10. Who Did Jesus Think He Was?
Heavenly Vision or Bodily
Appearance?
he nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not discussed within a minimalfacts argument. However, it is very important. It is common today for critics to claim that the original disciples believed that he rose in a nonbodily form
and that the story of his bodily resurrection, as found in the Gospels, was the
result of embellishments added as the event of Jesus' resurrection faded into
the past. The appearance of Jesus to Paul is of particular importance. While few
scholars would dispute that the Gospels clearly speak of Jesus' bodily resurrection, many critics claim that Paul contradicts them on this issue. Since Paul was
an eyewitness, and his writings are thought to be the earliest in the New Testament, his letters precede the Gospels. If Paul taught something other than a
bodily Resurrection, the Gospels may reflect a tradition that had developed over
time. These critics claim that the bodily resurrection of Jesus became part of
the story about Jesus as it was embellished.'
Some critics also hold that the original disciples' account of Jesus' resurrection was an example of ancient vision literature (i.e., the nonhistorical genre). Thus, when they spoke of Jesus having a glorified body in which he appeared, this resurrection body was not his physical body coming back to life.
We have addressed the issues of embellishment and nonhistorical genre in chapter 5.
Still some other scholars think that the early Christians were correct that Jesus really appeared to them, but his body was other than physical. Jesus was raised from the dead in some seldom-defined sense, but they favor a nonphysical notion that they believe they find in Paul's writings over the Gospels' bodily depiction. This is sometimes referred to as the objective vision view, in that these were real perceptions of Jesus.' This position is not a naturalistic theory, since it holds that Jesus was raised in some supernatural sense.
Keep in mind a major distinction: Even though this topic is employed frequently by critics, we need to note carefully that the chief question in this chapter is not whether Jesus was raised, but the form in which the New Testament writers claimed he appeared.
What do the writers of the New Testament say regarding the nature of Jesus' resurrection body? Did Paul view Jesus' resurrection differently than did the original disciples? Let's look first at what he claimed. Then we will compare his views to those presented throughout other New Testament writings. Finally, we will address some of the responses offered by critics on the subject.
Paul preached the bodily resurrection of Jesus
If Paul also believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection, then the Gospels certainly do not reflect later tradition on the matter.
Paul's use of the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 implies bodily resurrection. After mentioning the death of Jesus, the creed states, "and that he was buried and that he was raised." It is implied that what goes down in burial, comes up in resurrection. In verses 42-44 of this same chapter, Paul uses the metaphor of a seed four times to make the same point: "It is sown.... It is raised.... It is sown.... It is raised...." What goes down in burial comes up in resurrection.
Paul writes that when Christ returns, he "will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21 NN). It is our lowly and mortal body that will be "transformed," not eliminated. The apostle could easily have said we would be like Jesus' glorious spirit. But instead, he used the word body. Paul claims that the believers' future body will be like the body of the risen Jesus. So if Paul's view is that the future state of the believer involves a body, his view is also that Jesus has a body in his risen state. If our transformation from mortal to immortal is similar to his, a bodily resurrection for Jesus by default would seem to be Paul's view. We will see below that this is supported by Paul elsewhere.
Paul writes, "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will alsogive life toyourmortal bodies [our emphasis] through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11). This does not say much about the nature or appearance of a glorified body. It does indicate that Paul seems to have held that a transformation was made to Jesus' mortal body. It was not left in the tomb.'
In Colossians 2:9, Paul writes that in Christ, "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."4 We may notice that Paul here uses the present tense. For him, the very essence and nature of God not only belongs to Jesus; it presently dwells in his body.
Paul is reported in Acts as saying that Jesus' body did not decay in the grave as had the body of Israel's king David, but rather it was raised up by God (Acts 13:34-37). Moreover, this bodily resurrection was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy.' It is difficult to think of a more definite manner in which Paul could speak of the literal and bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The account of Paul's conversion in Acts is insufficient for concluding that Paul believed that Jesus did not rise bodily. In Acts, Luke describes the appearance to Paul differently than what the Gospel writers reported occurred with the disciples. For example, the Gospels report that the disciples touched Jesus,' but Paul saw Jesus in the sky as a blinding light.' However, there are at least four reasons why this distinction does not rule out a bodily resurrection.
