The Resurrection of Christ: Is it or Is it Not Real?
Research by Kerry A. Shirts
Director of Research
FAIR
Norman Geisler may very well have written the article of his life on Christ's Resurrection and the doctrinal significance of it.[1] Here is one of the finest analyses of the physical resurrection in print from an Evangelical Christian viewpoint, and I suspect, after a Mormon gets hold of it and points out just what it means Evangelicals will cringe. It's finally nice to see just what the Bible is saying about God in Christ and why we Mormons have felt more than comfortable with the notion first taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith that the only God in heaven is the physically embodied God as opposed to an incorporeal spirit.
The fundamental point we all know, or ought to know, as Christians all, is that without Christ's bodily resurrection there is no salvation (Romans 10:9-10). And as Geisler also points out, "the physical resurrection of Christ's body is just as much a part of the gospel as his death (a Cor. 15:1-5)."[2] With that let us proceed.
Even back in Joseph Smith's day (1844), some Bible scholars in Germany at least, were recognizing that the Biblical testimony of Jesus, via witnesses of Him, was simply "he is a glorified body."[3] More to the point, E. Robinson noted that "we have the strongest evidence... that our Lord, so long as he was on earth, was in his human body; and the evidence is equally strong that he now dwells in heaven in a glorified body."[4] Norman Geisler notes "Historically the bodily resurrection has been taken to mean a literal physical body."[5] Yet Christians have fussed over Joseph Smith saying the God of Heaven is an embodied God! Why? Because as the most recent philosophical Christian view notes, "if God is creator and sustainer of everything else that exists as well as being omnipotent, immutable, and omnipresent, it is difficult to see how such a being could be physical by nature."[6]
So what of Christ then? Geisler, who also contributed to the book The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, notes "while His resurrection body is more than mortal, it is not less than physical."[7] So do Christians argue that Christ is very God? Have they any other choice and remain Christians? Then why do they hold to philosophical views that contradict their own Christ? Christ is physical, as the resurrected God. Ron Rhodes even argues that "it is important to understand that at the incarnation the Person of Christ became forever after wedded to a human nature. He did not discard His humanity or any part of it at His death, resurrection, or ascension (see 1 Timothy 2:5)."[8] So why does Francis J. Beckwith claim "God is also incorporeal (bodiless). Unlike humans, God is not uniquely associated with one physical entity like a body."?[9] Are Christians so confused on such a major point of their own doctrine? Apparently so.
What I find to be utterly fascinating is that the desert monks in the fifth-century were so incensed at Theophilus of Alexandria's Festal Letter of 399 that championed God's incorporeality, that they rioted and even threatened to kill Theophilus "for expressing such a misguided view." What is more astonishing is that Theophilus then wrote all the desert monks and told them to continue believing "a literal reading of Scripture, that God had bodily parts."[10] That is, there were Christians who definitely opposed the inclusion of philosophy into their theology, mainly the philosophy that today's Christians have come to accept, namely the "misguided view" that God is incorporeal. In light of this, the Chalcedon Dogma on Christological measures, inevitably ended up adapting pagan philosophy in attempting to understand Christ, rather than turn to the scriptures.[11]
Yet Norman Geisler has clearly declares that the word "spiritual" does not mean an immaterial (incorporeal) body at 1 Corinthians 15:44, it rather means "a body that is immortal, not immaterial. A 'spiritual' body is one dominated by the spirit, not one devoid of matter."[12 So we see that some Christians argue for immaterial (incorporeal), and others say corporeal, i.e., material body. The interesting thing is that Christ answers the Christians plainly as Geisler has noted, though most Christians are ignoring both Geisler and the Bible not to mention Mormonism on this.
