This presentation will address the comments in one book arguing for Christological Physicalism—that Jesus was resurrected in his sacrificed body and has it now—against the spirit-resurrection Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[1]
Their argument begins with:
When the Apostle Paul spoke of the gospel he preached to the Corinthians, he said he delivered to them “as of first importance” the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). (italics original)
All can agree here. The resurrection of Jesus is in the category “of first importance.”
As Paul addressed the men of Athens, they scoffed when he declared the resurrection of the body of Christ because they viewed the flesh as an evil thing (Acts 17:31, 32).
Here we encounter a problem. First, the vague “men of Athens” are specifically identified in Acts 17:18 as the Epicureans and Stoics. This is an important point apparently glossed over. Second, Paul in Acts 17:31 said that God “has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.” First, Paul can call Jesus a “man” because he existed as a man in the past. As one scholar noted: “In accordance with Lucan Christology, the heavenly Christ can be characterized as a male human being (ἀνήρ [
aner]) (see 2:22).” For Acts 2:22, the same scholar noted that “‘Jesus the Nazorean’ is a male human being (ἀνήρ), a status that still applies to Jesus as eschatological judge (Acts 17:31).”
[2] It applies because Jesus existed as a man in the past. (Interestingly, in Genesis 18:2 LXX the “three men” from heaven are also called ἀνήρ.) Thus, Paul never actually specified that Jesus was raised as a man. This subtlety escaped the notice of his Epicurean and Stoic audience, ensuring their objection. But is it true they objected because “they viewed the flesh as an evil thing”?
Constable’s Notes merely states that “Most Greeks rejected the possibility of physical resurrection.” According to one scholar writing specifically about this, the Epicureans believed that “soul and body are so interdependent that they are dissolved together at the point of death. Death is complete extinction.”
[3] There is also no mention of belief among either Epicureans or Stoics that the flesh is evil or constraining. This is attributed to a previous period:
The idea of the immortality of the soul apparently stems from the archaic age movement, Orphism. It is credited with the saying, “The body is the tomb of the soul.” The divine soul was freed from the fetter of the body at death.[4]
Thus, TWF is incorrect on the audience, what Paul said, and on the basis for rejecting his message. TWF left these problems behind and then pursued church father Ignatius:
When Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was being transported to Rome for his execution (A.D. 110-115), he wrote these words regarding our Lord’s resurrection: “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh and I believe He is so now. ... And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power” (see p. 104).
As identified on p. 104, this is a quote from “
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969, p. 87,” from chapter 3 of the Letter to the Smyrnaeans, which is reproduced on page 104. (See Figure 1.) This page shows short and long paragraphs side-by-side. The quoted part here starts with the shorter part and after the ellipses (“…”) continues with the longer part.
 |
| Figure 1 |
The difference between them is explained in the Introductory Note of
The Ante-Nicene Fathers:
Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. (Pages 46-47)
Thus, the authors of TWF failed to distinguish between authentic and spurious, and thus also failed to investigate why there were two parallel texts, one longer than the other. By failing to investigate this glaring curiosity, they did not know what they were talking about. They presented a defective argument. But it gets even worse. The year after TWF was published, the
Hermeneia Commentary on Ignatius was published, which excluded the spurious long recension from its text of his Letters. It also presented a more concise translation of 3:1: Instead of “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now,” it has: “For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection.”
[5] Here, he had in mind resurrection narratives such as the closed-room appearances in Luke 24:36 and John 20:19.
Hermeneia explains: “Ignatius emphasizes the reality of the passion by declaring his certainty that Christ was in the flesh even after the resurrection,”
[6] and that “Ignatius’ statement that he believes Christ to be in the flesh ‘even’ after the resurrection (3.1) suggests that his opponents could have found support for their docetism especially in the mysterious coming and going of the resurrected Christ.”
[7] Thus, Ignatius was primarily targeting heretical Docetism which denied that Jesus was ever in the flesh, only appearing to be like in the flesh, explaining why he emphasized Jesus appearing in the flesh post-resurrection.
