Updates:
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—and then closing with a
conclusion.
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:
As well as two apologists:
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 he 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.
Responding to objections from some Christological Physicalists
In introduction of this section, it will be noteworthy that none of the CP arguments will explicitly appeal to the Council of Chalcedon. Instead, it appears to me that the Chalcedonian Creed is definitely pulling the strings in the background, even though only scriptures are cited. The scholars (aside from James Tabor, who does not follow the Ecumenical creeds) and apologists above did not see a need to draw attention to their nonalignment with the “Manhood” clause at Chalcedon—the “according to the Manhood” κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα used to describe Jesus born from Mary and now in heaven. (I say this because William Lane Craig vocally affirms Chalcedon while rejecting CP.)
And significantly, the CPs below will not appeal to Chalcedon either as they want to give the appearance of following scripture and not a creed, if they as loyal creed-bound Trinitarians view it as doctrinally binding. (However, the Got Questions web ministry definitely discusses the Council of Chalcedon with approval.
[22]) Or, if any CP objects and says their CP beliefs come solely from scripture, then their insistence that they are correct in the face of contrary reasoning reveals that they are still presenting symptoms of being bound to the words of men in a spiritually abusive mind-control cult. With this sad state of affairs spelled-out, we can now commence without further ado.
These will be:
- Edmund C. Gruss (Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist College)
- An article by the Watchman Fellowship.
- CP2, my pseudonym for an erudite Bible researcher on TikTok.
- CP1, my pseudonym for a CP on social media.
First, I want to address arguments from a significant 1970 book
Apostles of Denial by
Edmund C. Gruss.
[23] Under the heading The Bodily Resurrection of Christ, he starts with an introduction followed by numbered arguments. He begins his introduction though by revealing what I consider to be a remarkable misunderstanding: “It has been seen in the statements of the Witnesses dealing with the resurrection of Christ, that there is an outright denial of His bodily resurrection.” No, the denial lies in it being a physical body or the one he sacrificed—not a “bodily resurrection.” He was resurrected in a spiritual, transcendent, or divine body. The difference is of infinite importance and magnitude. He continued: “This view was forced on the Russellite theology by Russell's ideas on the second coming of Christ” because he believed in an invisible presence. Rather, it was only in agreement with the “invisible presence” idea, and the conclusion of Jesus’ spiritual resurrection derives first from the scriptures, and not solely on the “invisible presence” idea. Thus, Jesus’ bodily resurrection as a spirit person is not dependent on it.
With that colossal blunder of an introduction, he then commenced with the following presentation:
Under the subheading, “How Will Christ Come Again,” the question is asked: “Should we expect Christ to come again in a human body?” The answer is, “No.”
The reference is to
The Watchtower of February 15, 1955, pages 101-2. But the answer of “No” sounds suspiciously incomplete. Justifying this suspicion is that Mr. Gruss omitted the rest of the answer that was very relevant. By artificially truncating the answer to one word, it appears that Mr. Gruss was intentionally bearing false witness. The complete answer included:
Should we expect Christ to come again in a human body? No. Why not? Among other reasons, because he accomplished the threefold purpose for which, as we have just seen, he became flesh, and so he no longer needs a human body. Not only that, but having sacrificed his human life as a ransom, to take it back would be to cancel the ransoming of the human race.
The “threefold purpose” Mr. Gruss chose to dishonestly conceal from his audience were expressed above on page 101:
First of all, that he might preach the truth to humankind. He said that he came forth for the purpose of preaching and told Pilate: “For this purpose I have been born and for this purpose I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” Secondly, he also became flesh to demonstrate that a perfect human creature could prove faithful under test: “He learned obedience from the things he suffered.” And finally, he was produced out of a woman so that he could give his soul or life as “a ransom in exchange for many.” All mankind had come under condemnation because of the sin of a perfect man; only the sacrifice of a perfect life could relieve mankind of the condemnation of sin and death.—John 18:37; Heb. 5:8, 9; Matt. 20:28.
Thus, four reasons were given, which Mr. Gruss chose to deceptively ignore in his efforts at presenting a full refutation. As he said: “The Witnesses [
sic] arguments in rejection of the bodily resurrection of Christ and the examination and refutation of these points follow.” How credible his attempted refutation is will be seen; however, he is definitely off to a bad start commencing with confusion, misrepresentation and dishonesty.
His point 1 deals with 1 Peter 3:18 which says Jesus was “made alive in the spirit.” He says:
“In the spirit” is interpreted by the Witnesses to mean that Christ rose a spirit creature. It should be noticed that the verse does not say that Christ was raised a spirit, but “in the spirit.”[24]
By saying this, he has to ignore the words “made alive” (ζῳοποιέω) and the next verse 19, which David Bentley Hart discussed above. He then quoted a scholar as saying the “spirit” is the Holy Spirit, but the NET Bible footnote for 1 Peter 3:18 argues against that quoting
ExSyn 343 (n. 76). So, not everyone accepts his solution. But it gets even worse. He closes his discussion on 1 Peter 3:18 with this:
The view that Christ rose as a spirit creature is also unacceptable as an understanding of 1 Peter 8:18 because such an interpretation is clearly contradicted in the Gospels, by Paul and in Peter’s messages “recorded in Acts, which imply the empty tomb and the preservation of Jesus’ flesh.” [Footnote: See Peter’s message in Acts 2:26-32.]
It is not “clearly contradicted in the Gospels” in the very passages he may have in mind, the locked-room narratives, and it is certainly not contradicted by Paul or by Peter in Acts 2:26-32. This states in the NET Bible:
“Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced; my body [“my flesh”] also will live in hope, 27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor permit your Holy One to experience decay. 28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of joy with your presence.’ 29 “Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.
