Is there an afterlife, and, if so, how far is it from midtown and how late is it open?

Here’s unusual and welcome fare at FrontPage Magazine: an interview with a professor of Jewish studies, Jon D. Levenson of Harvard, on the question of whether Judaism teaches the existence of an afterlife. The short answer is: the Jewish Bible does not speak of the survival and/or resurrection of the individual soul after death, but the rabbinic tradition does. But having read the article, I can’s say that Levenson’s ideas are entirely clear to me.

- end of initial entry -

Emerson G. writes:

Levenson offerred nothing of importance except this:

“Remember, the biblical promises of life and continuation are given primarily not to individuals, but to the people Israel…”

This is congruent with the teachings of the Talmud. Gentiles, like myself, will not be resurrected. The same holds true for Jews who recognize Christ and become Anglicans. You have no hope now, Mr. Auster. You are an apostate from the “people Israel.”

LA replies:

Emerson seems to object to a Jewish doctrine that promises resurrection to Jews but not gentiles. But of course traditional Christian teaching promised resurrection to Christians but not to non-Christians.

Jaroslav B. writes from Slovakia:

Some notes on resurrection:

The traditional Christian teaching is the Catholic teaching—the only one reaching back two millenia. “Credo (…) in carnis resurrectionem” (Symbolum Apostolorum) and “et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum…” (Nicene Creed). It means that not only the elect will be resurrected but the damned too. Otherwise the Creeds would specify it on Christians.

There are the four Last Things: death, judgement, heaven and HELL. Every man will experience the first two things and one of the latter. A cogent Catholic teaching on this matter is offered in the Catholic Encyclopedia (published 1911, before Vatican II).

Philosophically taken, there are some reasons why soul and body will be reunited again (excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

The general resurrection can hardly be proved from reason, though we may show its congruity.

* As the soul has a natural propensity to the body, its perpetual separation from the body would seem unnatural.

* As the body is the partner of the soul’s crimes, and the companion of her virtues, the justice of God seems to demand that the body be the sharer in the soul’s punishment and reward.

* As the soul separated from the body is naturally imperfect, the consummation of its happiness, replete with every good, seems to demand the resurrection of the body.

Michael Jose writes:

You said:

“But of course traditional Christian teaching promised resurrection to Christians but not to non-Christians.”

Jaroslav B. offered a logical reason why both the saved and damned must be resurrected; but actually, one does not need to deduce it, it is stated directly in the Bible:

“And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrction of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”—John 5:29, KJV

Henry A. writes:

Why did you say “But of course traditional Christian teaching promised resurrection to Christians but not to non-Christians”? What kind of traditional Christian teaching is it? I never heard anything like that. I always understood things as Jaroslav B.explains and most non-Catholics Christians do likewise.

I did not know about this Jewish belief and I am not sure what are the consequences of it but in any case I would not trust any Harvard professor talking about any religion. I would like to know what a real Jewish believer thinks about it rather than being taught by a professor of religion. If I were to study Catholic teachings following prestigious professors from Harvard, Fordham, Notre Dame, and Boston College I would have lost my faith years ago. Now some guy is saying that he found the tomb of Jesus and states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen, had a son, etc. The “serious” Discovery channel is doing a “historical” documentary now, yeah.

LA replies:

Ok, correction: Catholic belief promises resurrection to Jews followed by eternal hellfire. I’m not saying that by way of criticizing Catholicism. The only reason I brought this up was to reply to Emerson’s suggestion that there is something unfair about Jewish belief since it provides no afterlife for non-Jews.

Michael Jose writes:

In reference to your article, I think that the reason why people see the belief in resurrection for the Jews only to be more objectionable than the Christian belief in eternal hellfire is because Judaism is not, in general, seen as a proselytizing religion (at least not in recent years), and is also to some extent seen as a racial category (i.e. most Jews are born that way). With Christianity, there is the sense that the unsavedness of non-Christians inspires Christians to spread the message so that all may have the opportunity to be saved. With Judaism, such a belief seems more like a belief in the irrelevancy of the Gentiles. If a Jewish group that was known for proselytizing believed that only Jews would be resurrected, this would likely be seen as less objectionable, because there would be the sense that they wished to share in God’s gifts.