TWF also highlighted 2:1, “And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself.”
Hermeneia has: “and he truly suffered just as he also truly raised himself.” It explains:
Only here does Ignatius speak of Christ raising himself. For this there are Johannine parallels (John 2:19; 10:18). Elsewhere Ignatius reflects the more common view of the NT that God raised Jesus from the dead.
It adds that this “more common view” is also “the more conventional formulation.”
[8] This was also written in the context of opposing Docetism with stress placed on Jesus truly suffering. It is not support for the authors of TWF.
Thus, TWF mismanaged their citations of Ignatius and acted in inexcusable ignorance. Its quotation of cobbling two different unidentified recensions together can even be seen as dishonest.
Moving on to its last point in this section, TWF stated:
The conclusion of “The Old Roman Creed,” referred to today as the “Apostles’ Creed,” affirms the “resurrection of the flesh” (sarkos anastasin) and the “life everlasting.”
This creed was originally in Latin and later translated into Greek. (Their transliteration “sarkos anastasin” is from the Greek σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν.) The Latin conclusion is: “carnis resurrectionem (the resurrection of the body), vitam aeternam (and the life everlasting).” But it is not referring to the resurrection of Jesus’ body, but to a general doctrine. But even if it was referring to the body or even flesh, in the end it would not make any difference since the continuity of the person is more important than the vehicle, or even the original vehicle. If a dead person is alive, they will view their life as more important than what they died in. This is true even in a different spirit body. So that is all that means, the resurrection of the person. Jesus expressed this point in John 10:17, “I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again.” (NET Bible) This was very intelligent, for resurrecting bodies and flesh quickly becomes impossible as they decay and become irretrievable. (This is especially true considering neurological autolysis.) A resurrected body then very quickly becomes a healed body or a completely new body.
Thus, there were two problems with this point: it was in Latin, not Greek, and it was specifically applicable to the person—not necessarily the original body or flesh.
TWF then explains the Watchtower’s resurrection Christology of Jesus sacrificing his human ontology and being resurrected as a spirit ontology, and asks: “Yet, what is a resurrection if that which dies is not also that which is raised up?” To answer, what TWF is missing is that Jesus’ death was unique in that it was a soteriological sacrifice. As John 10:17 says, what Jesus was to recieve was his life, and John 6:51 says that we are saved by partaking in his sacrificed flesh—thus he cannot take back what we partake in for salvation. The authors of TWF, and everyone who agrees with them, are essentially refusing to partake in Jesus’ sacrificed flesh for salvation since they insist that Jesus took it back.
Then TWF says:
What, then, does the Watchtower say concerning the nature of Christ’s resurrection if they deny the resurrection of the flesh? They teach that Jesus was “raised” not in a glorified human body but as an invisible, immaterial spirit person.[9]
This is the first mention of “a glorified human body”! What exactly is that? The authors of TWF are not prepared to discuss that and hope that the reader does not inquire about it. Unfortunately for them, their “glorified human body” comment is abusive to faith and exposes that they have been brainwashed. And of course, it also violates the laws of physics. It is entirely self-refuting.
TWF concludes this section with this comment:
How sad is the diligent proselytizing of the Jehovah’s Witness and his earnest zeal for God when he denies the reality of Christ’s resurrection!
If Christ has not risen, then our preaching is in vain (amounts to nothing) and your faith is devoid of truth and is fruitless—without effect, empty, imaginary and unfounded. (1 Cor. 15:14, Amp.) (italics original)
Ironically, what is really sad is that TWF misunderstands the nature of Christ’s death. It was not an ordinary one. For these authors to pick-on the spiritual resurrection that harmonizes with a host of scriptures reveals a very arrogant and unreasonable mindset to say the least.—2 Corinthians 5:16; John 6:51, 10:17; Hebrews 5:7, 9:23-26, 10:10, 19, 20, 12:24; Galatians 1:1, 11, 12.
