"We are more sure to arise out of our graves
than out of our beds."
Thomas Watson


I have noted that at the core of many Skeptical or other arguments on the resurrection of Jesus Christ lies a base assumption that the epistalory NT records could (or must) be interpreted as saying that the resurrected Jesus was not a being with a physical body (as the Gospels make clear), but rather was some sort of ghostly or spiritual being that was not tangible. From this Skeptics may run with another ball -- the visions of Jesus were mass hallucinations, or some such like that. The Secular Web's Mr. Friendly Ice-Cream Man, Robert Price, puts it this way in a response to William Lane Craig:

Many New Testament scholars have observed that the conception of the resurrection body implied in 1 Corinthians 15 clashes so violently with that presupposed in the gospels that the latter must be dismissed as secondary embellishments, especially as 1 Corinthians predates the gospels. Craig takes exception. The whole trend of his argument seems to me to belie the point he is ostensibly trying to make, namely that any differences between the two traditions do not imply that 1 Corinthians allows only sightings, subjective visions, while the gospels depict more fulsome encounters replete with rdialogue, gestures, touching, and eating. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 rules out such scenes, he says. But surely the very urgency of the matter shows that Craig would feel himself at a great loss if he had to cut loose all those juicy gospel resurrection stories to be left with the skimpy list of terse notes in 1 Corinthians 15. By itself, 1 Corinthians 15 just wouldn't mean much. He wants the appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 to be read as if they had in parentheses after them "See Luke 24; Matthew 28; John 21."

Now even if indeed the rez body (as we shall say) was not physical, this does not automatically disqualify the authenticity and revelatory authority of the appearances; it merely gives some critics another level of excuses to appeal to. But we need not make that point. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the rez body of Jesus clearly was physical, and that this is shown in two ways:

  1. The Jewish contextual literature of the period that describes the nature of resurrection.

  2. The NT epistles themselves, which many skeptical and other critics fail to understand properly.

In recent days, in Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (ETJBG), Richard Carrier has offered replies to some of the arguments we have here (though not from us personally); we reply to that which is directly relevant to this item, in this article; but other material we address here.

Our survey of background Jewish literature is taken from Pheme Perkins' work Resurrection. Although not all Jews held uniform ideas about resurrection, it will become clear from this survey that the concept always involved a physical reconstitution of the deceased body. There is no room or place for the idea of a "spiritual resurrection", which is an unknown concept in this context, an oxymoron like "square circle" or "concrete rubber".

We may begin our survey with relevant material from the OT:

Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.

These three passages, especially Ezekiel, are programmatic for the concept of resurrection. Now here are cites from Judaism at the time of Jesus:

4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.
1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.
Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.
2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.
Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.

Response: Could there have been a "two-body" version of resurrection?

In ETJBG [107ff], Carrier wishes to specifically demonstrate that the idea of a "two-body doctrine" of resurrection could have plausibly existed in Judaism. Briefly, this "doctrine" is supposed to be that a dead body of a person stayed and rotted in the grave and they were given a completely new body in heaven. In short, there is full replacement as opposed to transformation.

One aspect of his case is to appeal to "diversity" in Judaism. Carrier charges those who maintain a relatively uniform view of resurrection in Judaism with "inherently racist" thinking, which is a bit odd in a volume where J. Duncan M. Derrett appealed to a racist stereotype of Jews as financiers. In fact, this is not "racist" in any sense but in accord with the conservative realities of ancient suspicion about anything new; and it is also in line with the point that any faith or belief will have an "acceptable pool of diversity". Thus we would hardly expect Carrier to admit that a person was an "atheist" if they believed in God. So likewise the idea is that Judaism held at its core a certain idea of "resurrection".

Carrier first errs by reading into comments by Robinson, et al that Jewish faith could not conceive of survival in a disembodied soul some idea that Jews could not conceive of ANY conscious life apart from a body. That is not what is being argued. Carrier also hauls up the irrelevancy he did in our discussion of variable timings in the final resurrection, and is no more forthcoming in terms of the scale of difference than he was in reply to us. He then goes on to claim that first century Judaism boasted "a colorful continuum of ideologies" but rather significantly missing from this continuum is any worthwhile evidence of a two-body doctrine (we will make what we will of what he does find, shortly). He names some thirty sects, but admits that "we know almost nothing about" some of them! Carrier's mere listing of sect names does not tell us just how closely these groups were aligned -- whether it was a matter of "Presbyterians and Lutherans" or "Baptists and Mormons"! He even admits that the number of sects could be most conservatively given at ten [109]. In light of how little data he truly does have, it is evidence of his despair that he resorts to the contrivance of arguing that "it is absurd to say they would not accept a two-body doctrine of resurrection" merely on the basis of their variety! Carrier has failed to prove that such a belief would fall within an "acceptable pool of diversity" for Judaism, and cannot show that it would; thus his appeal to "diversity" is in vain, a mere case of showboating.

In terms of proving that there WAS such a doctrine elsewhere in Judaism, his evidence is meagre and contrived:

Let's now work with the NT evidence, starting with the positive arguments for a physical rez body:

  1. Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical is intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the "whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested). Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.

  2. Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body. Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]

  3. The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection. This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.

    Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.

  4. 2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view. "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?

  5. Phil. 3:21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.

  6. A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one makes no sense in the social context. In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:

    Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.

    This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73] There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)

    Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments? Robert Price claims above that the Gospel pictures of the rez Jesus clash "violently" with those in the epistles -- mainly, Paul's material in 1 Cor. 15. Is this truly the case? Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the whole lot:

  1. "Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

    This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)

    Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

    The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

    This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

    Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

    Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

    ...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

    We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].

    Carrier [ETJBG, 134-5] tries to soften this point by ignoring the clear distinction made here between what is meant by "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bone." He also makes the standard error of assuming that Jesus showed his hands and feet to show his wounds; this is false, for as we noted elsewhere, while Jesus does show off his hands and feet (in Luke), and while Thomas says he wants to see the wounds, and Jesus tells him to check out the locations, there is no actual indication that there were indeed wounds there. The "hands and feet" bit has to do with one of three "zones of interaction" recognized by anthropologists. Malina and Rohrbaugh in their social science commentary on the Synoptics [356] note that the hands and feet were a "zone of purposeful action" and "of external behavior or interaction with the environment." It includes the hands, feet, fingers, and legs. Thus the hands and feet are not presented as evidence of crucifixion but as evidence of physical ability to interact.

    Carrier's further argument that Paul could not have believed that Jesus would eat fish is based on a poor reading of 1 Cor. 6:13, "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them." This verse says nothing about the resurrection body and at least the first part and very likely the second is in fact a Corinthian slogan Paul is answering (Witherington, Corinthians commentary, 168); but it is about the judgment God will place on sins, not to the transformation that accompanies resurrection.

  2. "Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

    This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:

    God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.

    And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:

    The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.

    Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138] Wright (Resurrection of the Son of God, 340f) notes that verses 20-28 and 35-49 are "built on the foundation of Genesis 1 and 2" as part of Paul's theology of a new creation. (Note that Paul refers to the heavenly bodies, animals, the seeds of plants -- all elements of the Genesis creation.) Paul is "setting up categories from the created order to provide a template of understanding for the new creation...." [341] This verse then speaks of Christ as the new "spirit" means whereby life will be given, just as the "spirit" in Gen. 1 was the creative tool of the previous creative act.

  3. "Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'." Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

    152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

    Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. (Wright [351n] adds that adjectives of material end in -inos.) Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

    Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

    Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

    And Wright adds these classical uses, showing that the word is used not for what something is made of, but what it is "animated by": Aristotle speaks of wombs "swollen with air" (hysterai pnumatikai) and Vitruvius refers to a machine "moved by wind" (pneumatikon organon). The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

    Carrier [129] attempts to get around this difficulty by claiming that the distinction between -inos and -ikos is "not so clear-cut" as, he says, "Wright admits" (though in fact, Wright is not so firm as that; he does say it is "dangerous to generalize in so widespread and pluriform a language as Koine Greek" yet the distinction remains "generally true"; Carrier also ignores Wright's point that Paul was perfectly capable of coining a word like psychinos if needed) and while he gives us an alleged set of examples of words with dual meanings, he does not offer specific citations as to where they appear. He would further need to show that these examples were not potential cases of scribal error or poor spelling/usage, or occurred often enough to make this suggestion unlikely.

    Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...

    Here our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3. The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!

    Wright (Resurrection of the Son of God, 315) adds the pertinent point that as it happens, the pagan philosophers of the day DID hold a "Mormon" view of spirit as "composed of material, albeit in finer particles." Thus indeed if Paul was teaching the sort of "spirit body" resurrection supposed, "his argument would be unnecessary, since many people in Corinth believed in that anyway." A "spiritual rez" thesis makes 1 Cor. 15 an argument for something that the Corinthians would have already believed in!

  4. "Peter doesn't believe in a physical resurrection. He says that Jesus was 'put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit' (1 Peter 3:18). He also doesn't mention the empty tomb where he should (5:1)." We have dealt with the first cite with reference to the Mormons: the phrase here is by the Spirit, meaning the mode whereby Jesus was raised. The verb "quickened" is used elsewhere to describe physical resurrection (John 5:21, 1 Cor. 15). As for 5:1, I challenge critics to make a case that this was a place where anything like the empty tomb should be mentioned: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed..."

  5. "Why not preach a bodily resurrection? It is a more concrete and wonderful proof of victory over death." How so? The body is not present, so "concreteness" is out the window. The empty tomb is explained no more easily. It is not "wonderful" unless you agree that the body is worth saving, which the pagans did not believe. It only makes the job harder to do.

  6. "There were other instances of the doctrine being messed with; what about 1 Corinthians? Maybe the switch was one of these mess-ups." Such an objection merely begs the question, and arguing for "guilt by association" because of other mess-ups is not valid. Moreover, as noted, the Corinthian controversy was one that denied a physical resurrection! The only other mess-up supposed that the resurrection of believers had already taken place -- an issue of timing, not nature. Further speculation that the "spiritual rez" idea was lost or suppressed are no more than begged questions as well.