First, other details in the account indicate that it was not merely an experience that occurred only in the mind of Paul. For example, Paul saw a bright light and heard Jesus' distinct words, while the bystanders fell to the ground in fear, saw the light, and heard a voice but did not understand the words." Since others were included in this event, Paul's appearance was no subjective experience such as a hallucination.' The critic cannot consider only details that may support his view while ignoring those that do not.
Second, if the critic brings up Paul's conversion experience in Acts in order to say that it is different than the disciples' experience, he must also take this in light of Paul's sermon in Acts 13. In it he clearly implies bodily resurrection.
Third, it should be noted that the disciples' experiences occurred prior to Jesus' ascension to the throne of God. Paul's experience occurred after this event. Whether the critic believes in the ascension is irrelevant. The account of the appearance of a post-ascension, glorified Jesus to Paul is sufficient to explain why Paul's experience was different than those of the disciples.
Fourth, Luke apparently did not think there was a problem between Paul's encounter with Christ and Christ's appearances to the disciples (Luke 24; Acts 1:1- 11), since he records both.
Finally, Acts was written after Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These Gospels portray a bodily resurrection of Jesus in the plainest of terms. Thus, if any evolution of the nature of the appearances is occurring, it's going in the opposite direction; bodily to vision. This observation is strengthened all the more when we consider that the earliest of those commenting on Jesus' resurrection, Paul, strongly hints at its bodily nature.
Peter preached the bodily resurrection of Jesus
According to Acts, Peter, like Paul, claimed that Jesus' body did not decay in the grave as did David's, but rather was raised up by God (Acts 2:25-32).
Peter also claimed that the risen Jesus ate and drank with his disciples. 10 Luke and John claimed the same thing (John 21; Acts 10:39-41).
The Gospels present the bodily resurrection of Jesus
The Gospel of Matthew viewed Jesus' resurrection appearances as physical. The women touched Jesus (Matt. 28:9). The Jewish leadership accused the disciples of stealing the body (v. 13). This accusation implies an empty tomb and, therefore, bodily resurrection.
The Gospel of Mark viewed Jesus' resurrection as bodily. The empty tomb implies a bodily resurrection (Mark 16:6). After saying Jesus had been raised, the angel draws attention to the "place" where Jesus body had been laid."
The Gospel of Luke viewed Jesus' resurrection as bodily. 'And as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them,'Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but he has risen.'" The "dead" were the corpses, since they were among tombs, and the women wanted to place spices on the corpse of Jesus. The angel contrasts Jesus as "the living one" and said, "He is not here" (Luke 24:5-6). This states an empty tomb and strongly implies bodily resurrection.
Luke reports that Jesus' resurrection body had flesh and bones, could be touched, and could eat (Luke 24:36-43).12
The Gospel of John viewed Jesus' resurrection as bodily, including Jesus' prediction that he would rise bodily: 'The Jews then said to him,'What sign do you show us as your authority for doing these things?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews then said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of his body" (John 2:18-22).
John reports that Mary Magdalene, Peter, and John noticed the empty tomb (John 20:1-15). Thomas's experience is described plainly as a physical appearance of Jesus as he invites Thomas to touch him (vv. 24-28). The risen Jesus speaks to his disciples, eats with his disciples, and converses with them in a walk along the beach (21:19-30).13
The bodily resurrection of Jesus was proclaimed at the earliest stages of Christianity (i.e., Paul and the Acts sermon summaries) and is multiply attested. Moreover, no first-century Christian writer presents a contrary view.
"But what about texts used to deny a bodily resurrection?"
Critical scholars rarely question the physical nature of the Resurrection appearances as they are described in the Gospels. However, some have suggested that a few biblical passages describe the appearances of the risen Jesus as visions or subjective experiences. Let's look at a few of these passages.
'John 21:12 hints that the disciples didn't recognize Jesus."
John reports that when the risen Jesus prepared breakfast for his disciples on the beach, "None of the disciples ventured to question Him, 'Who are you?' knowing that it was the Lord" (John 21:12). This can be interpreted as an odd statement concerning those who had lived with Jesus for three years. Why would they think of asking him who he was?