Ezra F. writes:

I was disturbed to see that the people commenting on your posting about the resurrection-related interview all thought that Jewish doctrine asserts that only Jews will be resurrected. I’m not a Talmudic scholar, but my general reading has given me the strong impression that according to Jewish doctrine all morally good people, Gentiles as well as Jews, have a share in the “World to Come.” Perhaps there is a minority opinion to the contrary somewhere in the Talmud, but this sort of disagreement is typical of the Jewish source materials. Note, for example, Shammai’s disagreements with Hillel, where Hillel’s view is generally the accepted one but Shammai’s is still recorded. I was disappointed that the commenters’ false assumption was not corrected, especially since the first comment clearly expressed an anti-Jewish animus.

Anyway, thanks for your always interesting essays, and for the example you set of a genuine conservatism that isn’t anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.

LA replies:

Frankly I do not have much of a grasp of the after-life issues, so I was just posting the comments without saying too much myself. However, I felt I did reply to the first commenter and his anti-Jewish spin. My mistake was saying that Christianity promises resurrection only to Christians. No, according to the New Testament, both the saved and the damned are resurrected. So instead of saying resurrection, I should have said salvation.

The below exchange, in which a reader gets on my case and wonders if I’m a real Christian because I mistakenly said “resurrection” when I meant to say “salvation,” is not of any particular interest, but since I had to endure it, why shouldn’t others?

Henry A. to LA:

As for who will get eternal hellfire and who eternal paradise let the Lord decide. We have no idea about many unknown truths and many unknown lies to judge most men right here right now.

Meanwhile down here in this valley of tears we can safely estimate that all human beings will resurrect because all have human souls. Unlike IQs all souls have the same value in front of God. So pretending that some people will resurrect and others not it is just not logical.

Out of curiosity what is your personal belief about it? I understand you belong to some branch of Anglicanism. If so your beliefs should not differ much from the Catholic and Orthodox position, at least in these issues.

LA to Henry A:

My Christian formation is badly lacking in some areas. I don’t have formed understandings about this subject, beyond, “I believe in the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” I don’t know what that means, except that it’s pointing to a reality beyond the reality we directly know.

On resurrection, I had simply forgotten about the “resurrection to damnation.” I was simply equating resurrection to what happens to the saved.

Henry A.:

I am not a theologian either. I am just your Catholic guy next door. However it rather surprises me you saying you lack information (or interest?) in precisely THIS area.

I could then ask: why did you become Christian? For what purpose? Are you like Oriana Falacci, who declared to be a Christian-Atheist (whatever that means)? or a cultural Christian who embraced Christianity due to the common sense, the art, the music, the science, and other derivatives of Christendom? Did you move into Christianity due to the civilization it achieved on earth? If so you are missing the best part. The best of this world is just a miserable glance of what comes afterwards if we are on the right side.

As the Lord says, it is not good to conquer the world if you lose your soul afterwards. There must be something very big in afterlife. Otherwise the world makes no sense, all this misery, all these wars, all this suffering; and also all the beauty of the creation and the good moments on earth.

But those who embrace Christianity just due to earthy reasons are doomed too, at least are doomed to confusion here on earth. It is in the scriptures, if Christ did not resurrect our faith is pointless. All Christian belief is based in that there is an afterlife. If we miss this, then it is very easy to get depressed and fall into desperation. If we miss this, how can you face all the present, past, and future defeats? I think this has practical outlets too, how do you face the debacle of the West if you don’t have a faith is something superior, much better than anything achieved by humankind? Remember that Christendom was built out of the ruins of the Roman Empire, when there were people who thought the Roman Empire was so harmonious, powerful and perfect that it would last forever …

In the Spanish golden century there was a great and powerful man, Francis de Borja, who became a Christian for the very opposite reasons Oriana Falacci (and the cultural Christians) liked Christianity. After many disappointments in fighting for lords of this world who ended up falling short he said “never again serve a mortal master.” From the Greeks, the Roman Empire, Byzantium, all the Western Empires, to the present USA, they may have very good things and help and let a Christian society flourish, but they are all transient mortal masters.