The expression “my body [“my flesh”]” is idiomatic for the person. He will not be left in the grave, nor will he be abandoned to decomposition. His body was not abandoned to decomposition because his sacrifice was accepted and he was resurrected as so much more, as a transcendent spirit person.
Thus, Mr. Gruss’ argument number 1 is loaded with mere assertions and is a shocking complete failure.
His argument number 2 is confusingly against CP, and concerns 1 Corinthians 15:45:
The contrast in verse 45 is not referring to the bodily form of Christ or Adam, but to the kind of life within them. One might well understand, the first Adam had soul life (life of the natural man); Christ had spiritual life (life fitted for heaven).[25]
I couldn’t have said it better myself. By being resurrected to have a “spiritual life,” or a “life fitted for heaven,” then Jesus could only have a spiritual existence and manifestly not a physical one which is immediately excluded from being even a remote possibility—by his own words.
Leaving this epic disaster of argument number 2 behind, being lulled into a false sense of security that he argued for CP and not against it, he forged ahead with argument number 3 about 1 Corinthians 15:50, which uses the idiom of “flesh and blood,” also called “corruption,” that cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, also called “incorruption.” He writes:
The Witnesses reason that to lay aside “flesh and blood” one must become a spirit creature. The expression appears in four other places in the New Testament (Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14. The words in the last two verses are inverted.).
“In all the passages just mentioned, it is obvious from the context that ‘flesh and blood’ does not denote the substance of the human body.” What then is the meaning? It is an expression which “belongs to the Rabbinic vocabulary” which placed “particular emphasis on man’s earthly [p. 137] condition as a frail and perishable creature, in contrast to the eternal and almighty God." What then is the meaning of “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom”? Just what Paul says is the meaning, namely, that a change is necessary (15:51, 52): “For this which is corruptible … must put on immortality” (15:53 NWT). The passage does not teach that one must be deprived of a body of flesh, but that the body must be changed to fit it for the new realm where it will spend eternity. The Witnesses fail to consider that according to orthodoxy Christ’s body was changed to fit it for heaven. Christ’s body was a glorified body of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).[26]
This is actually extremely problematic: First, in every instance he cited, the expression can only mean human existence, which as we know is physical. His quote of “the context [shows] that ‘flesh and blood’ does not denote the substance of the human body” is completely baseless and ludicrous. Of course “the substance of the human body” is composed of “flesh and blood.” That’s exactly why those cited passages can refer to it. This is seen in his next quote that it refers to “man’s earthly condition” which of course comes with its limitations. But the real problem comes with Mr. Gruss’ next claim, that “Christ’s body was changed to fit it for heaven. Christ’s body was a glorified body of ‘flesh and bones.’” The problem should be glaringly obvious. A changed physical body is not physical. It is changed. You cannot adjust a bone, an eyeball, or any other part of a physical human body for heavenly life. The text he quotes can only be applied to a different body with a history of being once physical but is now a changed heavenly body. Lastly, his citation of Luke 24:39 is dishonest as that was part of a closed-room narrative and not in heaven. That closed-room narrative is better understood as a materialization event.
His reasoning then for argument number 3 is an absolute disaster, where he again ironically and unwittingly argued against his own position.
His argument number 4 deals with Jesus’ resurrection appearances “in which He was not recognized” and “merely materialized bodies for the occasions of His appearances.” He deals with Mary, Cleopas and friend on the road to Emmaus, the fishing disciples, and doubting Thomas.
Regarding Mary in John 20:1-18 where she confused the resurrected Jesus for a gardener, he cites verse 1 where she visited the tomb when it was dark outside, and then concludes: “Her failure to recognize Jesus could have been because of darkness.” However, Mr. Gruss has conveniently left out some highly significant information to draw this hasty conclusion: verse 1 says she saw the stone rolled away but went no further, instead, verse 2 presents her as traveling however speedily to Peter and another disciple who “are together in Jerusalem.”
[27] This means she had to return to the city and enter the correct gate and traverse by foot over to where they were staying. Then, Peter and the disciple ran back to the tomb (3, 4) with Mary falling behind (11). When the two disciples reached the tomb, they could walk in with their only source of illumination being the sun. It was clearly no longer that dark out in verse 1 due to the passage of time that these involved events occurred in that Mr. Gruss chose to leave unaccounted for. Then he points out that the Greek word in verse 11 describes her as weeping inconsolably when she looked into the tomb and saw two angels, which she addressed as mere men. (12, 13) Then in verse 14 she turned around and saw Jesus but also did not recognize him. He comments: “Her eyes were blurred with teers as she saw Jesus.” First, she travelled with two men. Second, the two angels in the tomb were not radiant as in Matthew 28:3 and Luke 24:4, but only wearing white garments—so easily confused for actual men. Third, it is only natural for people to wipe teers out of their eyes before looking at someone—so his comment may amount to a mere excuse and not a rebuttal. Then he points out that Mary in verse 14 turned to look at Jesus and turned to look at him again in verse 16. He says: “The second use of ‘turn’ seems to imply that she had not looked fully at him before.”
[28] This is reading way too much into “turn.” She turned to look at him, said something in verse 15, then turned away, then after he said her name in verse 16 she turned around again, this time recognizing him. Teers or darkness had nothing to do with it. It was evidently the idiosyncratic usage of her name that could only come from Jesus resurrected. In agreement is
The SBL Study Bible, which states in a footnote that: “Jesus’s calling her by name, Mary, evokes the image of the good shepherd” per John 10:3, 14. Now, this Mary narrative is not conclusive proof that Jesus was appearing different—after all as he also says Mary was not looking for a living Jesus. But the other accounts are more definitive that he was appearing different.