  7. "Other Jewish sects did not believe in a physical resurrection. Why not Christianity also?" Be careful when this is offered; it is a trick question! Saying "physical resurrection" is like saying "round circle." Many writers (including some scholars, but mostly uninformed skeptics) speak of "spiritual" resurrection but they use the term improperly. To use a prime example, according to Josephus, the Essenes had a doctrine that "righteous souls go to a place of blessedness." It should be first noted (as by N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 326f) that it is possible that Josephus' description here is somewhat affected by his attempt to depict the various divisions of Judaism as Hellenistic philosophical schools. Read improperly, his description of the Pharisee belief suggests that they believed in reincarnation or metempsychosis! The best authority for Essene belief is Essene documents, and on the matter of resurrection, they are silent, though Wright, following Vermes, believes that at least some Essenes embraced physical resurrection.

    That said, what if Josephus is indeed accurate? Then we do not have, by definition, "resurrection" -- we have apotheosis. Or actually, maybe we only have pre-resurrection stirrings. There are other passages like these which some speak of as counter to resurrection, but in these cases what we likely have (as in Wisdom of Solomon 3:1, 5:16, 6:17-20, and Josephus on the Essenes) is a description of life for those between death and resurrection, with no actually negative indications against resurrection. In any event it is unwise to proceed without caution and assert that we have evidence that Christianity could have preached a "spiritual resurrection." It is especially dangerous to use cites uncritically, for as Wright also notes, in describing the intermediate state, Jewish writers sometimes borrowed Hellenistic language "which in its own context denotes a permanent disembodied state; but they still make it clear that bodily resurrection is the end they have in sight." (Such a mistake is indeed made by Porter -- see below -- when claiming that Pharasaic belief recorded by Josephus may not be resurrection -- it should be noted that even Porter shows that when Josephus found an idea among the Sadducees that was like one from the Greeks, or originated from the Greeks, he clearly said so.)

    Finally, it is illicit to use Eccl. 12:7 as a point against physical resurrection in light of that book's genre (see also here).

Conclusion -- There is no way to escape the fact that the contextual background of the NT, and the NT itself, clearly teaches a Jesus whose body was physically resurrected into tangible form. Proponents of a "spiritual" resurrection are either misinformed or else are trying to "escape from the scandal of a physical resurrection." [Gundry, 163]

Addendum: "Firstfruits" of the Resurrection: In light of the above it has been shown tha certain skeptical contentions about Christ's order as the first resurrected are also wrong. The raising of Jairus' daughter, and of Samuel as a ghost, do not fit in this paradigm.

The one set of people who do fit in the paradigm are Matthew's resurrected saints. At this point some skeptics may bring in two verses:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Wouldn't Matt's saints be "first"? In chronology, yes, but that is not the sense here. In Acts the word used for "first" is protos, and it can mean first in order, but it also can mean first in importance. For example, Matthew 10:2 reads, "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother...." This is clearly a ranking of importance recognizing Peter as the "chief" of the apostles in rank. If it were a numerical listing, we would read, "...second, Andrew..."

1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

This verse is not relevant to chronology, either. The word "firstfruits" is aparche, which alludes to the Jewish firstfruits sacrifice. Matthew's saints were not sacrifices at all as Jesus was.

Addendum: Some New Criticisms A reader in New Zealand recently alerted me to a couple of essays that seek to dispute the core premise that resurrection in Judaism could only be conceived of as physical. Surprisingly neither essay deals with the essential background doctrine of the Semitic Totality Concept -- under which physical resurrection would be necessary for any sort of real life or afterlife -- or Perkins' thorough study, or Gundry's landmark soma study, though as it happens neither essay disputes that Paul and the NT teach a physical resurrection.

The first essay appears in a book titled Resurrection and is written by Stanley Porter, whose work we have appreciated often on the subject of rhetoric in the NT. Porter steps into a new realm here and posits that the Jewish concept of resurrection may have had origins in the Greco-Roman world (and here, his lack of notice of Semitic Totality is rather poignant). It is his contention however that -- despite the Greek disdain for the material -- the Greeks "did have a significant tradition of bodily resurrection" while there was also a "fairly large stream of Jewish tradition that did not entertain a bodily resurrection." [53]

Porter does interact with some of the cites from later Jewish literature above, but is compelled to devalue them by rather questionable means. 4 Ezra is dismissed because allegedly, bodily resurrection is "strongly implied" but "not explicitly outlined, especially as there appears to be a dichotomous view that separates bodies and souls." [64] Why the latter is of any relevance is difficult to see. Semitic Totality would see the body and spirit (not soul) as properly belonging together, not necessarily inseparable. Beyond that it is hard to see how much more explicit Porter wants things to be. 2 Baruch 50:2 is noted, but Bauckham is quoted as saying that it appeals not to resurrection in terms of resuscitation of the corpse, but "asserts a raising in the exact form, not necessarily to be read as 'concerned with the material identity of the body.'" [65] To this we say, what of it? It remains physical resurrection. Jews of later periods, and we today what with a cremation debate ongoing, may discuss whether the body raised need be materially identical to the original. As it stands our bodies shed cells constantly, and the ancients could see that their bodies changed and surely asked questions about how one with a missing leg would be resurrected. As a close Porter waves off this data as later than 70 AD, but it is hard to see how Jewish beliefs in the afterlife could undergo any radical change in just a few and from much earlier concepts. (Porter excuses away Daniel 12:2 for example by dating Daniel to the Hellenistic period!)

Porter then attempts to dig resurrection out of Greco-Roman sources, but after giving several examples of beliefs concerning merely the afterlife (rewards and punishment, or survival of the spirit) and reincarnation, Porter ends up with no actual example of resurrection from the classical Greek writers and thinkers, and from the mystery religions pulls out the story of Dionysus being torn up by the Titans (note what our classical scholar said there about this story being unlikely to be known by Palestinian Jews), a story of Isis which credits her with the power to raise others from the dead (using indeed the word anastasis), and the example of Mithraism (!) which by his own description does not even teach bodily restoration! (As an aside, Porter bewilderingly uses a grossly outdated source from 1925 for his data on Mithraism!) Other than this Porter offers an example from Euripides of a character in a play who dies, and whose husband goes through hell and high water so to speak to get her back -- which he does, physically indeed, though by completely unspecified means. Porter admits that this is no clear resurrection (as he supposes the woman died again later), but rather a revivification. And this we are to take as a "significant tradition"! It is rather better to say that Porter has overstated his case, and has done so without consideration of a very significant part of the paradigm -- Semitic Totality.

I am pleased now to note (7/22/03) that some of these very criticisms have been laid against Porter's essay by none other than N. T. Wright in his latest mega-volume, The Resurrection of the Son of God. As I noted when I read Porter's essay, most of what he offers is not even relevant to resurrection, only proving that there was a Greco-Roman concept of afterlife with variable ideas attached to it. The story of the returned woman (whose name is Alcestis) Wright also agrees seems to be a revivification, but also adds, having provided several examples, that "intelligent pagans contemporary with early Christianity knew about such stories, and dismissed them as mythic fictions." [67] Readers of this story "would not have thought of the story as in any way realistic." The example is, after all, from a play, and as Wright puts it, "One might as well invoke the Ring cycle as evidence of marital and family customs among the nineteenth-century German bourgeoisie."

A shorter but just as overstated case may be found in O'Collins' The Easter Jesus [102ff]. O'Collins suggests that resurrection "may possibly have come from Persian religious thought into Judaism", though scholars of this field are divided on the subject and a common philosophical view of Totality is the more likely reason for the resemblance (see here, especially Zaehner's note). O'Collins notes Baruch 50:2, but somehow considers contradictory points in Baruch 51 which speak of the just as "transformed into the splendour of angels" or the "splendour of glory". He also jumps in the same sentence to an arbitrary conclusion about the writer of Wisdom of Solomon: "He stresses the spiritual elements of the after-life and -- to say the least -- leaves unclear the fate of the body. Here we seem to meet belief in life after death involving no body at all." (Emphasis added.) How does one jump from "unclear" to "no" so easily? In the end O'Collins provides no substantial evidence for his closing claim that there was no unique Jewish view of resurrection.

Discuss this article here


Seven Reasons Why I Believe in
THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

From the book CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS

by Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley

WStS Note: This etext was typed and reformatted by Tom and Katie Stewart from a reprint (1971-- uncopyrighted) of the original edition. The use of the letter "s" instead of "z" was correct at the time of publishing.

CHRISTIANITY IS FOUNDED on "the empty tomb." Its throbbing vitality is the fact that the Christ who bled and suffered on the Cross is gloriously risen from the dead and is alive for evermore. The Church's only justification for its origin and doctrine is that Christ is risen from Joseph's tomb. The vacated sepulchre alone vindicates the Church's existence. The gospel stakes all on the actuality that the Lord Jesus rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

The Resurrection is essential to Christianity, for by it alone can Christianity be confirmed. The Resurrection is the great corroborator of the Christian gospel. Remove this keystone and the goodly temple crashes into ruin. As life is essential to living so the Resurrection is essential to a living Christianity. Take away the Resurrection and Christianity becomes a dead letter, but another contribution to the world's Pantheon.

The Resurrection is the Essential of the essentials of the Christian faith. Because of this it is the most important fact in history, for thereupon hangs eternal destiny. Not only is it the most important fact but it is the best attested fact in history. The foundation of God standeth sure.

Those who glibly deny the bodily resurrection of Christ never honestly faced the evidence which supports this, the mighty foundation stone of the Gospel. The evidence is most convincing and conclusive.

