Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?

Updates:

• Updated: 1.
• Added Harris

This is the title of an article by the Got Questions web ministry.^[1] Their article promotes what I call “Christological Physicalism,” which they define as being “the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus’ crucified body in heaven.” Below is their article and my interspersed comments. Following that, other comments from scholars and objections from Christological Physicalists will be reviewed.

Before we begin though, I have three preliminary observations that I think addresses some core reasoning:

1. 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]
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.

3. Lastly, there is a strange interpretation of 2 John 1:7 that serves as a justification of Christological Physicalism that needs to be addressed. This states: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.” (NET Bible) Christological Physicalism reads this verse in the future tense, that Jesus is coming physically. But even if it does mean that, it would not necessarily follow that he is physical now. As the NET Bible states in its footnote:

   This is the same confession as in 1 John 4:2 except the perfect participle used there is replaced by a present participle (ἐρχόμενον, erchomenon) here. It is not clear why the author changed from a perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 to a present participle here. The perfect participle suggests a reference to the incarnation (past). The present participle could suggest a reference to the (future) second advent, but based on the similarity to 1 John 4:2 it is probably best to take it as referring to the incarnation.

   Another scholar, writing in a volume of the esteemed Hermeneia Commentary, states about 2 John 1:7 that “According to many interpreters, the content of this sentence agrees with 1 John 4:2” and “This would mean that the opponents in 1 John deny the earthly incarnation of Christ. They represent a docetic christology, saying that Jesus, as the Christ, did not assume an earthly and material form of existence but only appeared to live on earth.”^[3]
   
   Then for 1 John 4:2, he commented that “It does not refer to the future but to an event in the past whose effects continue even to the present time. There can be no doubt that the author is thinking at this point of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which occurred ‘in the flesh’—in other words, the entry of the Son of God into the sphere of the tangible and mutable.”
   
   He adds: “In such usage the author of 1 John is on the same plane as the fourth evangelist, who can use [sarx (flesh)] as a concept in opposition to [pneuma (spirit)]” and “before everything else it is acknowledged that the Logos has become flesh (1:14), a central affirmation of Johannine theology.”^[4]
   
   The second century Christian leader Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, summarized Johannine theology using 1 John 4:2 in his letter to the Philippians, in 7:1, writing: “‘For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist’; [1 John 4:3] and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the Devil: and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord for his own lusts, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—this man is the first-born of Satan.”
   
   Following him, his disciple Irenaeus quoted 2 John 1:7 and 1 John 4:2 in the same light, complementing each other, connecting both to John 1:14:

   These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” [2 John 1:7] Take heed to them, that you lose not what you have wrought. And again does he say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” [1 John 5:7] These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” [John 1:14]^[5]

   Thus, for the Johannine epistles to be internally consistent, as Polycarp and Irenaeus understood, 2 John 1:7 is referring to Jesus’ first appearance. Significantly, this understanding is also seen in the NRSV-Updated Edition: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” Notice the translation to the past. The New Oxford Annotated Bible NSRV has this footnote explaining: “The secessionists who do not abide in the teaching of Christ by denying that the human Jesus is the Christ have shattered that fellowship.” (italics added) Additionally, scholar David Bentley Hart translated it as: “For many deceivers have gone forth into the cosmos, those who do not confess that Jesus the Anointed has come in flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (italics added) He explains in a footnote that “This may mean that an antichrist is specifically someone who teaches a ‘docetic’ view of Christ.”^[6] Thus, the proper interpretation is denying that Jesus came as a human contra docetism, not coming as a physical man, and should not be used to support Christological Physicalism.

With these three points established, we can now commence considering their article—which fortunately does not employ 2 John 1:7—with my comments in bold. I have also underlined important words:

Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?

The physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is foundational to Christian doctrine and our hope of heaven. [But physical human bodies cannot live outside of earth’s atmosphere.] Because Jesus rose from the dead with a physical body, every Christian has the guarantee of his own bodily resurrection (John 5:21, 28; Romans 8:23). [That does not follow, and those cited scriptures do not say that. Resurrection is certainly not dependent on Jesus rising with a physical body, and we can be very thankful of that.] Now Jesus is in heaven [which is outside of our “zip code” and thus not outer space], where He is pictured as sitting in a place of authority, at the right hand of God (1 Peter 3:22). But is Jesus’ body in heaven the same as His body on earth?

The Bible is clear that Jesus’ body was resurrected. The tomb was empty. [It does not follow that the empty tomb means that Jesus’ body was resurrected.] He was recognizable to those who knew Him. [This is contradicted by their own explanation in this same paragraph below.] Jesus showed Himself to all His disciples after His resurrection, and more than five hundred people were eyewitnesses to His earthly, post-resurrection presence (1 Corinthians 15:4–6). In Luke 24:16, on the road to Emmaus, two of Jesus’ disciples “were kept from recognizing [Jesus].” [This contradicts what was said above in the same paragraph.] However, later, “their eyes were opened and they recognized Him” (verse 31). It’s not that Jesus was unrecognizable; it’s that, for a time, the disciples were supernaturally restrained from recognizing Him. [So, he was recognizable but unrecognizable because God made him so. I’ve read that solution before, but I don’t think we want to go there as it could open the proverbial Pandora’s Box, as in, what else did God block people’s eyes from seeing about Jesus? That sounds like a dangerous path. It especially sounds odd considering that God announced Jesus’ identification from heaven twice as seen in Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:7; Luke 3:22, 9:35 (see also John 12:28). Also, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 tells us that God only lets his enemies be deceived. Surely, Mary and Jesus’ other loyal disciples are not God’s enemies. It seems preposterous then that God would want to block their vision about Jesus’ identity. But it gets worse: Why would God want to block people’s eyes from the truth about Jesus? That would make him dishonest. The most honest reading of the narrative is that his stigmata were simply not available. Jesus wanted to reveal himself another way. Why insert his stigmata into a narrative where they are absent? This is also true of John 20:14 with Mary and John 21:4 with his disciples. This last passage is significant because even though his disciples saw him in the locked room, now when they see him again, they do not recognize him, and this time his stigmata are absent. To say that God blocked Mary’s eyes and blocked the disciples’ eyes again is a very dishonest thing to attribute to God. This, I believe, is a very significant error, a fatal flaw, that all Christological Physicalists are forced to make.]

Later in the same chapter of Luke, Christ makes it plain to His disciples that He does have a physical body; He is not a disembodied spirit: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). [He appeared suddenly in the inaccessible room without opening the door and entering. This indicates he was materializing from a spirit form as done previously in Genesis 18:1-8. In any case, this possibility cannot be denied and can even be seen as the one most likely intended.] After spending forty days with His disciples, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven (Acts 1:9). [Embarrassingly, Acts 1:9 does not say that. Rather, it says he ascended into the sky where a cloud obscured him from view.] Jesus is still human, and He has a human body in heaven right now. [This appears to be based on a glaring misreading of Acts 1:9 due to extremely poor reading comprehension.] His body is different, however; earthly human flesh is perishable, but heavenly bodies are imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:50). Jesus has a physical body, with a difference. His resurrected body is designed with eternity in view. [This is not a physical body then. This article opened by stating that “the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is foundational to Christian doctrine,” but now it says his body has a significant “difference.” Thus, it unknowingly presents an inescapable contradiction of astronomical magnitude.]