Regarding the appearance to Cleopas and friend on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), he explains the event, though without mentioning Mark 16:9 (in the long ending) which states that Jesus “appeared in another form to two of them walking along.” He notes that their eyes were prevented from recognizing Jesus by an external force. Thankfully, he did not appeal to God blinding their eyes. But he did say as a possibility that his hood could have been concealing his face. However, Mr. Gruss missed the point that none of his stigmata were observable in his hands like in the following narrative, and that it is impossible to see and walk with a hood blocking your face—and if it was then this is a significant detail lacking in Luke.
[29] Bringing clarity to this narrative is
The New Oxford Annotated Bible, which states in its footnote for Luke 24:16: “The inability of these persons to recognize Jesus is typical of initial reactions to Jesus in resurrection stories (cf. 24.37).” Again, his propositions thus resemble excuses that are not accounting for all of the available data.
Next, he refers to the fishing narrative in John 21:1-14, but without a citation where Jehovah’s Witnesses use this as a proof-text. The only point he may have missed is in verse 12, where it is reported that “not one of the disciples had the courage to ask him: ‘Who are you?’ because they knew it was the Lord.” “But if they really knew that,” another scholar observes, “it would have been unnecessary to ask. The statement that ‘they dared not ask him’ makes sense, rather, if the disciples did not know that, but yet would like it confirmed out of his own mouth.”
[30] Thus, “the disciples did not know” it was Jesus from his face alone, but by his actions and Peter’s identification.
Lastly, he refers to the Thomas account in John 20:24-29. But this is not used to show that Jesus appeared with an unrecognizable form. Mr. Gruss then switches focus to what Jesus said in Luke 24:39, 40, with an apparent focus on “a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have,” and then says: “All one must do with the passage is to take Christ at His word. The only way to reject this testimony is to deny the Bible willfully.” Yes, and the CP-rejecters can be seen as ‘taking take Christ at His word,’ for Jesus was not a spirit in the room and was not ontologically human. There is no ‘willfully denying the Bible’ here, as that is an uncharitable charge. Then, after he omitted reference to the Marcan long ending of Mark 16:9, he ironically said: “If the long ending of Mark is accepted, Christ rebuked even the unbelief of the disciples concerning His bodily resurrection (Mark 16:14).” That says: “But later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table, and he reproached their lack of faith and hardheartedness, because they did
not believe those who had beheld him now raised up from the dead.” This has nothing to do with “concerning His bodily resurrection” but with ‘not believing those who had beheld him.’ It is becoming apparent that Mr. Gruss is being too sloppy in his defense of his dogma. And this is how his argument number 4 ends, as a disaster of epic proportions.
His argument number 5 focuses on the closed-room narratives. He says: “The ability of Jesus to go through closed doors seems to be a problem to the Witnesses.” No, it is definitely not a problem, but it is a problem for CP as Jesus is the one appearing in the room, not God moving him around. So, far from being “a problem to the Witnesses,” their non-CP approach may be the only one
without a problem. He continues: “They point out that this would be impossible if He had a real body.” Only if it was his only body. “There are three considerations that should be brought out at this point: First, the Jesus that was resurrected was the same Jesus that died.” Yes, everyone agrees here. “Second, in some ways He was different. He had a glorified body which fitted Him for heavenly life.” This comment is frustrating as it is blissfully stated without any concern whatsoever for how reality works. “He was not a spirit, but He had a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-46).” This is an obvious contradiction indicating that some serious misunderstanding is at work. If you have a spiritual body, then you are a spirit. “Third, ‘nowhere in the Gospels is it said that Jesus’ body passed through closed doors.’” This misses the point that he appeared in the locked room. “The Witnesses do not consider that Christ did the impossible when He walked on the water before the crucifixion.” And Mr. Gruss is not considering that this occurred before his resurrection, and is also not considering that it was God performing that miracle (since it occurred before his resurrection). “Is it any more of a miracle to pass through material, a conclusion which is not required by Scripture?”
[31] Yes, all agree it was a miracle. Again, he is missing the point that it was the resurrected Jesus who performed that miracle. Jesus’ disciples realized that, but Mr. Gruss did not.
Argument number 6 concerns the soteriological reason why Jesus could not take back his sacrifice. He says: “The Witnesses view of the atonement also results in the rejection of the bodily resurrection.” Again, he means physical body whereas “The Witnesses” really believe in a spiritual body. Thus, there is a serious misunderstanding afoot here. He continues, this time by quoting more of the
Watchtower article he misrepresented in the beginning: “The Witnesses reason: ‘… Having sacrificed his human life as a ransom, to take it back would be to cancel the ransoming of the human race.’ This is an interesting view, and it also should be noticed that it is not accompanied by any Scriptural proof.” Well, “1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Cor. 15:47, 45, 50; Heb. 1:3” were presented. To be more specific, I suppose these could have been added: 2 Corinthians 5:16; John 6:51; Hebrews 5:7, 9:23-26, 10:10, 19, 20, 12:24; Galatians 1:1, 11, 12.
He continues: “A comparison of Matthew 20:28 and John 10:17, 18 shows the fallacy of such a view.” He then quoted both scriptures from the NWT and pointed out the marginal note of “life” for “soul” in both, and concluded with a statement that all can easily agree with: “Nothing can be clearer than these words of Christ; the life which He surrendered would be the same life which He would take again.” Yes, the same life, but not the same physical body. The only fallacy those two scriptures exposed was the serious plague of misunderstanding working on Mr. Gruss’ mind.
Next, he reviewed Psalm 16:9 and Acts 2:26-27 addressed above. Then, he said: “The Scriptures also make it clear that Christ in the heavenlies now dwells in a glorified body.”
[32] He then lists Philippians 3:21 and explains: “This verse shows that the
body of redeemed man will be transformed into then likeness of the glorified
body of Christ.” (italics original)
[33] Again though, this is not the proof-text he thinks it is, for the body can easily be seen as the spiritual body, not as a body with glorified bones and organs. It must be stated here that no CP ever scientifically describes what a glorified physical body is or how any of this can happen. It is all relegated to faith only. This type of insistence of relying on faith
of this magnitude is a clear abuse of faith.