The account of the conversion of two of the most notable sceptics of the eighteenth century is a good illustration of just how convincing and conclusive is this evidence. These two men, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton, ranked among the most brilliant intellectuals of their day. After many clever sallies against Biblical Christianity they decided that if two great fundamentals of the Gospel were overthrown, Christianity would crumble into ruin. These fundamentals were, the Resurrection of Christ and the Conversion of St. Paul. So West undertook to write a treatise on the Resurrection proving it to be a fabrication, and Lyttleton vowed to produce a treatise demonstrating that St. Paul was not miraculously converted on the Damascus Road. They therefore started to sift the evidence which they believed was pure fabrication and which they were determined to expose and explode. From time to time they met in conference and then one day West said to Lyttleton,

"I have something very important to relate. You know, Lyttleton, how keen I was to expose as pure fabrication the Resurrection of Christ. I therefore determined to thoroughly sift the evidence and in doing so I had to be honest, I had to be sincere, I had to be honourable and I had to forsake my prejudice and act on strict legal principle. Having pursued this line I have been forced to the conclusion that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead. Now, you may laugh at me if you like, Lyttleton, but I got down on my knees and asked the risen Saviour to save me and He has done it."

Lyttleton replied,

"Strange to relate, I have had a similar experience. I, too, sifted the evidence, sincerely, candidly and honestly, and the more I weighed the evidence the more I was forced to the conclusion that St. Paul was really remarkably converted on the Damascus Road. That being so, West, as an honest person I could do no other but fall on my knees and ask the same Christ to save me and He has done it."

In the course of time the treatises of West and Lyttleton appeared. West's treatise vindicated the Resurrection and Lyttleton's the Conversion of St. Paul. Both these treatises can be found in our libraries to-day. To them unbelief has never been able to fabricate an answer. They stand as monuments to the fact that if the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ is sifted and weighed honestly, it will be found to be convincing and conclusive.

Let us then survey some of this evidence.


FIRST REASON: THE BODILY RESURRECTION WAS PROPHETICALLY ANTICIPATED BY CHRIST HIMSELF

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," Matthew 12:39, 40.

"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again," Matthew 20:17-19.

"And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead," Mark 9:9.

"But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee," Mark 14:28.

"Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day," Luke 9:22.

"Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said," John 2:18-22.

The great sign of His Messiahship was the Resurrection. That Christ was not referring to a mere resurrection of spirit is clear from His speech to the unbelieving Jews concerning the destruction and resurrection of the temple of His body. The Bible knows no other resurrection than that of the body for the Scriptures teach implicitly that the spirit never dies but at death is in a state of separation from the body.

All the prophecies which Christ made, have, when the time for the fulfillment came, been completely vindicated. Their absolute truthfulness has been vividly displayed in the course of time. History has been their great corroborator.

The destruction of Jerusalem, the Coming of the Holy Spirit, the Building of the Church, the Rise of false prophets and false christs and the Division of households through Christianity -- these and many more happenings all carefully predicted by Christ have been fulfilled to the last letter. Fulfilled prophecy is a witness to the truthfulness of Christ which cannot be silenced. No honest person dare reject this prophetic phenomenon. Now this being so by what law can we reject Christ's prophecy concerning His own resurrection as untrue?

We have already discovered that, tested by every known law, Christ stands forth as the One who has completely established all His claims and fulfilled all His promises. This being so, His prophecy concerning this most important event of all, must be true. To accept that Christ's prophecy concerning His betrayal, delivery into the hands of the Gentiles, and crucifixion was true, but to reject the climax of it all, His Bodily Resurrection, is to act dishonestly and only demonstrates prejudice against the supernatural.

The Resurrection, the climax of Christ's Life and absolutely unparalleled in itself and in its circumstances, is to be taken in connection with the whole course of Christ's Life and with the sum of the great miraculous demonstrations which from time to time He made manifest with overwhelming power. When viewed in this light, we could only accept that the climax of His miraculous Life would be the Miracle of miracles itself. To this supreme miracle Christ prophetically pointed as the great sign that He was the Christ, the Chosen of God.

The argument that Christ predicted His death by a deduction from antagonistic circumstances cannot stand. His prophecy in John chapter two came early on in His ministry, long before the religious leaders organised themselves against Him. Again, Peter and the other disciples were ever alarmists, and yet when Christ spoke of His death they repudiated it as impossible. "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men," Matthew 16:21-23.

As the prophetic accuracy of the Lord Jesus is a well attested fact, I believe in the Bodily Resurrection because it was anticipated by Himself.


SECOND REASON: THE BODILY RESURRECTION IS PERFECTLY SUBSTANTIATED BY THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES

The combined testimony of the Evangelists witnesses that the tomb is empty. A resurrected Christ is the climax of their gospels. In perfect harmony they declare that Christ is risen from the dead.

Matthew

Matthew records two appearances of the Risen Christ.

Mark

Mark records three appearances.

Luke

Luke records four appearances.

John

John records four appearances.

Of these narratives, Professor F. Godet states:

"Let us note in these evangelic records two characteristics: the variations in the details, the agreement in the substance of the story. The substance is the fact of the resurrection. On this the accounts are unanimous. The diversity in the details is the consequence of that between the witnesses who communicated the facts to the writers, or who themselves drew up these records. It proves that no previous agreement, no ingenious calculation, guided them in drawing them up.

"On looking back upon the whole, we easily perceive how wonderfully the several fragments of the picture fit into each other. But the records themselves give not the slightest hint respecting this mutual interconnection and this natural progress of the advancing steps of the story. 'What a proof is this of the perfect faithfulness, as well as intrinsic truthfulness, of these primitive records!'"

These gospel records are further corroborated by Paul. "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time," 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

Now the truthfulness of the Gospel narratives is self-evident. A study of the intimate details recorded by the Evangelists demonstrates their veracity. "But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you," Mark 16:7.

Notice the emphasis "and Peter." Peter was surely one of the disciples, why then this special addition? Peter's conduct is undoubtedly in mind. He denied his Lord with oaths and cursing and by this time concluded that he was no longer reckoned a disciple. If the message had named only the disciples, Peter would have excluded himself. Here, however, we have a real portrayal of Christ. He remembered Peter, and in order to show His infinite compassion He adds in wondrous grace the words "and Peter." No artful contriver would have thought of such an addition. This is no invention. It is something reported by an eyewitness of the very event.

Again, take the narratives of the vision of angels. Minute details are given of their positions in the tomb, their dress, their number, and the very degrees of light which radiated from their apparel. We read in Mark that the "young man" was seated on the right side of the tomb, and was clad in a "long white raiment." Matthew records that the angel's raiment was "white like snow." Luke records that the angels appeared in "shining garments." John speaks of them as being in "white."

Why such minute description? Without doubt the angels' raiment is recorded as was seen by the eyewitnesses. The narratives are authentic accounts and not manufactured novels. The details display undesigned veracity.

Because of the self-evident truthfulness of the Gospel records I therefore believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ which these records perfectly substantiate.


THIRD REASON: THE BODILY RESURRECTION IS PRACTICALLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE APOSTLES' TRANSFORMATION

The great contrast between the disposition of the apostles at the time of Christ's death and their disposition as portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles can not be satisfactorily explained apart from the Resurrection. Their Messianic expectation of Christ reigning at Jerusalem with them as His princely courtiers had been rudely dashed by Christ's apprehension and subsequent crucifixion. The dark treason of Judas, the blasphemous denial of Peter, their own cowardice at the hour of crisis, the base victory of the Sanhedrin, the wild infuriation of the people and the awful crucifixion and sad burial of their Master had left them hopeless and heartless, a byword and a contempt in the eyes of their enemies.

We realise something of their state in the pathetic exclamation concerning Christ, of the two who travelled to Emmaus, "But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done," Luke 24:21.

After the third day, however, a unique moral transformation takes place. Their fears are exchanged for a rugged fearlessness, their hopelessness for a transforming hope, their cowardice for an unflinching courage and their backwardness for a triumphant boldness. In the power of that transformation they issued forth recklessly regardless of persecution and martyrdom, to proclaim in the face of an antagonistic world the fact of Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

Dr. Philip Schaff comments in his valuable "Apostolic Christianity":

"This revolution was not isolated, but general among them; it was not the result of any easy credulity, but brought about in spite of doubt and hesitation; it was not superficial and monetary, but radical and lasting; it affected not only the apostles, but the whole history of the world. It reached even the leaders of the persecution, Saul of Tarsus, one of the clearest and strongest intellects, and converted him into the most devoted and faithful champion of this very gospel to the hour of his martyrdom.

"This is a fact patent to every reader of the closing chapters of the Gospels, and is freely admitted even by the most advanced sceptics."

Contrast, for example, Peter and John at the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, and Peter and John defying the very same hierarchy and proclaiming:

"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard," Acts 4:19, 20.

"We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him," Acts 5:29-32.

Well may Bishop Westcott ask:

"If the crucified Lord did rise again, we can point to effects which answer completely to what we may suppose to have been the working of the stupendous miracle on those who were the first witnesses of it: if He did not, to what must we look for an explanation of phenomena for which the Resurrection is no more than an adequate cause?"

There is only one answer to this stupendous transformation in the apostles, and that is that they were eyewitnesses of the bodily presence of their once crucified but now risen Lord.

Therefore I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ because it is practically demonstrated by the Apostles' Transformation.


FOURTH REASON: BECAUSE THE BODILY RESURRECTION IS POWERFULLY VINDICATED BY CHRISTIANITY'S HISTORY



If the Resurrection is not a fact then Christianity is inexplicable. The Resurrection is the foundation of Christianity but if this foundation does not exist whence then Christianity? Dr. Philip Schaff comments:

"The Christian Church rests on the resurrection of its Founder. Without this fact the church could never have been born, or if born, it would soon have died a natural death. The miracle of the resurrection and the existence of Christianity are so closely connected that they must stand or fall together. If Christ was raised from the dead, then all his other miracles are sure, and our faith is impregnable; if he was not raised, he died in vain, and our faith is vain. It was only his resurrection that made his death available for our atonement, justification and salvation; without the resurrection, his death would be the grave of our hopes; we should be still unredeemed and under the power of our sins. A gospel of a dead Saviour would be a contradiction and wretched delusion. This is the reasoning of St. Paul, and its force irresistible."

Beyond question, the Resurrection was the foundation truth of the apostolic gospel. The primitive church is best described in the words of Luke. "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all," Acts 4:33.