Although John testifies that Jesus' body was raised from the dead and had scars from his crucifixion, there is reason to believe that there were some differences in the way Jesus looked, since he also claims that Jesus' body was now immortal. These differences may explain a degree of uncertainty, yet his disciples knew it was him. But we must also remember that John relays this appearance in light of clearly speaking of a bodily resurrection just one chapter earlier, when reporting the empty tomb and Jesus' invitation to Thomas to touch his resurrection body (20:27-28).14
"Matthew 28:16-17 indicates that there were doubts. n
Jesus' disciples went to Galilee to meet him. Matthew writes, "When they saw him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful." If they saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes, why would some of the disciples doubt? There are a few issues for consideration: (1) What is the meaning of the Greek word translated "doubt"? (2) Who were the "some" who doubted? (3) Why did they doubt?
New Testament scholars differ on the answers and there seems to be no majority position. Regarding the meaning of the word translated "doubt," several scholars comment that the word distazo may more accurately be translated in this instance as "hesitate." In its only other occurrence in the New Testament, also in Matthew, it is used to describe Peter as he began to hesitate or doubt in his belief while walking on water toward Jesus (14:31).15 The fact that Peter was out walking on water shows that Peter was not in total disbelief. Faith was mixed with doubt."
Regarding the identity of the "some" who doubted, there is no agreement. Some scholars hold that different groups of people also were present on this occasion. Perhaps the group surrounding Jesus and the Eleven included other followers of Jesus. Paul would testify that Jesus on one occasion had appeared to more than 500."Others hold that those who doubted must have been some of the eleven remaining disciples) If the former is correct, we must remember that this appearance was reported to have taken place in Galilee, where most people had only heard that Jesus had been crucified and may have doubted whether he really had. If the latter is correct, then it may be that a few of the Eleven had mixed thoughts that led to hesitation on their part. They could have had the same thoughts that many of us would have if some loved one died and then suddenly appeared before us.
This leads us to the third issue: Why did they hesitate? While we may not have enough information to be clear on this matter, it could have been for any of a number of reasons. For example, based on other accounts, Jesus' postresurrection body could have been different enough that he was difficult to recognize at first.'`' Could they, like Peter when walking on water, have experienced two simultaneous thoughts: "Jesus is risen! But how is this possible? Is this really happening or am I experiencing a dream, vision, or hallucination?"20
We can see that several plausible explanations exist for this verse without having to resort to requiring that the disciples experienced visions, which does not appear to be plausible. Just a few verses earlier, Matthew 28:5 - 10 certainly presents a bodily resurrection. Jesus is not where he was laid, he rose from the dead (lit. "dead ones"), and the women touched him.
"Galatians 1:16 seems to say Paul's experience was not physical."
Paul writes that God was pleased "to reveal His Son in me." Some interpret Paul as saying here that Jesus' resurrection appearance to him was something that was an inward experience rather than how it is described in Acts. This is not the most plausible interpretation, since Paul elsewhere strongly hints at bodily resurrection, and Acts 13:30-37 portrays Paul with a strong belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection. The majority view seems to be that Paul is here referring to how he learned about Jesus and grew spiritually during the three years after his Damascus road experience. This interpretation also is much more at home with Paul's strong teaching of a bodily resurrection.
"First Peter 3:18 says Jesus'spirit was made alive, not his body."
Peter writes that Jesus died for our sins, "having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." Some hold that Peter is saying that Jesus' spirit was made alive, not his body. One of the things that may be pointed out here is that these same critics usually deny that Peter wrote this letter and assign its composition toward the final quarter of the first century. If this is true, we have a letter that by critical dating is written contemporary with or after the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which certainly claim Jesus' bodily resurrection. Therefore, it would be difficult to claim theological evolution in I Peter, since the purported theological evolution would be going in the opposite direction; from bodily resurrection to spiritual.
"Mark 16:7 could say that Jesus" spirit will meet the disciples."
Virtually every English translation of this verse portrays an angel instructing the women to tell Jesus' disciples, "He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you." Some critics make the point that the Greek word Mark uses for "going ahead" (proago) can also be translated "leading." They interpret Mark as saying that Jesus' spirit will lead them to go to Galilee where they will see a vision of Jesus.
