divinity; albeit initially at a much lower level than God - yet a level from which we dwell in Heaven and participate in the ongoing work of creation.

We need, therefore, full consent to this transformation from the soul that remains after death of the body to resurrection. And 'resurrection' is not merely a coming alive again in a new body; resurrection is necessarily into-Heaven.

I am stating that we cannot be resurrected unless that is a resurrection into divine participation in Heaven - it is an irreversible, permanent commitment - and this commitment is one of Love. It is love which makes possible this resurrection-into-Heaven.

(...Because it is Love that harmonises all the divine creativities of individual resurrected Men - including Jesus - with that of our Heavenly Parents; to make from many 'players' the unending and unfolding symphony of creation.)

Therefore, the 'final' transformation that is resurrection can be regarded as necessarily having 'input' from our-selves as well as God; we are required not just to consent, but actively, consciously and positively to embrace resurrection-into-Heaven in Love.

This is done (and must be done) by following Jesus (the Good Shepherd) through death into Life Eternal. We follow Jesus because (and only if) we Love him, and because we wish to go where he will lead us.

Otherwise resurrection cannot and will not happen.


Note: I regard the above as wholly compatible with the overall teaching and spirit of the Fourth Gospel, and its multiple 'symbolic' descriptions of that Life Eternal/ Everlasting that is resurrection-into-Heaven.

I'm assuming here (as explained here) that the essence of what Jesus did was to make possible resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

One way I think about resurrection is that Jesus described himself as the Good Shepherd, and developed the explanation that we were like sheep who could follow him - implicitly from biological death of the body, to eternal resurrected life. 

I take this parable rather 'literally' as describing a 'process' or transformation - happening through time - which we may choose to go-through after death. 

It seems, from the Fourth Gospel, that the process is one in which it is necessary, in some sense, to follow Jesus; and that this following happens (broadly) because we love Jesus and have faith in his promises. 

This raises the question of why is it necessary to follow Jesus; why cannot at least some Men find their own way? 

One answer is that Jesus's own death and resurrection 'blazed the trail' which Men coming after were then able to follow - metaphorically, Jesus created or 'cleared' a path from mortal to immortal life; and afterwards this path was enough for Men to follow. 

However, I am convinced that Lazarus was resurrected by Jesus before Jesus himself had undergone the transformation. If correct; this means that Jesus made possible resurrection for those who loved and believed him even before he himself died. 

When did resurrection become possible? At the time of Jesus's baptism by John- when he began his ministry and became fully divine and capable of primary creation, as demonstrated by the miracles and direct interaction with God The Father. 

In other words, Jesus's death and resurrection was 'only' a matter of providing him with an immortal body; because he had already - even while still mortal - made the eternal spiritual commitment to live in total harmony with God's creative motivations. 

Putting these together; it suggests that resurrection was made possible by Jesus, a Man, attaining fully divine creative ability; and this itself is an aspect of Jesus (from his baptism) living (yet still a mortal Man) in permanent and complete harmony with the will of God the primary creator. 

When other Men than Jesus (e.g. but not exclusively saints) have done miracles; these happened because the miracle worker was - at that moment, but temporarily - in harmony with God's will. 

The difference between Jesus after baptism and other Men was that Jesus (while still mortal) had made a permanent and irreversible commitment to live in total harmony with God's creation; and we men are not able to make this permanent commitment during mortal life - but only afterwards, after biological death, and by means of following Jesus. 

 

I have not really answered the question of what it is that Jesus uniquely does to enable us to choose resurrection; but perhaps the analysis provides some extra focus and specificity. 

What happens to enable resurrection is this choice to allow ourselves to be made wholly harmonious with God's divine creative will. 

This is mostly a positive desire to be resurrected, to dwell eternally in Heaven; but also vitally, 'double-negatively', it entails a willingness to discard our sins. That is, desiring to be cleansed of all our motivations that are Not aligned-with God's creative will.

Thus, to enter Heaven we must want to enter Heaven, and as party of this, we must want to be transformed such as to remove all aspects of ourselves that are hostile to Heaven. And we must want these permanently. 

Until Jesus; no Man had ever been in the position of loving God so fully that he was able (or willing) to make this total and permanent commitment.  

But after Jesus had made this commitment; reality was changed forever for those who loved Jesus and wished to follow him. 

The crucial difference between Jesus and us, is that we cannot (as he did) make eternal commitments while still mortal; we can only make such commitments after biological-death. The 'entropic' nature of our-selves (including our minds and wills), and of this world, seem to render all permanence impossible to us.

There may perhaps be some exceptions, as with some (not all) of the true saints: so, perhaps some mortal Men can (since Jesus) love him perfectly enough to make an eternal commitment? 

But for most of us, we are too labile and corruptible; and we are provided-for by having the final choice made post-mortal, at a time when we have become discarnate spirits.

All we have to do in mortal life is decide whether we want resurrected life in Heaven; and know that this is possible for any who choose to follow Jesus Christ's guidance on this path; and we can do this with the help of the Holy Ghost - who is the spirit of Jesus active in this world. 

By this account - the deep meaning of Grace, is that this was done for us by Jesus Christ; and we need merely to assent; rather than having to find the path to resurrection by-ourselves.  

My understanding is that an eternal and indestructible resurrected body has no physical relation to the mortal body; but is 'regenerated' from the soul: regenerated from that which survives death.

This is confirmed for me by the possibility of reincarnation, which seems to have been the 'normal' thing for souls in many parts of the world throughout history - including the ancient Hebrews and first Christians - since the possibility or prophecy of prophets being reborn is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testaments (including the Fourth Gospel Chapter 1, when discussing the identity of John the Baptist).

If a person is to be reincarnated, especially when widely separated by time, then this must presumably be with different bodies - showing that the principle is established whereby a soul may be housed in different bodies - including, potentially, the resurrection body.


On the other side; the indications that resurrection involves re-animating the mortal body can be taken to be implied by two episodes in the Fourth Gospel ('John'): the raising of Lazarus (assuming, like me, you regard this as a resurrection) and by the episode in the 20th chapter where the resurrected Jesus twice shows the wounds in his sides and hands to the disciples.

Some would assume that Lazarus is brought to life in the same physical body that has died, presumably after it had been miraculously repaired; and that the continued presence of wounds in Jesus's hands and side means that we all should expect to be resurrected in the same physical bodies in which we died - or at least one that looks the same.

Instead, my assumption is that these particular public demonstrations of  resurrection are not intended to be a pattern for all possible ones. In these; I assume that the resurrected body formed in more-or-less the same physical space as the dead mortal body; as a proof of continued identity for bystanders. But this is not necessary - nor indeed usual.

