Let's Get Physical--Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body

Tekton Apologetic Ministries ^ | n.d. | J.P. Holding

[EthanNorth]

Let's Get Physical

---

Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body James Patrick Holding

---

I have noted that at the core of many skeptical or other arguments on the resurrection of Jesus Christ lies a base assumption that the epistalory NT records could (or must) be interpreted as saying that the resurrected Jesus was not a being with a physical body (as the Gospels make clear), but rather was some sort of ghostly or spiritual being that was not tangible. From this skeptics may run with another ball -- the visions of Jesus were mass hallucinations, or some such like that. The Secular Web's Mr. Friendly Ice-Cream Man, Robert Price, puts it this way in a response to William Lane Craig:

Many New Testament scholars have observed that the conception of the resurrection body implied in 1 Corinthians 15 clashes so violently with that presupposed in the gospels that the latter must be dismissed as secondary embellishments, especially as 1 Corinthians predates the gospels. Craig takes exception. The whole trend of his argument seems to me to belie the point he is ostensibly trying to make, namely that any differences between the two traditions do not imply that 1 Corinthians allows only sightings, subjective visions, while the gospels depict more fulsome encounters replete with dialogue, gestures, touching, and eating. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 rules out such scenes, he says. But surely the very urgency of the matter shows that Craig would feel himself at a great loss if he had to cut loose all those juicy gospel resurrection stories to be left with the skimpy list of terse notes in 1 Corinthians 15. By itself, 1 Corinthians 15 just wouldn't mean much. He wants the appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 to be read as if they had in parentheses after them "See Luke 24; Matthew 28; John 21."

Now even if indeed the rez body (as we shall say) was not physical, this does not automatically disqualify the authenticity and revelatory authority of the appearances; it merely gives some critics another level of excuses to appeal to. But we need not make that point. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the rez body of Jesus clearly was physical, and that this is shown in two ways:

1. The Jewish contextual literature of the period that describes the nature of resurrection.
2. The NT epistles themselves, which many skeptical and other critics fail to understand properly.

---

Our survey of background Jewish literature is taken from Pheme Perkins' work Resurrection. Although not all Jews held uniform ideas about resurrection, it will become clear from this survey that the concept always involved a physical reconstitution of the deceased body. There is no room or place for the idea of a "spiritual resurrection", which is an unknown concept in this context, an oxymoron like "square circle" or "concrete rubber".

We may begin our survey with relevant material from the OT:

Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.

These three passages, especially Ezekiel, are programmatic for the concept of resurrection. Now here are cites from Judaism at the time of Jesus:

4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.

1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.

Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.

2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.

Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.

---

Let's now work with the NT evidence, starting with the positive arguments for a physical rez body:

1. Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical in intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the "whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested). Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.

• Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body.

Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]

• The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.

This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.

Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.

• 2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view.

"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?

• Phil. 3:21

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.

• A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one makes no sense in the social context.

In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:

Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.

This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73] There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)

Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.

---

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments? Robert Price claims above that the Gospel pictures of the rez Jesus clash "violently" with those in the epistles -- mainly, Paul's material in 1 Cor. 15. Is this truly the case? Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the whole lot:

1. "Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

   This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)

   Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

   The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

   This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

   Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

   Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

   ...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

   We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].

2. "Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

   This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:

   God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.

   And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:

   The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.

   Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138]

3. "Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'." Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...

Here our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3. The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!

• "Peter doesn't believe in a physical resurrection. He says that Jesus was 'put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit' (1 Peter 3:18). He also doesn't mention the empty tomb where he should (5:1)." We have dealt with the first cite with reference to the Mormons: the phrase here is by the Spirit, meaning the mode whereby Jesus was raised. The verb "quickened" is used elsewhere to describe physical resurrection (John 5:21, 1 Cor. 15). As for 5:1, I challenge critics to make a case that this was a place where anything like the empty tomb should be mentioned: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed..."

• "Why not preach a bodily resurrection? It is a more concrete and wonderful proof of victory over death." How so? The body is not present, so "concreteness" is out the window. The empty tomb is explained no more easily. It is not "wonderful" unless you agree that the body is worth saving, which the pagans did not believe. It only makes the job harder to do.

• "There were other instances of the doctrine being messed with; what about 1 Corinthians? Maybe the switch was one of these mess-ups." Such an objection merely begs the question, and arguing for "guilt by association" because of other mess-ups is not valid. Moreover, as noted, the Corinthian controversy was one that denied a physical resurrection! The only other mess-up supposed that the resurrection of believers had already taken place -- an issue of timing, not nature. Further speculation that the "spiritual rez" idea was lost or suppressed are no more than begged questions as well.

