THE

BATILE
F"O"R T"H"E

RESURRECTION
Updated Edition
P·O·R T·H·E

RESURRECTION
Updated Edition
NORMAN LGEISLER

THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS

Nashville
 Other Books by Norman L. Geisler
Contents
From God to Us
A General Introduction to the Bible
A Popular Survey of the Old Testament
Inerrancy
Christian Apologetics
The Roots of Evil Acknowledgments ix
Miracles and Modern Thought Foreword by Dr. Robert D. Culver................. x
False Gods of Our Time Introduction xix
Christianity Under Attack 1 The Battle for the Resurrection 21
Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective 2 It Makes a Difference 30
Is Man the Measure? 3 The Bible on the Resurrection 40
The Reincarnation Sensation 4 "I Believe in the . . . Resurrection of the Flesh" 51
Philosophy of Religion 5 Denials of the Physical Resurrection . .. 66
What Augustine Says 6 Denials of the Physical Resurrection
Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics within the Church 87
Cosmos: Carl Sagan's Religion for the Scientific Mind 7 Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial
Religion of the Force Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
The Creator in the Courtroom 8 Evidence for the Physical Resurrection 129
Origin Science 9 Lessons to Be Learned 142
Signs and Wonders 10 Drawing the Line 159
To Drink or Not to Drink: A Sober Look At the Question 11 A Response to Murray Harris 174
Knowing the Truth about Creation
Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views Appendices
Apologetics for the New Age A Does the Resurrection Body Have the Same Particles? 203
Christian Ethics: Options and Issues B Resurrection Appearances Were
The Infiltration of the New Age Not Theophanies 205
Come, Let Us Reason Together C Christ's Deity and Humanity Before and
When Skeptics Ask After the Resurrection 207
D The Jewish View of Resurrection 208
 Achnouiedgments

E When Do Believers Receive Their

Resurrection Bodies? .
I am grateful to Dr. Robert Culver, Dr. William
Craig, Jeffrey Donley, William Watkins, Samuel Kostreva
211
F Did Jesus' Resurrected Body Dematerialize? . 215 III, Douglas Van Gordon, and Thomas Howe for reading this
G A Survey on the Resurrection . 219 manuscript and making many helpful suggestions for im-
Notes . 221 provement. Whatever imperfections remain, this book is cer-
Glossary of Important Terms . 234 tainly much better as a result of their suggestions.
Select Bibliography . 235
Scripture Index . 236
Topical Index . 245
About the Author ............................... 256

Foreword
Dr. Geisler's timely book is accurately entitled
The Battlefor theResurrection, but it also points to deeper doc-
trinal problems which have begun to surface in present-day
evangelicalism.
Jesus is specifically the only Savior. He is our present Great
High Priest, the only Mediator between God and man, Him-
self man, Christ Jesus (l Tim. 2:5). The Bible teaches and the
church creeds affirm that Jesus is forever more bone of our
bone, partaker of our flesh and blood. He arose glorified from
the dead in the body laid in the grave, the material, physical
vessel of His humanity to which the second person of the
Godhead is united for eternity. He continues to be a local
physical being as to His manhood, ascended to heaven where
He lives forever with the Father and the Holy Ghost and
reigns until His enemies are made the footstool of His feet.
Then He will come again, the very same Jesus, in the very
same body.
Jesus did not, therefore, show up in Oklahoma recently,
900 feet tall, for the man of Nazareth, body and spirit, pres-
ently dwells in heaven. Most Christians believe that His seat
at our communion tables is vacant, though they believe He is
spiritually present in (1) Christians at the Lord's Table, (2) the
elements of the Table, and (3) the pastor's sermon (as the
Word of God).
Foreword
-----------------------xi
One of the earliest creeds summarizes the relevant scrip-
ture teaching this way: He "suffered in the flesh [en sarki];
and rose again; and went up into heaven in the same body [en
auto somati] ... is coming in the same body [en auto somati] in
glory" (Second Creed ofEpiphanius, A.D. 374). It is easy to see
that for this church father, body and flesh refer to the same.
Among the very first errors of doctrine in the Christian
church were denials ofthe Lord's humanity.' That, of course,
is why this is one of the few specific heresies treated in the
New Testament. Before John was dead, he wrote these stri-
dent sentences: "try the spirits . . . . Hereby know ye the
Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God ....
They are of the world ... (1 John 4:1-3,5 KJV). "For many
deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that
Jesus Christ is come [i.e., has come and still is] in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7 KJV).2
Any theory therefore which claims that the glorified body
of our Lord is not flesh, but is instead essentially immaterial
and angel-like, is neither orthodox nor scriptural. And the
judgment of scripture on those who proclaim such a view is
very severe-they are "false prophets ... not of God ... of
the world ... deceivers ... antichrist." Nothing in this book
will be nearly as severe a judgment as these scriptural pro-
nouncements.
Influential liberal scholars for seventy-five years or more
have been saying that, while the body of Christ arose, it was
as a "spiritual body"-immaterial, not flesh-thereby, mis-
interpreting Paul's expression. Several professors of New
Testament, fresh from their university courses at secular uni-
versities, have been passing off this palpable nonsense to stu-
dents at our colleges as learned, up-to-date, fresh, biblical
scholarship-even though it is as old as the heretics whose
errors made the earliest Christian creeds necessary. I person-
ally have discovered this perspective taught in two evangelical
schools. The theological illiteracy of some, the timidity of
others, and the apathy of still others rendered my correction
 The Battle for the Resurrection
xii----------------------
of a truly perilous situation nearly impossible at those times.
Dr. Geisler has some enlightening tales of his own to tell
about his experiences in the battle for the resurrection.
Now even some evangelical professors have refmed the no-
tion and subtly passed it off to the doctrinally illiterate as
evangelical scholarship. This disguised liberalism may please
some of the devotees of what goes today for biblical theology
but it won't please anyone concerned about "the whole coun-
sel of God."
Warren Wiersbe writes that serious reading is not a very
popular way of spending spare time nowadays. How true!
Perhaps that explains why responsible people at our Bible col-
leges and seminaries grant tenure to faculty members whose
books plainly teach that the resurrection body of Jesus was
essentially immaterial, non-fleshly and invisible; that he now
is without human flesh in heaven and shall never again be
seen in the flesh, and that, according to at least one evangeli-
cal professor, we receive our resurrection bodies at death
(while our physical bodies are still in their graves!). (This is
the view given great currency thirty-five years ago by Emil
Brunner's book, Eternal Hope.) I think there is no other way
to explain how superiors in administration, orthodox col-
leagues, and others act consistently to approve men holding
these doctrinal aberrations from initial recommendation
through committee, full faculty executive session, and even
through denominational protocol. I certainly hope I am cor-
rect that not one of these many good people involved really
knew exactly what these professors taught nor, if they did,
understood the significance of it.
How can this be?
I think I know; at least I have a theory with respect to the
denomination wherein I presently serve. In the first place, the
Evangelical Free Church has never had a well-placed theo-
logical teacher to impart unity and coherence to its belief
system-at least not for the last several decades. There has
been great tolerance for variety-and not a little pride in it in
a few quarters. "Believers only but all believers" remains a
Foreword
----------------------xm
current ecclesiastical slogan, even though it suggests a doc-
trinal inclusiveness the early denomination's leaders did not
really mean by it when it was first employed. This accords
well with the pietistical spirit and independent, congrega-
tional polity of our group, within which I serve as a congrega-
tional pastor.
In the second place, though our seminary at first had a
more or less firm commitment to the conservative theology of
such respected schools as Moody Bible Institute, in recent
decades the seminary has drawn in a mixed variety of theolo-
gies in an explosively expanded faculty and student body.
There were then and still are few firm doctrinal commit-
ments, except for an emphasis on plenary-verbal inspiration
of the Bible-infallibility and inerrancy-and the seminary
has always had a brief and not very extensive orthodox state-
ment offaith which was adopted by the denomination when it
achieved its present form and founded the school then known
as Trinity Seminary and now known as Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School. Yet theological pluralism, thought to be a
strength, has great perils if uncontrolled by well-understood
limits.
Doctrinal breadth and depth was lost in the late 1960s.
Ordination councils, district ministerial boards, and congre-
gations know what the young candidates believe only when
they stand for examination-and then only if the questioners
are sufficiently concerned and well informed to ask the right
questions.
Pietistic and baptistic orthodox Christians tend to suppose
their history of commitment to pure biblical faith is sufficient
to protect themselves against theological error-or let us call it
a doctrinal drift toward error. But history refutes them. I am
not the first to question whether the particular pietistic de-
nomination wherein I serve has firm enough roots in a sound
system of theology to resist subtle inroads of misbelief and
unbelief. In October 1960, Bibliotheca Sacra, the journal of
Dallas Theological Seminary, published a review by G. ~
Dollar of the book Diamond Jubilee Story of the Evangelical
 The Battle for the Resurrection
xiv-----------------------
Free Church of America, written by H. W. Norton, alai
Urang, R. A. Thompson, and Mel Larson. After kind, appre-
ciative remarks, Mr. Dollar wrote:
This reviewer noticed only one defect. Little reference was
made to the danger of inroads of liberalismand neoorthodoxy
to this church and whether there is proper defence against such
dangerous enemies when they appear [emphasis added]. The Re-
formed tradition has been an obstacle to liberal views-but
many institutions with informed circles have become soft
toward liberalizing views and are now in the middle of the
road. Will it happen to the Evangelical Free Church?'
There is a third factor: Some of the seminary's faculty (as
alas is common in many other theological schools today) have
graduate university training (secular, religious, or antireligi-
ous) for their doctorates but little or no study at a sound theo-
logical school with a standard curriculum of preparation for
the pastoral ministry. So they may be quite thoroughly unin-
formed, misinformed, or even strongly prejudiced against
systematic doctrinal study and necessary, careful, theological
distinctions. For some, such important standard theological
terms as orthodoxy, dogmatics, apologetics and the like are bad
words. They know and love their specialties and put on their
best performances for their professional peers.
In such a setting, theological acuity is not deemed impor-
tant enough to think about very often and apparently not ever
worth doing anything about. I can painfully report that this is
so from experience in that setting. For a faculty member like
me occasionally to be insistent on points of doctrine in exam-
ining prospects for teaching positions was not the way for me
to gain approval among my peers and superiors. It took
energy and fortitude to oppose some favored candidate, and I
for one did not always have spunk enough to do so. One tires
of controversy.
There is another factor more important than anything else,
I think, in explaining how such a glaring doctrinal error
slipped by unnoticed. A large section of the American evan-
Foreword
-----------------------xv
gelical church is almost hopelessly unconcerned theologically,
except for well-worn shibboleths (which I hardly dare to men-
tion) and cherished sectarian distinctives. Put another way,
"The ethos of our church is pietistical and not theological."
The pastor of one of the largest Free churches put it to me in
those very words recently just before announcing his move to
a different denomination. A variation of the same was put to
me by the dean of faculty when I, a newcomer, assumed my
duties at the seminary in September, 1951: "Out in the
churches they will not ask what you are teaching here but 'Is
the school having revival?'" The revival mood has passed.
The lack of a sufficient theology remains. We are suffering
from generations of inattention to systematic doctrinal in-
struction both in the lecture hall and in the pulpit.
About thirty years or more ago a small Baptist association,
which had thought "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing
but the Bible" was enough of a creed, went through a less
painful form of this problem. One of their seminary's rising
young teachers, a Ph.D named Bernard Ramm, wrote a series
of articles advocating that even Baptists need some fairly com-
plete statement of doctrine binding on ministers and schools.
At the time, I was a Wheaton College professor and part-time
pastor of one of their churches. I welcomed Dr. Ramm's
faithful efforts. Much earlier, the Brethren (German Baptist,
Dunker) denomination in which I grew up went through a
similar painful trial, endemic among pietistic, independent
Protestants. Accompanied by bitter controversy, agonizing
schism, and permanent wounds, the Brethren had to adopt a
clear, briefstatement of faith for "the Brethren Ministry" and
a much longer one (too long and too detailed on some nones-
sentials) for the college and seminary.
Now it is the turn of the Evangelical Free Church of Amer-
ica and their seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
It is going to be interesting to see what they will do about
doctrinal laxity. They must both account for what they ap-
pear to have blundered somewhat innocently into and provide
better insurance against doctrinal compromise for the future.
Let us pray that the people responsible read The Battle for the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
xvi-----------------------
Resurrection, and discern the theological and doctrinal aberra-
tions of those scattered in their ranks, and take a firm stand
for orthodoxy.

Dr. Robert D. Culver

Long-time Professor of Theology
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked de-

formity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But
it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward
form, to make it appear to the inexperienced . . . more true than
truth itself Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.2
 Introduction

here is a trojan horse inside the evangelical

camp. A new battle has broken out, and the enemy is on the
inside, not the outside. In fact, the enemy has secretly placed
dynamite at the evangelical foundation which supports the
whole superstructure of Christian truth. Alarming? Yes, but
true. Who is the enemy, and what is the evangelical founda-
tion of truth?
The answer emerges from recent significant actions by
some evangelical denominations. For example, one of the
largest Protestant denominations in the world retains on the
faculty of its school a professor who has denied in print that
Jesus rose from the tomb in a literal, physical body. He con-
tends

Paul was convinced that the Christ who appeared to him be-
longed to another order of existence than the Christ the disci-
ples had known in the flesh. The risen Christhas not a physical
but a spiritual body (emphasis mine).

A smaller influential denomination that sponsors a well-

known evangelical seminary in America has just pronounced
orthodox a professor who denies what the Apostle's Creed af-
firms: "I believe ... in the resurrection of the body [flesh]."
He wrote of Christ:
xix
 The Battle for the Resurrection
xx-----------------------
This suggests that after his resurrection his essential state was
one of invisibility and immateriality.
It will be spiritual also in that it is . . . neither fleshly nor
fleshy.
From this point of view the new body is qualitatively and
numerically distinct from the old body (emphases mine).
These developments signal a new and crucial battle inside
the evangelical church-the battle for the resurrection. Fight-
ing for the resurrection is not new; fighting for it inside evan-
gelical circles is. Once it was only liberals who denied the
physical, material resurrection; now some evangelicals have
joined them. Traditionally, the historicity of the resurrection
was denied; now it is the materiality of the resurrection body
that is denied.
Suppose you were in Jesus' tomb on that first Easter morn-
ing. What would you have seen? Jesus' dead body literally
come to life and leave the tomb? No. According to this new
departure from orthodoxy, you simply would have witnessed
Jesus' body vanish before your eyes! In short, you would have
observed the annihilation of His material body, not its resur-
rection.
The implications of this new doctrinal departure are far
reaching. They threaten the very foundation of our evangeli-
cal faith. The Bible declares that the resurrection is the very
heart of the gospel (l Cor. 15:1-3) and is even a condition of
salvation (Rom. 10:9). Thus, to tamper with this foundation
of faith is to undermine the whole superstructure of Christian
truth.
This book is an attempt to sound the trumpet of concern
about this current trend in evangelical doctrine. It reveals
alarming information about the latest attempts to redefme his-
toric biblical truths to suit contemporary inclinations. It is an
earnest plea to alert the body of Christ to one of the most
significant doctrinal deviations of our time-one that hits at
the very essence of the Christian faith.
The Trojan horse is within and the dynamite has been
placed. The battle for the resurrection has begun!
1
The Battle for
the Resurrection
First it was the battle for the Bible; now it is
the battle for the resurrection. First the question was whether
we can trust what the Bible says about itself; now the ques-
tion is whether we can trust what the Bible says about the
resurrection. First it was whether inspiration covered only
spiritual matters but not historical and scientific statements.
Now it is whether the resurrection body is only spiritual (that
is, immaterial) or whether it is material, and historically and
empirically observable.
Satan's strategy does not change. He begins by casting
doubt on God's Word. "Did God really say?" he questioned
Eve. "Are you really sure it means that?" For generations
Christians accepted the simple statements of the Bible about
itself (the Written Word of God) and about Christ (the Living
Word of God). The Devil's device, however, has been to chal-
lenge God's authority in both areas.
Then, if Satan is not successful in casting doubt on God's
Word, he will fmd new ways to "spiritualize" away its literal
truth. That is, if he cannot get people to doubt that the Bible
is God's Word, he will get them to question how it is to be
interpreted. Satan's double-barreled attack is on the inspira-
tion and interpretation of the Bible. The first strategy worked
with the theological liberals. The second strategy is aimed at
evangelicals.
21
 The Battle for the Resurrection
22-------------------
First Satan suggested "The Bible is true, but do not take it
literally." Now he suggests, "Christ rose from the dead but
not in a literal body." The Enemy of Christianity cannot ac-
cept the straight-forward, literal truth of Scripture, especially
about itself. For if the Bible is literally true, then Satan is
condemned (Gen. 3; Eph. 4). Satan is also doomed if Christ
rose from the dead in a literal, physical body (Heb. 2: 14; Col.
2: 14). Therefore, one of Satan's most effective strategies
down through the centuries has been to "spiritualize" or alle-
gorize away the literal truth of Scripture.
The Battle for the Bible
The Bible clearly declares itself to be the Word of God
(Matt. 5:17-18; John 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16).1 It also informs us
that God cannot err (Heb. 6: 18; Titus 1:2). If these two prop-
ositions are true, then the conclusion is inevitable: The Bible
cannot err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirmed, then
God would be mistaken. This is the uncompromisable truth
at stake in the "battle for the Bible,"?
The Bible Is the Word of God
Jesus referred to the Old Testament as the "word of God"
which "cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NKJV). He said,
"until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the
Law until everything is accomplished" (Matt. 5:18 NIV).
Paul added, "All Scripture is God-breathed ..." (2 Tim. 3: 16
NIV). It came "from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4 NIV).
Although human authors recorded the messages, "prophecy
never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter
(1:21 NIV).3
The religious leaders of Jesus' day were not content with the
simple authority of the Word of God. They obscured its author-
ity by their own speculations about and elaborations on the Old
Testament. Hence, Jesus said to them, "you nullify the word
of God by your tradition ..." (Mark 7: 13 NIV). Jesus turned
The Battle for the Resurrection
--------------------23
their attention to the written Word of God by affirming over
and over again, "It is written . . . It is written •.• It is
written ..." (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10 KJV). This phrase occurs over
ninety times in the New Testament. It is a strong indication of
the divine authority of the written Word of God.
Stressing the unfailing nature of God's truth, the Apostle
Paul referred to the Scriptures as "the word of God" (Rom.
9:6 RSV). The writer of Hebrews declared that "the word of
God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints
and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart"
(Heb. 4:12 NIV). It is this powerful and simple Word that the
apostle spoke of when he warned against "handling the word
of God deceitfully" (2 Cor. 4:2 NKJV).
God Cannot Err
Another simple and unadulterated truth is that God cannot
err. The Scriptures declare emphatically that "it is impossible
for God to lie" (Heb. 6: 18 NKJV). Paul speaks of the "God,
who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2 NKJV). God is truth (John. 14:6),
and so is His Word. Jesus said to the Father, "Your word is
truth" (John 17:17 NKJV). The psalmist exclaimed, "the en-
tirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous
judgments endures forever" (Ps, 119:160 NKJV).
The Bible Cannot Err
What is the battle for the Bible all about? Put in simple
terms, it is this: God cannot err, so His Word cannot err. If
the Bible is God's Word, and God cannot err, then it follows
necessarily that the Bible cannot err. Let's state the issue in
logical form:
1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) God cannot err.
3) Therefore, the Bible cannot err.
Yes, God has spoken, and He has not stuttered. The God of
truth has given us the Word of Truth, and it does not contain
any untruth in it. The Bible is the unerring Word of God. 4
This is what the battle for the Bible is all about.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
24-------------------
Of course, wherever God makes something clear, Satan de-
nies it, or at least confuses it. Whenever God speaks with au-
thority, the Devil tries to undermine it. "Did God really say
that?" he sneers (Gen. 3:1).
This confusion often takes the following form: The Bible
may be God's Word in some sense, but it is also human
words. It had human authors, and "to err is human." Hence,
we are to expect some errors in the Bible. So goes the argu-
ment.
In short, the clear and simple truth of God is confused by
the lie of Satan, the master of lies (John 8:44).
Let's analyze what is wrong with this reasoning. A simple
analogy will help. Consider equally faulty reasoning that
parallels the divinelhuman authorship controversy above:
1) Jesus was a human being.
2) Human beings sin.
3) Therefore, Jesus sinned.
Any Bible student can readily see that this conclusion is not
true, even if it follows a logical form. What do we mean by
saying, "Jesus was a human being"? The Bible tells us that
Jesus was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15 NKJV). He "had no sin"
(2 Cor. 5:21 NIV). Jesus was "a lamb without blemish or de-
fect" (1 Peter 1:19 NIV). As John said of Jesus, "he is pure"
and "righteous" (l John 3:3; 2:1 NIV). But if Jesus never
sinned, then what is wrong with the above argument that
Jesus is human and humans sin, therefore, Jesus sinned?
Where does the logic go astray?
The mistake is to assume that Jesus is like any other hu-
man. Sure, mere human beings sin. But Jesus was not a mere
human being. He was a perfect human being. Indeed, Jesus
was not only human, but He was also God. Likewise, the
Bible is not a mere human book. It is also the Word of God.
Like Jesus, it is both divine and human. (Although Jesus is a
divine Person, and the Bible is a divine book.) And just as
Jesus was human but did not sin, even so the Bible is a human
book but does not err. Both God's Living Word (Christ) and
His Written Word (Scripture) are human but do not err. They
are divine and cannot err. There can no more be an error in
The Battle for the Resurrection
--------------------25
God's Written Word than there can be a sin in God's Living
Word. God cannot err, period. Of course, Jesus was sinless
and the writers of Scripture were not. However, God pre-
served them from error when they wrote Scripture. So the
end result is the same in the cases of Jesus and the Bible.
In short, the question in the "battle for the Bible" is this:
Can God err? The answer is that if the Bible is God's Word
and God cannot err, then it follows necessarily that the Bible
cannot err. So to say there is even one error taught in the Bible
is to mar the character of God. The battle for the Bible is a
battle for the character of God. Can God be trusted to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The Battle for the Resurrection
What, then, is the battle for the resurrection? Just as the
simple truth about the Bible has been obscured by the teach-
ings of men, likewise, the simple truth about the resurrection
is now being confused by semantical subtlety.
The Bible teaches that Christ rose from the grave bodily.
His body was a physical, material organism, just like any
other human body. Therefore, it follows that Christ rose in a
physical, material body (see Glossary). However, this simple
truth is being confused by some who redefine clear terms and
contend that Christ arose bodily; but not in a material body.
Such a view is unorthodox and can be contrasted with the
biblical view as follows:
ORTHODOX VIEW UNORTHODOXVIEW
The Same Body A Different Body
(Numerically Identical) (Numerically Distinct)
A Material Body Not a Material Body
In the Flesh Not in the Flesh
In History Not in History
(In Space and Time) (Not in Space and Time)
First of all, the Bible declares that the same body placed in
Jesus' tomb on Good Friday emerged from it on Easter Sun-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
26--------------------
day. The body placed there was a physical, material body.
Hence, it follows that the risen body was also that same physi-
cal, material body.
Second, the resurrection body is described as a material
body. Jesus said it had "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39
NKJV). It had the scars from His crucifixion on it (John
20:27) and even ate physical food (Luke 24:42, 43). People
saw Him with their naked eyes and touched Him with their
hands (Matt. 28:9).
Furthermore, Scripture informs us that Jesus came in the
"flesh" (John 1:14 NKJV) and was resurrected in the same
"flesh" (see Luke 24:39; Acts 2:31 NKJV). Doctrine which
denies "that Jesus Christ has come [and remains] in the
flesh" is not of God (l John 4:2 NKJV). Yet this is precisely
what some evangelicals are teaching today.
Moreover, the Bible declares that Christ arose "on the third
day" (l Cor. 15:4 NIV). That is, it was a chronologically dat-
able event in history. It was not a supra-historical event be-
yond space and time. Rather, it was an empirical event in real
history.
By contrast, one scholar contends that:
Because the life of the resurrected Lord involves the reality of
the new creation, the resurrected Lord is in fact notperceptible
as one object amongothers in thisworld; therefore, he could only
be experienced and designated by an extraordinary mode of
experience, the vision, and only in metaphorical language
(emphasis mine).'
Another professor claims that"As a non-empirical event of
and with Jesus himself after his death, the resurrection is
per se trans-historical ..." (emphasis mine),"
The Importance of the Bodily Resurrection
Few doctrines are more crucial to Christianity than the
bodily resurrection of Christ (see Chapter 2). It is at the very
heart of the gospel (l Cor. 15:1-5). Without the resurrection
there is no salvation (Rom. 10:9), and the whole of Christian-
ity crumbles if it is nottrue (l Cor. 15:12-19). The Bible pro-
claims plainly that three days after His crucifixion, Jesus
The Battle for the Resurrection
---------------------27
permanently vacated His tomb. The angel said, "He is not
here; for He is risen, as He said" (Matt. 28:6 NKJV).
Indeed, Jesus said over and over that He would die and rise
again (John 2:19; Matt. 12:40; 17:9; 18:23) There are five
different accounts showing that Jesus' prediction about His
resurrection was fulfilled literally (Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke
24; John 20-21; 1 Cor. 15). Jesus did rise bodily from the
grave, and He left an empty tomb behind. The crucified body
that was placed there on Good Friday left on Easter Sunday.
Three days after Jesus died and the tomb was found empty,
He began appearing to His disciples in this same body, giving
them "many convincing proofs" that he was alive for over
forty days (Acts 1:3 NIV). Jesus made at least twelve separate
appearances to a total of over 500 people (l Cor. 15:6) cover-
ing a forty day period of time (see Chapter 8).
During Jesus' bodily resurrection appearances, the disci-
ples saw Him, heard Him, touched Him, and witnessed Him
eat on four occasions (Luke 24:30,43; John 21:13; Acts 1:4).
Jesus showed them His crucifixion scars (John 20:27) and
said, "Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and
bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39 NIV). It is clear that
Jesus rose in the same body in which He was crucified. He
did not rise as a spirit, but in a real tangible, material body.
The resurrected Christ made such an indelible impression
on the early disciples that it was the very core of their preach-
ing (Acts 2,4, 10, 17). Paul established the resurrection as a
condition of salvation (Rom. 10:9), and declared that if Christ
did not rise we are still in our sins and are of all people most
miserable (l Cor. 15:17-19). Indeed, if Christ did not rise
from the grave in the same physical body that died, then
death and Satan were not defeated, as the Scriptures trium-
phantly proclaim they were (Heb. 2: 14; Col. 2: 14).
The Nature of the Resurrection Body
The logic is clear: If Jesus rose bodily from the dead in the
same body in which He died, and if this body was a physical,
material body, then it follows that the resurrection body was a
physical, material body. Let's examine the premises:
 The Battle for the Resurrection The Battle for the Resurrection
28-------------------- --------------------29
1) Jesus rose bodily from the grave in the same body in thodox the view that Jesus did not rise in the same material
which He died. body of flesh in which He died. This denial of the historical
2) The body in which Jesus died was a physical, material biblical doctrine of the resurrection is a serious crisis at the
body. very heart of the evangelical Christian faith.
3) Therefore, Jesus' resurrection body is a physical, mate-
rial body. THE BATTLE FOR THE RESURRECTION HAS BEGUN!
Here again, nothing could be simpler: Jesus rose bodily,
and a "body" is, as webster says, "an organized physical sub-
stance ... the material part or nature of a human being."? In
fact, the Greek word for "body" (soma) always means a phys-
ical body when referring to an individual human being."
There are no exceptions to this usage in the New Testament.
But if "body" always refers to a physical, material organism,
and Christ rose bodily, then His resurrection must have been
in a physical, material body.

The Resurrection Challenge

Like the battle for the Bible, the battle for the resurrection
is about another fundamental doctrine. It is a battle over an-
other attempt to confuse the simple truth of Scripture on a
vital issue.
Those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible wish to limit its
divine authority to "spiritual" matters. They deny inerrancy
on historical and scientific issues.
Some are now contending that the resurrection body was
only "spiritual" or immaterial. They deny that the resurrec-
tion was empirically observable or historically verifiable. This
platonic (and gnostic) tendency to "spiritualize" or allegorize
the literal truth of Scripture is not new. What is new is that
those who claim to be evangelicals apply it to fundamental
doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the inspiration of the
Bible and the resurrection of Christ.
The bodily resurrection of Christ is an indispensable foun-
dation of the Christian faith. No deviation on this doctrine
should be tolerated within the ranks of orthodox Christianity.
In spite of this, many evangelicals are now pronouncing or-

2 -------------------31
It Makes a Difference
~at difference does it make whether or not
Christ rose from the dead in the same physical body in which
He died? The New Testament's answer to this question is un-
equivocal: Without Christ's bodily resurrection there is no
salvation (Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Thess. 4:14). For He "was deliv-
ered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our
justification" (Rom. 4:25 NIV). The bodily resurrection of
Christ is just as much a part of the gospel as is His death
(1 Cor. 15:1-5).
The apostle Paul insisted that if Jesus did not rise bodily
(physically, materially) from the dead, then: 1) Our faith is
useless; 2) We are still in our sins; 3) Our departed loved ones
are lost; 4) The apostles are false witnesses; 5) and we are to
be pitied more than all men (1 Cor. 15:14-19). I This is a so-
bering list of consequences for denying the physical resurrec-
tion of Christ. In short, if Christ did not arise bodily from the
tomb, Christianity is false, we cannot be saved, and there is
no hope for our bodily immortality. For it is "Christ, who
has ... brought life and immortality to light through the gos-
pel" (2 Tim. 1:10 NKJV).
The Resurrection Body of Christ
Orthodox Christianity has always confessed two things
about the resurrection body of Christ: it was the same physi-
30
It Makes a Difference
cal body in which Jesus was crucified (see Chapter 4), and it
was an immortal body. Both are important to a biblical view
of the resurrection, but the former is the primary focus of this
book.
The Historic Importance of the Physical Resurrection
In his classic, History of Christian Doctrine, evangelical the-
ologian William G. T. Shedd noted that "the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body was from the beginning a cardinal
and striking tenet of the Christian Church,"? Historically, the
b.odily resurrection has been taken to mean a physical, mate-
rial body. Indeed, even some scholars who oppose this belief
admit that "until the time of the Reformation the creeds of the
West spoke only of the resurrection of the flesh (sarkos anasta-
sis; resurrectio carnis)?"
Contemporary Affirmations of the Resurrection
When evangelical confessions or creeds state that "He
[Christ] rose bodily from the dead" or "we believe in the
bodily resurrection of all the dead,"! we instinctively under-
stand this to mean physical body. Hence, it has seemed un-
necessary to most evangelicals to add words like "material"
or "physical" to the word "body" in this context. That is
exactly what the words "bodily resurrection" mean. Some
speak of "resurrection," not "physical resurrection;' for the
simple reason that as normally understood this phrase is re-
dundant. And fewer still speak of a "material" body, since all
physical bodies are material. webster defmes "body" as an
"organized physical substance."> So to speak of a physical or
material body is really redundant.
To speak of an immaterial body or a "spiritual corporeal-
ity"6 is a contradiction of terms. As webster notes, a body is
"the material part of nature,"? And the English word "spirit"
by definition is something immaterial. Hence, an immaterial
body would be an immaterial material, which is a contradic-
tion in terms. Since it is redundant to speak of a physical body
and contradictory to refer to an immaterial body, it is under-
standable that many evangelical creeds and confessions speak
 The Battle for the Resurrection
32-------------------
simply of the "resurrection of the body" (see Chapter 4).
Some unorthodox Christian teachers, like Origen, denied
the material nature of Christ's human body." First John was
written to counteract a similar teaching that denied that
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2 NKJV).
When this same kind of error appeared later in church his-
tory, Christians used the even more explicit confession of the
"resurrection of the flesh"? to describe the resurrection body
(see Chapter 4). This emphasizes the fact that "body" means
a material body. So, contrary to a current theological trend, to
affirm that bodily resurrection means anything other than a
physical, material body is illogical, unhistorical, and unortho-
dox.
The Importance of the Resurrection's
Physical Nature
Does it really make any difference whether Jesus rose in a
material body or in an immaterial one? Does it really matter
whether He was raised in the flesh or merely in an angel-like
body? As long as we believe that Christ's body mysteriously
vanished from the tomb, isn't that enough?
Actually, the significance of the physical resurrection of
Christ is far-reaching, and the implications of its denial are
fundamental to orthodox Christianity. In fact, a denial of it
affects our very salvation.
The Problem of Creation
God created a material world and pronounced it very good
(Gen. 1:31).10 Sin disrupted the world and brought decay
and death (Gen. 2: 17; Rom. 5: 12). The whole of material cre-
ation was subjected to bondage because of man's sin (Rom.
8:18ff.). However, through redemption, decay and death will
be reversed. For "creation itself will be liberated from its
bondage to decay ..." (v. 21 NIV).
Indeed, "the whole [material] creation has been
groaning . . . as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the
redemption of our bodies" (vv. 22-23 NIV). That is, God will
It Makes a Difference
--------------------33
reverse the curse upon material creation by a material resur-
rection. Anything less than the resurrection of the material
body would not restore God's perfect material creation, in-
cluding mankind. Hence, an immaterial resurrection is con-
trary to God's creative purposes. Just as God will recreate the
material universe (Rev. 21:1-4; 2 Peter 3:10-13) in redeem-
ing the old one, even so He will reconstitute the material body
in redeeming the one that died.
Anything short of a material recreation of the world and a
material reconstruction of the body would spell failure for
God's creative purpose. New Testament scholar Robert Gun-
dry notes, "Anything less than that undercuts Paul's ultimate
intention that redeemed man possess physical means of con-
crete activity for eternal service and worship of God in a re-
stored creation,'?' So "to dematerialize resurrection, by any
means, is to emasculate the sovereignty of God in both cre-
ative purpose and redemptive grace.?"
The Problem of Salvation
There are serious salvation problems in denying the physi-
cal nature of the resurrection of Christ. As pointed out earlier,
the New Testament teaches that belief in the bodily resurrec-
tion of Christ is a condition for salvation (Rom. 10:9, 10;
1 Thess. 4:14). It is part of the essence of the gospel itself
(1 Cor. 15:1-5). But, as we shall see (in Chapter 6), the New
Testament's understanding of "body" (soma) was of a literal,
physical body. Hence, a denial of the physical, bodily resur-
rection of Christ undercuts the very gospel itself
Without a physical resurrection there is no material conti-
nuity between the pre- and post-resurrection body. They
would be two different bodies." However, as Professor Gun-
dry correctly observes: "A physical continuity is also needed.
If a human spirit-a sort of third party-be the only connec-
tion between the mortal and resurrected bodies, the relation-
ship of the two bodies to each other is extrinsic and to that
degree unimpressive as a demonstration of Christ's victory
over death.?" In even stronger terms he concludes that "the
resurrection of Christ was and the resurrection of Christians
 The Battle for the Resurrection
34---------------------
will be physical in nature.";" Without a physical resurrection
there is no ground for celebrating Christ's victory over physi-
cal death.
The Problem of the Incarnation
The denial ofthe material nature of the resurrection body is
a serious doctrinal error. It is a kind of neodocetism. The do-
cetics were a second century sect which denied that Jesus was
truly human." It taught that Jesus was really God but that He
only appeared to be human. It denied that He had real human
flesh.
A similar doctrinal deviation existed in the first century.
John speaks to it when he warns against those who deny that
"Jesus Christ has come in thejlesh" (l John 4:2 cf 2 John 7
NIV, emphasis mine). In fact, when John said "has come" (in
the perfect participle in Greek) he implies that Christ came in
the flesh and still remains after His resurrection in the flesh. 17
This means that denying Christ had a material body either
before or after His resurrection is false doctrine. This is ex-
actly what the current post-resurrectional doceticism does. It
denies that the one who came in the flesh was also raised in
the flesh. 18
Having human flesh is essential to the full humanity of
Christ and is used repeatedly to describe it (John 1:14; 1 Tim.
3:16; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). If this is so, then unless Christ
arose in the flesh, He was not raised fully human (l Tim.
2:5). This is particularly acute, since Christ's ministry for our
salvation did not end at the Cross. According to Hebrews,
Christ "ever lives to make intercession" for us (Heb. 7:25
NK}V). Indeed, it is because Jesus was and is fully human that
He is able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" in His high
priestly ministry (Heb. 4: 15 NK}V). Therefore, Christ's full
resurrected humanity is necessary for our salvation. Accord-
ing to Scripture, human flesh was part of His full humanity.
Unless Christ rose in the flesh, His full human nature was not
restored, and He is not our divine/human mediator (1 Tim.
2:5).
It Makes a Difference
-------------------35
The Problem of Human Immortality
Further, denying the physical resurrection causes a serious
problem with Christian immortality. If Christ did not rise in
the same physical, material body in which He was crucified,
then we have no hope that we will be victorious over physical
death either. It is only through the physical resurrection of
Christ that the believer can triumphantly proclaim: "Where,
o death, is your victory? Where, 0 death, is your sting?"
(l Cor. 15:55 NIV). It is only through the physical resurrec-
tion that Christ has "destroyed death and has brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10 NIV).
Paul told the Corinthians, "if Christ has not been raised ...
those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost" (l Cor.
15:17, 18 NIV).
The Problem of Moral Deception
There is a serious moral problem of deception in denying
the physical resurrection. No one can look squarely at the gos-
pel record of Christ's post-resurrection appearances and deny
that Jesus tried to convince the skeptical disciples that He had
a real physical body. He said, "Look at my hands and my
feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have
flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39 NIV). He ate
in their presence (vv. 41-43). He challenged Thomas: "Put
your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put
it into my side. Stop doubting and believe" (John 20:27 NIV).
Given the context of Jesus' claim and of the Jewish belief in
the physical resurrection (see Acts 23:8; John 11:24), it is in-
escapable that Jesus intentionally persuaded His disciples to
believe His resurrection on the basis of His appearances in the
same material, fleshly body they had known for over three
years and had laid in the tomb only days before. If Jesus' res-
urrection body was only an immaterial body, then Jesus was
knowingly misleading his disciples. That is, He was inten-
tionally leading them to believe what He knew was not true.
In short, if Jesus' resurrection body was not a physical, mate-
rial body, then He was lying.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
36-------------------
The Problem of Verification
There is also an important evidential implication of denying
a material resurrection body. If Christ did not rise in the same
physical body that was placed in the tomb, then the resur-
rection loses its value as an evidential proof of His claim to
be God (John 8:58; 10:30). The resurrection cannot verify
Jesus' claim to be God unless He was resurrected in the body
in which He was crucified. That body was a literal, physical
body. Unless Jesus rose in a material body, there is no way to
verify His resurrection. It loses its historically persuasive
value.
The truth of Christianity is based on the bodily resurrec-
tion of Christ. Jesus offered His coming resurrection as a
proof of His deity throughout His ministry (John 2:19-22;
Matt. 12:38-40; John 10:18). In one passage He presented
His resurrection as the unique evidence of who He was. Jesus
said to those seeking a "sign,"
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a
huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:39-40 NIV).
The apostles considered His resurrection appearances as
"many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3 NIV). They used the fact
of Christ's bodily resurrection as the basis of their argument
for the claims of Christ over and over again (see Acts 2:22-36;
4:2, 10; 13:32-41; 17:1-4, 22-31). Paul concluded that God
"has given proof ... to all men by raising him from the dead"
(Acts 17:31 NIV).
The physical continuity between the pre- and post-
resurrection body of Christ is made repeatedly in apostolic
preaching. Peter's first sermon declared that the Jews "put
him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him
from the dead ..." (Acts 2:23-24 NI\T, emphasis mine). He
adds, "he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body
see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are wit-
nesses of the fact" (vv. 31-32 NIV, emphasis mine). Paul is
It Makes a Difference
--------------------37
equally specific in making the connection between the actual
body that was put in the grave and the one that was resur-
rected. He says, "they took him down from the tree and laid
him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead ..." (Acts
13:29-31 NIV, emphasis mine).
Why is it so important to Christ's claim to deity that His
resurrection body be the same physical body that was laid in
the tomb? The answer is twofold.
First, this is the only way to know for sure that the resur-
rection occurred. The empty tomb in itself does not prove the
resurrection of Christ any more than a missing body in a
morgue proves someone has resurrected. Neither does an
empty tomb plus a series of appearances prove the physical
resurrection. The original body could have disappeared and
the appearances could have been in some other body. But in a
theistic context, where miracles are possible, an empty tomb
plus appearances of the samephysical body, once dead but now
alive, are proof of a miraculous resurrection. Without this
material identity between the pre- and post-resurrection
body, the apologetic value of the resurrection is destroyed.
Second, unless Christ rose in a physical, material body the
resurrection is unverifiable. There is no way to verify empiri-
cally that He was really resurrected unless He was resurrected
in the same physical body in which He died and was buried.
If the resurrected body was essentially immaterial and
"angel-like."?' then there is no way to verify that the resurrec-
tion occurred. For a miraculous manifestation in an angel-like
form does not prove a bodily resurrection. At best, such an
angel-like manifestation only proves that there is a spirit with
the power to "materialize" or reappear after it has departed
from the body.
However, even angels who are pure spirits and never had
been incarnated (Heb. 1:14) had the power to "materialize"
(Gen. 18). The angels who appeared to Abraham miracu-
lously assumed visible form (Gen. 18:8; 19:3). But this was
not a proof that they possessed by nature physical bodies like
ours. In fact, angels do not have physical bodies; they are
spirits (Heb. 1:14; Luke 24:39; Matt. 22:30). Nor were their
 The Battle for the Resurrection It Makes a Difference
38-------------------- -------------------39
manifestations in physical continuity with a previous earthly Make no mistake; if He rose at all
body, as is the case with the resurrection body of Christ. The it was as His body,
angelic manifestations were merely temporarily assumed if the cells' dissolution
forms for the purpose of communicating with human beings. did not reverse,
To place Jesus' appearances in this category is to reduce his the molecules reknit,
physical resurrection to an angelic manifestation. It is to the amino acids rekindle,
downgrade resurrection into theophany (see Appendix B). the Church will fall. 20
It is not only demeaning to the nature of the resurrection
body of Christ to call it "angel-like;' it is also destructive of
its evidential value. There is a real difference between an an-
gelic manifestation and a literal, physical body. A mere an-
gelic "materialization" is not proof that the angel possesses a
real physical body, as Christ's resurrection appearances were
adduced to prove. An essentially immaterial resurrection
"body" is no more proof of Christ's bodily resurrection than
is an angelic manifestation a proof that an angel once died in a
physical body and was resurrected. Resurrection in an imma-
terial body is no proof that Christ conquered death in His
material body (l Cor. 15:54-56). In brief, an immaterial res-
urrection body is evidentially not different from no resurrec-
tion body at all.

Make No Mistake
Any denial of the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ is
critical. Denial by evangelicals is even more serious. This is
particularly true when they use the traditional term "bodily
resurrection" to affirm their view. "Bodily" resurrection has
always meant that Jesus was resurrected in the same physical,
material body in which He died.
In spite of the overwhelming biblical evidence that Christ
arose in the same fleshly body in which He was crucified,
some evangelicals are now claiming that He did not rise in the
flesh but in an immaterial body. But a physical body is a ma-
terial body. Hence, an immaterial physical body is impos-
sible. Either Christ rose immortally in the same material body
in which He lived before His death, or He did not rise at all.
As the poet John Updike puts it,