Unless resurrection was intended to be restricted only to those who had died without serious damage to their bodies, the process of resurrection (whatever it is) cannot depend on the survival intact of the physical body. There is no indication anywhere in the Fourth Gospel that resurrection is so restricted.


Furthermore, I personally do not hang too much on the 'showing of the wounds' episode, since it may well be a later addition to the Gospel by another hand and is unconfirmed by other parts of the Gospel. For example, when Mary Magdalene first met the risen Jesus at the tomb, she seems not to have seen any wounds - or else she would (surely?) immediately have recognised him.

(It is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel that all key points are repeated in different sections; I suppose so that they are emphasised, and also in order to better explain them using different 'metaphors' and contexts.) 

Therefore, lacking confirmation, I would not want to depend on the showing of the wounds as decisive evidence; especially as I am sure that the immediately adjacent and interpolated passage in Chapter 20 - about the coming of the Holy Ghost - is a later and false insertion.

It may be that most of Chapter 20 is not from the beloved disciple (whom I recognise as Lazarus); and instead based on later hearsay and the not-from-Jesus hence alien, 'imminent second coming' agenda.


But either way, I think that the fact of resurrection being the provision of a 'new' body (eternal and incorruptible) by a 'process' that does Not require any contribution from the mortal body, was something known and assumed at the time the Fourth Gospel was written.

We must die in order to be remade - to be resurrected. 

This is salvation. 

Damnation is the other choice: to reject salvation. 

We must be resurrected to enter that state called Heaven*; because for Heaven to be 'heavenly' - all within it must have-been remade, wholly-good - without disposition to evil. 

Or, to enter Heaven, we must make a permanent commitment to repent and repudiate all sin - all evil, all that opposes divine harmony - and the way that this permanent commitment is made is by resurrection -- in which all that is Good (God-harmonious) in us is retained; while all that is not is left-behind and discarded.

Such a permanent commitment is made from love; and therefore must freely be chosen - cannot be compelled; and can only be made by those capable of love who choose to make love their eternal foundational principle. 

(Only thus can Heaven be a place that is wholly Good (a place without any evil-motivation) and also wholly-free - inhabited by beings with divine powers of creation; who will always and spontaneously use their godly-powers harmoniously with God and other Heavenly beings.)  

The need for death is true for men and women - and for all other beings. 

Which is why this incarnated mortal life on earth is dominated by entropy: because every-"thing" must die, if there is to be a possibility of resurrection. 

In other words: If every being on earth is to have a chance of attaining and choosing Heaven - they all must die, sooner or later. 

Pre-mortal spirit life, although wholly-good, is very imperfect - especially in terms of freedom, of agency. 

The harmony and goodness of pre-mortal life is dependent on the passivity and obedience of spirits; because pre-mortal beings are not innately wholly good (in the way that God is wholly-good, or resurrected beings are wholly good). 

Because pre-mortal spirits are not-wholly-good, the harmony of goodness in pre-mortal life is attained top-down, by the direction and control of God. 

In effect, so far as pre-mortal spirit life goes; God is the wholly-good parents of a mixed bunch of children - some mostly-good, some mostly-evil - none wholly good. It is only by the obedience of these children that goodness prevails. 

But pre-mortal spirits mature, they grow-up, they change... Sooner or later, they get to a point where they must throw-off the passive goodness of obedience to parental authority and control. 

Then these pre-mortal spirits have a choice...

Either the spirits can incarnate on earth - some time afterwards to die, and make the choice of resurrection, or not. 

(This is God's plan - because God wishes to make and inhabit Heaven with resurrected (incarnated everlasting) beings, who have have by their choice of resurrection made an eternal commitment to live in harmony with divine creation.)

Or else those pre-mortal spirits who do not want to die and be resurrected; or who simply do not want to die - and those who reject the divine plan for an harmonious Heaven of free-beings who have chosen to be remade without evil... 

These spirits can escape their previous state of obedience to divine goodness, and enter the sphere of earth while still spirits - and therefore immortal. 

These are the demons. 

(This explains why demons are spirits - not embodied; and why they are immortal. They are spirits because they have refused temporary mortal incarnation, and are immortal because they are spirits, and unaffected by 'entropy'.)

If the pre-mortal spirits choose mortal life on earth, they must choose temporary incarnation and death (as necessary pre-requisites for resurrection); but if they reject this package, then such spirits have rejected even the possibility of Heaven.

This is why all demons are evil, and why demons are worse than incarnated Men - because demons, by their rejection of mortal incarnation, have all chosen to reject the possibility of that death which makes salvation possible. 

(If demons changed their minds and repented, and wished to prepare for the choice of Heaven; they would need first to incarnate and die. Whether this this is possible or ever actually happens I do not know.) 

So - demons have rejected the passive ('secondhand') good of pre-mortal spirit life under the parental influence of God; and they have also rejected that mortal life on earth which is a necessary stage to prepare for remaking-by-resurrection, and Heaven.   

The ruling principle of creation (that which makes creation cohere) is love; and love is the reason why the dead choose resurrection and heaven.  

The essential reason why demons have rejected mortal incarnation, and why some dead mortal Men reject the offer of resurrection into Heaven and instead choose damnation; is that demons and the damned are either incapable of love, or have rejected love as the basis of life and chosen... something else.    

Differently phrased: Demons are those never-incarnated beings who have rejected living under the domination of entropy (i.e. mortal earthly life); and by doing so rejected God's plan of salvation. 

The damned are those who chose to live and die as mortal incarnate Men on earth, and have become dis-carnated beings (i.e. souls severed from their bodies); and who die and then reject resurrection and Heaven; instead choosing some other fate.

*Note: Why our final God-destined state-of-being is embodied, incarnate - rather than spirits - is a topic I have considered elsewhere.   

Today, many Christian celebrate the resurrection of Jesus - so that the divine but mortal Man was born again in an everlasting divine body - and the promise that those who want resurrection - who believe and follow Jesus - can have the same gift.

By not thinking, by pretending that beliefs do not have consequences, Modern Man usually does not want Resurrection. Many claim to be 'satisfied' with mortal life; and regard it as childish, selfish and greedy to want 'more'.

But eternal life is not 'more' than mortal life; it is something utterly different.

This qualitative distinction between death and life used to be so obvious as not to require explanation, even to the simplest mind; but Modern Man has so fragmented his thinking that he can deny anything which he doubts - and he can be induced to doubt everything.

There is no possible coherence when thoughts are regarded as detached units, confined to a detached brain. More - there is no self; so Resurrection is incomprehensible; since after the body has died there is nothing to resurrect...