• "Other Jewish sects did not believe in a physical resurrection. Why not Christianity also?" Be careful when this is offered; it is a trick question! Saying "physical resurrection" is like saying "round circle." Many writers (including some scholars, but mostly uninformed skeptics) speak of "spiritual" resurrection but they use the term improperly. To use a prime example, according to Josephus, the Essenes had a doctrine that "righteous souls go to a place of blessedness." It should be first noted (as by N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 326f) that it is possible that Josephus' description here is somewhat affected by his attempt to depict the various divisions of Judaism as Hellenistic philosophical schools. Read improperly, his description of the Pharisee belief suggests that they believed in reincarnation! The best authority for Essene belief is Essene documents, and on the matter of resurrection, they are silent, though Wright, following Vermes, believes that at least some Essenes embraced physical resurrection.

  That said, what if Josephus is indeed accurate? Then we do not have, by definition, "resurrection" -- we have apotheosis. Or actually, maybe we only have pre-resurrection stirrings. There are other passages like these which some speak of as counter to resurrection, but in these cases what we likely have (as in Wisdom of Solomon 3:1, 5:16, 6:17-20, and Josephus on the Essenes) is a description of life for those between death and resurrection, with no actually negative indications against resurrection. In any event it is unwise to proceed without caution and assert that we have evidence that Christianity could have preached a "spiritual resurrection." It is especially dangerous to use cites uncritically, for as Wright also notes, in describing the intermediate state, Jewish writers sometimes borrowed Hellenistic language "which in its own context denotes a permanent disembodied state; but they still make it clear that bodily resurrection is the end they have in sight."

  Finally, it is illict to use Eccl. 12:7 as a point against phsyical resurrection in light of that book's genre (see also here).

  ---

  Conclusion -- There is no way to escape the fact that the contextual background of the NT, and the NT itself, clearly teaches a Jesus whose body was physically resurrected into tangible form. Proponents of a "spiritual" resurrection are either misinformed or else are trying to "escape from the scandal of a physical resurrection." [Gundry, 163]

  ---

  Addendum: "Firstfruits" of the Resurrection: In light of the above it has been shown tha certain skeptical contentions about Christ's order as the first resurrected are also wrong. The raising of Jairus' daughter, and of Samuel as a ghost, do not fit in this paradigm.

  THe one set of people who do fit in the paradigm are Matthew's resurrected saints. At this point some skeptics may bring in two verses:

  Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

  Wouldn't Matt's saints be "first"? In chronology, yes, but that is not the sense here. In Acts the word used for "first" is protos, and it can mean first in order, but it also can mean first in importance. For example, Matthew 10:2 reads, "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother...." This is clearly a ranking of importance recognizing Peter as the "chief" of the apostles in rank. If it were a numerical listing, we would read, "...second, Andrew..."

  1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

  This verse is not relevant to chronology, either. The word "firstfruits" is aparche, which alludes to the Jewish firstfruits sacrifice. Matthew's saints were not sacrifices at all as Jesus was.

  ---

  Sources

  • Crai.ANTE -- Craig, William Lane. Analyzing the New Testament Evidence for the Resurrection
  • Craig.BR - Craig, William Lane. "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, " Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
  • Dahl.RoB - Dahl, M. E. The Resurrection of the Body. Napierville: Alec R. Allenson, 1962.
  • Harr.RI -- Harris, Murray. Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983.
  • Jans.RJC - Jansen, John Frederick. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
  • Ladd.IBRz - Ladd, George Eldon. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
  • Orr.1COR - Orr, William E. and James Arthur Walther. 1 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1976.
  • Perk.Rz - Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

[EthanNorth]

A Biblical, linguistic and historical defense of the bodily Resurrection.

[DouglasKC]

Interesting article Ethan. Thanks for posting it, it give us more depth on your position.

The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.

That author states the above about anastatsis.

Putting aside everything else for the moment, how do you think the author would treat this scripture:

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Resurrection is anastatsis in the verse above. What would the authors, or your, view be of this scripture?

[EthanNorth]

DouglasKC: "Interesting article Ethan. Thanks for posting it, it give us more depth on your position."

Ethan: Problematic way of putting it, Douglas. It isn't "my positiion" as if it were a novel and peculiar invention of mine. It is the position of the Christian faith based upon the New Testament. Solid, reputable scholarship has been provided substantiating this fact.

Moreover, your use of "give us more depth on your position" again is an unethical, albeit subtle, implication, vis., that I am pitted against everyone else here and I have the peculiar, novel belief that is up against serious Biblical scholarship and the Christian faith, when in point of fact it is you that is at total odds with the serious scholarship on the subject and it is you that stands outside and against the Christian faith.

DouglasKC: "Putting aside everything else for the moment,"

Ethan: Red herring.

DouglasKC: "how do you think the author would treat this scripture"

Ethan: I'm not J.P. Holding. But it is evident that solid, overwhelming evidence has been presented and you're straining under the dissonance; you're attempting to find anything you think you can muster to squeeze your way out and maintain your tradition of Armstrongism, against the facts of the New Testament, the grammar and context of the language and serious Biblical scholarship.

The Scripture that you raised in your red herring is Luke 20:34-36:

"Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36, emphasis mine).