Next, he cited Romans 8:11, and then confusingly says: “The mortal body will be given life,” yes that is correct, “or as 1 Corinthains shows, the corruptible will put on incorruption and the mortal will put on immortality.” This is confusing because they are talking about two different things, and Mr. Gruss did not realize that in his haste to form a semblance of an argument. But then he closed it prematurely and moved on to another argument.
Next, he cited Jesus’ temple saying in John 2:19-22, which he ironically says “is subjected to the usual imaginative interpretation by the Witnesses.” That statement drips with irony considering how imaginative he has been trying to support CP. He then compared “the temple of his body” of verse 21 with 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 that teach that the temple of God “is plainly the body of the believer.” Again, he then prematurely leaves this argument behind to pursue another one. In any case, we must be charitable with Jesus’ enigmatic words here and not demand he meant something that is abusive to faith in him.
His final argument for number 6 opened with Mark 16:6 and tried to connect it back to John 2:19-21.
In Mark 16:6 the angel presented the absence of Jesus’ body as a proof of His resurrection: “… He was raised up, he is not here. See! the place where they laid him” (NWT). If the body had nothing to do with Jesus’ resurrection as the Witnesses teach, the absence of the body actually proved [142] nothing!
Here again we are exposed to some serious misunderstanding, for it is quite disingenuous to claim that JWs teach that “the body had nothing to do with Jesus’ resurrection.” His sacrificed body was removed because he was resurrected. It has everything to do with his resurrection. He continued: “The angel either was deluded or presented false evidence.” This comment is based on his previous disingenuous misunderstanding, and is therefore a completely misguided false dilemma.
Luke 24:3 records: “And when they entered they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus” (NWT). Verse 7 records the words of the angels as they recall the words of Jesus, “‘… and yet on the third day rise’” (NWT). Verse 8, “So they called his sayings to mind…” (NWT), speaks of the disciples of Christ. The sayings they called to mind are found in John 2:19-21. The disciples realized that Christ was speaking of the bodily resurrection when He spoke to the Jews.
Yes, the “bodily resurrection” occurred. But to live in heaven, and not on earth, requires a different type of body, in this case a spiritual body that Mr. Gruss confusingly accepts.
He concludes his points 1-6 with this statement:
The rejection of the bodily resurrection of Christ is actually a rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ carries with it the bodily resurrection of believers in Christ.[34]
No one has rejected “the bodily resurrection of Christ.” What is rejected is the abuse of faith that Jesus has a physical body with glorified body parts for heaven. That is rejected as abusive and blasphemous. Indeed, CP has defined their Jesus out of existence with a mythological body that it demands faith in. Christians are not obligated to believe in such a disgusting monstrosity of a Jesus with a glorified physical body that was tortured, crucified, and sacrificed. And that is something we can all be thankful for!
One final point before departing from Mr. Gruss. Returning to John 6:51, this has Jesus saying: “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” According to one scholar, “that means that Jesus’ flesh on the cross has been sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Everything now depends on whether man has a share in this flesh.”
[35] What CP has done is dangerously reject what Jesus sacrificed, which could lead to a loss of salvation in Jesus. It would therefore be better to reject the convoluted arguments CP provides and accept what Jesus sacrificed.
Moving on, the
Watchman Fellowship, an “anti-cult” ministry, has stated that:
Few religions that claim to be Christian will be openly disrespectful of Jesus. Even patently non-Christian religions will often honor Jesus as a great teacher or prophet. Nevertheless, both nonChristian religions and cults that claim to be Christian will characteristically subtract from some essential aspect of Christ’s nature. Most false teachers will subtract from either the humanity or deity of Christ. The resulting “Jesus” is a cheap imitation of the true Christ presented in the Scriptures as fully God and fully man (John 1:1; 1 Tim. 2:5).[36]
Problem: John 1:1; 1 Tim. 2:5 patently do not say that, as seen on its page 4 where 1 Tim. 2:5 is quoted. This is ironically then “disrespectful of Jesus,” and also subtracting from his deity by adding full humanity to it (which is an absurdity). Lastly, on page 3 it is stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus “never rose bodily from the dead.” This is the last word on the matter, and as it stands this is a lie for conveying the notion that Jesus’ resurrection itself is denied. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses do in fact teach that Jesus rose bodily from the dead in a transcendent divine body. That should have been stated. It is then subtracting from the truth. Ironically then, in order to be CP, they have to lie and misrepresent their neighbors. This in itself also resembles a cult, the very thing this anti-cult ministry is combating.
Next is an examination of a presentation in two TikTok videos by a person I prefer to leave anonymous, so he will be referred to as
CP2. He presented scriptures, quoted a Bible encyclopedia, and a scholar’s comment.
First, he started with John 2:19-21, the famous “temple of my body” saying, and said: “He’s talking about his body.” He even emphatically asked: “What is the ‘IT’ that is going to be raised?” He says it is his body and that it is “very explicit.” Yes, it is the body as John 2:21 identifies. But CP2 must be more careful here, and would do well to ask himself “what kind of body, and why was Jesus comparing it to the temple?” The NET Bible footnote answers: “For the author, the temple is not just the building, it is Jesus’ resurrected body.” It adds: “John points to the fact that, as the place where men go in order to meet God, the temple has been supplanted and replaced by Jesus himself, in whose resurrected person people may now encounter God.” So really then, together with John 6:51 that CP2 did not include, Jesus’ raised-up body can be metaphorical for a spiritual body, as the entire saying is a metaphor.
Next, he brought up Acts 2:26-27, and asked: “What does it mean that his flesh will live in hope? Does that mean his flesh will cease?” Jesus knew that his Father would resurrect him and he would not be abandoned to decomposition.