In such a world, the gift of Jesus is not so much denied as incomprehensible; not so much denied as unwanted. When life is experienced as intrinsically meaningless, why should anyone want it to persist eternally? Why should anyone want an everlasting body?

Most would prefer a painless transition from this mortal life to extinction, annihilation - and this is a technological/ managerial problem - not a matter of religion. If they want eternal life, they reject eternal consciousness - so, at most, will be yearning for a painless, preferably blissful, but unconscious eternity of spiritual dissolution or assimilation (it doesn't make any perceptible difference which).

This is the absolute negation of Love - and it is the norm.

Christianity is for those who want what Jesus offers. It is possible, it is perhaps likely, that these will be a minority of Modern Men: and that this minority will be a small one.

We can reflect on some words of the Apostle Paul, inspirationally done into some of the greatest prose to which English has attained. 

1 Corinthians. 15

[12] Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: [14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. [15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. [16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: [17] And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. [18] Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

[19] If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. [20] But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. [21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. [24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

[25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. [27] For he hath put all things under his feet.

[35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? [36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: [37] And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: [38] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? [56] The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. [57] But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ...

Resurrection is not just a matter of bodies! - because life everlasting is about more than bodies.

The created world is made of Beings (and parts of Beings) in relationships - Heaven is characterised by that relationship being Love (such that the creativity of Beings in Heaven is harmonious because of love - as the love within an ideal family coordinates the disparate activities of that family).

The resurrection of Jesus implies that to be resurrected is a superior state to being a spirit. This fits with a view of the world that sees the beginning in Beings all as spirits, and (with incarnation) spirits becoming more concentrated and bounded by bodies (by solidity); so that they may become more separate hence free, and potentially agents of independent creation.

But spirit and body are on a continuum; a difference of degree not kind. This means that Thinking is potentially a material, as well as spiritual, process. Such is clear from the fact that this (including material) create world of ourselves, other persons, the earth; is permeated by the Thinking of God.

Resurrection is possible because we are eternal and indestructible Beings - we transform throughout time while remaining the same Being; we are linked by our lineage, 'the same self' by the continuity of our descent from our former selves, back forever.

So, through time, our eternal self will always remain. At biological death the body drops away but the self is eternal; and that of the self which remains after 'death' includes everything that is eternal - includes, therefore, whatever is Heaven-compatible that we have created through our mortal lives. 

As far as the body goes, resurrection is about making that body eternal - self-renewing, indestructible etc. But our Being potentially goes beyond our body; and includes imaginations, memories, creations and the like. These are a part of our lineage, aspects of our Being - therefore may be resurrected insofar as they are compatible with Heaven (and its harmony of Love).

The process of resurrection would therefore be supposed to reconstitute, in an eternal form, whatever of our earthly, mortal lives (whatever is characterised by loving creation) that will be compatible with - will enhance - the world of Heaven. 

I presume that Thinking in Heaven is greatly enhanced; and encompasses the full spectrum between spirit and matter. Like God, we will be able to create by thought - by extension of our Being; shared with others by Love; these creations may be eternal - and they may be solid and material, as well as abstract and spiritual.

What can only be subjectively Imagined on earth, may become objectively, even solidly, real after Resurrection.   


NOTE: JRR Tolkien's allegorical short story about the afterlife, Leaf by Niggle (first published in 1945 - text available here) is a vision of how this might be. Niggle is a painter who (after a period in Catholic Purgatory) finds himself living in the reality of the paintings that he could only imagine in mortal life. Furthermore, this paradise also includes aspects of Niggle's neighbour's practical abilities as a gardener - and the two men become great friends and collaborate on further creating their imagination, in a solid objective and permanent form; which others can share, and from which they can benefit. 

*
Reflections from the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew

The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Repent, be Baptised - and Healing

John the Baptist and then Jesus Christ have the message to repent because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, imminent.

*

The imminence Kingdom of Heaven refers to the fact that soon Man would, for the first time be resurrected and therefore able to inhabit Heaven (a new place and possibility); and therefore it was now time for each Man to repent.

*

So, the imminent resurrection of Christ allow, makes-possible the imminent resurrection of Men; which means that the Kingdom of Heaven will soon be accessible to Men.

Repentance is now necessary because we will each soon have to make a decision to accept or reject the Kingdom of Heaven - accepting Heaven requires repentance; repentance is this acknowledgement of the need for Christ, that Resurrection is made possible by Christ.

*

Why the emphasis on Baptism (John the Baptist)? - because Baptism is washing away sin and emergence from the water as rebirth - rebirth is resurrection.

Baptism is a Repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven.

(Baptism ought, therefore, to be by immersion or - at least - by a volume of water washing-over the person, and the person emerging-from the volume of water. Baptism by the - mere - application of water onto the body is an error. Also, Baptism is supposed, ideally (not exclusively) to be done to a person who can appreciate this - not explicitly as theology, but someone who can feel what is happening - can feel the washing and rebirth. For this to be more than just symbolism, the Holy Ghost would need to become operative by this; would need to be welcomed into his heart by the newly-baptised.)

*

John and the Apostles baptised, but Jesus healed.

Healing is a means to the end - Mortal Man is recognized as intrinsically 'sick', and healing by Christ is a miniature resurrection; and restoration of health by Christ is a miniature of our entry into the (imminent) eternal Kingdom of God.

So a spiritual act of Healing by Christ is a picture of rebirth and resurrection, a story of it - it is the same process, the same sequence of events, as Baptism.

*

John Baptised, Christ Healed; both were about Repentance and the Kingdom.

To be healed is a repentance, to be restored to health is to be resurrected.

Baptism and Healing were a microcosm of the imminence of Christ's new gift of Man's Resurrection into the Kingdom of Heaven.

*

The beginning of the Fourth Gospel tells us that it was Jesus, The Word, who made this world; and it is this work of creation which enabled Jesus (and only Jesus) to be our saviour.

*

Having made this world; Jesus was then incarnated-into the world he had created; that is, he was incarnated from his creation, using the stuff of his own creation. This world has that primal and fundamental unity - of being created by Jesus - everything is inter-related and mutually-affecting, by kinship of shared origin.

So we too are all incarnated from this world, from the creation of Jesus. 

When Jesus died and was resurrected; this was the death and resurrection of the creator of this world, Jesus's mortal body and his resurrected body were both of this world (which Jesus himself had made).

We are incarnate from this world, Jesus became incarnate from this world (which he had made); we and Jesus are both Men; and therefore Jesus's death and resurrection had universal significance for Men. 

This it was, that made it possible for other Men to follow Jesus into resurrected life everlasting; and why only Jesus is our saviour.