If the Resurrection of Christ was not an incontrovertible fact how dare the disciples proclaim it in the very place where it happened? Is it likely, if it were a fraud, that the people would have tolerated, let alone believed, the apostolic gospel?

The empty tomb was an objective fact open for their investigation. If the tomb had not been emptied of its precious contents by the miracle of Resurrection, then the production of Christ's body would soon have exposed the fraud. Is it credible to suppose that if the disciples stole away the body, as the Jews in their dilemma lyingly suggested, that they would have been prepared to be martyred for their deception?

That the main emphasis of the apostles was on the actuality of the Resurrection is further illustrated by the source from which their main opposition came. In that invaluable book "Undesigned Coincidences," Dr. J. J. Blunt points out:

"There is a difference in the quarter from which opposition to the Gospel of Christ proceeded, as represented in the Gospels and in the Acts, most characteristic of truth, though most unobtrusive in itself. Indeed, these two portions of the New Testament might be read many times over without the feature I allude to happening to present itself.

"Throughout the Gospels, the hostility to the Christian cause manifested itself almost exclusively from the Pharisees. Jesus evidently considers them as a sect systematically adverse to it. 'Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! .... Ye are the children of them which killed the prophets .... Fill ye up the measure of your fathers.' And before Jesus came up to the last Passover, 'the chief priests and Pharisees,' we read, 'gave commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.' And when Judas proposed to betray Him, 'he received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees.' On the other hand, throughout the Acts, the like hostility is discovered to proceed from the Sadducees. Thus, 'And as they' (Peter and John) 'spake thus unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them.' And again, on another occasion, 'the high priest rose up, and all that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indignation and laid their hands on the Apostles, and put them in the common prison.' And again, in a still more remarkable case: when Paul was maltreated before Ananias, and there was danger perhaps to his life, he, 'perceiving,' we read, 'that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:' evidently considering the Pharisees now to be the friendly faction, and soliciting their support against the Sadducees, whom he equally regarded as a hostile one; nor was he disappointed in his appeal.

"Whence then, this extraordinary change in the relations of these parties respectively to the Christians? No doubt, because the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which, before Christ's own resurrection, i.e., during the period comprised in the Gospels, had been so far from dispersed by the disciples, that they scarcely knew what it meant (Mark 9:10), had now become a leading doctrine with them."

Of all people, the Sadducees would have exposed Christ's Resurrection as a deception if they had been able to do so. It was the incontrovertible actuality of the empty tomb and Resurrected Christ, and the consequent refutation of their own doctrine of no resurrection, which goaded them on to such acts of violence against the early church.

Bishop Westcott in "The Gospel of the Resurrection" says:

"From the time of the first preaching of the Apostles, Christianity has been a power in the world acting upon society and acted upon by it. It conquered the Roman Empire, and remained unshaken by its fall. It sustained the shock of the northern nations, and in turn civilised them. It suffered persecution and it wielded sovereignty. It preserved the treasures of ancient thought and turned them to new uses. It inspired science, while it cherished mysteries with which science could not deal. It assumed the most varied forms and it molded the most discordant characters. And all this was done and borne in virtue of its historic foundation. For its strength lay not in the zeal of a hierarchy who were the depositaries of hidden doctrines, but in the open proclamation of a Divine Saviour."

Now the whole history of the triumph of Christianity is a powerful vindication of the Risen Christ. In fact, the whole history of the last 2,000 years is the guarantee of the reality that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. The spiritual force of Christianity is inexplicable, apart from the doctrine of the Bodily Resurrection.

So I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ because it is powerfully vindicated by Christianity's History.


FIFTH REASON: THE BODILY RESURRECTION IS PERPETUALLY COMMEMORATED BY THE LORD'S DAY

How did the seventh day cease so suddenly to the early Jewish christians to be their day for worship? Why the change to the first day of the week? There is only one explanation, the Resurrection of Christ. John Bunyan said of the Lord's Day, the Lord Himself began it, the Holy Spirit seconded it (Pentecost was on the first day of the week, see Leviticus 23:16) and the Apostolic Church practised it. Its basis was the Resurrection of Christ.

The first day of the week is the only day mentioned in the New Testament as a special day. It was on the first day our Lord arose; that He appeared to Mary, and to the disciples on the Emmaus Road, to Peter and to all the disciples apart from Thomas. It was on the first day again He appeared to the disciples, Thomas being with them.

Paul waited for that day in Troas, and when it came remembered his Lord in the breaking of bread and preached to the assembled disciples. Again, it was on the first day of the week that Paul commanded the Galatian and Corinthian Christians to give their offerings to the Lord's work. In Revelation it was on the Lord's Day that John was granted his stupendous apocalyptic vision.

The assertion of the Seventh Day Adventists that the Pope and the Church of Rome changed the day under Constantine is a pure fallacy, a sectarian invention with no historical foundation whatever. Dr. Schaff, the great authority in Church History, states:

"The universal and uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second century can only be explained by the fact that it had its roots in apostolic practice. Such observance is the more to be appreciated as it has no support in civil legislation before the age of Constantine, and must have been connected with many inconveniences, considering the lowly social condition of the majority of Christians and their dependence upon their heathen masters and employers. Sunday thus became, by an easy and natural transformation, the Christian Sabbath or weekly day of rest, at once answering the typical import of the eternal rest of the people of God in the heavenly Canaan."

Now the Lord's day had its own prophetic anticipation. Over in Leviticus we have its type in the feast of the Firstfruits. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it," Leviticus 23:10, 11. Notice the time of this feast, "the day after the Sabbath." Now this day was the third day after the passover lamb was slain, so at the very time when in the temple the priests were preparing the wave offering, Christ arose. Adolph Saphir says:

"Exactly as the type had prefigured it, so was He offered up unto God. And on the morrow after the Sabbath He came forth the Sheaf, the Branch out of the earth ... Suffering and death were behind Him. He had died once unto sin, but now He lived unto God."

It was of this feast of the first-fruits that Paul was thinking when he wrote:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept," 1 Corinthians 15:20.

In Psalm 118 we have a direct prophecy concerning the Lord's day. "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it," Psalm 118:22-24. We have the fulfillment of this prophecy mentioned by Peter to the Sanhedrin: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner," Acts 4:10, 11.

The day was not of man's making, it was the day which the Lord made, by the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Resurrection is the only warrant for our keeping the first day of the week sanctified to the Lord.

Blest morning, whose first dawning rays
Beheld the Son of God
Arise triumphant from the grave,
And leave His dark abode!

Wrapt in the silence of the tomb
The great Redeemer lay.
Till the revolving skies had brought
The third, the appointed day.

Hell and the grace combined their force
To hold our Lord in vain;
Sudden the Conqueror arose,
And burst their feeble chain.

To thy great name, Almighty Lord,
We sacred honours pay,
And loud hosannas shall proclaim
The triumphs of the day.

Hence I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ because it is perpetually commemorated by the Lord's Day.


SIXTH REASON: THE BODILY RESURRECTION IS PLAINLY INDICATED BY THE IMPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

When one places the onus of the proof on those who deny the Bodily Resurrection, the reality of the Resurrection is confirmed rather than refuted. Three possible theories have been advanced down through the centuries to prove that Christ did not rise from the dead. These theories have been put forward at different times in different ways, but their substance has ever been the same.

The Fraud Theory

The invention of the Jewish leaders is put forth as the real truth. The disciples stole the body of Jesus from Joseph's tomb, while the guards slept, and have concealed it, deceived the world. This theory carries its own refutation, for if the guards were sleeping how did they know it was the disciples who stole the body, and if they were not sleeping then they would have prevented the crime. Again, if they really slept at the post of duty, as Romans they would never have confessed such an awful crime. As for the disciples, they were too cowardly at this time to do such a daring act and too honest to connive to cheat the whole world. How could such a fraud have nerved its perpetrators with such Christian patience and fortitude? It is clear that the fraud theory is a fraud and is rightly described as "a wicked absurdity."

The Swoon Theory

This theory holds that Jesus did not really die on the cross but that He merely swooned from loss of blood. Nicodemus and Joseph discovered this and with the help of others, by careful medical attention, restored Christ to life. Later He died a natural death. Others have even absurdly stated that He recovered from the swoon of the cross in the cold tomb and by His own medical attention recovered and somehow or other got out of the sepulchre. Besides insurmountable physical difficulties this theory could never account for the marvellous transformation of the apostles. The experience of a weary, wounded sickly Jesus hiding away from His enemies and eventually succumbing to death, would have overwhelmed the disciples completely in utter despair.

The Vision Theory

The exponents of this theory have adopted all sorts of ingenuous methods to dispose of the fact of the empty tomb. Some say Mary and the disciples visited another tomb which was not occupied. Others say the body was taken away by the enemies of Christ. Another theory held by "Jehovah Witnesses" that the body dissolved into gases has recently been advocated by no less a person than an ex-President of the Methodist Church, Dr. Leslie Weatherford. In a recent essay on the subject he states:

"It would not be wise to suppose that Christ walked out of the tomb in the same physical body that died on the Cross, for that only postpones the question 'What then finally happened to His body?' Perhaps it completely dematerialised, that is, became nothingness, so far as matter is concerned. It is easier to suppose that through the speeding up of molecular movement, it became gaseous and escaped through chinks in the cave, not, of course, made airtight by the rough circular stone, and that either

(1) those particles were used by Him to materialise again outside the tomb, or

(2) -- the hypothesis I prefer -- that a spiritual or etheric existence, which had the same effect on human senses as a physical one, was the means of the post-Resurrection appearance."

This theory goes on to state as Dr. Weatherhead does, that the Resurrection appearances were merely visions of one kind or another. Dr. Weatherhead finds the best explanation is spiritism. The insurmountable arguments against this theory are many.