First Corinthians 15:35–49 describes what the body of the believer will be like in heaven. Our heavenly bodies will differ from our earthly ones in type of flesh [Thus not a fleshly body. It is physically impossible to have it both ways (to be flesh in outer space)—that is extremely ludicrous.], in splendor, in power, and in longevity. The apostle Paul also states that the believer’s body will be an image of Christ’s body (verse 49). Paul discusses this subject again in 2 Corinthians, where he compares earthly bodies to tents and heavenly bodies to heavenly dwellings (2 Corinthians 5:1–2). Paul says that, once the earthly tents come off, Christians will not be left “naked”—that is, without a body to live in (2 Corinthians 5:3). When the new body is “put on,” we will go from mortality to immortality (2 Corinthians 5:4). [Yes, it is a new body. This point contradicts the previous point.]

So, we know that the Christian will have a heavenly body like Jesus’ “glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). At His incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, and at His resurrection His body was glorified—although He retained the scars (John 20:27). [Not in all of the resurrection appearances, they were only included in Luke 24:36-40 and John 20:19-29 to the exclusion of the significant thorn wounds.] He will forever be the God-Man, sacrificed for us. Christ, the Creator of the universe, will forever stoop to our level, and He will be known to us in heaven in a tangible form that we can see, hear, and touch (Revelation 21:3–4; 22:4). [But that’s in heaven, not in outer space. That’s a significant distinction the author(s) of this article failed to make. Fleshly bodies dwell in our “zip code.” If they go outside of our atmosphere, they are in outer space, but still in our “zip code.” If they are heavenly bodies, then they dwell in heaven outside of our “zip code.” This concept is extremely easy to grasp.]
(End of article.)

Thus, their article is riddled with contradictions—refuting itself—and is thus an exercise in absurdity. It is also applying faith far too liberally. The result is acute cognitive dissonance. Stated succinctly, it is a form of spiritual abuse and manipulation.

This conclusion is highlighted in this summary:

Question: Was Jesus’ crucified body resurrected with the wounds?
Answer: Yes: “Christ makes it plain to His disciples that He does have a physical body; He is not a disembodied spirit: ‘See my hands and my feet.’”

Question: Is Jesus in heaven?
Answer: Yes: “Jesus ascended bodily into heaven.”

Question: Would that be outer space?
Answer: No: “Jesus has a physical body, with a difference. His resurrected body is designed with eternity in view.”

Conclusion: This is a justification or rationalization of a set of contradictions: having something exist in a place where it cannot exist. It is therefore textbook cognitive dissonance.^[7] Denying this conclusion is delusional and irrational.

But there is more: Christological Physicalism also exhibits an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). OCD symptoms include (1) unnecessary ordering, arranging and (2) hoarding of unneeded items. Retaining Jesus’ sacrificed body is hoarding, and arranging for him to still have it is unnecessary ordering. Thus, Christological Physicalism enforces institutionalizing the mental health disorders of OCD and cognitive dissonance.

As one authority said about OCD: “OCD is unlikely to get better on its own, but treatment and support is available to help you manage your symptoms and have a better quality of life.”^[8]

Only spiritually abusive mind-control cults institutionalize these mental health disorders on their followers.^[9] It doesn’t matter if the mind-control cult leaders are from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (thus controlling your thoughts from the grave) or from your local church. The effects are the same. If your beliefs about Jesus’ body are in violation of the laws of physics in some way and require convoluted and circuitous reasoning to resolve, then you are in a mind-control cult. This is dangerous as it leads to delusion, deception and dishonesty in your discourse, which is diabolically deplorable.

(Note: the following will be updated as frequently as I wish. Also, Christological Physicalism/ist will be hereafter abbreviated as CP.)

What scholars have said
We will now look at what some scholars have presented:

• Dr. James Tabor (Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity)
• Dr. David Bentley Hart (philosopher, religious studies scholar and theologian)
• Dr. Murray J. Harris (Professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology)
• Dr. John Granger Cook (Professor of Religion and Philosophy)

As well as two apologists:

• Dr. Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)
• Dr. William Lane Craig (theologian and philosopher)

James Tabor in one article said that “The disciples were in great despair over Jesus’ death, having lost all hope that he could be the Messiah. After all, a dead Messiah is a failed Messiah. None of them was expecting Jesus to die, much less rise from the dead.” This aligns with my concern I related to one CP who initiated correspondence with me, hereafter designated as CP1, that “it could be asked if the disciples even expected him to be resurrected? The comments made in Luke 24:19-24 indicate uncertainty and despair over the empty tomb.” This was in response to CP1’s claim that ‘the disciples expected Jesus’ resurrection appearances due to the empty tomb, and thus Jesus had to meet their expectations of being a resurrected human.’^[10] However, both the account in Luke 24:19-24 and Tabor’s comments show otherwise. In addition to Luke 24:19-24, there is John 20:9 which pointedly states that “they did not yet understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead.” There is also Luke 24:4-6 where angels had to explain that the empty tomb meant that Jesus was resurrected, because they were “perplexed.” Regarding the Greek word, the NET Bible footnote here says that “the term refers to a high state of confusion and anxiety.” Or, as Strong’s defines it: “to be thoroughly nonplussed.”

Tabor added:

When Paul says Jesus was “buried” he is indicating that he knows the tradition of Jesus’ body being put in a tomb (1 Corinthians 15:4). His point is to emphasize that Jesus truly was dead and buried, entering the Hadean realm. What was then “raised on the third day,” just as in the Gabriel Revelation, was not the perishable mortal body but a new spiritual body, no longer “flesh and blood,” having shed the old body like discarded clothing (1 Corinthians 15:42-50; 52-54).

Jesus’ own teaching about resurrection, preserved in the Q source, emphasizes an angelic like transformation in which even the sexual distinctions between male and female are obsolete (Luke 20:34-36). This parallels precisely Paul’s view of resurrection.

Thus, he has concluded that Paul precisely paralleled Jesus’ teaching of being resurrected in a non-physical spiritual angelic body.

However, Tabor then asks why Luke and John portray a resurrected physical Jesus with wounds like a “resuscitated corpse.” (Luke 24:36; John 20:19) He answers by placing it in the category of “largely apologetic,” without addressing why the narratives portray Jesus as suddenly appearing in the closed room. Thus, he views these “closed room” narratives as secondary and in response to secular criticism of Jesus’ resurrection.^[11]

In any case, he is in clear opposition to the historicity of CP.

Next, David Bentley Hart wrote the following, affirming the historicity of the “closed room” resurrection narratives:

The risen Christ, possessed of a spiritual body, could eat and drink, could be felt, could break bread between his hands; but he could also appear and disappear at will, unimpeded by walls or locked doors, or could become unrecognizable to those who had known him before his death, or could even ascend from the earth and pass through the incorruptible heavens where only spiritual beings may venture.

Then, commenting on 1 Peter 3:18-19, he continued:

the conjunctive formula ἐν ᾧ [“in which,” 1 Peter 3:19] seems to make it clear that, by being raised “as spirit,” Christ was made capable of entering into spiritual realms, and so of traveling to the “spirits in prison.”