However, this view is plagued by problems. First, even if proago is to be trans lated in this manner, it does not follow that the disciples will experience Jesus in a vision rather than bodily upon reaching Galilee. Second, in the preceding verse, the same angel tells the women that the Jesus who was crucified is not there in the tomb. Rather he has been raised, and the women are invited to see the place where his body used to be. Thus, it is very poor exegesis to have the angel clearly speak of bodily resurrection in verse 6 and then in verse 7 use an alternate definition of a word to claim that the future appearance would be a vision. Third, "leading" is only a possible translation of the word. "Going ahead" is more common. That is how the majority of translators render it.
One further point should be mentioned in reference to the passages discussed thus far: Difficult passages should be interpreted in light of clear ones.21 If Matthew is clear that Jesus rose bodily in one passage and then a few verses later he writes in a manner that is unclear and that invites a number of interpretations, the interpretation most compatible with his clear passage is to be preferred. The same may be said of Paul. If he has hinted strongly for the bodily resurrection of Jesus in a number of passages and then a couple of unclear passages are open to differing interpretations, including one that paints the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to Paul as a vision, we should adopt the interpretation that is more closely aligned to his clearly stated views.
"First Corinthians 15:37-50 contrasts the natural physical body with the spiritual."
Skeptics frequently appeal to I Corinthians 15:37-50 to challenge the bodily nature of Jesus' resurrection. Throughout I Corinthians, Paul is answering questions raised in a letter by the church at Corinth. After discussing the resurrection of Jesus, he makes a transition to questions concerning whether there is a physical resurrection of believers from the dead on the final day and the nature of the immortal body. Since comparisons are made between the risen Christ and the future state of believers in 1 Corinthians 15,22 it would seem that if the nature of our future resurrection body is immaterial and not physical, then so was Jesus' resurrection body. On the other hand, if the nature of our future resurrection body is material and physical, then so was Jesus' resurrection body. The critic claims that Paul is here promoting an immaterial body.
Paul begins his answer by using the analogy of a seed. "When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed" (1 Cor. 15:37a NIV). "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead" (v. 42a NIV). "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (v. 44). "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (v. 50).
Is Paul here saying that Jesus' resurrection body was not a physical body? A "spiritual body" could refer to a ghost-like or nonphysical body? Notice that at first look he also seems to contradict Luke blatantly by writing that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Jesus makes a point in Luke 24:39 that, unlike a spirit, his body has "flesh and bones" (cf. vv. 36-43). Is Paul's view of the resurrection body different than what is taught in the Gospels? Several reasons militate against this conclusion.
For one thing, we have already shown that Paul strongly implies Jesus' bodily resurrection elsewhere (see pp. 155-57). Second, in I Corinthians 15, Paul clearly is not contrasting a material body with an immaterial one. Rather, he's contrasting a body that is holy with its spiritual appetites, with one that is weak with both its fleshly and sinful appetites.
Let's consider two words of interest that Paul employs in this passage, psychikos73 and pneumatikos.24 Speaking of our body, Paul writes, "it is sown a natural [psychikos] body, it is raised a spiritual [pneumatikos] body" (1 Cor. 15:44). What does Paul mean by these terms? In answer, let's first look earlier in his same letter. In 2:14-15, Paul writes, "But a natural [psychikos] man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual [pneumatikos] appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one." Here Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual man, i.e., the unsaved man who is lead by his soulish or fleshly nature and the Christian who is led by the Holy Spirit.25 Now these are the same two words Paul employs in 15:44 when, using a seed analogy, he contrasts the natural (psychikos) and spiritual (pneumatikos) body. In other words, Paul answers the question of the Corinthians concerning the nature of our future body by saying that our body is sown with its fleshly and sinful appetites and raised holy with spiritual appetites.
Paul elsewhere speaks of our future bodies as being connected to the one we now possess. Later in 1 Corinthians 15 he says that our current bodies will be "changed" (v. 52).26 He also states this clearly in Philippians 3:21a that Christ "will transform the body of our humble state." In Romans 8:11 b, the Holy Spirit "will also give life to your mortal bodies."27 Thus, at least three other verses in Paul's writings teach that our "mortal" and "humble" bodies will be "changed," "transformed," and "raised." This affirms that Paul is not speaking of a disembodied future existence of believers in his use of the term "spiritual body" in I Corinthians 15. Thus, it is poor exegesis to interpret Paul as saying that Jesus rose spiritually, implying an immaterial body.
