Your Own Resurrected “Form” and Entelechy (Gospels 8)

 

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?”

. . . So also is the resurrection of the dead

. . . It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body

. . . flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

nor does corruption inherit incorruption

. . . We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed

. . . the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

(1 Corinthians 15:35-53 NKJV)

 

           

To what form will resurrected Christians be changed?  As mentioned in the previous blogpost, Paul, in Romans 12:2, uses the verb metamorphoō/μεταμορφόω (the verb of metamorphosis) to indicate the “transformation” that comes about by the renewing of your mind when you are not conformed/συσχηματίζω to this world.  Thus, he hints at a “transfiguration”-experience-of-sorts that is available to Christians, not just Christ.  In addition to the Romans 12 passage, Paul supplies a seemingly-related Philippians passage: “[W]e also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform/μετασχηματίζω our lowly body that it may be conformed/σύμμορφος to His glorious body” (Philippians 3:20-21 NKJV).  In these two passages, Paul uses the roots of the words μορφή/form/morph and σχῆμα/shape/scheme interchangeably.  In the Philippian passage, Paul flip-flops the roots μορφή/form/morph and σχῆμα/shape/scheme, in such a way as to result in a combination of μετα- and μορφ pertaining to “our” resurrected body/sōma/σῶμα that appears to indicate that Christians will experience a metamorphosis similar to that of Jesus’ glorious body/sōma/σῶμα.  Paul confirms this doctrine in the 1 Corinthians 15:35-53 passage (printed above).  He twice asserts “we shall (all) be changed”—into a spiritual, non-flesh-and-blood, incorruptible, immortal body. 

 

But Jesus Still Had a Physical “Form” After his Resurrection

                                    

The many post-resurrection appearances of Jesus demonstrate that he (unlike God?) still had a μορφή/form after he was resurrected.  Two times, this μορφή/form was not recognized immediately (with Mary, in the garden, and on the road to Emmaus); at other times, it was completely recognized (as with Thomas, in the upper room).  The only instance in which we are told Jesus’ form went unrecognized for an extended period of time was while he was on the road to Emmaus.  There, his “other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera form/μορφῇ” (from Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-31) was certainly different from his pre-crucifixion “form/ μορφή” and it was also different from his upper room post-resurrection appearances.  Hugo Odeberg (p.68) quotes E. F. Scott: “John involves himself in a view which may fairly be described as semi-physical.”  There were indicators (such as the women on his day of resurrection grabbing hold of his feet and worshiping him [Matthew 28:9]) that indicate that he had a definite physical form.  This incident appears to me to be the same incident described in John 20:17, where “touching/ἅπτω” Jesus was strangely forbidden to Mary Magdalene because he had not yet ascended to his Father.  Since touching his body was not forbidden (and was even encouraged by Jesus) to the eleven, especially Thomas, and since the Matthew 28:9 uses a term for the women who “grabbed hold” of his feet that almost means “to seize forcefully,” we must assume that simple “touching” was not what Jesus was refusing for Mary Magdalene in John 20:17.  Although the KJV and ASV translate the term ἅπτω as “touch,” the CEB, NIV, NRSV, and CEV versions translate it as “hold on to.”  The NKJV, NASB2020, ESV, and CSB translate the term as “cling to.”  One of the latter two translations is preferable, in light of the Matthew 28:9 description.

It is possible that Jesus’ post-resurrection form was very-similar-to-but-not-quite-the-same-as the forms of Adam and Eve before the Fall—not “mortal” (because Adam and Eve had not yet sinned) but still flesh.  Apparently, the wild beasts that Adam “named” in Genesis 2:19-20 represented no physical threat to Adam, just as Jesus’ severe wounds in his hands, feet, and side represented no physical threat to Jesus.  Perhaps, that is what Paul meant by "incorruptible."  Just as Jesus “ate” in the presence of his disciples, Adam and Eve were given every tree in the Garden (except one) as food.  It was important to Jesus that he demonstrate by empirical proofs that his resurrected body was still fleshly, not a “spirit” form.  Luke 24:36-43 (NKJV) reports:

 

 Jesus Himself stood in the midst of [the twelve minus Judas], and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were . . . frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why . . . do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet . . . He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.