Again, the word “spirits” was a common way of designating rational creatures who by their nature do not possess psychical bodies of perishable flesh. And the specific reference in this verse is not to the “souls” of human beings who have died, but to those wicked spirits—those angels or daemonic beings—imprisoned in Tartarus until the day of judgment (mentioned also in 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6) … It is certainly of considerable significance, however, that this passage seems to say that the risen Christ was able to make his journey to those hidden regions precisely because he was no longer hindered by a carnal frame, but instead now possessed the boundless liberty of spirit.^[12]

These comments are certainly significant in contradicting CP, and are also seen in his Bible translation, The New Testament, A Translation (2023 ed.):

1 Peter 3:18
For the Anointed also suffered on account of sins, once and for all, a just man on behalf of the unjust, so that he might lead you to God, being put to death in flesh and yet being made alive in spirit,

Footnote:
This is a parallel construction using modal datives to indicate the manner or condition in which, on the one hand, Christ died and, on the other, he was made alive. Translations that attempt to insert a reference to the Holy Spirit here defy not only the sense of the verse, but also its syntax. Here, as elsewhere in the New Testament (see Acts 23:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:40–54, along with my notes thereto), the distinction between this life and the life of the resurrection is one between two distinct and (in some sense) antithetical states of being: “flesh” and “spirit.” It would not be misleading to translate this clause as “being put to death as flesh and yet being made alive as spirit”; this might, in fact, clarify the logic of the verse that follows.

1 Peter 3:19
whereby he also journeyed and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison

Footnote:
The conjunctive phrase is somewhat obscure, but what seems the plainest meaning is that, because Christ was made alive “as spirit” or “in spirit,” he was now able to travel to the “spirits in prison” (regarding whom, see footnote h below). This visit is depicted as following Christ’s resurrection to new life, not as a “descent into Hades” during the interval between cross and resurrection.

Regarding the “spirits in prison,” he explains in footnote h for 1 Peter 3:20: “the reference is not to human beings who have died, but to angels or daemonic beings imprisoned until the day of judgment.” Thus, Jesus as a spirit preaching to spirits.

See also 1 Corinthians 15:44 footnote ae on p. 349. There he relates that “resurrection for Paul is not a simple resuscitation of the sort of material body one has in the fallen world, but a radically different kind of life.” Thus, he too is not supportive of CP at all.

He then refers to his postscript The Life of the Age to Come. There, he elaborates:

Hence, according to Paul, the body of the resurrection is not one of flesh and blood animated by “soul,” but is rather a new reality altogether, an entirely spiritual body beyond composition or dissolution. And this is how his language would have been understood by his contemporaries.^[13]

He adds:

the bodily life produced by this “animating” principle was understood as strictly limited to the aerial and terrestrial sphere. It could exist nowhere else, and most certainly not in the aether of the heavenly places. It was too frail, too ephemeral, too much bound to mutability and transience. “Spirit,” by contrast—pnevma or spiritus—was quite different, a kind of life inherently indestructible and incorruptible, not bound to death or to the irrational faculties of brute nature and not confined to any single cosmic sphere. It could survive anywhere and could move with complete liberty among all the spiritual realms, as well as in the material world here below. Spirit was something subtler but also stronger, more vital, more glorious than the worldly elements of a coarse corruptible body compounded of earthly soul and material flesh. (pages 591-2)

Then, after quoting 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47-49, he adds:

This is for Paul nothing less than the transformation of the psychical composite into the spiritual simplex—the metamorphosis of the mortal fleshly body that belongs to soul into the immortal fleshless body that belongs to spirit: “We shall be changed. For this perishable thing must clothe itself in imperishability, and this mortal thing must clothe itself in immortality.” [15:52, 53] (pages 595-6)

Then, moving on to the Lukan closed-room narrative, he explains:

Only one verse, Luke 24:39, seems to advance a contrary picture; there, more or less reversing Paul’s terms, the risen Christ proves that he is not a spirit precisely by demonstrating that he possesses “flesh and bone.” But here, needless to say, the word “spirit” is being employed with its most debased and vulgar meaning, “ghost.” (page 596)

Consider also Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:35–36, all of which tell us that, for those who share in the resurrection, there is neither marrying nor being married—after all, there will no longer be either birth or (so notes Luke) death—because those who are raised will be “as the angels in heaven,” or “in the heavens,” and will in fact be “the angel’s equals” or “equivalent to angels.” It is difficult not to think that here Jesus may be telling the Sadducees that the theology of resurrection that he shares with the Pharisees claims not that the raised will enjoy merely a revived animated material body but rather that they will live forever in an angelic manner, an angelic frame. (page 597)

The risen Christ, possessed of a spiritual body, could eat and drink, could be felt, could break bread between his hands; but he could also appear and disappear at will, unimpeded by walls or locked doors, or could become unrecognizable to those who had known him before his death, or could even ascend from the earth and pass through the incorruptible heavens where only spiritual beings may venture. (page 598)

So, Dr. Hart here is pouring his heart into harmonizing these passages into a coherent framework of a resurrection into a spiritual body, and certainly not Jesus’ crucified body. I would just qualify that Jesus’ “spiritual body” was ontologically spiritual and was materializing in the same manner seen previously in Genesis 18:1-2. He also has not mentioned Chalcedon to acknowledge his nonalignment with it.

Next, Murray J. Harris also discusses a “spiritual body” in greater detail in his book From Grave To Glory, under the heading The Resurrection Body of Jesus:

Page 139:

Nowhere does the New Testament give us a description of the physical features of Jesus of Nazareth. The writers are preoccupied with his character, his action, and his teaching. Nor does the situation change in the resurrection narratives, even though Jesus is alive from the dead in an immortal bodily form.

If we analyze the Gospels and Acts with regard to the nature of Christ’s resurrection body, we discover two distinct sets of information, one stressing the material nature of his body, the other suggesting its nonmaterial character.

Page 140:

1. The materialistic statements

Mt 28:9 “They [probably Mary the mother of James, and Salome] came up to him, clasped his feet, and worshiped him.”
Lk 24:15 “Jesus himself overtook them and began to walk along with them.”
Lk 24:39 ‘‘Look at my hands and my feet and you will see that it is I myself. Touch me and understand, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
Lk 24:43 “He took it [a piece of broiled fish] and ate it before their eyes.”
Lk 24:50-51 ‘‘He led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, lifted up his hands, and gave them a blessing. And as he was in the act of blessing them, he departed from them and was taken up into heaven.”
Jn 20:20 “He showed them his hands and side.”
Jn 20:27 “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and look at my hands. Reach out your hand and place it in my side.’”
Ac 1:4 “And while he was eating with them …”^[14]
Ac 10:41 “… to us … who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.”

In addition to these specific verses, there is the general testimony of the Evangelists that Jesus engaged in the normal human activities of walking (e.g., Mt 28:18; Lk 24:15, 28, 50) and talking (e.g., Mt 28:9-10, 18-20; Lk 24:17, 25-27). We have already noted that he was recognized by his followers when he appeared to them after his resurrection because of such individual features as his tone of voice, his bodily movements, and the marks of the crucifixion. When he appeared, Jesus stood on terra firma, was not suspended in (p. 141) the air; his body was solid, not ephemeral, and tangible, not immaterial.

2. The nonmaterialistic statements

Lk 24:31 “He disappeared from their sight.”
Lk 24:36 “While they were still reporting this, Jesus himself stood among them.”
Lk 24:44 “This was the meaning of my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you.”
Jn 20:19 “Although the doors were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them.”
Jn 20:26 “Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them.”
Ac 1:3 “… appearing to them at intervals over the course of forty days.”
Ac 10:40-41a “God raised him up on the third day, and permitted him to become visible, not to all the people, but to us …”

Also of relevance here is the verbal form ōphthē. In the Greek of Plato’s day it generally meant “he was seen,” but in New Testament times it gained an intransitive sense, “he appeared,” “he became visible.” On nine occasions the word describes an appearance of the risen Christ. [Endnote: Lk 24:34; Ac 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1Co 15:5-8; 1Ti 3:16.] Although the same word is used of the appearance of God (Ac 7:2), of angels (Lk 1:11; 22:43; Ac 7:30, 35), of Moses and Elijah (Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:31), and of Moses (Ac 7:26), no instance is a precise parallel, for Jesus appeared in bodily form, at his own initiative, and for the purpose of revealing himself and his will.