3 --------------------41
The Bible on
the Resurrection
EvangeliCals have always affirmed two basic
things about the resurrection body of Christ: It is physical,
and it is immortal. It is a body of flesh, and yet it is glorified
flesh. That is, the post-resurrection body is as material as the
pre-resurrection body, yet it is as immortal as the soul.
The Resurrection Body
It is a soma (physical body), but it is a spirit-dominated
body (soma pneumatikon), as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:44.
These beliefs are firmly based in Holy Scripture and have
been confessed consistently by the Christian Church through
the centuries. This chapter provides a detailed biblical basis
for the orthodox doctrine of the physical resurrection.
Its Physical Nature
To emphasize the physical, material nature of the resurrec-
tion body, orthodox Christians through the ages consistently
have called it the resurrection of the "flesh" (see Chapter 4).
Some evangelical confessions have been content with the
word "body," since its ordinary meaning implies that which
is material and physical. The two words are used interchange-
ably.
Belief in the physical resurrection is based on the fact that
40
The Bible on the Resurrection
at His resurrection, Jesus permanently vacated the tomb in
the same physical body in which He had been crucified.
Jesus' resurrection body had crucifixion scars, could be seen
and handled, and could even eat food. Even Jesus said it
was a body of "flesh [sarx] and bones" (Luke 24:39 NKJV).
This same word "flesh" (sarx) is used to describe His incar-
nation into a material human body (John 1:14). The apostle
John considered denial of it to be false teaching (l John 4:2;
2 John 7).
Some have suggested that Paul should have used "flesh"
(sarx) in 1 Corinthians 15:44 to express physical resurrection.
But Gundry notes that "Paul avoids 'flesh' in writing about
the resurrection of human beings simply because the term
may connote weakness, not because he wants to avoid the
physical resurrection." I However, Paul's companion, Luke,
does use the word sarx of the resurrection body in Luke 24:39
and Acts 2:31. But even Paul used it interchangeably with
body in one resurrection passage (l Cor. 15:38-40). In these
passages the context protects it from being understood in any
weak sense by stressing God's power in the resurrection and
Christ's exaltation resulting from it (see especially Acts 2:
31-33).
Its Immortal Nature
In addition to the physical nature of the resurrection body,
evangelicals have also affirmed its immortal and imperishable
dimension (l Cor. 15:42f£), because it is a body dominated by
the spirit (soma pnuematikon, see 1 Cor. 15:44).2 It is not
merely a resuscitated body, which is mortal and dies again.
While remaining a physical body, the resurrection body is a
glorifled and heavenly body (Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). It is spe-
cially suited for heaven, where perishable "flesh and blood"
cannot enter (1 Cor. 15:50). Indeed, Jesus was the "first-
fruits" of the resurrection (v. 20), the very first one to have a
permanent, imperishable resurrection body.
His physical corpse was brought back to life, not by mere
resuscitation, but in glorious resurrection. He was not raised
in a mortal body, but in an immortal one. Thus, at the mo-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
42--------------------
ment of resurrection the believer's body, like Christ's, will
be "transformed" from a perishable to an imperishable body
(v. 51).
The resurrection body is a supernatural body (v. 44). It can
appear and disappear immediately (Luke 24:31, 36). It can
enter rooms with closed doors (John 20:26). However, while
His resurrection body can do more than a mere natural body,
it is not less than a natural body, What is unique about the
resurrection body is its possession of immortality (l Cor.
15:42). Christ was not the first to be raised in a material body
(John 11:43-44), but He was the first to be raised in an imper-
ishable material body (1 Cor. 15:54; 2 Tim. 1:10). All others
who were raised from the dead in the Bible died again. Christ
was raised never to die again (1 Cor. 15:20).
Evidence for the Physical Resurrection Body
There is overwhelming support in Scripture for the belief
that Christ's resurrection body is a literal, material body of
flesh and bones.
The Empty Tomb
Combined with the appearances of the same crucified
Christ, the empty tomb is a strong indication of the physical
nature of the resurrection body of Christ. The angels said,
"He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the
place where the Lord lay" (Matt. 28:6 NKJV). Later, Peter
entered the tomb and "saw the strips of linen lying there, as
well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The
cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen" (John
20:6-7 NIV). Such details reveal that the literal, physical body
of Jesus that once had lain in the tomb had been resurrected
(Acts 13:29-30).
A. T. Robertson concludes, from the fact that the disciples
saw the head cloth that had been around His head in a place
by itself, that "It was arranged in an orderly fashion [entetu-
ligmenon]. There was no haste,"! This deliberate folding of
His head cloth indicates a physical act of a physical body
The Bible on the Resurrection
---------------------43
rather than the invisible passage of an immaterial body
through untouched clothes. So convincing was this evidence
of a physical resurrection, that when John saw it, he believed
Jesus had risen before he ever saw Him (John 20:8).
Jesus Was Touched and Handled
Jesus challenged Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side" (John 20:27
NIV, emphasis mine). Thomas responded (v. 28), "My Lord
and My God!" Mary was clinging to Jesus after His resurrec-
tion, when He said to her, "Do not hold on to me, for I have
not yet returned to the Father" (John 20: 17 NIV, emphasis
mine). Matthew says the women "clasped his fJesusJ feet and
worshiped him" (Matt. 28:9 NIV, emphasis mine). On an-
other occasion Jesus said, "look at my hands and my feet. It is
I myself! Much me and see" (Luke 24:39 NIV, emphasis
mine). John the apostle said of Christ,
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at
and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the
Word of life (l John 1:1 NIV, emphasis mine),
These passages leave no room for views which deny that Jesus'
body both before and after the resurrection was by nature a
literal, material body that could be handled and touched.
Jesus' Flesh and Bones
Jesus' resurrection body was a physical body of "flesh and
bones." He said emphatically, "Touch me and see; a ghost
does not havejlesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39
NIV, emphasis mine). Then to prove to the disciples that He
had a real physical body, "They gave him a piece of broiled
fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence" (v. 42 NIV, em-
phasis mine).
It is true that Paul said that corruptible "flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (l Cor. 15:50 NIV). But
Jesus did not have corruptible flesh; He was sinless (2 Cor.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
44--------------------
5:21; Heb. 4:15). Jesus was not fleshly in the sense of sinful,
but He was fleshy. He did not have sinful human flesh (Heb.
4:15), but He both died and rose in actual human flesh (sarx,
see Acts 2:31).4 Stressing Jesus' continuing incarnation in the
flesh (before and after His resurrection), John warned that
"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as
coming [and remaining]' in the flesh, have gone out into the
world" (2 John 7 NIV).
Jesus Ate Four Times
Another convincing proof of the physical, material nature
of the resurrection of Christ is that He ate food on at least four
occasions as a demonstration of his resurrection. Jesus ate din-
ner with the two disciples (Luke 24:30). He ate later that eve-
ning with the ten apostles (Luke 24:42-43). Jesus ate
breakfast with the seven apostles (John 21:12-13). Finally,
He ate with all the apostles just before His ascension (Acts
1:4).
Not only did Jesus eat physical food-angels sometimes did
that (Gen. 18)-but He offered it as proof of the material na-
ture of his resurrection body." No angel ever did that. Angels
are spirits by nature (Heb. 1:14). Their appearances in visible
form are miraculous and not representative of their natural
state. Jesus' resurrection body, however, was material by na-
ture. He said emphatically, "Touch me and see; a ghost does
not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39
NIV). When the disciples supposed that they had seen a
spirit, rather than Christ in His resurrection body, Jesus
"showed them his hands and feet" and said, "Do you have
anything here to eat?" They gave Him some fish, "and he
took it and ate it in their presence" (Luke 24:40-43 NIV).
Given this context, it would have been sheer deception on
Jesus' part to have offered His ability to eat physical food as a
proof of His bodily resurrection if He had not been resur-
rected in a physical body. 7
The fact that Jesus had a physical body that could eat was
such a significant proof of His literal resurrection body that
Peter included it in his short summary of the ministry of
The Bible on the Resurrection
-------------------45
Christ in Acts 10, where he declared that the apostles "ate and
drank with him after he rose from the dead" (Acts 10:41 NIV).
Jesus' Resurrection Body Has Wounds
Another unmistakable evidence of the material nature of
the resurrection body is the fact that it still has the physical
wounds from Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus said to Thomas, "Put
your fmger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and
put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe" (John 20:27
NIV). Indeed, in this same body Jesus ascended into heaven,
where He is still seen as "a Lamb, looking as if it had been
slain" (Rev. 5:6 NIV). When Christ returns again, it will be
"this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven"
(Acts 1:11 NIV). Even the physical scars of His crucifixion
will be visible at His Second Coming, as John declared:
"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him" (Rev. 1:7 NIV). The body
that was resurrected is the same material body that died. And
it is the same physical body that resurrected and ascended
into heaven that will return literally to earth at the Second
Advent of our Lord (Acts 1:10-11).
Jesus' Resurrection Body Is Recognizable
Jesus was physically recognizable in His resurrection body.
The usual words for "seeing" (horao, theoreo) and "recogniz-
ing" (epiginosko) physical objects are used over and over again
concerning his resurrection body (see Matt. 28:7, 17; Mark
16:7; Luke 24:24; John 20:14; 1 Cor. 9:1). Indeed, Hisresur-
rection body had the same scars of His crucifixion (John
20:27). This marks it as unmistakably the same body in
which He died.
It is true that occasionally Jesus was not initially recognized
by some of the disciples. There are different reasons for this,
some natural and perhaps some supernatural. Luke said of
one occasion that "their eyes were restrained, so that they did
not know Him" (Luke 24: 16 NKJV) and later "their eyes
were opened and they knew Him" (v. 31 NKJV). However,
sometimes there were natural factors as well. Once their per-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
46-------------------
plexity (Luke 24:17-21) or sorrow (John 20:11-15) may have
hindered them. Difficulty in recognizing Jesus also resulted
from the dimness of the light (John 20:14-15) or the visual
distance (John 21:4). On one occasion they were startled by
the suddenness of Jesus' appearance (Luke 24:36-37). He
also had different clothes on after the resurrection, since His
other garments had been taken at the crucifixion (John 19:23-
24). Finally, the initial inability to recognize Jesus may have
been due in part to the fact that the disciples were spiritually
dull (Luke 24:25-26) and disbelieving (John 20:24-25).
However, the fact that they eventually recognized Him from
His appearance, voice, scars, and the like is ample indication
that He was resurrected in the same physical body in which
He had died.
Jesus' Resurrection Body Could Be Seen and Heard
Not only was Jesus' resurrection body one that could be
touched and handled, it was one that could be seen and heard.
Matthew recorded that "when they saw Him, they wor-
shiped Him" (Matt. 28:17 NKJV). The two disciples "recog-
nized'" Him while eating together (see Luke 24:31 NIV), per-
haps from His physical actions (see v. 35). The Greek word for
"recognize" (epiginosko) means to know, to understand, or to
recognize. This is a normal term for recognizing a physical
object (see Mark 6:33, 54; Acts 3: 10). Mary may have recog-
nized Jesus from the tone of His voice (John 20:15-16).
Thomas eventually recognized Jesus from His crucifixion scars
(John 20:27-28). All the disciples saw and heard Him over a
forty-day period, during which He gave "many convincing
proofs" that He was alive (Acts 1:3; see also 4:2, 20 NIV).
Continuity between Jesus' Dead and Resurrected Body
Another evidence of the material nature of Jesus' resurrec-
tion body is the close and repeated connection made in the
New Testament between the death and resurrection of Christ.
Paul considered it of "first importance" that "Christ died for
our sins, . . . that he was buried, that he was raised on the
third day ..." (1 Cor. 15:3, 4 NIV). This same connection
The Bible on the Resurrection
-------------------47
between the physical body that was buried and the body that
was resurrected is repeated elsewhere. For example, in Ro-
mans Paul declares that what was "buried" was raised from
death (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; see also Acts 2:23-24; 3:15;
4: 10; 5:30; 10:39-40; 13:29-30). It is noteworthy that, "as an
ex-Pharisee, Paul could not have used such traditional lan-
guage without recognizing its intent to portray the raising of a
corpse,"?
Jesus stressed the continuity between the pre- and post-
resurrection body when He said, "Destroy this temple [His
body], and I will raise it again in three days" (John 2: 19 NIV).
Here Jesus declared that the same body that would be de-
stroyed would be raised again. The same continuity is af-
firmed in the strong comparison between Jesus' death and
resurrection and Jonah (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). He said, "For as
Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great
fish, sowill the Son of Man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40 NKJV). Obviously, in
both cases the same physical body that went in was the one
that came out. The inseparable connection by Paul, the con-
verted Pharisee, of the pre- and post-resurrection body of
Jesus is strong confirmation that he is affirming the physical,
material nature of the resurrection body. Even Professor
Murray Harris, who denies the material nature of the resur-
rection body, admits that "in Jewish thought the idea of a
Resurrection shortly after death necessarily involved (at least)
the revival of the physical body, the emptying of the grave"?"
(see Appendix E).
Resurrection from among the Dead Bodies
Another biblical phrase strongly supports the view that the
resurrection body was material in nature. Resurrection is of-
ten described as "out from (Greek, ek) the dead" (Mark 9:9;
Luke 24:46; John 2:22; Acts 3:15; Rom. 4:24; 1 Cor. 15:12).
This means that Jesus was resurrected out from among the
dead bodies, that is, from the grave where corpses are buried
(Acts 13:29-30). This same phrase is used to describe Laz-
arus's being raised "from the dead" (John 12:1). And there is
 The Battle for the Resurrection
48--------------------
no doubt that Lazarus came out of the grave in the same mate-
rial body in which he was buried. This makes it clear that the
phrase refers to resurrection of a physical corpse out of a tomb
or graveyard. Again, "for one who had been a Pharisee, such
phraseology could carry only one meaning-physical resur-
rection.?"
Continuity between the Body Sown and Raised
First Corinthians 15:35-44 implies an intrinsic identity be-
tween the physical body that is buried and the physical body
that is resurrected. Paul compares the pre- and post-
resurrection states to a seed that is sown and the plant that
comes from it, and which is in material continuity with it.
This analogy strongly suggests a material identity between
the pre- and post-resurrection body. The text says clearly,
"the body that is sown is perishable, it is raised im-
perishable; ..." (v. 42 NIV, emphasis mine). The body that is
resurrected is the same body that was sown (buried). If a ma-
terial body was buried and an immaterial body (with different
physical essence and characteristics) was raised, then it would
not be one and the same body. But in this text Paul clearly
affirms the identity between the pre- and post-resurrection
body.
Loved Ones Will Be Physically Recognized in Heaven
The believer's resurrection body will be like Christ's (see
Phil. 3:21). Since the Bible indicates that we will recognize
our loved ones in heaven, we can assume that we all will have
physical bodies in the resurrection. Therefore, Christ's resur-
rection body, after which ours are to be fashioned, must also
be a physical, material body.
Paul encouraged the Thessalonian Christians whose loved
ones had died that they would be reunited with them in the
resurrection (l Thess. 4:13-18; compare 1 Cor. 15:18). This
comfort would make little sense if they could not recognize
their loved ones in their resurrection bodies. Jesus also im-
plied that a husband and wife would recognize each other in
their resurrection bodies (see Matt. 22:23-30). In view of
The Bible on the Resurrection
--------------------49
these passages, there is no justification for the claim that the
pre- and post-resurrection body has no "material identity"
and "the resurrection body will not have the anatomy or
physiology of the earthly body ...."12
The New Testament Use of Soma (Body)
When referring to an individual human, the New Testa-
ment Greek word for (soma) is always used of a physical body.
Paul also uses soma to describe the resurrection body of Christ
(l Cor. 15:42-44), thus indicating his belief that it was a phys-
ical body. The definitive exegetical work on soma was done by
Professor Robert Gundry. 13 As evidence of the physical nature
of the resurrection body, he points to "Paul's exceptionless
use of soma for a physical body.?" He concludes that "the
consistent and exclusive use of soma for the physical body in
anthropological contexts resists dematerialization of the resur-
rection, whether by idealism or by existentialism.?"
For those who think Paul should have used another word"
to express physical resurrection, Gundry responds, "Paul
uses soma precisely because the physicality of the resurrection
is central to his soteriology.?" This consistent use of the word
soma for a physical body is further confirmation that the res-
urrection body of Christ was by nature a literal, physical
body.
The Same Body
The biblical evidence that Jesus was raised in the same
physical, material body placed in the tomb is unequivocal.
Not only was the tomb where the body had lain permanently
empty, but the same person (Jesus) who had died appeared
repeatedly after that in the same body, crucifixion scars and
all. He was seen, heard, and touched with the physical senses.
He declared his body was one of "flesh and bones" and of-
fered as proof his ability to eat physical food and to be touched
by physical hands. Jesus literally exhausted the ways in which
he could prove that He had a real material body.
In view of this overwhelming evidence that Jesus was raised
 The Battle for the Resurrection
50--------------------
in the very same material body in which He died, any denial
of this essential of orthodox Christianity is clearly unbiblical.
4
Evangelicals who compromise on such a fundamental doc-
trine deny biblical truth and are unorthodox at this point.
As we shall see in the next chapter, orthodox confessions on
the "bodily resurrection" down through the centuries affirm
Christ's physical, bodily resurrection. However "current" or
"l Believe in the . . .
"appealing," we should not allow fascinating deviations from
this orthodoxy to gain a foothold in the evangelical church.
Resurrection ofthe Flesh"
The physical resurrection is an essential of Christian belief
(see Chapter 2).
In order to defend the "faith which was once for all deliv-
ered to the saints" (Jude 3 NKJV), we must take our stand
firmly on the foundation of the apostolic confession of beliefin
"the resurrection of the flesh." h e Apostles' Creed declares "I believe in
the . . . resurrection of the flesh." The Christian Church has
always confessed its belief in the physical resurrection of
Christ. Historically, this was expressed in the unmistakably
clear phrase, "the resurrection of the flesh." In his classic
work The Nature of the Resurrection Body (1964), J. A. Schep
wrote: "We may say, therefore, that the entire early Church,
in the West and in the East alike, publicly confessed belief in
the resurrection of the flesh." And "in the Western creeds ...
this confessional formula has retained its place with hardly
any exception. Up to the Reformation there is no exception at
all,"! Further, "the Churches of the East retained the expres-
sion 'the resurrection of the flesh' up to the Council of Con-
stantinople in 381." When it was dropped, it was, according
to Schep, "without any intention to reject the Western formu-
lations as unscriptural, [the Eastern Church simply] went her
own way in formulating the truth,"?

Confessions of the BodilyResurrection

in the Early Church
As we saw in Chapter 3, the New Testament explicitly re-
fers to the resurrection body as a body of flesh (Luke 24:39;
Acts 2:31; compare 13:37). Several other passages directly
51
 The Battle for the Resurrection
52--------------------
imply that Jesus' incarnation into flesh continues even after
the resurrection (John 1:14; 1 John 4:2). It was after Jesus'
resurrection that John warned of "many deceivers, who do
not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming [and remaining] in
the flesh" (2 John 7 NIV, Greek present tense). Deceivers
have persisted throughout church history. At each age, Chris-
tians have declared the truth in opposition to error.
Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200)
With the exception of unorthodox views, such as that of
Origen (see Chapter 6), the earliest church fathers consis-
tently affirmed that Jesus rose in the same body of flesh in
which He was crucified. Irenaeus was one of the first great
theologians of the Christian Church. In his famous work
Against Heresies, he said,
The Church [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are
in them: and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became
incarnate for our salvation; ... and the resurrection from the
dead, and ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved
Christ Jesus, our Lord ... (emphasis mine).'
In this confession Irenaeus made it clear that Jesus' resurrec-
tion in literal human flesh was a universal belief of the early
church. He added, "Inasmuch as Christ did rise in our flesh,
it follows that we shall be also raised in the same [flesh]; since
the resurrection promised to us should not be referred to spir-
its naturally immortal, but to bodies in themselves mortal
(emphasis mine),": Resurrecting the flesh is no problem for
God. For, "since the Lord has power to infuse life into what
He has fashioned, since the flesh is capable of being quick-
ened, what remains to prevent its participation in incorrup-
tion, which is a blissful and never-ending life granted by God
(emphasis mine)?"S
Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-230)
Writing in his Prescription Against Heretics, the converted
lawyer from north Africa, Quintus Septimus Tertullian de-
"1 Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
---------------------53
clared the resurrection of the flesh to be normative for the
Church:
Now with regard to this rule of faith ... you must know, that
which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and
that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who pro-
duced all things out ofnothing through His own Word, first of
all sent forth; . . . at last brought down by the Spirit and
Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in
her womb, ... having been crucified, He rose again the third
day; ... will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoy-
ment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to
condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection
of both these classes shall have happened, together with the
restoration of their flesh (emphasis mine)."
Tertullian added that "this rule, as it will be proved, was
taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other ques-
tion than those which heresies introduce, and which make
men heretics."? This makes it clear that the belief in the mate-
rial nature of the resurrection body was considered to be the
teaching of Christ, the universal rule of the Christian Church,
and those who denied it were considered heretics.
Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165)
The converted philosopher Justin Martyr was one of the
great apologists of the early Church. He not only used the
phrase "resurrection of the flesh;' but he also designated it as
referring to the flesh-body, not to the soul. He said plainly,
"the resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which dies (em-
phasis mine),"? He added, "There are some who maintain
that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in
flesh (emphasis mine), but presented merely the appearance
of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise,"?
To them Justin replied: "Let the unbelieving be silent, even
though they themselves do not believe. But in truth, He has
even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it
everlasting life. For where He promises to save man, there He
gives the promise to the flesh (emphasis minej,'?"
 The Battle for the Resurrection
54-------------------
As to Jesus' resurrection, Justin asked, "Why did he rise in
theflesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection
of the flesh? (emphasis mine)?" Furthermore,
when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrec-
tion of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not
impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven .... "He was taken
up into heaven while they beheld," as He was in the flesh (em-
phasis mine)."
Justin left no doubt that he believed that the literal, physi-
cal flesh of Christ both raised and ascended into heaven.
Athenagoras (Second Century)
Writing in a treatise on "The Resurrection of the Dead;'
the second century Christian teacher at Athens, Athenagoras,
distinguished between the spiritual dimension of man and the
flesh-body dimension, which he believed died and rose from
the dead. In response to those who denied the physical resur-
rection he declared,
Moreover also, that His power is sufficient of the raising of
dead bodies, is shown by the creation ofthese same bodies. For
if, when they did not exist, He made at their first formation
the bodies of men, and their original elements, He will, when
they are dissolved, in whatever manner that may take place,
raise them again with equal ease: for this too, is equally possi-
ble to Him (emphasis mine)."
So literally did he take the nature of the resurrection body
that he believed even the "original elements" of the body
would be restored at the resurrection. And although this spec-
ificity is unnecessary to an orthodox view (see Appendix A),
nonetheless, it does show the unmistakable belief that the res-
urrection body was the same material body that had died.
Rufinus (A.D. 345-410)
This famous Latin bishop wrote a "Commentary on the
Apostles' Creed." In it he declared that even the lost particles
"I Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
--------------------55
of the dead body would be restored in the resurrection body.
In another statement by Rufinus found in a preface to "Pam-
philus' Defense of Origen," he emphasized the identity of
Christ's body and His flesh, saying,
We believe that it is this very flesh in which we are now living
which will rise again, not one kind of flesh instead of another,
nor another body than the body of this flesh . . . . It is an
absurd invention of maliciousness to think that the human
body is different from the flesh . . . (emphasis mine)."
It is obvious that Rufinus made no subtle distinction be-
tween body and flesh, such as some modern scholars make in
denying the material nature of the resurrection body. A body
is a body of flesh, and flesh is that of which a body is com-
posed. Nothing could be more plain.
Epiphanius (Fourth Century)
The Second Creed of Epiphanius (A.D. 374) is an enlarge-
ment of the famous Nicene Creed by the learned Bishop of
Salamis, Cyprus, named Epiphanius. It affirmed that Christ
went into heaven in the same body of flesh in which He suf-
fered:
For the Word became flesh, not undergoing any change nor
converting Godhead into Manhood, [but] uniting into his
own one holy perfection and Godhead, ... the same suffered
in the flesh; rose again; and went up to heaven in the same
body, sat down gloriously at the right hand of the Father; is
coming in the same body in glory to judge the quick and the
dead; ... (emphasis mine)."
Three things are evident from this. First, this creed con-
fessed that Christ was resurrected in the same "flesh" in
which He was crucified. Second, "flesh" is used interchange-
ably with "body." After all, a human body is a body of flesh.
And Epiphanius believed that to deny that Jesus had a fleshy
human body either before or after the resurrection was to
deny the incarnation itself (see John 1:14; 1 John 4:2). Third,
 The Battle for the Resurrection
56-------------------
this same body of flesh in which Jesus lived and died is now in
heaven and will return again to earth at the Second Corning.
Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386)
In his famous Catechetical Lectures (Chapter 18), the bishop
of Jerusalem argued that God is able to reconstitute flesh
which has become dust into flesh again. He considered it he-
retical to deny that one is resurrected in the same material
body in which he died.
Let no heretic ever persuade thee to speak evil of the Resur-
rection. For to this day the Manichees say, that the resurrec-
tion of the Saviour was phantom-wise, and not real, not
heeding Paulwho says, Who was madeflesh oftheseedofDavid
according to flesh; and again, By the resurrection ofJesus Christ
our Lord from the dead (emphasis mine)."
According to Cyril, belief in the material nature of the res-
urrection body was part of the confession of the "one Holy
Catholic Church."
The Faith which we rehearse contains in order the following,
"AND IN ONE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE
REMISSION OF SINS; AND IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
CHURCH; AND IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE
FLESH; AND IN ETERNAL LIFE (emphasis mine),'?"
Cyril referred to the resurrection body as "the very same
body" we have before the resurrection. IS Similar views were
held by Gregory of Nazianzen (a president of the Constantino-
ple Council), Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great. From
this it is evident that even the early Eastern Church confessed
a literal, material resurrection body.
Confessions of the Bodily Resurrection
in the Medieval Church
The earliest great father of the Middle Ages was the Bishop
of Hippo, St. Augustine. His extensive and influential writ-
"I Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
---------------------57
ings dominated the medieval church and continue to influ-
ence Christian thought even to this day.
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430)
Augustine spoke most explicitly to the nature of the resur-
rection body in this passage: "It is indubitable that the resur-
rection of Christ, and His ascension into heaven with the flesh
in which He rose, is already preached and believed in the
whole world (emphasis minej.?" In the same place Augustine
added that the belief in the resurrection of the material body
of flesh was a universal belief in the Church:
The world has come to the beliefthat the earthlybody of Christ
was received up into heaven. Already both the learned and
unlearned have believedin the resurrection of the flesh and its
ascension to the heavenlyplaces, while only a very few either
of the educated or uneducated are still staggered by it."
Augustine also stressed the fact that resurrection is in the
same physical body in which one lived before death and then
the resurrection. He declared that individuals would be raised
in their same sex and even without any bodily loss, "lest the
men who largest here should lose anything of their bulk and it
should perish, in contradiction to the words of Christ, who
said that not a hair of their head should perish . . . ."21
Along with the early Fathers, Augustine believed that God
would reconstitute all of the decomposed parts of the body in
the resurrection, saying,
Far be it from us to fear that the omnipotence of the Creator
cannot, for the resuscitation and reanimation ofour bodies, recall
all the portions which have been consumed by beasts or fire, or
have been dissolved into dust or ashes, or have decomposed
into water, or even evaporated into the air (emphasis mine)."
St. Augustine left no doubt about the universal Christian
belief in the literal, physical nature of the resurrection body.
It was the same material body, now glorified, that was pos-
sessed before the resurrection."
 The Battle for the Resurrection
58--------------------
St. Anselm (A.D. 1033-1109)
Without interruption from Augustine to Anselm, the cath-
olic (universal) confession of the Christian Church was of the
resurrection of the actual physical body of flesh and bones.
Speaking to the topic "How man will rise with the same body
which he has in this world," the great theologian St. Anselm
of Canterbury concluded,
From this the future resurrection of the dead is clearly
proved. For if man is to be perfectly restored, the restoration
should make him such as he would have been had he never
sinned . . . . Therefore, as man, had he not sinned, was to
have been transferred with the same body to an immortal state,
so when he shall be restored, it must properly be with his own
body as he lived in this world (emphasis mine)."
Adding an insightful comment on what constitutes human
nature, Anselm declared,
I do not think mortality inheres in the essential nature ofman,
but only as corrupted. Since, had man never sinned, and had
immortality been unchangeably confirmed, he would have
been as really man: and, when the dying rise again, incorrupt-
ible, they will be no less really men. For, if mortality was an
essential attribute of human nature, then he who was immor-
tal could not be man (emphasis mine)."
From Anselm's statements it is evident that he believed that
in the resurrection believers will be "no less really men" but
will have the same "essential nature;' including both the
"body and soul'?' they had before the resurrection.
St. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224-1274)
Capping off the end of the medieval church was the great
systematic theologian Thomas Aquinas. On the nature of the
resurrection body, he said explicitly: "The soul does not take
an airy or heavenly body, or a body of another organic consti-
"I Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
--------------------59
tution, but a human body composed offlesh and bones and the
same members enjoyed at present (emphasis minej.?"
Commenting on those who deny a physical resurrection,
Aquinas wrote,
They have not believed in the resurrection of the body, and
have strained to twist the words of Holy Scripture to mean a
spiritual resurrection, a resurrection from sin through
grace . . . that St. Paul believed in a bodily resurrection is
clear ... to deny this, and to affirm a purelyspiritual resurrec-
tion is against the Christian Faith (emphasis mine)."
As for the seeming impossibility that a body that dies could
be restored with numerical identity, Aquinas concluded that
"by conjunction to a soul numerically the same theman will be
restored to matter numerically the same (emphasis mine),"?'
Therefore, "although this corporeality yields to nothingness
when the human body is corrupted, it cannot, for all that, be
an obstacle to the body's rising with numerical identity (81.7 em-
phasis mine)." Hence, "it is clear that man returns numerically
the same both by reason ofthepermanence ofthe rational souland
by reason of the unity ofmatter" (81.10 emphasis mine)."
The fact that human bodies have parts that are changing
"is not an obstacle to his being numerically one from the be-
ginning of his life to the end of it, ... for the form and species
of its single parts remain continuously through a whole life"
(81.12).32 From this "it is clear, also, that there is no obstacle
to faith in the resurrection-even in the fact that some men eat
human flesh...." For in the resurrection "the flesh consumed
will rise in him in whom it was first perfected by a rational soul
(emphasis mine)." As for those who ate flesh, that will not be
part of their resurrection body, "what is wanting will be sup-
plied by the Creator's omnipotence" (81.13).33 These un-
equivocally clear statements leave no doubt that Aquinas be-
lieved that the resurrection body was numerically identical to
the pre-resurrection body.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
60-------------------
Confessions of the Bodily Resurrection
from the Reformation to the Present
The Reformers did not forsake their orthodox Christologi-
cal roots. They too continued the unbroken confession of the
resurrection of the flesh. Consider the following examples.
The Formula of Concord (A.D. 1576)
This great Lutheran confession reads as follows:
Webelieve, teach and confess... the chief articles of our faith
(of Creation, of Redemption, of Sanctification, and the Resur-
rection of the flesh) .•. (emphasis mine)."
This same human nature of ours (that is his own work)
Christ has redeemed, the same (inasmuch as it is his own
work) he sanctifies, the same [human nature] doth he raise from
the dead, and with great glory (as being his own) doth he
crown it (emphasis mine),"
The Saxon Visitation Articles (A.D. 1592)
These Articles, prepared by Aegidius Hunnius and other
Lutheran theologians in Saxony, declare,
By this personal union [of Christ's two natures], and the exal-
tation which followed it, Christ, according to the flesh, is
placed at the right hand of God, and has received power in
heaven and earth, and is made partaker of all the divine maj-
esty, honor, power, and glory (emphasis mine)."
The French Confession of Faith (A.D. 1559)
This confession was prepared by John Calvin and his stu-
dent, De Chandieu. It was approved by the Synod of Paris in
1559. On the resurrection it pronounced that "although Jesus
Christ, in rising from the dead, bestowed immortality upon
his body, yet he did not take away from it the truth of its na-
ture, and we so consider him in his divinity that we do not
despoil him of his humanity (emphasis minej.?" This confes-
sion is of particular interest since it speaks explicitly to the
point that the resurrection did not take away from the nature
"I Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
-------------------61
of the physical body, but simply added immortality to it. To
deny this would be a denial of Jesus' humanity.
The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561)
This confession was composed in French for the churches
in Flanders and the Netherlands. It was adopted by the Re-
formed Synod at Emden (1571) and the Synod of Dort
(1619). On the resurrection it says,
And though he hath by his resurrection given immortality to
the same, nevertheless he hath not changed the reality of his
human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection
also depend on the reality of his body (emphasis mine)."
Finally, we believe, according to the Word of God, ... that
our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, corporally and
visibly as he ascended with great glory and majesty, to declare
himself Judge of the quick and the dead, .... For all the dead
shall be raised out of the earth, and their souls joined and
united with theirproper bodies in which theyformerly lived (em-
phasis mine)."
From these statements it is evident that they believed our
salvation and resurrection depend on Christ's resurrection in
the same physical, material body possessed before the resur-
rection.
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (A.D. 1562)
These Articles of the Church of England were adopted in
1562 and revised for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States in 1801. Both versions declare that:
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body,
with flesh and bones, and all things appertaining to the perfec-
tion of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven,
and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last
day (emphasis mine)."
This could scarcely be more explicit about the material nature
of the resurrection body. Christ arose in the exact same body
 The Battle for the Resurrection
62---------------------
of "flesh and bones" in which He had lived and died. And it
is this same body "wherewith" He ascended into heaven.
The Westminster Confession (A.D. 1647)
The Westminster Confession first appeared in England in
1647. It has been the standard for orthodox Presbyterians
since that time. The article on the resurrection of Christ (VII,
4) also affirms the historic belief in the physical nature of His
resurrection body, confessing that He "was crucified, and
died; was buried, and remained under the power of death,yet
saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead,
with the same body in which he suffered; with which he ascended
into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father
. . . (emphasis mine),?"
Here again the language is clear: The resurrection body
was the same physical body Jesus had before His death. In
fact, that body saw no corruption, so it had to be the same
material body.
Declaration of the Congregational Union (1833)
Early Congregationalists and Baptists also held to the phys-
ical, material nature of the resurrection. The Declaration of
the Congregational Union of England and Wales (1833)
speaks of Christ being "manifested in the flesh" and "after
his death and resurrection, he ascended up into heaven ...."
Referring to the material bodies of the departed, they add:
"And the bodies of the dead will be raised again,"? The New
Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833) also acknowledged the
material nature of the resurrection body, speaking of raising
"the dead from the grave" where the material corpse was bur-
ied." Other Anabaptist and Baptist groups also confessed the
literal physical nature of the resurrection body."
It was not until 1552 that the phrase "resurrection of the
body" was admitted to the Apostles' Creed as an alternate
reading for "the resurrection of the flesh." But as Schep
notes, even here "the terms 'flesh' and 'body' were regarded
as equivalent." In his helpful work The Resurrection of the
Flesh, L. E. Block also defends the phrase "resurrection of
"I Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
--------------------63
the flesh" as "legitimate expression of the Biblical doctrine of
the resurrection.?" Indeed, as we have seen, affirming the
resurrection of the flesh is not only the biblical teaching on the
resurrection but has been the universal confession of the or-
thodox Church down through the centuries.
The Heart of the Issue
From this discussion ofthe great confessions on the "resur-
rection of the flesh," several key elements of the orthodox
view emerge. There are at least three of them explicitly stated
(and others implied):
1) Jesus resurrected in the same body in which He died.
2) The resurrection body was material by nature.
3) The resurrection was an historical (space-time) event.
Numerical Identity (The Same Physical Body)
It has always been part of orthodox belief to acknowledge
that Jesus was raised immortal in the same physical body in
which He died. That is, His resurrection body was numerically
the same as His pre-resurrection body. Sometimes they used the
very words "numerically identical." At other times they indi-
cated it by calling it "the same body" or equivalent expres-
sions.
Materiality
The resurrection body is a material body. It is not invisible or
immaterial by nature. The orthodox fathers unanimously con-
fessed belief in "the resurrection of the flesh." They believed
that flesh was essential to human nature and that Jesus, being
fully human, was not only incarnated in, but also resurrected
in, the same human flesh He had before His death. A resur-
rected body can be seen with the naked eye. If a picture were
taken of it, the image would appear on the film. As Anselm
affirmed, it is just as material as Adam's body was and would
have remained if Adam had not sinned. It was so physical that
were someone to have seen it arise in the tomb, it would have
caused dust to fall off the slab from which it arose!
 The Battle for the Resurrection "I Believe in the ... Resurrection of the Flesh"
64-------------------- -------------------65
Historicity
Jesus' resurrection was a historical event. It happened in the
The Resurrection of the Flesh
space-time world. From the very earliest Christian docu- All the essential characteristics of the resurrection body are
ments it is dated as "on the third day" (see 1 Cor. 15:4). The summed up well in the phrase "resurrection of the flesh."
body that was raised was empirically observable. Thus, the However, as we have already seen (Chapter 3), the New Tes-
stress is laid upon his physical appearances (see 1 Cor. 15:5- tament speaks directly ofthe resurrection body as "flesh" in
7). Paul said, "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (l Cor. 9:1 some passages (see Luke 24:39; Acts 2:31) and inclusively in
NIV). John stressed that he "became flesh;' He "was in the others (see 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). Denial of the apostolic belief
world" (John 1:10, 14), and He remained "in the flesh" even in the "resurrection of the flesh" is both unbiblical and con-
after His resurrection (l John 4:2; 2 John 7). Regardless of the trary to the orthodox confessions of the Christian Church.
supernatural nature of the event, the resurrection was as
much a part of history as was His incarnation before His
death.
Strangely, even some who deny this orthodox confession of
the resurrection of the numerically identical material body of
Jesus in the space-time world, admit: "Until the time of the
Reformation the creeds of the West spoke only of the resur-
rection of the flesh (sarkos anastasis; resurrectio carnis). Here
'flesh' refers to the material components, the substance, or
the body: the flesh-body as distinct from the soul (emphasis
mine)."
In spite of this admission, they affirm just the opposite of
the orthodox view, claiming that:
1) It is not numerically identical to pre-resurrection body.
The new body is qualitatively and numerically distinct from theold
body (emphasis mine)."
2) Jesus was not resurrected in the flesh.
It will be neither fleshly norfleshy (emphasis added). 48
3) Jesus' resurrection body was not a visible object in the
observable world. 49
After his resurrection his essential state was one ofinvisibilityand
immateriality (emphasis mine). 50
As a non-empirical event of and with Jesus himselfafter his
death, the resurrection is perse trans-historical ... (emphasis
mine)."