While Jesus’ post-resurrection/pre-ascension form, however, changed in its perceptibility from time to time and appeared and disappeared at will, we find no evidence that Adam and Eve experienced similar phenomena.  Nevertheless, Adam and Eve, in their pre-Fall naked existence were just exactly as God had created them (seemingly in the prime of life) with no “growth” or other kinds of form changes, such as Jesus experienced, to account for.  That might explain some of Jesus’ and Adam’s differences, but not all.  Yet, when Paul says that we will be transformed into the likeness of “His glorious body” (Philippians 3:20-21 NKJV), this Adam-esque type of body (immortal, but semi-physical) may be what Paul promised—but with a difference?

On the other hand, all of these pre- and post-resurrection/pre-ascension forms (μορφή) seem to be different from his transfiguration form/μορφή.  Nowhere, among the post-resurrection/pre-ascension appearances, do we see Jesus’ form as being shining and white.  Nevertheless, at the transfiguration, the form/eidos/εἶδος (Luke 9:29) or morphē/μορφή of Jesus’ face/πρόσωπον was shining like the sun (Matthew 17:2) and his clothes were glisteningly white (Mark 9:2 and Luke 9:29).  This same picture of Jesus’ face and clothing being bright and white is found in John’s Revelation (1:12-16 NKJV), describing the “ascended” Jesus: “I saw . . . One like the Son of Man . . . His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow . . . and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.”  This post-ascension picture of Jesus that matches his transfiguration picture even smacks of a description of God Almighty.  These descriptions in Revelation may have been simply borrowed from Daniel, however.  The question remains: Was there a further transformation of Jesus following his ascension that would have been equivalent to his transfiguration appearance?  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50 (NKJV), “[F]lesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”  If there was a further transformation of Jesus following his ascension that would have been equivalent to his transfiguration appearance, would that transfiguration and post-ascension appearance be similar to the picture of Jesus in the loins of his Father before Logos became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us?  As I comment in my blogpost Apocalyptic?  #14:  Morphing Jesus—Which Jesus do YOU see?  (Rev. 1:9-20):

To Daniel’s description of the Son of Man, John in Revelation borrows the following element from (Daniel 7:9 NIV): “the Ancient of Days [i.e., God Almighty] took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool.”  John, however, in Revelation 1:14, says concerning the Son of man: “The hair on his head was white like wool.”  Thus, John describes Jesus after his ascension in language that Daniel had formerly used to describe God Himself (the Ancient of Days).

 

Viewing Jesus and Our Resurrected Forms Entelechially

                                    

Is there a concept that accommodates all of these various “forms” of Jesus?  Yes.  In a word, it is “entelechy.”  Even though Odeberg is unaware of Aristotle’s concept of entelechy, Odeberg (p. 68) recognizes the same phenomenon: “In [John’s] complex of ideas, the dominating notions of the present, preceding, and following contexts are recognizable.”  Shall we add to Odeberg’s comment the words “simultaneously and instantly”?  Is this not another way of saying that the end and the middle are implicit in the beginning (Entelechy)?  As I ask in the afore-mentioned “Morphing Jesus” blogpost,

[W]hen you “see” Jesus, what Jesus do YOU see?  . . . a baby in a manger, a carpenter’s assistant, a twelve-year-old boy questioning the Jewish scholars in the Temple, a young man whose mother asked him (before his time) to solve a problem with the lack of wine at a wedding feast in Cana, a man coming to John the Baptist to be baptized, a healer of diseases, a preacher to 5000 on the side of a mountain, a form walking on water at night, an individual being transfigured into a brilliant image, a shamed convict being crucified, a corpse being wrapped in a shroud and laid in a tomb, a resurrected man whose hands, feet, and sides show the crucifixion wounds?  Or do you see the “lion from the tribe of Judah” (Revelation 5:3) or the “lamb that had been slain” (Revelation 5:6)?  Now, morph your picture of Jesus into what John, in chapter 1 of Revelation, is “seeing.”

