Updates:
- Updated: 1.
- Added Harris
- Concluded Harris, added Cook
- Added apologists
This is the title of an article by the Got Questions web ministry.
[1] Their article promotes what I call “Christological Physicalism,” which they define as being “the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus’ crucified body in heaven.” Below is their article and my interspersed comments. Following that, other comments from scholars and objections from Christological Physicalists will be reviewed.
Before we begin though, I have three preliminary observations that I think addresses some core reasoning:
- Christological Physicalism ultimately derives from the Council of Chalcedon of 451 CE, the fourth synod of what is now called the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Like the other councils of its time, emphasis was placed on refuting heresies.
This produced a creed that stated that Jesus is “truly God and truly man … consubstantial [ὁμοούσιος, homoousios] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial [ὁμοούσιος, homoousios] with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin.” Regarding the dual usage of homoousios, one source explained that:
Ὁμοούσιος, consubstantialis (al. coessentialis), is used in both clauses, though with a shade of difference. Christ’s homoousia with the Father implies numerical unity, or identity of essence (God being one in being, or monoousios); Christ’s homoousia with men means only generic unity, or equality of nature.
This is called Dyophysitism, that Jesus is one person with two distinct, inseparable natures, divine and human, in what is called the Hypostatic Union. Thus, Jesus’ human body is in heaven and is physical in “generic unity” with our physical bodies.[2]
- The second is that this Christology was developed and codified (at the Council of Chalcedon) prior to the Scientific Revolution. Thus, it was not concerned with its conclusions harmonizing with astronomy or the laws of physics. They were also not divinely inspired to be in harmony with it. However, since they were dealing with the laws of physics as related to Jesus now, all believers in Christological Physicalism would do well to reappraise their traditional views that have grown hoary with age. Faith is intrinsic to Christianity, but it must be measured and not applied too liberally. Applying it to areas where the modern laws of physics reign may be an abuse of faith. All Christians should take that to heart, especially as applied to Christological Physicalism. We should not be requiring faith in the Hypostatic Union if it violates the laws of physics, and we should not be requiring faith in the Council of Chalcedon of 451—that it produced correct and binding results if these violate the laws of physics. Violating the laws of physics is not to be taken lightly as this will result in a direct refutation and falsification. Applied personally, the laws of physics, as we know, cannot be ignored or argued with. As we are all too familiar, ignoring them or not readily accounting for them leads to difficulties ranging from petty annoyances to injury and even death. The laws of physics are not to be trifled with and will always win.
- Lastly, there is a strange interpretation of 2 John 1:7 that serves as a justification of Christological Physicalism that needs to be addressed. This states: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.” (NET Bible) Christological Physicalism reads this verse in the future tense, that Jesus is coming physically. But even if it does mean that, it would not necessarily follow that he is physical now. As the NET Bible states in its footnote:
This is the same confession as in 1 John 4:2 except the perfect participle used there is replaced by a present participle (ἐρχόμενον, erchomenon) here. It is not clear why the author changed from a perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 to a present participle here. The perfect participle suggests a reference to the incarnation (past). The present participle could suggest a reference to the (future) second advent, but based on the similarity to 1 John 4:2 it is probably best to take it as referring to the incarnation.
Another scholar, writing in a volume of the esteemed Hermeneia Commentary, states about 2 John 1:7 that “According to many interpreters, the content of this sentence agrees with 1 John 4:2” and “This would mean that the opponents in 1 John deny the earthly incarnation of Christ. They represent a docetic christology, saying that Jesus, as the Christ, did not assume an earthly and material form of existence but only appeared to live on earth.”[3]
Then for 1 John 4:2, he commented that “It does not refer to the future but to an event in the past whose effects continue even to the present time. There can be no doubt that the author is thinking at this point of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which occurred ‘in the flesh’—in other words, the entry of the Son of God into the sphere of the tangible and mutable.”
He adds: “In such usage the author of 1 John is on the same plane as the fourth evangelist, who can use [sarx (flesh)] as a concept in opposition to [pneuma (spirit)]” and “before everything else it is acknowledged that the Logos has become flesh (1:14), a central affirmation of Johannine theology.”[4]
The second century Christian leader Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, summarized Johannine theology using 1 John 4:2 in his letter to the Philippians, in 7:1, writing: “‘For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist’; [1 John 4:3] and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the Devil: and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord for his own lusts, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—this man is the first-born of Satan.”