He then asked why the 2013 NWT says “I” and not “my flesh.” He even charged that they changed the verse to fit their theology. In this case though there are two things he did not account for: this being a dynamic equivalent translation and the footnote of “Lit., ‘my flesh.’” Now, this footnote is in the original 2013 printing as seen below, and is also explained in the study note in the Study Bible online and printed editions that explained the choice for a dynamic equivalent translation. If he did not have his printed NWT available, he certainly was consulting the online edition, and failed to be curious enough to check the note beside the text. See picture below.
Therefore, CP2 was either lying about the verse being changed, or was unfortunately too hasty in his rush to condemnation. In either case, he bore false witness.
Next, he moved to John 20:25, 27 when Jesus appeared to Thomas, and aggressively asked: “Did Jesus fake the wounds?” “Unless they were the actual wounds, he was deceiving Thomas.” Is it really necessary though for them to be the same wounds? CP2 would do well to ask himself how Jesus with his physical body entered undetected into the locked room. This was a miracle Jesus himself performed. Thus, Jesus had to initiate a performance to appear in the room. His wounds then are illustrative of his resurrection—and were not even all his wounds. Again, the forehead wounds were unavailable and apparently the foot wounds were too as they were left unmentioned. One could say he was wearing sandals that concealed them, but would it not make more sense for Jesus to appear barefoot as he was trying to convince them he was resurrected? And again, he is also not described as being recognized with his face but with two categories of wounds.
Thus, the same CP charge of deception falls apart as missing Jesus’ point and is thus exposed as being aggressively uncharitable and unthoughtful against Jesus. It can even be seen as expressing hatred against the Jesus as portrayed in the closed-room narratives.
CP2 then moved on to Luke 24:39 and declared:
Now they try to dismiss this. Well, what about when angels appeared to Abraham? What about it? You see, Jesus is trying to reassure the disciples he’s not a spirit.
Noticing the similarities this narrative has with Genesis 18:1-8 is far from being dismissive. What CP2 is being though is unthoughtful. Jesus appeared in the closed room undetected, prompting the concern of being a nefarious spirit. Jesus though assures them that he is not that but physical before them. CP2 would benefit himself if he were more thoughtful and charitable with these scriptures and not be so quick in his haste to condemn, as that is clearly blurring his vision. Demonstrating how unthoughtful CP2 is being, he also stated that Jesus did not say ‘I have materialized flesh and bone.’ But that is unnecessary due to the context of appearing suddenly in the closed room. This is all easily seen as a callback to Genesis 18:1-8—and to deny that is to be dismissive.
He then presented 1 Corinthians 15:20 and asked: “What was raised from the dead?” The answer is Jesus, as it explicitly states.
The rest of his consideration of 1 Corinthians 15 becomes rather frustrating due to some serious misunderstanding that seems to be inherent in CP.
He moved on to 1 Corinthians 15:35-38, and stressed continuity and claimed that a resurrection into a spirit body breaks that continuity—but it does not because the person remains continuous. He even said the body undergoes “a transformation process.” Yes it does, and that eliminates it from being the same body resurrected. If X is transformed into Y, then the Y is not X. This is a significant fatal flaw of intergalactic proportions that all CPs are cornered into making.
However, in an effort to corroborate his claim that X transformed into Y remains X, he cited Philippians 3:21, and said: “our body is not going to be replaced, our body is going to be transformed.” This is a contradiction that CP2 is unawares of. He confirmed his confusion: “So you cannot say we get a different body, we get a transformed body per Paul.” And a transformed body is a different body. Again, he is unaware of how he presented a contradiction.
He then presented 1 Corinthians 15:38, 39 and asked: “what is the relevance of this if there is no flesh involved in the resurrection body?” He said there are different kinds of flesh but we will still have flesh. The point is that Paul was building his case for what is presented in verse 40. But after considering verses 40-44, he said: “spiritual though doesn’t mean immaterial.” In support, he compared it with 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15 which contrasts “natural man” and the “spiritual man.” This comparison is misguided though, for this is about cognitive inclinations, not resurrection bodies. It gets worse though for CP2, for he evidently neglected to check the Greek text. The Greek word for “spiritual man” is πνευματικὸς whereas the Greek for “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44) is σῶμα πνευματικόν. (This category error may be the same one other CPs make, like Mr. Gruss above, who also erroneously thought that a spiritual body is not ontologically spirit.) Indeed, highlighting this category error is the NET Bible, which translates πνευματικὸς as “one who is spiritual.” This is contrasted with the “natural man” in verse 14, which the NET Bible translates as “unbeliever,” and explains in a footnote, quoting the BDAG lexicon, that this is “an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God.” The inverse of an unspiritual person is a spiritual person, in the sense of “being touched by the Spirit of God,” not being a spiritual body. This is a significant category error that CP is cornered into making.
With this significant and fatal flaw still in operation, CP2 explained:
It doesn’t mean we are immaterial; it has to do with the fact that it is the holy spirit empowering us to be the spiritual man. That’s the holy spirit makes us into the spiritual man. In the same way, in the resurrection, the holy spirit animates our bodies, it makes our bodies spiritual bodies.
Surprisingly, in his misguided comparison, he presents the micromanagement of the holy spirit preserving and animating the resurrection body. At this point it must be asked what CP2 thinks about heaven? Does he view it as being in our “zip code”? Where is it for him? It would seem that per Paul’s contrast that heavenly bodies are not in the same realm as our physical bodies. This seems to be indicated in John 8:21-23, where Jesus told his audience: “where I am going, you cannot come. … You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” As one scholar said: “They cannot go where he is going, to the Father. They are from below, he is from above, from the divine world. They are of this world, Jesus is not of this world.”