LA replies:

All I said was that I do not have a good grasp of the doctrines concerning the precise nature of the afterlife, and on that basis you write to me in a very offensive way attacking my religious belief and suggesting that I’m an atheist or a mere “cultural Christian,” and you proceed to make all kinds of suppositions about me and my beliefs that you have absolutely no business making. I suggest you get off your high horse, calm down, and then re-write your e-mail.

Henry A:

1) I don’t mean any offense. I don’t write to offend people. You can see that in all my previous emails. After some exchanges with you I assumed I could use plain frank language. After all that is your style too.

2) My inquire went direct to a point I consider important. I think that all people, not only Christians, are influenced in their actions by what they believe, “ideas have consequences.”

You call yourself a traditionalist and constantly are reminding people not to fall into desperation. I agree with that. Many Christians thinkers taught that along history. But based on what? On the hope of building a paradise on earth? If so, then you will necessarily fall into desperation.

3) My speculations are not directed against you. I don’t know what you think and as a result I asked. My speculations were based on observing people like Falacci, many of whom have positive things. For example Fallaci had a very good reaction against the Muslim invasion to Europe. But that alone is not enough. With such people you may only have some transient political alliance. But you go deep and there is not much else to agree with.

Read my previous email again. I first asked what you think about it. Then I clarify where I am coming from with those examples of “cultural Christians.” My questions where rather rhetorical. I would guess you are not one of them, but that is precisely why I brought them to front.

As Francis de Borja did centuries ago, we (not just you, but we) have to ask ourselves what the heck are we fighting for? There will always be some “mortal master” at hand …

LA replies:

You haven’t really seen what was offensive in your first e-mail and you continue the same offensive line in your second e-mail.

1. “After some exchanges with you I assumed I could use plain frank language. After all that is your style too.”

I do not write to Christians accusing them of being “Christian atheists” or mere “cultural Christians.” And I especially don’t do it on the basis of zero evidence.

2. “My speculations are not directed against you. I don’t know what you think and as a result I asked. My speculations were based on observing people like Falacci, many of whom have positive things.”

Of course they were directed at me. And you had no basis for lumping me with Falacci.

You seem to be a regular VFR reader. Anyone who reads VFR would know that I am not a “Christian atheist” or a “cultural Christian.”

Henry A:

Come Mr. Auster, you are getting just impossible to talk. You are right, you don’t have to answer any questions from me. But remember it all started because it was YOU, someone who calls himself a traditionalist, who wrote this: “But of course traditional Christian teaching promised resurrection to Christians but not to non-Christians.” That made me open my eyes, but you get angry because I questioned you about what kind of traditional Christian would say such a thing … What is more offensive? Stating that some people will not resurrect or asking about it?

What is wrong about asking it? I just want to know how close intellectually I may be with you. I am not planning to denounce you and send you to the Gulag.

Yes, I read VFR, I admire many of your stances, and I did not mean any offense. I have the right to question and you have the right not to answer and vice versa. You don’t have to tell me I am being offensive. Just tell me you don’t want to answer. Don’t use liberal methods to shut up a conversation.

LA:

The starting point of this conversation, according to you, is that I made a mistake on a point of Christian doctrine (namely I forgot that the damned are resurrected as well as the saved), and, according to you,

“That made me open my eyes, but you get angry because I questioned you about what kind of traditional Christian would say such a thing … “

So, you, in an Inquisition-type way, have taken it upon yourself to question me on “what type of Christian” I am on the basis of my misstating one point of Christian doctrine, and you don’t see how offensive and insulting and improper this is, and instead YOU complain that I am impossible to talk to.

As Mayor Giuliani said about New York’s black leaders shortly after he became mayor, “If they want me to meet with them, they’ve got to change the way they talk.”

LA adds:

If Henry A. had merely asked me what I believed instead of making all kinds of assumptions about me and proceeding to lecture me, I might have told him something like this: that the form of Christian life is the individual believer’s relationship with the Father through Jesus Christ, and that, in the case of a faithful Christian, in ways we cannot understand, this same relationship, continues and expands after the event called death. And beyond that I have no idea.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 28, 2007 11:00 AM | Send