Following him, his disciple Irenaeus quoted 2 John 1:7 and 1 John 4:2 in the same light, complementing each other, connecting both to John 1:14:
These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” [2 John 1:7] Take heed to them, that you lose not what you have wrought. And again does he say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” [1 John 5:7] These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” [John 1:14][5]
Thus, for the Johannine epistles to be internally consistent, as Polycarp and Irenaeus understood, 2 John 1:7 is referring to Jesus’ first appearance. Significantly, this understanding is also seen in the NRSV-Updated Edition: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” Notice the translation to the past. The New Oxford Annotated Bible NSRV has this footnote explaining: “The secessionists who do not abide in the teaching of Christ by denying that the human Jesus is the Christ have shattered that fellowship.” (italics added) Additionally, scholar David Bentley Hart translated it as: “For many deceivers have gone forth into the cosmos, those who do not confess that Jesus the Anointed has come in flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (italics added) He explains in a footnote that “This may mean that an antichrist is specifically someone who teaches a ‘docetic’ view of Christ.”[6] Thus, the proper interpretation is denying that Jesus came as a human contra docetism, not coming as a physical man, and should not be used to support Christological Physicalism.
With these three points established, we can now commence considering their article—which fortunately does not employ 2 John 1:7—with my comments in bold. I have also underlined important words:
Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?
The
physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is foundational to Christian doctrine and our hope of heaven.
[But physical human bodies cannot live outside of earth’s atmosphere.] Because Jesus rose from the dead with a physical body, every Christian has the guarantee of his own bodily resurrection (John 5:21, 28; Romans 8:23).
[That does not follow, and those cited scriptures do not say that. Resurrection is certainly not dependent on Jesus rising with a physical body, and we can be very thankful of that.] Now Jesus is in heaven
[which is outside of our “zip code” and thus not outer space], where He is pictured as sitting in a place of authority, at the right hand of God (1 Peter 3:22). But is Jesus’ body
in heaven the same as His body on earth?
The Bible is clear that Jesus’ body was resurrected. The tomb was empty.
[It does not follow that the empty tomb means that Jesus’ body was resurrected.] He was recognizable to those who knew Him.
[This is contradicted by their own explanation in this same paragraph below.] Jesus showed Himself to all His disciples after His resurrection, and more than five hundred people were eyewitnesses to His earthly, post-resurrection presence (1 Corinthians 15:4–6). In Luke 24:16, on the road to Emmaus, two of Jesus’ disciples “were kept from recognizing [Jesus].”
[This contradicts what was said above in the same paragraph.] However, later, “their eyes were opened and they recognized Him” (verse 31). It’s not that Jesus was unrecognizable; it’s that, for a time, the disciples were
supernaturally restrained from recognizing Him.
[So, he was recognizable but unrecognizable because God made him so. I’ve read that solution before, but I don’t think we want to go there as it could open the proverbial Pandora’s Box, as in, what else did God block people’s eyes from seeing about Jesus? That sounds like a dangerous path. It especially sounds odd considering that God announced Jesus’ identification from heaven twice as seen in Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:7; Luke 3:22, 9:35 (see also John 12:28). Also, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 tells us that God only lets his enemies be deceived. Surely, Mary and Jesus’ other loyal disciples are not God’s enemies. It seems preposterous then that God would want to block their vision about Jesus’ identity. But it gets worse: Why would God want to block people’s eyes from the truth about Jesus? That would make him dishonest. The most honest reading of the narrative is that his stigmata were simply not available. Jesus wanted to reveal himself another way. Why insert his stigmata into a narrative where they are absent? This is also true of John 20:14 with Mary and John 21:4 with his disciples. This last passage is significant because even though his disciples saw him in the locked room, now when they see him again, they do not recognize him, and this time his stigmata are absent. To say that God blocked Mary’s eyes and blocked the disciples’ eyes again is a very dishonest thing to attribute to God. This, I believe, is a very significant error, a fatal flaw, that all Christological Physicalists are forced to make.]
Later in the same chapter of Luke, Christ makes it plain to His disciples that He does have a physical body; He is not a disembodied spirit: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39).
[He appeared suddenly in the inaccessible room without opening the door and entering. This indicates he was materializing from a spirit form as done previously in Genesis 18:1-8. In any case, this possibility cannot be denied and can even be seen as the one most likely intended.] After spending forty days with His disciples, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven (Acts 1:9).
[Embarrassingly, Acts 1:9 does not say that. Rather, it says he ascended into the sky where a cloud obscured him from view.] Jesus is still human, and He has a human body in heaven right now.
[This appears to be based on a glaring misreading of Acts 1:9 due to extremely poor reading comprehension.] His body is different, however; earthly human flesh is perishable, but heavenly bodies are imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:50). Jesus has a physical body, with a difference. His resurrected body is designed with eternity in view.
[This is not a physical body then. This article opened by stating that “the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is foundational to Christian doctrine,” but now it says his body has a significant “difference.” Thus, it unknowingly presents an inescapable contradiction of astronomical magnitude.]