Neither of these two sets of data should be overlooked. But some writers have done so, declaring either that Jesus’ resurrection body was a normal physical body of flesh and blood or that the Resurrection enabled him to return to his (p. 142) pre-incarnate state as a purely spiritual being. Although both of these solutions must be rejected, we should not imagine that any solution that accommodates both sets of data is necessarily “correct” and authoritative. We are here gently probing a mystery, for Jesus was the first person to rise immortal in a spiritual body.

There are three main solutions.

(i) Jesus’ resurrection body was basically ‘‘material,” or “fleshly” but either was capable of temporary dematerialization or had nonmaterial properties.
(ii) In his resurrected state Jesus possessed a “spiritual body” which could be expressed in an immaterial or a material mode.
(iii) His body was in the process of transition from the material to the spiritual during the forty days of appearances.

Each of these hypotheses does justice to the diverse data of the New Testament, so that no one of them should be dismissed as unorthodox.

On the second view, which the present writer espouses, the resurrection of Jesus was not his transformation into an immaterial body but his acquisition of a “spiritual body” which could materialize or dematerialize at will. When, on occasion, Jesus chose to appear to various persons in material form, this was just as really the “spiritual body” of Jesus as when he was not visible or tangible. In each instance it was his body and was “spiritual,” so that he was not guilty of deception when he affirmed “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself” (Lk 24:39). As opposed to angels who by nature are disembodied spirits (Heb. 1:14) yet can materialize (Heb. 1:7), the risen Jesus is a permanently embodied Spirit who, during the forty days, occasionally became visible to human eyes and palpable to human touch. After the forty days, when his appearances on earth were ended, Jesus assumed the sole mode of being visible to the inhabitants of heaven but having a nonfleshly body.^[15]

Notice that not once in this lengthy quote does he nod to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. This is true in the rest of his book, where he does not mention it even once. Instead, like Hart, he just addresses the scriptural material.

Second, he dealt with a charge of “deception” for appearing as physical when he actually had a “spiritual body,” which he diffuses by saying his spiritual body was what they saw. But this solution is difficult and unnecessary. In addressing the charge of deception, four points need to be made:

1. It was Jesus who initiated checking his wounds, it was not their first request. (Their is no indication they were expecting him to physically appear.)
2. Jesus appeared in a locked room, which is not possible for a person existing as ontologically physical.
3. Jesus is not portrayed as being immediately recognizable.
4. Jesus is not portrayed with all his wounds: In Luke 24:36-40, it was his hands and feet. In John 20:20, 25, 27, it was his hands and spear wound (the later only mentioned in John). In both cases there is no mention of the thorn wounds that would clearly have been visible if available. It is possible the foot wounds in John were unnecessary to show or were concealed in his sandals, but foot wounds would also make it difficult or impossible to walk.

Thus, focusing on these four points is more of a direct diffusing of the “deception” charge, which I find to be aggressively uncharitable against Jesus. Jesus wanted to teach in different ways, and one of them should not be seen as deceptive. As a case in point, compare this with John 16:29, where Jesus is noted to have switched his teaching from “parables” to “plainly.” That does not mean that using parables was deceptive. In this case, Jesus was teaching by demonstrating that was alive even though he was crucified, that it was him even with a different face. In his resurrected state, Jesus could—in agreement with Harris—“materialize or dematerialize at will,” in this case, directly into the closed and locked room.

To be continued…

Footnotes:
^[1] www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-physical-body.html
^[2] Text and commentary from The Symbol of Chalcedon www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html
^[3] Georg Strecker. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. 1996, p. 233
^[4] Pages 134-135.
^[5] Against Heresies, Book 3, 16:8.
^[6] The New Testament, A Translation. 2^nd edition, 2023.
^[7] Symptoms of cognitive dissonance include justification or rationalization of conflicting behavior.
^[8] “Symptoms – Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)” www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd
^[9] “Spiritual abuse” has been defined as “the injury of a person’s spiritual health by the misuse of their trust to gain or maintain control over them and to use them or their resources for the benefit of the leader or group.” This is not to be taken lightly then, as stressed in the remainder of the definition: “Spiritual abuse occurs when someone holding a position of spiritual influence, leadership, or authority uses that position to benefit themselves at the expense of the individuals whom they are ostensibly there to help. Spiritual abuse crosses personal boundaries without permission and does some of the greatest damage that can be done.” (David Henke. Spiritual Abuse Recovery Workbook, 2021, p. 9.) This is very sobering. I can only encourage everyone reading to be honest, self-critical, open-minded, and to be alert to confirmation-bias.
To the Christological Physicalists reading (who may be inclined to turn the tables on me): Don’t be concerned about me being in a cult, as I’m not the one flagrantly rejecting the proven laws of physics (along with the flat earth crowd) by believing in Christological Physicalism. I strive to be very aware, objective, and independently-minded, as ones who know me can attest.
^[10] To quote him directly: “in general, the fact that his disciples expected a human resurrection (as is seen by their concern as to whether the tomb was empty or not).”
^[10] How Faith in Jesus’ Resurrection Originated and Developed: A New/Old Hypothesis (January 1, 2016)
jamestabor.com/how-faith-in-jesus-resurrection-originated-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis
^[12] The Spiritual Was More Substantial Than the Material for the Ancients
churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-spiritual-was-more-substantial-than-the-material-for-the-ancients
^[13] Pages 590-1. The Life of the Age to Come starts on page 588.
^[14] While Harris chose this translation with “eating,” it is not very secure, and thus Acts 1:4 may be relegated to secondary significance under “materialistic statements,” if not removed altogether. Translations supporting “eating” are the NIV “while he was eating with them,” NLT “when he was eating with them,” and Byington “while eating with them,” while most others present Jesus just being with them. For instance, the NET Bible has “while he was with them,” and in a footnote explains that another option is “while he was sharing a meal with them,” but that “the difficulty with [this] option is that it does not fit the context, and this meaning is not found elsewhere.” It favors a meaning of even to “spend the night with.” So, at the very least, Jesus was associating with his disciples, and gave them the instructions in this verse.
^[15] From Grave To Glory, Resurrection in the New Testament. Academic Books. 1990.

Corroborating the Torn Temple Curtain

The three Synoptic Gospels report that when Jesus died, “the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.” (Mark 15:38; Matthew 27:51; Luke 23:45) Regarding this ominous description, the NET Bible gives this explanation in a footnote:

The referent of this term, καταπέτασμα (katapetasma), is not entirely clear. It could refer to the curtain separating the holy of holies from the holy place (Josephus, J. W. [Jewish War] 5.5.5 [5.219]), or it could refer to one at the entrance of the temple court (Josephus, J. W. 5.5.4 [5.212]). Many argue that the inner curtain is meant because another term, κάλυμμα (kalumma), is also used for the outer curtain. Others see a reference to the outer curtain as more likely because of the public nature of this sign. Either way, the symbolism means that access to God has been opened up. It also pictures a judgment that includes the sacrifices.

As will be seen, identifying which curtain is critical.