This state of affairs though continues in the next section “Jesus—Spirit or Man?,”
[10] where it is argued that Jesus was not resurrected because he was not a spirit on earth. Again, TWF fails to account for all the available data, specifically ignoring John 6:51, 10:17. TWF also fails to account for personal continuity transcending the vehicle of existence. (I know it takes at least a double-digit IQ to understand that.) But it gets even worse, for TWF then said that in Luke 24 Jesus’ disciples “were frightened and thought that He was a materialized spirit.” In this claim it is easy to charge the authors of TWF of willfully lying. They have knowingly inserted this idea of the disciples thinking that into the narrative, ignoring that the disciples (as seen in Luke 24:4) were “perplexed” and not initially understanding what was happening. That’s why Jesus then had to explain to them that he suddenly appeared in the closed-room as physical, likely then calling to mind the account in Genesis 18:1-8. So, the authors of TWF reversed the narrative in order to deceptively make their case appear to be stronger than it is. This is pure manipulation and is spiritually abusive, traits of a brainwashing mind-control cult.
TWF then closes this section by laughably citing 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus who existed as a man—which TWF misread as Jesus existing now as a man (even italicizing “man”!), ignoring 2 Corinthians 5:16; John 6:51, 10:17; Hebrews 5:7, 9:23-26, 10:10, 19, 20, 12:24; Galatians 1:1, 11, 12, etc.
Next, TWF presented Jesus’ temple-body narrative in John 2:18-22 under the subheading “Who Rose from the Dead?”
[11] This exposes some serious misunderstanding in TWF. By calling himself a temple, he was primarily referring to himself as a person, and this entire discourse was an exercise in metaphor. John’s explanation in verse 21 that the temple was his body underscores this metaphorical connection without contradicting his metaphor in John 6:51 or his statement of receiving his life again in John 10:17.
TWF closes this section by saying: “The faith of every Christian is based on a firm foundation—the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Yes, and it is therefore important to not pervert this faith by adding monstrosities to it. TWF continues: “Do you believe that
right now there is in heaven a mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who was raised from the dead?” (italics original) Yes, all Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus who experienced humanity is the mediator in heaven—as we all pray in his name. TWF continues: “If you do, then your belief is contrary to the teachings of the Watchtower Society which claims He was raised a spirit creature and not a man!” No, it’s only contrary to the perversions of faith that demands that Jesus was raised with all his human body parts for an environment where they cannot exist in, thereby unwittingly defining Jesus out of existence. What pure blasphemy. TWF then closes this horrible argument with a rallying cry:
Now is the time to decide whether you believe the Watchtower or the Bible, for God’s Word says in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’” Do you want Him to be your mediator?
Again, TWF amusingly misreads the “man” here as a physical man outside of earth’s life-sustaining atmosphere and offers no explanation whatsoever for how this can happen in their glaringly unscientific and unscriptural “glorification” event. This is of course abusive to faith and amounts to nothing more than an invitation to join their brainwashed mind-control cult. How ironic.
Next, TWF presents the subheading “Was Thomas Deceived?”. This commences with:
Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless” (1 Cor. 15:17). But the Watchtower Society teaches Jehovah’s Witnesses that the man Jesus never rose from the dead.
At this point it is easy to see that TWF is being aggressively uncharitable and is bearing false witness against Jehovah’s Witnesses. These types of statements do not help their cause, as all they do is poison the well. The man Jesus was raised just as Jesus said in John 10:17. He experienced life as a physical man and was resurrected back to life—in this case life in heaven as we can all agree on. Why is this such a problem? Why can’t Christological Physicalists be more reasonable and Christlike on this point? It’s because they are being arrogant and unyielding, and this is certainly not aiding their cause.
This section includes an imaginary conversation between “Chris” and Jehovah’s Witness “Jay.” It starts with:
[12]
Chris: I know you find it hard to believe that Jesus was really raised from the dead, Jay, but that is what the Bible teaches. (italics original)
Jay: But I do believe Jesus was raised, Chris. It’s just that I don’t think His body was raised.