Perhaps, the best answer to the question just asked is “Yes!”  Looking at all of these descriptions of the “form” of Jesus, we might be able to recognize him instantly and simultaneously in many different forms, just as we are able to recognize our middle-age children in the photos of their childhood.  That is the genius of viewing matters entelechially.  The final=telos/τέλος form/eidos/εἶδος (along with all middle forms) is implicit in the beginning=archē/ἀρχή form/eidos/εἶδος and vice versa.  Aristotle proves that the logic of entelechy is operative in the cosmos by looking at the seed (earthly thing) and understanding that every future “form’ the plant will assume is already implicitly present in the seed.   In this way, Jesus’ followers would be able to “see” Jesus, as a baby, a lad of twelve, a form walking on water, a brilliantly transfigured individual, a voice talking to Mary, an ascended Son of Man, or a friend of Thomas with nail and sword wounds, instantly and simultaneously. 

 

The Third Type of Entelechy:  Quality

                                    

With the possibility that Jesus’ post-ascension existence, like his transfiguration existence, might be on a still-different level, we consider our own resurrected bodies.  If our bodies will be changed to be like his glorious body, which Paul says will not be flesh and blood, Jesus’ existence at the right hand of God may, again, be “qualitatively” different from his post-resurrection/pre-ascension existence, which was, itself, “qualitatively” different from his earthly/fleshly/servant form   For now, we simply observe that the transformations of Jesus from the Logos (en archē/ἐν ἀρχῇ) to the Logos-become-flesh to the transfiguration form to the servant form to the resurrected form to the ascended form are neither of the two types of entelechy we have considered, thus far—neither substance (growth) nor quantity (filling).  Rather, these transformations are a third type of entelechy—quality.  Aristotle’s Physics lists the four types of entelechy as: (1) in substance [such as the “growth” examples]; (2) in quality, white and black; (3) in quantity [such as the “filling” examples], (4) in respect of locomotion [which we will consider in the next blogpost]. (Physics 201a5ff.).  The change of quality (as in white to black) occurs whenever a Caucasian gets a suntan.  There is neither “growth” nor “filling” involved in the “process.”  Yet there IS change/kinēsis/κίνησις.  A Caucasian’s tanned legs are “qualitatively” different from his/her pasty white legs.  (Trust me, I live in Florida and am an eye witness of such qualitative phenomena.)  Nevertheless, the legs are neither larger nor smaller when they are tanned, so there is no change/kinēsis/κίνησις in substance.  Furthermore, there are no additional legs or reduced number of legs when they are tanned, so there is no change/kinēsis/κίνησις in quantity.  Instead, the legs have simply changed in quality (from lighter to darker).  Similarly, when Jesus’ form changed from the Logos-become-flesh form to the transfiguration form to the servant form to the resurrected form to the ascended form, his form/morphē/μορφή changed in “quality.”

 

When Christians are resurrected, their bodily forms (morphē/μορφή) will also be changed (kinēsis/κίνησις) in “quality.”  It is possible that, in the world to come, we will recognize (know) each other “entelechially.”  That is to say, we might be able to see in a split second, so to speak, any or all the variations of form of anyone, just as we recognize all the snapshot variations of form for each of our children, regardless of their current ages.  Past, present, and future forms converge, in entelechy, into a single essence that might well be fully comprehensible to us in the world to come.  For the time being, as Paul comments in I Corinthians 13:9-12 (NKJV): “For we know in part . . . But when that which is perfect (τέλειον, from the same root as τέλος) has come, then that which is in part will be done away.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.” In their mortal bodies, Jesus’ followers were not always capable of seeing the full entelechial picture of Jesus’ form (perhaps, only various synecdochic parts at different times).  Hence, the two on the road to Emmaus and Mary in the Garden did not, at first, know Jesus, but at a later point, they did, even as his “twelve” (sans Judas) disciples did.  When the final τέλος arrives in the world to come, entelechial knowledge will be perfected.  Whatever “form/s” our resurrected bodies assume, we will know fully, even as we also are known.

Amoeba/Protozoa Theology (Gospels 1)

 

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?  (John 3:12 NKJV)

                                                                                                                                              

Here is the great theological puzzle: Ever since the second century, Christian theologians have tried to reconcile scriptures that appear to present Jesus as subject to or subsequent to God the Father with scriptures that appear to present Jesus as equal to or preexistent with God the Father.  This post begins to take another stab at that issue, this time, based on extending Aristotle’s concept of entelechy, his concept of what happens in the physical world.  We begin with a consideration of one-celled plants and animals.