First Corinthians 15:35–49 describes what the body of the believer will be like in heaven. Our heavenly bodies will
differ from our earthly ones in type of flesh
[Thus not a fleshly body. It is physically impossible to have it both ways (to be flesh in outer space)—that is extremely ludicrous.], in splendor, in power, and in longevity. The apostle Paul also states that the believer’s body will be an image of Christ’s body (verse 49). Paul discusses this subject again in 2 Corinthians, where he compares earthly bodies to tents and heavenly bodies to heavenly dwellings (2 Corinthians 5:1–2). Paul says that, once the earthly tents come off, Christians will not be left “naked”—that is, without a body to live in (2 Corinthians 5:3). When the new body is “put on,” we will go from mortality to immortality (2 Corinthians 5:4).
[Yes, it is a new body. This point contradicts the previous point.]
So, we know that the Christian will have a heavenly body like Jesus’ “glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). At His incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, and at His resurrection His body was glorified—although He retained the scars (John 20:27).
[Not in all of the resurrection appearances, they were only included in Luke 24:36-40 and John 20:19-29 to the exclusion of the significant thorn wounds.] He will forever be the God-Man, sacrificed for us. Christ, the Creator of the universe, will forever stoop to our level, and He will be known to us in heaven in a tangible form that we can see, hear, and touch (Revelation 21:3–4; 22:4).
[But that’s in heaven, not in outer space. That’s a significant distinction the author(s) of this article failed to make. Fleshly bodies dwell in our “zip code.” If they go outside of our atmosphere, they are in outer space, but still in our “zip code.” If they are heavenly bodies, then they dwell in heaven outside of our “zip code.” This concept is extremely easy to grasp.](End of article.)
Thus, their article is riddled with contradictions—refuting itself—and is thus an exercise in absurdity. It is also applying faith far too liberally. The result is acute cognitive dissonance. Stated succinctly, it is a form of spiritual abuse and manipulation.
This conclusion is highlighted in this summary:
Question: Was Jesus’ crucified body resurrected with the wounds?
Answer: Yes: “Christ makes it plain to His disciples that He does have a physical body; He is not a disembodied spirit: ‘See my hands and my feet.’”
Question: Is Jesus in heaven?
Answer: Yes: “Jesus ascended bodily into heaven.”
Question: Would that be outer space?
Answer: No: “Jesus has a physical body, with a difference. His resurrected body is designed with eternity in view.”
Conclusion: This is a justification or rationalization of a set of contradictions: having something exist in a place where it cannot exist. It is therefore textbook cognitive dissonance.
[7] Denying this conclusion is delusional and irrational.
But there is more: Christological Physicalism also exhibits an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). OCD symptoms include (1) unnecessary ordering, arranging and (2) hoarding of unneeded items. Retaining Jesus’ sacrificed body is hoarding, and arranging for him to still have it is unnecessary ordering. Thus, Christological Physicalism enforces institutionalizing the mental health disorders of OCD and cognitive dissonance.
As one authority said about OCD: “OCD is unlikely to get better on its own, but treatment and support is available to help you manage your symptoms and have a better quality of life.”
[8]
Only spiritually abusive mind-control cults institutionalize these mental health disorders on their followers.
[9] It doesn’t matter if the mind-control cult leaders are from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (thus controlling your thoughts from the grave) or from your local church. The effects are the same. If your beliefs about Jesus’ body are in violation of the laws of physics in some way and require convoluted and circuitous reasoning to resolve, then you are in a mind-control cult. This is dangerous as it leads to delusion, deception and dishonesty in your discourse, which is diabolically deplorable.
(Note: the following will be updated as frequently as I wish. Also, Christological Physicalism/ist will be hereafter abbreviated as CP.)
What scholars have said
We will now look at what some scholars have presented:
- Dr. James Tabor (Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity)
- Dr. David Bentley Hart (philosopher, religious studies scholar and theologian)
- Dr. Murray J. Harris (Professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology)
- Dr. John Granger Cook (Professor of Religion and Philosophy)
As well as two apologists:
- Dr. Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)
- Dr. William Lane Craig (theologian and philosopher)
James Tabor in one article said that “The disciples were in great despair over Jesus’ death, having lost all hope that he could be the Messiah. After all, a dead Messiah is a failed Messiah. None of them was expecting Jesus to die, much less rise from the dead.” This aligns with my concern I related to one CP who initiated correspondence with me, hereafter designated as CP1, that “it could be asked if the disciples even expected him to be resurrected? The comments made in Luke 24:19-24 indicate uncertainty and despair over the empty tomb.” This was in response to CP1’s claim that ‘the disciples expected Jesus’ resurrection appearances due to the empty tomb, and thus Jesus had to meet their expectations of being a resurrected human.’
[10] However, both the account in Luke 24:19-24 and Tabor’s comments show otherwise. In addition to Luke 24:19-24, there is John 20:9 which pointedly states that “they did not yet understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead.” There is also Luke 24:4-6 where angels had to explain that the empty tomb meant that Jesus was resurrected, because they were “perplexed.” Regarding the Greek word, the NET Bible footnote here says that “the term refers to a high state of confusion and anxiety.” Or, as Strong’s defines it: “to be thoroughly nonplussed.”