What of the tomb? Are we to believe that the majestic discourses attributed to the Risen Christ proceeded from "dreamy and self-deluded enthusiasts and crazy fanatics"? Are we to accept these appearances as ghost stories? Why did these visions suddenly end on the fortieth day? Why did they not continue? Dr. Schaff says:

"The chief objection to the vision-hypothesis is its intrinsic impossibility. It makes the most exorbitant claim upon our credulity. It requires us to believe that many persons, singly and collectively, at different times, and in different places, from Jerusalem to Damascus, had the same vision and dreamed the same dream; that the women at the open sepulchre early in the morning, Peter and John soon afterwards, the two disciples journeying to Emmaus on the afternoon of the resurrection day, the assembled apostles on the evening in the absence of Thomas, and again on the Lord's Day in the presence of the sceptical Thomas, seven apostles at the lake of Tiberias, on one occasion five hundred brethren at once most of whom were still alive when Paul reported the fact, then James, the brother of the Lord, who formerly did not believe in him, again all the apostles on Mount Olivet at the ascension, and at last the clear-headed, strong-minded persecutor on the way to Damascus -- that all these men and women on these different occasions vainly imagined they saw and heard the self-same Jesus in bodily shape and form; and that they were by this baseless vision raised all at once from the deepest gloom in which the crucifixion of their Lord had left them, to the boldest faith and strongest hope which impelled them to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection from Jerusalem to Rome to the end of their lives!

"The vision-hypothesis, instead of getting rid of the miracle, only shifts it from the fact to fiction; it makes an empty delusion more powerful than the truth, or turns all history itself at last into a delusion. Before we can reason the resurrection of Christ out of history we must reason the apostles and Christianity itself out of existence. We must either admit the miracle, or frankly confess that we stand here before an inexplicable mystery."

All these impossible alternatives plainly indicate the fact of the Resurrection. The enemies of the Risen Christ cannot prove He did not triumphantly vacate the tomb. That rugged empty tomb smashes all opposition.

Death could not keep its prey,
Jesus, my Saviour!
He tore the bars away,
Jesus, my Lord!

Up from the grave He arose,
With a mighty triumph o'er His foes.
He arose a Victor o'er the dark domain,
And He lives for ever with His saints to reign!
He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Hence I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ because it is plainly indicated by the impossible alternatives.


SEVENTH REASON: THE BODILY RESURRECTION IS PERSONALLY CORROBORATED BY THE BELIEVER'S EXPERIENCE

Joseph's tomb is not only emptied of Christ's body but it is emptied of our curse. Christ was delivered because of our offences, He was raised because of our justification. His death discharged our awful debt, His resurrection is the great receipt that the full price has been paid.

Jesus, once numbered with the dead,
Unseals His eyes to sleep no more,
And ever lives their cause to plead,
For whom the pains of death He bore.

Our Surety freed declares us free,
For whose offences He was seized;
In His release our own we see,
And shout to view Jehovah pleased.

This experience of justification in the heart of the believer is a personal corroboration that Christ is risen from the dead, In the joy of this experience the believer can say with Job, "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me," Job 19:25-27.

Thus the evidence of faith confirms the fact of the Resurrection. Of the empty tomb Professor Godet writes:

"Let us often visit this spot; it is not necessary for this end to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem; the entrance into the holy sepulchre opens in the depths of the heart of each one of us. Let us descend into it, to find there the pledges of our adoption, the shreds of the letter of acknowledgement of debt, which bore witness against us, and which the hand of our Heavenly Creditor has torn up, the fragments of the sceptre of Death, which the foot of our deliverer has broken to pieces; and lastly, the helmet of hope, which His hand has deposited there in order that each believer may go thither to put it on his head. Ah! what good such a visit does to the overwhelmed soul! She returns out of it as John came out of the sepulchre after seeing in it the linen clothes wrapped together, and the napkin folded and laid by in a place by itself. 'He saw and believed,' he tells us himself; summing up in these two words the deepest experience of his life. Let us believe in the testimony of those who saw, in that which authenticates itself to our hearts as holy, and therefore true, and then we too shall see; we shall behold, even here on earth, the glory of God."

I believe in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, because my experience of the Saviour tells me it is so.

The day of resurrection!
Earth, tell it out abroad;
The passover of gladness,
The passover of God!
From death to life eternal,
From earth unto the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over
With hymns of victory.

Now let the heavens be joyful;
Let earth her song begin;
Let the round world keep triumph,
And all that is therein;
Invisible and visible,
Their notes let all things blend,
For Christ the Lord hath risen,
Our joy that hath no end.
b
y
.
THE END

aul's Belief in a Bodily Resurrection

An argument against the contention that Jesus rose spiritually in Paul's thought.
by Chris Price (July 21, 2003)

Many skeptics have argued that the earliest Christians believed in a solely spiritual resurrection of Jesus and, eventually, his followers. Only later, this theory maintains, did the Christian idea of the spiritual resurrection evolve into a belief in a physical resurrection. Exhibit A for such theorists, is Paul and his purported belief in a solely spiritual resurrection of Jesus and Christians. Skeptics who have argued this position include Richard Carrier and David Friedman.

Does 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 Teach a Physical or a Spiritual Resurrection?

Could the Original Gospel Have Been of a Spiritual Rather Than a Physical Resurrection?

However, the idea that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one has rightly been rejected by the majority of scholars. Even some skeptics have rejected it. See Peter Kirby's chapter on the Testimony of Paul.

Paul's self-identified Jewishness precludes such a conclusion. The notion that Christianity grew out of a Jewish belief in a spiritual resurrection that evolved into a belief in a bodily resurrection as Christianity became more influenced by Hellenism is a very unlikely prospect. Additionally, the language Paul uses to describe the resurrection--most notably "soma"--emphasizes the physical nature of the resurrected person. Finally, Paul's belief that Christians immediately went to be with Jesus upon their death, but still awaited a "resurrection" demonstrates that the resurrection being discussed was a physical one.

Before examining these arguments further, a point of clarification is in order. By physical resurrection I merely mean that there is some level of continuity between the body of Jesus or the dead Christian and their respective new body. I do not address how much continuity there was between old or new, or whether the new body was made out of the same stuff as the old. I will use the terms simply: a physical resurrection results in the original body missing from the grave, a spiritual resurrection has no affect on the original body.

I. Paul's Jewish Background

That Christianity originated in a Jewish context is beyond dispute. Early Christians were Jews and used Jewish scripture as their own. Friedman and Carrier completely but intentionally ignore this background and argue that because Christianity changed some parts of Judaism, that no part of Jewish belief is informative as to Christian belief. This assertion lacks merit. Indeed, it appear to be disingenuous (Carrier, for example, is quite happy to use Paul's supposed Hellenistic background to argue against a physical resurrection). There is much of Christianity that only makes sense in a Jewish context, to ignore this context altogether on so central an issue (to Christianity and to Second Temple Judaism) can only arise from fear of where such investigation would lead. In any event, the little regard that Carrier and Friedman exhibit for Paul's Jewish background is in direct contravention of the importance Paul clearly places on it. Paul is a "Hebrew of Hebrews", of the tribe of Benjamin, as to the law blameless. But Paul does more than identify his Jewishness, it pervades his letters, affects his theology, and is apparent to any informed reader. Paul time and again relies on Jewish scripture. He believes in the Prophets, in Abraham, in Adam. He counts time by reference to Jewish holidays.

Carrier again attempts to confuse the issue by arguing that, even if Paul was a Jew, only the Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection. The Sadducees and Essenes did not. This argument too appears disingenuous. Not only was the Pharisaic view of resurrection shared by the majority of Jews, but the Sadducees certainly did not believe in a spiritual resurrection. In fact, they believed in no resurrection or life after death at all. But, most important of all, Paul readily admits that he was "as to the law, a Pharisee" (Phil. 3:5). Moreover, except for the timing of Jesus' resurrection, Paul sounds like a Pharisee when he discusses the resurrection, eschatology, the mission to the Jews, and belief in his belief in angels (something else the Essenes denied). This belief in the resurrection was distinct in the first century.

In Greco-Roman thought generally, the body was thought to be the prison of the soul. Evil matter is temporal and the spirit is eternal. In Gnostic religious systems, moreover, the believer required special revelation knowledge to ascend through the dangerous celestial spheres to escape from the material universe. The god of spirits--sought by Gnostics--was not interested in the revival of dead bodies. According to their religious system, the material universe was composed of evil matter, which is contrasted to the spiritual realm. Greeks longed to be free from the confines of the body. While they did believe in the survival of the human soul after death, the notion that the body would be reunited with the soul in a physical resuscitation was foreign to their conceptual world.
The Jewish people, however, believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm.

Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.

Although--as discussed above--there were Jewish groups who disagreed with the Pharisees, such as the Sadducees, the basis for their disagreement was very different than that with the Greeks. The Sadducees denied that there was any life after death whatsoever for humans. The disagreement between the two sects was sharp. Pharisaic belief in the resurrection was paramount and nonnegotiable. They went so far as to teach: "The one who says the resurrection of the dead is not taught in the Torah, has no place in the world to come." (m. Sanh. 10:1).

By aligning himself with a Pharisaic background, Paul provides us with an important insight into the meaning he attaches to the term: resurrection. That is, it is a physical resurrection of the body.

II. The Term "Soma" Emphasizes the Physical

When speaking of the resurrection of Jesus or believers, Paul refers to the resurrection of the "soma." Soma is Greek for "body" and it carries the same emphasis on physicality as does its English equivalent. "The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with flesh in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives acts in the world. It becomes the base of operations for sin in the unbeliever, for the Holy Spirit in the believer. Barring prior occurrence in the Parousia, the soma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer. But it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worthy and necessity to the wholeness of human being, and the reason for its sanctification now." Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, at 50.

A. Paul's Use of Soma Outside the Resurrection

A review of Paul's view reinforces the point made above--that it carries with it an emphasis on the physical part of humans.

1Co 5:3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.

Paul's "soma" is not present. That is, his body is not present, even though his "spirit" is with the Corinthians. The focus of the term is a physical absence.

"The meaning of absent in body is clear enough: Paul's physical body is not in Corinth but in some other place. But what does present in spirit mean? In Paul's usage, spirit more often than not refers to the Spirit of God... but it is more probable, in view of the contrast with body, that Paul is using the word in a quite popular sense, that is, psychologically rather than theologically." C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, at 123.