5 --------------------67
Denials of the
Physical Resurrection
Denials of the orthodox, biblical teaching that
Jesus resurrected in the same physical body in which He died
are not new. Even during New Testament times, the false
story circulated that Jesus' "disciples came during the night
and stole him away" (Matt. 28:13 NIV). Since then, the physi-
cal resurrection has been denied in many other ways by both
liberals and cultists.
Common Denials of the Resurrection
The most common denial of the resurrection of Christ is
simply to argue that His body never came out of the tomb
alive. This can be done in several ways. Some claim that
Christ's body remained in the grave and that the disciples
went to the wrong tomb. Others say the disciples stole His
body. Still others modify this idea and hold that Jesus never
died on the cross, He only lost consciousness. He later revived
in the tomb.
The Common Element
The common element behind most of the denials of
Christ's physical resurrection is the rejection of miracles as
possible and real events in the space-time world. Much of
modern antisupernaturalism is traceable to the Jewish pan-
66
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
theist Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) and the Scottish skeptic
David Hume (1711-1776).
Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677Y
One of the first modern thinkers to attack the supernatural
was naturalist Benedict Spinoza. Misapplying Newton's con-
cept of a universal law of nature, Spinoza insisted that "noth-
ing then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her
universal laws, nay, nothing does not agree with them and
follow from them, for . . . she keeps a fixed and immutable
order." In fact for Spinoza "a miracle, whether in contraven-
tion to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity." Spinoza was
dogmatic about the impossibility of miracles. He proclaimed,
"We may, then, be absolutely certain that every event which
is truly described in Scripture necessarily happened, like
everything else, according to natural laws,":
Spinoza's argument can be summarized as follows:
1) Miracles are violations of natural laws.
2) Natural laws are immutable (unchanging).
3) It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated.
4) Therefore, miracles are impossible.
On the basis of this argument, Spinoza rejected all miracles
in the Bible, concluding that "every event ... in Scripture
necessarily happened, like everything else, according to natu-
ral laws."" This means there was no bodily resurrection. "The
apostles who came after Christ preached it [Christianity] to all
men as a universal religion solely in virtue of Christ's passion
[death] ."4
Few scientists today would agree with Spinoza's outdated
statement on the immutability of natural laws. Modern physi-
cists think of natural laws as being only highly probable de-
scriptions, not absolutely unbreakable laws. Nonetheless,
Spinoza's antisupernaturallegacy continues.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Perhaps the most enduring argument against miracles
came a century after Spinoza from the skeptic David Hume.
He boasted of his argument: "I flatter myself that I have dis-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
68-------------------
covered an argument . . . which, if just, will, with the wise
and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of supersti-
tious delusion, and consequently will be useful as long as the
world endures?"
What is the "final" argument against the miraculous? Ac-
cording to Hume it goes like this:
1) "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature."
2) "Firm and unalterable experience has established these
laws."
3) "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
4) Therefore, "the proof against miracles ... is as entire as
any argument from experience can possibly be imag-
ined,"?
The key statement in this argument is the second one,
which Hume explains as follows: "There must, therefore, be
a uniform experience against every miraculous event. Other-
wise the event would not merit that appellation." So "nothing
is esteemed a miracle if it ever happened in the common
course of nature?"
In view of his argument against miracles, Hume concluded
that no miracle in the Bible is credible, including the bodily
resurrection of Christ. The overwhelming testimony of our
senses is that people who die do not rise again. Hence, the
story of an alleged resurrection is so exceptional as to be re-
futed by this universal experiential testimony against it.
The Result of Denying Miracles
On the basis of this antisupernaturalism, modern biblical
scholars began to write their desupernaturalized versions of
the life of Christ. One of the most famous ones was that of
David Strauss, The Life of Jesus (1835-1836). He concluded
emphatically: "We may summarily reject all miracles, prophe-
cies, narratives of angels and demons, and the like, as simply
impossible and irreconcilable with the known and universal
laws which govern the course of events,"!
The author of the American Declaration of Independence
(1776), Thomas Jefferson, literally cut all the miracles out of
the Gospels. The truncated version of the life of Christ was
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
---------------------69
published after Jefferson's death as "The Jefferson Bible." It
ends abruptly after Jesus' death with these words: "Now, in
the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in
the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of
the sepulchre, and departed.?"
Such is the result of denying miracles. It leaves us with a
sealed tomb and an empty hope for a resurrected life to come.
A Response to the Case Against Miracles
The common thread in all these naturalistic attempts to ex-
plain away the bodily resurrection of Christ is their rejection
of supernatural intervention into history. The arguments
against miracles (and the liberal explanations in place of the
resurrection based on them) is the belief that science is about
regularities, not singularities. That is, a scientific understand-
ing is only possible if something happens over and over so
that a pattern develops. If something happens only once, as
opposed to many times, there is no credible basis for believing
in it. Science as such can never accept the miraculous, which
by its very nature does not happen over and over again.
However, the regularity argument against miracles is with-
out foundation. Even naturalistic scientists accept some major
events that happened only once. They accept that the origin
of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new
life forms are all one-time events, singularities rather than
regularities.
The Universe Began Only Once
According to the prevailing Big Bang theory of the origin of
the universe, all the matter of the cosmos came into existence
in a gigantic cosmic explosion. The evidence for this is abun-
dant. For example, according to the Second Law of Thermo-
dynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy. It is
literally running down. If it were eternal, its usable energy
level would be static, not decreasing. However, its usable
energy level is decreasing, therefore, it must have had a begin-
ning.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
70'------------------
Agnostic astronomer Robert Iastrow says the evidence that
the universe began "has convinced almost the last doubting
Thomas.?" for "the scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the
moment of creation,'?' The universe came into existence "at a
definite moment oftime, in a flash oflight and energy ."12 And it
has not repeated this since. In other words, as far as the scien-
tific evidence goes, the origin of the material universe (cos-
mos) is a unique, one-time event. Yet most scientists believe
that it did happen. Why then should they reject a miracle be-
cause it is a one-time event that is not repeated over and over?
The Origin of Life Happened Only Once
Naturalistic scientists believe that life began on earth "or
some other planet) by spontaneous generation. That is, it
emerged from chemicals by purely natural processes. One
scenario involves lightning combining gases into amino acids
of which proteins are made which are the building blocks of
life. Even though they admit that the odds against this chance
development are very rare (one scientist estimated the chances
as 1 in 1040,000), nevertheless, they believe it did happen."
In other words, they hold that life began in the "primeval
pond" just once, by chance, and, as far as we can tell, it has
never emerged spontaneously again. Even though they can-
not repeat it in an experiment or observe it in the world, they
think it is reasonable and scientific to hold this view. But if it
is credible to believe in this statistical "miracle," then they
have no justification to reject a biblical miracle. Just because
the resurrection of Christ is a rare and unrepeated event does
not mean it is not credible.
As a matter of fact, to reject miracles one must reject God.
If God exists, then miracles as defmed above are possible. If
there is a God who can act, then there can be acts of God. As
C. S. Lewis aptly commented, "But if we admit God, must
we admit Miracles? Indeed, you have no security against it.
That is the bargain."?' Furthermore, Hume was wrong when
he claimed that what happened only once is infmitely improb-
able. For "the whole history of the Earth has also happened
only once: is it therefore incredible?"IS
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
-------------------71
Liberal Explanations Opposed to the Resurrection
Since most liberals acknowledge that Jesus lived and that
there were reports from the very beginning of Christianity
that Jesus rose from the dead, they must offer some explana-
tion of the reports. From this several theories have emerged.
Once one accepts the possibility of the miraculous, none of
them is very credible. Nonetheless, those who deny miracles
must still explain the reported resurrection of Christ.
The New Testament Documents Are Not Reliable
The reports that Jesus rose from the dead are mainly in the
New Testament and many scholars deny their reliability,
claiming that the accounts are legendary or mythological. Ru-
dolph Bultmann, for example, insisted that the resurrection
"is not an event of past history .... An historical fact which
involves a resurrection from the dead is utterly inconceiv-
able.?" He listed four reasons for this conclusion. First of all,
there is "the incredibility of a mythical event like the resur-
rection of a corpse-for that is what resurrection means ...."
Second, there is "the difficulty of establishing the objective
historicity of the resurrection ...." Third, "the resurrection
is an article of faith . . . ." Finally, "such a miracle is not
otherwise unknown to mythology.':"
So, the resurrection is not an event of objective history. It is
a "myth" which cannot be observed or verified. In support
of his contention, Bultmann pointed to the transcendent na-
ture of a miracle. It is an "act of God." But God is beyond
space-time history. His acts are transcendent; they are above
observable human history. To reduce them to empirical his-
tory is to deny their transcendent, spiritual nature, and to
thereby rob them of their redemptive truth. Miracles are not
of this world. They are acts in the spiritual world.
There are two basic problems with this objection, one phil-
osophical and one historical.
Philosophical Problem
Philosophically, Bultmann wrongly assumes that because a
miracle is not of history that it cannot be in history. That does
 The Battle for the Resurrection
72--------------------
not follow. Certainly there is a transcendent dimension to a
miracle. The resurrection, for example, is more than a purely
empirical event. It has a transcendent source (God) as well as a
trans-historical significance (salvation). But because the resur-
rection of Christ comes from beyond time does not mean that
it did not happen in time. A miracle is an act of God, and God
is beyond the world, but He can, nevertheless, act in the
world. They are historical and observable insofar as the resur-
rection and post-resurrection appearances of Christ were
events in space and time. For example, the appearances of
Christ were observable with the naked eye. Even the event of
the resurrection could have been seen with mortal eyes. Had
anyone been present in the tomb that first Easter morning,
they would have seen the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth come to
life and walk away.
Historical Problem
Historically, claiming that the New Testament documents
are not reliable is completely unwarranted. Dr. Gary Haber-
mas discredited this claim in his excellent book The Verdict of
History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life ofJesus 18 , as did F. F.
Bruce in his popular The Net» Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable? 19, and John Warwick Montgomery in his Christianity
and History. 20
First of all, there are more manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment than any book from the ancient world. Many classics
survive on only a handful of manuscripts, but the New Testa-
ment is supported by over 5300 manuscripts. This means we
have a wealth of textual information from which to recon-
struct the original statements.
Second, the New Testament manuscripts are earlier than
those of other books from the ancient world. The gap be-
tween the time of composition and the first copies of other
books from the ancient world is about a thousand years. But
the first copies of New Testament books come from only
about a hundred years after the end of the first century. This
means that there was insufficient time for spurious claims and
myths to be added to the original without detection and chal-
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
-------------------73
lenge. It also establishes the composition of the books within
the lifetimes of the witnesses.
Third, the accuracy of the copies of the New Testament is
better than that of other books from the ancient world. The
Hindu Mahabharata is only about 90 percent accurate and
Homer's Iliad about 95 percent, but, according to the science
of textual criticism, the New Testament copies are over 99
percent accurate. 21 In other words, we can be confident that
what we have is what was written originally.
Fourth, the number of different writers of the New Testa-
ment is greater than those of other events from antiquity.
Four persons wrote the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John) and at least four other persons wrote epistles (Paul,
James, Peter, and Jude). The harmony and consistency of
their stories confirms the stories' authenticity.
Fifth, there are six different but not conflicting accounts of
the resurrected Christ (Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-
21; Acts 1; 1 Cor. 15). Two or three witnesses are sufficient to
establish a credible report.
Sixth, there were over five hundred people who saw Christ
after His resurrection over a forty-day period of time on at
least twelve different occasions. They saw Him and His
empty grave, heard Him, touched Him, and even ate with
Him four times (see Chapter 8). The sum total of this evi-
dence is more than sufficient to establish the authenticity of
the event.
The Disciples Stole the Body
The view that the disciples conspired to steal Jesus' body
was the earliest attempt to explain away the resurrection. The
soldiers at Jesus' tomb were paid a large sum of money and
were told, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the
night and stole him away while we were asleep' " (Matt. 28: 13
NIV). This theory was examined and refuted by the early
church historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his Demonstratio
Evangelica (314-318). In the eighteenth century the deist
H. S. Reimarus (1769) revived the theory." However, his the-
sis was completely discredited by Nathaniel Lardner's im-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
74--------------------
pressive twelve-volume The Credibility of the Gospel History
(1730-1755). A good recent summary of the arguments
against it can be found in William Lane Craig's Knowing the
Truth About the Resurrection.23
This conspiracy view lacks credibility for several reasons.
For one, it is opposed to the high moral character of the disci-
ples as honest men, taught to value honesty by their teachers,
who were even willing to die for their beliefs. For another, it
assumes, contrary to their unimaginative minds and good
character, that the disciples were clever plotters. Further-
more, it is highly implausible to suppose that universal agree-
ment could be maintained among all the disciples without the
story eventually unraveling. The conspiracy theory is also
contrary to the fact that previously they had fled for fear of
being caught. Moreover, if the body actually had been stolen,
the soldiers would have been disciplined for sleeping on duty,
but they were not. The radical change in the disciples after
the resurrection also shows they did not steal the body but
were transformed by seeing Jesus alive. And finally, stealing a
dead body is one thing; giving it life is another. This hypothe-
sis does not explain the twelve appearances of this same body
over the next forty days to over five hundred people (see
Chapter 8).
The Women Went to the Wrong Tomb
Some have argued that in the dark of the early morning
Mary Magdalene and the women went to the wrong tomb.
Finding it empty, they incorrectly reported to the disciples
that Christ had risen from the dead. This theory was put forth
by Kirsopp Lake in The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ (d. 1907).24 The converted skeptic Frank
Morrison thoroughly refuted this view in his famous book
Who Moved the Stoner»
This explanation holds no water for many reasons. First, if
it was so dark the women could not see, then why did Mary
Magdalene suppose that the one she saw was the gardener
already at work? It was uncommon (and difficult) for garden-
ers to attempt gardening before dawn. Second, if they went to
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
-------------------75
the wrong tomb in the dark, then the authorities could have
gone to the right tomb in the light (where they knew Jesus was
buried) and produced the body to refute the error. The fact
that the authorities did not do this is strong evidence that
Jesus' tomb was already empty. Third, later Peter and John
went to the tomb in broad daylight and saw no body, only
empty grave clothes. Fourth, like the other naturalistic expla-
nations, this theory does not account for the twelve post-
resurrection appearances of Christ (see Chapter 8), nor the
miraculously transformed lives of the disciples from despon-
dency and fear to conviction and courage within a few weeks
after Christ's death.
Joseph Removed the Body
Since Jesus was buried in a borrowed tomb belonging to
Joseph of Arimathea, some suppose that Joseph removed
Jesus' body. However, there are serious problems with this
suggestion. For example, when did he do it? In the dark with
torches while guards were standing guard at the tomb's en-
trance? They would have seen him and stopped him. And
later at dawn, the women were already there and would have
seen him. Besides, why would Joseph do it? There is no plau-
sible motive for the crime. Certainly he would not do it to
keep the disciples from stealing the body. He was himself a
follower of Jesus. And if he was not a disciple, then he could
have produced the body and refuted the resurrection claim of
Jesus' disciples. Additionally, this theory is contrary to Jo-
seph's character as a devout follower of Christ, who taught his
followers to be honest and truthful. Finally, this view does
not explain the fact that this same body appeared alive on
twelve occasions for the next month and a half.
The Authorities Took the Body
It has been suggested that the authorities could have stolen .
the body, but this is without any real justification for two very
good reasons. Here again Christian writers have provided
convincing arguments against this hypothesis." If Roman or
Jewish authorities took Jesus' body, then why did they charge
 The Battle for the Resurrection
76---------------------
that the disciples stole it? More importantly, there is nothing
they would have liked better than to produce the dead body of
Jesus and thereby refute this new "sect" of Christians that
sprang up. If the authorities had the corpse of Jesus, they
could have-and certainly would have-produced it and
ended Christianity right then. But they did not have it, and
Christianity spread like wild-fire in early Judaism with thou-
sands accepting Jesus as their living Messiah (Acts 2~41; 4~4;
5:14).
Jesus Only Swooned on the Cross
One of the most popular alternatives to the resurrection is
the view that Jesus didn't really die. He only swooned or
fainted and later revived in the cool, damp tomb. There are
other variations on this that involve Jesus taking drugs in or-
der to feign death. All these views have the same problems.
First, they fail to take seriously the extent of Jesus' fatal
wounds. He had no sleep the night before His crucifixion
(Mark 14:32-41). He even collapsed carrying His cross, due
to exhaustion from the sleepless night and severe beatings He
received from the Roman soldiers (Mark 15:21). He had four
nail wounds on His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). His side was
pierced by a spear that brought forth water and blood (John
19:34). And He was on the cross from 9 A.M. until just before
sunset (Mark 15:25, 33, 34). This extended time of suffering
and bloodshed was fatal.
Medical evidence supports the reality of Christ's physical
death. In 1847 Dr. William Stroud wrote his famous treatise
The Physiological Cause of the Death of Christ, in which he
showed that the "blood and water" that came from Jesus'
spear-pierced side was indubitable proof of His physical
death. Recently, The Journal of the American Medical Society
(March 21, 1986) concluded:
Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indi-
cates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was
inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear,
thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
-------------------77
right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby en-
sured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the as-
sumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at
odds with modern medical knowledge. 27
Second, Jesus' death agony was heard by those around the
cross (John 19:30). He gave every evidence of dying. If Jesus
did not die, then He was not even a good person but a de-
ceiver. But this is contrary to His unimpeachable moral char-
acter. We must also suppose that those standing around the
cross were deceived too, since they watched His suffering and
witnessed His death too. But it is implausible to assume that
everyone in the crowd, including the Roman soldiers, were
mistaken in what they saw and heard.
Third, the Roman soldiers pronounced Jesus dead (John
19:33,34). Since they were accustomed to crucifixion and to
observing people die in this manner, it is unlikely that they
would have considered Jesus dead if He were not dead in fact.
Fourth, Pilate ordered his soldiers to check to make sure
Jesus was dead before he permitted Jesus to be buried (Mark
15:44-45). This double check adds further weight to the con-
clusion that Jesus really died.
Fifth, Jesus was embalmed and wrapped in nearly one hun-
dred pounds of material (John 19~40), which sealed Him in
His death shroud, and made any escape by the crucified
Jesus, had He been only human, virtually impossible.
Sixth, a heavy stone was rolled in front of the tomb and a
contingent of guards was placed there. Even if Jesus had not
died, but merely revived in the tomb, He could not have re-
moved the stone, much less sneaked by the soldiers stationed
at the tomb's entrance.
Finally, even if Jesus had survived all this, His subsequent
appearances would have been more like a resuscitated wretch
than a triumphant Savior.
As even the liberal scholar, David Strauss, admitted:
It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of
the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical
 The Battle for the Resurrection
78-------------------
treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indul-
gence, and who still at last yielded his sufferings, could have
given to his disciples the impressions that he was a conqueror
over death, the prince of life, an impression which lay at the
bottom of their ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have
weakened the impression which he had made upon them in
life and in death, at most could only have given it an elegiac
voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow
into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."
Schonfield's Passover Plot Theory
Hugh J. Schonfield wrote a popular novel, The Passover
Plot (1967)/9 that combines a number of features from various
unorthodox views. He proposed that Jesus conspired with Jo-
seph of Arimathea, Lazarus, and a young man to convince
His disciples that He was the Messiah. This was to be done by
manipulating events so that it looked like He fulfilled proph-
ecy by taking drugs, feigning death, and reviving later. Un-
fortunately, the crucifixion wounds proved fatal. So the
plotters had to dispose of Jesus' body, leaving the mystery of
the empty tomb for the disciples. The appearances of Christ
are explained as cases of mistaken identity.
Noted historian and archaeologist Dr. Edwin Yamauchi
provided a definitive critique of the Passover Plot theory. 30 He
notes the following serious problems. First, Schonfield as-
sumes unfounded late dates for the New Testament books
(mostly after A.D. 100). This is contrary to strong archaeolog-
ical and manuscript evidence that places most New Testament
books (including the Gospels) before A.D. 75. 31 Even the lib-
eral scholar John A. T. Robinson dates the Gospels between
A.D. 40 and 65. 32 This places them within the lifetimes of the
eyewitnesses of the events-much too early for distortion of
their witness without testable challenges from other contem-
poraries.
Second, it does not fit the high moral character of Christ to
make Him into a clever messianic pretender. It makes Him
out to be a cunning deceiver.
Third, it is highly implausible that Jesus could have hidden
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
---------------------79
such a cunning plot from His closest friends and disciples. It
is not only contrary to His known character but to the fact that
the disciples, at least James, Peter, and John, were an intimate
part of Jesus' life for years.
Fourth, there are many prophecies about the Messiah
which Jesus could not have manipulated, including when
(Dan. 9), where (Mic. 5:2), how (Isa, 7:14), and from what
tribe (Gen. 49:19) and dynasty (2 Sam. 7) He would come.
Nor is it plausible that Jesus could have staged or manipulated
the reactions of others to Him, including John's heralding
Him as King (Matt. 3), His accuser's reactions to Him (Matt.
27: 12), the soldier's casting lots for His garments (John
19:23,24), and that they would pierce His side (John 19:34).
Fifth, it is highly improbable that anyone could have stolen
the body from the heavily guarded tomb. As Matthew 28: 12-
15 indicates, the soldiers failure to guard the tomb would have
resulted in severe discipline.
Sixth, the resurrection appearances cannot be cases of mis-
taken identity. There were too many people (over five hun-
dred) who saw Jesus, on too many occasions (twelve), over
too long a time (about forty days), with too much physical
evidence of His identity and reality. They saw Him, heard
Him, touched Him, saw His crucifixion wounds, observed
the empty tomb and grave clothes, and ate with Him on at
least four occasions (see Chapter 7).
There are, of course, other objections to the physical resur-
rection of Christ. The most important current one, that Jesus
rose but not in historical space-time, will be discussed in the
next chapter. This kind of denial is not part of classicalliber-
alism but fits more with current neo-orthodox views of
Christ.
Cultic Denials of the Resurrection
A Christian cult is a group that professes to be Christian yet
denies one or more fundamental Christian teachings, such as
the trinity, the deity or humanity of Christ, or His bodily
resurrection. Of course, whether some unbiblical teaching
 The Battle for the Resurrection
80--------------------
qualifies as cultic will depend on precisely how the orthodox
doctrine is defined. The teachings of the early Christian
thinker Origen are a case in point.
Origen (A.D. c. 185-254)
The teachings of Origen and his followers were condemned
on three occasions by Church Councils." Origen was con-
demned for several teachings, most notably his universalism,
an unbiblical belief that everyone is eventually going to be
saved. However, at the root of Origen's doctrinal problem
was his platonic tendency to spiritualize the literal truth of the
Bible. He contended, for example, that the statement that
Adam hid himself among the trees of the Garden, must be
understood figuratively in Scripture, "that some mythical
meaning may be indicated by it ...." In fact, he added, "the
Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narra-
tives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in
order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole
world, and the glory of them,">
Origen also believed that eventually all beings would be
"reconciled to God from a state of enmity." Thus when "all
rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of this
kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a
change into the glory of a spiritual body,"> For Origen, uni-
versalism, and spiritualizing man's final state go hand in
hand. His platonic tendencies led to his denial of the physical,
material nature of the resurrection body.
Christ Had a Physical Body before the Resurrection
Origen was not a classic gnostic; he believed that Christ
came in the flesh. Acknowledging the truth of John 1:14, Ori-
gen declared that "He [Jesus] became flesh, and having be-
come flesh, 'He tabernacled among us ... .' "36 Further, he
confessed that Jesus appeared in "human form, and announc-
ing Himself as flesh, He calls to Himself those who are flesh
• • • .' '37 Origen confessed the incarnation, the manifestation of
Christ in a real physical, human body.
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
---------------------81
The Resurrection Transforms the Physical into the Spiritual
However, for Origen the resurrection of Christ marked a
radical disjunction with the material, pre-resurrection body.
He wrote:
God created two general natures,-a visible, i.e., a corporeal
nature; and an invisible nature, which is incorporeal .... But
this corporeal nature admits ofa change in substance; whence
also God, the arranger of all things ... [commands] that the
corporeal nature may be transmuted, and transformed into any
form of species whatever ... (emphasis mine)."
Origen went on to say that "the whole of bodily nature will,
in the consummation of all things, consist of one species, ...
the spiritual body (emphasis mine),"?' The process by which
this "different body" arrives is called transformation or
transmutation. "Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body
which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate
in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second (emphasis
mine)."40 This new body will not be material or visible, for
"those things 'which are seen are temporal, but those things
which are not seen are eternal ....'" And "all those bodies
which we see ... and have been made with hands, but are not
eternal, are far exceeded in glory by that which is not visible,
nor made with hands, but is eternal.':" Origen calls this body
"spiritual;' "celestial," and even "ethereal." He does not
really believe in a resurrection of the physical body, but in a
qualitative transformation of it to an immaterial body.
The Post-Resurrection Body Was Immaterial
According to Origen, in the post-resurrection state, the be-
liever "assumes another [body] in addition to the former,
which is needed as a better covering, suited to purer ethereal
regions of heaven,':" He calls this a "spiritual body" and
identifies it with the "house not made with hands, eternal in
the heavens" of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 5: 1 NKJV.
Indeed, Origen says clearly:
 The Battle for the Resurrection
82---------------------
We do not assert, however, that God will raise men from the
dead with the same flesh and blood, as has been shown in
previous pages; for we do not maintain that the natural body,
which is sown in corruption, and in dishonour, and in weak-
ness, will rise again as it was sown (emphasis mine)."
Origen adds, "We, therefore, do not maintain that the
body which has undergone corruption resumes its original
nature, any more than the grain of wheat which has decayed
returns to its former condition.'?" Furthermore, "neither we,
then, nor the holy Scriptures, assert that with the same
bodies, without a change to higher condition, 'shall those
who were long dead arise from the earth and live again;' for in
so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against US."45 Origen
cites in favor of his view Paul's statement in I Corinthians
15:49: "we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." But he
believes that "the apostle wishes to conceal the secret mean-
ing of this passage," thus necessitating that we take "a secret
and mystical meaning.?" It is with this mystical, platonic
method of interpretation that he dematerialized the physical
resurrection and spoke of an ethereal, spiritual body.
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses also hold to an immaterial view of the
nature of the resurrection body. This is evident throughout
their writings.
Jesus Lived and Died in a Material Body
While they deny the deity of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses
do not deny that He possessed a real material human body. In
fact, they believe He was only a man during His incarnation.
They call his human body "the fleshly body . . . in which
Jesus humbled himself, like a servant ...."47 Jesus was "put
to death in the flesh . . . ."48 He was put in the grave as a
"human creature.':" They speak of "our Lord's human body,
the one crucified . . . ."50 So Jesus lived and died in a real
human body of flesh and bones, a physical body.
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
--------------------83
Jesus Was Not Resurrected in His Body
However, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Christ rose in
that same body that was placed in the tomb. Rather, it was an
invisible, immaterial body.
The fleshly body is the body in which Jesus humbled himself,
like a servant, and is not the body of his glorification, nor the
body in which he was resurrected. 51
So the King Christ Jesus was put to death in the flesh and
was resurrected an invisible spirit creature.52
The human body, the one crucified, was removed from the
tomb by the power of God. . .. The Scriptures do not reveal
what became of that body, except that it did not decay or cor-
rupt."
Our Lord's human body ... did not decay or corrupt....
Whether it was dissolved into gases or whether it is still pre-
served somewhere as the grand memorial of God's love, of
Christ's obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows.54
In short, Jesus was not raised in the body in which He
died. Rather, He rose in another body, one that was immate-
rial yet, like angels, capable of appearing in a different form.
Resurrection Appearances Are Only "Materializations'
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus' post-death ap-
pearances were simply His ability as a spirit to "materialize"
for the purpose of communicating with His disciples.
Therefore, the bodies in which Jesus manifested himself to his
disciples after his resurrection were not the body in which he
was nailed to the tree. They were merely materialized for the
occasion, resembling on one or two occasions the body in
which he died. 55
He [Christ] instantly created and assumed such a body of
flesh and such clothing as he saw fit for the purpose in-
tended."
The New Age Denial of the Resurrection
The New Age writer of the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the
Christ, 57 Levi Dowling, also held to the immaterial nature of
 The Battle for the Resurrection
84--------------------
the resurrection body. He literally rewrote (allegedly through
psychic powers) the life of Jesus in order to express his unor-
thodox view. In his account of the resurrection, the Jewish
soldiers guarding the tomb heard a voice say, "Lord Christ
arise;' following which an angel tore the seal from the tomb.
Then the soldiers "saw the body of the Nazarene transmute;
they saw it change from mortal to immortal form, and then it
disappeared" (XX. 172.39). Then, "they looked, the tomb
was empty and the Lord had risen as he said" (XX. 172.42).
Later there was a "materialization of the spiritual body of
Jesus" (XXI, title). These "materializations" were not vi-
sions. Dowling chides the disciples because they "thought
they had seen a vision of the Lord. They did not think that he
had risen from the dead." But Jesus appeared to them and
said, "Behold, for human flesh can be transmuted into higher
form, and then that higher form is master of things manifest,
and can at will, take any form" (XXI. 173.27, 31).
On one occasion when Jesus was "fully materialized;' he
even showed his scars to some priests, saying, "Behold, for I
am risen from the dead. Look at my hands, my feet, my side"
(XXI. 176.11). Jesus explained to them what he had accom-
plished in his resurrection, declaring:
The problem of the ages has been solved; a son of man has
risen from the dead; he has shown that human flesh can be
transmutedinto flesh divine. Before the eyesofmen this flesh
in which I come to you was changed with the speed of light
from human flesh. And so I am the message that I bring to
you (XXI. 176.27-28).58
This process of "resurrection;' or "transmutation;' is de-
scribed as that which "demonstrated unto us the power of
man to rise from carnal flesh and blood to flesh of God . . ."
(v. 3). Jesus was the first "master of the human race whose
flesh has been transmuted into flesh divine." Thus the Aquar-
ian Gospel concludes that "He is the God-man of to-day; but
every one of earth shall overcome and be like him, a son of
Denials of the Physical Resurrection
--------------------85
God" (vv. 36-37). The Aquarian Jesus even went so far as to
say,
Behold my hands, my feet, my side and see the wounds the
soldiers made. If you believe that I am phantom made of air,
come forth and handle me; ghosts do not carry flesh and
bones. I came to earth to demonstrate the resurrection of the
dead, the transmutation of the flesh of carnal man to flesh of
man divine" (XXI. 177.16-18).
The New Age Jesus explained his resurrection this way:
"My human flesh was changed to higher form by love divine
and I can manifest in flesh, or in the higher planes of life, at
will." And "what I can do all men can do. Go preach the
gospel of the omnipotence of man" (XXI. 178.13-14). This
"resurrection" is described as being "quickened by the Holy
Breath, [which] will raise the substance of the body to a
higher tone, and make it like the substance of the bodies of
the planes above, which human eyes cannot behold." This
occurs when "God breathes, just as he breathed upon the
chaos of the deep when worlds were formed, and life springs
forth from death; the carnal form is changed to form divine."
This is called a "deific life" (XXI. 178.36-42).
There is an obvious pantheistic context in which this con-
cept of Jesus' "resurrection" is expressed, but there are also
several strong similarities between this New Age idea and
some unorthodox statements from Christians on the resurrec-
tion (see Chapter 6 for a thorough comparison). For instance,
it confesses an empty tomb. The physical body that had lain
there was "resurrected." It also confesses a physical or bodily
resurrection, even calling it "divine flesh." In addition, it be-
lieves there were eye witnesses of the appearances of Christ
after His resurrection. Furthermore, it even speaks of there
being visible scars in the body that appeared after Jesus' res-
urrection.
Like other unorthodox statements on the resurrection,
there are three crucial points to note here. According to Levi,
 The Battle for the Resurrection
86--------------------
the resurrection body is not the same body as the pre-
resurrection body. It is a different body, composed of a differ-
ent kind of substance, called "flesh of God."
Also, this resurrection body is essentially invisible and
immaterial. It cannot be seen with the naked eye. The "ap-
pearances" of Jesus were not of the essential state of His
resurrection body. They were merely "materializations" such
as angels (who are spirits) did in the Bible.
Moreover, according to this unorthodox view, the resurrec-
tion did not occur in history. It was a super-historical event.
Were someone to have witnessed the actual moment of the
resurrection, all he would have seen would have been the
corpse of Jesus vanish before his very eyes! The "resurrec-
tion did not occur in history. It was a super-historical event.
immaterial state. It was a movement from the visible, histori-
cal realm to the invisible, nonhistorical realm.
The Overwhelming Evidence
In summary, the overwhelming evidence is that Jesus
physically died on the cross. Likewise, there is equally good
testimony that He rose from the grave in that same physi-
cal body. The classic attempts to avoid this conclusion are
without foundation. They are usually based on a faulty anti-
supernaturalistic assumption that what happens only once is
implausible, or on the unjustified assertion that the New Tes-
tament documents or witnesses are unreliable. This ignores
the abundant evidence of thousands of manuscripts and the
powerful testimony of over five hundred witnesses who saw,
touched, handled, ate with, and were taught by Jesus for some
forty days after His resurrection (see Chapter 7). Despite the
counterclaims of the cults, it is inconceivable that the cloud of
first century witnesses with all that time and all that tangible
evidence were deceived about the physical nature of the resur-
rection of Christ. It is simpler just to heed the words of Jesus:
"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have"
(Luke 24:39 NIV).
6
Denials ofthe
J>hYsual~esurrection
within the Church
"Indeed, nothing has been attacked with the same pernicious,
contentious contradiction, in the Christian faith, as theresurrection
of the flesh" S1. Augustine (Psalms 89, 32)
"T
.1. here is nothing new under the sun." This
adage seems to apply equally well to doctrinal deviations. The
tendency to spiritualize Christian truths has been around
since the first century. The apostle John warned against those
who denied Jesus came in the flesh (l John 4:2). Paul ex-
horted the Colossians to beware of an incipient gnosticism
that claimed a deeper mystical knowledge (Col. 2:8ff.). In the
second century this same tendency manifested itself in the
platonic influence on eastern Christianity. This was most
manifest in its tendency to allegorize Scripture, thereby deny-
ing the literal historical truth of many passages (see Chap-
ter 5).
Today, the tendency to spiritualize is consistent with the
denial of miracles as events in the world of space and time.
Rather than events in real history, spiritualizers see miracles
like the resurrection as events of "spiritual history" that have
no observable or verifiable dimension.
Roman Catholic Denials: Edward Schillebeeckx
In his book Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (1979), the
Roman Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx argues that
87
 The Battle for the Resurrection
88-------------------
the resurrection of Christ was not in a physical, material
body. 1 Strangely, he admits that there was an Old Testament
(Dan. 12:1-3) and intertestamental (2 Bar. 49-51) belief "that
the dead are to be raised in the condition of their former body,
so that the living may see it is the dead who have been resur-
rected,"! However, Schillebeeckx claims "the difference be-
tween the New Testament and late Jewish ideas of
resurrection is immediately obvious." For "Jesus' resurrec-
tion is a saving event per se, not a condition for appearing alive
before God's throne in order to be judged" (pp. 523, 524).
Jesus' resurrection, then, is not a historical event; it is artifi-
cially dichotomized into a salvation event. And "the saving
activity of God in raising Jesus from the dead does not lend
itself easily to substantification" (p. 525). In other words, it's
no good as an axillary to salvation if it's "real."
As a "saving event," the resurrection was not a visible
event. Thus,
the appearance is a salvific action of Jesus in the life of Peter
and the Eleven; ophthe, Jesus "showed himself"; what is nor-
mally invisible was made to appear: that the invisible makes
itself seen is expressed on lines of human perceiving, the hu-
man character of which is at the same time repudiated or cor-
rected (p. 353).
The resurrection, for Schillebeeckx, is not physical but
spiritual. It did not happen in space and time. Hence, the
resurrection body was not empirically verifiable. According
to Schillebeeckx it is like the "older non-apocalyptic books of
the Old Testament [where] we hear of a resurrection that is a
salvific event, but then in a spiritual sense (the resurrection
of the people of Israel, Isa. 26:19; 25:8)" (p, 524). This is
why he believes that the "appearance" of Christ to Paul was
not a physical appearance but a "conversion vision" that is
"full oflight symbols" derived from "a local Damascus tradi-
non" (p. 369). However, in this kind of "Christ manifestation
it is not necessary for one actually to see Jesus, in a visual
sense" (p. 369).
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
-------------------89
As to the seemingly overwhelming New Testament evi-
dence to the contrary (see Chapters 3,8), Schillebeeckx sim-
ply responds, with absolutely no evidence to back him up:
"In the oldest strata of the early Christian son of man tradi-
tion there is no explicit reference to resurrection, but there is
reference to Jesus' being exalted to the presence of God and to
his coming Parousia" (p. 537). For this reason the expression
"on the third day" is not considered historical by Schille-
beeckx. Rather, it "is charged with immense salvific implica-
tions. It tells us nothing about a chronological dating of the
resurrection qua event (as, for instance, three days after Good
Friday)" (p. 532).3 Schillebeeckx's fatal flaw is that he as-
sumes an irreconcilable inconsistency between "history" and
"science" without a shred of logic or proof.
Neo-orthodox Views on the Resurrection:
RudolfBultmann
It is common for neo-orthodox scholars to deny Jesus' res-
urrection in the flesh. Emil Brunner is a case in point. He
declared emphatically:
Resurrection of the body, yes: Resurrection of the flesh, no!
The"Resurrection of the body" does not mean the identity of
the resurrection body with the material (although already
transformed) body of flesh; but the resurrection of the body
means continuity of the individual personality on this side,
and on that, of death (emphasis mine).'
However, the most radical neo-orthodox influence on res-
urrection views comes from Rudolf Bultmann. Although he
believed there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, he denied
the historicity of the resurrection. He concluded that the res-
urrection "is not an event of past history.... An historical
fact which involves a resurrection from the dead is utterly in-
conceivable,"? Why? First of all, there is "the incredibility
of a mythical event like the resurrection of a corpse-for
that is what resurrection means. . • ." Second, there is "the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
90--------------------
difficulty of establishing the objective historicity of the resur-
rection " Third, "the resurrection is an article of
faith Fourth, "such a miracle is not otherwise unknown
to mythology."6 Bultmann has formed an unholy alliance be-
tween scientific antisupernaturalism and his own nebulous
concept of spirit and myth.
What then is the resurrection, if not an event of space-time
history? Bultmann replies: It is "abundantly clear that the
New Testament is interested in the resurrection of Christ sim-
ply and solely because it is the eschatological event par excel-
lence ...." Hence, "if the event of Easter Day is in any sense
an historical event additional to the event of the cross, it is
nothing else than the rise of faith in the risen Lord . . . ."7 So
"the historical problem is scarcely relevant to Christian belief
in the Resurrecrion.'?' The resurrection is not an event of ob-
jective history. It is a "myth" which as such cannot be ob-
served or verified. This from Bultmann, who knew Scripture
well enough to know that it condemned the belief in myths
(see, for example, 2 Peter 1:15-16).
Bultmann's objection to the historical nature of the resur-
rection can be summarized as follows:
1) Miracle stories ("myths") by nature are not historical.
2) The resurrection story is a miracle story.
3) Therefore, the resurrection is not an historical event.
In support of his contention, Bultmann points to the tran-
scendent nature of a miracle. It is an "act of God." But God is
beyond space-time history. His acts are transcendent; they are
above observable human history. To reduce them to empirical
history is to deny their transcendent, spiritual nature and to
thereby rob them of their redemptive truth. Miracles are not
of this world. They are acts in the spiritual world. In brief,
Bultmann has defined them out of existence.
Aberrant Protestant Views on the Resurrection:
Wolfhart Pannenberg
Although the German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg
confesses belief that Jesus left behind an empty tomb, he also
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
---------------------91
denies that Jesus' resurrection was an historical event involv-
ing an observable body of flesh and bones. Rather, he views
the "body" as spiritual or immaterial. Consider the following
quotations:
The Resurrected Christ Left an Empty Tomb
Among the general historical arguments that speak for the
trustworthiness of the report about the discovery of Jesus'
empty tomb is, above all, the fact that the early Jewish po-
lemic against the Christian messageabout Jesus' resurrection,
traces of which have already been left in the Gospels, does not
offer any suggestion that Jesus' grave had remained un-
touched.'
The Resurrected Christ Is Not Perceptible
Becausethe life of the resurrected Lord involves the reality of
the new creation, the resurrected Lord is in fact not percepti-
ble as one object among others in this world; therefore, he
could only be experienced and designated by an extraordinary
mode of experience, the vision, and only in metaphorical lan-
guage (p. 99).
The Resurrected Christ Is Not Visible
With regard to the character and mode of the Easter appear-
ances, the first thing to be considered is that it may have in-
volved an extraordinary vision, not an event that was visible to
everyone. This is especiallyclear with regard to the Damascus
event (p. 93).
Resurrection Was in a Spiritual "Body"
Paul must have seen a spiritual body, a soma pneumatikon, on
the road to Damascus, not a person with an earthly body
(p.92).
The Resurrection «Body" Is Not Corporeal
The appearances reported in the Gospels, which are not men-
tioned by Paul, have such a strongly legendary character that
one can scarcely find a historical kernel of their own in them.
Even the Gospel's reports that correspond to Paul's statements
are heavily colored by legendary elements, particularly by the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
92--------------------
tendency toward underlining the corporeality of the appear-
ances (p. 8).
The Resurrection "Body" Is Not One of Flesh
It is self-evident for him [Paul] that the future body will be a
different one from the present body, not a fleshly body but-
as he says-a "spiritual body" (p. 75).
There Is No Material Identity between Pre- and
Post-Resurrected Christ
The transformation of the perishable into the spiritual body
will be so radical that nothing will remain unchanged. There
is no substantial or structural continuity from the old to the
new existence (p. 76).
The Continuity Between the Pre- and Post-Resurrection Christ
Is Historical, Not Material
Something different will be produced in its place, but there is
a historical continuity in the sense of a continuous transition
in the consummation of the transformation itself (p. 76).
So Pannenberg too denies the literal, material nature of the
resurrection body, opting rather for an immaterial, spiritual
body. It is not a body empirically observable in the space-time
world.
Aberrant Evangelical Views on the Resurrection
The platonic tendency to spiritualize is not limited to early
church fathers like Origen, or even to more recent liberal
scholars. What is alarming is that some evangelicals have em-
braced this view as well.
George Eldon Ladd
Professor Ladd of Fuller Seminary was one of the first
American evangelicals to propound this unorthodox view of
Jesus' resurrection. In his book, I Believein the Resurrection of
Jesus,1O he denies all three of the historic orthodox characteris-
tics of the resurrection: identity, materiality, and historicity.
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
-------------------93
Jesus' Pre- and Post-Resurrection Bodies were Not Identical
Ladd claims that "one body is buried; another body springs
forth" (p. 115). He adds, "during the forty days, he was in a
different mode of existence which involved a different
body ..." (p. 127, emphasis mine). The continuity between
the pre- and post-resurrection states of Jesus was personal,
not material. According to Professor Ladd, "both Paul and
the Gospels, though admittedly in different ways, describe
the resurrection in terms of continuity of person and person-
ality but discontinuity in the relationship of the resurrection
body to the physical body" (p. 129, emphasis mine).
Jesus' Resurrection Body Is Invisible and Immaterial
According to Ladd, the resurrection body was by nature
invisible and immaterial. For "Jesus was raised from the
realm of mortal men into the unseen world of God" (p. 100).
Ladd asks, "What would an observer have seen if he had
stood inside the tomb watching the dead body of Jesus?" He
answers, "All he would have seen was the sudden and inex-
plicable disappearance of the body of Jesus" (p. 100). What
then did the disciples see if the risen Jesus was essentially
invisible and immaterial? "They were momentary appear-
ances of the invisible, risen Lord to the physical sight and
senses of the disciples" (p. 100). The "appearances, then,
were condescensions of the risen, exalted Lord by which he
convinced his disciples that he was no longer dead" (p. 101).
But the resurrection body was immaterial as such. For "at
His resurrection he [Jesus] entered the invisible world of
God" (p. 127). Thus, "His appearances to His disciples did
not mean passing of one body through other solid substances;
it means that Jesus, who was with them but invisible made
himself visible to their physical senses" (p. 127).
Jesus' Resurrection Was Not Historical
According to Ladd, the resurrection was not an observable
event in history, nor did the resurrected Christ become a part
of the space-time universe. The resurrection "was not a re-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
94·-------------------
vivification of a dead corpse, returning to physical life'
(p. 94). Rather than reappearing in history, the resurrection
body, being invisible and immaterial, vanished from history.
Ladd wrote, "obviously the body had not been stolen. It had
simply disappeared" (p. 94). As such, the resurrection is not
historical. For "what does history or nature or the totality of
human experience know of any bodies which can pass
through solid rock? This is historically incredible" (p. 96, em-
phasis mine). To be sure, the resurrection was "an event in
which the world of God intersected the world of time and
space." And the appearances, when Jesus made his essentially
invisible nature visible for moments, were events in history
(pp. 100-101). However, "Christ in his resurrection entered
into a new realm of existence-a new order, which is nothing
less than the invisible world of God-the Age to Come"
(p. 117).
. Furthermore, Ladd adds, "earthly, historical experience
knows nothing and has no analogy for what the New Testa-
ment says about the resurrection body" (p. 123). Hence, res-
urrection means "the radical transformation of the body of
Jesus from the world of nature to the world of God" (p. 125).
As Ronald Nash correctly notes, "Even though Ladd holds
that the resurrection was objective in the sense that it hap-
pened 'out there; he stops short of allowing the resurrection
to be objective in the second sense, that is as a publicly ob-
servable event." Rather, "Ladd refuses to allow that the res-
urrection is verifiable in the same way that other historical
events are verifiable."?' Resurrection is an event "in history"
only in the sense that the resurrection body by nature disap-
peared from observable history and from time to time it made
itself visible in the historical world. But neither the event of
the resurrection nor Jesus' continued appearances were em-
pirically verifiable events in the space-time world.
E. Glenn Hinson
A recent example is that of Southern Baptist scholar
E. Glenn Hinson of Southern Seminary in Louisville. In his
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
--------------------95
book Jesus Christ, he argues that Jesus did not rise in the flesh
but only in a spiritual body.
Jesus' Body before the Resurrection
Professor Hinson has no difficulty with the full humanity
of Jesus. Jesus lived and died in human flesh." Jesus was
born, lived, ate, and slept like any other human being. In
fact, His humanity is manifest in His mortality: "The most
definite fact about Jesus is his crucifixion. No Christian,
surely, could have invented a tale of the ignominious death of
the founder of Christianity" (p. 97).
The Resurrection of Christ
While professor Hinson does not deny the reality of Jesus'
physical death, he has serious doubts about the reality of His
physical resurrection. "Although there is little debate that
Jesus was crucified, there is much debate concerning the
claim that he was raised from the dead" (p. 98). He rejects the
"conservative Christian" belief that the resurrection is a his-
torical fact and declares that "through the centuries the
Church has wisely made the resurrection an article of belief,
not a statement of fact" (p. 98, emphasis mine). For "to be [a]
proven historical fact the resurrection would require extraor-
dinary evidence because it is a unique, never before or since
attested phenomenon" (p. 98). Hinson believes that "The
fact that the resurrection was more than a historical event, a
'super-historical' event as it were, however, takes it beyond
the historian's purview. It thus moves into the realm of faith"
(p. 111).
What then was the resurrection? According to professor
Hinson, it was not the "resurrection of the flesh." He rejects
the view of those who
wanted to view the resurrection in the crassest and most literal
terms. Some at Corinth, for instance, expected an exact rep-
lica of the human form (see 1 Cor. 15:35-36), an expectation
which undoubtedly derived from Jewish apocalyptic. That ex-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
96---------------------
pectation recurred in the encounter with the docetists . . .
when the second century creed included belief in "resurrec-
tion of the flesh" (p. 111, emphasis mine).
Not only does Hinson reject the Jewish belief in a physical,
material resurrection, he also denies that it is a Greek view in
the immortality of the soul. Rather, "Paul was convinced that
the Christ who appeared to him belonged to another order of
existence than the Christ the disciples had known in the flesh.
The risen Christ has nota physical but a spiritual body" (p. 111,
emphasis mine).
Christ's Post-Resurrection Appearances
If Christ's post-resurrection body was not a physical body
of flesh, then what were His appearances to the disciples? Av
cording to Hinson, they were real "experiences" of the disci-
ples, but not experiences of a real physical body. Rather,
Christ's appearances were like those of the angel of the
Lord-a visible manifestation of the invisible God. Hinson
concludes that "the appearances were more in the nature of
theophanies, like the Old Testament theophanies of Yahweh.
This would explain why, on the Emmaus road, for example,
the disciples failed to recognize Jesus until he did something
familiar to them" (p. 112).
Murray Harris
Another example is that of Murray Harris, a New Testa-
ment Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His
denial of the material nature of the resurrection of Christ is
highly unusual for a professed evangelical. As such it deserves
special attention. A careful examination of Professor Harris's
writings on the resurrection reveal the same basic beliefs: (1)
Jesus had a physical, material body before the resurrection; (2)
At the moment of the resurrection this physical body was
changed into a body that is by nature an immaterial, spiritual
body; (3) Jesus' appearances after the resurrection were mirac-
ulous "materializations" of this essentially spiritual body for
evidential purposes (that is, in order to convince His disciples
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
-------------------97
of His reality, not of His materiality). Let's examine his basic
writings on the matter.
Raised Immortal (first published in 1983)13 contains the ba-
sis for Harris's position concerning Christ's resurrection body.
First, Harris establishes that he believes Jesus' body was
material before the resurrection. This view is not docetic. In
contrast to the docetists (an early heretical group that denied
the humanity of Christ), Harris believes that Jesus had a real,
literal, human body. This body was material and spatial
(p. 53).14 It had physical characteristics (p. 121). It was visible
and had an audible voice (pp. 46-47). It possessed physical
(bodily) instincts (p. 124), was appropriately described as
"flesh" (p. 132), and after the crucifixion lay as a corpse in
the tomb (p. 133).
Second, Raised Immortal affirms Harris's unorthodox view
that the resurrection changed Jesus' body into a spiritual
body. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Harris does not believe
the physical body was changed into gases or preserved some-
where as a memorial. Rather, he believes that it underwent a
"radical transformation" and was "changed into a spiritual
mode of being" (p. 56). The resurrection body is no longer a
body of "flesh" (p. 132). He says <Cit will be neitherfleshly nor
fleshy" (p. 124, emphasis mine).
The reasons cited by Harris (from J. G. Davies) for ex-
plaining the illegitimacy of belief in the "resurrection of the
flesh" are unconvincing. He lists: (1) "The influence of the
idea that Christians will be raised like Christ (e.g., 1 Cor.
15:20)." (2) "The impact of millenarianism or chiliasm in the
second century A.D.••• has its corollary in a resurrection
body suitable for life on earth." (3) An "Anti-Gnostic apolo-
getic, which affirms the potential goodness of the flesh as be-
ing capable of salvation ..." (4) "The partial acceptance in
the early church of a Hellenistic anthropology that viewed
man as divisible into corruptible body (flesh) and immortal
soul" (p. 259).
The interesting thing about all of these factors is that, when
stripped of the pejorative connotations, they are actually argu-
ments in favor of resurrection in the flesh. For the Bible clearly
 The Battle for the Resurrection
98--------------------
teaches that we will be raised like Christ (see 1 Cor. 15:20;
Phil. 3:21); that when Christ returns, the believing dead will
"[come to life] and reign with [Christ] for a thousand years"
(Rev. 20:6 NIV); that everything God made, including matter
and flesh, is good (see Gen. 1:31); and that humans have both
a material body and an immaterial soul that survives death
(see Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rev. 6:9).
But on Harris's view, the believer's body, like Christ's, is
altered at the moment of resurrection. "The physical body
may be said to be transformed into a spiritual body or to be
replaced by the spiritual body" (p. 127). Harris believes that
this may be described as either a "metamorphosis" of the
body or as an "exchange" of one body for another (p. 127).
Thus, he speaks of "two forms of embodiment" (p. 126).
That is, "one and the same person finds expression in two
successive forms of embodiment-the physical and the spiri-
tual ..." (p. 126). It is for this reason that Harris concludes,
"If, then, the notion of a material identity between the two
forms of embodiment must be rejected, we may propose that
the identity is personal" (p. 126). In other words, the same
person is resurrected but in a "radically different" body
(p. 128).
The disjunction between the material pre- and post-
resurrection body is even more manifest in what Professor
Harris says about the resurrection body of believers. He holds
the highly unusual view that believers receive their resurrection
bodies at death, even though their physical bodies are still in the
grave! Harris concludes that "individual believers are resur-
rected at death" (p. 100). He bases this on 2 Corinthians 5,
where Paul speaks of receiving a "heavenly dwelling" at
death. This suggests "that between the destruction of the
earthly house and the provision of the spiritual house there
would be no 'interval of homelessness.' " Thus, "absent from
the body and present with the Lord" (v. 8) means for Harris
that we receive the resurrection body at the very moment of
death (see Appendix E).
This unorthodox belief that Christians get their resurrec-
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
---------------------99
tion bodies even while their physical bodies are still in the
grave reveals the radical discontinuity Harris sees between
the pre- and post-resurrection bodies. Of course, in the case
of Christ, Harris cannot deny the empty tomb. But even here
the continuity between the pre- and post-resurrection Christ
is not material, but only spiritual. The same Jesus arose, but
not in the same material body. Rather than arising in a physi-
cal body of "flesh;' Harris insists that it was radically trans-
formed into a spiritual body. In his own words, the
resurrection body is characterized by "essential immaterial-
ity" (p. 54).
In accordance with his belief that the resurrection body is
by nature invisible and not essentially material, Harris be-
lieves that the resurrection was a "trans-historical" event. It
was "historical" or observable only when, like a theophany
(see Appendix B), it occasionally materialized. "But it is not
'historical' in the sense of being an incident that was observed
by witnesses or even an event that could have been observed by
mortal gaze." Rather, "in his resurrected state Jesus was nor-
mally not visible to the human eye,?" Therefore, "such a
transaction clearly lies outside the scope of historical research;
it is an item of faith,"> Likewise, even Christ's ascension is
only "a parable acted out for the benefit of the disciples as a
visual and historical confirmation of a spiritual reality . . ."
(p. 92, emphasis mine).
Third, Professor Harris asserts that Jesus' resurrection ap-
pearances were merely manifestations and not in the same
physical body in which He died. Rather, they were in an
"angel-like" body. That is, Christ's "appearances" were like
theophanies (see Appendix B). Angels, however, are by na-
ture spirits (see Heb. 1:14) who occasionally "materialize" so
they can be seen (see Gen. 18, 19). Since Harris believes that
the spiritual resurrection is "angel-like" (p. 123), it is not
difficult to understand what he means by the appearances of
Christ. He claims that they were real, but did not prove that
the resurrection body was material. In his own words, one
"characteristic of Jesus' resurrection body was the ability to
 The Battle for the Resurrection
100--------------------
materialize and therefore be localized at will" (p. 54). Jesus'
purpose in His appearances or manifestations were apologetic
in nature.
Harris contends that "what he [Jesus] wished them to un-
derstand (idete) by touching was not that he was material but
that he was real ..." (p. 54). Even Jesus eating "broiled fish"
(Luke 24:42-43) is only a "parable acted out for the benefit of
the disciples" (p. 92). Harris explains that "his [Jesus'] body
was capable of receiving food for evidential reasons . . ."
(p. 54).
Realizing the moral problem involved here, Harris adds
unconvincingly, "In this accommodation to human under-
standing, Jesus was not party to deception. He took food to
assure his disciples of his reality and to set them at their ease"
(p. 54). Obviously there are ways for God or angels to assure
us of their reality without acting out a "parable" of eating
food. Spiritual beings have done it many times by mere vi-
sions or voices (see Gen. 22; Isa. 6; Matt. 1; Luke 1). It is
clear from the context that Jesus was not simply attempting to
prove to his disciples His reality but also His materiality.
Harris would acknowledge that the resurrection and ap-
pearances happened in history, but would deny that the res-
urrection or the resurrection body were by nature observable,
historical events. Harris says clearly:
But it is not "historical" in the sense of being an incident that
was observed by witnesses or even an incident that could have
been observed by mortal gaze. We have already noted that
there were no witnesses of the Resurrection itself and that in
his resurrected state Jesus was normally not visible to the hu-
man eye."
So by nature the resurrection body of Christ was not a visible
part of objective history. In Harris's words, it is in this sense
,'trans-historical.' '18
Easter in Durham: Bishop Jenkins and the Resurrection of
Jesus (1985)19 is a booklet by Harris in which he expresses
continued agreement with Raised Immortal, acknowledging
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
--------------------101
that the latter "discusses in greater detail all the issues raised
in this present essay." Indeed, an examination of the thirty-
two page contents of Easter in Durham reveals the same basic
beliefs.
First, it affirms that Jesus' Body before the Resurrection
was material. The pre-resurrection body of Christ is called a
"physical body." It is one "bound by material and spatial lim-
itations" (p. 17). By nature it could be seen, heard, and han-
dled. It was "crucified and placed in a tomb" (p. 14). Harris
referred to it as "a buried corpse" (p. 16). In short, it was
material like any other physical body in the space-time world.
Second, the resurrection altered the corpse into a spiritual
body. As in his previous work, Harris believes that at the mo-
ment of the resurrection this previously material body under-
went an "alteration" into a "spiritual body" (p. 17). This
process is also called a "transformation" into "a spiritual
mode of existence" (p. 17). It was a "metamorphosis" whose
outcome was that "the same person occupied a different
dwelling" (p. 20). Jesus was thereby "changed into a spiri-
tual mode of existence" (p. 20). In this sense it was not a fresh
"creation out of nothing;' but it was a "different dwelling;'
and despite the personal identity there was "bodily disconti-
nuity" (p. 20). So the tomb was emptied of the old material
body, which was replaced by a new spiritual resurrection
body.
Third, Harris distinguishes his view from others, pointing
out Jesus' appearances were merely manifestations. Harris
declares that in this new spiritual body Jesus' "essential state
was one of invisibility and therefore immateriality " It
"was no longer bound by material or spatial limitations "
Jesus' spiritual resurrection body "could materialize and
therefore be localized at will" (p. 17). But when Jesus ap-
peared, it was for evidential reasons. These appearances or
manifestations, like those of angels, could be seen, heard, and
even touched (p, 24). However, they were not the "essential
state" of the resurrection body, but merely an "occasional"
manifestation in order to convince His disciples that He was
real. They were not the natural state of the resurrection body,
 The Battle for the Resurrection
102--------------------
but were "miraculous occurrences that pointed beyond them-
selves to spiritual truths about Jesus" (p. 17).
Since the booklet is written as a refutation of a liberal
Bishop who believed the resurrection appearances were only
subjective experiences of the disciples, there is understand-
ably a greater emphasis here on the reality of Christ's resur-
rection and post-resurrection appearances. However, there is
no perceptible or confessed change of view from his earlier
work (Raised Immortal), which was republished (by Eerd-
mans) without change of view the very same year he wrote
Easter in Durham (1985). In both books the resurrection of
Christ is presented as not being in the flesh but in a spiritual
body.
"Raised ... Never to Die Again" (1988) is an article put
out more recently by Professor Harris in Voices (June, 1988),z0
published by Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Although
the emphasis is somewhat different and the presentation more
popular (for a lay audience), the same three elements of his
view are expressed here as well. Even though this tiny article
is barely over one page, it contains the following:
1) Jesus' body before the resurrection was material. Again,
there is no denial of a normal, physical pre-resurrection body
of Jesus. Like other material bodies it could (and did) experi-
ence "death" (p. 13). It was also placed in a "burial-cave"
(p. 13). In this and all other respects Jesus' pre-resurrection
body was no different from any other physical body.
2) Resurrection changed Jesus' body into a spiritual body.
The moment of Jesus' resurrection produced a body that was
"radically different" (p. 12). Unlike His previous physical
body, the resurrection body was a spiritual or "glorious
body" (p. 13). It was "so different" from His physical pre-
resurrection body that it was in fact "unique" (p. 12). As a
result it was not a "normal life" (p. 13). Nor was it simply a
"reanimation;' "renewal," or "resuscitation" (p, 13), but it
was a "resurrection to immortality" (p. 12).
3) The appearances of Christ after His resurrection are not
mentioned. In this two-page article there are no references to
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
--------------------103
post-resurrection appearances, although there is one to John's
vision in Revelation 1. Neither is there any indication of
Harris's change of view from his previous writings, where
Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were described as "ma-
terializations" for the purpose of convincing His disciples of
His reality and victory over death."
Some have concluded mistakenly that Professor Harris has
changed his views on the nature of the resurrection body.
This conclusion is based on a published letter from Professor
Harris to Dr. Kenneth Meyer, president of Trinity Evangeli-
cal Divinity School. 22 Professor Murray Harris made the fol-
lowing statement:
I am happy to reaffirm that I believe that our Lord rose from
the dead in the actual, physical body he possessed before his
death but that as a result of his resurrection there was an alter-
ation and enhancement of the properties of that physical body
so that he now possesses what Paul calls a "spiritual body"
(1 Cor. 15:44-49) or a "glorious body" (Phil. 3:21). Before
the resurrection, the body of Jesus was mortal (Mark 15:37;
Col. 1:22); through the resurrection, the body of Jesus be-
came immortal (Rom. 6:9; Reb. 7:16; Rev. 1:18).
However, this letter signals no real change of view for sev-
eral reasons.
First, he says nothing new here but claims merely to "reaf-
firm" what he already believed, which is a clear denial ofthe
literal, essential, material nature of the resurrection body.
Second, in response to my question, "Do you now believe
that Christ's resurrection body was a literal, physical body?",
Professor Harris answered explicitly by letter to me on No-
vember 17, 1987: "My view about the resurrection of Jesus
has never changed."
Further, nearly eight months after he wrote the letter of
June 17, 1988 (cited above), he still claimed to hold the same
view on the nature ofthe resurrection body. In response to the
question, "Do these articles reflect a change in view ... ?",
he replied, "I believe that my written statements and oral af-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
104--------------------
firmations about the nature of Christ's resurrection body have
always been consistent with one another,'?'
Third, it is not clear whether in Harris's letter the phrase
"actual, physical body" should be understood to refer to
Jesus' body after it was raised or only to the one "he pos-
sessed before his death."
Fourth, even if "physical" is meant to apply to the nature
of the resurrection body, it is clear that it does not mean a
material body of flesh. Indeed, he says just the opposite here,
namely, Jesus' physical, material body underwent an "altera-
tion" into a "spiritual body." This is in accord with what he
has always held: the resurrection body is by nature "invisi-
ble" and "immaterial."
Fifth, there is an ambiguity in the word "actual." Even if
"actual, physical body" refers to the nature of the resurrection
body, it is not the equivalent of saying that Jesus' resurrection
body was the "same physical body" as His pre-resurrec-
tion body. In fact, without changing his view, Harris cannot
affirm consistently that the resurrection body is the same
physical, material body, since he affirms that it is a "radically
different" body. He even refers to the pre- and post-
resurrection states as "two successive but different types of
body." Of believers, who have the same kind of spiritual
body, Harris says clearly it is "numerically different" from
the pre-resurrection body.
In brief, his letter to Dr. Meyer contains the same elements
of his previously stated views-namely, (1) Jesus had a "phys-
ical" and "mortal" body before His resurrection, (2) but the
resurrection "altered" His physical body into a totally differ-
ent kind of body, namely a "spiritual" or not an essentially
spiritual body, (3) and, hence, the appearances of Christ after
the resurrection were merely to convince His disciples of His
reality, not of His materiality.
Common Elements in Unorthodox Views
Despite their differences, the unorthodox views of Jesus'
resurrection generally have three common elements. They
deny the resurrection's
Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
--------------------105
materiality,
numerical identity,
and historicity.
However, as we have seen in Chapters 1-4, these three ele-
ments are at the heart of the orthodox view of the resurrec-
tion. Therefore, these views are unorthodox on all three
counts. Of course, they do acknowledge the orthodox belief
in the immortality of the resurrected Christ. But without an
immortal material body, this view differs little from the Greek
concept of an immortal spiritual entity. Certainly, if Paul had
preached to Greeks on Mars Hill that believers were raised in
an invisible, spiritual form while their physical bodies were
still in the grave, his listeners would not have mocked him
(see Acts 17:32). This view would not have been substantially
different from their own belief in the immortality of the im-
material person.
The three characteristics generally present in these current
denials of the orthodox view on the resurrection stand in stark
contrast to the historic, biblical position.
They claim that Jesus was resurrected in a numerically dif-
ferent body from the one in which He died. It was not the
same physical body; it had no material continuity with the
first one. Some, like professor Murray Harris, even go so far
as to say that believers receive their new resurrection bodies at
death, while their material bodies are obviously still in the
graves.
Unlike the orthodox view, they also claim that the resurrec-
tion body was essentially immaterial and invisible. Its essence
was "spiritual" and not material. As an invisible body, it
could not be seen as such by the naked eye, except when it
"materialized" for the purpose of communicating with the
visible world. Hence, in contrast to the orthodox position,
they also deny that Christ was raised in the flesh. For them,
the resurrection triumphs over the flesh by the spirit, result-
ing in a body that is spiritual by nature, not essentially mate-
rial.
Another characteristic of this deviant stand on the resurrec-
 The Battle for the Resurrection Denials of the Physical Resurrection within the Church
106-------------------- --------------------107
tion is its contention that the resurrection is nothistorical but is Jesus was resurrected in the same observable, material body
super-historical-it did not occur in humanly observable in which He was crucified. The differences in the views have
space and time. In other words, the resurrection body cannot to do with whether the tomb was empty and whether Jesus
be observed as part of the empirical world; it is part of salva- actually appeared to His disciples in a new (immaterial) body
tion history, but not by nature a part of regular, observable that could be touched. The similarities and differences can be
history. schematized as follows:
RESURRECTION: HISTORICALI
UNOIITHODOX VIEWS
. . SUPER-HISTORICAL~
Common elements: l. Not Numerically Identical
Orthodox View Unorthodox View (held by all) 2. Not a Material Body
3. Not a Historical Event
Who? God Who? God Differences: Bultmann Pannenberg Harris/Ladd
Super- Why? Salvation Empty Tomb no yes yes
Historical Why? Salvation What? Spiritual life Physical
Aspects Where? Spiritual world Appearances no no yes
Beyond Space & Time
The intramural differences in the unorthodox views have to
Within Space & Time
Historical do with the empty tomb and the post-resurrection experi-
What? Physical life
Aspects ences. Bultmann is the most radical, denying any objective
Where? Physical world
reality to them altogether. Harris is the least radical advocate
of the unorthodox positions, admitting that there was an
From this it is clear that the crucial difference in the views empty tomb and that the immaterial, resurrected Christ "ma-
is not whether there are super-historical aspects of the resur- terialized" on occasions and was seen by the disciples. How-
rection. Both views agree on the source (God). Both agree that ever, all these unorthodox views have three key elements in
there is a super-historical significance to the resurrection, common:
namely, salvation. But the crucial difference is about the 1) It was not numerically identical with the pre-resurrection
sphere of resurrection. body.
The unorthodox view denies that the resurrection of Christ 2) Jesus' resurrection body was not material.
is in essence a historical event. They deny that Jesus was raised 3) The resurrection body was not by nature a historically
in the same visible material body that was part of the space- observable object.
time world. In this vital sense they are all denials of the ortho- In brief, these current views deny all three elements in the
dox view of the bodily resurrection of Christ. orthodox view of the physical nature of the resurrection-
Until recently, few professed evangelicals have ventured to numerical identity, materiality, and historicity. But the resurrec-
deny any of these three essentials of the orthodox understand- tion is a kingpin of the Christian faith. Therefore, we will
ing of the resurrection. Now some deny all of them. To be examine carefully in the next chapters the reasons for this cur-
sure, some are more radical than others, but all deny that rent denial of the orthodox view of the resurrection.
 Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------109

7 terial and invisible. But a study of the context does not sup-
port this conclusion for several reasons.