Tabor added:
When Paul says Jesus was “buried” he is indicating that he knows the tradition of Jesus’ body being put in a tomb (1 Corinthians 15:4). His point is to emphasize that Jesus truly was dead and buried, entering the Hadean realm. What was then “raised on the third day,” just as in the Gabriel Revelation, was not the perishable mortal body but a new spiritual body, no longer “flesh and blood,” having shed the old body like discarded clothing (1 Corinthians 15:42-50; 52-54).
Jesus’ own teaching about resurrection, preserved in the Q source, emphasizes an angelic like transformation in which even the sexual distinctions between male and female are obsolete (Luke 20:34-36). This parallels precisely Paul’s view of resurrection.
Thus, he has concluded that Paul precisely paralleled Jesus’ teaching of being resurrected in a non-physical spiritual angelic body.
However, Tabor then asks why Luke and John portray a resurrected physical Jesus with wounds like a “resuscitated corpse.” (Luke 24:36; John 20:19) He answers by placing it in the category of “largely apologetic,” without addressing why the narratives portray Jesus as suddenly appearing in the closed room. Thus, he views these “closed room” narratives as secondary and in response to secular criticism of Jesus’ resurrection.
[11]
In any case, he is in clear opposition to the historicity of CP.
Next,
David Bentley Hart wrote the following, affirming the historicity of the “closed room” resurrection narratives:
The risen Christ, possessed of a spiritual body, could eat and drink, could be felt, could break bread between his hands; but he could also appear and disappear at will, unimpeded by walls or locked doors, or could become unrecognizable to those who had known him before his death, or could even ascend from the earth and pass through the incorruptible heavens where only spiritual beings may venture.
Then, commenting on 1 Peter 3:18-19, he continued:
the conjunctive formula ἐν ᾧ [“in which,” 1 Peter 3:19] seems to make it clear that, by being raised “as spirit,” Christ was made capable of entering into spiritual realms, and so of traveling to the “spirits in prison.”
Again, the word “spirits” was a common way of designating rational creatures who by their nature do not possess psychical bodies of perishable flesh. And the specific reference in this verse is not to the “souls” of human beings who have died, but to those wicked spirits—those angels or daemonic beings—imprisoned in Tartarus until the day of judgment (mentioned also in 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6) … It is certainly of considerable significance, however, that this passage seems to say that the risen Christ was able to make his journey to those hidden regions precisely because he was no longer hindered by a carnal frame, but instead now possessed the boundless liberty of spirit.[12]
These comments are certainly significant in contradicting CP, and are also seen in his Bible translation,
The New Testament, A Translation (2023 ed.):
1 Peter 3:18
For the Anointed also suffered on account of sins, once and for all, a just man on behalf of the unjust, so that he might lead you to God, being put to death in flesh and yet being made alive in spirit,
Footnote:
This is a parallel construction using modal datives to indicate the manner or condition in which, on the one hand, Christ died and, on the other, he was made alive. Translations that attempt to insert a reference to the Holy Spirit here defy not only the sense of the verse, but also its syntax. Here, as elsewhere in the New Testament (see Acts 23:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:40–54, along with my notes thereto), the distinction between this life and the life of the resurrection is one between two distinct and (in some sense) antithetical states of being: “flesh” and “spirit.” It would not be misleading to translate this clause as “being put to death as flesh and yet being made alive as spirit”; this might, in fact, clarify the logic of the verse that follows.
1 Peter 3:19
whereby he also journeyed and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison
Footnote:
The conjunctive phrase is somewhat obscure, but what seems the plainest meaning is that, because Christ was made alive “as spirit” or “in spirit,” he was now able to travel to the “spirits in prison” (regarding whom, see footnote
h below). This visit is depicted as following Christ’s resurrection to new life, not as a “descent into Hades” during the interval between cross and resurrection.
Regarding the “spirits in prison,” he explains in footnote
h for 1 Peter 3:20: “the reference is not to human beings who have died, but to angels or daemonic beings imprisoned until the day of judgment.” Thus, Jesus as a spirit preaching to spirits.
See also 1 Corinthians 15:44 footnote
ae on p. 349. There he relates that “resurrection for Paul is not a simple resuscitation of the sort of material body one has in the fallen world, but a radically different kind of life.” Thus, he too is not supportive of CP at all.