Ron Rhodes has noted that Christ is omnipresent, omniscient, and immutable.[13] Yet we saw above the Beckwith directly contradicts this. Christians appear confused and not sure of what they should believe. When they adapt philosophy in place of the scriptures as Beckwith has, then they end up contradicting each other. When they accept the scriptures as Geisler appears to do, then Christians teach Mormon doctrine, sometimes without realizing it! One of the main problems with Christianity's doctrine of God is that it is based on the Greek philosophical model. That is not the Bible however. Nancy Frankenberry just recently noted that "Classical theism may be traced in the West primarily to the influence of the Greek conception of the nature of perfection, leading to an exaltation of the completely changeless and necessary, and to the postulation of an absolute creator as the unconditioned cause and purpose of the world...later the Christian Church [early after Christ] under the influence of its partiality for the static categories of Greek metaphysics and the imperial qualities of rulership, 'gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar.'"[14]
This is clearly demonstrated by Gedaliahu Stroumsa, who notes that the early Christian Church Father Tertullian wrote caro salutis cardo, "the flesh is the axis of salvation."[15] Plato, the pagan Greek philosopher was the one who taught for the care of the soul, to the exclusion of the body.[16] "The philosopher was an intellect embarrassed by or even ashamed of his body," while the Jewish and early Christian doctrine of man being created in God's image was "a formidable stumbling block for pagan philosophical thought."[17] Yet early Christians believed that "the perfect man is thus the mixing and the union (sugkrasis kai henosis) of soul and flesh." Since Christ was resurrected, it followed, in early Christian thought, that "divine justice itself demands the integral resurrection of man."[18] This literal resurrection of all men in the flesh was continued to be believed all the way through the Middle Ages in some areas of Christendom, though after Greek philosophy overtook Christ's Church, it has tended to be allegorized or spiritualized into an immaterial something or other.[19] Yet we read today that the form of God, is clearly personal and of a human form, with limbs, and a body, following the ancient coneptions held in the Bible and by early Jews and early Christians.[20] "If God has a body, then obviously the creation of man in God's image refers to man's physical form. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this is the most obvious understanding. There is absolutely no objection in all of rabbinic literature to such an interpretation."[21]
And with that we come back to Geisler's ideas. In line with God's body, the resurrected body is described as "supernatural." Geisler points out that this in no wise means an incorporeal body, but a resurrected physical body.[22] God being invisible, is not meant as essentially invisible by nature nor that God is immaterial, but that Christ was sovereign over His own activities. He is invisible because he chooses not to show himself, not because he is by nature as God invisible, for clearly He is not so.[23] The continuity of Jesus' body from his life on earth, his walking through Jerusalem, healing, walking on water, etc., to that of his resurrection, involved his very same earth body as Geisler so clearly demonstrates from the Bible.[24] Geisler contends "Only when one's thinking is influenced by a Platonic, Gnostic, or existential philosophy does he speak of an 'immaterial body.'"[25] And here is where Mormonism stands and says a hearty AMEN! The point? Mormons are accused of having the wrong God, the non-Biblical God. Yet on examination from serious Christian scholars who do not bother getting involved with pagan philosophy, but only take their doctrine from the Bible, we see that the Mormon doctrine of the corporeal God is the only God in the Bible.
Norbert Samuelson logically demonstrated and proved that the philosophers God (Beckwith's above) is clearly not the God of the Bible. The philosopher's God as immutable, unchangeable, not in space or time, is not the God of the Bible. The statement that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "was together with Moses at Mont Sinai could be true or false..." but to say that the philosopher's God was together with Moses at Mount Sinai is neither true nor false. That the philosopher's God was together with Moses at Mount Sinai is unintelligible. Therefore the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, cannot be identical with the philosophers God.[26] Samuelson noted that by their very definition of what they can and cannot do, the God of the philosophers is not the Bible God. The God in the Old Testament was clearly Jehovah, who later was birthed as Jesus Christ, as the Bible and Mormonism clearly state.[27]
Scholarship is also conclusive in demonstrating that it is God who resurrects the Messiah as well as resurrects the dead.[28] In Luke's Gospel, his descriptions of the resurrected God, walking among men, talking, eating, etc., is "meant to be descriptions of a physical presence experienced in ordinary consciousness. Luke understands the first sightings of Jesus as actual, physical manifestations."[29] Scholars have noted as well that Paul's experiences of seeing Jesus appear more in the visionary realms, rather as prophetic visions, than physical appearances, though it certainly was a resurrected, living Christ which appeared to Paul as well.[30] With both these modes of appearance of Christ, the trend of faith in Christ as the Messiah spread in early Christianity. Not just Christ as living again, but also exalted on the right hand of God, as Messiah and Lord.[31]
Exactly as the ho logos sarx egeneto ("and the word became flesh") which was a becoming visible "in its most extreme consequence,"[32] occurred at the beginning of Christ's life, whom John identifies as the Logos, so also in His resurrected glorious eternal physical body, Christ again is "becoming visible," since his eternal Godly nature, is obviously humanity welded with eternal Godhood. As Hengel has noted, "concepts such as 'reflection of His glory" (apaugasma tes doxes) and 'very stamp of his nature,' (charakter tes hypostaseos) interpret the mediating work of the Preexistent One, who gives divine light and truth being to the creatures threatened by Chaos...this mediation becomes really concrete in the atoning death of Jesus: 'He has made the purification for sins' and thereby spanned the gulf that separates God and his creatures.[33] A timeless, boundless, immutable, unknowable and incorporeal God never did anything near this.