So here the authors of TWF reveal that they did know what Jehovah’s Witnesses think about this, they just chose to sneak it in this imaginary dialog.
This imaginary dialog becomes derailed from reality though when Chris starts to argue that a materialized Jesus deceived Thomas with his invitation to examine the wounds in his flesh, and emphasized how Jesus specifically said “my hands” and “my side.”—John 20:27.
However, it may be legitimately asked if it is really necessary for them to be the same wounds? The authors of TWF would do well to ask 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: the forehead wounds were unavailable and apparently the foot wounds were too as they were left unmentioned. (Unlike in Luke 24:39.) 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? He is also not described as being recognized with his face but with two categories of wounds.
Thus, this 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.
This dialog and section concluded with this: “Jesus did not deceive Thomas and He will not deceive you. We believe Jesus; how about you?” Yes, we agree that Jesus did not deceive Thomas and that He will not deceive you, and we believe Jesus—unlike the authors of TWF that fail to account for Jesus’ statements in John 6:51 and 10:17. They can only offer an incomplete analysis of all the available data—and thus fail at agreeing with Jesus and fail at being persuasive.
Thomas rejoicing over meeting the resurrected Jesus in accordance with his request and being convinced.
Lastly, TWF closes this chapter with the subheading “What Happened to the Body?”.
[13] Under that are four paragraphs which I will quote in full and insert my comments between brackets:
As a Christian, one’s hope resides in the fact that Jesus has been raised from the dead. If Christ has not been raised, our faith is worthless. [Yes, everyone can agree here.] Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world claim to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. However, is this a valid claim, when they believe that Jesus’ body was never raised? (italics original) [Here they treat Jesus’ sacrifice like just another death. They fail to include other scriptures into their dataset, like 2 Corinthians 5:16; John 6:51, 10:17; Hebrews 5:7, 9:23-26, 10:10, 19, 20, 12:24; Galatians 1:1, 11, 12. They would also benefit from meditating on the definition of sacrifice.] As a Jehovah’s Witness, one is taught that Jesus was raised as an invisible spirit. But if Jesus became a spirit, one wonders what happened to the body that died at Calvary. [One need not wonder too much after considering John 15:13 and Hebrews 12:24. Jesus ‘died willingly’ (NET Bible footnote) for his friends and his sacrificed blood ‘speaks louder than Abel’s blood.’ The NET Bible footnote explains that “Abel’s shed blood cried out to the Lord for justice and judgment, but Jesus’ blood speaks of redemption and forgiveness, something better than Abel’s does.” (italics original) For Jesus’ liquid flesh (his blood) to metaphorically cry out louder than Abel’s blood he is precluded from taking it back. It was a sacrifice. The Gospels simply say his body was removed (Matthew 28:6, Mark 16:6, Luke 24:6, and John 20:5-7) and Hebrews says it was sacrificed, not to be taken back. That is all we are told. But there are examples of people vanishing in the Bible that can provide some context. (Judges 6:21; Acts 12:10) Even the resurrected Jesus vanished as seen in Luke 24:31. This is not a deep or perplexing concept.]
The Watchtower claims the body was disposed of (see p. 117).[14] For most, this would seem too wild an assumption. [Why would it be wild in light of Matthew 28:6, Mark 16:6, Luke 24:6, and John 20:5-7 that state his tomb was empty, as well as 2 Corinthians 5:16; John 6:51, 10:17; Hebrews 5:7, 9:23-26, 10:10, 19, 20, 12:24; Galatians 1:1, 11, 12? Judges 6:21, Acts 12:10 and Luke 24:31? Such ones should study the Bible with more sincerity.] But the Watchtower stands firm in its own guesswork [Not guesswork, but from a closer analysis of the scriptures that the authors of TWF would benefit from. Calling it guesswork is a childish insult not befitting adult Christians.]—even though a disposal of Christ’s body is not taught anywhere in the Bible! [An examination of more of the scriptural data shows otherwise. This was a very flimsy claim to make.] The truth is, the Watchtower’s teaching is hostile to the King, Christ Jesus, who did not believe His body would be disposed of, but instead prophesied it would be raised from the dead! [On the contrary, Jesus said he would live again (John 10:17), and did not say his sacrificed human body would be raised. Thus, there has been a reversal of fortune where all Christological Physicalists and TWF have shown themselves to be hostile to the King, Christ Jesus, even expressing hatred for him as he is presented in the resurrection narratives and rejecting his means of salvation in John 6:51.]