What happens when an asexual protozoa (one-celled animal) or an amoeba (one-celled plant) reproduces?  The single-celled organism splits into two separate single-celled organisms.  The process is called “binary fission.”  Biologists term these two newly produced single-celled organisms both “daughter cells,” perhaps, because there is no way of knowing which of the two thus-produced organisms should be considered the parent and which the offspring.  There is, of course, no sexual identification to be attached to the term “daughter cell,” since the protozoa (and the amoeba) are asexual.  

These issues, then, exist:  Which resultant organism can claim prior existence over the other?  Did not both new organisms preexist simultaneously in the original organism?  A similar point could be made when one considers identical twins, since they both have preexistence in a single zygote.

In a “binary fission” analogy, just cited, Jesus and God might have been “one” in the Beginning; then have become “two,” with each retaining His preexistent claim and His equality claim.  Would such a biological phenomenon (“earthly thing”) solve the theological riddle (“heavenly thing”) pertaining to Jesus’ and God’s equality/subjection or preexistence/subsequence in John’s Gospel?  No, because it does not account for the “Father-Son” terminology applied throughout the New Testament.  Nevertheless, it might serve as a first step of a type of explanation Jesus used with Nicodemus, as cited in John 3:12 (above) to the effect that we may understand heavenly things by understanding earthly things.  For our discussion of “earthly things,” we will consult Aristotle, who is considered the father of biology (the study of “earthly things,” i.e., biological life forms) and who was certainly well-known at Jesus’ and John’s time, even in a Jewish milieu.  However, before we get to Aristotle and his term entelechy, we move to a discussion of the Jewish view of Father-Son relationships in human reproduction in John’s milieu and Gospel, whence I have retrieved the verse highlighted at the first of this blogpost.

Nicodemus and New Birth

The Pharisee Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night (a non-controversial setting), presumably, in order to honestly pick Jesus’ brain (John 3:1-2), since he believes that God is “with” Jesus.  On that occasion, Jesus attempts to explain spiritual life (the heavenly) using the linguistic terms of biological life (the earthly), telling Nicodemus that, in order to see the Kingdom of God, one must be “born again” (3:3).  Nicodemus counters: “Can [a grown man] enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3:4 NKJV).  This very question of Nicodemus introduces a foundational Jewish concept of human birth and progeny, which most interpreters overlook.  Since Nicodemus’s proposed scenario refers to the “second time” the man “enter[ed] . . . into his mother’s womb,” there is the definite hint that the “first time” he “enter[ed] . . . into his mother’s womb,” as Nicodemus understood it, he had had a prior existence (before he entered his mother’s womb).  More specifically, though alas, less delicately, the man was already considered a man (in the sense of a separate agent) even when he “enter[ed] . . . into his mother’s womb” in the semen produced in the loins of his father.  This concept of the preexistence of humans BEFORE they enter into the womb of their mothers is consistent with other statements in the Bible regarding the preexistence of humans in the loins of their human fathers.  The other

statements will be considered, momentarily.

In answering Nicodemus, Jesus compares and contrasts being born of the water (the earthly) with being born of the spirit (the heavenly).  John Marsh’s translation of Rudolph Bultmann’s The History of the Synoptic Tradition (p. 43) explains that God “creates a man out of water (human semen).”  Although Bultmann is, here, illustrating an argument used in the Babylonian Talmud regarding resurrection, not the John 3 passage, he equates “water” with “semen.”  Hugo Odeberg in his 1929 book The Fourth Gospel (p. 48) agrees: “[The phrase Nicodemus uses] does not mean ‘return to’, but ‘enter a second time’ . . . in other words, what is to enter a second time is not the child that has once been born, but the semen that is to give birth to the child.”  Nicodemus (not understanding Jesus’ teaching) is asking Jesus if a man must return to “water” (=semen) and reenter his mother’s womb.  Jesus’ response to Nicodemus seems to indicate that there are two separate births—one the result of water/semen (the earthly), the other the result of spirit (the heavenly).  While there is much theology to be mined from Jesus’ teaching of the new birth, to pursue this discussion of the new birth further, at this point, would take us far afield from the primary issue I am getting at:  that Jews understood that an individual has a preexistence in the loins of his father before he is even conceived.  Now, we shall corroborate that point with two additional examples.