The entrance curtain

The Greek word for “sanctuary” is ναός (naos), which is “used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of Holies.”^[1] This definition helps in isolating the main temple curtain separating the “Holy place and the Holy of Holies.”

Section-view of the Temple

Notice how this is expressed in the following notes from study Bibles:

SBL Study Bible
Mr. 15:38 The curtain of the temple, perhaps that which veiled the holy of holies, was torn (see note on 1.10). This may foreshadow the destruction of the temple or symbolize the rending of the barrier between humanity and God; like Heb 9.8; 10.19-20, it may suggest that the death of Jesus has made access to God possible for all humanity.

Complete Jewish Study Bible
Mt. 27:51 The parokhet in the Temple was ripped in two. The parokhet was a thick curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Only the cohen hagadol (high priest) was allowed to pass through it into the Holy of Holies, which he could do only once a year on Yom-Kippur. When this curtain was ripped in two from top to bottom, this symbolized the fact that God was allowing more access to himself, as taught explicitly in Heb. 9:3-9; 10:19-22 although only Yeshua can serve as High Priest in the heavenly Temple.

Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
27:51 curtain … was torn in two. In later rabbinic tradition signs accompanied the death of the righteous. The veil torn here is probably the inner one; priests would be offering the afternoon/evening sacrifice at this time (cf. v. 46), so would be present in the sanctuary to witness the event. This act probably implies the departure of God’s presence from the temple, prefiguring its destruction (cf. Eze 9:3; 10:4-18). Some believe that the point also includes new access to the Most Holy Place through Jesus’ sacrifice—that access to God no longer required an intermediary (cf. Heb 6:19-20; 9:3; 10:19-20). earth shook. Most people viewed earthquakes as divine activity, often as judgment or as signs warning of it.

ESV Archeology Study Bible
Mt. 27:51 curtain of the temple. This separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place in the inmost part of the temple. It was a large, heavy, elaborately woven fabric.

ESV Study Bible
Mt. 27:51 The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place was an elaborately woven fabric of 72 twisted plaits of 24 threads each. It was 60 feet (18 m) high and 30 feet (9.1 m) wide. No one was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place behind the curtain except the high priest, and he only once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:2-7). Torn in two signifies the removal of the separation between God and the people.

NIV FaithLife Study Bible
Mt. 27:51 The direction of the tear—along with the passive verb—implies an act of God.

NASB Study Bible
Mr. 15:38 veil of the temple. The curtain that separated the holy place from the most holy place (Ex 26:31-33). The tearing of the curtain indicated that Christ had entered heaven itself for us so that we too may now enter God’s very presence (Heb 9:8-10,12; 10:19-20).

NIV Archeological Study Bible
Mr. 15:38 The “curtain of the temple” refers to the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.

Thus, it is normally understood that the larger, main curtain was the one rent in two. Two questions that will now be addressed are:

1. Did the priesthood have a procedure to replace this curtain if it became unsuitable?
2. Is there any evidence this curtain was replaced, and even replaced in a way that could be seen as a response to it being torn down the middle?

The answer to both questions is “yes.” This is so even though the Temple went up in smoke in 70 CE, and with it the current curtain configuration and any record of it. So what we have preserved are rabbinical recollections and commentaries. First, a Jewish Talmudic commentary called the “Well of Jacob,” Ein Yaakov, Chullin Ch 7 says:

The veil refers to the following Mishna: Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Simon, the High-priest’s substitute: “The thickness of the veil [of the Temple] was a hand-breadth. It was woven of seventy-two cords, each cord consisting of twenty-four strands. Its length was forty cubits, by twenty in width. It was made by eighty-two myriads of damsels, and two such veils were made every year. It took three hundred priests to immerse and cleanse it [if it becomes unclean].” (italics added)^[2]

This is also seen in the Mishnaic tractate Shekalim 8.5.^[3] Commenting on this, Temple scholar Leen Ritmeyer said:

The veil would have been too large to weave on one loom and therefore it was more likely to have been composed of seventy-two pieces joined together. Because of its enormous size and weight, the veil was probably hoisted up by pulleys fixed to the ceiling construction. Even so, three hundred priests were needed to move it, which shows how massive this veil must have been. If the veil became ritually unclean, or simply dirty, it had to be immersed in the azarah [Temple court], and then laid out to dry on the steps of the hel [terrace]. When a new veil was made, it was spread out on the roof of the portico, so that people could admire its beauty.^[4]

Thus, the priesthood had a procedure to remove, clean or replace the massive main curtain. It would not under any circumstances be allowed to remain hanging in a defiled state! Having the curtain rent in two from top to bottom, as the Synoptic Gospels claim, would definitely qualify as a defilement, and the priesthood would naturally respond to this by replacing the ruined curtain as quickly as possible. While there is no record of the torn curtain outside of the Gospels, let alone an account of how the priesthood responded to it, there is an indication that it was replaced with an innovation in case it should be torn again.

Leen Ritmeyer explains, under his curious heading “Two Veils or One?”:^[5]

It is strange that we read in Yoma 5.1, that there were:

Two curtains separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. And there was a cubit’s space between them. Rabbi Jose says: Only one curtain was there, for it is written, And the veil shall divide for you between the holy place and the most holy” The outer curtain was looped up on the south side and the inner one on the north side. He went along between them until he reached the north side; when he reached the north he turned round to the south and went on with the curtain on his left hand until he reached the Ark. When he reached the Ark he put the fire-pan between the two bars.

To reach the Holy of Holies, the High Priest would walk through the space between the two curtains. He first encountered the eastern veil, the one visible from inside the heikhal. A gap was left open on the left, or south, side and he entered the Holy of Holies through another gap left on the north side of the inner, or western, curtain.

Although the veil is not mentioned in Middot, the supposition that there were two veils is supported by the writer of this tractate, for in Middot 4.7, a “dividing space” (amah traksin) of one cubit apparently separated the forty-cubit-long interior of the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. This same space was also accentuated in the upper chamber above by a row of flagstones (Middot 4.5). Although the tradition of one veil dates back to the Tabernacle, indications in the Mishnah point to two veils in the Temple.

He then asks:

Is it possible that initially there was only one veil in Herod’s Temple and that a second veil was installed after the rending of the veil at the death of Jesus? The veil that was rent in A.D. 33 had to be replaced, otherwise the Holy of Holies, which the Law of Moses stipulated should only be entered once a year by the High Priest, would be open to view. A second veil may have been added to prevent such a situation from recurring.

So, he is proposing that after the torn veil was replaced, it was modified to be open on the northern side and a second veil was added that was open on the southern side, forming a corridor of one cubit between them. See Figure 1:

The Jewish texts he used regarding two curtains creating a corridor were Yoma 5.1 and Middot 4.7.^[6]

Thus, we have texts from the Gospels, Hebrews, and Josephus of one curtain between the Holy and Most Holy. Then, the last description of it is of two overlapping curtains, which Leen Ritmeyer viewed as evidence that the single curtain was replaced at some point, and replaced in a way that would be reacting to the curtain being torn down the middle. Any evidence of the curtain being torn is very significant—as this is evidence that the miracle happened, and consequently that Jesus’ death was significant. With evidence that his death was significant is also evidence that he was resurrected, as the torn curtain and his resurrection are tied together, so that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter.