In John 2, Jesus is confronted by the Jewish leaders who were seeking a sign, to whom Jesus replies (v. 19), “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up’’ (KJV). Then just two verses later, the beloved Apostle John tells us the temple to which Jesus was referring “was the temple of his body”! Here we have Jesus’ promised sign, confirmed and clarified by John, and recorded forever in God’s perfect word—Jesus’ body was without a doubt to be raised from the dead! (John 2:21). [And they missed the metaphor of Jesus’ teaching and are then arrogantly being judgmental towards their fellowman who has better reading comprehension than they do.]
Our hope and the purpose of this message is that you will see through the Watchtower’s fantasy, [And it is my sincere hope that you can see through the fantasy of Christological Physicalism and TWF.] that you will trust and obey Jesus, and receive Him as your personal Lord and Savior. [This is pure irony as Christological Physicalism and TWF reject Jesus’ means of salvation as exposed in John 6:51.] Through your decision to receive Christ, you can be assured of God’s favor and His promise of life. The Bible is your written guarantee. It tells us, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life.” But it also guarantees that “he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). [“Don’t point your finger at someone else and try to pass the blame! My complaint, you priests, is with you.”—Hosea 4:4 NLT.] (end quote)
In conclusion, we have seen that the authors of TWF engaged in a series of stumbles without letup. Their Physical Christology was even revealed to be deceptive, ignorant, manipulative, and blasphemous—traits of a brainwashed mind-control cult.
Footnotes:
[1] Duane Magnani & Arthur Barrett.
The Watchtower Files, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1985. (Hereafter abbreviated as TWF.) Specifically, regarding Chapter Nine: The Resurrection Of Christ—Analysis, p. 102.
[2] Richard I. Pervo.
The Hermeneia Commentary on Acts, 2009, p. 438, 80-81.
[3] N. Clayton Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32),”
Novum Testamentum 39:1 (1997): 31.
[4] ibid. 29.
[5] William R. Schoedel.
The Hermeneia Commentary on Ignatius of Antioch, 1986.
[6 ibid. 226
[7] ibid. 225-6, Note 4
[8] ibid. 225, Note 1
[9] Page 103
[10] Page 109
[11] Page 112
[12] Page 113
[13] Page 116
[14] Page 117 presented a copy of “
Things in Which It Is Impossible for God to Lie, 1965, p. 354,” drawing attention to this paragraph with a sentence underlined:
Correctly, then, the apostle Peter applied to Jesus Christ the words of Psalm 16:10: “You will not leave my soul [not, my human body] in Ha’des.” (Acts 2:27-31) The human body of flesh, which Jesus Christ laid down forever as a ransom sacrifice, was disposed of by God’s power, but not by fire on the altar of the temple in Jerusalem. The flesh of a sacrifice is always disposed of and put out of existence, so not corrupting. But the value of the fleshly sacrifice remains and counts in behalf of the one offering the sacrifice.
Here, there is a good point that the authors of TWF should have spent more time contemplating: “The flesh of a sacrifice is always disposed of and put out of existence.” They should have also meditated on salient features of the Atonement Day drama, as in no sacrificed animals enter the Most Holy, only their blood, and that the curtain represented Christ’s flesh that he left behind as our high priest.—Hebrews 10:20.
Additional reading:
If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:
Labels: Jesus' resurrection