"Spiritual" Means Immortal, Not Immaterial

A "spiritual" body denotes an immortal one, not an imma-

Physical Resurrection vs. terial one. A "spiritual" body is one dominated by the spirit,
not one devoid of matter. The Greek word pneumatikos (trans-
lated "spiritual" here) means a body directed by the spirit, as
Immaterial Resurrection opposed to one under the dominion of the flesh. It is not ruled
by flesh that perishes but by the spirit that endures (vv. 50-
58). So "spiritual body" here does not mean immaterial and
invisible but instead immortal and imperishable. 1

"Spiritual" Denotes a Supernatural Body

Further, the resurrection body Paul referred to here is su-
h e battle for the resurrection has changed its
pernatural. The series of contrasts used by Paul in this pas-
front. Once it was a battle against liberals who denied the
sage reveals that the resurrection body was a supernatural
physical resurrection (see Chapter 5). Now it is a battle with
body. While it is still physical, it is also immortal.
evangelicals who deny the physical nature of the resurrection
body. PRE-RESURRECTION POST-RESURRECTION
There are three centers of concern in this debate. First, it is BODY BODY
no longer a battle over whether a body rose from the tomb, Earthly (v. 40) Heavenly
but whether it was the same physical body that was placed Perishable (v. 42) Imperishable
there. Second, it is no longer a fight about the reality of the Weak (v. 43) Powerful
resurrection, but about its materiality. Third, it is not a ques- Mortal (v. 53) Immortal
tion of the actuality of the resurrection, but of its historicity. Natural (v. 44) [Supernatural]
The seriousness of the resurrection crisis confronting the
Christian church can be appreciated by identifying several ar- The complete context indicates that "spiritual" (pneumati-
guments used by these unorthodox evangelicals to deny that kos) could be translated "supernatural" in contrast to "natu-
Christ rose in the same physical, material body which was ral." This is made clear by the antithetical parallels of
crucified and placed in the tomb. perishable and imperishable, corruptible and incorruptible,
etc.
Paul Speaks of a "Spiritual Body" In fact, this same Greek word pneumatikos is translated "su-
pernatural" in 1 Corinthians 10:4, speaking of the "supernat-
In 1 Corinthians 15:44 Paul refers to the resurrection body ural Rock which followed them" (RSV). The Greek-English
as a "spiritual body;' in contrast to the pre-resurrection LexiconoftheNew Testament says, "That which belongs to the
body, which in the same verse is described as "natural body." supernatural order of being is described as pneumatikos: ac-
The unorthodox view assumes that a spiritual body is imma-
108
 The Battle for the Resurrection
110--------------------
cordingly, the resurrection body is a somapneumatikon [super-
natural body],"?
"Spiritual" Refers to Material Objects
Sometimes the word "spiritual" refers to material objects.
A study of Paul's use of the same word "spiritual" in other
passages reveals that it does not refer to something that is
purely immaterial. First of all, Paul spoke of the "spiritual
rock" that followed Israel in the wilderness, from which they
got "spiritual drink" (l Cor. 10:4). But the Old Testament
story (Exod. 17; Num. 20) reveals that it was a physical rock
from which they got literal water to drink. The actual water
they drank from that material rock was produced supernatu-
rally. Hence, the Revised Standard Version properly trans-
lates the Corinthian passage as follows:
All ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same su-
pernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural
Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (l Cor.
10:3-4).
That is to say, the supernatural Christ was the source of these
supernatural manifestations of natural food and water. Just
because the physical provisions came from a spiritual (that is,
supernatural) source did not make the provisions themselves
immaterial. When Jesus supernaturally made bread for the
five thousand (John 6), He made literal bread. However, this
literal, material bread could have been called "spiritual"
bread because of its supernatural source, in the same way that
the literal manna given to Israel is called "spiritual food"
(l Cor. 10:4).3
Further, when Paul spoke about a "spiritual man" (l Cor.
2: 15 RSV), he obviously did not mean an invisible, immaterial
man with no corporeal body. He was, as a matter of fact,
speaking of a flesh-and-blood human being whose life was
empowered by the supernatural power of God. He was refer-
ring to a literal person whose life had spiritual direction. A
spiritual man is one who is taught by the Spirit and who ac-
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
-------------------111
cepts the things that come from the Spirit of God (1 Cor.
2:13-14). The resurrection body can be called a "spiritual
body" in much the same way we speak of the Bible as a "spir-
itual book." Regardless of their spiritual source and power,
both the resurrection body and the Bible are material objects.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
says that "spiritual" is used "in contrast to the merely mate-
rial or to those activities, attitudes, etc. which derive from the
flesh and draw their significance from the merely physical, hu-
man and worldly" (emphasis mine)."
"Spiritual" does not necessarily mean something purely
immaterial or intangible. The spiritual man, like the spiritual
rock and spiritual food, was physical, but was acted upon by
spiritual or supernatural power.
The Emphasis on Christ's Ability to Appear
Some argue that the resurrection body was essentially im-
material and invisible and, therefore, not an object observable
or testable by empirical or sensory means. The resurrection
appearances are inherently nonhistorical. The New Testament
stresses the fact that it could appear,' they argue, thus imply-
ing that it was invisible other than when it appeared (see
Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Cor. 15:5-8). Each of
these times, they say, "he appeared" or "he let himself be
seen" (aorist passive). Grammatically, the action rests on the
one who appears, not on the one who sees Him appear. This,
they argue, implies that Jesus was essentially invisible, and
materialized during the occasions of His resurrection appear-
ances. However, this argument fails for several reasons.
Christ's Resurrection Body Could Be Seen
During Christ's appearances He could be seen with the na-
ked eye. His appearances could be tested by sight. They are
described by the word horao ("to see"). Although this word
is sometimes used of seeing invisible realities (Luke 1:22;
24:23), it often means to see by the naked eye.' For example,
John uses the same word horao for seeing Jesus in His earthly
 The Battle for the Resurrection
112--------------------
body before the resurrection (John 6:36; 14:9; 19:35) and also
of seeing Him in His resurrection body (20: 18, 25, 29). Since
the same word for body soma is used of Jesus before and after
the resurrection (l Cor. 15:44; Phil. 3:21), and since the same
word for its appearing horao is used of both, there is no reason
for believing the resurrection body is not the same literal, ma-
terial body.
The phrase "he let himself be seen"? (aorist passive,
ophthey, means that Jesus took the initiative to show Himself
to the disciples, not to materialize a body for their benefit.
The same form ("He [they] appeared") is used in the Greek
Old Testament (see 2 Chron. 25:21), in the Apocrypha (see
1 Macc. 4:6),8 and in the New Testament (see Acts 7:26) of
human beings appearing in physical, material bodies. In this
passive form the word means to initiate an appearance for
public view, to move from a place where one is not seen to a
place where one is seen. It does not necessarily mean that
what is by nature invisible becomes visible." Rather, it means
more generally "to come into view." There is no necessity to
understand it as referring to something invisible by nature
becoming visible, as Harris does.:" In that case it would mean
that these human beings in normal pre-resurrection bodies
were essentially invisible before they were seen by others.
Furthermore, the same event that is described by "he ap-
peared" or "let himself be seen" (aorist passive), such as the
appearance to Paul (l Cor. 15:8), is also described in the ac-
tive voice. That is, the appearance is described by the viewer
himself Paul wrote of this same experience in the same book,
"Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9: 1 NKJV).
Christ's Appearances Were "Natural"
The word "appeared" (ophthe) refers to a natural event.
This is supported by several lines of evidence. First, Arndt
and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
points out that the word is used "of persons who appear in a
natural way."?' The Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament
notes that appearances "occur in a reality which can be per-
ceived by the natural senses.?" In his Linguistic Key to theNew
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------113
Testament, Fritz Rienecker notes that "appeared" means "He
could be seen by human eyes, the appearances were not just
visions (Grosheide) ."13
Second, the visual apprehension of Jesus' resurrection body
was not a miracle, but the way in which it often appeared was
miraculous. The Gospels say that Jesus appeared suddenly.
They also assert that Jesus could disappear suddenly. Luke
writes of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, "Then
their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished
from their sight" (Luke 24:31 NKJV, emphasis mine). Jesus
also disappeared from the disciples on other occasions (Luke
24:51; Acts 1:9). Evangelicals who depart from the orthodox
doctrine of the resurrection argue that His ability to appear
suddenly can be taken as evidence that His resurrection body
was essentially invisible. But by the same reasoning, His abil-
ity to disappear suddenly could be used as evidence that His
body was essentially material and could suddenly become im-
material.
Third, there are much more reasonable explanations for the
biblical stress on Christ's self-initiated "appearances." They
were not designed to imply that His resurrection body was
immaterial. Rather they were designed to prove his triumph
over death of the physical body.
First of all, they were proof that He had conquered death
(Acts 13:30-31; 17:31; Rom. 1:4). Jesus said, "I am the Liv-
ing One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Rev. 1:18; compare
John 10:18 NIV). The translation "he let himself be seen" is a
perfectly fitting way to express this self-initiated triumphal-
ism. He was sovereign over death as well as His resurrection
appearances.
Furthermore, no human being saw the actual moment of
the resurrection. But the fact that Jesus appeared repeatedly
in the same body for some forty days (Acts 1:3) to over five
hundred different people (l Cor. 15:6) on twelve different oc-
casions is indisputable evidence that He really rose from the
dead in the same physical body. In brief, the reason for the
stress on the many appearances of Christ is not because the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
114-------------------
resurrection body was essentially invisible and spiritual,
but rather to show that it was actually material and immortal.
Without an empty tomb and repeated appearances of the
same material body that was once buried in it, there would be
no proof of the resurrection.
It is not surprising at all that the Bible stresses the many
appearances of Christ. They are the proof of the physical res-
urrection.
Resurrection Appearances Are Called Visions
The contention that resurrection appearances are called vi-
sions is also used to support the immaterial view of the resur-
rection body." Luke records that women at the tomb "had
seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive" (Luke 24:23
NIV). But, they argue, visions are always of invisible, unseen
realities, not of physical, material objects. The miracle is that
these spiritual realities can be seen. A spiritual body is angel-
like and, therefore, cannot be seen. In addition, some point to
the fact that those who were with Paul during his Damascus
road experience did not see Christ." They call his experience
of the resurrected Christ a vision. But this reasoning seems to
be flawed.
The Resurrection Is Not Called a Vision
The passage cited above from Luke 24:23 does not say that
seeing the resurrected Christ was a vision; it refers only to
seeing the angels at the tomb as a vision. The Gospels never
speak of a resurrection appearance of Christ as a vision, nor
does Paul in his list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15.
The only possible reference to a resurrection appearance as
a vision is in Acts 26: 19 NKJV where Paul says: "I was not
disobedient to the heavenly vision." But even if this is a refer-
ence to the Damascus appearance of Christ, it is merely an
overlap in usage of the words. For Paul clearly calls this event
an "appearance" (l Cor. 15:8) in which he had "seen Jesus
our Lord" and, hence, was given apostolic credentials (see
1 Cor. 9:1; compare Acts 1:22 RSV).
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------115
However, it is possible that even in Acts 26: 19 the word
"vision" refers to the subsequent revelation to Ananias
through whom God gave Paul's commission to minister to the
Gentiles (Acts 9: 10-19). This interpretation can be supported
by several factors. First, Paul says nothing about seeing the
Lord in this passage (Acts 26:19), as he does when referring
to his Damascus experience (Acts 22:8; 26: 15). Second, when
having a "vision" (optasia) Paul clearly designates it as such
(see 2 Cor. 12:1) in distinction from a real appearance. Third,
Paul did not receive his specific missionary mandate from his
Damascus road experience (Acts 9:1-9). Rather, he was told
"to go into the city, and you will be told what you must do"
(v. 5 NIV). Fourth, it was there in the city through a "vision"
(v. 10 NIV) to Ananias that Paul was given his missionary
mandate "to carry my [Christ's] name before the Gentiles"
(9: 15 NIV). Fifth, Ananias's reference to Paul's "vision" may
not have been to the Damascus road physical appearance of
Christ to Paul but to a later vision he got while praying in the
house of Judas on Straight Street in Damascus (Acts 9: 11-
12). It was here that he was told specifically that Ananias
would lay hands on him (v. 12). So when Paul said "I was not
disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26: 19 NKJV), it was
to the mandate through Ananias's vision that Paul refers.
Sixth, the word "vision" (optasia) is never used of a resurrec-
tion appearance anywhere in the Gospels or Epistles. It is
always used of a purely visionary experience (Luke 1:22;
24:23; 2 Cor. 12:1).
Whatever the case, the Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament correctly notes about visions that the New Testa-
ment "distinguish[es] them . . . from the Damascus experi-
ence.?"
Appearances Are Different from Visions
The post-resurrection encounters with Christ are consis-
tently described as literal "appearances" (see 1 Cor. 15:5-8),
not as visions. The difference between a mere vision and a
physical appearance is significant. Visions are of invisible,
spiritual realities, such as God and angels. Appearances, on
 The Battle for the Resurrection
116--------------------
the other hand, are of physical objects that can be seen with
the naked eye. Visions have no physical manifestations associ-
ated with them, but appearances do.
People sometimes "see" or "hear" things in their visions
(see Luke 1:IIf.; Acts 1O:9ff.) but not with their physical eyes
or ears. When someone saw angels with the naked eye or had
some physical contact with them (see Gen. 18:8; 32:24; Dan.
8: 18), it was not a vision but an actual appearance of the angel
in the physical world. During these appearances, the angels
temporarily assumed a visible form, after which they returned
to their normal invisible state. However, the resurrection ap-
pearances of Christ were experiences of seeing Christ in His
continued visible, physical form with the naked eye. Thus,
there is a significant difference between a vision and a physi-
cal appearance.
VISION APPEARANCE
Of a Spiritual Reality Of a Physical Object
No Physical" Manifestations Physical Manifestations
Daniel 2, 7 1 Corinthians 15
2 Corinthians 12 Acts 9
Certainly the most common way to describe an encounter
with the resurrected Christ in Scripture is as an "appear-
ance." These appearances were accompanied by physical
manifestations such as the audible voice of Jesus, His physical
body and crucifixion scars, physical sensations (touch), and
eating on four occasions. These phenomena are not purely
subjective or internal; they involve a physical, external real-
ity.
Moreover, the contention that Paul's experience must have
been a vision because those with him did not see Christ is
unfounded for several reasons. First of all, Paul lists this as a
physical appearance just like those seen by the other apostles
immediately after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). Second, un-
like a vision, this appearance had physical phenomena associ-
ated with it, such as sound and light. Third, those who were
with Him experienced the same physical phenomena. The
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------117
Bible says, "they heard" the sound ..." (Acts 9:7 NIV) and
"saw the light" (Acts 22:9 NIV). The fact that they "did not
see anyone" (Acts 9:7 NIV) is not surprising since even Paul
was physically blinded by the brightness of the light they all
saw (vv. 8-9). Apparently only Paul looked straight into the
light. Hence, only he actually saw Christ, and only he was
literally stricken blind by it (Acts 22: 11; 26: 13). Hence it was
an experience of a real physical reality. Those who were with
Paul saw and heard it with their natural eyes and ears.
Christ Was Sovereign over His Appearances
These critics also argue that Jesus' sovereignty over His
appearances indicates that He was essentially invisible, and
made Himself visible only when He wished to do so. In this
connection they note that Jesus did not appear to unbelievers,
supposedly indicating that He was not naturally visible to the
naked eye. However, this conclusion is unwarranted.
Jesus Did Appear to Unbelievers
It is incorrect to say that Jesus did not appear to unbeliev-
ers. In fact, He appeared to the most hostile unbeliever of all,
Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9: Iff.). As far as His resurrection is con-
cerned, even His disciples were at first unbelievers. When
Mary Magdalene and others reported that Jesus was resur-
rected "they did not believe the women, because their words
seemed to them like nonsense" (Luke 24: 11 NIV). Later Jesus
had to chide the two disciples on the road to Emmaus about
disbelief in His resurrection, "How foolish you are, and how
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"
(Luke 24:25 NIV). Even after Jesus appeared to the women,
to Peter, to the two disciples and to the ten apostles, still
Thomas said, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and
put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his
side, I will not believe it" (John 20:25 NIV).
In addition to appearing to His unbelieving disciples, Jesus
appeared to His unbelieving brother (see John 7:5). He ap-
peared to his brother James (l Cor. 15:7) and possibly also
 The Battle for the Resurrection
118--------------------
to Jude (v. 1), as well as to the unbelieving Saul of Tarsus
(Acts 9). Thus, it is false to claim that Jesus did not appear to
unbelievers.
Selectivity Does Not Prove Invisibility
The fact that Jesus was selective about those He wanted to
see Him does not indicate that He was essentially invisible.
Jesus was also in control of those who wanted to lay hands on
Him before the resurrection. On one occasion an unbelieving
crowd tried to take Jesus and "throw him down the cliff. But
he walked right through the crowd and went on his way"
(Luke 4:29-30 NIV; compare John 8:59; 10:39).
Even before His resurrection, Jesus was also selective
about those for whom He performed miracles. He refused to
perform miracles in His own home area "because of their lack
of faith" (Matt. 13:58 NIV). Jesus even disappointed Herod,
who had hoped to see Him perform a miracle (Luke 23:8).
The truth is that Jesus refused to cast "pearls before swine"
(Matt. 7:6 NKJV). In submission to the Father's will (John
5:30), He was sovereign over His activities both before and
after His resurrection. This in no way proves that He was
essentially invisible and immaterial either before or after His
resurrection.
Jesus Could Get Inside Closed Rooms
Some infer that since the resurrected Christ could appear in
a room with closed doors (John 20:19), His body must have
been essentially immaterial. Others suggest that He material-
ized and dematerialized on this occasion. But such conclu-
sions are not warranted.
The text does not actually say Jesus passed through a closed
door. It simply says that "when the disciples were together,
with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and
stood among them" (John 20:19 NIV). The text does not say
how He got into the room."
If He had chosen to pass through closed doors, Jesus could
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------119
have performed this same miracle before His resurrection
with His unglorified material body. As the Son of God, His
miraculous powers were just as great before the resurrection
as they were after it.
Even before His resurrection Jesus performed miracles
with His physical body that transcended natural laws, such as
walking on water (John 6:16-20). Walking on water did not
prove that His pre-resurrection body was immaterial, or even
that it could dematerialize (see Appendix F). Otherwise,
Peter's pre-resurrection walk on water would mean his body
dematerialized for a moment and then quickly rematerialized
(Matt. 14:29)!
Although physical, the resurrection body is by its very na-
ture a supernatural body. It should be expected that it can do
supernatural things like appearing in a room with closed
doors.
Further, according to modern physics, it is not an impossi-
bility for a material object to pass through a door; it is only
statistically improbable. Physical objects are mostly empty
space. All that is necessary for one physical object to pass
through another is the right alignment of the particles in the
two physical objects. This is no problem for the One who
created the body to begin with.
Jesus Appeared and Disappeared Instantaneously
Some argue that Jesus' ability to appear and disappear im-
mediately was proof of the immaterial nature of the resurrec-
tion body (Luke 24:36). This reasoning overlooks several facts.
One is that this argument fails to recognize that while the
resurrection body as such has more powers than a pre-
resurrection body, it is not less physical. That is, it does not
cease to be a material body, even though by resurrection it
gains powers beyond mere physical bodies.
Additionally, it is the very nature of a miracle that it is im-
mediate, as opposed to a gradual natural process. When Jesus
touched the man's hand, "immediately he was cured" (Matt.
8:3 NIV, emphasis mine). At Jesus' command the paralytic
 The Battle for the Resurrection
120'--------------------
rose up immediately, took up his pallet and went out in the
sight of all (Mark 2: 10-12). When Peter proclaimed cured the
man born crippled, "instantly the man's feet and ankles be-
came strong. He jumped to his feet and began to walk" (Acts
3:7-8 NIV, emphasis mine).
Moreover, Philip was immediately transported from the
presence of the Ethiopian eunuch in his physical pre-
resurrection body. The text says that after baptizing the eu-
nuch "the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and
the eunuch did not see him again ..." (Acts 8:39 NIV, empha-
sis mine). One moment Philip was with the eunuch; the next
he suddenly and miraculously disappeared and later appeared
in another city (Acts 8:40). Such phenomenon does not nec-
essitate an immaterial body. Sudden appearances and dis-
appearances are not proofs of the immaterial but of the
supernatural.
The Elements of the Physical Body Decay
Some have argued in favor of an immaterial resurrection
body on the grounds used by the old Socinian that a physical
resurrection body would imply "a crassly materialistic view of
resurrection according to which the scattered fragments of de-
composed corpses were to be reassembled. . . ."20 This objec-
tion is unconvincing for a number of reasons.
It is unnecessary to the orthodox view to believe that the
same before-death particles will be restored in the resurrec-
tion body (see Appendix A). Even common sense dictates
that a body can be the same physical body without having the
same physical particles. The observable fact that bodies eat
food and give off waste products, as well as get fatter and
skinnier, is sufficient evidence of this. Certainly, we do not
say that a friend's body is no longer material or no longer his
body simply because, for example, he gains or loses ten
pounds-or even fifty!
Moreover, as many early church fathers pointed out (see
Chapter 4), if necessary it would be no problem for an omnip-
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------121
otent God to bring all of the exact particles of one's body to-
gether again at the resurrection. Certainly He who created
every particle in the universe could reconstitute the relatively
few particles (by comparison) in a human body. The God who
created the world out of nothing is surely able to fashion a res-
urrection body out of something. But, as already noted, this is
not necessary, for the resurrection body does not need the
same particles in order to be the same body.
Also, in the light of modern science, it is unnecessary to
believe that God will reconstitute the exact particles one had
in his pre-resurrection body. The physical body before death
remains physical, even though the exact physical molecules in
it change every seven years or so. So, the resurrection body
can be just as material as our present bodies and still have new
molecules (particles) in it.
Finally, unlike our bodies, Jesus' body did not undergo
corruption while in the tomb. Quoting the psalmist, Peter
said emphatically of Jesus, "he was not abandoned to the
grave, nor did his body see decay" (Acts 2:31 NIV). Paul adds
by contrast that the prophet could not have spoken about
David since "his body decayed" (Acts 13:36, 37 NIV). In
Jesus' case most, if not all, of the material particles in His pre-
resurrection body were available for His resurrection body."
Does Resurrection Restore the Physical Body?
Paul said, "Foods for the stomach and the stomach for
foods, but God will destroy both it and them" (1 Cor. 6: 13
NKJV). On this basis some argue that "the resurrection body
will not have the anatomy or physiology of the earthly
body ...."22 However, this inference is unjustified for a num-
ber of reasons.
A careful study of the context reveals that when Paul says
God will destroy both food and the stomach he is referring to
the process of death, not to the nature of the resurrection body.
He refers to the process of death as the agent by which "God
will destroy both it and them."
 The Battle for the Resurrection
122--------------------
Also, as already noted, while the resurrection body may not
have the necessity to eat, it does have the ability to eat. Eating
in heaven will be a joy without being a need.
Furthermore, Jesus ate at least four times in His resurrec-
tion body (Luke 24:30, 42; John 21:12; Acts 1:4). His resur-
rected body was capable of assimilating physical food.
"Flesh and Blood" Cannot Enter God's Kingdom
Paul said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God ..." (l Cor. 15:50 NKJV). As early as the second cen-
tury, Irenaeus noted that this passage was misused by heretics
in support of their "very great error."?' To conclude from this
phrase that the resurrection body will not be a body of physi-
cal flesh is without scriptural justification.
First, the very next phrase omitted from the above quota-
tion indicates clearly that Paul is speaking not of flesh as such
but of corruptible flesh. For he adds, "nor does the perishable
inherit the imperishable" (l Cor. 15:50 NIV, emphasis mine).
Paul is not affirming that the resurrection body will not have
flesh, but that it will not have perishable flesh.
Second, Jesus said emphatically that His resurrection body
had flesh. He declared: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is
I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and
bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39 NIV, emphasis mine).
Peter directly said that the resurrection body would be the
same body of flesh that went into the tomb and never saw
corruption (Acts 2:31). Paul also affirmed this truth in a para-
llel passage (Acts 13:35). And John implies that it is against
Christ to deny that He remains "in the flesh" even after His
resurrection (l John 4:2; 2 John 7, emphasis mine).
Third, the orthodox view cannot be avoided by claiming
that Jesus' resurrection body had flesh and bones but not ma-
terial flesh and blood. For if it had flesh and bones, then it
was a literal, material body, whether or not it had blood.
Flesh and bones are stressed, not blood, probably because
they are more visually obvious signs of tangibility than is
blood.
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------123
Fourth, the phrase "flesh and blood" in this context appar-
ently means mortal flesh and blood, that is, a mere human
being. This is supported by parallel uses in the New Testa-
ment. When Jesus said to Peter, "Flesh and blood has not
revealed this to you" (Matt. 16:17 NKJV), He could not have
been referring to the mere substance of the body as such,
which obviously could not reveal anything, especially that He
was the Son of God. Rather, as Schep concludes, "the only
correct and natural interpretation [of 1 Cor. 15:50] seems to
be that man, as he now is, a frail, earth-bound, perishable crea-
ture, cannot have a place in God's glorious, heavenly king-
dom,'?'
The noted biblical scholar Joachim Jeremias observes that a
misunderstanding of this text "has played a disastrous role in
the New Testament theology of the last sixty years until the
present day." After careful exegesis of the passage, he con-
cludes that "the sentence 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God' does not speak of the resurrection of the
dead but rather of the change of the living at the Parousia
[Christ's coming[.?"
Resurrection Is Different from Resuscitation
Some also argue that Jesus' body was not material because
His resurrection was more than a resuscitation of a physical
corpse. It was a transformation. But this is insufficient
grounds to deny the physical nature of the resurrection body
for two reasons.
Jesus' resurrection was more than a resuscitation, but it
was not less than one. Resuscitated corpses die again, but
Jesus' resurrection body was immortal. He conquered death
(Heb. 2: 14; 1 Cor. 15:54-55), whereas merely resuscitated
bodies will eventually be conquered by death. For example,
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11), but Lazarus
eventually died again. Jesus was the first to be raised in an
immortal body, one that will never die again (l Cor. 15:20).
However, simply because Jesus was the first to be raised in an
immortal body does not mean it was an immaterial body. It
 The Battle for the Resurrection
124----------------------------------------
was more than a reanimation of a material corpse, but it was
not less than that.
Immortal Doesn't Equal Invisible
Also, it does not follow that because Jesus' resurrection
body could not die that, therefore, it could not be seen. What
is immortal is not necessarily invisible. The recreated physical
universe will last forever in its recreated state (Rev. 21:1-4),
and yet it will be visible. Here again, the resurrection body
differs from resuscitation, not because it is immaterial, but
because it is immortal (1 Cor. 15:42, 53).
Jesus Appeared in a "Different Form"
Some propose that after the resurrection "we cannot rule
out the possibility that the visible form of Jesus had altered in
some mysterious way, delaying recognition of him." They
suggest that "the expression 'he appeared in another form' in
the Markan appendix (Mark 16: 12 NKJV) encapsulates thiS."26
However, this conclusion is unnecessary for several reasons.
First, there are serious questions about the authenticity of
this text. Mark 16: 9-20 is not found in some of the oldest and
- ----- best manuscripts and other ancient witnesses of the biblical
text. Many scholars who reconstruct the original
. ting the old(!~.
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------------------------125
not mean another body, other than His real physical, material
body. On this.,very occasion Jesus ate physical food (Luke
24:30), an ability He gave in this chapter of Luke as a proof
that He was "flesh and bones" and not an immaterial "spirit"
(vv. 38-43). It probably means "the form of a traveler."
Jesus Was Raised "In the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18)
According to Peter, Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but
made alive by the spirit" (NKJV). Some have used this to
prove that the resurrection body was not flesh but was
"spirit" or immaterial. This interpretation, however, is nei-
ther necessary nor consistent with the context of this passage
and the rest of Scripture.
To begin with, the passage can be translated "He was put
to death in the body but made alive by the [Holy] Spirit"
(NIV). The passage is translated with this same understand-
ing by the New King James Version and others.
Furthermore, the parallel between death and being made
alive normally refers to the resurrection of the body in the
New Testament. For example, Paul declared that "Christ
died and returned to life ..." (Rom. 14:9 NIV) and "He was
crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power" (2 Cor.
13:4 NIV) •
In addition, the context refers to the event as "the resurrec-
tion of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21). But this is understood
everywhere in the New Testament as a physical bodily resur-
rection (see Chapters 3, 8).
Even if "spirit" refers to Jesus' human spirit (not to the
Holy Spirit), it cannot mean He had no resurrection body.
Otherwise, the reference to His "body" (flesh) before the res-
urrection would mean He had no human spirit then. The
terms are not mutually exclusive. It seems better to take
"flesh" in this context as a reference to His whole condition of
humiliation before the resurrection and "spirit" to refer to
His unlimited power and imperishable life after the resurrec-
tion. 28
 The Battle for the Resurrection
126--------------------
We Will Be Like Angels in the Resurrection
Jesus said that in the resurrection we "will be like the
angels" (Matt. 22:30 NIV). But angels have no physical
bodies; they are spirits (see Heb. 1:14). So some argue that
we will have no physical bodies in the resurrection. This con-
clusion, however, is a clear misinterpretation of the passage.
The context is not talking about the nature of the resurrec-
tion body, but whether or not there will be marriage in
heaven. The question Jesus' statement answered was: "At
the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven [hus-
bands she had], since all of them were married to her?"
(Matt. 22:28 NIV). Jesus' reply was that, like among the
angels, there will be no marriage in heaven. The woman will
not be married to any of these seven husbands in heaven.
Jesus said nothing here about having immaterial bodies in
heaven. Such a conclusion is totally outside the context of this
passage.
When Jesus said "at the resurrection ... they will be like
the angels in heaven," He obviously meant like angels in that
they "will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Matt.
22:30 NIV). He did not say they would be like angels in that
they would have no physical bodies. Rather, they would be
like angels in that they would not marry.
Does "Life-Giving Spirit" Mean Immaterial?
According to 1 Corinthians 15:45 Christ was made a "life-
giving spirit" after His resurrection. Some use this passage to
prove that Jesus had no physical resurrection body. But this
does not follow for reasons similar to those just given to the
previous argument.
The phrase "life-giving spirit" does not speak of the nature
of the resurrection body but of the divine origin of the resur-
rection body. Jesus' physical body came back to life only by
the power of God (see Rom. 1:4). Paul is speaking about its
spiritual source, not its physical substance as a material body.
Physical Resurrection vs. Immaterial Resurrection
--------------------127
If "spirit" describes "the nature of Christ's resurrection
body, then Adam (with whom He is contrasted) must not
have had a soul, since he is described as "of the dust of the
earth" (l Cor. 15:47 NIV). But the Bible says clearly that
Adam was "a living being [soul]" (Gen. 2:7 NIV).
Also, Christ's resurrection body is called a "spiritual
body" (l Cor. 15:44 NIV) which, as we have seen, is the same
word used by Paul to describe material food and a literal rock
(l Cor. 10:4).
Moreover, this "spirit" is called a "body" soma which
always means a physical body when referring to an individual
human being."
In summation, the resurrection body is called "spiritual"
and "life-giving spirit" because its source is the spiritual
realm, not because its substance is immaterial. Christ's super-
natural resurrection body is "from heaven," as Adam's natu-
ral body was "ofthe earth" (l Cor. 15:47 NIV). But just as the
one from "earth" also has an immaterial soul, even so the
One from "heaven" also has a material body.
Christ's Immortal, Material Body
In short, there is no scientific, biblical, or theological rea-
son to forsake the historic evangelical view that Jesus was
raised immortal in the same observable, material body he pos-
sessed before His death. It possessed numerical identity,
materiality, and was an event in real history. Despite its im-
mortality, it did not possess immateriality. When present it
was as visible and tangible as any other object in the space-
time world. As the great biblical scholar Joachim Jeremias put
it: "look at the transfiguration ofthe Lord on the mountain of
transfiguration, then you will have the answer to the question
how we shall imagine the event of the resurrection.?"
By no stretch ofthe imagination did Jesus' pre-resurrection
body transform into an immaterial one at this point. Rather,
His material body was manifested in its glory. His resurrec-
tion body will do the same.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
128----~--------------

All the arguments used to show that Jesus was raised in a

numerically different, invisible, immaterial body fall far short
of the mark. To be sure, the resurrection body was imperish-
8
able and immortal, but the contention that it was invisible and
immaterial is unfounded.

Evidence for the

Physical Resurrection

As we have seen (in Chapter 7), the theory that

the resurrection body is immaterial rests on unfounded specu-
lative inferences. By contrast, the physical, material view of
the resurrection body is based on sound logic and direct evi-
dence, especially in the twelve post-resurrection appearances
of Christ. Combined with the empty tomb, these appearances
provide overwhelming testimony to Christ's victory in our
space and time world. They demonstrate that the resurrection
body possessed materiality, numerical identity, and historic-
ity, just as orthodox Christians have confessed since the first
century. In this chapter we will study these appearances in
chronological order, examining them for the various types of
evidence of the physical resurrection presented in each.

The Appearance to Mary Magdalene

(John 20:10-18)
It is an unmistakable sign of the authenticity of the Gospel
record that in a male-dominated culture, the risen Jesus ap-
peared first to a woman. Anyone faking the record would
surely have had Jesus appear first to a more prominent male
disciple, such as, Peter. Instead, Jesus' first post-resurrection
appearance was to Mary Magdalene. During this appearance
129
 The Battle for the Resurrection
130'--------------------
there were several unmistakable proofs of the visibility, mate-
riality, and identity of the resurrection body.
First, she saw Christ with her natural eyes. The text says,
"she turned around and saw Jesus standing there ..." (John
20: 14 NKJV). The word "saw" (theoreo) is a normal word for
seeing with the naked eye. It is used many times for seeing
human beings in their physical bodies (see Mark 3:11; 5:15;
Acts 3: 16) and even of seeing Jesus in His pre-resurrection
body (see Matt. 27:55; John 6:19).
Second, Mary also heard Jesus say, "Woman, why are you
weeping? Whom are you seeking?" (John 20: 15 NKJV). Then
again, she heard Jesus say "Mary" and she recognized his
voice (v. 16). Of course, hearing alone is not a sufficient evi-
dence of materiality. God is immaterial, and yet His voice was
heard in John 12:28. Nevertheless, physical hearing con-
nected with physical seeing is significant supportive evidence
of the material nature of what was seen and heard. Mary's
familiarity with Jesus' voice is evidence of the identity of the
resurrected Christ.
Third, Mary also touched Christ's resurrection body. Jesus
replied, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to
My Father" (John 20:17 NKJV). The word "cling" (aptomai)
is a normal word for the physical touching of a material body.
It also is used of physical touching of other human bodies (see
Matt. 8:3; 9:29) and of Christ's pre-resurrection body (see
Mark 6:56; Luke 6:19). The context indicates that Mary was
grasping on to him so as not to lose him again. In a parallel
experience the women "clasped his feet" (Matt. 28:9 NIV).
Fourth, Mary also went to the tomb and saw that the stone
had been removed from the entrance. So she ran to Peter and
announced that the body was gone (John 20:2). This would
imply that she saw the empty tomb. The parallel account in
Matthew informs us that the angels said to her, "Come, see
the place where the Lord lay" (Matt. 28:6 NKJV). Later,
Peter and John also went into the tomb. John "bent over and
looked in at the strips of linen lying there" and Peter "went
into the tomb. He saw the strips oflinen lying there, as well as
the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head" (John
Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
--------------------131
20:5-7 NIV). But seeing the same physical body that once lay
there is proof of the numerical identity of the pre- and post-
resurrection body.
In this one account Jesus was seen, heard, and touched. In
addition, Mary witnessed both the empty tomb and Jesus'
grave clothes. All the evidence for an unmistakable identity of
the same visible, material body that was raised immortal is
right here in this first appearance.
Jesus' Appearance to Mary Magdalene and the
Other Women (Matt. 28:1-10)
Jesus not only appeared to Mary Magdalene but also to the
other women with her (Matt. 28: 1-10), including Mary the
mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1). During this ap-
pearance there were four evidences presented that Jesus rose
in the same visible, material body in which He was crucified.
The women saw Jesus. They were told by the angel at the
empty tomb, "He has risen from the dead and is going ahead
of you into Galilee. There you will see him." And as they hur-
ried away from the tomb, "suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greet-
ings; he said." (Matt. 28:7-9 NIV). They received visual
confirmation of His physical resurrection.
When the women saw Jesus, "they came to him, clasped his
feet and worshiped him" (emphasis mine). That is, they not
only saw his physical body but they felt it as well. Spirit enti-
ties as such cannot be touched or handled. The fact that the
women actually handled Jesus' physical body is a convincing
proof of the material nature of the resurrection body.
The women also heard' Jesus speak. After giving greetings
(v, 9), Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My
brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me" (v. 10
NKJV). Thus the women saw, touched, and heard Jesus with
their physical senses, a three-fold confirmation of the physical
nature of His resurrection body.
In addition to all this, the women saw the empty tomb where
that same resurrected body once lay. The angel said to them
at the tomb, "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
132--------------------
Come, see the place where the Lord lay" (v. 6 NK]V). The
same "He" who had been dead is now alive, demonstrated by
the fact that the same body that once lay there is now alive
forever more. So in both the case of Mary Magdalene and the
other women, all four evidences of the visible, human resur-
rection of the numerically identical body were present. They
saw the empty tomb where his physical body once lay and
they saw, heard and touched that same body after it came out
of the tomb.
Jesus' Appearance to Peter (1 Cor. 15:5;
compare John 20:3-9)
In 1 Corinthians 15:5 (NK]V), it says Jesus "was seen by
Cephas (Peter)." There is no narration of this event, but the
text says he was seen and implies that he was heard as well.
Certainly Peter was not speechless. Jesus definitely spoke
with Peter in a later appearance when He asked Peter to feed
His sheep (John 21:15-17). Mark confirms that Peter (and
the disciples) would "see Him, as He said to you" (Mark 16:7
NKJV, emphasis mine). Peter, of course, saw the empty tomb
and the grave clothes just before this appearance (John 20:6-
7). So Peter experienced at least three of the evidences of the
physical resurrection; he saw and heard Jesus, and he ob-
served the empty tomb and grave clothes. These are defmite
evidences that the body that rose is the same visible, material
body He had before the resurrection.
Jesus' Appearance to Two Disciples on the Way
to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)
During this appearance there were three evidences of the
physical resurrection presented. The two disciples not only
saw and heard Jesus, but they also ate with Jesus. Combined,
they provide clear proof of the material, historical nature of
the resurrection.
There were two disciples, one of whom was named Cleopas
Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
-------------------133
(Luke 24:18). As they were walking toward Emmaus, "Jesus
himself came up and walked along with them" (v. 15 NIV).
Although at first they did not recognize who He was, they
nevertheless clearly saw Him. When they finally realized who
it was, the text says "he disappeared from their sight" (v. 31
NIV; emphasis mine). Jesus' resurrection body was as visible
as any other material object.
They also heard Jesus with their physical ears (vv, 17, 19,
25-26). In fact, Jesus carried on a lengthy conversation with
them. For "beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He ex-
pounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
Himself" (v. 27 NK]V). Of course, they were not the only
ones Jesus taught after the resurrection. Luke informs us else-
where that "He appeared to them [the apostles] over a period
of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3
NIV). During these times he "gave many convincing proofs
that he was alive" (Acts 1:3 NIV).
One further convincing proof of Jesus' physical resurrec-
tion was that he ate with the two Emmaus disciples. Luke
says, "as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread,
blessed and broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 24:30
NK]V). Although the text does not say specifically that Jesus
also ate, it is implied by being "at the table with them." Later
in the same chapter it explicitly states that He ate with the Ten
Apostles (v. 43). Luke in two other places states that Jesus did
eat with the disciples (Acts 1:4; 10:41). During Jesus' third
appearance, the eyewitnesses saw him, heard him, and ate
with him over a period of one evening. It is difficult to imag-
ine how Jesus could have done anything more to demonstrate
the tangible, material nature of His resurrection body.
Jesus' Appearance to the Ten Apostles
(Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23)
When Jesus appeared to the Ten Apostles (Thomas ab-
sent), He was seen, heard, touched, and they saw Him eat
fish. All four major evidences of the visible, physical nature
 The Battle for the Resurrection
134--------------------
of the resurrection body were present on this occasion.
First of all, "while they were still talking about this, Jesus
himself stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with
you'" (Luke 24:36 NIV). In fact, Jesus carried on a conversa-
tion with them about how "everything must be fulfilled that is
written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the
Psalms" (Luke 24:44 NIV). Jesus was heard by the disciples.
Second, the disciples also saw Jesus on this occasion. In
fact, they thought at first that He was a "ghost" (v. 37). But
Jesus "showed them his hands and his feet" (v. 40, emphasis
mine). So they clearly saw Him as well as heard Him. In the
parallel account, John records that "the disciples were over-
joyed when they saw the Lord" (John 20:20 NIV, emphasis
mine; see v. 25).
Third, it may be inferred from the fact that they were at
first unconvinced of His materiality, that when Jesus pre-
sented His wounds to them, they touched Him as well. In fact,
Jesus clearly said to them, "Touch me and see; a ghost does
not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39 NIV,
emphasis mine). The use of "I" and "me" in connection
with His physical resurrection body indicates He is claiming
to be numerically identical with His pre-resurrection body.
Jesus also "showed them his hands and feet," confirming to
His disciples that the body they touched was a literal body of
"flesh and bones."
Fourth, on this occasion Jesus actually ate physical food. In
order to convince the disciples that He had resurrected in a
literal, physical body, Jesus said, "Do you have anything to
eat?" In response, "they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and
he took it and ate it in their presence" (v. 43 NIV). What
makes this passage such a powerful proof is that Jesus offered
His ability to eat physical food as a proof of the material na-
ture of His body of flesh and bones. Jesus literally exhausted
the ways in which He could prove the corporeal, material na-
ture of His resurrection body. Thus, if Jesus' resurrection
body was not really the same material body of flesh and bones
in which He had died, then He must have been a deceiver.
Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
--------------------135
Jesus' Appearance to the Eleven Apostles
(John 20:24-31)
Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to the Ten
Apostles (John 20:24). Even after his fellow apostles reported
who they had seen, Thomas refused to believe unless he could
see and handle Christ for himself. A week later his wish was
granted (v. 26). When Jesus appeared to Thomas, he got to
see, hear, and touch the resurrected Lord.
Thomas saw the Lord. "A week later his disciples were in
the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the
doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and
said, 'Peace be with you!'" (v. 26 NIV). Jesus was clearly visi-
ble to Thomas, and Jesus later said to him, "you have seen
me" (v. 29 NIV, emphasis mine).
Thomas also heard the Lord. In fact, he heard the Lord
say, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your
hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe"
(v. 27 NIV). To this unquestionably convincing display of
physical evidence, Thomas replied, "My Lord and my God!"
(v. 28 NIV).
It can be inferred from this that Thomas also touched the
Lord. Certainly this is what Thomas said he wanted to do
(v. 25), and this is precisely what Jesus asked him to do
(v. 27). The text only says Thomas saw and believed (v. 29),
but it is natural to infer that he also touched Jesus. Jesus was
touched on at least two other occasions (vv. 9, 17). Thomas
encountered a visible, material resurrection body with his
natural senses.
Whether Thomas touched Christ or not, he certainly saw
His crucifixion wounds (vv. 27-29). And the fact that Jesus still
had these physical wounds from His crucifixion is an unmis-
takable proof that He was resurrected in the very same mate-
rial body in which He was crucified. This was the second
time that Jesus "shewed them his hands and his feet" (Luke
24:40 KJV). What greater proof could there be that the resur-
rection body is the same body of flesh that was crucified and
then glorified?
 The Battle for the Resurrection
136-------------------
Jesus' Appearance to the Seven Apostles (John 21)
John records Jesus' appearance to the seven disciples who
went fishing in Galilee. During this appearance the disciples
saw Jesus, heard Him, and ate breakfast with Him, thus
proving again the visible, material nature of His resurrection
body, as well as its real activity in space and time.
They saw Jesus, for the Bible says that "Jesus appeared
again to his disciples by the Sea of Tiberias" (John 21: 1 NIV,
emphasis mine). Early in the morning they saw Him standing
on the shore (v. 4). After He talked and ate with them, the
text says "this was now the third time Jesus appeared to his
disciples after he was raised from the dead" (v. 14 NIV, em-
phasis mine).
The disciples also heard Jesus speak on this occasion (vv. 5-
6, 10, 12). In fact, Jesus carried on an extended conversation
with Peter in which Jesus asked Peter three times whether he
loved Jesus (vv. 15-17). Since Peter had denied Jesus three
times, not only did Peter hear Jesus speak, but Jesus' words
no doubt rang in his ears. Jesus also told Peter how he would
die (vv. 18-19).
Jesus also ate with the disciples during this appearance.
He asked them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" (v. 5 NIV).
After telling them how to catch some (v. 6), Jesus requested
them to "Bring some of the fish you have just caught" (v. 10
NIV). Then He said to the disciples, "Come and have break-
fast" (v. 12 NIV). As they did, "Jesus came, took the bread
and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish" (v. 13
NIV). Although the text does not explicitly state that Jesus ate,
nevertheless, as host of the meal it would have been strange
for Him not to have partaken with them. So in addition to
seeing and hearing Jesus, He evidenced the material nature of
His resurrection by eating physical food.
Jesus' Appearance to All the Apostles at the "Great
Commission" (Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18)
The next appearance of Christ was when He gave them
what we now call the Great Commission (Matt. 28; 16-20).
Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
-------------------137
This time, as Jesus commissioned them to disciple all nations,
He was both seen and clearly heard by all the apostles.
The text says that the disciples went to Galilee, where Jesus
had told them to go (v. 16). And "when they saw him, they
worshiped him" (v. 17 NIV, emphasis mine). Mark adds,
"Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating" (Mark
16:14 NIV, emphasis added).
However, it was not simply what they saw, but what they
heard that left a lasting impression on them. Jesus said, "All
authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit ..." (Matt. 28:18-19 NKJV). The fact that this small
band shortly became the world's greatest missionary society is
ample testimony to how powerfully what the apostles heard
Jesus speak on this occasion was impressed upon them.
Jesus' Appearance to Five Hundred Disciples
(1 Cor. 15:6)
There is no narration of this appearance. It is simply noted
by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where he says, "Mter that, he
appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same
time, most of whom are still alive" (NIV, emphasis mine).
Since Jesus was seen on this occasion and since He left such
a lasting impression on them, it can be assumed that they also
heard Him speak as well. Why else would Paul imply their
readiness to testify on behalf of the resurrection, saying in
essence, "most ofthem are still alive. So if you do not believe
me, then just go and ask them."
Despite its brevity, this one verse is a powerful testimony
to the bodily resurrection of Christ. It has the ring of truth
about it. Paul is writing in A.D. 55, only twenty-two years
after the resurrection (A.D. 33). Most of these eye witnesses
were still alive. Paul challenged his readers to check out what
he was saying with this multitude of witnesses who saw and
probably heard Christ after His resurrection.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
138--------------------
Jesus' Appearance to James (1 Cor. 15:7)
Jesus' brothers were unbelievers before his resurrection.
The Gospel of John informs us that "even his own brothers
did not believe in him" (John 7:5 NIV). But after His resur-
rection, both James and Jude, the half brothers of Jesus, be-
came believers (Mark 6:3). However, the Scriptures say
explicitly that Jesus "appeared to James ..." (1 Cor. 15:7 NIV,
emphasis mine). No doubt Jesus also spoke to James. James
then became a pillar of the early church and played a promi-
nent part in the first church council (Acts 15:13).
James also wrote one of the books of the New Testament, in
which he spoke of "the crown of life" (James 1:12 NKJV) and
of the "Lord's coming" (5:8 NIV) made possible only
through the resurrection of Christ (2 Tim. 1:10). Whatever
James saw or heard during this resurrection appearance of
Christ not only converted him, but also helped make him into
a prominent figure in the apostolic church.
Jesus' Appearance to All the Apostles
before the Ascension (Acts 1:4-8)
Jesus' last appearance before His ascension was again to all
the apostles. During this time they saw Him, heard Him, and
ate with Him. These three lines of evidence are confirmation
of the literal, material nature of His resurrection body.
Jesus was seen by His apostles on this occasion. Luke says,
"after his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave
many convincing proofs that he was alive" (Acts 1:3 NIV, em-
phasis mine). He adds, Jesus "appeared to them over a period
of forty days ..." (emphasis mine). The text adds that it was
"on one [such] occasion" (v. 4 NIV) that Jesus made His last
appearance to them.
The apostles also heard Jesus, since on this occasion He
"spoke about the kingdom of God" (v. 3 NIV, emphasis
mine). During this specific appearance, Jesus commanded
them: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my
Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
--------------------139
Father promised, which you have heard me speak about"
(v, 4, emphasis mine). It was not only a familiar voice, but a
familiar teaching, that confirmed to the apostles that it was
the very same Jesus speaking to them after the resurrection as
before.
Luke also says in this passage that Jesus ate with the disci-
ples, as He had done on many occasions. This last appearance
before the ascension was "one occasion, while he was eating
with them ..." (v. 4 NIV). This is the fourth recorded in-
stance of Jesus eating after the resurrection. It was apparently
something He did rather often, since even the short summary
of His ministry by Peter in Acts 10 declares that the apostles
"ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead" (v. 41
NIV). Surely, both the intimate fellowship and the physical
ability to eat food was more than sufficient proof that Jesus
was appearing to them in the same, visible, tangible, material
body He possessed before His resurrection.
Jesus' Appearance to Paul after the Ascension
(1 Cor. 15:8; Acts 9:1-9)
Jesus also appeared to Paul. In fact, this was Jesus' "last"
appearance (1 Cor. 15:8). It is important to note that this ap-
pearance was not a vision. This is clear from several consid-
erations. (1) Visions do not have physical manifestations con-
nected with them, such as light. (2) Paul lists this "appear-
ance" as the "last" one right along with the other physical
appearances of Christ to the apostles and others in this very
chapter. (3) Seeing the resurrected Christ was a condition for
being an apostle (Acts 1:22). Paul claimed to be an apostle,
saying, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our
Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1 NIV). (4) The resurrection appearances,
including Paul's, are never once called "visions" anywhere in
the Gospels or the Epistles (see Chapter 7). They are real
physical appearances. During the appearance to Paul, Jesus
was both seen and heard, which is indicative of a real physical
appearance, not a mere vision.
 The Battle for the Resurrection Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
140-------------------- 141
As for the actual appearance to Paul, Christ was both seen THE TWELVE APPEARANCES OF CHRIST
and heard with the physical senses of those present. The
physical manifestation of the resurrected Jesus to Paul was Persons Saw Heard Touched Other Evidence
both heard and seen by the apostle. In 1 Corinthians IS Paul Mary X X X Empty tomb
said Jesus "appeared to me also . . ." (v. 8 NIV, emphasis Mary & Women X X X Empty tomb
mine). In the detailed account of it in Acts 26, Paul said "I Peter X X* Empty tomb, grave
saw a light from heaven ..." (v. 13 NIV, emphasis mine). clothes
That Paul is referring to a physical light is clear from the fact (John) (Empty tomb, grave
that it was so bright that it blinded his physical eyes (Acts clothes)
22:6,8). Futhermore, Paul not only saw the light, but he also Two Disciples X X Ate food
saw Jesus. Referring to this event, he wrote: "Am I not an Ten Apostles X X X** Death wounds, ate
apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (l Cor. 9: 1 NIV, food
emphasis mine). Eleven Apostles X X X** Death wounds
Paul also heard the voice of Jesus speaking distinctly to him Seven Apostles X X Ate food
"in Aramaic" (Acts 26:14 NIV). The physical voice Paul All Apostles X X Ate food
heard said, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4 Five Hundred X X*
NIV). Paul carried on a conversation with Jesus (vv. 5-6) and Brethren
was obedient to His command to go into the city of Damascus James X X*
(v. 6). Paul's miraculous conversion, his tireless efforts for All Apostles X X Ate food
Christ, and his strong emphasis on the physical resurrection
Paul X X
of Christ (see Rom. 4:25; 10:9; 1 Cor. 15) all show what an
indelible impression the physical resurrection made upon *Implied **Offered to be touched
him.
Not only did Paul see the light and hear the voice, but those During these twelve recorded appearances Jesus appeared
who were with him did as well (Acts 22:8). This shows that to more than five hundred people over a forty-day period of
the experience was not private to Paul. It was not purely sub- time (Acts 1:3). On all twelve occasions Jesus was seen and
jective. It had an objective referent. It happened "out there" probably heard. Four times he offered Himself to be touched.
in the real physical world, not merely in the world of his pri- He was definitely touched twice. Jesus revealed His crucifix-
vate spiritual experience. Anyone who had been there also ion scars on two occasions. There were four times the empty
could have seen and heard the physical manifestation. tomb was seen and twice the empty grave clothes were
viewed. On another four occasions Jesus ate food.
The sum total of this evidence is overwhelming confirma-
tion that Jesus rose and lived in the same visible, material
The Physical Nature of the Resurrection body he possessed before His resurrection.
The total evidence for the physical, material nature of the
resurrection body is overwhelming. The twelve appearances
can be summarized in the following chart:

9
Lessons to Be Learned
hose who do not know the past are con-
demned to repeat its errors. Knowing even the immediate
past can be helpful in avoiding pitfalls in the present. In this
regard many lessons can be gleaned from the "battle for the
Bible." Both it and the battle for the resurrection have some
strong similarities. Each involves an important doctrine. In
both instances evangelicals affirmed their belief in a doctrine,
while pouring new meaning into their doctrinal statements.
Also, both involved a "spiritualizing" or de-historicizing of a
basic doctrine. And, in both cases, those who departed from
the orthodox position, nevertheless insisted on claiming the
orthodoxy of their unbiblical views.
Lessons in Forming Doctrinal Statements
It is increasingly obvious that the wording of a doctrinal
statement is exceedingly important. In formulating a doc-
trinal statement "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure." Carefully wording doctrinal confessions avoids many
difficulties. Two things are noteworthy in this regard.
Doctrinal Statements Cannot Be Too Explicit
While a doctrinal statement the size of the dictionary is un-
doubtedly too long, brief, one-page statements are probably
142
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------143
too short. (Of course, the strength of a doctrinal statement is
more important than the length of its statements.) The doc-
trines should not only be stated clearly, concisely, and cor-
rectly, but also comprehensively.
The need for precise and comprehensive statements has
been clearly demonstrated in the "battle for the Bible." Those
institutions whose doctrinal statements spoke only of the "in-
spiration" of the Bible were particularly vulnerable to doc-
trinal drifting, since "inspiration" could be taken to mean
anything from inspiring poetry, like Shakespeare, to the di-
vinely authoritative and inerrant truths of Scripture. As the
writings of Jack Rogers of Fuller Seminary showed, even the
word "infallible" became a "weasel word." Rogers redefmed
it to mean unerring in intention only, but not necessarily
without any mistakes in its statements. I
The word "inerrancy" or its equivalent ("without error")
became a necessity. It was more precise, clear, and exclusive
enough that it frightened away most people who did not really
believe in it.' Of course, "inerrancy" means inerrancy of af-
firmation of fact, not just inerrancy of intention. All sincere
people have inerrant intentions, even when they are wrong.
Jack Rogers and the other faculty members at Fuller Semi-
nary believe in a Bible with the inerrant function of saving
(2 Tim. 3:15), but many believe that there are factual mis-
statements in the Bible. Many Southern Baptist professors
also deny inerrancy. Dr. Russell H. Dilday, president of
Southwestern Baptist Seminary, moved down this same path
when he claimed that "the Bible's infallibility as an authority
is based on its purpose and function as a book of eternal
truths?" This is substantially the same as Jack Rogers's view
of a functional errorlessness of Scripture.
The former Dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
Kenneth Kantzer, was misled by Jack Roger's equivocal use
of the concepts of truth and error. Kantzer mistakenly re-
ported in Christianity TOday (August 1981) that Rogers had
adopted an inerrantist position at the Toronto conference. All
Rogers had done was to affirm his long-held view that the
Bible never failed to accomplish its saving purposes. While
 The Battle for the Resurrection
144-------------------
affirming the Bible's unerring purpose, Rogers never changed
his view that the Bible may have mistaken propositions (state-
ments) in it.
The point that was missed in this premature enthusiasm
about Jack Roger's view was that he believed the Bible was
always without error in its intention or function of saving, but
not necessarily without error in all of its affirmation of fact.'
Like a generally good map that gets one to his destination and
yet has some minor mistakes, Rogers believes that the Bible is
without error in its function, but not necessarily in all its
facts.
Explicit Statements on the Resurrection
Similar mistakes are now being made over the phrases
"bodily resurrection" and "physical resurrection." Professor
Murray Harris of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School con-
fesses belief in both (see Chapter 6), but denies that Jesus'
resurrection body was a material body of flesh and bones.
Many consider Harris' view orthodox, including "Dr. Ken-
neth Kantzer, director of Trinity's Ph.D. program, [who] is-
sued the final report of the [school] Senate's findings, which
recommended the granting of tenure to Harris . . . ."5 This
approval of Harris' view was given in spite of the fact that the
report quotes Harris as saying "the Bible teaches a believer's
resurrection body is not the 'same substantial body as we had
at death.' "6 But, as we have seen, it is at the heart of the or-
thodox view to confess that Jesus was raised in the same phys-
ical body in which he died.
Explicit, Not Ambiguous
Furthermore, it is premature to pronounce a view orthodox
until some important ambiguities are clarified concerning
what is meant by "bodily resurrection." It could refer to the
orthodox belief that the resurrection body was the same physi-
cal body that died but is now alive forevermore. Or, "bodily
resurrection" could be used to refer to the resurrection of a
different body-namely, an immaterial one-rather than to the
resurrection of the one that died. This is not an orthodox be-
Lessons to Be Learned
--------------------145
lief (see Chapter 6). In this same sense, the phrase "physical
resurrection" could mean no more than that the body placed
in the tomb was a physical, material body but say nothing
about the nature of the body that came out of the tomb. That
is, the phrase "physical resurrection" mayor may not imply
that the body coming out ofthe tomb via resurrection was the
same physical, material body that was placed there.
In brief, it is possible to confess belief in the "physical res-
urrection" of Christ and still be unorthodox. But when the
unorthodox are willing to resort to this level of semantical eva-
sion, the words of Irenaeus are relevant:
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest,
being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is
craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward
form, to make it appear to the inexperienced . . . more true
than truth itself (Against Heresies 1.2).
The ambiguity over the meaning of "physical resurrec-
tion" is precisely the point at issue in the current evangelical
battle for the resurrection-namely, Was Jesus resurrected in
the same physical, material body He had before He died?
What is at issue is not simply the resurrection of the physical
body but the resurrection in that same physical body that
died. Nor is it a resurrection in an "immaterial physical"
body, which is a contradiction in terms. On these points
many evangelical doctrinal statements at present are woefully
deficient. This is understandable, since the advent of new
controversy often requires a more refmed use of terminology.
Denials as Well as Mfmnations Are Needed
Most current doctrinal statements have only affirmations,
that is, "I believe-." This is a significant problem. Often
denials are more clear than affirmations. That is, "I don't
believe-." This is no doubt why many of the Ten Command-
ments are stated negatively. After all, "Thou shalt be sexually
faithful to thy wife" lacks a little of the punch of "Thou shalt
not commit adultery." Certainly an affirmation and negation
 The Battle for the Resurrection
146-------------------
taken together make a much more definitive statement. John
1:3 gives us a good example. Jesus' role as creator is given
positively ("through him all things were made") and nega-
tively ("without him nothing was made") (John 1:3 NIV).
A notable exception to the pattern of having only affirma-
tions is the statements on inerrancy produced by the Interna-
tional Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) in their Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978).7
We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation
given by God.
We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or
only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the re-
sponses of men for its validity (Article III).
From the affirmation alone, someone could rationalize a
neo-orthodox view of Scripture by claiming that the Bible is
the written Word of God in the sense that it is an accurate
record of that revelation, but not that the Bible is the revelation
of God itself. The denial clearly excludes such a possibility.
Hence, the denial is even more clear than the affirmation
alone.
Applying this insight to the present battle for the resurrec-
tion, the problem could be avoided as follows:
We affirm that Christ rose permanently from the dead in the
same physical body in which He died.
We deny that Christ's resurrection body was by nature im-
material or invisible.
If evangelical schools had a statement like this, then faculty
members with unorthodox views on the nature of the resur-
rection body would not be able to assent to it conscientiously.
Unfortunately, the lack of such a statement makes this lamen-
table situation possible. Schools and churches with less than
definitive statements in this regard cannot expect to avoid dif-
ficulties in this area.
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------147
Lessons in Interpreting Doctrinal Statements
In addition to learning valuable lessons about formulating
doctrinal statements, there are equally important lessons to
learn about interpreting them. Two such lessons come to
mind. They apply equally well to interpreting the Bible, the
U. S. Constitution, doctrinal statements, or to any piece of lit-
erature.
Meaning Should Be Read Out of, Not Into, a Text
The true meaning of a passage is the author's meaning, not
the reader's. Few but the aberrant "deconstructionist" liter-
ary critics seriously believe meaning has its source in the
reader" not the author. The author put the meaning into the
text, and it is the reader's obligation to read that meaning out
of the text. Meaning is what the "meaner" (author) meant,
not what the "meanee" (reader) would like it to mean. That
is, the real meaning is what was meant by the author, not what
it may mean to the reader (if this is different). This is perhaps
the most fundamental rule of interpretation.
One of the most able exponents and defenders of this posi-
tion is Dr. Walter Kaiser, the Dean of Trinity Evangelical Di-
vinity School. He correctly notes that: "No definition of
interpretation could be more fundamental than this: To inter-
pret we must in everycase reproduce the sense the Scripturalwriter
intended for his own uiords:"
Let us apply Kaiser's excellent insights in understanding
Scripture to interpreting a typical evangelical doctrinal state-
ment, that of the Evangelical Free Church of America. It has
two references to resurrection, one to Christ's resurrection
and the other to believers'. They read as follows:
He [Jesus Christ] rose bodily from the dead, ascended into
heaven, where, at the right hand of the majesty on high, He
now is our High Priest and Advocate" (Article II, 3).
We believe in the bodily resurrection of all the dead; of the
believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with their Lord,
and of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious
punishment (Article II, 12).
 The Battle for the Resurrection
148--------------------
It is clear to anyone familiar with the roots of the Free
Church and with the formation of its doctrinal statement that
"bodily" means a literal, material body. Several things can be
noted in this regard. First, this is the normal meaning of the
word "body." Second, this is in continuity with the historic
evangelical tradition from which the Free Church emerges.
Third, this is what was understood by the official Free
Church commentary on the doctrinal statement by its former
president, Dr. Arnold T. Olson." Olson commented on
Article III, saying, "the Christ beyond death was not merely a
spirit, a personality, but a resurrected body." And since the
context refers to a "dead body" and those who "dwell in
dust," it is clear that he is speaking of resurrection in a physi-
cal body. Fourth, the current president of the Trinity Evan-
gelical Divinity School, Kenneth Meyer, understands it as
referring to "the literal physical resurrection of Jesus
Christ,"> Likewise, the president of the Free Church, Dr.
Thomas McDill's understanding of what is orthodox is
quoted in the Free Church Beacon. He said "the body of
Jesus that was placed in the tomb, when it came out of that
tomb it was physical in nature, but it was enhanced so that it
was no longer a mortal body that would die again,"?' Finally,
conversations with noted Free Church leaders verifies that it
was "beyond question" that the framers of the Free Church
doctrinal statement understood bodily resurrection to mean
resurrection in the same physical body in which Jesus was
crucified.
But if the Free Church framers meant physical body when
they said "body;' then there should be no question of allow-
ing any subscriber to this statement to sign it and yet hold
views that deny the physical, material nature of the resurrec-
tion body. Let us state the case as clearly as possible:
1) The true meaning of a statement is what the framers
meant.
2) The framers of the Free Church statement on the resur-
rection meant physical, material body when they said
"body."
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------149
3) Therefore, the true meaning of this statement is resur-
rection in a physical, material body.
Look to the Authors for Meaning
As noted interpreter E. D. Hirsch succinctly stated, "The
permanent meaning is, and can be, nothing other than the
author's meaning." For "As soon as the reader's outlook is
permitted to determine what a text means, we have not sim-
ply a changing meaning but quite possibly as many meanings
as readers.?" That is, as soon as the meaning of current lead-
ers replaces that of founding fathers, we have destroyed the
value of our doctrinal statements.
In this connection, Alice in Wonderland responded well to
Humpty Dumpty's contemptuous use of language when he
said, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to
mean-neither more nor less." Alice appropriately retorted,
"The question is . . . whether you can make words mean so
many different things."?' Unfortunately this same "Humpty
Dumpty" kind of interpretation is being used by evangelical
church leaders to deny major orthodox doctrines such as the
physical resurrection. If this "Humpty Dumpty" hermeneu-
tic continues, then all the king's horses and all the king's men
won't be able to put our churches back together again!
Statements Should Be Modified if Needed, Not Nullified
From time to time doctrinal statements need to be updated.
Just as the change in the usage of words demands an occasion-
ally new translation of the Bible, even so doctrinal statements
are subject to the same process. A classic case is the King
James use of "let" (see 2 Thess. 2:7). In 1611 the word "let"
meant to "hinder." Hence, the New King James (and others)
correctly retranslate this word as "restrains." If modern
translations did not do this, then by leaving the word the same
they are responsible for changing the meaning.
Further, in the case of doctrinal statements, sometimes new
issues arise that were not foreseen by the framers of the state-
ment. When this happens, the doctrinal statement needs to
be reworded to address these issues in accordance with the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
150-------------------
meaning of the framers. For these two (and other) reasons it is
necessary from time to time to modify doctrinal statements,
no matter how good they are. However, integrity demands
that when we change the wording, we do not change the au-
thor's meaning. That is to say, we can state an old doctrine in
a new way, but we should not read new meaning into an old
doctrine.
When Beliefs Change, Statements Should Be Changed
Of course, from time to time the beliefs of a group change.
Sometimes this is for the better; often it is for the worse. But
whatever the case, new beliefs should be expressed in new
doctrinal statements. That is, a group should properly make a
new statement, not improperly read new meaning into the old
statement. Likewise, when a faculty member holds a view
contrary to that which was meant by the framers in their doc-
trinal statement, then either the doctrinal statement or the
faculty member should be changed. This kind of integrity
should begin with the faculty member not signing the doc-
trinal statement with any "mental reservations." That is, he
should not sign it on the basis of what it means to him, but on
the basis of what the framers meant by it.
If there is any question about what the framers meant by
the statement, then the proper authorities of the church or
institution are responsible to make the fmal judgment in the
light of the best evidence available as to what the framers held
on the matter. Doctrinal statements are not made of putty.
They are not wax noses that can be twisted in any direction.
And they should not be stretched to accommodate new and
creative views that are at odds with the meanings of the doc-
trinal statements. Sadly, many evangelical institutions are not
following their doctrinal commitments, but are stretching
them to embrace views their founders would have readily re-
jected as unorthodox.
Lessons for Seminary Leaders
Eternal vigilance is the price for orthodoxy, as well as for
democracy. We constantly must be alert for doctrinal devia-
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------151
tions in our churches and schools. In order to accomplish this,
several things are necessary.
The Need for Theologically Educated Leadership
We cannot recognize error unless we know the truth. Nei-
ther can we detect a good counterfeit unless we are thor-
oughly trained in the genuine. Since the Bible is the only
divinely authoritative writing for faith and practice, we must
be completely acquainted with its contents. Bogus currency is
getting so sophisticated that government agents can only tell
the genuine from the good counterfeits under a microscope.
Likewise, erroneous theological views are often so sophisti-
cated that only an expert in the truth can detect what is wrong
with them.
What is true of bogus bills is also true of bogus beliefs.
They sound so true and look so true that it is hard to tell that
they are not true. In fact, the only way to be sure if they are
not true is to scrutinize them under the microscope of God's
Word. We must measure them by the Truth. Jesus said of the
Scriptures, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17 KJV).
All doctrine must be measured by the truth of divine Scrip-
ture. In order to do this we must know not only the content of
Scripture but also the form that content takes in biblical doc-
trine and in systematic theology. In order to do this, there is
no substitute for both correct interpreting and consistent
thinking. To accomplish this, training in philosophy is a cru-
cial tool for many reasons. First of all, it is training in how to
think, an ability that is on the endangered species list. Fur-
thermore, philosophical training enables one to defend the
faith (see Phil. 1:7; 1 Peter 3:15). As C. S. Lewis insightfully
noted, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason,
because bad philosophy needs to be answered,"!' The same
applies to bad theology. In fact, often bad theology has some
bad philosophy behind it.
Of course, some will quote Paul, who said to the Colos-
sians, "Beware ... [of] philosophy" (Col. 2:8). True, but
they forget that we cannot beware of it unless we are aware of
it. Few people would go to a doctor who never studied sick-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
152--------------------
ness. He has to know something about disease in order to
know how to treat it and how not to catch it.
Good Philosophy
Training in philosophy is particularly helpful in spotting
false philosophies that masquerade in biblical terminology.
For example, the tendency to "spiritualize" or allegorize
away the literal historical truth of the Bible is an influence of
platonic philosophy that has made a marked impact on the
Christian Church at least since the time of Origen (see Chap-
ter 6). And the widespread propensity to consider a story
mythical or non-historical if it speaks about the miraculous is
a result in the modern world of the antisupernatural philoso-
phies of Benedict Spinoza and David Hume (see Chapter 5).
And the more recent movements to stress the subjective and
personal elements to the neglect of the objective and historical
result from the influence of the existential philosophies of
Seren Kierkegaard and Martin Hiedegger, Good philosophy
specializes in providing the tools of understanding and cri-
tique of these philosophies. Someone trained in philosophy
can more easily spot their destructive inroads on Christian
teaching.
In this connection it is a giant step backward for schools to
close their philosophy departments. The philosophers (and
systematic theologians, who depend on philosophy) are par-
ticularly adept at detecting theological deviations. Philosophi-
cal and theological training for ministers and even lay leaders
is crucial for the survival of evangelical Christianity.
The Need to Scrutinize Professors' Writings
before Hiring Them
Many professors have published writings. These should be
carefully reviewed by qualified people before the professor is
hired. In this connection I was shocked to learn from several
professors at a well-known school that they had not read the
published material of a controversial professor before they
voted to pronounce his view orthodox. This apparently was
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------153
also true of most of the faculty that confirmed his appoint-
ment. In fact, one prominent faculty member told me he
voted to approve of this professor's view as orthodox on what
he called "hearsay" information, never having read his book.
This is inexcusable and accounts for why some professors are
able to slip through the system without their unorthodox
views ever being detected.
The question as to how professors with questionable or
clearly unorthodox views can be accepted on orthodox facul-
ties is a mystery to many. Thirty years on the faculties of sev-
eral fine evangelical schools suggests to me several reasons
why it happens.
First, although the people who examine prospective teach-
ers are often competent, sometimes they do not ask the right
questions. For example, a professor can answer yes to
whether he believed in the "bodily resurrection" but no to
whether he believed Jesus arose in "the same physical, mate-
rial body in which He died." But if the second question is
never asked, then an unorthodox view can go undetected.
Second, the faculty at large often trusts the judgment of
their colleagues who question the candidate. Sometimes this
works and sometimes it does not. They may know what the
professor affirms, but not always what he denies, especially if
they do not question him on the point in dispute. Also, they
may understand his affirmations but not fathom all their im-
plications.
Third, all too often the views of the professor in question
are not fully known by the faculty until after he has been hired
or given tenure. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. One faculty member on the committee that inter-
viewed a prospective professor, whose views were subse-
quently questioned, admitted to me that he had not read his
book expressing these unorthodox views-this in spite of the
fact that it had been in print for several years. When this com-
mittee member was later presented with citations from the
book, he said, "that is not the impression I got from hearing
his statements to the committee." Unfortunately, that is the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
154--------------------
problem. A verbal presentation without careful scrutiny often
"puts the best foot forward" and obscures underlying doc-
trinal problems.
Fourth, the standards for "orthodoxy" used by the faculty
or board on the candidate are not always what the framers
meant in the doctrinal statement. The readers of a statement
do not always take it to mean what the framers meant by it.
And when colleagues are asked to pronounce on one of their
own, then it is even more difficult, for fraternity tends to rede-
fine the boundaries of "orthodox" by using a different crite-
rion from the one meant by the framers of their doctrinal
statement. Perhaps independent doctrinal boards would be
less vulnerable to such influences.
Fifth, once someone has already been pronounced ortho-
dox and given tenure, it is a great embarrassment for an insti-
tution and denomination to admit that the system failed.
Unfortunately, once the horse is out of the barn, it is a lot
easier to say, "Well, I think it was time for him to run any-
way." We can't undo our mistakes, but we can correct them
and learn not to repeat them.
Lessons for Church Leaders
Some schools, especially those connected with denomina-
tions, often have added a step in their review of faculty. They
require Board review before they grant tenure to a faculty
member. This is an excellent check and balance and often
works well. However, no system is infallible. Indeed, the sys-
tem is no better than the people who operate it. Hence, the
leaders who direct the process ultimately must shoulder the
responsibility for its failure. In this context important lessons
can be gleaned for church leaders.
Refutation, Not Condemnation, Is the Proper Procedure
Whenever questions are raised by concerned members of a
body, answers should be given. Whenever charges are made,
replies should be forthcoming. The way to respond to doc-
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------155
trinal charges is by refutation, not condemnation. When legit-
imate doctrinal questions are raised by anyone in the body,
they should be examined, not exterminated. They should be
studied, not squelched.
Attempts to avoid a full and free discussion of the question-
able views of professors at evangelical schools on crucial doc-
trines are inexcusable. When a professor puts his views in
print, they become subject to free and open scholarly ex-
change. Failure to engage in such a dialogue, and attempts to
keep negative critiques of such views out of print are unschol-
arly and unhealthy.
Denominational Issues about Orthodoxy
Should Be Aired Fully and Freely
The only way to satisfy the demands of an important doc-
trinal issue is to allow it to be aired fully and freely. The par-
ties raising questions or bringing charges should be allowed to
present their case in person. There must be time for a full and
free discussion of the doctrinal issue involved. Decisions
should not be "signed, sealed and delivered" without any of-
ficial group providing opportunity for responsible parties to
present the needed evidence.
Opportunity should be given to present the case before the
proper boards or committees charged with reviewing these
matters. Sufficient time should be allowed for discussion.
Members of a group should not be asked simply to "trust
the system." A system should only be trusted ifit can be mon-
itored. "Trust but verify." If evangelical denominations and
institutions are going to preserve their orthodoxy, procedures
not allowing full discussion must be courageously resisted.
The members of responsible churches and schools trust their
treasurers, but they also have an independent source audit the
books. While we must trust those we put in office to lead us,
we must also monitor them.
The lack of accountability by evangelical leaders has also
led to many recent moral embarrassments for the Body of
Christ. Doctrinally, we are just as vulnerable. Members
 The Battle for the Resurrection
156-------------------
should rely on the system only if they can help regulate it. The
failure to do this can be fatal to the doctrinal fidelity of our
evangelical institutions.
Lessons for the Media
Since these issues are sometimes given national press atten-
tion, it is important to reflect on what can be gleaned from
these experiences. A number of lessons emerge worth con-
templating.
Impugning Motives of Others Is Wrong
It is always a serious thing to say defamatory things about
Christian leaders to the media. The Jim Bakker and Jimmy
Swaggart cases should have taught us that Nightline is not the
clothesline on which to hang evangelical dirty laundry. Sim-
ply because Christians should not take their brothers to court
on these matters (l Cor. 6) does not give us the license to
slander one another in the press. Christians have no justifica-
tion for impugning the motives of others in the public eye.
The secular media love to print this kind of "garbage." This
leads to another lesson to be learned.
The Responsibility of the Christian Media
Unfortunately the Christian media sometimes react with
the same recklessness as the secular media. There are several
"No-Nos" in this regard. First, sources should be checked
carefully before the material is printed. If this procedure were
followed, many stories would never get printed. On this very
issue of the resurrection, Christianity Today recently printed
some false accusations they failed to confirm before printing.
When this was brought to their attention, their printed apol-
ogy read, "We apologize that we did not contact Dr. Geisler
for comment before publishing this material." There is a les-
son in this for all of us:
"Be careful little hands what you write!"
Another case is the famous "Scopes II" trial in Little
Rock, Arkansas, at which I was a witness. An otherwise care-
Lessons to Be Learned
-------------------157
ful scholar, Dr. Langdon Gilkey, wrote based on a report in
the New }Ork Times that I had testified to my belief in UFOs
based on a report in Reader's Digest:" The truth of the matter
is this: (1) This topic was not part of my prepared testimony
at all. (2) The subject was brought up by the ACLU lawyers
as an attempt to discredit witnesses in favor of teaching cre-
ation along with evolution. (3) The actual court record, which
they mysteriously refused to type up until after the case went
to the Supreme Court (June 1987), shows that the reference
was to the testimony of scientists reported in Science Digest
(November 1981), not Reader's Digest! I have seen false re-
porting based on the New }Ork Times article in college text-
books, high school texts, and even one logic text.
Second, the media need to be careful of using biased secu-
lar sources. They often have a distorted picture of evangelical
issues. The above case illustrates the point. Christianity To-
day's comments were based on a non-Christian news service
without checking with the parties involved. As a result the
writer of the Christianity Today article had to "eat crow" byad-
mitting: "You're right. We goofed. As the person solely re-
sponsible for the article . . . I apologize. We plan to publish
your letter in the next available issue, and I hope that will
correct the misconceptions created by the article. More im-
portantly, this unfortunate experience will prod us into more
thoughtful treatment of all our news articles." The editor
went on to explain that they had used a national news service
without checking the facts out themselves.
Third, allowing personal attacks to be published, including
letters to the editor, should be avoided. They just add more
heat than light. Disagreement should be principial, not per-
sonal. Above all, nothing should be printed casting doubt on
the motives of others. We can and must judge the accuracy
and value of actions (see 1 Cor. 6:2ff.), but only God can
rightly judge the heart (see Heb. 4:12). I deliberately refrain
from using illustrations at this point to avoid from even the
appearance of judging someone else's motives for judging mo-
tives.
Fourth, articles by credible writers on these crucial issues
 The Battle for the Resurrection
158--------------------
should not be turned down. For example, I have had four
publications, including Christianity Today, turn down articles
10
on the resurrection, all of which had previously published my
material. Two other magazines published articles, but cen-
sored material due to pressure placed upon them. Some of the
publishers were contacted in advance of the article being sent
to them. This kind of information manipulation is reprehensi-
ble. However good the motives, it gives the appearance of a
cover-up. Drawing the Line
Spiritual Lessons
There are also many spiritual lessons to be learned in the
struggle to preserve the orthodoxy of our institutions. Space
only permits mentioning some here. All of them are taught in In defining any fundamental doctrine, a line
Scripture. We must "contend for the faith that was once for must be drawn somewhere distinguishing an orthodox under-
all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3 NIV). But the motives of standing from an unorthodox understanding of it. In drawing
those who do so should not be judged by others. Jesus said, this line several questions should be kept in mind. What is the
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matt. 7:1 NIV). biblical teaching on the matter? Also, what is the historic or-
Only God knows the "thoughts and attitudes of the heart" thodox position on the topic? Finally, does denying this or-
(Heb. 4: 12 NIV). thodox understanding have serious repercussions on the
Further, we should seek to know all the relevant facts be- Christian Faith?
fore making a judgment on an issue. For "he who answers
before listening-that is his folly and his shame" (Prov. 18:13
NIV). We should always "speak ... the truth in love" (Eph.
Drawing the Line in the Battle for the Bible
4: 15 NIV). We should abstain from gossip and slander against When these three criteria are applied to the battle for the
others with whom we disagree (Ps. 15:3; 1 Tim. 5: 13). And Bible, the line of orthodoxy concerning inspiration should be
those who are charged with the responsibility to review the drawn to exclude those who deny inerrancy. Drawing the line
orthodoxy of others should take their responsibility seriously. at this point can be justified on all three criteria mentioned
In so doing, we should not allow considerations of brotherly above.
charity to take precedence over doctrinal purity. Many an in-
stitution has sacrificed orthodoxy on the altar of fraternity. Inerrancy Is Taught in the Bible
The biblical claim to inspiration entails inerrancy in several
ways. 1 (This position has been ably defended by a coalition of
evangelical scholars representing the International Council on
Biblical Inerrancy in the book Inerrancy Fy There are many
lines of evidence supporting the view that inspiration entails
inerrancy.
159
 The Battle for the Resurrection
160--------------------
One is that God cannot err (Heb. 6: 18; Titus 1:2), and the
Bible is called the Word of God (Matt. 15:6; John 10:35).
Therefore, the Bible cannot err (see Chapters 1-3).
Another is that Jesus affirmed the infallible, indestructible,
and unerring nature of Scripture (see Matt. 5:17; 22:29; John
10:35), which affirmation is incompatible with any errors.
And since Jesus taught with divine authority (see Matt. 7:24-
29; 28: 18-20), then on His authority the Bible is the inerrant
Word of God.
Yet another line of evidence is that the Bible is the product
of the Spirit of Truth (2 Tim. 3: 16; 1 Cor. 2: 13), and the
Spirit of Truth cannot err. So it follows necessarily that the
Bible cannot err.
And a fourth is that the Scriptures are "God-breathed"
(2 Tim. 3:16 NIV). But God cannot breathe out error. His
word is absolutely true (John 17:17; Rom. 3:4). What "is
written" comes from "the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
Therefore, the Bible cannot err anymore than God can.
Also, the Bible is a prophetic message (Heb. 1:1; 2 Peter
1:20-21). But a prophet is a mouthpiece of God (2 Sam. 23:2;
Isa. 59:21). He is one through whom God speaks. Therefore,
the Scriptures cannot be mistaken anymore than God can be.
So to speak of the Bible as inspired but errant is a contradic-
tion in terms. An inspired error is as impossible as a square
circle.
The Doctrine of Inerrancy Is Supported
by Church History
It has been amply documented that inerrancy has been the
orthodox position of the Christian Church down through the
centuries. Quotations from the major teachers of the church
are collected in our book, Hot» History Views theBible: Decide
for Yourself. 3 A scholarly discussion expressing this conclusion
is found in John Hannah's Inerrancy and the Church:'
Jack Rogers's contrary position, stated in The Authorityand
Interpretation oftheBible.' was decisively critiqued in Dr. John
Woodbridge's book Biblical Authority: A Critique of The
Drawing the Line
--------------------161
Roger/McKim Proposal:" A careful examination of the evi-
dence reveals that no orthodox teacher of the Church from the
first to the nineteenth century denied the inerrancy of Scrip-
ture. Indeed, virtually every orthodox church father believed
that the Bible was without error. This has been the standard
orthodox position down through the years.
The Crucial Consequences of Denying Inerrancy
It is clear that serious doctrinal consequences follow from
denying the inerrancy of Scripture.
For example, to deny inerrancy is to attack the authenticity
of God the Father. Since the Bible is the Word of God (as I
have defined it carefully and repeatedly in this book), to
charge the Bible with error is to charge God with error.
Additionally, to admit of error in the Scriptures is to attack
the authority of God the Son. Jesus said the Bible is wholly
true (see John 17:17) and without error (see Matt. 5:17;
22:29). To question that the Bible is the Word of God is in the
fmal analysis to question that Jesus is the Son of God.
Also, to claim there are errors in the Bible is to attack the
ministry of God the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a Spirit-breathed
book (2 Tim. 3: 16), and the Holy Spirit cannot breathe-out
error.
Finally, to deny inerrancy is to undermine the stability of
the Christian Church. The Church is based upon the founda-
tion of Holy Scripture given by the apostles and prophets
(Eph. 2:20). And the psalmist said, "If the foundations are
destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). The Bible
is the fundamental from which the other fundamentals come.
And if the fundamental of the fundamentals is not fundamen-
tal, then what is? Fundamentally nothing!
In brief, all three tests for orthodoxy support the contention
that the line should be drawn to include inerrancy as an essen-
tial part of the understanding of the inspiration of the Bible.
Therefore, those who affirm inspiration but deny inerrancy
are not orthodox on that doctrine, however orthodox they
may be on other doctrines.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
162--------------------
Drawing the Line in the Battle for the Resurrection
Now these same three criteria for orthodoxy are applicable
in the current battle for the resurrection. Some evangelicals
are now claiming that a view such as Murray Harris's (see
Chapter 6), which denies that Jesus rose in the same material
body in which He died, is orthodox. They point to his belief
in an empty tomb, subsequent "appearances," and personal
continuity of the pre- and post-resurrection Christ as indica-
tions of its orthodoxy. But these are clearly not enough, as is
evidenced by the fact that even cults like the Jehovah's Wit-
nesses, some New Agers, and many Neo-orthodox believe
these and yet deny the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection
of Christ.
An empty tomb as such does not prove the resurrection any
more than a missing body from a morgue proves it was resur-
rected. Further, mere appearances or "manifestations" as
such do not prove a real resurrection any more than the an-
gelic "manifestations" in the Bible proved these angels had
resurrected from the dead. And mere personal identity is not
enough; there must be a material identity as well. That is, the
resurrection body must be the numerically same material
body that was placed in the tomb.
Orthodox and Unorthodox Views of the Resurrection
Orthodox and unorthodox positions on the resurrection can
be contrasted in the following way:
RESURRECTION
ORTHODOX VIEW UNORTHODOX VIEW
Numerical identity No numerical identity
A material body An immaterial body
An event in history Not an event in history
These two views are not complementary, but contradic-
tory. They cannot be combined nor adhered to simultane-
ously. Only one can be true. And, as has been pointed out,
the orthodox view is true and biblical; the unorthodox view is
neither.
Drawing the Line
--------------------163
The Importance of the Orthodox View
What makes a view on the nature of the resurrection body
orthodox is not simply that there was an empty tomb or even
appearances of the same person, but that the same observ-
able, material body that died came out of the tomb alive. Oth-
erwise, we have no assurance that Christ overcame death,
since that which died was the physical body. Hence, to prove
the victory of the resurrection over death it is necessary that
the very same physical, material body that died be raised
from the dead. The claim that Jesus' body changed into an
invisible, immaterial one amounts to annihilation, not resur-
rection.
Another way to show that it was the same body is to note
the numerical identity between the pre- and post-resurrection
body of Christ. This does not mean that every particle (or
molecule) in the resurrection body must be the same as those
in the pre-resurrection body. The body of a seventy-year-old
is numerically the same as his body when he was seven years
old, yet it does not have the same particles in it. According to
modern science, the particular molecules change about every
seven years (see Appendix A).
Numerical Identity of the Resurrection Body
Numerical identity means there is only one body involved,
not two, even though there may be changes in the particles
and size of that one body. Size and particles are only acciden-
tal to a body, but having matter is of its very substance. If
there is not a numerical identity between the pre- and post-
resurrection body, then it is not a resurrection into the same
body, but rather a reincarnation into another body. Reincar-
nation of whatever variety is not a Christian teaching.'
Materiality of the Resurrection Body
Second, it is crucial to an orthodox understanding of the
resurrection body that it is a material body. A material body is
the kind of body that died. Therefore, in order to be victori-
ous over death, the resurrection must restore the physical
body that died Of course, it did even better; it rendered the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
164--------------------
restored physical body immortal (see 1 Cor. 15:54) as well as
retained its material nature. But a resurrection that fails to
restore the same material body that died is a failure.
The Scriptures often stress the material nature of the resur-
rection body by calling it flesh, since flesh is essential to
Christ's full humanity. John describes the incarnation of
Christ like this: "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"
(John 1:14 NKJV). "Becoming flesh," then, was an essential
element of His full humanity. In his epistles John goes even
further and declares that any spirit who denies "Jesus Christ
has come [and remains] in the flesh" is "not from God"
(1 John 4:2 NIV). In this passage he uses the perfect tense,
meaning, Jesus came in the flesh in the past and remains in
the flesh, even though John wrote this well after the resurrec-
tion and ascension of Christ.
In the parallel passage in 2 John 7 (NIV) he uses the present
tense, declaring that anyone who "does not acknowledge
Jesus Christ as coming [and continuing] in the flesh" is teach-
ing false doctrine. The use of the present tense indicates that
John believed it was essential to believe Christ continued to
be in the flesh after His resurrection. To deny the flesh of the
resurrected Christ is to deny His full humanity.
Historicity of the Resurrection and Post-Resurrection
Appearances
Third, it is essential to the orthodox understanding of the
resurrection to note that it was an event in space-time history.
Jesus was not only crucified "under Pontius Pilate" (an his-
torical marker), but He was "raised on the third day" which
is another obvious historical reference. This phrase is re-
peated in many of the Christian Creeds (see Chapter 4), but
its significance is now being obscured and even denied by
some scholars (see Chapter 6). The historicity of the resurrec-
tion is crucial to orthodoxy. Christ's death occurred in history
(Rom. 5:12), so, His victory over death must also be a histori-
cal event. And since death is a historical event, then the resur-
rection must be also. Just as the pre-resurrection body and
Drawing the Line
-------------------165
the dead body are observable, even so a resurrection body is
part of the observable, historical world.
Support for the Orthodox View
There are three lines of evidence supporting the orthodox
understanding that Jesus rose in the same, material body of
flesh in which He lived and died. They follow the same three
criteria used to determine the orthodox understanding of the
inerrancy of the Bible.
It Is the Biblical Position
As shown in Chapters 3 and 7, there are numerous lines of
evidence which demonstrate that Jesus rose in the same lit-
eral, material body in which He died. (1) The tomb was
empty; the physical body had departed. (2) That same body
that had vacated the tomb was later seen and heard by over
five hundred witnesses. (3) Some of these witnesses later
touched and handled this same physical body now alive.
(4) The pre-resurrection scars were still present in the resur-
rected body. (5) This reanimated body possessed flesh and
bones. (6) It could and did eat physical food on several occa-
sions. (7) The Greek word for body (soma) used of it (see
1 Cor. 15:44) always means a physical, material body when
used of an individual human being. (8) Paul stressed (by the
seed analogy) in 1 Corinthians 15:36-37 that the body (seed)
that dies is the same one that rises. (9) Indeed, the close con-
nection between death and resurrection in many passages
stresses its physical continuity (see 1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 6:3-
5; Col. 2: 12). (10) The use of the phrase "resurrection out
from among (ek) the dead" implies the resurrection of a
corpse from among the dead bodies in the tomb (see John
5:28; 1 Cor. 15:12). (11) In addition, the fact that Jesus was
physically recognizable in His resurrection body supports this
conclusion. (12) It is implied by Paul's offer of hope to sorrow-
ing believers that they will be able to recognize their loved
ones in heaven (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
Taken as a whole, this mass of evidence makes it unmistak-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
166--------------------
ably clear that the Bible teaches the orthodox view that Jesus
rose forever in the very same material body in which he had
died. Any denial of this is an unorthodox position on the na-
ture of the resurrection body.
It Was Held by the Orthodox Teachers of the Church
A survey of the great Christian creeds (see Chapter 4) re-
veals that the confession "I believe . . . in the resurrection of
the flesh" has been the apostolic position of the Christian
Church down through the ages. The use of the term "flesh"
clearly meant material flesh, such as Christ had before His
resurrection. With the exception of an unorthodox teacher
like Origen, there was not a single major church father who
denied that Jesus was raised in His same material body of
flesh.
Even when alternate expressions were used, such as "phys-
ical" or "bodily," they meant a material body. Belief that
Christ's resurrection means a resurrection in the same tangi-
ble, material body of flesh in which he was crucified is the
orthodox position of the Christian Church.
The Articles of the Church of England (A.D. 1562) em-
phatically declare,
Christ did in truth rise again from death, and took again his
body, with flesh and bones, and all things appertaining to the
perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into
Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at
the last day."
This could scarcely be more explicit. Christ arose in the
exact same body of "flesh and bones" in which He had lived
and died. And it is this same body "wherewith" He ascended
into heaven.
Likewise, the great Westminster Confession (A.D. 1647)
also affirms the historic belief in the physical nature of His
resurrection body (Article VII, 4), confessing that He
was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the
power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he
Drawing the Line
-------------------167
arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered;
with which he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the
right hand of his Father ....9
Here again the language is beyond question: The resurrec-
tion body was the "same" physical body Jesus had before His
death. In fact, that body "saw no corruption," and that same
body "ascended into heaven."
Consequences of Denying the Orthodox View
The denial of this biblical view of the resurrection has seri-
ous doctrinal consequences. Another test for the right to call a
doctrinal understanding orthodox is that a denial of it has se-
rious consequences for the Christian faith. We have seen (in
Chapter 2) many disastrous consequences of denying the ma-
terial nature of the resurrection body.
Consequences for Creation
God created the material world and gave human beings ma-
terial bodies (see Gen. 1:1; 2:7). Sin interrupted this plan and
brought death and decay (see Gen. 3; Rom. 5; 8). Unless the
resurrection of man restores God's material creation, then sin
was successful in thwarting God's plan for creation. After all,
if Adam had not sinned but had partaken of the tree of life, he
would have lived forever in the material body in which God
created him. Hence, unless the resurrection restores God's
material creation, as Paul declares it will (Rom. 8:19-23),
then it was not successful in accomplishing what would have
been if Adam had not sinned.
To put it positively, the resurrection body will be just as
material as Adam's body was and would have continued to
be, had he eaten of the tree of life. Man came from dust and
will return to dust. But if he is not reconstituted again out of
the dust, then there will be no restoration of God's original
creation. In short, either the resurrection body is material or
else God lost the creation to Satan.
Consequences for Salvation
Among other things, salvation brings victory over death. It
is by the resurrection that we can say: "Where, 0 death, is
 The Battle for the Resurrection
168-------------------
your victory?" (l Cor. 15:55 NIV). Through His death and
resurrection Christ was able to "destroy him who had the
power of death, that is, the devil ..." (Heb. 2:14 NKJV). But
it was man in his physical material body that died. Therefore,
the only way the resurrection could effectively overcome
death was if it was a resurrection of the same physical, mate-
rial body that had died.
Anything short of the material resurrection of the flesh that
died would be no real salvation from death. A denial of the
material nature of the resurrection body is a concession that
Christ failed in His mission to deliver us from the ravages of
death. But the Scriptures declare that Christ "through
death ... destroy [ed] him who had the power of death, that
is, the devil ..." (Heb. 2: 14 NKJV). By the power of God,
who raised him from the dead Jesus "has delivered us from
the power of darkness ... through His blood ..." (Col. 1:13,
14 NKJV). The defeat of death came in real history, and so
also the victory of resurrection came in history. Anything less
than a material resurrection in actual space and time spells
defeat, not victory.
Consequences for Christ's Character
There can be no doubt that by His physical appearances in
the same scarred body Jesus left upon his disciples the clear
impression that He was raised in the same physical body in
which He died. Indeed, Jesus even challenged them to feel his
wounds (see John 20:27). He said emphatically, "It is I my-
self! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones,
as you see I have" (Luke 24:39 NIV). But if it was not really
the same physical body of flesh in which Jesus was crucified,
then it seems impossible to avoid the charge that Jesus delib-
erately misled His disciples. But such a deceptive act is mor-
ally culpable. Hence, a denial that Jesus was resurrected in
the same physical body in which He died is tantamount to an
assault on the character of Christ.
Consequences for Christian Evidences
The resurrection of Christ is the crowning evidence for the
Christian faith. The appearances of Christ in His resurrected
Drawing the Line
--------------------169
body are called many "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3 NIV). It
was the physical evidence of the scars that was used by God to
convince doubting Thomas of the reality of the risen Christ
and elicited his triumphant confession: "My Lord and my
God" (John 20:28 NKJV). The resurrection was used as proof
of Christ's messiahship in early apostolic preaching (see Acts
2,4, 10, 13). In fact, the apostle Paul used it effectively even
to the conversion of Greek philosophers on Mars Hill, declar-
ing that God "has given proof of this to all men by raising him
from the dead" (Acts 17:31 NIV).
Consequences for Christ's Humanity
The Logos was "made flesh and dwelt among us" (John
1: 14 KJV). It was only by assuming human flesh that He
could redeem humanity. "Inasmuch then as the children
have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared
in the same ..." (Heb. 2: 14 NKJV). He had to be both fully
God and fully man in order to be the mediator between God
and man (see 1 Tim. 2:5). Denying Christ's full humanity is
just as disastrous for our salvation as is denying His deity.
This is why John declares that any spirit that denies that
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" is not of God (see 1 John
4:2; 2 John 7).
Christ's enfleshment was necessary for His full humanity.
But it has always been part of orthodox teaching that Christ is
both God and man, from the point of His conception on for
all eternity to come. Therefore, to deny that Christ was raised
in the flesh is to deny the completeness of His continuing hu-
manity. It is to say that He was only fully human until He
died, but not after He arose. His continued ministry on our
behalf in heaven is dependent on His being fully human (see
Heb.2-1O).
Consequences for Christian Immortality
Paul declared that Christ "has ... brought life and immor-
tality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10 NKJV). Be-
cause He rose, we will rise. But if he did not rise physically,
then neither do we have any hope of doing so. The Christian
 The Battle for the Resurrection
170-------------------
belief in immortality, unlike the Greek's view, was not merely
an immortality of the soul but an immortality of the soul-
body unity." In fact, every time the word "immortality" is
used of humans in the New Testament, it refers to them in
their risen bodies (see 1 Cor. 15:53-54; 2 Tim. 1:10). It is
never used, as the Greeks used it, of the immortality of a soul
separate from a body.
While the soul consciously survives death without a body
(see Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rev. 6:9), neverthe-
less, the departed believer is incomplete until he receives his
resurrection body at the Second Coming (see 1 Thess. 4:13-
18; compare Rev. 20:4, 5). So unless Christ was raised in the
same physical human body in which he died, there is no real
hope of Christian immortality.
Consequences for Christian Hope
If Christ did not rise in the same body in which He died,
then neither will we. He is the "firstfruits" (l Cor. 15:20). If
His body was not the same physically recognizable body He
had before His death, then neither will we be able to so recog-
nize our loved ones in heaven. For our bodies will be trans-
formed " . . . so that they will be like his glorious body"
(Phil. 3:21 NIV). The whole hope that we will again see our
loved ones in the flesh is dashed.
Further, unless we do not rise in our same physical bodies,
then Paul's encouragement to the Thessalonians was in vain.
For the basis of the hope he offered was that bereaved believ-
ers will be reunited with their loved ones at the resurrection of
believers, when Christ returns (l Thess. 4:13-18).
In summation, unless Christ rose in the same physical body
in which He died, there is no proof that he conquered death.
Resurrection in an invisible, immaterial body is unverifiable.
(And it is not a resurrection of a dead body anyway, but an
annihilation of it.) Neither an empty tomb nor mere appear-
ances or "materializations" are sufficient proof of a physical
resurrection. Angels can and have "materialized" (see Gen.
18-19), but this does not prove they were raised from the
dead. The only way we can know for sure that Jesus con-
Drawing the Line
-------------------171
quered death is if he rose in the same material body in which
He had died. Anything short of this is not only unorthodox,
but it spells defeat in His effort to overcome the grave. In
brief, if Jesus did not win over death in the same material
body that died, then He lost. And if He lost, then we are
eternally lost (see 1 Cor. 15:18).
A Response to the Cry for Unity above Orthodoxy
Of course, some will cry "Unity! Unity!" They will insist
that drawing a line for orthodoxy will exclude some sincere
brothers in Christ. What can be said in response to the plea to
put unity above doctrinal purity?
First of all, the doctrine of the resurrection is not a luxury
in Christian theology. It is an essential without which there is
no Christianity. Augustine'S famous statement is applicable
here: "In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty, and in all
things charity." The bodily resurrection of Christ is an essen-
tial, and, therefore, we must demand unity in affirmation of
its orthodoxy.
Second, true unity is not possible apart from uruty in the
truth. The physical resurrection is one of the great truths of
the Christian Faith. Therefore, there is no true doctrinal
unity apart from belief that Christ was raised in the same
physical body in which He died.
Third, what about those who insist that drawing lines will
divide Christians? In response it must be lovingly but firmly
maintained that it is better to be divided by truth than to be united
by error. There is an unhealthy tendency in evangelical Chris-
tianity to hide under the banner of Christian charity while
sacrificing doctrinal purity. While we must always manifest
love toward those with whom we disagree, there is no neces-
sity to sacrifice orthodoxy on the altar of unity. If push comes
to shove, it is better to be divided by a true understanding of
the resurrection than to be united on a false understanding of
it. Otherwise, we will be corrupted by compromise.
Fourth, admittedly, drawing doctrinal lines will make doc-
trinal divisions. But not everything that divides is divisive.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
172-------------------
Affirming the deity of Christ divides evangelicals from non-
evangelicals. But it does not follow, therefore, that evangeli-
cals are divisive for insisting on it as a test of orthodoxy. The
same is true of the virgin birth and the vicarious atonement of
Christ. All doctrine divides those who believe it from those
who do not. In fact, creeds were written to divide truth from
falsehood. The fact that there are people who deny fundamen-
tal Christian truths does not thereby make those who affIrm
them divisive.
Of course, no human doctrinal definition is infallible, but
this does not mean that some are not crucial. One thing is
certain: The lack of clear doctrinal statements is suicidal. The
terms in which they are stated are negotiable, but the truth is
not.
Finally, if anyone should be called divisive for drawing
clear doctrinal lines, then it should be the one who denies the
orthodox, biblical position, not the one who affirms it. Why,
for example, should evangelicals be called divisive for affirm-
ing the deity of Christ rather than Jehovah's Witnesses for
denying it? Why should Bible-believing Christians be called
divisive for affirming the virgin birth of Christ? Why not lay
the charge at the door of the liberals who deny it? Likewise,
why should anyone who affirms the orthodox view on the res-
urrection of Christ be called divisive, rather that those who
deny it? The time has come to put the shoe on the right foot.
If anyone is to be called divisive for their doctrinal beliefs,
then it should be those who deny the orthodox doctrines, not
those who affirm them.
The Bottom Line
The resurrection of Christ is of fundamental importance to
the Christian faith. It was the center of apostolic preaching
(see Acts 2, 4, 10, 13, 17) and is the heart of the gospel. Paul
defined the gospel as the belief that "Christ died for our
sins ... [and] that he was raised on the third day ..." (1 Cor.
15: 3-4 NIV). Belief in the resurrection is laid down by Paul as
a condition for salvation. He told the Romans "that if you
Drawing the Line
-------------------173
confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"
(Rom. 10:9; see also 1 Thess. 4:14 NIV).
SO important was the bodily resurrection ofChrist to Chris-
tianity that Paul insisted that if Christ did not rise from the
grave, then:
1) Our preaching is useless.
2) Our faith is useless.
3) The apostles are false witnesses.
4) Our faith is vain.
5) We are still in our sins.
6) The dead in Christ are lost.
7) We are the most pitied of all men (l Cor. 15:14-19).
The doctrine of the physical resurrection of Christ is essen-
tial to Christianity. There is no real resurrection unless the
same physical, material body of flesh that died is restored to
life evermore. Therefore, any denial that Christ arose in this
same material body of flesh is unorthodox. Christian teachers
and preachers who deny the orthodox position on a major
doctrine of the Christian faith such as the resurrection should
not be retained as leaders in our orthodox institutions.
We must draw a line somewhere. To have no line of demar-
cation between a false understanding of a doctrine and a true
one is to have no true doctrine at all. A creed or confession
that can mean anything, means nothing. Painful as it may be,
we must not allow doctrinal dilution in our churches and in-
stitutions on any of the great fundamentals of the faith that
have once for all been delivered to the saints. And it has
always been a fundamental of the Christian faith to confess:
HI BELIEVE . . . IN THE RESURRECTION
OF THE FLESH"