*

Why then do we need to have faith in Jesus? Why doesn't salvation just-happen?

Because there are two things Jesus gave us; the first is 'physical' resurrection to eternal life, the second is 'dwelling' in Heaven (life 'everlasting', and life qualitatively greater - not merely unending existence...).

Resurrection just-happens, and it happens to all men. Instead of remaining as a severed soul - as was the case for all Men before Jesus; since the resurrection of Jesus, all Men (including those from before the time of Jesus) are resurrected.

Resurrection is not a choice - it 'just happens' - it is something like a change in physical reality; a change in what happens to the soul after death.

*

But Heaven is a choice, a decision, an act, an opt-in - and salvation therefore happens only through faith - that is love, trust of Jesus.

To understand this requires recalling the fate of the soul after the death of the body, and before the resurrection of Jesus - the soul was a witless, demented thing of little intelligence, little memory, little judgement, no free will... incapable of helping itself...

(This, at least, is how both the ancient Hebrews (with Sheol) and ancient Greeks (with Hades) regarded life after death - and other variants may be understood similarly. The soul after death was a damaged, incomplete, incapable thing - eternal life was merely eternal existence.)

I regard the Good Shepherd parable as providing the key to understanding salvation - which is that while the soul is always resurrected, resurrected Man cannot find his own way to Heaven.

The resurrected soul must be led to Heaven; that is, Man must choose to follow the guidance of the Good Shepherd. This following is not imposed, it is chosen.  

This was made newly possible by Jesus because the resurrected soul has greater capability than the discarnate souls destined for Sheol/ Hades; the resurrected soul has sufficient capability to recognise Jesus, to know him; it has the capacity and necessity to choose whether to follow the Good Shepherd, or not.

Why would the resurrected soul follow the Good Shepherd to Heaven, except that the soul loved and trusted the Good Shepherd?

That is the need for faith.

*

Thus Jesus was necessary to our salvation, only Jesus could give us salvation, only faith in Jesus can lead us to salvation.

 

If you, like me, regard as obsolete and (very obviously!) ineffective as of 2023, the traditional idea that Christian morality has the form of a set of laws and rules that were dictated by God and Jesus Christ, and transmitted by The Church, The Bible, Apostolic Tradition etc. -- Then we need to consider what, instead, are the alternative sources of Christian morality. 

Reincarnation seems to imply (if not to entail) the eternal primacy of spirit life (unembodied, 'pure' spirit) above incarnation (embodiment). 

That is; with reincarnation Men are primarily - first and last - spirit forms; and the history of a Man's being begins with being-a-spirit and ends with being-a-spirit. 

This spirit undergoes a series of incarnations which may be (eventually, according to some versions of reincarnation) aiming-towards eternal status as a spirit. The spirit learns-from - or is otherwise affected-by - an incarnation; however, it is only the spirit which persists. 

Or else there is an unending cycle of (re-) incarnations (and perhaps transformations, for instance to other beings such as animals) through-which the spirit moves serially. But, equally; only the spirit is eternal, with the multiple incarnate forms being left-behind. 

But the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his promise of resurrection to all who follow him, implies a final incarnation. 

Resurrection (which is an eternal embodied state) is thus implicitly regarded as having a higher status than that of pure spirit. 

For me this means that when someone becomes a Christian, he expects (or at least hopes) that his death will be followed by resurrection; and therefore Not by another reincarnation. 

Against this understanding are ranged several of my spiritual mentors such as Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield, and perhaps William Arkle. Steiner and Barfield are explicit that the ultimate and eternal aim of Man is to be a pure (discarnate) spirit; and that incarnations are 'merely' a series of 'descents' into the material, from-which the spirit is intended to learn. 

I can only regard this combining of Christianity and reincarnation as an error - a metaphysical* incoherence. A failure correctly to discern and understand the core teaching of Jesus Christ and the demonstration that was his life, death, resurrection and ascension.   

And I think the source of this error lies in the (common, almost universal) failure to regard the Fourth Gospel (termed 'John') as the primary Christian scripture; because this text seems to state quite explicitly (and repeatedly) that followers of Jesus can expect resurrection to life everlasting after the death of their mortal bodies: which clearly (so it seems) excludes the possibility of reincarnation. 

A Christian who built his faith from the Fourth Gospel would (surely?) cease to expect - and to want - any further reincarnation? 

*Note - By metaphysical incoherence I mean a matter of incompatible primary assumptions; which therefore has nothing to do with 'evidence' or 'observation', because metaphysical assumptions frame the nature and status of evidence and observation.

Further Note - I am not saying that there never was reincarnation; in the contrary I assume that it certainly has happened in some times and places, and possibly continues to happen. What I am saying is that following Jesus Christ to Heaven necessarily terminates the cycle of reincarnations. 

If you don't want resurrected eternal life in Heaven - then you aren't a Christian. That seems straightforward fact - because, if you want something else, then you don't want this. 

Yet when I have previously written on this subject, I have received comments and communication that seem to emanate from a feeling of hurt or exclusion - as if I was somehow preventing access to people who (instead of resurrection and Heaven) wanted Nirvana, to be reincarnated to further mortal lives, to become a spirit, or insensible, or have their Self/Ego annihilated. 

(Positively to be a Christian needs more than wanting resurrected life in Heaven - because Christian also requires a conviction/ faith/ trust that this can only be attained by (in some sense) following Jesus Christ - although Christians differ widely in their understanding of what 'follow' means and entails.) 

Reflecting on this strange matter - whereby, for example - people seem to want both 1.) to be resurrected with an eternal body, living as a person in Heaven, in the presence of Jesus Christ and God the Father; and simultaneously after dying to become to be a spirit (with no body); not a person - because without agency or self-awareness; and assimilated-into or absorbed-by a God who is an impersonal deity.  

How could such contradiction and confusion arise? 

I think the reason is simple - which is that people do not think seriously about what happens after biological death - and self-identified Christians do not think much about what actually happens at resurrection and in Heaven. 

Resurrection has become so uncertain, people seem afraid to think beyond it. Furthermore, by some doctrines, resurrection is delayed - perhaps to the 'second coming', day-of-judgment (something not told us by the Fourth Gospel - where both Lazarus and Jesus resurrect within a couple of days, and there is no such thing as the 'second coming'). 

At any rate, resurrection is treated as if far-off, and in some sense is regarded as not-our-concern; and indeed there is a superstitious sense that it is presumptuous (hence unlucky) even to think about it but certainly to speak or write about it. 

I sometimes feel this myself - even though I don't agree with it; that I am 'tempting fate' by 'taking for granted' my resurrection to the extent of thinking beyond it- despite that (in the Fourth Gospel) it seems clear that Jesus wants us to be confident about our salvation (in the same way a young child should be confident about the love of his parents). 