[37] Thus, heavenly bodies are in the “above,” or “the divine world.” This divine world is outside of our zip code. Thus, our physical bodies do not belong there. To have the holy spirit preserving our physical bodies in heaven is incoherent, and is analogous to a square circle or freezing inferno, or to a 2D object in 3D space.
Then after reading 1 Corinthians 15:45, he said that Jesus is not spirit because of this cumulative case: “his body is raised, he is flesh and bone, he has the wounds, his flesh lives in hope, he’s resurrected.” Being resurrected to heavenly life does not mean he is resurrected to earthly life with a physical body. The person was raised, not necessarily the same body. The closed-room narratives can be much more readily aligned with Genesis 18:1-8, despite his protestations to the contrary.
CP2 then concluded his part 1 with John 3:6, and said: “A body sustained by the holy spirit is called spirit. Same way.” However, he would do well to compare John 3:6 with John 6:63 and John 1:13 to get a better grasp of the context. Jesus was speaking metaphorically. His conclusion then widely misses the point.
In his part 2 he continued with the same type of rough, abrupt reasoning. Regarding if “Jesus is now a spirit rather than in an exulted human body,” he said he has “a cumulative case, not dependent on one verse but on all of the texts.”
He claimed it cannot be a new body with “memories downloaded.” But in this case he is not considering that memories had to have been downloaded into Jesus after he was born. This is something CP2 continues to leave unaccounted for. Just as memories were restored to Jesus, so it is with a new body with memories restored. CP2 is also not accounting for Jesus being dead. When he died, his brain was immediately exposed to the ravages of neurological autolysis:
Brain tissue decomposes and putrefies right after death. In the process of autolysis, enzymes called proteases and phospholipases, degrading the tissue by breaking apart its lipids and proteins of that tissue.
The brain begins to decompose within minutes of death, often liquefying and rotting faster than other body tissues. This is likely because the brain is about 80% water. At normal ambient temperatures, the brain will begin to rot after about three days, and will essentially vaporize within 5–10 years.[38]
Thus, CP2 should have taken this information into account. A resurrected Jesus indeed needed a new brain. Thankfully though, Jesus was resurrected as a spirit being, and did not need a new physical brain.
He questions if this was really a resurrection, but it is indeed a resurrection and not cloning because there is only one Jesus.
Then, after reading “second man” in 1 Corinthians 15:46, 47, he sarcastically asks: “I thought Jesus wasn’t a man anymore?” Paul is referring to the historical man Jesus, not his current state. CP2 would benefit himself to not be in such a hurry to form an argument.
He then read 1 Corinthians 15:48 and said that Paul uses physical things to describe heavenly bodies. However, he is not accounting for verse 40. The bodies in verse 39 are contrasted with the heavenly bodies in verse 40.
Things get more heated with 1 Corinthians 15:50. He said: “Does flesh and blood refer to the substance? No. It’s an idiom.” Two observations here. (1) Paul is talking about bodies. (2) “Flesh and blood” is also synecdoche. Jesus used this same synecdoche when he said “flesh and blood,” parts to refer to whole people, in Matthew 16:17.
Continuing with his mistaken idiom that violates the context, he said “flesh and blood” is “fallen, frail humanity” that cannot inherit the kingdom of God. In support, he quoted the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under Flesh, 5. As Opposed to the Spirit:
[39]
In this connection we mention also the expression “flesh and blood,” a phrase borrowed from rabbinical writings and phraseology (see also Sirach 14:18, “the generation of flesh and blood,” and 17:31, “man whose desire is flesh and blood” the King James Version). The expression does not convey, as some have supposed, the idea of inherent sinfulness of the flesh (a doctrine borrowed by Gnostic teachers from oriental sources), but merely the idea of ignorance and frailty in comparison with the possibilities of spiritual nature.
He claims “their argument is essentially that it’s an idiom of our frailties of our fallen, weak nature.” So “we have to be changed or we have to be transformed.” He said ‘it’s not the substance it’s the weakness the substance has now.’ In this though he should have read more of that encyclopedia entry, that also cited Matthew 16:17. It does not help that he essentially skipped over that it “does not convey … the idea of inherent sinfulness of the flesh,” which was said to be Gnostic. It was said to be “of ignorance and frailty.” This is demonstrated later in the same entry: “That ‘flesh and blood’ does not imply a sense of inherent sinfulness is moreover shown in all passages where Christ is declared a partaker of such nature (Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14).” At Hebrews 2:14 Jesus himself is said to have taken part in “flesh and blood.” Thus, CP2 has unwittingly condemned Jesus as part of “fallen humanity” and has also condemned his own position as Gnostic.
Additionally, the NLT Study Bible says of 1 Corinthians 15:50 that “only a spiritual, resurrected body can experience the Kingdom in all its fullness.” It adds in an article:
The resurrection body will be fundamentally different from the body we experience in this life, with all its limitations and failings. Our resurrected bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrected body (15:35-58).[40]
This is dynamically quite different than the CP position, for it is a true transformation: a “fundamentally different” body, and not what CP2 said: “our body is not going to be replaced.” But then again, since he unwittingly presented a fatal contradiction, it is hard to fathom exactly what he had in mind, if anything at all.
Lastly, he referred to the “Journal of Biblical Literature 133 no. 4 in 2014,”
[41] which he presented in his video with part of it highlighted:
However, this article cannot be seen as definitive due to a contradiction it presented that CP2 highlighted: “Paul does not describe resurrection as an event in which
x (the present body) is sown by
y (a body distinct from the present body) is raised, but in which a single
x (the present body) is sown as a perishable
x but raised as an imperishable
x.” This logic is repeated on that page, but it is quite simply mistaken and rejectable. A perishable
x cannot be raised as a different
x. A different
x is then indeed a
y. Scholars are not immune from making logical blunders that CP2 cited.