Footnotes:
^[1] Strong’s. Translated as “divine habitation” in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT). This word is distinguished from another, more general word for “temple,” ἱερός (hieros), translated as “temple courtyards” in the NET Bible and as “temple” in the KIT. (See for instance hieros in John 8:20.)
^[2] As seen on Sefaria: www.sefaria.org/Ein_Yaakov_(Glick_Edition)%2C_Chullin.7.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
^[3] The veil was one handbreadth thick and was woven on seventy-two rods, and over each rod were twenty-four threads. Its length was forty cubits and its breadth twenty cubits; it was made by eighty-two young girls, and they used to make two in every year; and three hundred priests immersed it. (As quoted in The Quest: Revealing The Temple Mount In Jerusalem by Leen Ritmeyer, page 390.)
^[4] The Quest: Revealing The Temple Mount In Jerusalem, 2006. Pages 390 and 392.
^[5] Page 392.
^[6] These can be read on the Sefaria website:

The High Priest would then walk west through the Sanctuary until he reaches the area between the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and the space between them was one cubit. Rabbi Yosei says: There was only one curtain there, as it is stated: “And the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33). The outer curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hooked [perufa] slightly open on the south side of the Sanctuary, and the inner curtain hooked slightly open on the north side of the Sanctuary, and therefore the High Priest could not enter the Holy of Holies directly. Rather, he enters through the southern opening and walks between the curtains until he reaches the opening to the north. When he reaches the opening to the north, he enters the Holy of Holies through that opening, turns his face to the south, and walks to his left along the curtain until he reaches the area before the Ark. When he reaches the Ark, he places the coal pan between the two staves. (link)

…the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior forty, a cubit for the space between, and twenty cubits for the Holy of Holies… (link)

Additional reading:

• Passing Through the Curtain
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/12/passing-through-curtain.html

Credits:

• Temple entrance curtain from The Virtual New Testament iOS app by BYU Virtual Scriptures.
• First graphic found on streetlife-cebu.medium.com/a-torn-curtain-7af46641c7e

Blog Index

If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:

Science and Pi in the Bible

Today is Pi Day!

Introduction
An axiom I have found to be true is: If your reading of the Bible leads you to contradict math or science, then it is probably your interpretation that is in error, not necessarily the Bible. First check your interpretation against other interpretations of the same passage in question. This is best illustrated in a claim I have seen a rise in lately, that the Bible misstates the value of pi (π) and therefore cannot be the Word of God.

One source presents it succinctly:
Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (π), or about 3.1416.
Fact: The measurements of “the Sea of cast metal” given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that “it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers.^[1]

Another source reported:
At 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 we are told that the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon’s temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that “it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it.” Is this not incorrect, since it is impossible to have a circle with these two values?

Today, in mathematical calculations, it is customary to use pi, which denotes the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. According to general practice, it is a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. However, in ancient times persons did not give decimals down to the last fraction. For that matter, pi itself is not just 3.1416. Persons who insist on scrupulous accuracy and consider the Bible to be in error in giving the measurements of the molten sea would do well to realize that, to be more accurate themselves, it would be appropriate to carry pi to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even a figure in excess of 3.1415926535 could be used.

Bible commentator Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie, who made this interesting observation regarding the measurements of the molten sea: “Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semidiameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. [See figure below.] There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.”

According to 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the molten sea was ten cubits, or fifteen feet, in diameter and it took a line of thirty cubits, or forty-five feet, to encompass it. That is a ratio of one to three, which, for practical purposes, was quite adequate for the sake of a record.^[2]

Lastly, the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties similarly says:

First Kings 7:23 says, “He [Hiram] made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference” (NASB). Some critics have urged this approximate value of three to one as the relationship between the diameter and the circumference of the circle amounts to a geometrical inaccuracy, inconsistent with a truly errorless Scripture. The true value of pi is calculated to be 3.14159 rather than 3.0.

This criticism is, however, devoid of merit. While it is true that the more exact calculation of pi is essential for scientific purposes, or for the manufacture of precision parts in a factory, the use of approximate proportions or totals is a familiar practice in normal speech, even today. If the statistical statements concerning the population of cities or nations were subjected to the same stringent standard as that leveled at 1 Kings 7:23, then we would have to say that all population statistics are in error. A certain number of people are dying each minute, and babies are being born at a standard rate every sixty seconds; therefore any exact sum that might be true at 1:00 P.M. on a given day through computer calculation would be “inaccurate” by 1:01 P.M. that same day. It is perfectly proper to speak of the circumference of any circle as being three times its diameter if we are speaking approximately, just as one may legitimately state that the population of China is from 800 million to one billion. The Hebrew author here is obviously speaking in the approximate way that is normal practice even today.

There is one interesting feature about this that might well be added. If the rod used to mark out a length of five cubits (approximately ninety inches) for the radius were used to measure the inside circumference of the same bowl-shaped vessel here described, then it would take exactly six of those five-cubit measures to complete the circumference. [See figure above.] Let the skeptic try it and see!^[3]

Conclusion
The axiom has proved true that the Bible is not contradicting math, but the interpretation that it was teaching a mathematical inaccuracy is what is in error. All it was referring to at the very least was how the ancients constructed a circular object. Lastly, as they did not need the level of precision we now have for pi, demanding that God reveal that to them is really quite unreasonable and therefore absurd.

Footnotes:
^[1] Does Science Agree With the Bible? Are there scientific errors in the Bible? jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible
^[2] w66 5/15 Questions From Readers p. 319. wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1966367 Figure added by me.
^[3] Gleason Archer. Zondervan, 1982. 198-199.

Social Media Trinitarianism

This post by someone defending their Trinitarian theology resembles more of a frantic drive-by shooting. Examining the scriptures used to support their premise, that Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be God, will demonstrate that.

Three scriptures were presented, all from John:

John 8:58-59, John 10:33, John 19:7

Notice that no translation was cited, so it should not matter which Bible is used.

But there is a glaring problem with this claim, even before looking up the scriptures. If Jesus claimed to be God, and he was killed, then God is dead—never resurrected—and atheism is true. But Trinitarians are not atheists. This highlights that Trinitarians do not say what they mean. When they say that Jesus is God, what they really mean is that he is the second person of the impersonal Godhead. God is not a single person to them, but is a group of three distinct and not separate persons. So what Trinitarians should really say is that “Jesus claimed to be God in the sense of being a person within the triune Godhead.” Settling on the simple slogan “Jesus is God” thus reflects a very careless attitude towards their own theology. If they are not really that interested in being accurate with their own theology, then why insist that others accept it? Why should we accept something they are not really interested in expressing accurately?

Moving on to those three scriptures, they read:

John 8:58-59
Jesus told them, “I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.” Then they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid himself, and left the Temple. (The Original New Testament by Hugh J. Schonfield)

True, most other translations present, as the NET Bible does: “before Abraham came into existence, I am!” The usual claim is that “I am” is a name instigating the attempted stoning in the next verse. However, the NLT Study Bible is a bit more cautious. While it presents “before Abraham was even born, I AM!” in the main text, it presents the following footnote: “(Or before Abraham was even born, I have always been alive; Greek reads before Abraham was, I am.) Jesus’ life spans the past from before creation (1:1-2) and sweeps beyond the present into eternity.” It adds regarding “I AM”: “This title is reminiscent of God’s name given on Mount Sinai (Exod 3:14; cp. John 4:26; Isa 43:11-13; 12).” Thus, here it is presented as only “reminiscent” and not “explicit,” and may not even be translated as “I AM” but as “I have always been alive.” Additionally, previous printings of the NASB offered the alternative translation of “I have been” in the margin.^[1]

Thus, John 8:58-59 does not prove that Jesus claimed to be God.