11
A Response to
Murray Harris
Since the first edition of this book (1989), nu-
merous positive responses and reviews have appeared, includ-
ing Moody Monthly (April 1990), The Journal of the
Euangelical Theological Society (Sept. 1990) Cornerstone Maga-
zine (Feb. 1992), and Christian Research Journal (Jan./Feb.
1992). The only significant negative response has come from
one professor whose views were briefly critiqued in Chapter 6
(Battle for the Resurrection-hereafter BR, 96-104). Professor
Murray Harris's response in From Grave to Glory' (hereafter
GG) is the focus of this chapter (GG, 337-458).
Trivial Pursuit
Much of Harris's response is irrelevant to the central doc-
trinal issue we raised, and little time need be spent on it. In-
deed, much of what he says is picayune and pedantic. For
example, he charges that I allegedly misquoted the Free
Church Articles of Faith, which he states should read: "He
[Christ] arose bodily from the dead." I cited it as saying, "He
[Christ] rose bodily from the dead" (BR, 31). This kind of
inaccuracy, Harris contends, betrays a "lack ofconcern about
the representation of others' views" (GG, 433). Strangely
even Harris admits that "Here the misquotation may not alter
the intent of the original ..." (GG, 433). Indeed, it does not
174
A Response to Murray Harris
--------------------175
alter it. Ironically, in his haste to find little mistakes, he made
a bigger mistake of his own: He used a different source. I was
quoting the Free Church doctrinal statement from the Consti-
tution of the Ministerial Association to which I belonged
which reads exactly as I said. They had apparently made the
mistake in copying it from the national Free Church Constitu-
tion! And Harris made the mistake of attributing the mistake
to me.
When Harris does find a real mistake it is usually trivial.
For example, he complains that we misquote a complex pas-
sage in which a double negative is eliminated but, neverthe-
less, gives what the author said word-for-word. Interestingly,
even Harris admits this is insignificant, acknowledging that
"Dr. Geisler's 'citation' may give the general import of Mi-
chaelis's statement ..." (GG, 430). In fact, not just the "gen-
eral import" was given but the exact words of Michaelis.
One alleged error (GG, 432) is a question of where the quo-
tation mark should go with no effect on the meaning. But
again Harris admits that "the general sense is retained" (GG,
432). In fact, all of these minor matters have been incorpo-
rated in this revised edition (Chapters 1-10 above), usually
with very few word changes and without even changing a
page number from the original edition. What is more, not one
of the errata Harris unearths affects our basic arguments
against his position. Let's turn our attention, then, to the real
issue.
Addressing the Real Issues
Three points get to the heart of the issue. First of all,
Harris attempts to show that his view was misrepresented.
Second, he tries to support his position from Scripture.
Finally, Harris offers some of his own tests for orthodoxy,
concluding that his view is well within these self-designed
boundaries.
Was Harris's View Misrepresented or Restated?
In Raised Immortal Harris contended that the resurrection
 The Battle for the Resurrection
176--------------------
body is essentially immaterial. He said clearly, "This sug-
gests that after his resurrection his essential state was one of
invisibility and therefore immateriality" (RI, 53). He adds,
"Another characteristic of Jesus' resurrection body was the
ability to materialize and therefore be localized at will. This is a
corollary of his essential immateriality and the tangible reality
of his resurrection appearances" (RI, 54, emphasis added).
Interestingly, Harris has allowed Raised Immortal, where
these quotes are found, to go out of print. However, he has
reproduced most of this book verbatim in his new work, Prom
Grave to Glory, minus these clear quotations on the essential
immateriality of the resurrection body. Could it be that Pro-
fessor Harris has actually changed his view and is not admit-
ting it? Or is he unaware of the change? That hardly seems
possible for the sophisticated scholar that he is. Or is he now
aware the view is seriously unorthodox and, without acknowl-
edging a change of view, is seeking to shed himself of the
onus of it?
Whatever the case may be, he now affirms that the resur-
rection body is essentially "spiritual;' by which he means it is
neither material nor immaterial as such, but has the ability to
take on both of these modes on different occasions. He de-
clares:
The resurrection of Jesus was not his transformation into an
immaterial body ... but into a "spiritual body" which could
be expressed in an immaterial or material mode, a nonphysical
or a physical form eGG, 405).
So Harris presently defends the view that "His [Jesus']
body was customarily 'immaterial' or 'nonfleshly' but was ca-
pable of temporary materialization" (GG, 375). But it is im-
portant to notice that in order to make this crucial, albeit
unsuccessful, move Harris has changed the customary meaning
oftheword "essential." However, when the word "essential"
no longer means "by nature" (GG, 435), one is reminded
again of Humpty Dumpty's contemptuous use of language
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------177
cited earlier: "When I use a word it means just what I choose
it to mean-neither more nor less." But with Alice we cannot
help but ask "whether you can make words mean so many
different things,": Certainly, it is not a customary use of lan-
guage when the word essential is taken to mean "customary"!
In fact, it is an essential error to defme essential as "custom-
ary."
Harris's complaint that his view was misrepresented is mis-
directed. In a review commissioned by The Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, which is Appendix 2 of my
recent book, In Defense of the Resurrection,' Professor Frank
Beckwith insightfully observed that "Harris overstates his
own understandability.l" At any rate, the "new and im-
proved" version of Harris's view is actually worse than the
old one. For not only is Harris's current view still unortho-
dox, it is also incoherent. The problem is that Harris claims
that the essential nature of the "spiritual" (resurrection) body
is neither material nor immaterial. However, immaterial
means not material. Surely, there is nothing "in the cracks"
between material and not material. That pretty well exhausts
the logical possibilities! If the "spiritual body" is not mate-
rial, then it is nonmaterial, which is exactly the same as saying
it is immaterial. So Harris has apparently jumped from the
frying pan into the fire, from a view that involved theological
unorthodoxy to one that also entails logical absurdity.
Is Harris's View Biblical?
Surprisingly, for a noted biblical scholar, Harris offers very
little evidence for his view based on what the Scriptures actu-
ally state. Other than a few overworked Greek words (dis-
cussed below), his main points are largely speculations. Take
for example the clear difference between the material passages
and the so-called "nonmaterial" passages Harris cites. The
material passages give direct statements about the physical
nature of the resurrection, whereas the points used to prove
that Jesus was customarily immaterial after His resurrection
are merely speculative inferences.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
178-------------------
Material Passages'
1) Matthew 28:9 (NIV), "They came to him, clasped his feet
and worshiped him." 2) Luke 24: 15 (NIV), "As they talked
and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself
came up and walked along with them. . . ." 3) Luke 24:39
(NIV), "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me
and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I
have." 4) Luke 24:42-43 (NIV), "They gave him a piece of
broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence."
5) Luke 24:50-51 (NIV), "When he had led them out to the
vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them.
While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up
into heaven." 6) John 20:20 (NIV), "After he said this, he
showed them his hands and side." 7) John 20:27 (NIV), "Then
he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach
out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and be-
lieve.''' 8) Acts 1:4 (NIV), "On one occasion, while he was
eating with them, he gave them this command .. ." 9) Acts
10:41 (NIV), "He was not seen by all the people, but by wit-
nesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate and
drank with him after he rose from the dead."
Indeed, in these passages Jesus literally exhausted the ways
in which He could convince His disciples that He had risen in
the same material body of flesh and bones in which He died.
Why then does Harris deny this obvious conclusion?
So-Called "Nonmaterial" Passages
A look at the passages Harris uses to justify his belief that
the resurrection body was customarily "nonmaterial" will
help answer this question. He lists the following verses:
1) Luke 24:31 (NIV), "... he disappeared from their sight."
2) Luke 24:36 (NIV), "While they were still talking about
this, Jesus himself stood among them... ." 3) Luke 24:44
(NIV), "This is what I told you while I was still with you."
4) John 20: 19 (NIV), " ... with the doors locked for fear of the
Jews, Jesus came and stood among them... ." 5) Acts 1:3
(NIV), "He appeared to them over a period offorty days... ."
6) Acts 10:40-41 (NIV), "God raised him from the dead on
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------179
the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by
all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already
chosen-by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from
the dead."
Even a cursory examination of these passages reveals two
important facts. First, not one of them speaks of the resurrec-
tion body as being "nonmaterial" or "rionfleshly," as Harris
cont~nd~. Harris is misreading his view into the passages, not
reading It out of the passages. Second, unlike the material
passages that speak of the resurrection body's being "flesh
and bones" that can be "clasped" by bare hands and possess-
ing the crucifixion scars of the physical body, none of these
so-called "nonmaterial" passages are speaking about the na-
ture of the resurrection body, but simply about its activity.
They are referring to things Jesus did in His resurrection
body, not what it was by nature. 6
Some Crucial Texts Examined
The only positive evidence Harris offers for his belief in
pop-in, pop-out physical appearances of Jesus are a handful of
overworked texts. Let's briefly consider them.
Luke 24:31: "He vanished from their sight" (NKjV). Harris
examines the question "Was the risen Jesus 'customarily in-
visible'?" (GG, 376). The first text he looks to for support of
his thesis is Luke 24:31. He observes,
Most English versions render the relevant part of this verse,
"And he vanished out of their sight" or "And he disappeared
from their sight." Literally, it reads: "And he became invisi-
ble ... from them (= to their eyes)" (GG, 376-377).
Four sources are quoted in support ofhis translation. How-
ever, most of these sources do not leap, as Harris does, from
the disappearance of Jesus to the conclusion that Jesus had a
customarily invisible body. Plummer states,
We are to understand disappearance without physical locomo-
tion: but we know too little about the properties of Christ's
risen body to say whether this was supernatural or not. No-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
1801
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
where else in bibl. Grk. does [aphantos] occur: in class. Grk. it
is poetical. In 2 Mace. iii. 34, aphaneis egenonio [became invis-
ible] is used of Angels ceasing to be visible. The ap' auton
[from them] implies no more than withdrawal from their
sight/
Unlike Professor Harris, Plummer does not jump to the
conclusion that Jesus' body must have been customarily in-
visible. In fact, earlier Plummer made this observation with
respect to Luke 24:39:
This seems to imply that His feet as well as His hands had
been nailed. Jesus first convinces them of His identity,-that
He is the Master whom they supposed that they had lost; and
secondly of the reality of His body,-that it is not merely the
spirit of a dead Master that they see.'
Plummer asserts that Jesus displayed the nail prints in His
hands and feet in order to convince the disciples of "the real-
ity of His body" (emphasis added). This statement opposes
Harris's view that Jesus showed His hands and feet in order to
demonstrate His reality but not His materiality (R!, 54). In
fact if Harris is right, then a demonstration to convince the
disciples of the "reality of His body" is direct deception. At
least this statement demonstrates that Plummer does not view
the biblical record as leading to the conclusion that Jesus had a
customarily invisible, immaterial body.
Harris says that the literal translation of the verse is: "And
he became invisible ... from them (= to their eyes)" (GG,
377). But, to become invisible "to their eyes" does not call for
the conclusion that Jesus suddenly altered His being so that
He was invisible to everyone's eyes. In fact, although Harris
quotes Meyer in support of his translation, the very point
which Meyer seems to be making by quoting Beza is opposed
to what Harris says. That is, Meyer does not claim that Jesus'
body became invisible in reality, but that He became invisible
"from them;' that is, to their perception. By failing to ac-
knowledge this point, Harris confuses reality and perception.
A Response to Murray Harris
-
-------------------181
Luke 24:44 (NKjV): "These are the words which I spoke to you
while I was stillwith you". According to Harris, these words
indicate that Jesus was "customarily invisible" after His res-
urrection because He was not constantly with the disciples.
He quotes F. Godet in support of his conclusion (GG, 378):
"It must be remembered that Jesus, strictly speaking, was
already no more with them (v, 44), and that the miracle con-
sisted rather in His appearing than in His disappearing,"?
However, contrary to Harris's position, Godet does not con-
clude from these verses that Jesus' body was customarily in-
visible or immaterial. Commenting on verses 41-43 Godet
states that "Jesus gives them a new proof of His corporeity by
eating meats which they had to offer Him,":" For Godet, Jesus
was no longer with the disciples in a continuous way, be-
cause, as he says, ", . . in the mind of Jesus, His separation
from them was now consummated. He was with them only
exceptionally; His abode was elsewhere."?' The difference was
not that He was intermittently material as opposed to being
constantly material. Rather, the difference was that Jesus was
no longer with them in mortal flesh. Now He was in His im-
mortal, material, resurrected body, and because His disciples
were still in their pre-resurrection bodies, He could say,
"When I was with you;' that is, "When I was as you still
are."
It is evident from Godet's commentary that he believed that
while Jesus was still on earth, before His ascension, He was
still in a physical, material body. He calls it a "terrestrial
(earthly) body.?" His comments also indicate that he held that
Jesus' physical, terrestrial body would be transformed at the
ascension," a view Harris rejects.
Harris multiplies quotations and observations designed to
support his conclusion that Jesus was customarily invisible
(cf. GG, 379-381). But in each of these cases he makes the
same mistake: He assumes that because something is out of
sight it must be invisible by nature. By that same logic, the
socks under one's bed are invisible socks!
Acts 10:40 (NKjV): "God raised [Him] up on thethirdday, and
showed Him openly". This passage is heavily overworked by
 The Battle for the Resurrection
182-------------------
Harris. He translates "showed Him openly" [emphane genes-
thai] "to become visible" (GG, 379). Here Harris makes his
usual leap from the perceptual to the actual, insisting that this
proves Jesus was customarily in an invisible state of being
after His resurrection. But this conclusion is not warranted
from the texts. Harris believes that the common use of the
term emphane [visible] to refer to the Greek gods "appearing
among humans in bodily form" indicates that they were cus-
tomarily invisible. But this misrepresents the concept of the
nature of the Greek gods. Contrary to Harris's claim, the an-
cient Greeks did not believe that their gods were customarily
invisible beings who intermittently appeared to humans.
Rather, according to the noted Larousse Encyclopedia of My-
thology, they believed that the gods were beings who had real
bodies, "like mortal bodies, but superior in stature, strength
and beauty.':" Their bodies were "vulnerable to weapons
used by men," and they had the "power of metamorphosis, to
change themselves if they wished into animals or even to take
on the aspect of inanimate objects." Of course, these gods
lived in seclusion (e.g., Zeus on Mt. Olympus) and onlyocca-
sionally came into human view.
Furthermore, in most of the passages where emphane [visi-
ble] is used, there is no indication from the text that this word
assumes the meaning of invisible by nature. Rather, it implies
that the person simply does not see something, or someone,
and then does see that thing or person. A good example of this
use is by Sophocles in Ajax. Ajax inquires of Tecmessa that
she bring his son to him that U auton emphane t' idein;" that is,
in order that he may "see him face to face."!' Here, the one
who should become "visible" to Ajax is the mortal, material
son of Ajax who is not visible to Ajax at the moment because
he is not present. This use cannot possibly mean that Ajax's
son was "customarily invisible.?"
Even granting Harris's translation "to become visible;'
still jumping to a metaphysical conclusion based upon per-
ceptuallanguage is not warranted by the text. Even though
Jesus was "invisible to them immediately prior to his arrival"
A Response to Murray Harris
--------------------183
eGG, 380, emphasis added), as Harris states, this does not
mean that His body was invisible in itself, that is, by nature.
And, even if it could be argued that Jesus' body became actu-
ally invisible at times, it does not follow that it was immater-
ial. More probably, becoming visible simply indicates that
before His arrival He was simply not within their visual
range. Harris's abnormal theological conclusions are not sup-
ported by a normal exegesis of the texts.
1 Corinthians 15:5 (NIV): C: .. he appeared to Peter, and then
to the Twelve". One of the most crucial words in Harris's
argument is the Greek word ophthe, "he appeared." He con-
tends that it should be translated, "He [Jesus] made himself
to appear;' from which he concludes that Jesus was invisible
before He appeared. In response, we noted (BR, 112) that
several usages of the term clearly indicate that it means to be-
come perceptually visible, not to pass from an actual state of
invisibility to a visible one. For example, in the Greek Old
Testament (cf. 2 Kings 14:11), in the intertestamental period
(l Mac. 4:6), as well as in the New Testament (Acts 7:26)
where the same Greek word ophthe is used of a person in a
physical body both before and after he appeared. The latter
passages refers to Moses who "appeared to two of them
[Egyptians] fighting... !' This clearly demonstrates how the
same word [ophthe] refers to a continuously material body
that, nevertheless, can come from a place where people can-
not see it to a place where they can (cf Ex. 2:11-15).
In response, Harris contended that "The difficulty with
finding a parallel in Acts 7:26 ... is that ophthe [he appeared]
is never used in any of the four gospels to describe an action of
Jesus prior to his death" (GG, 382). Harris goes on to con-
clude that because he cannot comprehend any reason for this
omission that there must not be a reason. However, this is a
classic argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance).
The fact that ophthe (he appeared) is used, even in the New
Testament, of a normal material body coming into view of
others is proof enough that it can be used in this way. Clearly,
 The Battle for the Resurrection
184-------------------
then, Harris's rejection of Acts 7:26 as a parallel is based on
his own inability to comprehend rather than on the text of
Scripture.
In this same connection, Harris insists that both Christ's
appearances and God's appearances in the Old Testament
were from an invisible state to a visible one. But he fails to
note a crucial distinction. In Deuteronomy 4:15-18, when
God demonstrated His reality to the children of Israel, Moses
said, "But you saw no form." God did this to prevent anyone
from forming any image of God (cf Ex. 20:4). However,
when Jesus appeared, He did appear in a particular form,
namely, in a human body. If Jesus had desired merely to dem-
onstrate His reality, He could have done so, effectively, with-
out appearing in a human body, just as God did many times
in the Bible by voices, visions, and other miracles.
Harris draws the conclusion that "a variety of texts and
considerations leads us to conclude that during the forty days
between his resurrection and ascension Jesus was normally
not visible to mortal eyes" (GG, 384). But closer examination
reveals that the conclusion that Jesus' resurrection body was
actually invisible is not supported by the texts of Scripture. At
best, this view is only grammatically possible, but it is not
exegetically plausible. In fact, taken in their total contexts, the
most natural conclusion to draw from these texts is that Jesus
simply at times passed out of the visual perception of His dis-
ciples, not that He passed out of His essentially physical res-
urrection body.
Philippians 3:21 (NIV): CC[Christ] ... will transform our lowly
bodies that they will be like His glorious body." Harris ob-
serves a distinction between what Paul calls the "glorious
body" in Philippians 3:21 and "his fleshly body" in Colos-
sians 1:22 (GG, 389). However, he fails to realize that the pas-
sages do not indicate that the distinction is between physical
and nonphysical. In fact, the context makes it clear that in the
Colossians passage, Paul is speaking about the mortal flesh
that died (Col. 1:22), and in the Philippians passage Paul is
talking about transforming the mortal body into an immortal
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------185
one. There is no indication in either of these passages that the
glorified body is no longer a body of flesh. The distinction is
between a body of glorified flesh and a body of mortal flesh.
Indeed, the normal grammatical, historical understanding of
Philippians 3:21 is that the numerically same body that is
called "lowly" is fashioned into a glorious body.
The truth of the matter is, the entire chapter Harris labels
"Exegetical" (GG, Chapter 20) is in fact not so much an exe-
gesis as it is a series of unfounded philosophical inferences
based on word studies. This brings into serious question the
statement in the Foreword by Professor Walter Kaiser that
Harris uses "biblical, rather than philosophical or apologeti-
cal categories" (GG, xxiii).
Does Harris Hold that the Pre- and Post-Resurrection
Body of Jesus Is Numerically Identical?
A number of passages might lead one to believe that Harris
passes this standard test for orthodoxy on the resurrection.
After all, he claims,"
I have been in the forefront of demonstrating from the NT
that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that the resurrected
Lord was none other than the crucified Nazarene (= 'numeri-
cal' or 'substantial' identity) (GG, 356).
The risen Jesus was precisely the same person as Jesus of
Nazareth ... Jesus' resurrection body was not a fresh creation
of God, a "creation out of nothing" (GG, 351 from ED, 20).
What more could we ask for? Are these not ample proof
that Harris believes in the numerical identity of the physical
pre- and post-resurrection body of Jesus? Unfortunately, the
answer is negative for several reasons. For what Harris ap-
pears to give with the right hand in the above passages he
takes away with the left hand in the following citations.
That on which God worked in effecting a resurrection trans-
formation was nothing other than the buried body of Jesus,
but the outcome was that the same person occupied a different
dwelling, so to speak (GG, 351-52).
 The Battle for the Resurrection
186------------------
Since the physical body of Jesus that had been buried had
gained, as the result of a resurrection transformation, the
properties of a spiritual body, we cannot say that the resurrected
jesus had precisely the same body as Jesus ofNazareth eGG, 351,
emphasis added).
If both Christ and believers have the same kind of spiritual
body, then it behooves us to look at what Harris says of the
continuity between the pre- and post-resurrection body of be-
lievers. Here he is clear and unequivocal:
From this viewpoint the new body [of believers] is qualitatively
and numerically distinct from the old body eRI, 127, emphasis
added).
The identity between the physical and spiritual bodies can
scarcely be material or substantial or physical . . . eRI, 126).
If, then, the notion ofa material identity between the two forms
ofembodiment must be rejected, we may propose that the identity is
personal eRI, 126, emphasis added).
One and the same person finds expression in two successive
but different types of body. There are two dwellings but only one
occupant. There is an identity of occupant but not of dwelling
eRI, 126, emphasis added).
If there is no material or numerical identity between the
pre- and post-resurrection bodies of believers and if Christ
has the same kind of spiritual body as they do, then how can
we explain Harris's assertions that they are the "same body"
and have "numerical identity" (cited above)? The answer is
not difficult to find when one remembers that Harris is not
referring to an identity in the physical body of Christ before
and after the resurrection. Indeed, as we have seen, he does
not believe Christ even had an essentially or continuously
physical body after the resurrection. Rather, he holds that the
identity is in a nonmaterial "person" or "substance"
(GG, 351,413). But what Harris does not say and does not
believe is that there is a numerical identity between the pre-
and post-resurrection physical body of Christ.
Why, then, does Harris stress the empty tomb of Christ
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------187
and even the reanimation of the physical body of Christ? Very
simply, he stresses the empty tomb for apologetic purposes.
How else would the disciples be convinced that Jesus rose?
Harris says very clearly:
Consequently the material "flesh. and bones" that Jesus had during
this encounter with his disciples were not integral to his spiritual
body but had been assumed temporarily, but none the less really,
for evidential reasons, as accommodations to the understanding of
his disciples eGG, 392, emphasis added).
He adds, "They [the disciples] needed first to become con-
vinced of the reality and identity of Jesus through seeing and
if necessary touching Him ..." (RI, 48). Thus, "The appear-
ances, therefore, were in part accommodations to human
faithlessness" (RI, 49). "Moreover his body was capable of
receiving food, for evidential reasons ..." (RI, 54). In brief,
according to Harris's view, post-resurrection bodily appear-
ances were, strictly speaking, not in the real resurrection
body (which is spiritual and not visible or material as such),
but they were in a material form that was only temporarily
assumed for the purpose of convincing His disciples His res-
urrection had occurred.
However, in response, it must be pointed out that the post-
resurrection Jesus said emphatically: "Behold My hands and
My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit
does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39
NKJ\; emphasis added). If, then, He was not raised in the
same numerically identical material body of flesh and bones in
which He died, then Jesus deceived His disciples when He
showed His crucifixion wounds, for they were not the actual
wounds He received on the cross. Indeed, when they still did
not believe, Jesus said, "'Have you any food here?' So they
gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And
He took it and ate in their presence" (Luke 24:41-43 NKJV).
So, if Christ has not risen in a physical body, then all of this
was a charade that casts a dark moral cloud over the character
of our Lord. Harris himself asserts that "the material 'flesh
 The Battle for the Resurrection
188-------------------
and bones' that Jesus had during this encounter with his dis-
ciples were not integral to his spiritual body' ..•" (GG, 392,
emphasis added). The body with the scars in it, then, was not
the real pre-resurrection body with the actual crucifixion
scars in it, but merely a temporarily assumed replica. All
Harris' references, therefore, to "the same body" are mis-
leading, since they did not refer to the same physical body in
which Jesus was crucified and in which He then appeared to
His disciples. In this significant orthodox sense, Harris denies
the physical resurrection of Christ in the same body in which He
died.
When one remembers that Christ's resurrection body is the
same as a believer's, and that Harris holds that they receive
their spiritual resurrection body at the moment of death
(R!, 100), while their physical bodies are still in the grave, the
point becomes even more clear. For him there is no essential
physical connection between the pre- and post-resurrection
bodies of Christ or of believers. He admits they are "numeri-
cally distinct." The only reason for an empty tomb in Christ's
case was to convince His disciples that a spiritual resurrection
has occurred. Indeed, Harris says that "His [Jesus'] eating
was . . . both exceptional and purely evidential" (R!, 55).
And the ascension is only "a parable acted out for the benefit
of the disciples as a visual and historical confirmation of a
spiritual reality ..." (RI, 92, emphasis added).
Furthermore, Harris's references to "reanimation" of the
physical corpse of Jesus does not prove his view is orthodox
for one very basic reason. The so-called "reanimation" is ac-
companied by a radical "transformation" into a spiritual
body which is not essentially material. So what one would
have seen at the moment of the resurrection is not the dead
body of Jesus come to life, but rather simply its disappear-
ance. But this clearly is not a resurrection of a dead body; it is
a mysterious annihilation of it.
Dr. James Boice, who wrote a recommendation for Harris's
book, says,
If we had been present in the tomb at the moment of the res-
urrection, we would have noticed that all at once the body of
A Response to Murray Harris
--------------------189
Jesus seemed to disappear. John Stott says that the body was
"vaporized," being transmuted into something new and dif-
ferent and wonderful. 18
In other words, like Harris, he claims to believe in the resur-
rection of the flesh, he does not believe Jesus resurrected in
the flesh," in spite of clear biblical assertions to the contrary
(Acts 2:31; Luke 24:39).
Some Underlying Philosophical
Problems in Harris's View
The apostle warned us to "beware lest anyone cheat you
through philosophy" (Col. 2:8). Unfortunately, we cannot
beware of philosophy unless we be aware of it. The person
most likely to catch the disease of false philosophy is the one
who is not aware of it nor how to guard against it. Often false
philosophical premises are simply inhaled from the intellec-
tual atmosphere of the day. Indeed, Professor Harris himself
has apparently imbibed several such ideas.
Adopting a Monistic Anthropology
At the heart of Harris's problem with the orthodox view of
the physical, fleshy nature of the resurrection body is his self-
confessed "monistic anthropology." In traditional theological
language, he rejects dichotomy (and trichotomy), both con-
sidered to be forms of platonic dualism, for a more rigid mon-
ism. He declared: "With its basically monistic anthropology,
the New Testament is unconcerned to identify one 'part' of
the person that survives death to the exclusion of the other
"parts" (R!, 140, emphasis added).
More recently, Harris repeats the same statement word-
for-word with the exception of the introductory phrase
(GG, 211). Although he is more careful in his wording, he is
just as strong against the view that there is a never-dying
"soul" that survives death and lives consciously in a disem-
bodied state until its later reunion with the body at the resur-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
190-------------------
rection (GG, 205-212). However, his unwillingness to accept
what he calls the "traditional" view that a disembodied soul
survives death gets him into great difficulty, both biblically
and theologically. The biblical data strongly favor the position
that there are both material and immaterial dimensions to hu-
man nature and that the immaterial can and does consciously
survive death (see Matt. 17:3; Luke 16:22-24, 23:43; Acts
7:59; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 5:1-3; Phil. 1:23-24; Heb. 12:22-23;
Rev. 6:9-10, 19:20, 20:4).20
Harris rejects the strong biblical support for the "soul's"
surviving the death of the body and is left, therefore, with an
unbiblical "anthropological monism." This position is deeply
imbedded in a philosophical commitment that wreaks havoc
on his interpretation of key biblical passages, such as
2 Corinthians 5. Harris takes this text to mean that believers
receive their resurrection body at the moment of death, even
though their physical bodies are still in the grave! (RI, 98-101).
Indeed, if this is so, then their physical bodies will never be
resurrected. This is a serious deviation from the orthodox
doctrine of the resurrection.
Furthermore, if one accepts Harris's philosophical com-
mitment to anthropological monism (and rejects an interim
body), then either annihilationism or immediate resurrec-
tion at death are the only remaining alternatives. Thus, his
philosophical monism has backed him into a theological
corner, a very uncomfortable corner for an evangelical, one
already occupied by unorthodox groups, such as Jehovah's
Witnesses.
Likewise, this monistic view of human nature leads to de-
nying that the physical is an essential dimension of what it
means to be human. Thus, Harris is led to deny that material-
ity is an essential part of a resurrected human being. Since
the real human substance does not contain matter, then the
material body in the grave need not be restored in order
to have a so-called "bodily" resurrection of the human per-
son. Indeed, even the term body must be understood in a
non-material way. It is not really a S011'la (physical body) but a
super-soma.
A Response to Murray Harris
--------------------191
Accepting an Existentialist View of Super-History
Existentialism has affected biblical studies since the early
part of this century, particularly in the European tradition in
which Harris was trained. One of its deadly results is its
"spiritualization" of events, like the resurrection, claiming
that they do not take place in real history (histone) but in
super-history (geschichte). They insist that redemptive events
do not occur in time but above time. They are not observable
by the natural eye, but known only by the eye of faith.
According to such a view, observable history ends at the
moment of the resurrection (when the body mysteriously dis-
appeared). From this point on, Christ has a super-soma (a
spiritual body) and is in super-history. This view strongly in-
fluences Harris at several points. First, he contends that the
resurrection body is by nature a spiritual body, not a physical
one (GG, 406).
Second, as already noted, Harris contends that Jesus' res-
urrection appearances are not in His real resurrection body
(which is spiritual), but merely in a physical body assumed
for apologetic purposes. He believes that Jesus appeared tem-
porarily in a physical body to convince the disciples "not that
he was material but that he was real" (RI, 54, emphasis
added).
Third, likewise, the exaltation of Christ (i.e., His real as-
cension to the right hand of the Father) did not take place
some fifty days after Pentecost, but at the moment of His res-
urrection (RI, 83-85; GG, 175-178). Thus, the ascension re-
corded in Acts 1 was only" a parable acted out for the benefit of
the disciples as a visual and historical confirmation of a spiri-
tual reality ..." (RI, 92, emphasis added)! So, according to
Harris, both the resurrection and the resurrection body as
such were "trans-historical," not historical. They were exis-
tential events of super-history, not an actual part of space-
time history.
Manifesting Platonic Tendencies
Despite his professed distaste for platonic philosophy,
Harris has apparently unwittingly swallowed a sizable chunk
 The Battle for the Resurrection
192--------------------
of it himself. One place it shows is in his tendency to "spiri-
tualize" material reality. This is true not only of the resur-
rection body but also of the new heaven and new earth.
According to Harris, "The 'new heavens and new earth' cor-
respond to man's new resurrection body" (RI, 170), which,
as we have seen, is not physical but spiritual. He adds, "The
precise character of redeemed humanity's future state is pres-
ently hidden (1 John 3:2): so too is the exact nature of the new
or renewed universe" (RI, 171).
However, a careful study of Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3 re-
veals, to the contrary, that the new heaven and earth will be
just as physical and material (though everlasting) as the first
ones were. For example, Paul refers to "the creation" that was
subjected to bondage as "the [same] creation itself [that] also
will be delivered from the bondage of corruption ..." (Rom.
8:21 NKJV). Indeed, he ties it to the physical resurrection of
believers, saying, it is "eagerly waiting for the adoption, the
redemption of our body" (v. 23 NKJV).
Further, the use of 1 John 3:2 (NKJV) scarcely proves his
point, since in that very passage John declares, "We shall be
like Him [Christ], for we shall see Him as He is" (cf. Phil.
3:20-21). And we know that Jesus' resurrection body was a
literal, physical body of "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39) that
could be seen and touched, could eat food, and had the cruci-
fixion scars which will still be visible at His second coming
(Rev. 1:7). Believers' new bodies and the new heaven and
earth will be just as physical. Sometimes this platonic ten-
dency to spiritualize seems relatively "innocent," as for exam-
ple, the tendency to allegorize some Old Testament stories like
Jonah. However, when it comes to the nature of the resurrec-
tion body of Christ and believers, it is much more seriously
unorthodox and must be resisted.
Confusing Reality and Perception
At the heart of Harris's exegetical problems is a serious
confusion between reality and perception (between what Pro-
fessor Beckwith calls ontology and epistemology)." Harris
manifests this kind of confusion when he says, "If he [Jesus]
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------193
did not appear [perception] continuously, but only intermit-
tently, we may say he was not customarily visible [reality] to
the human eye" (GG, 379). However, just because a body is
not seen does not mean it is unseeable. The body does not
change its mode of being (reality) when someone is not ob-
serving it (perception).
Common sense dictates that something does not cease to be
simply because no one is looking at it. A candle continues to
burn even when we are in another room. And, as is painfully
obvious, the grass continues to grow even when you are not
looking at it! Furthermore, just because Jesus was not seen at
times after His resurrection does not mean that He was invisi-
ble. Denying the continued incarnation of Christ in a physical
body after the resurrection is a form of post-resurrectional do-
cetism (cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7).
Harris cannot be exonerated from this charge by suggesting
that he may be using the word material phenomenologically,
as it appears to our senses but not how it is in itself. First,
he defines his use of the term metaphysically, that is, the way
it is in itself, claiming that "material means 'physical' or
'fleshly,' and immaterial means 'nonphysical' or 'nonflesWy' "
(GG,405).
Second, as mentioned above, Harris even defines invisible
in a metaphysical way, taking it to mean, not simply that
Jesus' resurrection body was customarily out of perceptual
vision, but also that usually it was actually "not visible to
mortal eyes anywhere" (GG, 384).
Third, the fact that Harris believes that immateriality fol-
lows from invisibility reveals that he uses the terms of reality,
not just appearance. Otherwise, his argument that "after his
resurrection his [Jesus'] essential state was one of invisibility
and therefore immateriality makes no sense" (RI, 53, empha-
sis added). Surely, Harris is not making the absurd claim that
whenever Jesus' physical body became actually invisible, then
it was no longer phenomenologically material.
Fourth, if Harris is using material and immaterial in just a
phenomenological but not a real sense, then why would he go
to such extremes to deny that the resurrection body was not
 The Battle for the Resurrection
194-------------------
flesh or matter? If he really believed it was still matter but just
invisible, then customary visibility is all he would have had to
deny, not materiality. For all of these reasons, Harris cannot
be exonerated by watering down his meaning of material to a
mere phenomenological sense, meaning that Jesus' body was
actually still material but just not visible to the disciples.
Failure to Distinguish Primary and Secondary Qualities
Much of the steam Harris generates for his view is derived
from the obvious but irrelevant fact that the resurrection body
need not have the exact same particles of the pre-resurrection
body. We readily admit this, but deny that it proves there are
not material particles in the resurrection body. Just because it
may not have the same material particles does not mean that it
has 1W material particles. After all, scientists inform us that
we don't have the same particles in our body now that we had
seven years ago. Nevertheless, we have the numerically same
physical body (see Appendix A). That is, the bodily changes
are in secondary qualities, not in primary ones-a fact Harris
fails to recognize.
Another fact Harris gets excessive mileage out of is the
truth, acknowledged by both sides (see BR, 41, 42), that
there will be changes in the resurrection body. As Paul said,
"We shall all be changed" (l Cor. 15:51 NKJV). But, unlike
Harris, Paul goes on to inform us that this is not a change of
body but a change in our body. This is clear from at least four
things in this very passage. First, the use of the figure "put
on," denoting something is placed over the old body, not
something that replaces it (v. 53). Second, the changes are in
quality, not substance, as indicated by the contrasts from a
"mortal" kind of physical body to an "immortal" kind of
physical body, from a "corruptible" to an "incorruptible"
physical body (vv. 53-54). Third, the use of the word body
(soma) which, as has already been shown, always means a
physical body when referring to a human being. Fourth, the
pre- and post-resurrection body are directly connected as one
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------195
and the same body. "The body is sown in corruption, it [the
same body] is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it
[the same body] is raised in glory" and so on (vv. 42-44).
Finally, the very seed analogy used by Paul (vv. 36-38) favors
a continuity in physical body, since the plant that emerges is
related both physically and genetically to the seed from which
it comes."
In view of these facts, it is obvious that there is no change in
substance between the pre- and post-resurrection physical
body, but only in its accidental characteristics. As William
G. T. Shedd noted, "The difference will be in the secondary,
rather than in the primary properties ofthe natural body." He
cites the l%stminster Confession of Faith (XXXIII, 3) for sup-
port: "The dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies,
and none other, although with different qualities."> By failing
to distinguish a change in primary qualities (such as number
and extension) from a change in secondary ones (such as spe-
cific particles, duration), Harris has denied the orthodox
teaching that Christ rose in the numerically same body in
which He died.
Any denial of this distinction between essential and nones-
sential attributes of the physical body is not only against the
orthodox tradition, including John Calvin, William G. T.
Shedd, Charles Hodge, and the l%stminster Confession of
Faith, but it will also land one squarely in the lap of process
theology. Either there are unchanging substances beneath the
nonsubstantial changes or there are not. If there are not, then
even the concept of a material body before the resurrection
has no substantial sense, being nothing more than a changing
bundle ofparticles with no essential unity. It is for this reason
that the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection has wisely held
that there is numerical identity in the material body, not just
in the "person" or some nonmaterial "substance." Other-
wise, Jesus did not rise in the body in which He died. And if
He did not win the victory in the very body in which He died,
then we are yet in our sins and we as orthodox Christians "are
of all men the most pitiable" (1 Cor. 15:12-19 NKJV).
 The Battle for the Resurrection
196,-------------------
Is Harris's ViewOrthodox?
We proposed a threefold test for orthodoxy: Is it biblical? Is
it crucial? And is it creedal? That is, a doctrine is orthodox if
it is clearly taught in Scripture, has been consistently con-
fessed by the Church, and is crucial to the Christian faith. It is
unorthodox if it does not meet these tests. The belief that
Jesus was resurrected in the same physical body in which He
died meets all three criteria; the denial of it does not (BR,
Chapter 10).
Some Inadequate Tests for Orthodoxy
Suggested by Harris
As we have seen, Professor Harris believes that Jesus rose
in a spiritual body that was not the same essentially material
body of flesh and bones in which He died. However, in order
to arrive at the conclusion that this view is orthodox, he ig-
nored our tests and created different standards for orthodoxy
which call for scrutiny.
Whatever Takes the Biblical Data Seriously
Professor Harris believes that whatever view takes seriously
all the biblical data should be considered orthodox (GG, 375).
He sees five such possibilities, of which his own view is num-
ber 2. (1) Jesus' resurrection body was basically "material;'
or "fleshly," but either was capable oftemporary dematerial-
ization or had nonmaterial properties. (2) His body was cus-
tomarily "immaterial" or "nonfleshly," but was capable of
temporary materialization. (3) His body was "spiritualized,"
matter "wholly and finally subjugated to spirit." (4) His body
was composed of "glory," regarded as its "material" or "sub-
stance." (5) His body was in the process of transition from the
material to the spiritual during the forty days of appearances
(GG,375).
Surprisingly, Dr. Harris believes that "the differences be-
tween these views stem largely from their emphasis." This
again leads one to wonder what status he affords the Law of
Noncontradiction, since some of the views seem logically in-
A Response to Murray Harris
-------------------197
coherent (e.g., number 1),14 and others seem to be logically
impossible (e.g., number 3). Still another seems to be non-
sensical (e.g., number 4). One thing is certain, Harris's cate-
gories are not logically exhaustive.
When speaking of the essence or substance of the resurrec-
tion body, there are really only two major categories: (1) It is
essentially material, or (2) it is essentially immaterial. There is
nothing "in the cracks" between essentially material and es-
sentially immaterial, any more than there is between being
and nonbeing. This is exactly what the Law of Noncontradic-
tion demands: Something cannot both be and not be at the
same time in the same sense.
Further, Harris's definition of the word biblical is ambigu-
ous, since it can be understood in two basic ways. In the
broader sense in which Harris uses it, it seems to mean
roughly any view that comes up with some grammatically
possible explanation of all the relevant texts. However, by this
unacceptable broad defmition, even cultic views of the resur-
rection are also "orthodox." For example, The Jehovah's Wit-
nesses' view of the nature of the resurrection body and Jesus'
appearances explain all the text in some grammatically possi-
ble way. Indeed, they explain them in the same basic way that
Harris does, affirming an empty tomb, a supernatural disap-
pearance of the body, and occasional physical appearances of
Christ in another bodily form (see BR, 82-86).25 What they do
not say is that Jesus was raised and appeared in the same phys-
ical body in which He died. In other words, by making the
"biblical" criteria broad enough to include his own view as
orthodox, Harris has unwittingly included other views that
are unquestionably unorthodox.
In the normal theological sense of the word biblical,
Harris's view does not measure up. It is simply not enough to
"take seriously" the biblical data, but it must also be put to-
gether consistently in the most plausible way. But, as we have
seen, at best, Harris's views are only grammatically possible,
not consistently and comprehensively justifiable. It is not enough
to show that the mere grammar of this or that text permits the
conclusion one wants. Rather, one must show that this conclu-
 The Battle for the Resurrection
198--------------------
sion is consistent with the teaching of all other texts and com-
prehensively includes the teaching of every text in a plausible
way. And, when this test is applied, both Harris's view and
the Jehovah's Witnesses' view fall short of the standard for
being biblical or orthodox.
Denominational Acceptance
Harris claims his view on the resurrection is orthodox,
since the Evangelical Free Church pronounced him orthodox.
But even if this were true, and there is reason to question it,"
the decision of the leaders of this tiny denomination are not
binding outside its small circle, and it can scarcely be used as
an indication of approval of the Church at large. Further-
more, we demonstrated that Harris's view was contrary to
what the Framers of the Free Church doctrinal statement
meant by "bodily resurrection" (BR, 147-150)-a point con-
veniently ignored by Professor Harris. Only by redefining
"bodily resurrection" contrary to what the Framers meant by
it can it be concluded that Harris's denial of the essentially
physical nature of the resurrection body be considered in ac-
cordance with this doctrinal statement. But if the author's in-
tended meaning expressed in a text can be changed by the
reader, then anything can be made to mean anything.
Acceptance by His 'leaching Peers
The decision by the Trinity faculty not to call one of their
colleagues unorthodox is understandable. However, this is
more an expression of their fraternity than it is a valid test of
Harris's orthodoxy. It is more an indication of respect for him
as a person and a scholar than as a well-conceived test for
orthodoxy. In fact, no criteria for their decision have been
offered, except perhaps the unthinking comment of Don Car-
son that it is cheek of anyone to challenge their pronounce-
ment on the matter (cited in GG, 368). Further, it is
interesting to note that scarcely a single Trinity professor is on
record as agreeing with Harris's view. If it is all that orthodox,
one has to wonder why virtually all his peers reject it.
Once we transcend this small group of colleagues, it is an
A Response to Murray Harris
----------------~--199
entirely different matter. Our survey of Harris's peers outside
his seminary reveals that nearly nine out of ten believe his
view is not orthodox (BR, Appendix G). Although Harris
produced a nearly five-hundred-page book in response, never
once did he even mention this pronouncement by his broader
evangelical peers. Instead, he speaks of my efforts as "one
man against the world"-with himself on the side of the
world (GG, 445).
No Condemnation by a General Church Council
Harris offers a test for his orthodoxy with which he feels
comfortable-the fact that his view was never condemned by
any general (ecumenical) church council. Our response is
twofold: First, this criterion is inadequate to determine what
is orthodox. At best it only reveals what has not been explic-
itly condemned as unorthodox, not what is actually orthodox.
Further, even assuming his criteria, a good case can be made
for the unorthodoxy of Harris's view on the resurrection.
If we assume that a view is unorthodox only if an ecumen-
ical church council has explicitly condemned it, then neither
is the denial of the inerrancy of the Scripture unorthodox! Is
Harris also willing to say that a denial of inerrancy is not un-
orthodox? Perhaps this is why he calls George Ladd of Fuller
Seminary, who also denied the inerrancy of Scripture, "one
of the acknowledged defenders of orthodoxy" (GG, 385). Yet
the broader evangelical community" and even the denomina-
tion and seminary in which Harris teaches have declared iner-
rancy to be a crucial part of orthodoxy and have placed
inerrancy in their doctrinal statement.
Then, even assuming that this criterion for orthodoxy is
adequate, a good case can be made for declaring his view on
the resurrection is unorthodox. As has already been noted
(Chapter 4 above), virtually every church father and church
confession touching on the issue (and most did) affirmed res-
urrection in the flesh-the very thing denied by Professor
Harris. In response, he admitted that resurrection in the flesh
was confessed up to and through the Reformation in the West,
but suggested in response that: (1) This was not true in the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
200--------------------
Eastern Church at least not after A.D. 680; (2) flesh in the
biblical sense really means "human nature," not necessarily a
body of flesh and bones; and (3) no general Church council
ever condemned the view that the resurrection body was not
essentially (and continuously) material and fleshly.
Let's address the matter of the Eastern Church first. While
it is true that they used alternative ways to describe the resur-
rection of the flesh after A.D. 380, such as "body;' it is not
true that they ever denied, as does Professor Harris, that this
was an essentially material and fleshly body. As Schep noted
in his classic work on The Nature of the Resurrection Body
(NRB), "We may say, therefore, that the entire early Church,
in the West and in the East alike, publicly confessed belief in
the resurrection of the flesh." And "in the Western creeds ...
this confessional formula has retained its place with hardly
any exception. Up to the Reformation there is no exception at
all" (NRB, 221). Further, "The Churches of the East re-
tained the expression 'the resurrection of the flesh' up to the
Council of Constantinople in 381." When it was dropped it
was, according to Schep, "without any intention to reject the
Western formulations as unscriptural, [the Eastern Church
simply] went her own way in formulating the truth"
(NRB, 223).28
Harris's claim that consistent and apostolic confession of
the resurrection of the "flesh" can be reduced to fleshless
"human nature" is balderdash. Whereas, we grant that the
biblical and creedal nonmoral use of flesh means more than the
exterior material tissue of human beings, notwithstanding, it
certainly does not mean less than this. It is an unacceptable
hermeneutical gyration to knock all the flesh out of the term
flesh. This cannot be supported by the expressed intention of
the author, the context in which it is used, nor the errors
against which it is directed (e.g., gnostic, docetistic, and pla-
tonic views). When the term flesh, used nonmorally of the
human body, is stripped of its flesh, then language has lost all
meaning.
What is more, ifflesh no longer involves literal human flesh
after the resurrection (as the Bible declares it does in Luke
A Response to Murray Harris
--------------------201
24:39; Acts 2:31; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7), then by the same
token it can also be stripped of this literal meaning before the
resurrection. By this same kind of semantical gymnastics,
John's affirmation of the incarnation, that the "Word became
flesh" (John 1:14), can be reduced to the affirmation that
Jesus became a human being without material flesh! Just as this
is gnosticism or docetism, even so the denial of real human
flesh in Christ after the resurrection is post-resurrectional
gnosticism or docetism.
Finally, even granting Harris's unnecessary demand that
his view be explicitly condemned by a Church council in or-
der to be considered unorthodox, Professor Harris may have
tied his own noose. As a matter of fact, denial of the essential,
physical nature of the resurrection body was condemned by
the ecumenical Church, both directly and indirectly. For the
universal Church did confess resurrection in a physical body,
as is evident from the Apostles' Creed which affirms the "res-
urrection of the flesh"-the very thing Harris denies. In his
classic work on The Creeds of Christendom (1.12), Philip
Schaff lists the Apostles' Creed as one of the "ecumenical
creeds" of the Church. So on Harris's own criterion, his view
has been condemned by the ecumenical Church.
Further, Origen, who also denied the essential material na-
ture of the resurrection body,29 was specifically condemned by
name in anathema number 11 of the general Council of Con-
stantinople (A.D. 553).30 What is more, Origen's views on the
resurrection were condemned at the Council of Toledo (A.D.
447) which declared: "We believe that a resurrection ofhuman
flesh will take place...."31 Also, the Fourth Council of.Toledo
(A.D. 663) declared:
By whose death and blood we being made clear have obtained
forgiveness of (our sins) and shall be raised up again by him in
the last days in the sameflesh wherein we now live, (and) in the
manner wherein the same (our) Lord did rise again."
To be sure, there are differences between Harris's and Ori-
gen's views on the resurrection, but these do not affect the
 The Battle for the Resurrection
202-------------------
common view being condemned, namely, a denial of the es-
sential material nature of the resurrection body. So Harris has
unwittingly hanged himself on his own gallows. That is, by his
own test for unorthodoxy, his view has been condemned as unor-
thodox!

Appendices

APPENDIX A
Does the Resurrection Body Have the Same Particles!

Some defenders of the orthodox view have suggested that the

resurrection body will have all the same material particles it had
before death. Other orthodox teachers do not. Three views need to
be distinguished to help clarify the issue.

OlITHODOX VIEW UNORrHODOX VIEW

Material Body Immaterial Body
Particle View Substance View
(Every particle (Material body (No material
restored) restored) restored)

Several things are clear from this summary. First, there is a vast
difference between the orthodox and unorthodox views. Both can-
not be true. The orthodox position holds a literal, material resurrec-
tion body, and the unorthodox view denies this.
Second, the intramural debate within the orthodox camp is of no
real consequence. The view that every particle of the resurrection
203
 The Battle for the Resurrection
204--------------------
body will be restored is possible but not necessary. An omnipotent
God can do anything that is not actually impossible. And with the
exception of those possessed by two or more cannibals, it is possible
to restore every particle to its original owner at the resurrection,
even those particles later eaten by other animals. And the God who
created man from dust would have no problem providing new par-
ticles where two cannibals shared the same ones.
Third, belief that every particle of the pre-resurrection body
must be restored is not necessary to the orthodox view. One gets the
same substantial material body he had before without holding that
every particle of it will be restored in the resurrection. Just as there
is identity and continuity in our material bodies that are continually
taking on and giving off particles (molecules), even so the resurrec-
tion body can be the same material body without having the same
material particles as the pre-resurrection body.
After all, a body is more than dust particles. Otherwise, there is
a body under my bed! A living body also involves a structure that
forms the particles of dust. This same substantial form survives the
gain and loss of particular elements while retaining its material na-
ture.
In conclusion, rejecting the particle view does not thereby argue
in favor of the unorthodox view. As we have seen, there is another
alternative. The assertion that belief in the material nature of the
resurrection body is "crassly materialistic" is unfounded.
APPENDIXB
Resurrection Appearances Were Not Theophanies
What is the difference between a post-resurrection appearance of
Christ and a theophany? Before answering this, some definitions
are necessary. In the Old Testament God sometimes appeared in
human form (see Gen. 18-19; Jude 13). These manifestations are
called "theophanies" (literally, a God appearance). If the second
person of the godhead appeared, then it was a Christophany. There
are some important differences between a Christophany (or theoph-
any) and the post-resurrection appearances of Christ.
POST-RESURRECTION
APPEARANCE CHRISTOPHANIES
Its Natural State Not Its Natural State
A Permanent Bodily Form A Temporary 'Bodily' Form
Previous Physical Body No Previous Physical Body
Proof Of Resurrection Not Proof Of Resurrection
A Christophany was not the natural state of the pre-incarnate
Christ. Before his incarnation Christ's natural state was immaterial.
For He was God, and God is spirit (John 4:24). When one sees a
Christophany, however, he is not seeing a spirit with his natural
eyes. Rather, what he is seeing is a "materialization" of this spirit.
This "materialization" is not the natural state of God who is spirit
(John 4:24), but only a temporary manifestation in human form.
Only at His human conception did Christ permanently take on a
material human nature in addition to His divine nature.
A Christophany is not different from an angelic manifestation in
the Bible, except that in a Christophany it is God Himself who is
manifest in human form. The "materialization" is not the natural
state of the being who is appearing, whether it is the uncreated God
or a created angel.
Old Testament Christophanies were only temporarily assumed
forms for the purpose of communicating with human beings.
When Christ became human at His incarnation, He took on a per-
manent human form. He is God forever (John 1:1), but He became
man (John 1:14). The human form Christ had on earth, both before
and after His resurrection, is a permanent human form. Hence,
205
 The Battle for the Resurrection
206------------------- APPENDIXC
when Christ appeared after His resurrection, it was in the same Christ's Deity and Humanity Before and
human flesh, now glorified, that He possessed before His death.
Unlike resurrection appearances, theophanies are not appear- After the Resurrection
ances of a being who once possessed a physical body and then died. ORTHODOX VIEW UNORTHODOX VIEW
Even in Christ's Old Testament appearances as a theophany, He D
B
previously had never possessed a human body. Neither did angels E
I
V
who appeared in visible form have physical bodies at any time be- F I
fore their appearances. Theophanies show no continuity with a pre- 0 N Infinite Infinite
E
vious physical body, whereas, a resurrection appearance does. R Eternal Eternal
Unlike a theophany, the appearances of Christ after His death E N Invisible Invisible
A
were a proof of His resurrection. For He reappeared in the same T
R
physical body that was placed in the tomb and later vacated it alive. U
E R
And during His post-resurrection appearances, Christ used His S E
crucifixion wounds, His ability to eat fish and to be touched (see U
H
Chapter 3) as proof that He was the same person the disciples knew R U Mortal Mortal
before His crucifixion. That is, He used all these lines of evidence R M
Historical Historical
E A
to convince them that the physical appearance they saw, touched, N Space-time Space-time
etc., was one and the same as the physical being once dead, but now C Observable Observable
T N
alive (see Luke 24:39ff.). No matter how visible and tangible a the- I A
Material Material
ophany appears to be, its mere appearance is never proof that it is a T Flesh and bones Flesh and bones
0 U 3-dimensional
resurrection of a physical body-since God never had a physical 3-dimensional
N R
body. E
In summation, Christ's resurrection appearances were mani- D
festly different from theophanies in several very significant ways. A I
V
Unlike theophanies, resurrection appearances involved a perma- F
I
nently assumed physical body offered as proof that, though once T N Infinite Infinite
E E
dead, it is now alive forevermore. Theophanies have none of these Eternal Eternal
R
characteristics. They occurred before Christ assumed a physical N Invisible Invisible
A
body, and they were only temporary visible forms with no eviden- R T
tial value to demonstrate a resurrection of a previously possessed E U
R
physical body. S E
The difference between a post-resurrection appearance and a U
R H Immortal body Immortal body
theophany is very important. If one denies that Christ arose in the U
R
same, physical material body in which He died, then there is no E
M Numerical identity No numerical identity
A Material by nature Immaterial by nature
way to know that He rose from the dead. Since a theophany does C N
not prove that a being once dead has now come to life, then reduc- Flesh and bones Not flesh and bones
T
N 3-dimensional Not 3-dimensional
ing resurrection to a theophany amounts to a denial of the resurrec- I
A Historical Trans-historical
tion itself. 0 T Space-time Not in space-time
N U
R Observable Not observable
E Physical appearances" Thcophanics
'That is, in the same physical body as before the resurrection.