At any rate; this mental block on resurrected life has many malign effects. For one thing, it makes for this confusion as it what is, and what is Not, Christianity. For another, it has made people massively over-focused on this mortal life - as if what happened here and now was the 'main point' of Christianity; whereas exactly the opposite is told by the Fourth Gospel.

Christianity is primarily about what happens after biological death; and that is made clear in principle: resurrected, eternal life, in Heaven, as Sons of God. It is by the implications of this other-worldly fact that we may infer what Christianity means for this-world.  

The effect that Jesus Christ has on this mortal life can be imagined as a glorious light cast back from the reality of our life-beyond-death; and this means we need to regard that resurrected life as real. 

We need to expect our own personal resurrection into Heaven with maximum confidence; need to dwell upon it - including the details and specifics, as best we may. Only thus can we combat the colossal weight of totalitarian materialism that presses-down upon us; a mass and detail of this-worldly-ness - that otherwise would tend to crush us into hope-less-ness and despair.  

That Jesus died was necessary - he was a mortal Man. Like you and me; Jesus could only become immortal via the portals of biological death: mortal death is necessary to immortal resurrection. 

(I cannot explain by what mechanism this is so, but it apparently is a constraint of our created reality.)  

But Jesus was fully divine in his powers before he died - we know this because he was a divine creator, able to create divinely. That is the significance of the resurrection of Lazarus in particular, but also some others of the other miracles; these demonstrate that Jesus was a primary creator. 

Being on the one hand a mortal Man, but on the other hand having this divine creative power, meant that although must die sooner-or-later, he could (in principle) often elude death here-and-now. 

And there are examples in the Fourth Gospel when Jesus does this - for instance John 8:59 "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

So, sometimes - either by his behaviour, or through miraculous means, Jesus chose to delay his own death. This happened many times through the three years of his ministry, between the baptism by John and the death by crucifixion - during which Jesus was fully-divine, and had miraculous powers - but also, in general terms, he made decisions that kept him alive.

But at a certain point, Jesus stopped doing this, let events take their course, and ultimately allowed himself to be crucified. 

Ordinary mortal people may be called-upon to make a similar decision. After spending perhaps many decades trying to stay alive, keep healthy, extend life - a time may come when it is wrong to fight death and right to allow oneself to die... to allow events take their fatal course.  

How did Jesus know, how can we know, when it is right to allow ourselves to die? 

After all, for Jesus, he was still young - just thirty-three - and presumably could have had many more years to preach and teach; and personally to lead the development of a church, built according to correct principles (if that was what he wanted). 

Why then did he die at 33? The implicit reason given in the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus had completed his ministry with the resurrection of Lazarus. 

It is a further question why it was necessary for Jesus to raise Lazarus. Many Christians believe that this miracle was not a resurrection; however, I believe that it was (and that we are told this in in the Fourth Gospel). 

Therefore, apparently, it was necessary for Jesus personally to resurrect Lazarus in order that he would (after death and ascension) be able to offer the same to all Men. And this was precisely what Jesus came to do: offer resurrection to all Men.  

A difference was that Lazarus was resurrected into his own corpse, and into this mortal earth. This was clearly a very important demonstration and teaching - but its cosmic significance was that Lazarus soon afterwards wrote the Fourth Gospel; which is our primary and most authoritative source on Jesus's mission and teaching. 

(Presumably, this interpretation of Lazarus's resurrection suggests; the resulting Fourth Gospel is more than just another historical text, with the inevitable errors and deficits of transmission, copying, tampering and translating through many centuries. Presumably there exists the possibility of its being 'received' in a qualitatively special fashion - by the assistance of the Holy Ghost. So that its message may be directly-known in a way that transcends error and distortion... Such an explanation makes sense of the distinctive nature of Lazarus's resurrection.)  

But, to return to the original question of "why did Jesus die when he did?" - this can now be understood as a more important question than the usual one of "why was Jesus crucified?"

It was necessary that Jesus died (that he allowed himself to die) when he did, but the method of death was only secondarily important. 

In the Fourth Gospel we can read of Jesus meditating, praying, consulting with his Father about whether this was the 'time to die' (or, presumably, whether there was more he needed to do first) - and being assured that Now was the time. 

To this, Jesus needed voluntarily to assent. He might in theory have resisted death for many decades longer, and done all sorts of other things... but Jesus agreed to allow death to happen Now, because his real earthly-work was finished; and it was time for his Heavenly work (as the Holy Ghost) to commence. 

"Anything but Christianity" is axiomatic for modern mainstream culture. In other words, whatever the attitude towards religion and spirituality (from broad sympathy to total atheistic rejection); there is a special animus directed-against Christianity. 

And few are even explicitly aware of this in themselves. 

I speak from experience. For several decades before I became a Christian, I was a 'spiritual seeker'; and had regarded myself as (in some general way) broadly in favour of some aspects of Christianity; and I had read (and thought about) comparative religion, mythologies of the world, modern spirituality (New Age), and even modern Christian theology. 

Yet, in truth, my was attitude that I was looking for An Answer everywhere except in Christianity. 

When reading Christian material, I was always pleased to see it reinterpreted in the light of other religions or traditions. "If only Christianity were more Buddhist, or New Age spiritual - if only Christianity could admit it is just one of many paths to truth - then I might find a home there" was the sort of idea. 

But at the root of it, as I now see that what I was objecting to was resurrection. I did not want to be resurrected after death; I did not want to stay myself, in an eternal body: I did not want to repent my sins and dwell in a Heaven among other such resurrected Beings. 

Of course I didn't believe resurrection was even possible! I thought the idea was (very obviously!) childish wishful thinking to be found only among the weak-minded; or that nobody really believed it but pretended in order to reassure themselves or manipulate others. 

But believing that resurrection was impossible nonsense was not the root of it: the root of it was that I rejected it. And, because I rejected specifically what Jesus Christ achieved and offered us; naturally I rejected Christianity. 

I think that my own ex-views are not uncommon; I believe that many of those who reject Christianity do so in a specific way (i.e. "Anything but Christianity"); and that many of these people reject Christianity because they personally do not desire resurrection. 

Many desire, instead, some form of self-annihilation: whether the mainstream atheist-materialist view that the subjective-self ceases when the body dies; or the Western-Eastern religious view that our self-awareness dissolves (back) into the universe and a state of blissful Nirvana; or that we persist after death in an immaterial, disembodied form - spirits, ghosts, or whatever. To all of these; the offer of resurrection is unwanted, is rejected.   