If Paul meant to contrast a physical body with an immaterial one, he had a better Greek word available to him, one he had used earlier in a similar contrast, even using a seed analogy (1 Cor. 9:3-10; cf. Rom. 15:27). In 9:11 Paul writes, "If we sowed spiritual [pneumatikos] things in you, is it too much if we reap material [sarkikos] things from you?" Sarkikos means fleshly, material, physical .211 It comes from its root, sarx, meaning "flesh." Paul had started the topic of sowing and reaping in the verses that precede 9:11. He then asks rhetorically if it is inappropriate to reap fleshly, material, physical things like food, clothing, and lodging for the spiritual blessings the apostles had sown in the Corinthian church.
Summary
In 1 Corinthians 15, there are no good reasons at all for holding that Paul is making a contrast between the material and immaterial. Paul strongly implies bodily resurrection elsewhere. The terms he employs were used in an earlier contrast in the letter and mean a body that is weak with both its fleshly and sinful appetites and one that is holy and with spiritual appetites. Moreover, if it was Paul's intention to contrast a material and immaterial body, the term sarkikos, which he employed just a few chapters earlier, would have gotten the point across. Finally, Paul says our current body will be changed.
But what about Paul's statement that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God?" Every language has its figures of speech. For example, in the U.S. when we refer to a "red-blooded male," we aren't contrasting him with someone who has green blood. The phrase "flesh and blood" is found five times in the New Testament and twice in the Old Testament Apocrypha.-" It was "a common Jewish expression referring to man as a mortal be ing" 3" and each occurrence of the seven references reflects this. Therefore, the term, "flesh and blood," should not be understood as referring to a physical body but rather to our bodies in their current "mortal" form. Thus, Paul's statement does not contradict Luke's. Our future bodies will be physical in nature, yet immortal.
Accordingly, we have seen that, rather than challenge bodily resurrection, Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 15 point to a physical, material (yet immortal) body of the risen Jesus. The atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Liidemann writes, "Let me hasten to add that I do not question the physical nature of Jesus' appearance from heaven. . . . In the rest of chapter 15 Paul develops his idea of a bodily resurrection, which according to the apostle can be deduced directly from the proclamation in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5."31 In addition, the highly critical New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, 'For Paul ... bodily resurrection is the only way that Jesus' continued presence can be expressed."3z
The Risen Jesus: Casper or Corporeal?
Many critics appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 in order to support their view that Paul, the earliest author we know to have written about Jesus' resurrection, says that he was raised as a spirit rather than with a physical body. To support this view, these scholars appeal to Paul's contrast of a resurrection body with our current mortal one by using the terms spiritual and natural. Some translations, like the New Revised Standard Version, use spiritual and physical. If this is correct, Paul is saying that the earthly body is material while the resurrection body is spiritual or immaterial.
A more careful look at the two Greek words Paul uses reveals that this interpretation is incorrect. Outside of this passage in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the word translated "spiritual" (pneumatikos) in the sense of the spiritually mature in this world (2:15; 3:1; 14:37; cf. Galatians 6:1), or of something that has to do with, or has as its origin, the Holy Spirit (2:13-14; 9:11; 10:3-4; 12:1; 14:1). With the possible exception of Ephesians 6:12, the term is never used in the Pauline letters either to refer to or describe a being as immaterial.
But what about the term often translated "natural"and "material" (psychikos)? Paul uses the term a total of four times in his writings, all in 1 Corinthians (2:14; 15:44 [2x]; 15:46). Granted, four times is not a large sampling. When we observe how other New Testament writers as well as intertestamental writings employ the word, we observe that neither Paul nor any other New Testament author nor the writers of intertestamental books ever use psychikos to refer to or describe something as being material.
Accordingly, any attempts to use this passage to support an immaterial resurrection body are mistaken. Paul is also clear in other texts that Jesus was raised bodily.