207

APPENDIXD
The Jewish View of Resurrection
The Old Testament Jewish view of resurrection is crucial to un-
derstanding the New Testament view of resurrection, since the lat-
ter grows out of the former. Jesus was Jewish, as were all the other
New Testament writers, with the possible exception of Luke (see
Col. 4: 11, 14). There were, of course "liberal" Jews, like the Sad-
ducees, who said "there is no resurrection" (Matt 22:23 NKJV).
The Pharisees, however, did confess the resurrection (Acts 23:8),
and over half of the New Testament books were written by a former
Pharisee (Phil. 4:5), Saul of Tarsus, and his traveling companion,
Dr. Luke. It is inconceivable that, with this kind oforthodox Jew-
ish background, the New Testament view of resurrection would re-
flect anything contrary to its Old Testament Jewish heritage.
The Jewish view of resurrection was one of the restoration to life
on earth of the physical corpse placed in the tomb. Jews not only
believed that man was created "from the dust" (Gen. 2:7 NIV) and
would return to dust (Eccl. 12:7), but that at the resurrection man
would be reconstituted from the dust. This power to bring the dead
back to life is expressed in many passages (see Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam.
2:6; Job 19:25-27; Ps. 49:14-15).
First, according to the inspired New Testament (Acts 2; 13),
David predicted the resurrection by claiming that" nor will you let
your Holy One see decay" (Ps. 16:10 NIV). Peter said of David's
prophecy here that "seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resur-
rection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor
did his body (sarx) see decay" (Acts 2:31 NIV). Here again, the
belief that the resurrection involved a physical body of "flesh"
(sarx) is unmistakable.
Second, Jesus believed the Old Testament taught resurrection
and cited from it to support His position against the Sadducees who
rejected the resurrection. As He told them, "You are mistaken, not
knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29 NKJV).
He also cited from Exodus 3:6, 15, saying, "I am the God of Abra-
ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Matt. 22:32 NKJV),
adding, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
Third, Isaiah spoke of the resurrection of the dead body when he
wrote, "Your dead will live; their bodies will rise. Youwho dwell in
208
The JewishViewof Resurrection
-------------------209
the dust, wake up and shout for joy" (Isa, 26: 19 NIV). The refer-
ence to their "bodies" arising from the "dust" makes evident the
identification with physical resurrection.
Fourth, Daniel foretold that "multitudes who sleep in the dust
of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame
and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2 NIV). Here again, the refer-
ence to "dust of the earth" clearly supports the idea of a physical
resurrection.
Fifth, the intertestamental literature also speaks of a physical
resurrection. The book of Wisdom promises that "in the time of
their visitation" the departed souls of the righteous will be restored
and "they will govern nations and rule people" (3:7, 8 RSV). Sec-
ond Maccabees tells of the courageous Jewish believer who suffered
his tongue and hands to be cut off, saying, "I got these from
Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I
hope to get them back again [at the resurrection]" (7: 11 RSV). Sec-
ond (Fourth) Esdras predicts that after the time of the Messiah
"the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust
those who dwell silently in it" (7:32 RSV). Death is described here
as a time "we shall be kept in rest until those times come when thou
[God] wilt renew the creation ..." (7:75 RSV).
Sixth, in the apocalyptic writing of 2 Baruch, God is asked, "In
what shape will those live who live in Thy day?" The answer is an
unequivocal affirmation of belief in the material resurrection: "For
the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead [which it now re-
ceives, in order to preserve them]. It shall make no change in their
form, but as it has received, so shall it restore them, and as I deliv-
ered them to it, so also shall it raise them" (49:1; 50:2).
Seventh, Jesus spoke clearly to the Jews of a two-fold resurrec-
tion, one "to live" and another "to be condemned" (John 5:28-29
NIV). "All who are in the graves will hear his voice and come
out ... ;' an obvious reference to physical bodies coming out of the
graves.
Eighth, it is evident that the New Testament Pharisees believed
in the physical resurrection of the corpse from the tomb. The very
story that the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection (Matt.
22:23), used implies that their opponents, the Pharisees, believed
in a material resurrection body (see Acts 23:8). For they conceived
of the resurrection body as being so physical that it was meaningful
to ask which ofthe wife's seven earthly husbands the woman would
be married to in heaven (Matt. 22:28).
 The Battle for the Resurrection
210'-------------------
Ninth, Mary and Martha reflect the New Testament Jewish be-
lief in the resurrection when they implied that their brother Laza-
rus could be raised while his body was still in the tomb. Even
Murray Harris, who rejects the Jewish view of a material resurrec-
tion, acknowledges nonetheless that "it was impossible, for exam-
ple, for Jews to believe that Lazarus, who had been dead for four
days, could be raised without the removal of the stone that lay
over his burial cave and his emergence from the tomb (John
11:38-44)."1
It is abundantly clear from these references that the view of Jesus
and the New Testament writers grows out of the Old Testament
Jewish concept of a resurrection of the same physical, material body
placed in the grave. This is particularly true of Paul, an ex-
Pharisee, who wrote much of the New Testament. And their views
are based on the inspired Old Testament prophecies about resurrec-
tion. It would seem necessary to conclude that the New Testament
Christian view of resurrection is the same as the Old Testament
Jewish view.
APPENDIXE
When Do Believers Receive Their Resurrection Bodies?
Some who deny the material nature of the resurrection body base
their beliefin part on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 where Paul says at death
believers receive a "heavenly dwelling;' a "house not made with
hands" (vv. 1-3 NIV). This they identify with Paul's reference to a
"spiritual body" (see 1 Cor. 15:44 NIV). On this basis they argue
that even though one's physical body is in the grave, nonetheless,
he receives his resurrection body at the very moment of death. I
This view rests in part on a misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians
5:1-10. Several observations are important here.
First, the passage is clearly referring to death, as all agree. And
everyone also acknowledges that upon death the physical body is
still in the grave. But the resurrection of the physical body cannot
occur while the physical body is still in the grave. If it did, then
there would be no continuity between what died (the physical
body) and what rose. But Paul declared that "the body that is sown
is perishable, it is raised imperishable." He repeats, "It is
sown ... ,it is raised ..." (1 Cor. 15:42-43 NIV). That is to say, the
body that dies is the very same one to come back to life.
Further, resurrection is described by Jesus as the time when "all
who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out ..." (John
5:28 NIV). SO while their bodies are in the grave, they are not being
raised, and when they are raised their bodies are no longer in the
grave. One cannot have it both ways. Resurrection cannot occur
while someone's body is still in the grave.
Second, Paul's writings and the rest of Scripture teach plainly
that believers are not resurrected until Christ returns again. Daniel
said it will be in the end time (see Dan. 12:1-2; compare 11:40).
Likewise, Martha expected the resurrection "at the last day" (see
John 11:24). In fact, Jesus referred to it as "a time coming" when
"all who are in the graves" will come out (see John 5:25, 28 NKJV).
Paul pinpointed it as the time when "the Lord himself will come
down from heaven . . . and the dead in Christ will rise first"
(1 Thess. 4: 16 NIV). He told the Corinthians that "when he [Christ]
comes" then "those who belong to him" "will be made alive"
(l Cor. 15:22-23 NIV). "Then the end will come" (v. 24). Paul also
informed the Philippians that "we eagerly await a Savior ... who
211
 The Battle for the Resurrection
212--------------------
will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious
body" (Phil. 3:20-21 NIv). John foresaw the end time when the
dead believers "came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand
years" (Rev. 20:4 NIV). This also places the resurrection of believ-
ers at the time Christ returns.
But if believers are not resurrected until Christ returns, they ob-
viously are not resurrected at the time of their death. And if they
were resurrected, as some claim, at the time of their death, then
they will not be resurrected at the time of the Second Coming. In
addressing this difficulty, Murray Harris once held that Paul "al-
tered" his view between the time he wrote 1 Thessalonians 4 and
the time he penned 2 Corinthians. ~ This is a denial of the inerrancy
of Scripture, since on this view Paul was obviously wrong before he
changed his position.' More recently, however, Harris has opted for
an "oscillation" view, wherein Paul is referring to believers individ-
ually when he speaks of resurrection at death and to them corpo-
rately when he talks about resurrection at the Second Coming.
However, it is difficult to see how this new understanding avoids
the problem. For if each individual believer receives his body at
death before the Second Coming, then all believers as a group can-
not receive their bodies at the Second Coming. One fails to see how
"oscillation" in this sense is anything other than a contradiction. In
a penetrating critique of Harris's view, Joseph Osei-Bonsu says
flatly, "Such an interpretation of 2 Cor. 5: 1-10 is irreconcilable
with the Pauline teaching that the resurrection body is received at
the Parousia [Second Coming] ."4
Third, 2 Corinthians 5, and the rest of Scripture for that matter,
refers to the moment after death as one of disembodiment, not re-
embodiment. In this very passage Paul refers to death as being
"naked" (v. 3 NKJV) or "absent from the body" (v. 8 NKJV). If
death were the moment of resurrection, then Paul should have said
"absent from this body." In Philippians he speaks of a desire to
"depart and be with Christ" (1:23 NKJV). In Revelation 6:9 those
who just left their martyred bodies behind are referred to as "souls"
in heaven. Hebrews 12:23 (NKJV) speaks of heaven as a place where
"the spirits of just men [are] made perfect." Moses and Elijah ap-
peared on the Mt. of Transfiguration without resurrection bodies,
since Jesus was the first to get one (see 1 Cor. 15:20). But since their
physical bodies were in the graves and they had not yet received
their resurrection bodies, they must have been in a disembodied
state
When Do Believers Receive Their Resurrection Bodies?
-------------------213
Fourth, why should Paul dread death as a state of being "naked"
or "unclothed" (2 Cor. 5:3-4 NKJV), ifone receives his resurrection
body at that moment? Speaking of death as disembodiment ("ab-
sent from the body") and as an undesirable experience makes little
sense if that is the moment of one's ultimate triumph with a resur-
rection body (see 2 Cor. 5:1,4; 1 Cor. 15:50-58 NKJV).
Fifth, even if Paul is referring to the resurrection body in
2 Corinthians 5, he need not mean that it is received at death. There
are other possible ways to explain Paul's reference to "a building
from God" that believers receive after death. None of these inter-
pretations involves the highly problematic notion of an immaterial
resurrection body.
According to one interpretation, Paul is referring to the interme-
diate state between death and resurrection and not at all to a resur-
rection body. 5 In favor of this, it can be noted that Paul does not use
the word "body" (soma) which when used of a human being always
means a physical body." He simply says that when we leave our
earthly body ("tent"), we have a heavenly house (v. 2). Further,
Paul refers to death without resurrection as a state of nakedness,
which is undesirable and in need of being clothed (vv. 3-4). At any
rate, there is no reference to an immaterial resurrection body in this
passage or in any other passage in Scripture (see Chapter 7).
Another interpretive option is that when Paul says "we have;' he
may be speaking futuristically of the resurrection, not to the disem-
bodied state between death and resurrection. This understanding is
linguistically possible/ The Greek word translated "we have"
could be a futuristic present, referring to the present prospect of a
future event. Furthermore, this interpretation is contextually plau-
sible, since Paul is speaking here of the future (see 4: 18; 5:4), when
death will be swallowed up by life (see 1 Cor. 15:54). Finally, this
view fits with Paul's repeated use of the future resurrection as a
present hope for believers (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Cor. 4:12).
The source of the mischievous view of an immaterial resurrec-
tion body (which Harris contends will be received at death) is iden-
tified by Joachim Jeremias as E. Teichmann who published Die
paulinischen von Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gerich (1896).
Jeremias says that "a misunderstanding on this issue has played a
disastrous role in the New Testament theology of the last sixty years
until the present day,"!
At the heart of the problem for those who interpret 2 Corinthians
5 as resurrection at death is a monistic anthropology. That is, they
 The Battle for the Resurrection
214--------------- _
fail to recognize that while humans are a unity of soul and body, APPENDIXF
they are not an identity of the two. They refuse to acknowledge the
biblical truth that there is also a duality in man's psychosomatic Did Jesus' Resurrected Body Dematerialize?
nature that enables his soul to survive its dissolution from the body.
Once they posit a rigid monistic view of man, in order to avoid the
absurdity of believing in annihilation (at death) and re-creation (at There are four possibilities with regard to the nature ofthe resur-
the resurrection), they must posit an instantaneous resurrection rection body: (1) It is essentially material but has the ability to be-
at death. In brief, their "cure" is worse than the "disease." In fact, come material; (2) It is essentially material but has the ability to
it is fatal to the orthodox, biblical view of the resurrection. cease to be immaterial on occasion (and then become material
again); (3) It is essentially material and does not ever cease to be
material. (4) It is essentially material and immaterial at the same
time.
The last view is contradictory. The resurrection body cannot be
both corporeal and incorporeal, extended in space and not extended
in space, three-dimensional and not three-dimensional at the same
time. The first view is critiqued throughout this book, especially in
Chapter 7. The third view is the orthodox view defended through-
out this book, especially in Chapters 3, 4, and 8.
However, some argue that the resurrection body is essentially
material but occasionally ceased to be material. That is, Jesus was
resurrected in a material body, but it could dematerialize and then
rematerialize again. They base this position on the fact that the res-
urrected Christ could disappear immediately, was able to get inside
closed rooms, and left His grave clothes in the tomb when He was
resurrected. This conclusion does not follow from these facts, and it
has some very serious difficulties.
First of all, as was shown in Chapter 7, none of these factors is
really evidence that the resurrection body actually ceased to be ma-
terial on these occasions. Nowhere does the New Testament actu-
ally say that the resurrection body went through any physical
object. For example, it does not actually say Jesus walked through a
closed door. It simply says "with the doors locked for fear of the
Jews, Jesus came and stood among them ..." (John 20: 19 NIV).
Even if it is inferred from these passages that the resurrection body
can move through material objects, it would not have to cease to be
material in order to do so. According to contemporary science, a
body is mostly empty space and there is no reason why one body
cannot pass through another one if they are properly attuned to
each other.
Furthermore, Jesus in His pre-resurrection body did super-
natural things such as walk on water. But this was no proof that He

215
 The Battle for the Resurrection
216-------------------
ceased to be material in order to do this. Otherwise, He in effect
received His immaterial resurrection body before His resurrection.
If one has to cease to be material in order to walk on water, then
Peter must have lost his material body for the brief moments he
walked on water (see Mark 14:28-31).
Second, disappearing immediately, as Jesus did on occasion (see
Luke 24:31), is not the same as dematerializing. If it is, then Philip
the evangelist ceased to be material before his resurrection when he
was suddenly transported by the Spirit to another location (see Acts
8:39). This was a supernatural disappearance of his physical body
but not a destruction (and later reconstruction) of it. Philip was
visible somewhere but not where he had just been.
Third, the empty grave clothes are not a proof that Jesus ceased
to be material in order to be raised. The text does not actually say
that He passed through His clothes. Here again, the popular idea
that they were a kind of cocoon through which His body passed is
merely an inference. All the text says is that He left them behind
when He left the tomb (see John 20:6-7). Why would the resur-
rected Christ want to wear blood-stained grave clothes? They were
the symbol of His death, not His triumph over it. Furthermore,
leaving them behind without the body in them was a sure sign that
the physical body was raised.
Rather than being proof of a body that can cease to be material,
the empty grave clothes are evidence to the contrary. The fact that
Jesus' burial head cloth was "not lying with the linen cloths, but
rolled up in a place by itself" (John 20:7 RSV) would seem to indi-
cate a deliberate action by a physical body to fold it up. Though
Christ could have supernaturally broken through the wall of the
tomb, the angels could have rolled back the stone so He could walk
out naturally. Rising through the wall of the tomb before the stone
was rolled back would have better betokened an immaterial resur-
rection body. The Bible does not say this is what Jesus did. As it
was, all the evidence points to a material body. So convincing was
the evidence of an open grave with empty grave clothes that when
John saw this, even though he had not yet seen the risen Christ, he
"believed" (v. 8).
Fourth, Jesus is said to have been the first to have a resurrection
body (see 1 Cor. 15:23). Some of these supposed evidences of the
ability to dematerialize came when people were still in their pre-
resurrection bodies (e.g., Peter and Philip). Opponents of a mate-
rial resurrection body forget that simply because the resurrection
Did Jesus' Resurrected Body Dematerialize?
--------------------217
body can do more than a normal physical body does not mean that it
is less than a physical body.
Even Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration was still in His ma-
terial pre-resurrection body, yet it was a glorious body appearing in
an unusual manner (see Matt. 17:1-8). Of course, the transfigura-
tion was not a resurrection, since Jesus had not yet died. And one
cannot be resurrected, if he has not died. Nonetheless, a resurrec-
tion body is more like Jesus' physical body that was transfigured
than a material body that ceased to be material.
Fifth, if a body ceases to be material and later becomes material
again, then it is not the same body. It has lost it continuity. It is an
annihilation of one material body followed by a recreation of an-
other. This would mean that Jesus had at least twelve different ma-
terial bodies-one for each post-resurrection appearance. This is
not only contrary to common sense, but it is a denial of the New
Testament teaching that He was raised in the same continuously
physical body in which He died (see Chapters 3, 8).
Summary andConclusion
Contrary to a rather popular misunderstanding of what Jesus did
in His resurrection body, there is no evidence that His material
body ever dematerialized. According to both the New Testament
(see Acts 1:9-10) and orthodox creeds, Jesus even ascended into
heaven in the same physical body in which He died and rose in the
presence of the disciples. Jesus had just finished "eating with
them" (Acts 1:4 NIV) and while "they were looking intently" on
Him, Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared like a rocket in
space (1:11).
In his famous work, Against Heresies, the early church Father
Irenaeus declared emphatically:
The Church [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them: and
in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our
salvation; . . . and the resurrection from the dead, and ascension
into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord. • •. 1
Likewise, St. Augustine spoke most explicitly to the nature of the
body in which Jesus ascended into heaven, saying, "It is indubita-
ble that the resurrection of Christ, and His ascension into heaven
 The Battle for the Resurrection
218-------------------
with the flesh in which He rose, is already preached and believed in
the whole world"? (emphasis mine). Augustine adds that this was
the belief of the universal Church:
The world has come to the belief that the earthly body of Christ was
received up into heaven. Already both the learned and unlearned
have believed in the resurrection of the flesh and its ascension to the
heavenly places, while only a very few either of the educated or
uneducated are still staggered by it 3 (Emphasis mine).
These Articles of the Church of England were adopted in 1562
and revised for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States in 1801. They declare that Christ ascended into heaven in the
same flesh in which He died and rose again.
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with
flesh and bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of
Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sit-
teth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day' (emphasis
mine).
So it is both unbiblical and unorthodox to claim that Jesus' res-
urrection body dematerialized in order to accomplish the things He
did after His resurrection. Jesus lives today in the same flesh, now
glorified, in which He lived and died while on earth. At this very
moment His physical body is at a particular place in the universe
which the Bible calls "heaven." And the fact that Jesus is in heaven
does not make Him any less human. He still makes intercession for
us (Heb. 7:25) and, therefore, must be both fully God and fully
human.
APPENDIXG
A Survey on the Resurrection
The following survey was sent to the 1,207 members of the
Evangelical Theological Society. This is the largest organization of
evangelical scholars in the United States. It represents teachers
from every section of the country and from all major evangelical
denominations and groups. The survey card read as follows:
Resurrection Survey
Please help us in our survey on the resurrection.
Check the box and return immediately.
1. Do you believe Christ rose from the dead in the same material
body of flesh and bones in which He died? Yes_ _ No _ _
2. Do you believe it is unorthodox to deny that Christ rose from the
dead in the same material body of flesh and bones in which He
died? Yes__ No _ _
Do not sign this survey.
There was a 25 percent response. That is, 304 (of 1,207) an-
swered at least one question as follows:
Question 1. 270 checked Yes and 30 No.
Question 2. 256 checked Yes and 37 No.
This means that 88.82 percent of those who responded to the
first question affirm their belief that Christ rose from the dead in
the same material body in which He died. Likewise, 11.18 percent
of all who responded to this question deny that Christ rose in the
same material body in which He died.
Further, 84.21 percent of those who replied to the second ques-
tion believed it was unorthodox to deny that Christ rose in the same
material body of flesh and bones in which He died. And 15.79 per-
cent who replied to the second question believed it was not unor-
thodox to deny this. Slightly less responded to the second question
(290) than to the first one (293). Only 6 (2.59 percent) of the 270
persons who responded Yes to the first question responded No to
the second question. Some qualified their answers with comments
that did not negate their answer to the question.
219
 The Battle for the Resurrection
220'-----------
A Word of Evaluation
_
There was a very good response to the survey (25 percent). This
gives a high degree of validity to the results, showing that it repre-
sents the broader evangelical community of scholars.
The results show that an overwhelming number of evangelical
scholars (nearly 90 percent) believe that Jesus rose in the same ma-
terial body of flesh and bones in which He died. This is a strong
confirmation of the central thesis of this book.
An overwhelming number of those who believed that Christ rose
in the same material body (97.41 percent) also believe that it was
unorthodox to deny this. That is, nearly everyone (all but 2.59 per-
cent) who answered Yes to the first question also answered Yes to
the second question.
An alarming minority of 11 percent of evangelical scholars did
not believe in this cardinal dimension of the orthodox doctrine of
the resurrection. This shows a significant degree of non-evangelical
influence on evangelicals' beliefs about the resurrection.
Notes
Foreword
1. See J. Danielou, The Origins of Latin Christianity (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1977), pp. 395-404; and J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradi-
tion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 47-50.
2. See, for example, the comments on this passage in The New International
Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans), p. 71 or in J. A. Schep's The Nature of the Resurrection Body
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 71-72.
3. G. W. Dollar, "DiamondJubilee Story of theEvangelical Free Church of Amer-
ica [book review]," Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct. 1960), pp. 367-368.
1 The Battle for the Resurrection
1. For a more complete discussion, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,
A General Introduction to theBible: Revisedand Expanded (Chicago: Moody,
1986), chapters 3-6.
2. See Harold LindseII, TheBattlefor theBible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1976).
3. For a more detailed discussion on the inspiration of Scripture, see Geisler
and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, chapters 1-11.
4. For a defense of the inerrancy of the Bible by a coalition of evangelical
scholars, see Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-
van, 1979).
5. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, translated by Lewis L. Wilkins
and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 99.
6. Edward Schillebeeckx, Interim Report on the Books Jesus & Christ (New
York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 75.
7. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-
Webster, Inc., 1985), p. 164.
8. See Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline An-
thropology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 168.
2 It Makes a Difference
1. Some of this material appeared in N. L. Geisler, "The Apologetic Signifi-
cance of the bodily Resurrection of Christ," Bulletinof theEvangelical Philo-
sophical Society (Spring, 1988), and in "The Significance of Christ's Physical
Resurrection;' Bibliotheca Sacra (Apr.-June, 1989).
2. William G. T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine (Minneapolis: Klock &
Klock Christian Publishers, n.d.), vol. 2, p, 403.
3. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality .in the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 132. Hams adds that
"Here 'flesh' refers to the material components, the substance, of the body:
the flesh-body as distinct from the soul,"
4. This is taken from the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Free Church of
America (Article II, 12). The "Doctrinal Statement of Dallas Theological
221
 The Battle for the Resurrection Notes
222------------------- -------------------223
Seminary" is more explicit: "He arose from the dead in the same body, bones." It is also used in John 1:14 and 1 John 4:2 (and 2 John 7) of Christ in
though glorified, in which He had lived and died, ..." (Article 6). His continued incarnational state both before and after His resurrection (see
5. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam- J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
Webster, Inc., 1985), p. 164. mans, 1964), pp. 67-72).
6. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 119. 5. The use of the present tense in Greek here means Christ came and remained
7. Ibid. in the flesh even while this passage was written, which was after the resur-
8. This tendency to "spiritualize," along with its concomitant hermeneutic of rection.
allegorizing, has reemerged intermittently in the church since the time of 6. Angels who assumed bodily form also ate food on several occasions in the
Origen and the Alexandrian influence on Christianity. See Chapter 6. Old Testament (See Gen. 18:8; 19:3). But they never offered their ability to
9. See St. Augustine, City of God, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip eat food as evidence that they had been resurrected in a material body.
Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), XXII, 5, p. 481. Angels are by nature spirits (See Heb. 1:14). Their appearances in visible
10. Compare 1 Tim. 4:4 and Rom. 14:14. form are miraculous. Jesus, however, said emphatically, "Touch Me and see,
11. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:39
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 182. NASB). In view of these crucial differences, the fact that angels ate cannot
12. Gundry, ibid. be used to prove that their temporarily assumed "bodies" were of the same
13. Harris argues there is no material continuity between the pre- and post- nature as Christ's resurrection body. Furthermore, there was no claim on
resurrection embodiments of Christ. He insists that the continuity is only the angels' part to have once been in a physical body, nor to be now resur-
personal, not substantial. He says, "The identity between the physical and rected in that body, scars and all. The cases are significantly different and so
spiritual bodies can scarcely be material or substantial ..." (Raised Immor- nothing can be inferred validly from this one similarity.
tal, p. 126; see also pp. 54-56). He adds, "one and the same person finds 7. See Chapter 4.
expression in two successive but different types of bodies. There are two 8. See William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of
dwellings but only one occupant" (p, 126). the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959),
14. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, p. 176. pp.290-291.
15. Gundry, ibid., p. 182. 9. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, p. 176.
16. See The Oxford Dictionary ofthe Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross, 2nd 10. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 413. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 39.
17. See J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body (Grand Rapids, MI: 11. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, p. 177.
Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 71-72. He notes of 1 John 4:2 that the perfect partici- 12. Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 126, 124.
ple (eleluthota) means "not only that Jesus Christ came in the fullness of time 13. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology.
clothed with flesh, but that thus he is still present . . . . He is a Christ who 'is 14. Ibid., p. 168.
come, who came and who abides in the flesh.' " 15. Ibid., p. 168.
Commenting on the parallel passage in 2 John 7, A. T. Robertson notes 16. As to why Paul did not use the word "flesh" (sarx), see note 1 above.
that it is the "Present middle participle of erchomai treating the Incarnation 17. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, p. 169.
as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied." See his Word
Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933), vol. 6, 4 "I Believe in the Bodily Resurrection"
p.253.
18. Harris denies that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh. See Harris, Raised 1. J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
Immortal, pp. 124-126. mans, 1964), p. 221.
19. See Harris, ibid., pp. 53, 124, 126. 2. Ibid., p. 223.
20. John Updike, "Seven Stanzas of Easter," "Verse (New York: Fawcett World 3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.1. Translated by Alexander Roberts and
Library Great Books, 1965). James Donaldson in The Apostolic Fathers of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, reprinted from 1885 ed.), vol. 1, p. 330.
3 The Bible on the Resurrection 4. Ibid., Chapter 7, vol. 1, p. 532
5. Ibid., Chapter 3, vol. 3, p. 530.
1. Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthro- 6. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XIII in Ante-Nicene
pology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 167. Fathers, vol. 3, p. 249.
2. For further discussion of this point, see Chapter 7. 7. Ibid.
3. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 8. Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection, Fragments in The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
1933), vol. 5, p. 310. vol. 1, section 10, p. 298.
4. The word "flesh" (sarx) is used of the resurrection body in Acts 2:31, which 9. Ibid., Chapter 2, p. 295.
declares that David (in Ps. 16) "spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that 10. Ibid., Chapter 8, p. 297.
he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his flesh (sarx) see corruption." 11. Ibid., Chapter 9, p. 298.
It is also used in Luke 24:39 where Jesus said He had "flesh (sarx) and 12. Ibid.
 The Battle for the Resurrection Notes
224------------------- -------------------225
13. Athenagoras, The Resurrection of the Dead, Chapter 3, in Ante-Nicene 48. Ibid., p. 124.
Fathers, vol. 2, p. 150. 49. In addition, this new way to deny the unorthodox view claims the resurrec-
14. Cited by Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body, p. 225. tion body will be "withoutphysical instincts"and "will nothavetheanatomy or
15. Two Creeds ofEpiphanius: Second Formula (A.D. 374) in Philip Schaff, The physiology of the earthly body . . ." (Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 123, 124,
Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: emphasis mine).
Baker Book House, 1983), vol. 2, p. 37. 50. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 53.
16. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures (Lect. 14,21) in Philip Schaff, Ni- 51. Edward Schillebeeckx, Interim Report on the Books Jesus & Christ (New
cene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 75.
Eerdmans, 1983), vol. 7, p. 99.
17. Ibid., Lecture 18,22, p. 139. 5 Denials of the Bodily Resurrection
18. Ibid., Lecture 18, 18, p. 139.
19. St. Augustine, City of God, Book 22, 5, in Philip Schaff, ed.,The Nicene 1. See Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and Modern Thought (Grand Rapids, MI:
Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 2, p. 482. Zondervan, 1982), Chapter 1.
20. Ibid., emphasis added. 2. Benedict Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in The Chief Works of Bene-
21. Ibid., 22, 14, p. 495. dict de Spinoza, translated by R. H. M. Elwes (London: George Bell and
22. Ibid., 22, 20, p. 498. Sons, 1883), 1.83, 87, 92.
23. Of course, in view of modern science, it is unnecessary to believe, as Augus- 3. Ibid., p. 92.
tine did, that the physical resurrection body will have the identical particles 4. Ibid., p. 107.
of the pre-resurrection body. For even the molecules of the pre-resurrection 5. David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by C. W.
body change every several years, yet it remains the same physical body (see Hendel (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1955), 10.1.118.
Appendix A). 6. Ibid., pp. 118-123.
24. St. Anselm, CurDeusHomo (Book 2, chap. 3), translated by S. W Deane in 7. Ibid., pp. 122-123.
St. Anselm: The Basic Writings (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1962), p. 241. 8. Antony Flew, "Miracles," in Paul Edwards, ed., TheEncyclopedia of Philos-
25. Ibid., Book 2, Chapter 11, pp. 255-256. ophy (New York: Free Press, 1973), vol. 5, p. 347.
26. Ibid., Book 2, Chapter 3, p. 242. 9. Douglas E. Lurton, ed., Thomas Jefferson: The Life and Morals ofJesus of
27. St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, 153, in Thomas Gilby, St. Nazareth (New York: Wilfred Funk, Inc., 1943), p. 132.
Thomas Aquinas: Philosophical Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 10. Robert Jastrow, God and theAstronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,
1964), no. 764. Inc., 1978), p. 15.
28. St. Thomas Aquinas, III Summa contra Gentiles, 79, in Thomas Gilby, St. II. Ibid., p, 115.
Thomas: Theological Texts (Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1982), no. 12. Ibid., p. 14.
662. 13. Sir Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London:
29. St. Thomas Aquinas, IV Summa contra Gentiles, 81, in Gilby, St. Thomas: Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 24-26.
Theological Texts, no. 6. 14. C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1947), p. 109.
30. Ibid., no. 7. 15. Ibid., p. 108.
31. Ibid., no. 10. 16. Rudolf Bultmann, Kerygma andMyth:A Theological Debate, edited by Hans
32. Ibid., no. 12. Werner Bartsch, translated by Reginald H. Fuller (London: Billing and
33. Ibid., no. 13. Sons, 1954), pp. 38-39.
34. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, p. 98. 17. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
35. Ibid., p. 99. 18. Gary Habermas, The lterdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life of
36. Ibid., p. 183. Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984).
37. Ibid., pp. 368-369. 19. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand
38. Ibid., p. 404. Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960).
39. Ibid., pp. 433-434. 20. John W. Montgomery, Christianity and History (San Bernardino, CA: Here's
40. Ibid., p. 489. Life, 1983).
41. Ibid., pp. 620-621. 21. See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the
42. Ibid., pp. 731-733. Bible: Revisedand Expanded (Chicago: Moody, 1986), p. 475.
43. Ibid., p. 748. 22. H. S. Reimarus, Reimarus: Fragments, translated by R. S. Fraser (London:
44. See ibid., pp. 749f. SCM,1971).
45. Schep, ibid., pp. 222, 227. 23. William L. Craig, Knowing the Truth About theResurrection (Ann Arbor, MI:
46. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Servant, 1988), Chapter 2. Professor Craig has written some of the best
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 132. scholarly material in defense of the literal, material resurrection of Christ.
47. Ibid., p. 127. See his massive 677-page tome, The Historical Argument for the Resurrectwn
 The Battle for the Resurrection
226-------------------
ofJesus During the Deist Controversy (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1985).
24. Kirsopp Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
(London: William & Norgate, 1907), pp. 247ff.
25. Frank Morrison, Who M(lVed the Stone? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1978), pp. 97ff.
26. See Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here's
Life, 1981), pp. 92f.
27. The Journal of the American Medical Society 255: 11 (21 Mar. 1986), p. 1463.
28. David Strauss, A New Life ofJesus (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879),
vol. 1, p. 412.
29. Hugh J. Schonfield, The Passouer Plot: New Light on the History of Jesus
(New York: Bantam Books, 1967).
30. Edwin M. Yamauchi, Gordon Review 10:3 (Summer, 1967), pp. 150ff. This
was also reprinted in John W. Montgomery, ed., Christianity for the Tough-
Minded (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1973), pp. 261-271.
31. See William F. Albright in an interview in Christianity Today (18 Jan. 1963).
32. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1976), pp. 352-353.
33. They were condemned at the Council of Alexandria (402), the Council of
Constantinople (543), and The Second Council of Constantinople (553). See
F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1010.
34. Origen, Against Celsus 4.1.16, in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), vol. 4, p. 365.
35. Origen, De Principiis 3.6, in Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 347.
36. Ibid., 6.68, p. 604.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 6.7, p. 347.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., 7.32, p. 623.
41. Ibid., 3.5, p. 346.
42. Ibid., 7.22, p. 623.
43. Ibid., 6.29, p. 586.
44. Ibid., 5.23, p. 553.
45. Ibid., 5.18, p. 551.
46. Ibid., 5.19, p. 551.
47. J. F. Rutherford, The Truth Shall Make You Free, (Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1943) p. 264.
48. Ibid.
49. Samuel Rutherford, Let God be True Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, (1946), p. 272.
50. Samuel Rutherford, The Harp of God, ( , 1921) p. 172.
51. J. F. Rutherford, The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 264.
52. Samuel Rutherford, Let God be True, p. 122.
53. Rutherford, The Harp of God, p. 172.
54. Charles Taze Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society) vol. 2; The Time is at Hand, p. 129.
55. Charles Taze Russell, The Kingdom is at Hand, (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, 1944) p. 259.
56. Rus~ell, The Time is at Hand, (Allegheny, PA: Tower, 1888) p. 127.
57. LeVI H. Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ (Santa Monica,
CA: DeVorss & Co., 1907, 1964). Further references to this book are given
in the text.
Notes
-------------------227
58. The Aquarian "Jesus" goes on to give his pantheistic message, saying,
"What I have done, all men will do; and what I am, all men will be" (v. 30).
6 Denials of the Bodily Resurrection within the Church
1. See Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, translated
by Hubert Hoskins (New York: Seabury, 1979). Under ecclesiastical pres-
sure, Schillebeeckx modified some of his positions in the direction of ortho-
doxy, but he did not change them on the immaterial nature of the
resurrection body. See Ted Schoof, ed., The Schillebeeckx Case (New York:
Paulist, 1984), especially pp. 135-158.
2. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, p. 522. All page citations
from this book are placed in the text for handy reference.
3. Other Roman Catholic scholars have strongly objected to Schillebeeckx's
view of the resurrection. See Interpreting Jesus (Ramsey, NJ: Paulist, 1983),
pp. 121-123.
4. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine ofCreation and Redemption: Dogmatics,
vol. 2, translated by Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1952), p. 372.
5. Rudolf Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth: A TheologicalDebate, edited by Hans
Werner Bartsch, translated by Reginald H. Fuller (London: Billing and
Sons, 1954), pp. 38-39.
6. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
7. Ibid., pp. 40,42.
8. Ibid., p. 42.
9. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, translated by Lewis L. Wilkins
and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 101. All
page citations from this book are placed in the text for handy reference.
10. George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection ofJesus (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1975). All page citations from this book are placed in the text for
handy reference.
11. Ronald Nash, Christian Faith and Historical Understanding (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1984), p. 128.
12. E. L. Glenn Hinson, Faith of Our Fathers: Jesus Christ (Wilmington, NC:
McGrath, 1977), pp. 59ff. All page citations from this book are placed in the
text for handy reference.
13. Raised Immortal was first published in 1983 in England by Marshall Morgan
& Company. It was reprinted without revision by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Company in 1985. Harris has an earlier article touching on the mat-
ter titled "Resurrection and Immortality: Eight Theses;' Themelios, 1:2
(Spring, 1976), pp. 50-55. Here, too, he rejects "substantial or numerical
identity" between the pre- and post-resurrection body in favor of "two
dwellings but one occupant" (p. 55). He claims that "the New Testament
nowhere explicitly refers to 'the resurrection of the body' or 'the resurrec-
tion of the flesh'" (p. 51). Rather, at resurrection "the physical body may be
said to be transformed into the spiritual body or to be replaced by the spiritual
body" (p. 127). .
14. All page citations from Harris's writings in this section will be placed 10 the
text for handy reference.
15. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 58. He calls resurrection "historical" in ~he
unusual sense of an event that is real and objective but not observable WIth
the natural senses. Indeed, he insists that "it was the Resurrection not the
 228------ The Battle for the Resurrection
_ Notes
Ascension that marked the terminus of Christ's sojourn on earth .•."
(p. 50).
16. Ibid., p. 58. In support of his statement here, Harris quotes people like
Reginald Fuller, Emil Brunner, J. Moltmann, and others who call the resur-
rection "meta-historical" or the like.
17. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 58.
18. Ibid.
19. Murray Harris, Easter in Durham: Bishop JenkinsandtheResurrection ofJesus
(Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1985). All page citations from this booklet
are placed in the text for handy reference.
20. Murray Harris, "Raised ... Never to Die Again," VOices (Deerfield IL:
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1988), 14:2, pp. 12-13. All page'cita-
tions from this article are placed in the text.
21. Harris, RaisedImmortal, p. 54.
22. This letter was published in the Evangelical Free Church Beacon (11 July
1988).
23. This letter (dated February 6, 1989) was sent to Pastor Samuel Kostreva III
pastor of an Evangelical Free Church in Lodi, Wisconsin, in response to hi~
question,
7 Physical Resurrection os, Immaterial Resurrection
1. See William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of
th~ New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 685.
2. IbId.
3. The manna is also called "bread of God," "bread from heaven" and even
"bread of angels" (See John 6:32-33; Ps. 78:25). Again, all of these "spiri-
tual" descriptions are ofIiteral physical food that the Israelites picked off the
grol;md each morning except Saturday (See Ex. 16; Num. 11).
4. Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), vol. 3, p. 707.
5. See Murray Harris, Raised Immortal (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985),
pp.46-47.
6. The usual word for "vision" is horama, not horao (see Matt. 17:9; Acts 9:10;
16:9). In the New Testament it always refers to seeing something that is
essentially invisible, such as God or angels.
7. The Greek aorist passive is used here, implying that Jesus took the initiative
In appearing to them.
8. See Edwin Hatc~ and Henry Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and
Other Greek l--erstons of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 19~7), vol. 2, 105-107. For futher references, see opthe which is used
of ocular VISIon (Karl H. Rengstorf, DieAuferstehung Jesu, 2nd ed. [Witten-
RUhr: Luther-Verlag, 1954], pp. 93ff; and Ronald Sider, "St. Paul's Under-
standing of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians
XV 1-19" Naoum Testamentum [Apr. 1977], vol. 19, fasc. 2, pp. 124-141).
9. When the expression "he let himself be seen" (ophthe) is used of God or
angels (See Luke 1:1~; Acts 7:2), who are invisible realities, then in that
context ~t refers to an Invisible entity becoming visible. But since the same
expressIOn IS used of other humans with physical bodies and since Christ is
said to have had a body (soma), there is no reason to take the expression to
refer to.anything but a physical, material body, unless the context demands
otherwIse.
------------------229
10. See Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 53-54.
11. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English .LexicCJ!l ofthe N.e:v;:~me~ p. 581.
12. Gerhard Friedrich, ed., The Theological DictlO1!ary OJ t ew estament,
translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977),
vol. 5, p. 356. I db
13. Fritz Rienecker, A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, trans ate y
Cleon Rogers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonde~va~, 1976),1;" 439. . .
14. Harris does not use this point to support hISVIew (see hIS Easter tn Durham.
BishopJenkins and the Resurrection of Jesus (Exeter: The Paternoster Press,
1985), pp. 23-24, and Raised Immortal, pp. 61-62), but Pannenberg ~oes
(Jesus-God and Man translated by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Pn~~e
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 93-95,99). However; Hams s
view amounts to the same thing. For he argues that the resurrection body
was essentially immaterial (Easter in Durham, p: 17! ~~d cou~d .0nlY,?e seen
with the natural eye if a miracle occurred by Wl:IC~ It. 1?atenahzed.. So for
all practical purposes, there is l~ttle differ~nce .m Ipslstmg th~t a miracle of
materialization occurred or a miracle of vlsuahzat~on. Both vle~s deny the
essential materiality or physicality of the resurrection body. Irorucally, both
views posit some kind of miracle to do it.
15. Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, p. 93.
16. Friedrich ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 5, p. 357.
17. "Physicai" he~e means something that is part of the ma~erial world that can
be experienced through one or more of the five senses WIthoutany supernat-
ural aid. h "did d
18. Those with Paul heard the "sound" (see Acts 9:7), but t ~y not un e.r-
stand the voice" (22:9 NIV). That is, they heard the audible sound but did
not understand the meaning of what was said. . .
19. Since the text does not explicitly say how Jesusthgot m belhinddcl0hst:d doo~s'l
any suggestion is only speculation. We do know at ange s use t err specia
powers to unlock pr.ison doors to rele~se Peter (see Acts 12:10). The super-
natural Christ certainly possessed this same power.
20. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 126. . ,
21. Of course, there may have been some dissolution. invollvedlm JIesus bod y.
Death itself involves some breaking down of orgaruc mo ecu e~. n any event
there was no eventual dissolution, since His resurrection quickly rever.sed
death (see J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 139).
22. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 124.
23. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 30, 13, .in RobertsEandd DonaldNs0ti )eds"1 v:e
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Ml: er mans, . ., vo. ,
p.357.
24. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body, p. 204.. .
25. Joachim Jeremias, "'Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of
God;" New Testament Studies II (1955-1956), p. 154.
26. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 56. . h Bible
27. See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to t e t :
Revisedand Expanded (Chicago: Moody, 1986), pp. 486-489.
28. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body, p. 77. . . _
29. See Gundry, Somain Biblical Theology wuh Emphasis on Pauline Anthropol
ogy (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 168. d'" !VI
30. Jeremias, "'Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of Go, ew
Testament Studies II, p. 157.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
230------------ _ --------------------231
8 Evidence for the Physical Resurrection
1. The "hearing" of Christ in the resurrection appearances is not to be con-
fused with "hearing" God's "voice" in a vision (see Chapter 7).
9 Lessons to Be Learned
1. Jack Rogers, ed., I!iblical Authority (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977), chapter
2; and The Authoruy and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach
(New York: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 426ff.
2. Clark Pinnock is an exception. In his book The Scripture Principle (New
York: Harper & Row~ 1984), h~ com~s to tJ:e ironic conclusion that, in spite
of the fact that the BIble contams rrnnor mistakes and factual inaccuracies
the word "inerrancy" should be used to describe it.
3. Russell H. Dilday, The Doctrine ofBiblical Authority (Nashville: Convention
Press, 1982), p. 96.
4. See N. L. Geisler, "The Concept of Truth in the Inerrancy Debate," Biblio-
the~a .Sacra (October-December 1980) for further discussion on this point.
5. !hIS IS taken from ~he Free Church Beacon (7 Nov. 1988) article headlines:
Dr. Murray Hams Cleared of All Allegations Regarding His View on the
Resurrection Body of Christ."
6. The quote goes on to say that "the same atoms as are in our body at death
n~ed not compose ~he resurrection body." But this is not the point under
dispute, The question IS. not whether the resurrection body has the same
atoms as the pre-resurrection body but whether it is, to borrow Harris's own
words, "~he same substantial body." That is, the question is not whether the
resur~ectlon body has the s.ame material particles but whether it is the same
material body (see Appendix A). This Harris denies, and this the Bible and
the orthodox creeds affirm (see Chapters 3, 4).
7. See Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan
1979), pp. 494-497. " ing to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), p. 557.
8. Walter Kaiser, "Leg~timate Hermeneutics," in Geisler, Inerrancy, p. U8.
9. See A. T. Olson, T7zIS we Believe (Minneapolis: Free Church Publications
1965), pp. 206-208, 334-337. ' Cusin], fifth ed. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1870], 355, cited by Harris,
10. Letter from Dr. Kenneth Meyer to me dated December 4 1987
11. Thomas McDill, Beacon (5 Sep. 1988). ,.
12. E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1967), p. 213.
13. Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and T7zrough the Looking
Glass (New York: Signet, 1960), p. 186.
14. C. S. Lewi~, T7ze weig~t of Glory ~New York: Macmillan, 1945), p. 50.
15. Langdon GI!key, Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock (Min-
neapolis: Wmston, 1985), p. 77.
10 Drawing the Line
1. S~e No~an L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the
BIble (Chicago: Moody, 1986), Chapter 3.
2. Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979).
3. Nor?1lln L. Geisler, How History Views the Bible: Decide for Yourself(Grand
RapIds, MI: Zondervan, 1982).
4. John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1984).
5. Jack Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation
Notes
of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 197~).
6. John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKIm
Proposal (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982). . . .
7. See Norman L. Geisler and J. Yutaka Amano, The Reincarnation Sensation
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1986).
8. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 489, emphasis added.
9. Ibid., pp. 620-621, emphasis added.
10. See George Elton Ladd, "The Greek Versus the Hebrew View of Man,"
Present Truth (Feb. 1977), pp. 78-84.
11 A Response to Murray Harris
' 1. Murray Harris, Prom Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990).
2. Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking
Glass (New York: Signet, 1960), p. 186.
3. Norman L. Geisler, In Defense of the Resurrection (Lynchburg, VA: Quest
Publications, 1991), pp. 113-117.
4. Frank Beckwith, "Identity and Resurrection: A Review Article," Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society (Sep. 1990), p. 370.
5. In fairness to him, these passages are taken from the NIV, the translation
preferred by Harris. Emphasis is mine.
6. While activity follows upon nature, the reverse is not true. That is, just
because we can do some of the same things God can do (e.g., reason) and
rocks cannot, it does not mean that we have the very same nature that God
has. Likewise, just because the post-resurrection Christ could do some
things spiritual beings can (say, move through a physical object), it does not
mean that Jesus had a spiritual body after His resurrection.
7. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel Accord-
8. Ibid., p. 559.
9. From Frederick Louis Godet, The Gospel of St. Luke, vol. 2 led. by M. D.
Prom Grave to Glory, 450.
10. Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel ofLuke (Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, reprint 1887); (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), p. 357.
11. Ibid., p. 359.
12. Ibid., p. 357.
13. Ibid., p. 357.
14. Felix Guirand, ed., Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology (London: Paul
Hamlyn, 1959), p. 103.
15. This translation is taken from the Loeb Classical Library edition (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press).
16. Another example is found in the Trachiniae by Sophocles. The mes~en~er
Lichas is detained by a large crowd and is unable to come before Deianira,
However, the messenger tells Deianira, "opsei d ' auton autik emphane. " This
is translated, "But thou shalt see him face to face anon." Thus the reference
here is not to a customarily invisible being who would suddenly appear be-
fore Deianira. So the word emphane (visible) used here means the herald
Lichas would become "visible" to Deianira by eventually arriving there and
corning into view (Guirand, Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology).
17. Emphasis in these series of quotations is added.
 The Battle for the Resurrection
232'-------------------
18. James M. Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 354-355.
19. When Harris speaks about Jesus being resurrected "in the flesh" (From
Grave to Glory, 415) he puts quotation marks around it, indicating the spe-
cial s~nse in whi~h he is using it, namely, flesh = human nature, which may
be without physical flesh, as Jesus was after the resurrection.
20. For a discussion of the intermediate state in Paul see L. Cerfaux The Chris-
tian in the Theology of St. Paul (London: Chapman, 1967), pp.'191-234.
21. See Beckwith, ibid., p. 373.
22.' The reference in v. 37 (of 1 Cor. 15) not sowing "that body that shall be" is
simply pointing to the fact that it "is sown in corruption, [and] it is raised in
incorruption" (v. 42).
23 W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980),
2:654, emphasis added.
24. :V?at does "basically immaterial" mean? Either it is immaterial by nature or
It IS not.
25. Of course there are differences between the two views, but they are irrele-
vent to the point here. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of
Christ and the human nature of the resurrected Christ, but these do not
relate to the nature of the resurrection. The only relevant difference is the
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus rose only "in spirit". But since
Harris claims it was only a "spiritual body" that was not essentially mate-
rial, this difference is not really significant.
26. This is questionable, since the proposed motion was "ruled out of order"
and, therefore, could not possibly have been voted on. The motion read in
part: "Be it resolved: That ... 'We believe in the bodily resurrection of the
dead; to exclude all views that maintain that the resurrection body is by
nature immaterial a~d non-physical" (cited by Harris, FromGraveto Glory,
p. 364). But according to the conference minutes, "The moderator declared
the resolution out of order." If so, then it makes no sense to conclude that
this resolution was "nearly unanimously defeated by the entire Conference"
(From Grave to Glory, p. 365). It was never even allowed on the floor!
27. See the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICB!) "Chicago State-
ment;' in Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-
van, 1979), pp. 493-497.
28. Some have noted that the Greek word sarx (flesh) had a more limited mean-
ing? referring only to the exterior body, wheras the Hebrew word basar,
which the New Testament word sarx (flesh) follows, refers not to just the
body, but to the whole human nature (John T. Darragh, The Resurrection of
the Flesh, p. 154.) If so, then this may account for the reluctance of the later
Eastern (Greek) Church to use the word sarx (flesh).
29. According to Origen, at the resurrection "the corporeal nature may be trans-
muted, and transformed into any form of species whatever...." He also held
that ."the whole of. bodily nature ~ill, in the consummation of all things,
consist of one species, ... the spiritual body" (Origen, De Principiis 6.7
emphasis added). "Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which wa~
necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state and it
exchan~es it for a second [body]" (ibid., 7.32, emphasis added). This new
body w111 not be material or visible, for "those things 'which are seen are
temporal, but those things which are not seen are eternaL'" And "all those
bodies which we see ... and have been made with hands, but are not eter-
nal, are far exceeded in glory by that which is not visible nor made with
hands, but is eternal" (ibid., 4.5, emphasis added). Orig:n calls this body
Notes
_ -----------------233
"spiritual," "celestial," and even "ethereal" (the very thing condemned by
the Council of Toledo).
30. Hefele defends the authenticity of the name Origen here, pointing out that
the name occurs in the extant Acts in the Roman archives, and that Origenis-
tic monks (of the new Lama) withdrew communion from the .~ishops of
Palestine who had subscribed to the Acts of this synod (see Philip Schaff,
ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956],
14:314). E . b h
31. Joseph Charles Hefele, A History ofthe Councils and the Church ( din urg :
T & T Clark, 1895),3:176, emphasis added.
32. T. Hardy, The Decades of Henry Bullinger (Cambridge, 1849).
Appendix D The JevJish VievJ 0/ Resurrection
1. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 39.
Appendix E When Do Believers Receive Their Resurrection
Bodies?
1. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, ~I: Eerdmans, 1985), p~. 44, 1?0. "
2. Murray Harris, "2 Corinthians 5:1-10: Watershed In Paul s Eschatology,
1jmdale Bulletin (1971), pp. 33, 45.
3. For a critique of this view, see Ben F. Meyer, "D,i~ Paul's V:iew ofth: Resur-
rection of the Dead Undergo Development? Theological Studies 47:3
(1986), pp. 363-38~; and ",\ndre~ T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not ~t
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 69-~6.
4. Joseph Osei-Bonsu, "Does 2 Cor. 5.1-10 Teach the Reception of the Resur-
rection Body at the Moment of Death?", Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 28 (Oct. 1986), p. 81. .
5. See K. Hanhart, The Intermediate State in the New Testament (Grom~ge~,
1966), p. 173; and R. V. G. Tasker, The Second EpistleofPaul 10 the Coriruhi-
ans (London, 1958), pp. 77-81. . '
6. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 168. .
7. See J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Tes~ameBnt Gkr~~k,,~Ed1i.mbUrgh, Gr I903k)'
vol. 1, p. 120; and C. F. D. ~oule, ~n Id!om 00 OJ Hew estament eee,
2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 7.
8. Jeremi~s, "'Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God;" New
Testament Studies II, pp. 157-158.
Appendix F Did Jesus' Resurrected Body Dematerialize?
1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1, in Roberts a ed
Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, NndDD)onald
. ., vo.1so1n, , emte--
, p. 3s3"oAn
phasis added. . ' h d
2. St. Augustine City of God, Book 22, 5, Nicene a ost-N: 4Rat ers, e .
Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19nd p. 8 .
1 2lCene
56R)vo., 2
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 489.
 Glossary of
Important Terms
Body: ~he physical organ of interaction with the external world; the outer mate-
nal dimension of man m contrast with his inner, immaterial aspect which is
called "soul" or "spirit." ,
Corporeal. From the Latin corpus, "body," which means having a physical body
Deat~ (Physical), The separation of soul and body, the point of departure fro~
this life.
Fles~ . . The phy~ic~l, material body, or a person in such a body, as opposed to
spint, which IS Immaterial (See).
Immaterial. Not material or physical; spiritual by nature.
Incorp.oreal. Not corporeal; having no physical body.
Mate:zal. Composed.of,~atter, ~isible ~nd tangible, and extended in space.
Physical, I:'ro~ phys~, nature, refernng to man's material as opposed to his
unmatenal dimension,
Resurreaion. Coming back to life, the reversal of death, the permanent reanima-
non of a dead body.
~Olfl:tt The immaterial asp~ct of human nature that animates the material body.
P1r: . ~n thIS.book, used interchangeably with "soul"; the invisible nonmate-
rial dimension as opposed to "flesh." ,
~piri.t~al. ,~pirit-like, immaterial, or invisible by nature.
'Spiruual (Greek: pneumatikos), Dominated or guided by the spirit; having a
divine or supernatural source but including material things such as food rocks
(I Cor. 10:3-4), and people in bodies both before (2:15) and after the re~urrec­
non (15:44).
234
Select Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa contra Gentiles III.
Athenagoras. The Resurrection of the Dead, Chapter 3 in Ante-Nicene Fathers,
edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977.
Augustine. City of God. Book XXII.
Boliek, L. E. The Resurrection ofthe Flesh. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.
Camp, Norman H. The Resurrection of the Human Body. Chicago: The Bible
Institute Colportage Association, 1937.
Craig, William L. Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection. Ann Arbor, MI:
Servant, 1988.
Gundry, Robert. Soma in Biblical Theology With Emphasis on PaulineAnthropol-
ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Habermas, Gary. The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life ofJesus.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.
Irenaeus. "Against Heresies," Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1.
Jeremias, Joachim. "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God."
New Testament Studies 2 (1955-1956).
Landis, Robert w: The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body Asserted and De-
fended; In AnswertotheExceptions Recentlypresented byRev. George Bush. Phil-
adelphia: Perkins & Purves, 1846.
Lincoln, Andrews, T. Paradise Now and Not 1'et. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1981.
Martyr, Justin. "On the Resurrection, Fragments," The Ante-Nicene Fathers:
The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 1 sect. X.
McCann, Justin. The Resurrection of the Body. New York: Macmillan, 1928.
McDowell, Josh. The Resurrection Factor. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life,
1981.
Meyer, Ben F. "Did Paul's View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo Devel-
opment?" Theological Studies 47:3 (Sep. 1986).
Miller, Lawrence William, S. T. M. The Christian's Resurrection Body: Its Nature
and Characteristics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1937.
Montgomery, John W. History and Christianity. San Bernardino, CA: Here's
Life, 1983.
Orr James. The Resurrection ofJesus. New York: Jennings & Graham, 1909.
Os;i-Bosnu. "Does 2 Cor. 5.1-10 Teach the Reception of the Resurrection Body
at the Moment of Death?" Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28 (Oct.
1986).
Schep, J. A. The Nature ofthe Resurrection Body. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1964.
Sider, Ronald, J. "St. Paul's Understanding ofthe Nature and Significance of the
Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XI 1-19." Novum Testamentum (Apr. 1977). Vol.
19, fasc. 2.
Sider, Ronald. "The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in 1 C0-
rinthians XV. 35-54." New Testament Studies 21 (1975).
Smith, Wilbur. "Resurrection." Baker's Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1978.
Tenney, Merrill C. The Reality of the Resurrection. New York: Harper & Row,
1963.
235
 Scripture Index ScriptureIndex

Micah 5:2 .•••... .•..•... ..•..•.. ....•.•. ••...... ..•..... .••.•..