He then refers to his postscript The Life of the Age to Come. There, he elaborates:
Hence, according to Paul, the body of the resurrection is not one of flesh and blood animated by “soul,” but is rather a new reality altogether, an entirely spiritual body beyond composition or dissolution. And this is how his language would have been understood by his contemporaries.[13]
He adds:
the bodily life produced by this “animating” principle was understood as strictly limited to the aerial and terrestrial sphere. It could exist nowhere else, and most certainly not in the aether of the heavenly places. It was too frail, too ephemeral, too much bound to mutability and transience. “Spirit,” by contrast—pnevma or spiritus—was quite different, a kind of life inherently indestructible and incorruptible, not bound to death or to the irrational faculties of brute nature and not confined to any single cosmic sphere. It could survive anywhere and could move with complete liberty among all the spiritual realms, as well as in the material world here below. Spirit was something subtler but also stronger, more vital, more glorious than the worldly elements of a coarse corruptible body compounded of earthly soul and material flesh. (pages 591-2)
Then, after quoting 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47-49, he adds:
This is for Paul nothing less than the transformation of the psychical composite into the spiritual simplex—the metamorphosis of the mortal fleshly body that belongs to soul into the immortal fleshless body that belongs to spirit: “We shall be changed. For this perishable thing must clothe itself in imperishability, and this mortal thing must clothe itself in immortality.” [15:52, 53] (pages 595-6)
Then, moving on to the Lukan closed-room narrative, he explains:
Only one verse, Luke 24:39, seems to advance a contrary picture; there, more or less reversing Paul’s terms, the risen Christ proves that he is not a spirit precisely by demonstrating that he possesses “flesh and bone.” But here, needless to say, the word “spirit” is being employed with its most debased and vulgar meaning, “ghost.” (page 596)
Consider also Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:35–36, all of which tell us that, for those who share in the resurrection, there is neither marrying nor being married—after all, there will no longer be either birth or (so notes Luke) death—because those who are raised will be “as the angels in heaven,” or “in the heavens,” and will in fact be “the angel’s equals” or “equivalent to angels.” It is difficult not to think that here Jesus may be telling the Sadducees that the theology of resurrection that he shares with the Pharisees claims not that the raised will enjoy merely a revived animated material body but rather that they will live forever in an angelic manner, an angelic frame. (page 597)
The risen Christ, possessed of a spiritual body, could eat and drink, could be felt, could break bread between his hands; but he could also appear and disappear at will, unimpeded by walls or locked doors, or could become unrecognizable to those who had known him before his death, or could even ascend from the earth and pass through the incorruptible heavens where only spiritual beings may venture. (page 598)
So, Dr. Hart here is pouring his heart into harmonizing these passages into a coherent framework of a resurrection into a spiritual body, and certainly not Jesus’ crucified body. I would just qualify that Jesus’ “spiritual body” was ontologically spiritual and was materializing in the same manner seen previously in Genesis 18:1-2. He also has not mentioned Chalcedon to acknowledge his nonalignment with it.
Next,
Murray J. Harris also discusses a “spiritual body” in greater detail in his book
From Grave To Glory, under the heading The Resurrection Body of Jesus:
Page 139:
Nowhere does the New Testament give us a description of the physical features of Jesus of Nazareth. The writers are preoccupied with his character, his action, and his teaching. Nor does the situation change in the resurrection narratives, even though Jesus is alive from the dead in an immortal bodily form.
If we analyze the Gospels and Acts with regard to the nature of Christ’s resurrection body, we discover two distinct sets of information, one stressing the material nature of his body, the other suggesting its nonmaterial character.
Page 140:
1. The materialistic statements
Mt 28:9 “They [probably Mary the mother of James, and Salome] came up to him, clasped his feet, and worshiped him.”
Lk 24:15 “Jesus himself overtook them and began to walk along with them.”
Lk 24:39 ‘‘Look at my hands and my feet and you will see that it is I myself. Touch me and understand, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
Lk 24:43 “He took it [a piece of broiled fish] and ate it before their eyes.”
Lk 24:50-51 ‘‘He led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, lifted up his hands, and gave them a blessing. And as he was in the act of blessing them, he departed from them and was taken up into heaven.”
Jn 20:20 “He showed them his hands and side.”
Jn 20:27 “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and look at my hands. Reach out your hand and place it in my side.’”
Ac 1:4 “And while he was eating with them …”[14]
Ac 10:41 “… to us … who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.”
In addition to these specific verses, there is the general testimony of the Evangelists that Jesus engaged in the normal human activities of walking (e.g., Mt 28:18; Lk 24:15, 28, 50) and talking (e.g., Mt 28:9-10, 18-20; Lk 24:17, 25-27). We have already noted that he was recognized by his followers when he appeared to them after his resurrection because of such individual features as his tone of voice, his bodily movements, and the marks of the crucifixion. When he appeared, Jesus stood on terra firma, was not suspended in (p. 141) the air; his body was solid, not ephemeral, and tangible, not immaterial.
2. The nonmaterialistic statements
Lk 24:31 “He disappeared from their sight.”
Lk 24:36 “While they were still reporting this, Jesus himself stood among them.”