CP2 then summarized: “Paul does not contrast a fleshly body with a spiritual body, he contrasts a soulish body, a natural body with a spiritual body. He could have used a different term altogether based upon the word flesh.” He asks why Paul did not say “fleshly body” instead of “flesh and blood,” and says: “Because the future body is still flesh as Jesus says my flesh lives in hope or dwells in hope.” In this though, he would do well to contemplate the dangers of circular reasoning, which he just committed, for he used his misunderstanding of ‘flesh dwells in hope’ as a basis for his exegesis.
He concluded: “Now we don’t fully understand what it’s going to be like,” and cited the anticipation in 1 John 3:2. He confirmed that “we have this cumulative case: he said his body would be raised, he said his flesh, he had the wounds, his flesh lives in hope, he was resurrected, not recreated in a new body with his memories downloaded. The Bible is very clear, Jesus was raised in the same body but it was transformed and so will we be as Philippians 3:21 says.” Again though, he neglected to account for Jesus’ birth on earth where at some point his previous memories were “downloaded” into his brain. Thus, while CP2 discussed an idiom, it is apparent that he does not apply it elsewhere nor does he account for metaphor. He only applies idiom where it suits his CP position that results in the holy spirit micromanaging the resurrected heavenly bodies. Assigning the holy spirit the role of micromanager is actually blasphemy. It is calling God so recklessly stupid that he does not know how to resurrect a person without the folly of micromanagement. Thus, CP2 would do well to reconsider his beliefs as Gnostic and blasphemous.
Next is a special case of
CP1, who sent me messages which reignited my interest in CP, and is thus ultimately responsible for this special blog entry.
CP1, while trying to support the notion that there is scriptural background for sacrificing a body and receiving it back and maintaining the nature of the sacrifice (which is itself a contradiction), said: “Abraham offered up Isaac and received him back.” To which I replied:
Isaac was never sacrificed. This is a significant error on your part. Just preparing Isaac for sacrifice is clearly incomparable. Jesus wasn’t just prepared for it, he actually died. Isaac did not. I’d like you to concede this and admit that you made a significant error here.
His reply:
I’m aware that the New World Translation adds its own gloss to its translation [in Hebrews 11:17] of the passage – “as good as offered up Isaac” and “attempted to offer up his only-begotten son”. However, the passage itself states that “Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac” and “was offering up his only son” without any such qualification. So, I think it is reasonable to claim that Abraham did offer up Isaac as a sacrifice acceptable to God. Hence, your principle that that which is sacrificed is necessarily irrecoverable seems to be false, for the Scriptures teach that “he also received him back”. (Note I am not saying that Isaac died, only that Abraham truly offered him up.) (italics original)
It is very apparent that his claims and logic require some fact-checking. First, Hebrews 11:17 in The NET Bible says:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. He had received the promises, yet he was ready to offer up his only son. (emphasis added)
The footnote for “ready to” is:
Grk “he was offering up.” The tense of this verb indicates the attempt or readiness to sacrifice Isaac without the actual completion of the deed. (emphasis added)
Thus, after considering the NET Bible, the claim that this is unique to the NWT reveals at the very least a lack of awareness—and the NWT shines through as being alert to the grammatical details of the Greek. This is also especially seen in the Hermeneia Commentary:
The alliterative description of Abraham’s action appears pleonastic, but the play on the tenses of the two verbs, both forms of the common verb “to offer” (προσφέρω), may be significant. The perfect (προσενήνοχεν) is probably the same exegetical perfect encountered frequently in Hebrews. The imperfect (προσέφερεν) may be conative, referring to the process that Abraham inaugurated but did not complete. (emphasis added)
As in Gen 22:1, the Aqedah [“binding”] is a case where Abraham was “tested” (πειραζόμενος). This aspect of the story played an important part in haggadic traditions and it has special significance for Hebrews, whose addressees, like their High Priest, are being tested.[42]
Thus, CP1 was completely misguided in his insistence. But what is especially surprising is his closing parenthetical comment: “I am not saying that Isaac died, only that Abraham truly offered him up.” Then his claim is internally inconsistent (contradicting “Abraham did offer up Isaac as a
sacrifice”) and is therefore completely irrelevant, as it only has weight if his initial claim was correct, that Isaac was sacrificed. If he says that that was never his claim, then his comparison is totally irrelevant as well as irreverent—because Jesus did die but Isaac did not. Isaac never lost his human body unlike Jesus. That this CP did not recognize this glaringly obvious disconnect between Isaac and Jesus demonstrates that CP encourages three problems: (1) deep disrespect for Jesus’ ransom sacrifice—irreverence, (2) intellectual absenteeism, and (3) logical incoherence.
We also see this disconnect between Isaac and Jesus in this article:
In the biblical narrative, God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac at Moriah. As Abraham begins to comply, having bound Isaac to an altar, he is stopped by the Angel of the Lord; a ram appears and is slaughtered in Isaac’s stead, as God commends Abraham’s pious obedience to offer his son as a human sacrifice.
Especially in art, the episode is often called the Sacrifice of Isaac, although in the end Isaac was not sacrificed. (emphasis added)[43]
Thus, it was a metaphorical sacrifice as Isaac did not die. The comparison to Jesus’ death then is completely inappropriate and, most importantly, exposes an appalling lack of appreciation for how Jesus died. But this problem is by no means unique to him. It is a plague infesting CP from Chalcedon to now. But it was this appalling lack of sincerity and intellectual integrity that was the final straw in severing communication with this individual.
Conclusion
Jesus’ resurrection was unique among the resurrection narratives because of the sacrificial nature of his death. (Hebrews 10:10) No one else resurrected had soteriologically sacrificed their body and life as Jesus is said to have. Therefore, it is inconsistent to demand that his sacrificed body was resurrected. What is even more inconsistent is to demand that his resurrected body was a “glorified [physical] body.” The major Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued this way, and thus he “reinvigorated Chalcedonian Christology in the West.”