•..•..• . 'lb~
237

79
Matthew 1
Matthew 3 ......• ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ii' i3' '160
, 23' 160
Matthew 4:4
........ .. 23' 160
Matthew 4:7 ....•.. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
'160' 161
167 Matthew 4:10 ...... , 22
Genesis 1:1 32, 98 Matthew 5:17. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ : '158
Genesis 1:31 Matthew 5:17-18
127,167 ,208 118
Genesis 2:7 Matthew 7:1
....•.. ...... 32
Genesis 2:17 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Matthew 7:6
160
Genesis 3
1
22, 167
24 Matthew 7:24-29 · .. · · .. · · .. · .. · :ii9· 130
, 130
........
Genesis 3: 44,99 Matthew 8:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Genesis 18 37, 114 Matthew 9:29
Genesis 18:8 . " '" 47
12:38-40
Genesis 18-19
170,205
99
Matthew
Matthew 12:39
27' 47
. . . . . . . . . . . '116
Genesis 19 37 Matthew 12:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Genesis 19:3 Matthew 13:58
100 119
Genesis 22 116 Matthew 14:28-31
Genesis 32:24 160
79 Matthew 14:29 47
Genesis 49: 19 183 Matthew 15:6
Exodus 2:11-15 '123
208 Matthew 16:4 217
Exodus 3:6 208 Matthew 16:17
Exodus 3:15 190
110 Matthew 17:1-8 : 27
Exodus 17 Matthew 17:3
EXOdus 20:4
184
110 Matthew 17:9
ii .208 '209
Numbers 20 :::.. .' :.48
184 Matthew 18:23 126 209
Deuteronomy 4:15-18 Matthew 22:23-30
Deuteronomy 32:39
.......•
208
........ ... 208 Matthew 22:28
i60' 161' 208
........ ........ ........ .. , 37' 126
1 Samue12 :6 ........ ...•....
79 Matthew 22:29 ........ ........ ........ ........ .....•. ........ . . . . . , 208
....
2 Samuel 7
........ ........ ... 160 Matthew 22:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
........ ........ .•..... ........ .... 79
2 Samuel 23:2 ........ ........
183 Matthew 22:32 ........ ........ ....•.. ........ ........ •...... '130
2 Kings 14:11 Matthew 27:12
2 Chronicles
112
208 Matthew 27:55 ........ ........ .•...•. ........ ........ ........ ........ . 27 73
Job 19:25-27 '131
Matthew 28
Psalm 11:3
.......• ........
161
..... 158 Matthew 28:1-10
'ii ·.ii· i30' 132
, 131
Psalm 15:3 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ , ,
...•... ..•.. 208 Matthew 28:6
Psalm 16:19 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Matthew 28:7-9 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
......• •. 45
Psalm 49:14-15
208
........ •.. 23 Matthew 28:7 'i6 .43' i30' '178
Psalm 119:160 ........ ........ ...•.... ....•... ........ ........ Matthew 28:9 , , , 131
........ ... 158
Proverbs 18:13 ........ ........ ........ .....•. ........ ........ Matthew 28:10
79
Ecclesiastes 12:7 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .......•
........ 208
100 Matthew 28:12-15
66' 73
Isaiah 6 '137
79 Matthew 28:13
Isaiah 7:14 '13'6'-137
....... 88 Matthew 28:16
Isaiah 25:8 ........ ...•... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
.. 88, 208 Matthew 28: 16-20 ······ .. ···· ······ .. ····· ····· ·····45 46 137
Isaiah 26: 19 ......• ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Matthew 28:17
, , 137
........ ..... 160
Isaiah 59:21 ........ .•..... ........ ........ ........ ........ ....... 116 Matthew 28:18-19
160
Daniel2 •......• .....•.. ........ ........ ........ ..•..... ........ . 116 Matthew 28:18-20 •...... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 120
.•...•.. •..•..• ....•.•. ........ .•..•.. .... 130
Daniel 7 •..•..• ......•. •....... ..•.....
.......• .......• ..... 116 Mark 2:10-12 ........ ........ ..•..... ........ ...•.... ........
........ •....... .•.... 130
Daniel 8:18 ........ ........ ........
........ ....•.• .....•• ... 79 Mark 3:11 ........ ........ ........ .•...... .......• ........ ........
........ .....•.. ... : : :: 138
Daniel9 ...•.... •....•. ........ 211 Mark 5:15 .•...... •....... ......•. .•...•. •....... ........ ........
Daniel 11:40 : : : : : : : : : ..... 46
•.•..•. .•.. 211 Mark 6:3 ........ ........ .•..... ........ ..... : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Daniel 12:1-2 ......•. ......•. ........ ........ .......• ........ ........ 46
Daniel 12:1-3 ........ ....•... •....... ..•...• .....•.. .....•..
•....•. ...... 88 Mark 6:33 ........ ........ ....•... ...•.... • " . . ....•... .•......
•.•..•. 208 •....... ........ •....• : : : : : : . : ........ .•..•.. •....... . 130
Daniel 12:2 ...•.... ........ ...•.... •.•..•• .....•.. •••.... ..•..... Mark 6:54 ........ . 22
........ ......•. ........ .....•.. ........ .•.. 192 Mark 6:56.. ........ ........ ........ .... ........ ..•..... ..•...
Jonah •...•.. ....•.• ....•... Mark 7:13 ........ ....•.• ........ ..•.....

236
 Scripture Index

238-------------=-=-===
Mark
Mark 9:9
14:32-41
The Battle for the Resurrection

. 47
__------------------239
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46
134, 178, 181
47

m~~ il~~~s·. ·: ·.: . :· :..· : ·.: : : : : : : : : : 'Ill

Luke 24:50-51 178
Luke 24:51 113
John 1:1 205
John 1:3 146
Mark 16:1 . , 27,73 John 1:10 64
Mark 16:7 , , .. , 131 John 1:14 26,34,41,52,55,64, 164, 169,201,205
Mark 16:9-io·,····· " , , 45, 132 John 2:19 27

~~~~ ~~~~; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g:

Mark 16:14-18 .. , , .. ,., ' , .. , 137
John 2:19-22
John 2:22
John 4:24 .,.,.,
,
, ,
36
47
205
Luke 1:1 , .. , , .. , , ,., , 136-137 John 5:25 , , , 211

1I:~~!:j!f:o: ......~:;:; .. ·::::~::::·~~::~~·~.::~::::~:::~~~:·:~ ..·:·:::ill, il

John 5:28 , ,, , , 165, 209, 211
John 5:30 .. , , , .. , , , 118
John 6 , , , .. , , , 110
John 6:16-20 , 119
Luke 16:22-24 , , , . , .. , , , 130 John6:19 130
John 6:36 , 112
t~: ~~~~3' ..... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~i~ John 7:5
John 8:44
117,138
24
Luke 24 98, 170 190
t~: ~:t'··:·· '. ' '..,'.;'. ' '. '. ' ~\~~ ,' '' John 8:58
John 8:59
John 10:18
, 36
118
36, 113
Luke 24:13-32··························································· 117
Luke 24:13-35 124 John 10:30 36
Luke 24:15 , 132££ John 10:35 22, 160
Luke 24:16 , , 178 John 10:39 116
Luke 24:17 45, 124 133 John 11 123
Luke 24:17-2i·············,············································: 133 John 11:24 35,211

t: ~l! :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l~
Luke 24:24 Ill, 114, 115
John 11:38-44
John 11:43-44
John 12:1
John 12:28
John 14:6
210
42
47
130
23
Luke 24:25 45
Luke 24:25-26··························································· 117 John 14:9 112
Luke 24:27 46, 133 John 17:17 23, 151, 160, 161
Luke 24:30 .. 133 John 19:23 79
Luke 24:31 , 27,44, 122 125 133 John 19:23-24 46
Luke 24'34 42,46,113,124,133 178' 179' 216 John 19:24 ......•....................................................... 79
John 19:30 77
Luke 24;35 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .' .' : 11l John 19:33 77
Luke 24:36 . . 46
Luke 24:36-37" 42, 134, 178 John 19:34 76, 77, 79
Luke 24:36-49 46 John 19:35 112
Luke 24:37 , 133££ John 19:40 77
Luke 24:38-43' 134 John 20-21 27,73
1~~
John 20:2 ....................................................•......... 130
Luke 24:39 ...'..'."..'." 'i6,' i7;
35; '3'i,'4i: 43; 76; i2t' 44','Si,' 65; '86,' John 20:3-9 ....................•....................................... 132
Luke 24:39££ 168,178,180,187,189,192 200 John 20:5-7 ..•...•..................................•.......••......... 131
Luke 24:40 ...............................................•.......... : 206 John 20:6 ...•.......•......•................•...•..•........•.•.......• 132
Luke 24:40-43 134, 135 John 20:6-7 ..................•....•.......................•..... 42, 132,216
Luke 24:41-42 44 John 20:7 •......•.....................•...........•.....•........•..... 216
Luke 24:41-43 ...........................•••............................. 43 John 20:8 .....................................................•.•..• 43, 216
Luke 24:42 ...........................•...................... 35, 181 187 John 20:9 .............................................•.••............. 135
uke 24:42-43 ... 26, 43,' 122 John 20:10-18 ......•....•...•.......•.........•....•......••....•.••.. 129ff
L
Luke 24:43 44, 100 178 John 20:11-15 .•.......•.....•.......•........•......•..•.....••....•..•• 46
., 26, 27, 133; 134
 The Battle for the Resurrection Scripture
_ _ _Index
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _241
240-------------------
John 20:14 ........•••..................•......•.....••......•.••.... 45, 130 Acts 7:26 112, 183-184
John 20:14-15 .............................•...................•..•...... 46 Acts 7:59 190
John 20:15 130 Acts 8:39 120
Acts 8:40 120
John 20:15-16 46
John 20:16 130 Acts 9 116, 118
John 20:17 43, 130, 135 Acts 9:1ff 117
John 20:18 112 Acts 9:1-9 ··.··················· 115
John
John
20:19
20:19-23
118, 178,215
133ff
~~~: ~~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1t~
Acts 9:5-6 140
John 20:20 134, 178
Acts 9:7 117
John 20:24 135
John
John
John
20:24-25
20:24-31
20:25
46
135
112,117, 134, 135
~m ~~!~:1:; :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Hi
Acts 9:11-12 115
John 20:26 42, 135
Acts 9: 12 115
John 20:27 26,27,35, 43, 45, 135, 178
Acts 9: 15 115
John 20:27-28 46
John 20:27-29 135 Acts 9:17 ··.·················· 111
Acts 10 27, 36,169,172
John 20:28 43, 135, 169
Acts 10:9f 116
John 20:29 112 135
Acts 10:39-40 47
f~~~ 21:4
John
~Li':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g~
46, 136
Acts 10:40 ...................................................•.......... 182
Acts 10:40-41 179
Acts 10:41 45,133,139,178
John 21:5-6 136 Acts 13 169, 173, 208
John 21:10 136 Acts 13:29-30 42, 47
John 21:12 ...................................•..................... 122, 136 Acts 13:29-31 37
John 21:12-13 ...................................•....................... 44 Acts 13:30-31 113
John 21:13 ..............................................•........... 27, 136 Acts 13:31 III
John 21:15-17 132, 136 Acts 13:32-41 .......................•............................•....... 36
John 21:18-19 .................................................•.....•.. 136 Acts 13:35 ................................•............................. 122
~cts 1 ••........••......••.......••••.................•.•.....••..••.... 73
Acts 13:36 121
Acts 1:3 27,36,46,113, 133, 138, 141, 169, 178 Acts 13:37 .................................................•........ 51, 121
cts 1:4 27,44,122,133, 138, 139, 178,217 Acts 15:13 138
Acts 1:9 ........................................................•....... 113 Acts 17 ..........................................................•.. 27, 172
Acts 1:9-10 ..........................................................•.. 217 Acts 17:1-4 36
Acts 1:10-11 ..........................•......................•......... 45 Acts 17:22-31 36
Acts 1:11 45,217 Acts 17:31 36, 113, 16~
Acts 1:22 114, 139
Acts 2 27, 169, 172,208
Acts 2:22-36 .................................................•....•..•... 36
~~~: g~~2. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1~0
Acts 22:8 115, 140
Acts 2:23-24 36, 47
Acts 2:31
~cts 2:31-32 "
26,41,44,51, 65, 121, 122, 189,201,208
36
~~~: ~~~il:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ll~
Acts 23:8 35, 208
&~: ~:31-33 41 Acts 26:13 117, 140

~: Iii:::::.:. : ::: ::: : ::: ::: : ::.:::::.: ::: ::: ::: ::: : : : : i~
Acts 3:16 .•................•........•.............•...•................. 130
Acts 4 ....•...................................•........•.....•.. 27, 169, 172
~~~: 1~~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~
Acts 4:10 ..................................................•...••..•• 36,47
Acts 4:20
&ts 5:14
...................................••..........•.....••..•..•..• 46
......................•....................•.•.•...•.....•.•.... 76
ts 5:30 ......................•........•....•........•.•......•..•.•..•• 47
Acts 26:14 ......................•................ ·· .. ···············•··· 140
Acts 26:15 .................•..............•..........................•.. 115
Acts 26:16 ...............•...................... ·· .. ·······•········•··· III
Acts 26:19 114, 115
Romans 1:4 ........................•.•..•...................••..... 113, 126
Romans 3:4 .........•........•.........•..........•..•....••..•.••.•... 160
Romans 4:24 .....................•.................•...........•..•..... 47
Romans 4:25 .......................................................• 30, 140
Romans 5 ...............................................•........•..... 1~
Romans 5:12 ~~'165
Romans 6:3-5 .........................................•..........•.. ,
 The Battle for the Resurrection Scripture
_ _ _Index
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - 2 4 3
242------------------
1 Corinthians 15:44 40, 41, 42, 108, 109, 127, 165,211
Romans 6:9 .................................................•.......... 103
1 Corinthians 15:44-49 ................................................•.. 103
Romans 8 167 192
1 Corinthians 15:45 .•.......................................•............ 126
Romans 8:18ff ' 32
Romans 8:19-23 . . 1 Corinthians 15:47 ...............................................•..•... 127
R 8 21 167
omans: 32 192 1 Corinthians 15:49 82
Romans 8:22-23 , 1 Corinthians 15:50 41,43, 122, 123
Romans 8' 23 32 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 ..............................................•.... 213
Romans 9:6 .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1~~ 1 Corinthians 15:51 42, 194
~~~~~~ ~~~~-io""""""""""""""""""""'"xx, 27, 33, 140, '173
1 Corinthians 15:53 109, 124, 194
1 Corinthians 15:53-54 170,194
Romans 10'10 30 1 Corinthians 15:54 42, 164,213
Romans 14:9 '" 33 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 123
1 Corinthia~s i.i3························································ 125 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 38
1 Corinthians 2; 13-i4' .: 160 1 Corinthians 15:55 35, 168
1 Corinthians 2: 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111 2 Corinthians 212
1 Corinthians 6 . . 110 2 Corinthians 4:2 23
1 Corinthians 6'2 156 2 Corinthians 4:12 213
1 Corinthians 6:13·:::::::::::· .. ""···· · .. · .. · .. ·· .. · ""·· · .. 157 2 Corinthians 4:18 213
1 CCor!nthh!ans 9 1 '4' ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 64:' i39' 45; iii: ii4; ~~~ 2 Corinthians 5
2 Corinthians 5:1-3
190,212,213
190,211
11 Corinthians
onnt lans 10: :3-
10:4 .............. ' 110
2 Corinthians 5:1-10 211,212
1 Corinthians 15 . ::::..:::::: 109, 110, 127 2 Corinthians 5:1 81, 213
1 Corinthians 15:1-3 . . 27,73,114, 116, 140 2 Corinthians 5:2 213
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 xx 2 Corinthians 5:3-4 213
1 Corinthians 15:1-5 172 2 Corinthians 5:4 213
1 Corinthians 15:3 26, 30, 33 2 Corinthians 5:8 98, 170
1 Corinthians 15:3-5········ 46 2 Corinthians 5:21 24, 43-44
1 Corinthians 15'4 165 2 Corinthians 12 116
1 Corinthians 15:5 26,46,64 2 Corinthians 12:1 115
1 Corinthians 15:5-7' .. , , 132, 183, 190 2 Corinthians 13:4 125
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 64 Ephesians 2:20 161
1 Corinthians 15'6 111, 115 Ephesians 4 22
1 C . h' 15·7···· 27, 113, 116 137
1 ~~:~~h:~~~ 15:8
Ephesians 4:15 158
118: 138 Philippians 1:7 151
1 Corinthians 15;12 · · · · · .. · 112, 114, 139, 140 Philippians 1:23-24 190
1 Corinthians 15:12-i9························ .. ········ .. ··· ·· .. · 47, 165 Philippians 1:23 98, 170,212
1 Corinthians 15:14-19 26,195 Philippians 3:20-21 ...•............................................. 192,211
1 Corinthians 15:17 30,173 Philippians 3:21 41,48,98,103, 112, 170, 184
1 Corinthians 15:17-i9···················· .. ················ .. ··· .. ····· .. · 35 Philippians 4:5 ......................................................•... 208
1 Corinthians 15'18 27 Colossians 1:13 168
1 Corinthi : 35,48,171 Colossians 1:14 168
1 Corinthi~~~ ~~:~ti3·".·."""""·"·"·"""··" 41,42,97,98,123,170,212 Colossians 1:22 103, 184-185
1 Corinthians 15'23 211 Colossians 2:8 87, 151, 189
1 Corinthians 15:24 213 Colossians 2:12 47, 165
1 Corinthians 15:35-36""' "" "" 211 Colossians 2:14 22, 27
1 Corinthians 15:35-44 96 Colossians 4: 11 208
1 Corinthians 15:36-37 48 Colossians 4:14 208
1 Corinthians 15:36-38 :: 165 1 Thessalonians 4 212
1 Corinthians 15:38-40 .. : 195 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 48, 165, 170,213
1 Corinthians 15:40 ::::::::::: 41 1 Thessalonians 4:14 ................................•............. 30, 33, 173
1 Corinthians 15:42 109 1 Thessalonians 4: 16 211
1 Corinthians 15:42f' 42, 48, 109, 124 2 Thessalonians 2:7 149
1 Corinthians 15:42-43' 41 1 Timothy 2:5 10, 34, 169
1 Corinthians 15:42-44 ??? 1 Timothy 3:16 34
1 Corinthians 15:43 "" 49, 195 1 Timothy 5:13 158
...................................................... 109
244--------------------
2 Timothy 1:10
The Battle for the Resurrection

30,35,42, 138, 169

Topical Index
2 Timothy 3:15 143
2 Timothy 3:16 22, 160, 161
Titus 1:2 22,23,160
Hebrews 1:1 160
Hebrews 1:14 37,44,99,126
Hebrews 2:10 169 Aberrant Protestant views on the resurrection ................•. ······•··•· 90-104
Hebrews 2:14 22, 27,123,168, 169 Accidentalcharacteristics :........ 195
Hebrews 4: 12 23, 158 Against Heresies xvu, 52, 145,217
. , .....•......•....... ,. . 182
149 177
Hebrews 4:15 24, 34, 44 AJ~x

Hebrews 6:18 22,23, 160 Alice In Wonderland ,

Hebrews 7:16 103 Allegorization (see also Spiritualizing) 22, 28, 87, 152, 192
Hebrews 7:25 34,218 Alteration into a spiritual body 101
Hebrews 12:22-23 190 American Medical Society 76
Hebrews 12:23 212 Anatomy or physiology of resurrection body 121
James 1:12 138 Angels 44, 126
James 5:8 138 and physicalbodies 126
1 Peter 1:19 24 are spirits by nature ~
1 Peter 3:15
1 Peter 3:18
151
125 :a~fle~~ti~~'s'~f'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 38; '18~:2~~; ~~6
Annihilationism 190,214,217
1 Peter 3:21 125
2 Peter 1:15-16 90 Anselm .......................•...................................... 5821~
2 Peter 1:20 22 Anthropology .....•............... ·.·· ·················· 189-190,213- 89
2 Peter 1:20-21 160 and dichotomy 1
2 Peter 3 190 and monism ··.·.·········· 189-190, 213-21~
2 Peter 3:10-13 33 and platonic dualism 18
1 John 1:1 43 and trichotomy .........•.......................................•..•... 189
1 John 2:1 24 Anti-Gnostic apologetic ..... . .........•...........................•....... 97
1 John 3:2 41, 192 Aphaneis egenonio ••...••.•.••..•....••••...•...•.••.•••••.•••••.•.••.•••. 180
1 John 3:3 24 AphonlOs .................................•..•.......................... 180
1 John 4:1-3 - xi Antisupernaturalism 67, 68, 86, 90
1 John 4:2 26,32,34,41, 52, 55, 64, 65, 122, 164, 169, 193,201 Apologetic value of resurrection : 37, ~o~
1 John 4:5 xi Apostles' Creed XIX, 51, 54, 62, 0
2 John 7 xi, 34, 41, 44,52,64,65, 122, 164, 169, 192,201 Appearances of Jesus (see Post-resurrection appearances) 112
Jude 1 118 Appearing (horao) ...................•..............••...•...•...••••.•.•
Jude 3 ' 50, 158 Aptomai ....................•..........•........ , .............•.... 13~
Jude 13 205 Aquarian 'G~;pel 0/Jesus the Christ .....................•.............•.... 83-8
Revelation 1:7 45, 192 Argument from ignorance ........................•.•............•..•..... 18~
Revelation 1:18 103,113 Articles of the Church 0/England ........•............ · ... ·············· 166,21
Revelation 5:6 45 Ascension ......................................•............ 44, 99, 217-218
Revelation 6:9-10 190 Arhenagoras 's6~si .87' i:'i' 'ili:2i~
Revelation 6:9 98, 170,212 Augustine :....................... ", 0
Revelation 19:20 190 Authority and Interpretatum of the Bible, The :: 16
Revelation 20:4 170,190,211 Baptist view of resurrection ..........•.......................•...... xiu, xv, ~~
Revelation 20:5 170 Basil the Great .................................................•..•..... '148
Revelation 20:6 98 Beacon i:':" 192
Revelation 21:1-4 33, 124 Beckwith, Frank ...•..•..••.. ········•···•··•··•····•····•····•··•·· '61
Belgic Confession ...........•......•..•..•.•........•.•..•..•.••••....•.• '180
Extra-Biblical References Beza ............•....• ··••············•··········•····•····••·••··•·· ii 25
Bible, battle for. . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .• . . . . . • • . . • '197
2 Baruch ...................................•..•.....•.......•.•..•..•.. 209
2 Baruch 49-51 88 biblical, definition of ............•...........•..••....•.•.....••..•.•..... 160
2 Esdras 209 Biblical Authority .•...•..••.....•......••....••..•.•..•.•...........••.•. xiii
1 Maccabees 4:6 112, 183 Bibliotheca Sacra . ••. . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . •. . . . . •. . . •. ••. . . . . . •. •. . .. 62
2 Maccabees .......................................................• 180, 209 Block, L. E... : ........•...............••..•...•.•.•......•..•. 'is 38'
'i7' 69
Wisdom ...........•................................................... 209 Bodily resurrection .... - • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . • • . . , , ,

245
 The Battle for the Resurrection Topical Index
246-------------------
and believers ................•.....•................................... 98
and doctrinal statements 144
and salvation .......•........................•................. 30, 167-168
importance of 26-28
meaning of 148
Body (Soma) 28, 33, 40, 55, 62, 148
celestial 81
continuity of 36,46-47,48, 194-195,204,211,217
corruptible (flesh) 43, 97, 122
definition of 31
dominated by spirit , 41
ethereal 81
glorified and heavenly xi, 41, 102, 103, 170,206,212,217
immaterial 31,37,38,81-82,86, 102, 104, 128, 170, 177-179
material/physical xix, 32, 33, 40-41, 43, 56, 61, 200
of flesh 40, 55, 200
soma 28, 33, 40, 41, 49, 109, 127, 165, 190, 194,213
spiritual xi, xix, 21, 81, 91, 95, 98, 101, 103, 104, 108, 109, 127, 176
Boice, James 188
Brethren denomination xv
Bruce, F. F. 72
Brunner, Emil xii, 89
Bultmann, Rudolph 71, 89-90, 107
Burial clothes ............................................•.............. 130
Calvin, John 60, 195
Carson, Don . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .. 198
Catechetical Lectures 56
Celestial body ..................................................•......... 81
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 146
Christian Research Journal 174
Christianity and History 72
Christianity Today 143, 156, 157, 158
Christophanies 205-206
Church confessions/creeds x, xi, 31, 164, 166, 199,201,217
Church councils ..•........................................•............. 200
Church fathers ......................•......................•..... 52, 57, 199
Churches of the East 51, 200
Closed room, resurrection body can enter 118-119
Clothes Jesus wore after the resurrection ............................••....... 46
Consequences of denying orthodox view 167-171
and Christ's character 168
and Christ's humanity 169-170
and Christian evidences 168-169
and Christian hope .................•.............................. 170-171
and creation .....•.................................................... 167
and salvation .........................•.............•............. 167-168
Conspiracy view 73-74
Contemporary affirmations of resurrection 31-32
"Commentary on the Apostles' Creed" ........•...•..•.............••....••• 54
Cornerstone Magazine 174
Corporeal 61, 81, 110
Council of Constantinople 51,200,201
Council of Toledo •..................•...............•......••....••..... 201
Credibility of the Gospel History, The ...••....•......••...••......•.....••.•.. 74
Creation out of nothing ......................•..............•....•....••.. 121
Creation, problem of ......•......................•..................•.. 32-33
 The Battle for the Resurrection Topical
_ __ Index
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _249
248--------------------
doctrinal statement ......•..•.••.•.•....••.•.....•.••..•.•..•.• 147-148, 198 Immortal nature of resurrection body ....•.•.....••.•.... •··· 41-42, 127-128, 185
Evangelical Theological Society 219 Imperishable 41,42
Existential philosophies 152 Incarnation .................•............................................ 41
Flesh 26, 31, 34, 38, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63 problem of ..............................................•.......•..... 34
64,65,92,95,96,97, 105, 122, 164, 166, 169, 170, 181,200-201 Incorporeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 91
and blood 110, 122, 123 In Defense of theResurrection •............................................. 177
and bones 26,41,42,43-44,49,58,61,62,86, 144, 165, 178, 187, 188, 192 Inerrancy .............•.......... xiii, 23-25, 28, 143-144, 146, 159-161, 199,212
glorified 40, 184-185 Inerrancy ...........................................•............•...... 159
Sarx 41,44 Inerrancy and the Church 160
Fleshly and fleshy xx, 64,184-185 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 146
Formula of Concord 60 Intertestamental belief in resurrection 88
French Confession of Faith 60-61 Invisibility and immateriality xii, 20, 63, 64,104, 146, 175-176, 179-185, 193
From Grave to Glory 174, 176 Invisible world 93
Fuller Theological Seminary 92, 143, 199 Irenaeus xvii, 52, 145,217
Gilkey, Langdon 157 [astrow, Robert 70
Glorified and heavenly body xi, 41, 102, 103, 170 Jefferson, Thomas 68-69
Gnostic 80, 200, 201 Jehovah's Witnesses 82-83,97, 162, 172, 190, 197, 198
Godet, Frederick Louis 181 Jeremias, Joachim ·· .. ······ ·· 123, 127,213
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 109, 112 Jesus, a perfect human being .....................•......................... 24
Greek gods 182 Jesus: An Experiment in Christology 8~
Greeks .•...............•............................................... 105 Jesus Christ 9
Gregory of Nazianzen 56 Jesus' body and corruption in the tomb · 121
Gregory of Nyssa .......•................................................. 56 Jewish authorities took body 75-76
Gundry, Robert 33, 49 Jewish view of resurrection · · .. ·· 35,47,96
Habermas, Gary 72 Joseph removed the body 75
Hades 113 Journal of the Eoangelical Theological Society ······ 174, 177
Hannah, John 160 Kaiser Walter ....•........•.................. · ..• ·················· 147,185
Harris, Murray 47, 96-104,107,144,162, 174-202 Kantz~r, Kenneth .•................................................. 143, 144
Heaven 212, 218 Kierkegaard, Soren 152
Hermeneutics ........•....•...•..........•.....................•........ 149 Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection · .. ···· .. ···· 74
Hiedegger, Martin ..............•........................................ 152 Ladd, George ······· 92-94, 107, 199 ·
Hinson, E. Glenn .............•....................................... 94-96 Lake, Kirsopp 74
Hirsch, E. D. . 149 Lardner, Nathaniel 73
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 74 Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology 182
Historical nature of resurrection 21,26,31,63,64, 89,92,93-94,95 Larson, Mel ...............•.................................•.......... xiv
99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 164 Law of Noncontradiction ....................•.....•.................. 196, 197
and resurrection on the third day 26 McDill, Thomas ...............................•........................ 148
Historical/Super-historical, a chart 106 Lazarus' body (see also Resuscitation) 47-48, 210
History of Christian Doctrine 31 Lewis, C. S. • 70~ 15~
Hodge, Charles 195 Liberalism Xl-XVi
Homer's Iliad 73 Life of Jesus, The 68
Horao 111-112 Linguistic Key to the New Testament 113
How History Views the Bible 160 Logical absurdity . . . . . . .. 177
Hume, David 67-68, 70, 152 Mahabharata ...............•............................................. 73
Humpty Dumpty ............................................•...... 149, 176 Man 208, 213-214
Hunnius, Aegidius ..................................•.................... 60 created from dust 208
I Believe in theResurrection of Jesus 92 reconstituted from dust 208
Identity ..............•.........................•............. 37, 92-93, 130 return to dust .......................•.............................•... 208
Image of God ...........•............................................... 184 unity of soul and body ...................•...........•..........•.. 213-214
Immateriality .....•.•................ xi, xii, xx, 21, 31, 37, 38, 81-82, 83, 86, 97 Manichees .........•...........................•.•..................•.... 56
101, 102, 104, 105, 108-109, 128, 146, 170, 193 Manifestations of physical body , 116
and God's creative purposes 33 Manuscripts of New Testament .......................••.........•..•....... 72
and the resurrection ..........•............................... 28, 33, 38, 101 Marriage in heaven .........•.......................•.........•.......... 126
and the resurrection body 99,114,175-176,179, 181. Martyr, Justin 53-54
and the soul 98 Material body •..••.•............. 25,26,36,49,50,54,57,63,98, 105, 107, 1
Immortality •.................. 30,31,35,38,42,61, 103, 105, 109, 123, 124, 170 140, 163-164, 166, 177-178, 190, 193, 19142
 The Battle for the Resurrection Topical Index
250'-------------------- -------------------251
and entering closed room 118-119 inadequate tests for .................................•......•....... 196-202
of flesh .......................................................••. 104, 178 Orthodox View/Unorthodox View, a chart 25
Material continuity 33, 92 support for 165-167
Material identity 37, 48, 49, 63, 162 consequences of denying 167-171
Material nature of bodies .........................•.............•.•••.•• 56, 61 Osei-Bonsu, Joseph 212
Material or immaterial body, orthodox and unorthodox views, chart of ....•.•.•.. 203 "Pamphilus' Defense of Origen" 55
Material resurrection Particle view of the resurrection body ..........•...............•....•....... 120
materiality of xx, 21, 25, 33, 63, 92,105, 107, 108, 121, 163-164 and the omnipotence of God 120ff, 204
Materialization 37,38,83,84,96,99, 101, 103, 107, 112, 170, 176, 184,205 Passouer Plot ....•...................•............•...•.....•...•......•.. 78
Meaning of a text 147-149 and manipulating reactions of others 79
Media 156-158 Person 186, 190, 195
Metamorphosis 98, 101 Pharisees 47, 48, 208, 209
Meyer, Kenneth 103, 104, 148, 180 Philosophy 151, 152, 189
Millenarianism or chiliasm 97 Physical body 25,26,28,37,38,49,57,62,80,81,96, 101
Miracles '" 66-70, 87, 114, 118, 119, 152 104, 116, 125, 145, 183, 186-190, 194-195
immediacy of 119 and transcending natural laws 119
rejection of 66ff before resurrection 80
Miraculous element in recognition of Jesus 124 importance of belief in 30
Miraculously transformed lives of disciples 75 Physical manifestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140
Mistaken identity 79 Physical resurrection xx, 25, 34, 40-41, SO, 95, 133, 145
Modern science 121 and ambiguity in doctrinal statements 145
Montgomery, John Warwick 72 and doctrinal statements (see also Doctrinal statements) ................•.... 144
Moody Bible Institute xiii central to Paul's soteriology 49
Moody Monthly ...............................•.............•.....•...... 174 essential to Christian belief SO
Moral deception, problem of 35, 100 evidence for 86, 129-141
Morrison, Frank 74 from the grave 208-210
Mortal flesh 123, 181 of believers 192
Mountain of transfiguration 127,212,217 p~y~io0gical Cause of theDeath of Christ, The ...................•...••.....•.. ~~
Mythology 71, 90 Pietistic ...•......•..................................•.....•....•.•..... X1ll
Nash, Ronald 94 Platonism 191,200
Natural body 108 Plummer, Alfred ·. 179-180
Natural laws 67 Pneumatisos 109
Nature of theResurrection Body, The 51,200 Post-resurrection appearances 35, 38, 79, 96, Ill, 114, 115, 129, 178-184
Neodocetism 34 and angel-like bodies .............................•............•.... 99, 105
Neo-orthodox viewsof resurrection 89-90 and angelic manifestations ..........................................•.... 38
New Age ................................................•.•.....•.. 85, 162 and christophanies .........................................•....... 205-206
denials of resurrection ..............................................•. 83-86 and unbelievers ..............................................•........ 117
views of Jesus 85 apologeticin nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .. 100, 206
New Hampshire Baptist Confession 62 as accommodations ................................................•... 187
New heavens and new earth .........................................•..... 192 as condescensions .....................•......................•.•.....•. 93
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, The .....•..•••..•...•.. III as manifestations ..............................................•.....•. 101
New Testament books dated early ...........................•............... 78 historicity of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 164
New Testament Documents, The ..................•........................... 72 in same body 27,49-50
New lfIrk Times ........•...............•.....•.•...•..••........•..•..•. 157 not visions 113, 114
Nicene Creed 55 of Jesus in different form 124-125
"Nightline" 156 to Apostles, Acts 138-139
Numerical identity .. 59,63,64,105,107,132, 134, 163, 178, 185-189, 194-195,211 they heard Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 138
Olson, Arnold T.........................................•.....•.•.•.•..• 148 they saw Jesus 138
Ontology .......................••.••.•.....•.........•.•............... 192 to Apostles, Matthew and Mark 136-137
Ophthe •••.....•.•....•...•••••..••.•••••••••••••.•..••. 88, 112-113, 183-184 they heard Jesus 137
Optasia •••.•••........•......•........•.•...•...........•.......•..•... 115 they saw Jesus ..............•..............................•...•.•.. 137
Origen ..............................••........ 32, 52, 80-82, 92, 152, 166, 201 to eleven Apostles, [ohn 20 ...................................•..•...... 135
Original elements 54 crucifixion wounds displayed by Jesus 135
Orthodoxy/unorthodoxy, view of resurrection, a chart 162 to Emmaus disciples 132-133
Orthodox view 113, 154, 162, 195 they ate with Jesus 133
importance of ....................•..........................•..•.. 163-165 they heard Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 133
 The Battle for the Resurrection Topical Index
252--------------- _ -------------------253
they saw Jesus ....•.•••.••..•••••••.•..•....•••.•..•..••••••.•.••..• 133 Recognizable resurrection body ......•....•.••.....••••...•••..••.••••... 45-46
to five hundred disciples ........................•..•..•......•••...•..•• 137 Recognizing Jesus in resurrection body •....•.•......•....••••.••.••••.•..•• 124
they all heard Jesus ................•............•.•.......•.•.••••.•. 137 Recognizing loved ones in heaven 48
they all saw Jesus ................................•..........•..••.••. 137 Reformation ...............•••......•............•.. 31, 51, 60-63, 64, 199,200
to James ...........................................•.............••.. 138 Reformed Synod at Emden ••........•.....• _..•....•......•••......•••..•. 61
James was an unbeliever ................•.......•..•..•.•............. 138 Reimarus, H. S. • •................•.......•..........••.•.••••.•••••••..• 73
to Mary and other women 131-132 Reinecker, Fritz .......................................•....•.•..••••..•. 113
they clasped Jesus' feet ...................................•......••... 131 Reliability of New Testament documents .....•............................... 71
they heard Jesus .....•...................................•.•.....•..• 131 Rematerialization ......................................•.... 119, 176, 215-218
they saw Jesus .............................................•........ 131 Resurrected body (see also Physical body, Material body) ........•.. 37,46, 148, 165
to Mary Magdalene 129-131 Resurrected humanity 34
she heard Jesus 130 and salvation 32,33,34, 61,167-168
she touched Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 130 Resurrection 27, 34, 235
to Paul 139-140 and anatomy or physiology 121
not a private appearance 140 and angels 216
not called a vision , 139 and Christian belief ........•............................................ 50
Jesus "appeared" to Paul 140 and death 27
to Peter .....................................................•..••.... 132 and destruction of physical bodies 121-122
he heard Jesus .........................................•......••..•. 132 and God's creative purpose .•........•..•..•.................•..•..•..... 33
he saw Jesus .. , ........................•........•........•.•.•.•.•.. 135 and history ...........................•.•......•........•.............. 94
to seven Apostles, John 21 136 and salvation •........•....•...............................••. 26-27, 32, 61
Jesus ate with the seven ...........................•..............•••• 136 and Satan ......•.....•••...•.................•.....•....•.••....... 21,27
they heard Jesus .......................•..................••••...•..• 136 and space-time history .•.............•.............•.....•..... 63, 90, 92, 94
they saw Jesus .....•......... 136 and the Gospel .......•.••...........•........•..........•.....•••••..•. 30
to ten Apostles ....................................•.......•....... 133-134 and reversing the curse ............................•..........••.•....... 33
they heard Jesus .............................................•....... 134 and victory over death ...................•............••....•..•.. 27, 35, 38
~ey saw Jesus ..................................................•... 134 apologetic value of ••..........•......•.............•....•..••..•... 37, 100
t ey touched Jesus .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .. 134 as trans-historical .......•.......•.•••..•..•..•.......•.•..•..•.• 26, 72, 100
to Thomas ...............................•........................••• 135 as verifiable event .............•.•.•••..•......•.••...•.•.•...••.•...... 94
he heard Jesus ..............................•................•..•... 135 Christian (New Testament) view ......•.•....••.......•.......••.••.• 208-210
he saw Jesus .................................................•...••• 135 cultic denials of ..............•...•..•....••..•..•...•..•....•....... 79-86
he touched Jesus 135 evidence for resurrection of Jesus ...••..•..•......•.•.•..••..••••• 86, 129-141
to unbelieving brothers :: 117 from among dead bodies ......•.....•..•.••..•..•....••••...•••• 47,208-209
Twelve Appearances of Christ, a chart 141 Historical/Super-historical, a chart ........•.••.••..•.•..•...•..•..•.•••.• 106
Pre-resurrectionlPost-resurrection body, a chart .••......•.....•.• : •....•....• 109 historicity of .....•........•..•.•.•.••....•••......•..••••••••••....•.. 164
Prescription Against Heretics ..•.................•..•.....•......•...••.•..•. 52 in real, tangible, material body •••..•.••.•.•..••.••....•.••....•.. 27, 180, 181
Process Theology ...........................•....•........•.......•...... 195 in same body ..•.••....••...••....•.•..•.•...................•• 25, 186,201
Proof of Physical resurrection 36, 42-49 138 in the flesh •.•..•.....•.••.........•.•.•.. 26, 34, 104, 181, 199, 200, 201, 218
by eating 44, 49, 122, 125, 133, 134, 136 139 141 165' 187 in time ..............•....•.•.....•.•.•..••..•.•..•.••....•••••...•... 72
by bei eing hear d '
131-138, , 141,, 165, 187
Jewish (Old Testament) view .................•.....•..•••....••..•.. 208-210
by being seen 46, 111, 116, 131-138, 141 165' 187 more than resuscitation (see also Resuscitation) .. " ........•...•..•..•..•.. 123
by being touched and handled 43, 49, 130, 131 134 135' 141' 165 not called a vision •...............•.......•........................ 114-11 5
aymg cruci'fiixion
b Y d'ISP lavi ' wounds , , , 135,, 187
of the flesh ...0> ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 55, 57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 97, 166, 168
burial cloth 130, 216 on the third day ....•..•.....•...•.•..•..••.•................••......•.• 26
emptYhtomb 37,42,47,78, 85,91,99, 107, 130, 131, 141, 162, 165 survey and results ............•...•.•.....•..•..•.•..•••....••.•••• 219-220
P seen, eard, and touched ..................•.......•.....•......•........ 49 with physical body still in the grave 99
rotestant Episcopal Church ........•..........•.........•....•........ 61, 218 Resurrection body ...••...•••......... xii, xx, 21, 26, 27, 28, 41, 44, 86, 91, 93, 98
Qualities, primary and secondary 194-195 204 103,104,105, 106, 107, 108, 109, Ill, 112, 114, 119
Ra~ically different body ................................•............•• 94; 102 120, 121, 122, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 162, 163
Ra!sed In;mortal ·········· ........................•...... 97-100, 102, 175 176 164, 165, 166, 167, 175, 176, 178, 179
~Rals~d "in the Spirit" (l Peter 3:18) : 125 anatomy or physiology of .•..••••.•••.••••..•..••.•.•••• 121, 194-195,203-204
Rai ised . .. Never t 0 D'ie Agam ' " 102-103 and modern physics ••.•..••.•..•...•.•.....••..•.••...••••.••.••.• 119,215
Ra sed not as a spirit .•.........•.........•...•..•...........•....•••..•..• 27 at death ...•....••....••.•..•.••.••.•....••••..•••....•..• 12, 190, 211-214
Re ~.m, Bernard .........•......................•........•................ xv denial of material nature of .....•.•..•......•..••••.... 66-86,87-107,175-195
Rea I~y a~d perception ..........................•........•... 180, 182, 192-194 evidence for physical nature of ......••.•.••..•.••.•..•..•••.•.••.• 42-49, 180
animauon of the body (see also Resuscitation) ..•..........•....... 102, 124, 187 of Christ •.•.••.•..•..•.•...•.•.••...••.•.••....••......••••.•.••.•• 30-32
 The Battle for the Resurrection Topical Index
254-------------------
identity of ................................•....................••..... 130 Supernatural rock ................................•.....•......•...•..... 109
immortal nature of ...............................................•... 40-41 Swoon theory of Jesus' death ....................................•...•..• 76-78
invisible and immaterial 93, 176 Synod of Don .................................................•.....•...• 61
nature of 27,96, 179, 197,209,215-218 Synod of Paris .................................................•..•...•... 60
with powers beyond mere physical bodies 119 Systematic theology 151
Unorthodox Views, a chart 107 Tecme~sa '52~~~
visibility of 130, 180-184 Tertullian .
Resurrection: Historical/Super-historical, a chart 106 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 112, 115
Resurrection of the Flesh, The 62 Theophanies 38, 96, 99, 205-i~~
Resuscitation 41, 102, 123 theoreo .
Revivification of dead corpse (see also Resuscitation) 93-94 Thirty-nine Articles of Religion 61
Robertson, A. T. 42 Thomas Aquinas ···················· 58-~9
Robinson, John A. T. 78 Thompson, R. A f~r
Rufinus 54-55 Trans-historical 26, 72, 100,
Sadducees '" 208,209 Transformation of physical body to spiritual bo~y' at resu~rection 81, 188
Salvation and Christ's resurrection 32, 33, 34, 61, 167-168 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School xiu, xv, XVI, 103, 143, 144, 147, 148, 198
problem of
Same body xi, 25, 26, 27, 28,30,37,38,45,48,49-50,52,54,56
33
g~~~~~~i~:~ .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~6
57,58,61,62,63,66, 108, 144, 145, 146, 148, 168, 170, 186 Unorthodox and orthodox views of resurrection body, a chart 25
Same flesh ...............................•........................... 26, 55 Unorthodox view ······· 25, 85,97, 105, 145, 176, 177
Sarkos anastasis 64 similarities and differences among, a chart 107
Sarx 208 Updike, John 38
Satan 21, 27 Urang, Oali ..........•.................................................. xix
Saxon Visitation Articles
Schaff, Philip
60
201 ~~:1~~at::s;~bl:: of' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '3'6-~~
Schep, J. A 51,62, 123,200 Vision 114, 115, 116, 139
Schillebeeckx, Edward 87-89 Vision/Appearance, a chart 116
SchonfieId, Hugh J. . 78 Western church ...•................................................. 199,200
Scopes II trial 156-157 Western creeds 200
Second coming 45, 170, 192 Westminster Confession of Faith 62, 166-167, 195
Second Creed of Epiphanius xi, 55 Wheaton College xv
Second Law of Thermodynamics 69 Who Movedthe Stone? 7~
Seminary leaders and the hiring of professors 150-154 Wiersbe, Warren .....................................................•... Xll
She?~, William G. T 31, 195 Women went to the wrong tomb ·········· .. ····· .. ··· 74-75
Socinian .......................................................••...... 120 Woodbridge John ························· 160
Sophocles ......................................................•....... 182 Word of God 21,22,23,24,25,146,160,161
Southern Seminary 94 Yamauchi, Edwin ....................................•.................... 78
Soul 189-190,212
Space-time 63, 90, 92, 94, 101, 129, 164
Spinoza, Benedict , . 67, 152
Spirit 37, 125, 205
Sp!r!t-dominated body 40,41
SpIrItS 99
Spiritual , 21, 88, 110
denotes "supernatural" (pneumatikos) 108-110
spiritual body xi, xix, 81, 91, 95, 98, 101, 103, 104
105, 108-111, 127, 176-177, 186-188
spiritual drink ......•.....•...........•..........•••.....•....••.•..•. 110
spiritual food .........................•............................... 110
Spiritualizing (see also AIlegorization) 21,22,28, 80, 87, 142, 152, 192
Strauss, David ....................•......................•..•....•..•. 68, 77
Stroud, William ................................................•......... 76
Substance 186, 190, 194, 195
Super-historical aspects of the resurrection 26, 106, 191
Resurrection: Historical/Super-Historical, a chart ..................•........ 106
Supernatural body (see also under Spiritual) .....•............ 42, 64, 109, 119, 127
 About the Author

Dr. Geisler is Dean of The Southern Evangelical Semi-

nary, Charlotte, North Carolina. He has been a professor of
Bible, theology, and philosophy for thirty years at several ma-
jor Christian institutions, including Trinity Evangelical Di-
vinity School, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Liberty
University. In addition he has been a visiting lecturer at nu-
merous universities, colleges, and seminaries around the
world.
He has traveled on six continents and in twenty-two coun-
tries, lecturing, debating, and holding seminars on the Bible,
apologetics, ethics, creation, and contemporary religions.
Dr. Geisler and his wife, Barbara, are the parents of six
children and have six grandchildren. They live in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
In addition to his daily radio program, "Quest for Truth;'
which is heard throughout the United States, Dr. Geisler has
produced books, films, videos, and audio tapes on a variety of
topics available from:

QUEST MINISTRIES
RO. Box 430
Sandy, OR 97055
503-668-0877

256