John 10:33
“We aren’t stoning you for a good work,” the Jews answered, “but for blasphemy, because you—being a man—make yourself God.” (CSB)

Yet, notice two things: (1) this charge was made by Jesus’ enemies and (2) Jesus clarified in verse 36: “Why do you call it blasphemy when I say ‘I am the Son of God’? After all, the Father set me apart and sent me into the world.” (NLT) The NLT Study Bible explains in a footnote: “If the word god could be applied to people other than the Lord, then Jesus was not breaking the law by referring to himself in this way.” So the charge of blasphemy and claiming to be God was actually disputed by Jesus but upheld by his enemies. Christians should not side with Jesus’ enemies.

Thus, John 10:33 does not prove that Jesus claimed to be God.

John 19:7
“We have a law,” the Jews replied to him, “and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (CSB)

This is not a claim to be God. The NLT Study Bible explains in a footnote: “Claiming to be God’s son was not illegal, because Israel’s kings did this (Ps 2:7; 89:22-27). Jesus claimed to have the divine authority of God himself (see 5:18 [“calling God his Father”]), which they saw as blasphemy.” Again, these are Jesus’ enemies making this charge. Christians should not side with Jesus’ enemies.

Thus, not one of these three Johannine scriptures supported the premise that Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be God.

Trinitarians, please be more thoughtful when expressing your theology, refraining from such reckless drive-by shooting apologetics and slinging shallow slogans. It is narrowminded and does not encourage sincere theology.

Footnotes:
^[1] See: Identifying Jesus jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/identifying-jesus.html

Related blog entries:

• (Y!A) Trinitarians, do you see the flawed reasoning of “I AM” in John 8:58?
  jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2015/02/trinitarians-do-you-see-flawed.html
• “The Authentic New Testament”
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-authentic-new-testament.html

Noah the Evangelizer

“I am establishing my covenant with you, and you must go into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.”—Thus instructs God to Noah in Genesis 6:18.

But were any others to join them, to be saved from the impending cataclysmic deluge? There is nothing really suggesting that others were to join them. In fact, at Genesis 7:1 God tells Noah: “Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation.” In other words, God did not add, “and anyone else who listened to your preaching of salvation.” It is not even hinted at. This is also seen in Hebrews 11:7, which states that Noah’s ark was “for the saving of his household,” and that “through this faith he condemned the world.” In fact, while Jesus mentioned Noah and the ark, he stopped short of saying that Noah was an evangelist. He just said Noah’s contemporaries ignored his activities, which at the very least was building the ark and loading it.—Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27.

However, 2 Peter 2:5 calls Noah “a preacher of righteousness.” A reasonable assumption is then made that he was a preacher of salvation, urging others to join him on the ark. Since none did, another reasonable assumption is made that his audience refused his invitation and therefore must have mocked him.

These are reasonable assumptions that make perfect sense. Indeed, the idea that no others were warned is horrifying. The problem is that they are still assumptions that are not directly stated in the Deluge narratives.

But where did Peter get the information that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness”? Before we appeal to divine inspiration, that God directly beamed that information into Peter’s brain, we would be wise to first look at Peter’s textual context. Is there anything in his textual world that said anything about this? It turns out that there was indeed an important text he may have been drawing from—the Sibylline Oracles. These originally were Jewish texts pretending to be oracles uttered by pagan sibyls to a Gentile audience. Interestingly, Book 1:154-164 from this collection states:

Single among all men, most just [upright] and true, 155 Was the most faithful Noah, full of care 156 For noblest works. And to him God himself 157 From heaven thus spoke: “Noah, be of good cheer 158 In thyself and to all the people preach 159 Repentance, so that they may all be saved. 160 But if, with shameless soul, they heed me not 161 The whole race I will utterly destroy 162 With mighty floods of waters.^[1]

So this text is the first occurrence where this association is made, of God commanding Noah to preach salvation to others to join them on the ark, and that this was noble or righteous. Evidently this text was popular among Peter’s contemporaries, for him to be able to casually draw from it. Could it have been a common source that Peter and the Sibylline Oracles were drawing from though? Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that. The Sibylline Oracles is the earliest known occurrence of this addition to Noah.

Did anyone else, like a contemporary of Peter, also apparently draw from this text? Yes, the Jewish historian Josephus—who was also familiar with the Sibylline Oracles.^[2] He wrote in Antiquities of the Jews 1.3.1:

But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married.

Thus, if he did draw from that text that Noah was an evangelist, he added an assumption that their inaction went beyond merely mocking and turned into threats, and thus Noah feared for his life.

So, at the very least, we have some options on the table. We can claim that Peter was divinely inspired to know that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, or we can claim he was drawing from his textual milieu.

Even centuries later, around 500 CE, the Rabbinic work Genesis Rabbah 30:7 said:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “One herald arose for me in the generation of the Flood, Noah.”

Then it is stated that the response from his audience was “contempt” and “they despised him and called him, ‘Contemptible old man!’”

Similarly, around the same time as the Genesis Rabbah was written, the Babylonian Talmud in its tractate Sanhderin 108a stated that:

Noah the righteous would rebuke the people of his generation and say to them: “Repent. And if you do not, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will bring a flood upon you and float your corpses on the water like wineskins filled with air that float on water.”

In conclusion: the notion that Noah was a preacher, an antediluvian evangelist, appears to come from Jewish tradition—and the resulting notion that, since none joined his family, he was mocked, also comes from later Jewish commentary.^[3]


Footnotes:
^[1] This is numbered 125-131 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha edited by James Charlesworth, Vol. 1, p. 338.
^[2] For instance, Josephus quoted the Sibylline Oracles in Antiquities of the Jews when discussing an alleged Tower of Babel legend in Book 1, chapter 4, section 3. See: Corroborating Babel jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/02/corroborating-babel-whole-earth-had.html
^[3] These references are cited in the Intertextual Bible website: intertextual.bible/book/2-peter/chapter/2

Awakening Leviathan

Job 3:8 is an intriguing scripture. The NLT Study Bible has:

Let those who are experts at cursing—whose cursing could rouse Leviathan—curse that day.

Its footnote reads: “The expression experts at cursing refers to professional cursers such as Baalam (Num 22-24).”

The New Oxford Annotated Bible explains that “Leviathan, both in the Bible … and in other ancient Near Eastern literature, is a sea monster representing cosmic chaos. The threat to the cosmos is evidence, too, in the darkening of the skies (vv. 4-6,9).”

Additionally, others take this verse to another level, as seen in Job: A New Translation by Edward L. Greenstein:

May they condemn it—the cursers of Yamm [the Ugaritic sea-monster god], Those armed with a curse for Leviathan!

He presents the following explanation in his footnote:

Although the Hebrew word is vocalized yom, the word for “day,” the juxtaposition with Leviathan makes the primary reference clear. Yom is the Phoenician pronunciation of Yamm.

Robert Alter explains in his translation that:

As will happen again and again in the poem, the poet switches into a mythological register. Leviathan is the fearsome primordial sea-monster subdued by the god of order in Canaanite mythology. For this reason, some scholars prefer to read “Yamm-cursers” for “day-cursers,” assuming the Hebrew yam instead of yom. In either case, the cursers are mythological or magical agents.

The Harper Collins Study Bible explains this connection further:

The Hebrew words for day … and sea are similar, differing only in a vowel. Both Sea and Leviathan were thought to represent chaos in ancient myth (cf. Yamm and Lotan in Ugaritic myths). Professional diviners practiced magical cursing (cf. Balaam in Num 22-24).