A few people desire to reincarnate into mortal bodies on this earth; to come back over and again, and relive this kind of temporary life among in this entropic world; and these do not desire the final answer of resurrection with an eternal-body. 

In other words; the trend for unpopularity, and the increasing scarcity, of Christianity is rooted in what modern people do not want. As things stand, modern people do not want what Christianity has to offer - quite aside from whether they believe that the offer of Christianity is a true and valid one. 

The question is why modern people nowadays do not want and reject that which was, a couple of thousand years ago and for many centuries, regarded as the greatest possible Good News.  

A couple of days ago I read through the Fourth Gospel (again) - this time all-through in a couple of hours, to try and get an overview. Several things stood-out and were clarified; but probably the most important was an answer to the question of who gets resurrected.

And the clear answer is - those who believe on, who follow, Jesus.

Or, to put it another way, only those who believe on, who follow Jesus, will be resurrected to that Eternal/ Everlasting Life which Jesus brings us.

This is in contrast to mainstream Christian belief that all are resurrected (but not-all are saved); and it also contradicts a single but explicit sentence in the Fourth Gospel+; however, the overall structure of the Fourth Gospel and multiple, repeated, references support the answer that it is 'only' those who regard Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah, that will be resurrected.

(This opens a further question of what happens to those who are choose Not to follow Jesus and who are Not therefore resurrected - but I will deal with that below.)

Assuming this interpretation is correct, how could this simple teaching have been missed? The answer is quite simple: Biblical understanding has operated on the basis that the whole Bible is equally true - therefore a specific teaching in 'just' one Gospel (especially the Fourth Gospel) is ignored/ explained-away when it contradicts other parts of the Bible - and especially when it contradicts the three Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.

Whereas I believe that if we believe the truth of the Bible (truth in at least a general sense, recognising that this must mean interpretation of specific verses), then we believe the Fourth Gospel is true - including its claims about itself; and these Fourth Gospel claims mean that it is the single most authoritative Book in the Bible, which ought to be given the highest authority, above any other Book in the Bible.

(By contrast the other Gospels are, and claim to be no more than, secondhand and post hoc compilations of accounts about Jesus; and Paul's knowledge is from intuitive revelation that is, for Christians, intrinsically unlikely to be detailed and specific.)

Therefore, to check this claim for yourself - I would simply urge you to read the Fourth Gospel as an autonomous text in light of this interpretation, and looking for evidence of this teaching. (Assuming that you do already have a personal revelation of the truth of this Gospel; and if not then you would need to seek one.)

If we take the original Fourth Gospel to run from Chapters 1-20, with Chapter 21 added later (but presumably by the real author) - then the Gospel begins and ends with two core teachings - which are repeated throughout:

1. That Jesus is who he claimed to be - the Son of God, the Messiah sent by God; and that he died, resurrected and ascended to Heaven to become fully divine.

2. That Jesus came to bring resurrection and Life Eternal/ Life Everlasting to those who 'believed on' him (including believing his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God), who followed him as a sheep follows a shepherd, who loved him and believed in his love for each of us, who trusted and had faith in him.

In fact, we see that these two teachings are linked, and are - in a sense - a single teaching.

Most of the Fourth Gospel is taken up with providing 'proof' that Jesus was who he claimed - and this proof is of the type that would be effective for those living just after the death of Jesus and in the same region - evidence suitable for that time and place.

So, the evidence is the witness of John the Baptist (who was very well known and would have been regarded as the best possible witness); the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies (which, again, would have been well known); and the evidence of the miracles including the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, at a time when many witnesses of these events were still around.

None of this evidence is very convincing to people 2000 years later and in different places and cultures; but the further teaching of the Fourth Gospel is that after his ascension Jesus sent the Holy Ghost, the 'Comforter', to provide a direct witness and knowledge to the disciples - and implicitly (although probably not explicitly) to everyone else who sought it. 

The rest of the Fourth Gospel is, via stories (parables), miracles, reported conversations and direct teachings - to explain the enhanced, divine nature of Life after resurrection - this being termed Life Eternal or Life Everlasting; and to promise this to all who would follow Jesus.

That is, pretty much, everything that the Fourth Gospel says (aside from some specific remarks to the disciples - and a single hint that they ought to teach about Jesus following his ascension). There is little or nothing specific about how to live or about a 'church' of any kind - which is probably another reason that the Fourth Gospel has been historically down-graded from its proper supremacy over the rest of the Bible.

If it is true that only the followers of Jesus are resurrected, then this removes certain problems that arise from the alternative view. It means that resurrection is chosen, it is voluntary; and therefore resurrection is not compelled nor is it enforced. I was always troubled by the idea that Jesus brought resurrection to all, whether they wanted it or not - especially since the prospects for someone resurrected but not saved seemed so grim. It seemed that Jesus was giving with one hand, but taking with the other - which would not be very loving, and seemed sub-optimal (for a creator God) - surely something better could be managed for the children of God?

But apparently that was a misunderstanding. Those who do not believe Jesus, or who do not love him and do not wish to follow him, or who do not want Life Everlasting in a (Heavenly) world of love and creation - these are Not resurrected - but shall instead return to spirit life (as we began; before we were incarnated into earthly mortality).

This fits with the beliefs of many non-Christian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and some other paganisms) - who see post-mortal life in terms of a return to the spirit world.

It also opens the possibility of reincarnation, which has probably been the usual belief of most humans through most of human history. The Fourth Gospel teaches that reincarnation is a possibility, when it discusses whether John the Baptist was one of the Old Testament prophets reincarnated... the conclusion is that he was not one of a series of possible named prophets, but the possibility of reincarnation is assumed.

We could even speculate (and it would be a speculation unless confirmed by revelation) that the world contains some mixture of newly incarnated mortals, and a proportion of reincarnates who did not accept Jesus in previous lives but have returned (presumably by choice) to enable further chances.

But again, it seems intrinsic to Christianity that all higher theosis is by choice; and post-mortal spirits would not be compelled to resurrect, nor to reincarnate - but might remain in spirit form as long as they wished.

Mortal life is best seen as an opportunity. As Jesus explained in his conversation with Nicodemus, Heavenly Life Everlasting is available only via death and being resurrected or 'born again'; and this was the path that Jesus himself needed to take in order to attain to full Godhood at the ascension. Jesus brought us this possibility - but it must be chosen, and the reason for choice must be love.


+This is John 5:28-9: ...'all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have done good, until the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.' I regard this, from its interruption of the structure and its contradiction of the rest of the gospel, as a later, non-canonical insertion. 