Christians have adapted the philosophers God however, so it is they, not we Mormons who have the wrong God. Geisler's wonderful article is a step in the right direction to correcting the problem, if the Christians will only pay heed. We Mormons are delighted at the abundance of good Bible materials Geisler has brought to bear on just who and what Jesus as God is. He is God, the God in heaven with a divine, supernatural, eternal glorified body, as we shall also have thanks to his loving and wonderful resurrection.
Endnotes
1. Norman Geisler, "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection," in Bibliotheca Sacra, 146(April-June 1989): 148-170.
2. Geisler, "Significance," 148. Cf. Charles H. Talbert, "The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke," in Interpretation, 46(1992): 19-30.
3. Gottfried Kinkel, "Historical and Critical Inquiry Respecting the Ascension of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra, 1(1844): 153.
4. E. Robinson, "The Nature of the Lord's Resurrection-body," Bibliotheca Sacra, 2(May 1945): 304.
5. Geisler, "Significance," 149. He notes the Second Creed of Epiphanius (A.D. 374) confessed Jesus rose from the dead and went into heaven in the same body, sat down gloriously at the right hand of the Father. (p. 149).
6. Francis J. Beckwith, "God," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, Harvest House Publishers, (1988): 82.
7. Geisler, "Significance," 150.
8. Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, 111.
9. Francis J. Beckwith, "God," 52. Cf. Gordon K. Kaufman, "The Imago Dei as Mans Historicity," in The Journal of Religion, 35-36(1955-56): 162-163, "Certainly, the Old Testament God was a being very much involved in history and a being who had a history. He sets himself purposes, changes his mind in response to events, enters into binding covenants, etc. To exclude these characteristics as the crude anthropomorphisms of primitive minds is to lose sight of the whole historical orientation of the Old Testament and to misunderstand the God of the Bible."
10. Elizabeth A. Clark, "New Perspectives on the Origenist Controversy: Human Embodiment and Ascetic Strategies," in Church History, 59/2(1990): 147. She notes that the monks believed that when the Bible taught man was made in God's image (Gen. 1:26,27), they say that showed God had human shape and characteristics. (p. 148). Cf. Ithamar Gruenwald, "God the 'Stone/Rock': Myth, Idolatry, and CUltic Fetishism in Ancient Israel," in The Journal of Religion, 76/3(July 1996): 439, where he notes the Mekilta implies that "God's image can take a physical shape, and even leave a physical - humanlike - imprint in or on a rock." He further notes that in ancient Israel "God was either seen or envisioned in some aspect of corporeality or physicality."
11. Herbert J. A. Bouman, "The Significance of the Dogma Concerning Christ as Defined by the Council of Chalcedon," in Concordia Theological Monthly, 40/2(1969): 81-91.