Melchizedek, Abraham, and Levi

Hebrews 7:1-10 (NKJV) states: 

Melchizedek . . .  to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, . . . remains a priest continually.  Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.  . . .  Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham . . . for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Levi, being the son of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, not only had a preexistence in the loins of his father Jacob, but also in the loins of Jacob’s father Isaac, as well as in the loins of

Isaac’s father Abraham.  And, even in that historically remote preexistent past, Levi engaged in ACTION.  He paid tithes to Melchizedek.  What Hebrews seems to suggest is that Levi is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for the action of paying tithes to Melchizedek as is Abraham.  Therefore, Levi recognizes long before his birth that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to his own priesthood.  (Levi is the tribe from which all priests in the Jewish system come.)  But, why stop with Abraham and Levi?  All of mankind is represented in the Adam example.

Adam and the Original Sin

Paul explains in Romans 5:12-21:

[J]ust as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men . . . death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam . . . For if by the one man’s offense many died . . . if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one . . . the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ . . . For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

As I understand Paul’s teaching, the sin of Adam produced death, and Adam’s offspring until the time of Moses, even though they did not possess the Law and, therefore, “had not sinned according to the likeness of

the transgression of Adam,” continued to pay the “death” penalty for that original sin.  Of course, Paul is comparing and contrasting the sin of Adam (and its consequences to all Adam’s “earthly” offspring) to the righteous act of Jesus, dying on the cross (and its consequences to all Jesus’ “heavenly” offspring).  The penalty for Adam’s original sin was not, incidentally, hell, but rather, death—a penalty that is still being paid by every one of Adam’s earthly offspring, to this day—those who are born of the water (semen).  Jesus, on the other hand, according to I Peter 3:18 (NKJV), “suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust . . . being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.”  I Corinthians 15:22 (NKJV) states: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” 

The most important term in the I Corinthians passage is the word “in” (“in Adam” and “in Christ”).  The Greek word for “in” is spelled “en/ἐν.”  This two-letter Greek word forms the first part of the Greek word entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια, where it indicates “preexistence.”  The way Paul seems to describe it, we all ACTIVELY participated in the sin of Adam (when we were “in” his loins) in the same way Levi paid tithes “in” the loins of his Great-Grandfather Abraham.  In the “semen existing in the loins of the father” analogy, just cited, Jesus and God might have been “one” (“in” God the Father) in the Beginning; then have become “two,” with each retaining His preexistent claim but not necessarily an equality claim.  The argument advanced by Jesus in Mark 12:35-37 (also in Matthew 22:41-45 and Luke 20:41-44, NKJV) seems, however, to convey an equality or even superiority by a “son” over his “father”:  

How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” Therefore, David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

For that matter, it is clearly taught that Jesus, the “son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38) is far superior to his “father” Adam, but not to his Father God?  Would such a biological phenomenon (“earthly thing”) solve the theological issue (“heavenly thing”) pertaining to Jesus’ and God’s equality/subjection or preexistence/subsequence in John’s Gospel?  Not completely.  Let’s look at John 1.

ἐν

The Logos Hymn in John 1

The Greek word “en/ἐν” is also the first word of the Gospel of John, which I think relies on Aristotle’s “earthly” concept of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια.  I will be explaining entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια in future posts.  For now, I point to the fact that, according to John 1, both God and the Logos existed simultaneously in a scene that has been (incorrectly, I think) translated “in the Beginning.”  Keep in mind that John did not use the explicit term “Jesus” or “son” when he first said that “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) was the Logos.  The first two words of John’s Gospel are the Greek words “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ).  While a word study of “Logos” is also needed, the words “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) have very deep meaning in Aristotle’s concept of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια.  I will consider the meaning of all of these terms (and, certainly, others, such as “light” and “only begotten”), in future posts, as we progress in this series.  For now, consider the amoeba/protozoa analogy alongside the “loins of the father” analogy.  Just as both “daughter cells” preexisted as one amoeba/protozoa, and were ACTIVE together, so God and the Logos are presented as being preexistent together and equal “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ).  The Father/Son relationship, however, is not introduced until the 14^th verse of chapter one. There, the “loins of the father” analogy may contribute to an understanding.  We have just begun to scratch the surface of the Gospel According to Entelechy.  Stay tuned.