Lk 24:44 “This was the meaning of my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you.”
Jn 20:19 “Although the doors were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them.”
Jn 20:26 “Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them.”
Ac 1:3 “… appearing to them at intervals over the course of forty days.”
Ac 10:40-41a “God raised him up on the third day, and permitted him to become visible, not to all the people, but to us …”
Also of relevance here is the verbal form ōphthē. In the Greek of Plato’s day it generally meant “he was seen,” but in New Testament times it gained an intransitive sense, “he appeared,” “he became visible.” On nine occasions the word describes an appearance of the risen Christ. [Endnote: Lk 24:34; Ac 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1Co 15:5-8; 1Ti 3:16.] Although the same word is used of the appearance of God (Ac 7:2), of angels (Lk 1:11; 22:43; Ac 7:30, 35), of Moses and Elijah (Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:31), and of Moses (Ac 7:26), no instance is a precise parallel, for Jesus appeared in bodily form, at his own initiative, and for the purpose of revealing himself and his will.
Neither of these two sets of data should be overlooked. But some writers have done so, declaring either that Jesus’ resurrection body was a normal physical body of flesh and blood or that the Resurrection enabled him to return to his (p. 142) pre-incarnate state as a purely spiritual being. Although both of these solutions must be rejected, we should not imagine that any solution that accommodates both sets of data is necessarily “correct” and authoritative. We are here gently probing a mystery, for Jesus was the first person to rise immortal in a spiritual body.
There are three main solutions.
(i) Jesus’ resurrection body was basically ‘‘material,” or “fleshly” but either was capable of temporary dematerialization or had nonmaterial properties.
(ii) In his resurrected state Jesus possessed a “spiritual body” which could be expressed in an immaterial or a material mode.
(iii) His body was in the process of transition from the material to the spiritual during the forty days of appearances.
Each of these hypotheses does justice to the diverse data of the New Testament, so that no one of them should be dismissed as unorthodox.
On the second view, which the present writer espouses, the resurrection of Jesus was not his transformation into an immaterial body but his acquisition of a “spiritual body” which could materialize or dematerialize at will. When, on occasion, Jesus chose to appear to various persons in material form, this was just as really the “spiritual body” of Jesus as when he was not visible or tangible. In each instance it was his body and was “spiritual,” so that he was not guilty of deception when he affirmed “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself” (Lk 24:39). As opposed to angels who by nature are disembodied spirits (Heb. 1:14) yet can materialize (Heb. 1:7), the risen Jesus is a permanently embodied Spirit who, during the forty days, occasionally became visible to human eyes and palpable to human touch. After the forty days, when his appearances on earth were ended, Jesus assumed the sole mode of being visible to the inhabitants of heaven but having a nonfleshly body.[15]
Notice that not once in this lengthy quote does he nod to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. This is true in the rest of his book, where he does not mention it even once. Instead, like Hart, he just addresses the scriptural material.
Second, he dealt with a charge of “deception” for appearing as physical when he actually had a “spiritual body,” which he diffuses by saying his spiritual body was what they saw. But this solution is difficult and unnecessary. In addressing the charge of deception, four points need to be made:
- It was Jesus who initiated checking his wounds, it was not their first request. (There is no indication they were expecting him to physically appear.)
- Jesus appeared in a locked room, which is not possible for a person existing as ontologically physical.
- Jesus is not portrayed as being immediately recognizable.
- Jesus is not portrayed with all his wounds: In Luke 24:36-40, it was his hands and feet. In John 20:20, 25, 27, it was his hands and spear wound (the later only mentioned in John). In both cases there is no mention of the thorn wounds that would clearly have been visible if available. It is possible the foot wounds in John were unnecessary to show or were concealed in his sandals, but foot wounds would also make it difficult or impossible to walk.
Thus, focusing on these four points is more of a direct diffusing of the “deception” charge, which I find to be aggressively uncharitable against Jesus. Jesus wanted to teach in different ways, and one of them should not be seen as deceptive. As a case in point, compare this with John 16:29, where Jesus is noted to have switched his teaching from “parables” to “plainly.” That does not mean that using parables was deceptive. In this case, Jesus was teaching by demonstrating that was alive even though he was crucified, that it was him even with a different face. In his resurrected state, Jesus could—in agreement with Harris—“materialize or dematerialize at will,” in this case, directly into the closed and locked room.
Harris concludes:
A review of the properties of his resurrection body makes it clear that a radical transformation had occurred. In his risen state he transcended the normal laws of physical existence. He was no longer bound by material or spatial limitations. He could pass through a sealed tomb (this is implied by Mt 28:2, 6) and through closed doors (Jn 20:19, 26). He was “transported” without physical movement. … He appeared and he disappeared in an instant (Lk 24:31, 36).