12 Geisler, "Significance," 152.
13 Rhodes, "Christ," 103-105.
14. Nancy Frankenberry, "Classical Theism, Panentheism, and Panthiesm: On the Relation between God Construction and Gender Construction," in Zygon, 28/1(1993): 30-31. Cf. Charlotte Allen, "The Search for a No-Frills Jesus," in Atlantic Monthly, (December, 1996): 51-68, where today's scholars are simply dismissing anything essentially divine about Jesus instead of adapting a philosophical stance.
15. Gedaliahu Stroumsa, "Shaping the Person in Early Christian Thought," in History of Religions, 30/1(1990): 34. Tertullian even believed that the soul itself was corporeal! (p. 44). Cf. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," in Harvard Theological Review, 83/2(1990): 105-116. See response by Kim Paffenroth, "Notes and Observations Paulsen on Augustine: An Incorporeal or Nonanthropomorphic God?" in Harvard Theological Review, 86/2(1993): 233-235, and Paulsen's further reply, pp. 236-239. Also David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," in BYU Studies, 35/4(1995-1996): 7-94. See the interesting article of M. J. Edwards, "Origen No Gnostic: Or, on the Corporeality of Man," Journal of Theological Studies, (1992): 23-37.
16. Stroumsa, "Shaping the Person," 33. Platonic thought claimed that matter was directly related to evil, and deeply repulsive. They could never understand why or how God would enter a body which was corruptible. (p. 38).
17. Stroumsa, "Shaping the Person," 37. Cf. Joseph C. McClelland, "The Alexandrian Quest of the Non-Historical Christ," in Church History, 37(1968): 355-364. Also, Arthur J. Droge, "Justin Martyr and the Restoration of Philosophy," in Church History, 56(1987): 303-319, for general treatment of Christians adapting Greek philosophy. See also Ed L. Miller, "The Logos of Heraclitus:Updating the Report," in Harvard Theological Review, 74/2(1981): 161-176. See also R. M. Price, "Hellenization and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr," in Vigiliae Christianae, 42(1988): 18-23.
18. Stroumsa, "Shaping the Person," 42, 43. Cf. Calvin J. Roetzel, "As Dying, and Behold We Live: Death and Resurrection in Paul's Theology," in Interpretation, 46(1992): 5-18.
19. Caroline Walker Bynum, "Material Continuity, Personal Survival, and the Resurrection of the Body: A Scholastic Discussion in its Medieval and Modern Contexts," in History of Religions, 30/1(1990): 51-85.
20. Markus Bockmuehl, "The Form of God (Phil. 2:6) Variations on a Theme of Jewish Mysticism," in Journal of Theological Studies, 48/1(April 1997): 1-23.
21. Alon Goshen Gottstein, "The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature," in Harvard Theological Review, 87/2(1994): 173. Cf. Jacob Neusner, "Conversation in Nauvoo about the Corporeality of God," in BYU Studies, 36/1(1996-1997): 7-30. For a fascinating contrast, see D. T. Runia's article, "God and Man in Philo of Alexandria," in Journal of Theological Studies, 39/1(April 1988): 48-75, demonstrating the conundrum one gets into when mixing philosophy with scripture on the ideas of God as incorporeal and separate from man.
22. Geisler, "Significance," 153-154.
23. Geisler, "Significance," 159-160. Cf. E. LaB. Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism," in Harvard Theological Review, 40/1(January, 1962): 199-200.
24. Geisler, "Significance," 162-165.
25. Geisler, "Significance," 167.
26. Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is Not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Harvard Theological Review, 65/1(1972): 14-15.
27. Ed Watson, Mormonism: The Faith of the Twenty First Century, Liahona Publications, Vol. 1, 1998: 291-351.
28. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Fortress Press, (1992): xvi. N. A. Dahl, "Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus," in Charlesworth, The Messiah, 398.
29. A. F. Segal, "Conversion and Messianism," in Charlesworth, The Messiah, 336.
30. D. E. Aune, "Christian Prophecy and the Messianic Status of Jesus," in Charlesworth, The Messiah, 416.
31. D. E. Aune, "Christian Prophecy," 422.
32. M. Hengel, "Christological Titles in Early Christianity," in Charlesworth, The Messiah, 434.
33. M. Hengel, "Christological Titles," 436.