1Co 6:18-20 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Paul here is speaking of sexual immorality. The Greek term for "immorality" used here is proneia, more precisely translated as "fornication" or "harlotry." Paul is speaking of how sexual sins are sins against the physical body. He also compares the body to a temple, a physical structure that houses the Holy Spirit.

1Co 7:2-5 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

By referring to sexual relations between husband and wife, Paul is again emphasizing the physical.

1Co 9:24-27 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Paul speaks here of disciplining the body, much as we might speak of working out at the gym. Although Paul is using a reference to the body to make a point about developing ones self spiritually, he does so by emphasizing the physical conditioning of the body.

1Co 13:3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

By speaking of "burning" his "soma," Paul is clearly emphasizing the physical part of his being. The spirit and the pysche do not burn. The body does. Whether this means being burned to death as a martyr, branded as a slave, or self-immolation, the physical meaning is inescapable.

2Co 12:2-3 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows.

The term for "body" used throughout these two verse is "soma." And by Paul's differentiation of experiencing this event in the body or out of it, he is clearly referring to experiencing it physically.

Gal 6:17 From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.

Here, soma refers to Paul's own body, stressing the physical abuse he's suffered as a follower of Jesus. "Stigmata carries an uncompromisingly physical connotation, here with probable reference to wounds and scars...." Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, at 49. Paul's reference to his own marks suggest that Jesus' body suffered as well.

1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here, Paul gives us the big three: the pneuma (spirit); the psyche (soul); and the soma (body). Obviously, the three are distinct and Paul uses "soma" to refer to the physical body.

Rom 4:19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb....

Paul here refers to the story of how Abraham, though very old, came to father Isaac. The reference is clearly to Abraham's physical body, which was considered too old to father a child.

Rom 6:12-13 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Again Paul speaks of the "soma" regarding sexual sin, highlighting the physical.

Paul does use the term "soma" regarding humans in a metaphorical sense on a few occasions. However, such usages actually reinforce the physical emphasis of the term "soma."

The first usage is in the context of the Eucharist.

1Co 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

1Co 11:24-25 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

The reference to Christ's body is to the physical part of his being. The body was broken by scourging and crucifixion.

The second metaphorical usage is in reference to the Christian Church as the Body of Christ.

1Co 12:12-31 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body.... And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

Paul's understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ has shaped much Christian theology. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that although the term is used metaphorical, it is strongly related to the physical body. The parts of the church are compared to part so human anatomy--the eye, the foot, the ear. The meaning is unequivocally physical. See also Eph 4:11-12 (And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.).

This survey is strongly reinforced by Robert H. Gundry's exhaustive study of the use of "soma" in Paul's letters. See Soma in Biblical Theology, With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, Robert H. Gundry. After examining the use of "soma" in Roman/Greek literature, in the LXX, in other Jewish literature, in the rest of the New Testament, and most exhaustively in Paul's letters, Gundry concludes that Paul's use of the term "soma" strongly emphasizes the physical part of man. Although Paul's anthropology is not entirely clear, and how the body, mind, and spirit relate to each other debatable, his use of the term soma "always carries a physical meaning." Gundry, at 155.

Accordingly, the very fact that Paul uses the term "soma" to explain the resurrection demonstrates that he is referring to a physical event that involves the body of the believer.

B. Paul's Use of Soma When Referring the Resurrection

With the above discussion in mind, I will proceed to discuss Paul's use of soma while referring to the resurrection.

1. 1 Corinthians 15

Perhaps the best known of Paul's statements about resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 has been used by both sides of the debate. In the first set of verses, Paul discusses the resurrection appearances of Jesus to Peter, James, the Twelve, the 500, and to Paul. He then stresses the connection between Jesus' resurrection and that of the believers. The reason Paul is discussing these doctrines, which he stresses is what he originally taught them upon the founding of their church, is because his doctrine of the resurrection, or at least some part of it, has met skepticism in the Corinthian church.

Co 15:12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This rather remarkable context should alert us to the fact that Paul has been teaching of a physical resurrection. Paul is writing to a predominantly Greek church. If Paul was merely speaking of a non-physical resurrection (which, to a Jew, is something of a contradiction of terms), it is doubtful that he would have met with such skepticism. As discussed above, the Greeks already believed in the immortality of the human soul. Their skepticism was reserved for the Jewish belief in a physical resurrection. Yet, in this letter, Paul is clearly addressing Greek-oriented skepticism in his teaching of the resurrection. Why would such skepticism arise? Because the Corinthian church's background denied, indeed did not have any place for, a bodily resurrection. It would have had far less trouble accepting Paul's doctrine of the resurrection if that doctrine emphasized a purely spiritual phenomenon

As Craig Blomberg explains:

"At any rate, the position of some in the Corinthian church is specified in verse 12 (How can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead?"), and it is to this challenge that Paul responds. By denying the resurrection, the Corinthians were almost certainly not denying life after death, virtually everyone in the ancient world believed in that. Rather, they would have been disputing the Jewish and Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection and endorsing one of the more Greek forms of belief that limited the afterlife to disembodied immortality of the soul (cf. 2 Tim. 2:17-18)." 1 Corinthians, Craig Blomberg, 294-95.

1Co 15:35-38 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

Paul again and again uses the term "soma" to describe what is resurrected. The use of this term, meant to imply the physical, establishes Paul's belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus and of Christians.

Additionally, that Greek skepticism of physical resurrection was at the heart of the problem becomes clear as Paul moves on to address another question raised by those who reject his doctrine of the resurrection--what kind of body would a "resurrected body" be? The question is not about life after death (easily accepted by Greeks as a "spiritual resurrection"), but the idea of a physical resurrection itself was absurd to the questioner. Again, the fact that Paul is having to argue what kind of "soma" was raised strongly suggests that he has previously taught, and currently defending, the doctrine of a physical resurrection.

1Co 15:39-49 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first man Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

First, Paul uses "soma" to throughout to describe the resurrected body.

Second, Paul uses the analogy of a seed, noting that it is "sown" a natural body but raised a spiritual body. This strongly suggests continuity between the first body and the new body, just as a seed becomes a plan, the old body becomes the new body. The obvious differences between the seed and the plan are irrelevant, as it is the continuity that we are concerned with.

It is significant that Talmudic literature uses the same analogy of a seed to explain the connection between the old body and the new one following the resurrection. According to the Talmud, Rabbi Meier used the metaphor of a grain of wheat sown into the ground but raised a blossoming flower: "If a kernel fo wheat is buried naked and will sprout forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous." (b. Sanh. 90b). Not only does this highlight Paul's Jewishness, it further suggests that Paul was discussing--as was Rabbi Meier--a physical resurrection.

"[Paul] asserts the somatic nature of the resurrection by an appeal to analogies drawn from nature: grains of wheat; types of animals; celestial bodies. The substance of the argument is that in each instance God is able to produce a new order of life (resurrection) but does so in such a way that a correlation to somatic existence is maintained. The phrase translated as "bare kernel in the RSV is particularly interesting and has an important parallel in Jewish rabbinic literature (b. Sanh. 90b).... [H]is use of the seed analogy in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 allows for both continuity and discontinuity between the present mortal body and the resurrected body of the believer." L.J. Kreitzer, Body, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald Hawthorne, et al., at 74-75.

Third, although many have argued that the reference to a "spiritual body" implies a spiritual resurrection, this argument is without merit. Although Paul speaks of a "spiritual" body and a "natural" body, what is often overlooked is that both phrases are talking about the same thing-the "soma". The terms "spiritual" and "natural" do not change this. They are modifiers differentiating the nature of the body before and after, but in no way implying that one is physical and the other is not. According to Paul, the current body is a natural body. But, after the resurrection, it will be a spiritual body. In both cases, it remains a body (soma). The difference is not between physical and nonphysical, but between soulish and spiritual. Between, as the verses begins, corruptible and incorruptible.

It is anachronistic to conclude that the use of the term "spiritual" to modify the term "body" renders the body immaterial or nonphysical. The body is sown (dies) as a soma pyschikon but is raised as a soma pneumatikon. That Paul does not intend pyschikon to mean, simply, physical, is clear.

In 1 Cor. 2:14-15, Paul distinguishes between the "pyschikos" person and the "pneumatikos" person. The difference is not between a physical and a nonphysical person. Rather, it is between the "natural" man and the "spiritual" man. The difference is not materiality, but acceptance of the workings of the spirit of God. The natural man is common and unable to understand the things of God. The spiritual man, while a physical being, is able to understand the things of God.

But what really clinches the understanding that calling the soma "spiritual" does not imply nonphysicality is Paul's use of the term "pneumatikoi" in 1 Corinthians 10.

1Co 10:1-5 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

Paul speaks of the Israelites following Moses in the wilderness as eating "spiritual" food," drinking "spiritual" drink, and getting the drink from a "spiritual" rock. 1 Cor. 10:3-4. This drink and food was, of course, material, but it was also spiritual because its source was God. ("for they were drinking from a spiritual rock, which followed them; and the rock was Christ"). Paul uses the word similarly here.

"In v. 3 Paul calls the manna 'spiritual' good, by which he probably means food miraculously provided by the Spirit of God, not food with a heavenly taste or texture. Nor indeed was the water spiritual in character. It was, rather, spiritually provided just as the rock was spiritually enabled to give water." Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, at 219.

So too with our bodies. Our present bodies come from the earth and are ruled by fleshly passions, but our future bodies will be a result of the working of the Spirit of God. Thus, they will be spiritual bodies.

1Co 15:50-54 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, Death is Swallowed up in victory.

What many often overlook is that the phrase "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" goes on to make clear that there is a physical resurrection and continuity between the physical body before and after death ("for this perishable must put on the imperishable"). The old body "puts on" the new body. The mortal "puts on" immortality. The difference here is not between physical and nonphysical, but between the nature of the old body and the nature of the new one.

