Herein lies the
principal argument of those who do not believe in a literal resurrection of the
human body. They contend that if the elements that compose the body are assimilated
by nature’s great supply of similar elements, and are subsequently used in the making
of other organisms, a literal resurrection of the body is an impossibility,
since identical elements cannot form parts of different bodies at the same
time.
Upon first
consideration this conclusion has the appearance of being well founded. It
would be difficult to find anyone well trained in scientific matters who would
deny the probability that material now comprising human bodies may not at some
future time enter into the composition of still other bodies, even those of
human beings. Moreover, no one will argue that the same matter can be present
in more than one place at a time. Hence it seems probable that the identical
elements now comprising a human body may never be able to return to it in the resurrection.
The danger of the
conclusion does not exist in its immediate significance but rather in the broad
application to which most of its adherents carry it. After once having become
convinced that a literal return of the elements to the body is highly improbable,
the step to belief in no physical resurrection at all is easily taken. Even
ministers and others well versed in theological matters have conceded that this
line of evidence seems to prove that the human body cannot be restored to the
spirit after death. The conclusion naturally follows, to those who take this
stand, that the resurrection is figurative rather than real.
On the other hand,
many of those who believe in a literal resurrection of the body have felt
themselves called upon to oppose and even to disparage this argument from
science. Usually in a very unsuccessful manner, they have tried to make it appear
that the particular elements composing a body are essentially limited to that
body, and that it is somehow impossible for them to become parts of other
bodies. It is not likely, however, that such an argument and conclusion can be
substantiated by fact.
But, strangely, for
some unaccountable reason, it seems to have been assumed by other parties to
the controversy that restoration of the identical flesh and bone is necessary
in a literal resurrection of the body. It has been widely conceded that if the
same flesh and the same bone were not restored it would not be the same body. If
the believer in a literal resurrection takes this stand he will likely have
trouble in substantiating his convictions.
But does a literal
resurrection of the body demand the reappearance of the identical flesh and
bone composing it at the time of death, or is it true that a literal
resurrection of the body is not a question of the literal return of the elements
that compose it? The question must not be begged but must be fairly and frankly
met. In order to answer these questions it will be advisable next to consider
certain aspects of the science of physiology and nutrition.
The human body is
composed of an almost infinite number of cells, each of which is a unit in
itself. The material of these cell structures is continuously undergoing
catabolism or disintegration. Every movement of the body, no matter how slight,
and whether voluntary or involuntary, is accompanied by this action. It is
primarily because of this ever-present destruction that the body becomes
weakened and makes regular demands for food. One of the chief functions of both the
respiratory and the excretory systems is to carry away the broken down material
arising from catabolism within the cells.
The human body with
its intricate cell structure may be crudely compared with a building made up of
an almost infinite number of bricks. If we think of large numbers of these
bricks as continuously undergoing disintegration, we have a fair illustration
of the manner in which destruction is going on within the human body.
Furthermore, if these
broken down bricks are not repaired, the stability of the house will soon be
reduced. Precisely the same thing is true of the body and its component parts.
One of the chief functions of the food that we eat is the rehabilitating of
worn out cells. If, in the case of the building, we can imagine some agent
going from place to place continuously repairing the weakened bricks, we have
before us a process comparable to that accomplished by the blood with its load
of food, really its building material. Disintegration and integration within
the cell structures continue throughout the entire lifetime of the individual and
cease only at death.
When this process of
destruction and reconstruction continues long enough the entire human body will
be composed of new material. Physiologists are not agreed concerning the length
of time necessary to bring about a complete replacement, but, whatever the
length of time may be, it is apparent that when the period is completed, the
body has actually changed its physical personality. For, if it is argued that
specific and identical flesh and bone are necessary to the existence of any
human body, it naturally follows that the individual in question has experienced
a change of identity.
The substitution of
new material for old, however, is so slow and so gradual that if it were not
for the technical methods of the scientist, little would be known of its
existence. To the unaided eye the change is wholly invisible. The process goes
on so imperceptibly that in no phase of social or other human activity is it
ever recognized. Otherwise a husband might divorce his wife at the close of the
period of complete physical replacement, on the ground that the woman whom he
had previously married had actually ceased to exist. At the close of a similar
period, a mother might refuse to recognize her children because they were not
the ones to whom she had given birth. Similarly the court might dismiss all
criminals, and, finally, in course of sufficient time, all relationships and
obligations between individuals would become null, since the contracting
parties had been replaced by others.
No! it is not
particular flesh and bone that characterize individuals. There is something
about the human body far more distinctive than so many pounds of flesh and bone
and blood. There is a physical personality in every human being that stands out
infinitely above the constituent elements. There is an identical something that
characterizes human beings from infancy to old age. The human body may increase
in size, it may grow thin, or it may become stout, yet it never loses its
identity. The man who adds, say, fifty pounds to his weight is never regarded
as even particularly another person.
We may admire a
beautiful house, but our admiration is not centered in the grains of sand, the
nails, or the particles of wood and paint that compose it. It is the ensemble
or personality of the house that pleases us.
Similarly, we could
easily gather together the requisite quantities of water, carbon, etc., that
comprise the human body. Nay, we could do more; we could assemble the identical
elements that formerly composed the body of a friend, yet this crude heap
would be far different from the friend in lifetime.
We do not admire our
loved ones because of the particular oxygen, hydrogen, iodine, etc., of which
they are composed. Human beings are more than mere chemical compounds.
The crucial question
in this connection is whether there is any real reason that individuals in the
resurrection may not retain their identity and at the same time be composed of
entirely different elements than during the earthly existence? This would be
nothing more than had occurred before death. If an individual during his
earthly existence experiences a change of his bodily materials, and yet remains
the same being, dies it not follow that a similar thing may occur in the
resurrection?
Belief in a literal
resurrection of the human body is, therefore, in no way weakened by the
argument that the particular elements comprising the body at the time of death
may not be restored in the resurrection. Moreover, the possibility or even the likelihood
that the identical elements now composing human beings may later be utilized by
other bodies does not constitute a refutation of belief in future bodily resurrection.
On the other hand,
the fact that nature, under the supervision of Deity, has assembled the
commonest elements and fashioned them into living, human beings is at least
suggestive of her ability to perform a similar work in the resurrection. In all
probability the resurrected body will not be produced in the same manner that
earthly bodies are made, neither will it be composed of all the elements
formerly present in the mortal body, otherwise it would be subject to pain and
death, as at present. Finally, there will be nothing more miraculous in the
making of resurrected bodies than there is in the making of earthly bodies. (Frederick
J. Pack, Science and Belief in God: A Discussion of Certain Phases of
Science and their Bearing Upon Belief in the Supreme Being [Salt Lake City:
The Deseret News, 1924], 239-47)