Harris then added:
If Jesus was not normally visible to human eyes during the forty days, where was he when he was not appearing? Later we shall see that the enthronement of Jesus dates from his resurrection (Mt 28:18; Ac 2:32-33 … ) and that the subsequent Ascension is the visible dramatization of this invisible reality. If this is so, all of the appearances lie on the other side of the exaltation of Jesus, and he appears from heaven, as the triumphant plenipotentiary of God. It was the Resurrection, not the Ascension, that marked the terminus of Christ’s sojourn on earth—else his resurrection would have been a mere resumption of earthly existence. (Pages 143-4)
It is with that perceptive point that we will leave Harris in our examination of what scholars have said. Jesus’ resurrection was not “a mere resumption of earthly existence,” but “a radical transformation” to a risen state where “he transcended the normal laws of physical existence.”
Next,
John Granger Cook has written an enormous book on the topic of resurrection in the ancient Greco-Roman world. He wrote:
The appearance of the risen Jesus to the eleven and those who were with them (Luke 24:33) in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36–43) is probably not a polemic against Paul’s understanding of resurrected body as [soma pneumaticon, spiritual body]. … The disciples’ belief that they were seeing a spirit (Luke 24:37) should not be conflated with Paul’s resurrection kerygma. [pneuma] does not usually mean “ghost” in the usage of Luke Acts or the “spirit” of a dead person (Heb 12:23), but here “spirit” or “ghost” seems to be the most likely meaning. The concordance indicates that Luke uses the word frequently for impure or evil spirits. … The best interpretation of the term [pneuma] in Luke 24:37 is probably “ghost.”[16]
He adds that “Luke can use words in a fairly unique sense such as [
angelos, angel] in Acts 12:15 where it is the
Doppelgänger of Peter.” He then makes the pertinent point that “The terrified disciples fear they may be seeing some kind of [
pneuma], presumably benevolent but not necessarily.
They do not know.” (underline added)
[17] He then provided an example of later commentary:
Ignatius interprets the Lukan tradition (or shares a common source) in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
And when he came to those with Peter he said to them: “Take, handle me and see that I am not a phantom [or “daimōn”] without a body.” [Ign. Smyrn. 3.2]
He concluded with these comments:
The attempt to build a sharp conceptual boundary between Paul’s understanding of resurrected bodies and that of the Gospels fails, in my view. … Jesus’s ability to eat similarly distinguishes him from spirits.[18]
Yes, so Jesus is presented as objecting to being a nefarious ghost of Jesus without a body, not denying a spirit ontology. As such, he could be examined and could also eat. This is all in agreement with Jesus being a materialized person—again in the similar manner seen in Genesis 18:1-8.
Next, we will look at what two Trinitarian apologists have said.
Hugh Ross briefly discussed his conclusions in his book
Beyond the Cosmos. Under the heading “Does the Atonement Permanently Mar Christ?” he wrote:
When the disciples were visited by the resurrected Christ, they were able to see and feel the wounds of his crucifixion. [Endnote: John 20:24-29; 1 John 1:1.] Christ certainly had the power to eradicate these wounds, but he chose to let them remain. One reason may be that these marks were essential to convince the disciples of the reality of Jesus's bodily resurrection. The wounds identified him as nothing else could have. And no doubt these marks helped remind the disciples of what the Creator willingly endured to atone for their sins and of the permanent effects of that atoning sacrifice. This kind of reminder may be of some benefit to future generations of disciples and even to the hosts of angels and demons.
Whether these marks of the cross will remain for us to see when we enter Christ's presence we do not know. The book of Revelation, which gives more description of the heavenly realm and of our future there than does any other portion of Scripture, gives no clear answer to this question. Yet we can speculate that when the magnificence of the new creation is revealed to us, and when we begin to fathom the loss and the horror that hell represents, we may well be sufficiently reminded of the magnitude of the price Christ paid for our atonement.[19]
So, he does not insist on CP and certainly made no appeal or gesture to the Chalcedonian Creed. It does not even seem like he holds to Jesus retaining his crucified body, and in any case allows for a totally healed body unmarred by the horrors of his crucifixion. Indeed, regarding the closed-room narratives, he said that “the wounds identified him as nothing else could have.” He thus treats them as identifying marks. This certainly would not be deceptive since the disciples did not even expect him to appear. Hugh Ross then focuses on “the magnificence of the new creation,” and not on the old physical bodies.