Regarding the cursers, and the act of cursing and awakening, The Jewish Study Bible explains, “perhaps sorcerers who curse the cosmos. Leviathan is a mythical sea-monster who played a role in the mythology of Ugarit (in modern Syria).” Finally, the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible adds:

When it was aroused as part of a curse, it implied that chaos would prevail. … In the ancient Near East, those who curse days and rouse chaos creatures are typically demons, but Job’s reference here is oblique rather than specific.

This all helps us to see the graphic, heart-pounding language Job used in his expression of personal suffering. In his abysmal anguish he desired to have the day of his birth cursed in the most vitriolic way imaginable.

However, in response to this, the NLT Study Bible presents the following admonition to the reader:

Job complained mightily and earned God’s rebuke for it, yet God ultimately confirmed his righteousness. Job’s fundamental complaint was that God did not allow him a fair hearing to demonstrate his innocence before God and man. Job’s friends attacked Job for trying to vindicate himself, but God upheld Job’s innocence. God rebuked Job for his overreaching self-defense with its implied criticism of God’s fairness. In a gracious but firm act of self-revelation, God rebuked Job and shifted his focus away from his troubles and toward God (chs 38-41).

In general, the Bible depicts complaining as wrong. For example, God judged the Israelites for grumbling about their hardships in the wilderness (Num 14:27-37). Nonetheless, God affirmed Job and rejected those who tried to stop him from complaining (42:7-8).

Scripture admonishes us to rejoice and give thanks in all situations (Eph 5:20; Phil 4:4; 1 Thes 5:16-18). If we want to complain in prayer, we should follow the pattern of the psalms, which lead us past ourselves and back to God. Scripture calls us to endure through suffering and to persist in prayer (Jas 5:10, 13). Job’s positive example (Jas 5:11) is not so much in how he responded to his troubles or to his comforters but in how he responded to God (40:4-5; 42:1-6).

To connect this back to Job 3:8, instead of awakening more chaos into our lives, we are better off awakening productive and upbuilding thinking. That’s worth praying for.

Appendix

1. Another reference: Job 7:12

Another reference: Job 7:12

This verse reads in the New World Translation:

Am I the sea or a sea monster, That you should set a guard over me?

The Jewish Study Bible gives this explanation in its footnote:

As in 3.8, the author is building upon Canaanite mythology, best known from the myths discovered at Ugarit, where the sea (actually the deity Yam) and Dragon rebelled against the high god Baal. Job is asking God rhetorically if he is to be presumed extremely guilty like the sea or Dragon, for only that could explain his severe punishment.

Job: A New Translation by Edward L. Greenstein gives this interesting translation and explanation:

Am I Yamm?^[1]
Or am I Tannin?^[2]
Then why do you place me under guard?<sup>[3]

[1]</sup> The symbol of the watery chaos is the arch enemy of God.
^[2] A primeval sea serpent, a form of Yamm.
^[3] Not “that” but interrogative; see Jeremiah 8:22 (where maddua “why?” glosses the more archaic use of ki, cognate to 'eka in Ugaritic).

Lastly, Robert Alter gives this translation and explanation:

Am I Yamm or the Sea Beast,
that You should put a watch upon me?

Am I Yamm or the Sea Beast. Yamm is the sea god of Canaanite mythology. Figured as a sea monster, he is also called Tanin (as in the second name here), Rahab, and Leviathan.

In some versions, the monster has several heads. Yamm is subdued by Baal, the weather god, and imprisoned so that he cannot rise up to overwhelm the land. Thus Job, acutely aware of the brevity of his life as mortal man, rhetorically asks the deity whether he is to be thought of as an undying monstrous god to be kept imprisoned under eternal guard.

Variations of this potent myth will continue to crop up in the poem.

Thus Job is portrayed as pouring his heart out to God in brutal honesty. We are invited to do the same. How endearing that realization is!

Was Tammuz Nimrod?

The 2018 book Pure Worship of Jehovah​—Restored At Last! (published by Jehovah’s Witnesses) finally put to rest the idea that Tammuz is a deified Nimrod. But in doing so, it also put to rest another claim. What was that?

To find out, and to get up to speed on the latest research, see the latest video from Inspiring Motivation:

• Tammuz & the Mystery of the Missing Cross

If you like our history and the Bible, this is super-interesting. To see what else was rejected, as well as definitive proof that Tammuz is not Nimrod, you’ll definitely want to watch this.

Nehemia Gordon and the Tetragrammaton

For those who don’t know, Nehemia Gordon argues that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced as Yehovah. The reasons why this does not work, why he is incorrect, has been explained here^[1] before.

However, he made a conspicuous case for his belief on Facebook in 2012 that will be analyzed here. It actually serves as a good case in point how he makes his fundamental mistake thinking that the Tetragrammaton was pointed as Yehovah. Additionally, there are a number of my fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses who have fallen prey to his argumentation, some even well-versed in Hebrew. I believe they are making the same basic mistake as he is making. The mistake is rather simple, but it also takes humility to recognize it. Unfortunately, the more knowledge of Hebrew one has, the more humility is needed to see this mistake.

So, here is the presentation Nehemia Gordon made that he thinks is unimpeachable:

The Tetragrammaton in Ezekiel 28:22 in the Aleppo Codex. In this instance the name is juxtaposed to "Adonai" and traditionally read as "Elohim" to avoid reading "Adonai" twice in a row. Rather than inserting the vowels of Elohim, the scribe inserted the true vowels "Yehovah"!

While the example he showed from Ezekiel 28:22 is quite interesting, what it amounts to is an example of inconsistency. That is all. The reason for this is that copyist here inconsistently added the vowels of Anonai instead of Elohim. That is, the copyist was presented with Adonai YHWH, translated as “Sovereign Lord Jehovah” in the New World Transation. Instead of adding the vowels of Adonai again, he was supposed to add the vowels of Elohim. But he didn’t, and used the standard conversion of the vowels of Adonai on the Tetragrammaton. We know it’s the standard conversion of the vowels of Adonai because the compound shewa was converted to the simple shewa on the yodh. The copyist also inconsistently neglected to add the cholem (dot above the D) for Adonai. So, there are actually two cases of copyist inconsistencies together, and Nehemia only alerted his audience to one of them.

Presented below are screenshots of the Aleppo Codex^[2]:

Ezekiel 28:22 is in the lower right corner with Adonai YHWH in a green box that Nehemia misused to support his beliefs. The Tetragrammaton appears again in verse 22 on the top of the next column, and is in a red box, as is the Tetragrammaton of verse 23. Both have the vowels of Adonai, with the one in verse 22 sporting the cholem while the other does not. This is another case of inconsistency. “Adonai YHWH” appears in verses 24 and 25, and they are in blue boxes, and the Tetragrammaton is pointed with Elohim and the cholem is consistently present. Verse 26 in the top image, the last verse in chapter 28, has the Tetragrammaton with the vowels of Adonai but without the cholem.

So, all Mr. Gordan did was point out one inconsistency while ignoring the other, and ignoring how the Tetragrammaton was treated in the rest of the chapter. Hopefully it is clear now why this type of reasoning, as seen in his Facebook post, is wholly unconvincing and aggravatingly simplistic.

Footnotes:
^[1] See: The reason for the name and On Pronouncing YHWH
^[2] barhama.com (manually select panel 19-177-v).