The degree to which he thought of 'transformation', rather than either disembodiment or resuscitation, can be seen in his discussion of 'putting on' immortality. Thinking of those who would still be alive when the Lord returned, he wrote that the 'perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality'. This would fulfill the Scripture, 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' (1 Cor. 15:53 f.). He used the same imagery in 2 Corinthians 5. The living are in an 'earthly tent', and they wish not to be 'unclothed', but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life' (1 Cor. 5:4). The metaphor changes from 'tent' to 'clothing', but the meaning is nevertheless clear. Immortality is 'put on' and replaces mortality. Paul was not thinking of an interior soul which escapes its mortal shell and floats free, nor of new life being breathed into the same body, but again of transformation, achieved by covering mortality with immortality, which then 'swallows' it.

E.P. Sanders, Paul, at 30.

Furthermore, it is naive to take the reference to "flesh and blood" to mean, merely, physicality or materiality.

Why then does he say 'flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom'? Ever since the second century doubters have used this clause to question whether Paul really believed in the resurrection of the body. In fact, the second half of verse 50 already explains, in Hebraic parallelism with the first half, more or less what he means, as Paul's regular use of 'flesh' would indicate: 'flesh and blood' is a way of referring to ordinary, corruptible, decaying human existence. It does not simply mean, as it has so often been taken to mean, 'physical humanity' in the normal modern sense, but 'the present physical humanity (as opposed to the future), which is subject to decay and death.' The referent of the phrase is not the presently dead but the presently living, who need not to be raised but to be changed; and this brings us back to the dual focus of verses 53 and 54. Both categories of humans need to acquire the new, transformed type of body.

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 359.

See also Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, at 316 ("'Flesh and blood' in verse 50 was a stock idiom in Jewish circles for a 'mere mortal' and does not contradict what Paul has already stressed, that resurrection experience is a bodily on."); Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, at 306 (describing "flesh and blood" as "a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality").

Another explanation is offered by C.K. Barrett:

The Semitic word-pair 'flesh and blood' is 'only applied to living persons; the words flesh as well as blood exclude an application of the word-pair to the dead.' In the parallel line, corruption is used as an abstract noun instead of a concrete, for 'corpses in decomposition.' Dr. Jeremias sums up: 'The two lines of verse 50 are contrasting men of flesh and blood on the one hand, and corpses in decomposition on the other. In other words, the first line refers to those who are alive at the parousia, the second line to those who died before the parousia. The parallelism is thus not synonymous, but synthetic and the meaning of verse 50 is: neither the living nor the dead can take part in the Kingdom of God--as they are.'

C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, at 379.

In any event, the term "flesh and blood" does not preclude continuity between the old and new bodies.

2. Philippians 3

Phil. 3:20-21 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Both times Paul again uses soma to refer to body, the same as he does for the present bodies of those to whom he writes. This body will be "transformed" into an improved, incorruptible body. One that is animated by the spirit of God. The Greek term that Paul uses for "transformed" is "metaschematizo." Just as in English, it emphasizes the continuity between the two states. For example, he same term is used by Paul in 2 Cor. 11:14 when speaking of how Satan "transforms" himself into an angel of light (Darby and KJV translations, others translate the same term as "disguises").

Just as with the seed analogy, the old is transformed into the new. There is radical change from before to after, but no lack of continuity. The seed becomes the plan. The dead body becomes the new body.

3. Romans 8

Rom. 8:9-11 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. If the Messiah is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Again Paul use soma here. Jesus will give life to the mortal soma, not end it so that his followers can be freed into a nonphysical existence. Again Paul is speaking of a change to the existing body. And the reason it becomes spiritual is because of the change brought about by the spirit of God. The "body" that will be raised is our current "mortal body." The raising of our "mortal body" is linked to the raising of Jesus' own body, indicating a parallel of bodily resurrection between what happened to Jesus and what happens to us.

Verses 9-10 speaks to the present: "But you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness."

Note all the references to the present tense. Christians are in the spirit now. Their spirits are alive because of Jesus. But, their bodies are dead, despite that.

Contrast that with verse 11: "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you."

Paul shifts tenses and notes that, even though we currently have "dead" bodies, the resurrection of Jesus guarantees that we will have new mortal bodies, infused with his Spirit. Though Christians still have a dead/mortal body despite the indwelling of the spirit, we will have a new life brought into our mortal bodies at the resurrection.

Later in Romans 8, Paul provides even more evidence that he is speaking of a bodily resurrection.

Rom. 8:18-23: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body."

Above we discussed how Paul envisioned the redemption of the material world. Paul reinforces that notion here by noting that creation "groans and suffers" for reconciliation with God. To be "set free from its slavery." Paul goes on to explicitly include our material bodies in that reconciliation by noting that "not only this but also we ourselves" will have our "soma" redeemed. Not our spirits. Nor our souls. But our material bodies.

Speaking of the connection between the reconciliation of the material world and the redemption of our bodies, Professor Scotts comments: "In this ultimate purpose we have solidarity with the rest of the material world. The fallen creation retains within it a redemptive purpose. It will be set free from corruption at the time when believers' mortal bodies are redeemed from their temporality and weakness (Rom. 8:18-23)." Stephen C. Mott, Ethics, in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, at 272. William L. Craig describes this connection, thus: "Paul's doctrine of the world to come is that our resurrection bodies will be part of, so to speak, a resurrected creation (Rom 8.18-23). The universe will be delivered from sin and decay, not materiality, and our bodies wil1 be part of that universe." William L. Craig, "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980.

Once again, therefore, Paul speaks explicitly of the transformation--not cessation--of our bodies as fulfilling Christ' redemptive work.

4. Summary

After reviewing Paul's letters, E.P. Sanders described succinctly Paul's views of resurrection:

Paul, that is, thought of the resurrected Jesus neither as a corpse which had regained the ability to breathe and walk nor as a ghost. He regarded Jesus as 'first fruits' of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20) and thought that all Christians would become like him. He denied that the resurrected body would be the 'natural' body, but maintained that it would be a 'spiritual' body (1 Cor. 15:44-6). 'Not a natural body' excludes a walking corpse, while 'spiritual body' excludes a ghost (which would be called in Greek simply a 'spirit', pneuma). Positively, there would be continuity between the ordinary and the resurrected person, as there was in the case of Jesus. To express this, Paul used the simile of a seed, which, when planted, is in one form, but when grown, in another (1 Cor. 15:36-38).

E.P. Sanders, Paul, at 29.

III. Paul's Belief that the Believer's Spirit Immediately Departs to be with Jesus Demonstrates His Belief in a Bodily Resurrection

Paul's belief in an intermediate state between death and the resurrection precludes his belief in a nonmaterial resurrection. When Paul speaks of the resurrection, he is clearly envisioning a future event. It is not something that happens to a person when he or she dies. It is a specific point in the future that applies generally, to all who are dead and who are still living. However, Paul also believed that immediately upon the death of a Christian, that person went to be with Jesus. This is made most clear when he considers his own position as he if facing death.

Phi 1:21-24:
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.

Paul reiterates this concept when discussing Christians in general.

2Co 5:6-8 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- for we walk by faith, not by sight--we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

E.P. Sanders explains the two different doctrines, and their sequence, concisely:

Conceptually, this is different from the expectation of the transformation or resurrection of all believers at the coming of the Lord.... It envisages the ascent of each person's soul at death, rather than the transformation of the entire group of believers, whether living or dead, at Christ's return. Without posing these two conceptions as alternatives, Paul simply accepted them both. If he died, he would immediately be with Christ; at the end the Lord would return and bring his own, in a transformed state, to be with him.

Paul, at 31-32.

If all Paul means by 'resurrection' is the escape of the spirit to be with God, then how can he envision this as happening immediately upon the death of the believers and also at a definite future event--the final judgment? Obviously, he cannot. The only solution is that Paul believes that the final resurrection is distinct from the intermediate state of spiritual life after death. In other words, the resurrection cannot be merely a spiritual occurrence. That has already occurred. The resurrection, therefore, is a bodily one.

In sum, a review of Paul's views on the body, the resurrection, and the intermediate state after death reveals that when he discussing the resurrection of Christians, as well as that of Jesus, he means a bodily resurrection.


Books and eBooks by the Director

The Nature of Resurrection

By Gary F. Zeolla

Did Jesus rise bodily from the grave? And will there be a bodily resurrection of people in general? Most Christians today would answer "yes" to both of these questions. But there are those who believe otherwise.

The first to deny the Christian doctrine of a bodily resurrection were the Gnostics of the first through third centuries. Many involved in the New Age Movement today hold views similar to the early Gnostics. And the modern-day group know as Jehovah's Witnesses deny the bodily resurrection of Christ.

This subject will be investigated by first looking at Gnosticism and the post-apostolic Church. It will then evaluate the position of Jehovah's Witnesses in the light of the Bible.

RESURRECTION, GNOSTICISM,
& THE CHURCH FATHERS

Gnosticism was the first major heresy Christianity had to combat. It began in the first century. Paul's letter to the Colossians and the epistles of John reflect the struggles these apostles had with "incipient gnosticism."

Gnosticism became full-blown in the second century. One major question the Gnostics and the Church Fathers were at odds over was, "What is the nature of resurrection?"(1)

Resurrection in Gnosticism

Kurt Rudolph explains the concept of resurrection in gnosticism, "For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine."(2)

What exactly was meant by a "resurrection of the soul" is not always clear. Different Gnostics groups probably had different conceptions. However, one thing is clear and was universal in Gnostic groups - they all denied the idea of a PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus and of people in general.(3)

Elaine Pagels writes:
Another group of Gnostics, called Sethites because they identified themselves as sons of Seth, the third child of Adam and Eve, say the disciples, deluded by "a very great error," imagined that Christ had risen from the dead in bodily form. But the risen Christ appeared to "a few of these disciples, who he recognized were capable of understanding such great mysteries," and taught them to understand his resurrection in spiritual, not physical, terms.(4)

Pagels explains the reason for this denial of a bodily resurrection, "For the Gnostics stood close to the Greek philosophic tradition (and, for that matter, to Hindu and Buddhist tradition) that regards the human spirit as residing "in" a body - as if the actual person were some sort of disembodied being who uses the body as an instrument but does not identify with it."(5)

This belief stemmed from the idea that matter was inherently sinful while spirit was inherently good.(6) The Gospel of Thomas states, "Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth (the spirit) has made its home in this poverty (the body)."(7) For Gnostics, Greeks, and others with this attitude, a bodily resurrection would be a re-entrapment of the "good" spirit within the "evil" body. Thus, in Paul's speech at Athens, "when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked" (Acts 17:32).