Note added:

I want any seriously interested reader to do what I suggest above; which is to check this claim for yourself - I would simply urge you to read the Fourth Gospel as an autonomous text in light of this interpretation, and looking for evidence of this teaching.

However, below I have made a selection of relevant passages from just the first six books of the Fourth Gospel (you will need to search the rest of the Gospel for yourself) - and the last verse of the (original final) Chaper 20. These are consistent with the understanding that resurrection is to life eternal/ life everlasting by means of 'receiving' Jesus; and that those who do not accept Jesus, shall not be resurrected to this new kind of Life as Sons of God: Life eternal/ everlasting is for the resurrected, both together - there is no sense of there being a distinction or sequence between resurrection and the New Life.


1: [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

2: [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. [16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[36] He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

5: [24] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. [25] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. [40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. [41] I receive not honour from men. [42] But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. [43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

6: [26] Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. [28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. [30] They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? [31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. [34] Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. [35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. [36] But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. [39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. [40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. [42] And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? [43] Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. [46] Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. [48] I am that bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. [52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. [58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. [64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. [65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
(…)
20: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Fourth Gospel is our only contemporary account of the 'raising' of Lazarus - and its central and pivital position in this most important of all scriptures suggests that the event is crucial.

One way it is crucial is consequential - in that it provoked the Chief Priests and Pharisees to decide that is was expedient that Jesus be killed for the greater good (a misunderstood true prophecy).

The Fourth Gospel - as nearly always - tells us the story as evidence that Jesus really is the Christ, sent by God, and would become (after his ascension) fully the Son of God.

Beyond this, there are two possible interpretations. The usual is that the miracle was restoring Lazarus to normal life; the other, which I think is the one we are meant to infer, is that the miracle was resurrecting Lazarus to the eternal life that Jesus promised to all who 'believed on' his name.

The Gospel is really pretty clear that we are meant to understand the raising of Lazarus as a real resurrection, that same resurrection which we are all promised by Jesus following our mortal life and death - and which Jesus himself experienced.

1. The Gospel establishes that Lazarus really is dead, properly dead, irrevocably; such that (because he is rotting - 'stinketh') he cannot be brought back to mortal life. Because of this, Jesus shares the general grief and wept - as is appropriate with real, permanent mortal death.

2. In the discussion between Jesus and Martha, he makes clear that Lazarus is to be resurrected.

3. Lazarus is entombed in a cave, blocked by a stone - which explicitly prefigures the death and resurrection of Jesus.

4. The references to the people witnessing the glory of God are appropriate to a resurrection. Glory is associated with the ascension of the resurrected Jesus - for people to see the glory of God in the resurrection of Lazarus suggests more than simply restoring him to mortal life. I am not sure; but I think it means that, in the act of resurrecting Lazarus - with the assistance of his Father, Jesus is displaying the power he will attain after his ascension to full divinity


With such in-your-face evidence - it is hard to explain the general mainstream view that Lazarus is Not resurrected. This I regard as an example of the way that scholars read the Bible through their pre-existing general theological considerations; and they seldom see the obvious, but only confirmation of the pre-existing theories of what they expect to find.

Most regard it as theologically vital that Jesus is the first Man to be resurrected - and therefore even the possibility of the resurrection of Lazarus is edited out of consideration.

Perhaps the supposed lack of further reference to Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel is seen as another problem - in that the first resurrected Man would presumably have some part to play in God's plan for Men.

But this is only a problem if you regard the author of the Fourth Gospel (never self-named, but self-described as the 'beloved' disciple) as John the son of Zebedee - however, if you regard the author of the Fourth Gospel as the resurrected Lazarus (as I do) then 'it all fits'. 


Relevant passages in bold...

John 11: 1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. 7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. 8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. 

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. 15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. 17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already. 

18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. 20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. 21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.  

28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. 29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him. 30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. 31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there. 32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled. 34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. 35 Jesus wept. 36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!  

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? 38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. 

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? 

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

If we think back and recall the early dawning of self-awareness as young children, then perhaps we may remember the catastrophic dawn of consciousness of death - the time when we first realized that everybody, including our-selves, will die. 

It seems likely that this stunning fact, and the implications it carries for the rest of life, is perhaps the primary fact of consciousness.

For example, that seems to have been the conviction of JRR Tolkien, which he wove into Lord of the Rings as the deepest structuring concept. 

I have come to recognize - or, at least, believe - that the core of Christianity, the prime work and achievement of Jesus Christ, was 'simply' offering the possibility of a life beyond this mortal life, and indeed a better life; the chance of escaping the otherwise universal fate of death.

In other words - starting from where we are, the human condition as-is - Christianity essentially offers eternal resurrected life after death; and the promise that the everlasting life beyond temporary mortal life will be like this life, in that we are still our-selves with the same kind of experiences; but these selves and experiences will be qualitatively enhanced. 

This I regard as having been very clearly set-out in the Fourth Gospel - but it is also something that is quite spontaneous and intuitive in terms of what we, qua Men, want - starting from the situation in which we find-ourselves. 

So, we become aware that death is the great catastrophe and destroyer of life's meaning and hope, and we naturally seek - above all else - an escape from that ultimate termination. 

That, at least, is - I believe - how Men spontaneously, naturally, consciously regard death as young children - albeit 'culture' will overlay this innate attitude with some other attitude; and there are a wide range of secondary and acquired - but more superficial, and often ineffective - attitudes to death and what happens after it.

(All ancient societies believe in some kind of persistence after biological death, often a kind of reincarnation, or partial, maybe depersonalized, life as a spirit or 'ghost'. The Christian idea of resurrection was something new; as is the mainstream modern atheist idea of annihilation of the person.)  

But we can see that the Christian offer of resurrected life is not ideal. It is not a full and perfect solution. 

After all, death - and what leads-up to death, which is entropic change, decline, decay, disease, suffering etc. - is still a catastrophe. (Albeit temporary.)

Would not the ideal have been that Men were created-into Heaven, or, in some way, could go directly to resurrection without having to go-through mortal life and death?  

In other words; we can see Christianity as an eventual cure for the tragedy of the human condition; but it is not an immediate cure, and resurrection into Heaven does not - of itself - do much, or ultimately do anything substantive, to ameliorate the human condition (except secondarily, in providing hope for the future). 

I suppose this deficiency must have been immediately apparent; because "Christianity the religion" very quickly became 'mixed-up' with ideas that it would improve the human condition here on earth and during this mortal life - plans and schemes whereby mortal life would be regulated by 'God's laws' and (by ritual, symbolism, lifestyle etc) connected with divinity.

Also the idea that - at some point - Jesus Christ would return and transform life on earth so that there was no suffering or decay (the Second Coming, the New Jerusalem). 