Lastly,
William Lane Craig has made his position clear regarding CP. While he has in the past, in an essay no longer available, respectfully mentioned the Council of Chalcedon,
[20] he has maintained his understanding that Jesus is not now physical in direct contradiction to CP. However, he tries very hard to play it both ways, and thus presents an explanation so incredibly convoluted that it does irrevocable harm to his credibility. Thus, even in the face of his misguided fanaticism, it is remarkable that he was forced to make the following concession:
So how should we conceive of Christ’s resurrection body today? Christ in his exalted state still has a human nature; he did not “enter back into God’s own existence.” But Christ has exited this four-dimensional space-time continuum. Therefore, perhaps we might say that his human nature does not now manifest itself corporeally. Compare a tuning fork which is plucked and begins to hum. If the vibrating fork is placed in a vacuum jar, though it continues to vibrate, it does not manifest itself by a humming noise because there is no medium to carry its vibrations. Similarly, Christ’s human nature, no longer immersed in spacetime, does not manifest itself as a body. But someday Christ will return and re-enter our four-dimensional space-time continuum, and then his body will become manifest. In the new heavens and the new earth Christ will be corporeally present to his people. Christ, then, has a human nature which is manifested as his physical resurrection body when he exists in a spatio-temporal universe.[21]
Notice how he creates a distinction between being human per nature and human per physical body. This is compatible with Jesus being a man historically but not corporeally. He also agrees that Jesus is outside of our “zip code” and thus is not physical. I applaud him for not making the common appeal to glorified flesh, and for not appealing to Chalcedon—not even in passing.
Closing with him now presents an even transition to examining what some CPs have said.
Footnotes:
[1] www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-physical-body.html
[2] Text and commentary from The Symbol of Chalcedon
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html
[3] Georg Strecker.
The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. 1996, p. 233
[4] Pages 134-135.
[5] Against Heresies, Book 3, 16:8.
[6] The New Testament, A Translation. 2
nd edition, 2023.
[7] Symptoms of cognitive dissonance include justification or rationalization of conflicting behavior.
[8] “Symptoms – Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)”
www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd
[9] “Spiritual abuse” has been defined as “the injury of a person’s spiritual health by the misuse of their trust to gain or maintain control over them and to use them or their resources for the benefit of the leader or group.” This is not to be taken lightly then, as stressed in the remainder of the definition: “Spiritual abuse occurs when someone holding a position of spiritual influence, leadership, or authority uses that position to benefit themselves at the expense of the individuals whom they are ostensibly there to help. Spiritual abuse crosses personal boundaries without permission and does some of the greatest damage that can be done.” (David Henke.
Spiritual Abuse Recovery Workbook, 2021, p. 9.) This is very sobering. I can only encourage everyone reading to be honest, self-critical, open-minded, and to be alert to confirmation-bias.
To the Christological Physicalists reading (who may be inclined to turn the tables on me): Don’t be concerned about me being in a cult, as I’m not the one flagrantly rejecting the proven laws of physics (along with the flat earth crowd) by believing in Christological Physicalism. I strive to be very aware, objective, and independently-minded, as ones who know me can attest.
[10] To quote him directly: “in general, the fact that his disciples expected a human resurrection (as is seen by their concern as to whether the tomb was empty or not).”
[10] How Faith in Jesus’ Resurrection Originated and Developed: A New/Old Hypothesis (January 1, 2016)
jamestabor.com/how-faith-in-jesus-resurrection-originated-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis
[12] The Spiritual Was More Substantial Than the Material for the Ancients
churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-spiritual-was-more-substantial-than-the-material-for-the-ancients
[13] Pages 590-1. The Life of the Age to Come starts on page 588.
[14] While Harris chose this translation with “eating,” it is not very secure, and thus Acts 1:4 may be relegated to secondary significance under “materialistic statements,” if not removed altogether. Translations supporting “eating” are the NIV “while he was eating with them,” NLT “when he was eating with them,” and Byington “while eating with them,” while most others present Jesus just being with them. For instance, the NET Bible has “while he was with them,” and in a footnote explains that another option is “while he was sharing a meal with them,” but that “the difficulty with [this] option is that it does not fit the context, and this meaning is not found elsewhere.” It favors a meaning of even to “spend the night with.” So, at the very least, Jesus was associating with his disciples, and gave them the instructions in this verse.
[15] From Grave To Glory, Resurrection in the New Testament. Academic Books. 1990.
[16] Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis. Mohr Siebeck. 2018. Pages 609, 610.
[17] ibid. p. 610.
[18] ibid. pp. 611-2.
[19] Beyond the Cosmos: The Transdimensionality of God 3rd Ed., 2017, p. 111.
[20] In my blog entry The Person of Christ
jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-person-of-christ-as-introduced-on.html I quoted in full his now-removed essay “Was Christ a Human-Divine Person?”. He commenced it with commending the Council of Chalcedon.
[21] Jesus’ Body
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-body. This was quoted and discussed in my blog entry Defending Trinitarianism
jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism.html.
Related videos:
- [CP] Christ’s Glorified Body
youtu.be/Sd1Syk-305Y?si=_XYf0Fml79rx0Chx
Notice how hard he has to try to resolve the contradiction of being physical yet being able to pass-through a solid door or wall. He ends up describing a process very similar to materialization of a spirit lifeform.
Labels: Bible, Jesus' resurrection