[44] In his seminal work
Summa Theologica, he quoted Pope Gregory I (c.540-604): “Christ’s body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection.”
[45] This is in stark violation of the laws of physics and thus proved to be delusional. It also just represents a narrow grasp of the scriptural narratives. But it is a position that Thomas Aquinas promulgated, as seen in his reply to the question “Whether Christ’s body ought to have risen with its scars?” He answered:
It was fitting for Christ’s soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ’s own glory. For [the Venerable] Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, “but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory.”[46]
Pope Francis also presented this idea,
[47] even though it presents an absurdity that Jesus himself disapproved of. First, there is the clear violation and disregard for the laws of physics. Second, John 6:63, 20:17 and Luke 9:62 present Jesus as not hoarding. Demanding that Jesus retained and hoarded his sacrificed flesh is a symptom of OCD. Additionally, demonstrating a very narrowminded grasp of the scriptural narratives, Thomas Aquinas continued:
our Lord had a palpable body after the Resurrection, as appears from the last chapter of Luke, and we must believe that His body was supremely subtle. Moreover the human body will rise again with flesh and bones, as did the body of our Lord, according to Luke 24:39, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have,” and Job 19:26, “In my flesh I shall see God,” my Saviour: and the nature of flesh and bone is incompatible with the aforesaid rarity.
Consequently another kind of subtlety must be assigned to glorified bodies, by saying that they are subtle on account of the most complete perfection of the body.[48]
To his credit he then discussed and rejected theories attempting to explain this, but he still presented Luke 24:39 as cherry-picked and not in its context, as CP is forced to do. Using Job 19:26 is confusing too as Job did witness a manifestation of God at the end of his book. (38-42) But this is the legacy of the Council of Chalcedon. In their zeal to counter cults they constructed a cult of their own, complete with institutionalizing mental health disorders (OCD and cognitive dissonance) and intellectual absenteeism (ie. saying “anything is possible with God”). Most noteworthy, CP has defined their Jesus out of existence with their glorified sacrificed body in heaven, which is unnecessary and pure fiction. When pressed to explain on a scientific level how a human body can be glorified for heavenly existence, the truth is revealed that CP demands an extraordinary amount of faith.
This leaves sincere Christians with the choice to focus on what really matters in Christianity and focus faith on that and not distribute faith recklessly to areas that amount to being abusive with faith and hampering mental health. An essential aspect of Christianity is that Jesus was resurrected to heavenly life. That requires a focused faith. Demanding we have faith in him taking back what he sacrificed and having it be glorified in some whimsical way is just a laughable abuse of faith—and is too cultish for comfort.
Footnotes:
[1] www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-physical-body.html
[2] Philip Schaff. Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume II. The History of Creeds: The Symbol of Chalcedon. The phrase “according to the Manhood” (κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα) is used again in the Creed when it is said that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood” (κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα). Thus, Jesus is clearly defined as a physical man now in heaven just like he was a physical man on earth.
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.
[22] See: “What was the significance of the Council of Chalcedon?”
www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Chalcedon.html For instance, this states “The Chalcedonian Definition affirms the truth that Jesus Christ is fully divine and, at the same time, fully human.” Thus, the council did not care if this was even possible to be fully human in heaven, it just asserted it to combat what it perceived as heresy.
[23] While he was “baptized at about the age of ten” as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and slid out from the ages of 17-19 (pages 311-3), his arguments supporting CP have been repeated since and are also (1) very feeble and (2) do not accurately represent the JW teaching on Jesus’ resurrected body. Thus, I am unsure how intellectually strong of a Witness he was.
[24] Page 135.
[25] Page 136.
[26] Pages 136-7.
[27] Ernst Haenchen.
The Hermeneia Commentary on John 7-21, p. 207.
[28] Pages 137-8.
[29] Page 138.
[30] Ernst Haenchen.
The Hermeneia Commentary on John 7-21, p. 225.
[31] Page 139.
[32] Page 140.
[33] Page 141.
[34] Pages 141-2.
[35] Ernst Haenchen.
The Hermeneia Commentary on John 1-6, translation on p. 289 and comment on p. 294.
[36] James Walker.
Patterns In The Cults, Watchman Fellowship Profile, p. 2.
[37] Ernst Haenchen.
The Hermeneia Commentary on John 7-21, translation on p. 24 and comment on p. 27.
[38] AI-generated summaries of medical papers.
[39] https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/F/flesh.html
[40] The Resurrection of the Dead, page 1951.
[41] James Ware.
Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54, pp. 809-835.
[42] Harold W. Attridge.
The Hermeneia Commentary on The Epistle to The Hebrews, p. 334.
[43] “Binding of Isaac.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
[44] K.J. Drake. Beyond the Flesh – Why Aquinas is both a beacon and a bridge for orthodox Christology.
Credo Magazine, June 24, 2022, V21:2, credomag.com/article/thomas-aquinas-and-christ
[45] Part 3, Question 54, Article 2
[46] Part 3, Question 54, Article 4
[47] A Problem of Papal Proportions
jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-problem-of-papal-proportions.html
[48] Supplement, Question 83, Article 1
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.
- William Lane Craig: The Incarnation: Abstractist & Concretist Approaches!
youtu.be/fj92g4MTge0?si=bQd38UcqiwbWyM5N
Here he presents what he believes are two legitimate interpretations of the Chalcedonian Creed, where he affirms his rejection of CP. However, this is confusing considering the above-mentioned dual usage of homoousios in the Chalcedonian Creed, of Jesus being homoousios with the Father and being homoousios with us. What is true of the former must be true of the later.
Related links:
Image captions:
- Introductory images: Jesus being tied to a scourging pole by a henchman, Jesus beaten wearing the crown of thorns.
- Mary recognizing Jesus.
If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:
Labels: Bible, Jesus' resurrection