Yet even with such additions to what Jesus actually said; the fundamental 'problem' remained to be explained: the question of why do we have to go through the tragedy of earthly mortal life terminated by death - before attaining resurrected Heavenly life? 

Properly to answer this question (rather than just kicking the can) requires further assumptions concerning the nature and attributes of God; and of God's aims in creation.

The fact that we are living in this mortal life, and destined to suffer the death of others and ourselves, suggests that there is no other way of reaching resurrected eternal life than via incarnated mortal life. 

Perhaps, for example, it is not possible for God to 'make' a resurrected body except via a mortal body. There might be another reason - but whatever the reason implies a constraint upon the power of God. 

This is not a metaphysical problem for me; but is ruled-out by the common belief in the omnipotence of God. 

Believers in an Omni-God have never, I think, been able satisfactorily to explain why such a God did not create resurrected Men ready for Heaven and incarnated directly-into Heavenly bliss - thereby avoiding the hazards, suffering, and risks of damnation of mortal life. 

(I regard the 'omnipotent God' assumption as false; and probably a post-ascension, maybe even post Apostolic, importation (from pagan Greek-Roman philosophy) to Christ's teaching, not being found explicitly in the New Testament.)

Once we have discarded this notion of the Omni-God, it is then coherent to assert that because God wants as many as possible to choose resurrection, there is no alternative to suffering death. 

This implies that - yes! - resurrected life after mortal death is the best that can be done, if the destination is to be resurrection. 

Thus far mortal life is irreducibly tragic; but for Christians that tragedy is ameliorated by the post-mortal destination.

However, for non-Christians, mortal life and death is just inescapably tragic in its structure; which may help explain why denial, distraction and despair in relation to death are so common among non-Christians.   

Therefore; my bottom-line answer is that, in broad terms, this entropic mortal life, followed by the catastrophe of death, is indeed the best that can be done - given that the destination God desires for us is resurrection, and resurrection can only be attained via the intermediate phase of a mortal body and death.  

The materialism (aka. positivism, scientism, reductionism) that swept the world over the past centuries - but especially from around 1800 with the industrial revolution - had several devastating effects on Man's assumptions. 

Men lost sight of some key pieces of knowledge that were of vital importance.  

Unbelief in God, and that this is a created reality, are two well known losses; but others are also spiritually lethal. 

One is the insight - dating at least from the Ancient Greeks - that our mortal life in this world cannot ever be satisfactory.  

The insight that a world characterized by change, decay, and disease could never, under any circumstances, be wholly satisfactory; used-to-be so obvious, that to argue for it would have been regarded as silly. 

This understanding included that a life which ended in our death (and the death of everybody and every Being we knew) was by that unavoidable fact inevitably and fatally flawed.

Yet, by the middle 19th century and for another century, the intellectual world was filled by ideas that aimed (whether explicitly or covertly) at creating a utopia on earth and this mortal life! 

The insight had been lost, therefore the impossibility was simply denied. 

People were busily engaged in adapting or inventing 'new religions' (or replacements for religion) which tried to implement all their wishes in this mortal world, 'forgetting' what the ancients had always known - that the nature of this world (and our-selves) is such that utopia, perfection, our ideal life - is intrinsically impossible (in this world). 

The best that could be devised was that Men might evolve or develop a kind of consciousness for which the unsatisfactory nature of this world was obscured and deleted from awareness; that Men should therefore aim (by one means or another) become completely happy with an evanescent world of disease, degeneration - and death. 

In effect; this required a reduction in consciousness and a loss of humanity; although it was often advocated as a higher consciousness and a step toward divinity! (Often by deploying a distorted misapplication of ideas selectively-drawn-from Hinduism, Buddhism or Sufism.) 

In other words; intellectual culture, and indeed the spontaneous awareness of the masses, lost sight of the fact that this world can only become satisfactory in the context of Heaven to follow. 

The intrinsic problems of this world, which are fatal to human gratification if this world was indeed everything; can be understood as positive and beneficial 'learning experiences'; but only if an eternal Heaven comes after. 

This reached such a pitch that even Christians downplayed the importance of the central promise of Christianity - of resurrected eternal life - and began to focus more and more exclusively on the moral benefits of Christianity - as they may be revealed in this world.

Christianity began to be seen as essentially a morally-enhancing religion: as a means to the end of improving individual and social morality. 

Even so great a Christian as CS Lewis said it was better if Christians did not think too much about immortality, but became Christian for other reasons primarily (mostly moral reasons). 

Lewis himself converted to Christianity before believing in the reality eternal Heavenly life; and he regarded this as A Good Thing because he felt that the alternative was to convert from mere terror of death.

The need for an eternal perspective came to seem childish, immature, selfish - rather than a plain metaphysical necessity for understanding this mortal life. Somehow, Christians were supposed to reconstruct their faith such that resurrection was 'an optional extra' rather than at the very core of the faith! 

In time this world became, therefore, firstly more-important-than the next - and finally all-important; so that now many/ most Christians base their religion in this-worldly and political projects. 

(This led to the convergence of Christianity with Leftism, then - as of 2022 - the absorption of mainstream Christianity by Leftism.) 

And the loss and dissolution of 'the self', of our distinctive personal nature; even the post-mortal loss of body (instead of resurrection) - instead of being regarded as an intrinsic flaw to be superseded by Resurrection into Heaven - became regarded as actually definitive of the highest spirituality and mysticism: even among Christians!

Such deep errors have by-now so thoroughly pervaded modern mainstream culture; that the real Christianity rooted in Resurrection and eternal Heaven has come to seem almost bizarre, eccentric, foolish. 

We have now all-but lost the convinced utopianism of the late 19th and early-mid twentieth centuries, so that a mood of nihilism and despair has settled onto the mass of Men - and has driven them literally insane.

Consequently, we are living through a purposive and advanced strategy of global self-destruction masked by the thinnest veneer of oppositional socio-politics - sustained by a relentless shallowness, triviality and refusal to think about the fundamental and false metaphysical assumptions upon which our entire public discourse is constructed.

Few can perceive the once obvious truth that these mortal bodies and this mortal life are - even at best and most ideal - a transitional phase; necessary but not final.

Therefore, it has become extremely difficult for people to recognize what was once obvious - that the only full and coherent answer to the fundamental inadequacy of mortality in this world; is Christian Resurrection into Heaven. 

This is why Blaise Pascal in his Pensees correctly stated that all Men would - if only they understood it - want Christianity to be true. 

And that is the proper basis for Christian conversion: to want Christ's promises of Resurrection into eternal life in Heaven to be true; and then to discover for oneself that it is true.