Gnostic Gospels

ScrollTo support their ideas, various Gnostic sects wrote their own gospels. Some of these gospels claim to contain "secret teachings" Jesus gave to the apostles. These secret teachings were known as "gnosis" - hence "gnosticism."(8)

Other Gnostic gospels claim to be records of teachings Jesus gave to people other than the twelve apostles when he appeared to them in visions. Examples of Gnostic gospels are: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Mary and The Gospel of Truth.(9)

These Gnostic gospels are part of what is known as the Apocrypha of the New Testament. These are, "Books dating from the second century and later which, being judged by the church to be spurious, were not accepted into the canon of the New Testament."(10)

And further,
For the most part these apocryphal books were deliberate fabrications. It was a common practice, especially among the Gnostics, to propagate heretical doctrines by means of writings composed in the name of revered Apostles .... It is evident, for instance, that the authors of the non-canonical Gospels had no information about the life of Jesus apart from that given them in the NT [New Testament] records. Everything they add is derived from their own fancy or their peculiar doctrines.(11)

Resurrection and the Church Fathers

So the Gnostics denied the physical resurrection of Christ and of people in general. But what did the Church Fathers believe?

Ignatius (d.117 AD) was a disciple of the apostle John. In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius wrote, "For I know and believe that He [Jesus] was IN THE FLESH EVEN AFTER THE RESURRECTION."(12)

In his epistle to the Romans, Ignatius proclaims Jesus, "... was TRULY born and ate and drank, was TRULY persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was TRULY crucified and died ... was TRULY RAISED FROM THE DEAD, His Father having raised Him, who IN LIKE FASHION WILL RAISE US ALSO who believe on Him."(13)

Papias (60-130 AD) was another disciple of John.(14) Only fragments of his writings still survive today. However, St. Jerome (345-420) knew of Papias and his teachings.

Jerome writes, "This Papias is said to have promulgated the Jewish tradition of a Millennium, and he is followed by Irenaeus, Apollinarius and the others, who say that after the resurrection THE LORD WILL REIGN IN THE FLESH with the saints(15 - compare Col 2:8-11).

Irenaeus (120-203 AD) recorded a list of the doctrines included in the "Rule of Faith." These doctrines were considered to be the most important ones the Church "received from the apostles and their disciples."

A part of the "Rule of Faith" was the teaching of, "... the resurrection from the dead, and the INCARNATE [IN FLESH] ASCENSION into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and in his future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and TO RAISE ANEW ALL FLESH OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE."(16)

This claim that the apostles taught "all flesh" will be raised is collaborated by "The Apostle's Creed." It states,

"I believe ...
In the resurrection of the flesh." (17)

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND
THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

So the post-apostolic Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ and of people in general. But what does the Bible teach? The Scriptures hold up the nature of Christ's resurrection as a paradigm for the nature of the resurrection of others (1Cor 15:1-20; Phil 3:21). So what was the nature of Christ's resurrection?

This question will be answered by first looking at the position of Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). Although JWs believe in the bodily resurrection of people in general, they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Instead, they believe that He arose with a "spiritual" (immaterial) body.(18)

Scriptures Cited by the Watchtower

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the organization JWs belong to. The Watchtower (WT) cites several Scriptures in support of the belief in an immaterial resurrection of Christ. Following is a discussion of the WT's interpretation of these verses.

1Corinthians 15:44: Paul writes about the human body, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

To the WT, "spiritual" always means immaterial or non-physical.(19) But is this what the word means? In 1Cor 15:35-44, Paul is saying the resurrected body is similar to but not identical with our present bodies. "Spiritual" indicates a newness but not a complete change from our current bodies.

1Corinthians 15:50: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

The WT interprets this sentence to mean, "Only spirit persons with spiritual bodies can live in heaven."(20) It is important to remember that for JWs "spiritual" always means "immaterial" or non-physical. So to them if Jesus was raised with a physical body (with "flesh and blood") He could not have ascended into heaven.

But does "flesh and blood" actually mean "physical?" Craig Blomberg explains, "'flesh and blood' was a standard Semantic idiom for frail mortal existence; if Paul were denying the physical nature of the resurrection body he would more probably have used the common idiom, "flesh and bones."(21)

So all Paul is saying is that before ascending into heaven, "this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality" (1Cor 15:53).

Acts 10:40,41: "Him [Jesus] God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."

The WT comments, "Why did not others see him too? Because he was a spirit creature and when, as angels had done in the past, he materialized fleshly bodies to make himself visible, he did so only in the presence of his disciples."22)

But there is an easier explanation for why others did not see Jesus. He simply did not come into their sight of vision! And remember, over 500 did see Him (1Cor 15:6).

Hebrews 10:10: "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The WT claims, "Having given up his flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it up again and become a man once more."(23) However, Jesus does not need to "become a man once more" - He never ceased to be one! Thirty years after the resurrection, Paul still referred to Jesus as "the MAN Christ Jesus" (1Tim 2:5; see also Acts 17:31).

1Peter 3:18: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit ..."

This verse is the first part of a sentence which extends through verse 20. W.A. Criswell comments on this passage, "This passage is one of the most difficult to interpret in the Bible, there being more than 90 variations of interpretation attempted by Christian scholars since the second century."(24)

One of the reasons for this difficulty is an ambiguity in the Greek text of the last phrase. Should it be translated, "by the Spirit" - "in the Spirit" or "in the spirit?" The WT's Bible (The New World Translation) has the latter translation.(25)

The WT's comment on verse 18 is, "At his resurrection from the dead, Jesus was brought forth from the dead with a spirit body."(26) This comment depends on two presuppositions: the rendering of the NWT is correct and "spirit" must always refer to something that is immaterial. Both these assumptions are questionable.

Resurrection Appearances of Christ

Empty tombThe WT teaches, "Following his resurrection, Jesus did not always appear in the same body of flesh (perhaps to reinforce in their minds the fact that he was then a spirit) and so he was not immediately recognized even by his close associates." John 20:14,15; 21:4-7 and Luke 24:30,31 are cited.(27)

But was the failure to immediately recognize Jesus actually because Jesus was appearing in different bodies? Each passage needs to be looked at carefully.

John 20:11-18: In the case of Mary Magdalene, it says twice in the passage she was weeping (vv. 13,15). When Jesus spoke her name, she had to turn around in order to be facing Him (v.16). A woman with tear-filled eyes is not very likely to recognize someone she isn't even looking at! And remember, she expected to find Jesus in a horizontal, not vertical position (Mark 16:1).

John 21:1-14: As for the episode at the Sea of Tiberias, the disciples are in the middle of the lake while Jesus is standing on the shore (verses 3,4). Also, it was daybreak (verse 4). This would mean the light was still dim and possibly haze was rising from the lake. Further, the disciples were exhausted and frustrated from working all night to no avail (verse 3). With these conditions, it is easy to understand why the disciples had trouble recognizing Jesus.

Luke 24:13-32: On the road to Emmaus, the reason the disciples did not recognize Jesus was, "their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him" (v.16). They "knew Him" when, "their eyes were opened" (verse 31; compare Gen 21:19).

Bodily Resurrection

So there are major problems with the way the WT interprets each of the verses it cites in an attempt to uphold the "spiritual" resurrection theory. But are there passages in the Bible which teach Jesus was resurrected bodily? Further, was this body the same one in which He was crucified? Following are some important verses.

John 2:18-22: At the start of His ministry Jesus predicted, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." John explains, "He was speaking of the temple of HIS BODY."

John 20:26-29: Upon appearing to "doubting" Thomas, Jesus challenged him to, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas' reaction was to say to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

Acts 2:22-31: Peter preaches about Jesus, "His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." This non-corruption of Jesus' body contrasts with the remains of David (v.29).

Colossians 2:9: "For in Him [Christ] DWELLS all the fullness of the Godhead BODILY." This verse was written 30 years after the resurrection; but note the present tense "dwells."

Jesus with open armsLuke 24:33-43: And finally, when Jesus appeared to the disciples they were frightened because they thought they were seeing a spirit (v.37). Jesus calmed them by declaring in verse 39:

"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 that I have."

To study more on the teachings of the Church Fathers, see the items listed at Church History Books: Books-A-Million Recommendations.

Footnotes: Note: All emphases in quotes are added.
All Scripture references from: The New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.
1The term "Church Fathers" refers to, "The church leaders of the period immediately following the New Testament era." Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), p. 32.
2Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), p. 190.
3Ibid., pp.189-195.
4Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1979), p. 26.
5Ibid., p. 32.
6J. W. Drane, "Gnosticism" in New International Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), p. 393.
7quoted in Pagels, p. 32
8"Gnosis" is from the Greek word for "knowledge." The Apostle John argues against the need to know such "secret teachings" in 1John 2:27.
9Pagels, pp. 25, 26.
10Erickson, p. 13.
11Vergilius Ferm, Encyclopedia of Religion (Secaucus, NJ: Poplar Books, 1945), p. 31.
12J.B. Lightfoot, and J.R. Harmer eds., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 157.
13Ibid., p. 148.
14Elgin Moyer, Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, revised by Earle Cairns (Chicago: Moody, 1982), p. 314.
15Lightfoot, p. 532.
16J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius, revised by W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987), pp. 111, 112.
17Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: Vol. I, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 45.
18You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), p. 145.
19Ibid., p. 144.
20Ibid., p. 144
21Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), p. 109.
22Reasoning From the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), p. 334.
23Live Forever, p. 143.
24W.A. Criswell, ed., The Believers Study Bible: NKJV (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), p. 1770.
25The New World Translation (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984).
26Reasoning, p. 334.
27Reasoning, p. 335.