The verse in question is in reference to whether or not there will be marriage in the Resurrection; it has nothing to say about the composition of the resurrection body. Your confusion is further compounded because you are laboring under a straw man based on the fact that you don't know Biblical theology or Christian teaching. There are differences between the pre and post resurrection bodies. One is dominated by the sinful nature; the other is dominated and oriented wholly by the Spirit. One is mortal and subject to death; the other is immortal. One is marred by sin; the other is redeemed and glorified. The composition and nature of the Resurrection body is contextually stated here in Luke 24:37-39:

"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).

Regarding your red herring of Luke 20:34-36, the analogy of "they are like angels" refers to the immortality of the resurrection state, and the emphasis of the passage is simply that marriage is simply not an aspect of life in the resurrection. Even Armstrongism and the United Church of God don't teach that men will become angels in the resurrection, so even on the basis of Armstrongism your usage is highly flawed.

But you have taken the wisest route—you have avoided and side-stepped all of the exegesis and scholarship contained in Holding's essay, as well as the Biblical exegesis and scholarship of William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Robert Gundry, et. al. On the basis of an exegesis of Scripture, the meanings and usage of the language of the NT and the definitive works of scholarship on the subject you are in complete error.

You even had the audacity to make the absurd claim that Dr. Robert Gundry was not only "wrong" but dead wrong on the use and meaning of the word Soma in the New Testament, which is rather interesting.

• It is interesting in that his work, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University, 1976), is the definitive work on the subject.
• It is even more interesting in that you are ignorant of NT Greek and have no basis to judge, pro or con, Dr. Gundry's work on any serious, factual level.
• It gets really interesting when one considers that you have never read his work.

When it gets to that level, you have no recourse but to resort to crackpot statements and call into question the scholarly abilities of men such as Dr. Gundry, which you have no ability or scholarly basis to evaluate the work let alone say it is "dead wrong" and claim to be a superior expert in NT Greek than he (and scores of other actual Biblical scholars).

On the level playing field of the Greek language, syntax, grammer, usage, etc., you come to the field unarmed and simply dimiss actual Bible-honoring scholars as "dead wrong" when you have no idea of what you are talking about.

If I handed you the NA27 and you had nothing but the NA27, without any outside reference of any kind, could you read the Gospel of John?

[Matchett-PI]

"...crackpot statements ..."

They come from those who have said to themselves, "I have seen the Truth and it makes no sense". LOL

Thanks for posting this great article on one of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian religion, Ethan.

Of course people may step outside of the essential/foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, and believe whatever suits them --- they just can't legitimately call what they believe, "Christian beliefs".

[RnMomof7]

great article..and great response to Doug

My fear is unless God opens his eyes he will not see it

[CCWoody]

My fear is unless God opens his eyes he will not see it ~ RnMomof7

My hope is in a Sovereign God who does open the eyes of the blind to see. Were I to base anything upon the strength of a man, I would be building upon sand:


• Psa 147 He does not delight in the strength of the horse; He takes no pleasure in the legs of a man. The LORD takes pleasure in those... who hope in His mercy.

Woody.

[DouglasKC]

lol Ethan...you need to simmer down. I asked one simple question, most of which was scripture, and you responded with an 863 word diatribe!

Regarding your red herring of Luke 20:34-36, the analogy of "they are like angels" refers to the immortality of the resurrection state, and the emphasis of the passage is simply that marriage is simply not an aspect of life in the resurrection.

I thought this verse (Luke 20:33-36) was interesting. I ascribed no motivations to it, I just wanted your opinion.

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

I have decided to depend on your scholarly knowledge for this, so please help me out. I have a couple of further questions to ask about this passage.

1. Why is marriage not an aspect of the resurrection? Do you think it's possible that our resurrected bodies are essentially "sexless", meaning that we no longer sexually reproduce and this is the reason why we no longer marry? What would your explanation be?
2. Why do you think the author neglected to include this verse in his article as further evidence of a flesh and bone resurrection?
3. What in your opinion, would best describe the body of an angel?

But you have taken the wisest route—you have avoided and side-stepped all of the exegesis and scholarship contained in Holding's essay,

I wouldn't say I sidestepped it, in fact I specifically said I was putting aside everything else for the moment because I wanted to find out why this verse was ommited from your experts proof of a flesh and bone resurrection and what it meant to you or him. I'll get to the other stuff.

[nobdysfool]

Wonderful article, Ethan, and a complete decimation (to borrow the_doc's term for overwhelming exposition and analysis) of Doug's heretical view concerning the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Thank you for posting it!

Doug said: "Interesting article Ethan. Thanks for posting it, it give us more depth on your position". Who is the "us" he refers to? Does he have a frog in his pocket? He was the only one who stood in opposition to this doctrine, as you rightly pointed out. It was obviously my position, too. Good critique of his answer, and the subtle digs he embedded in them. And yet, he still tried to wiggle out of it. Thanks for holding his feet to the fire.

[DouglasKC]

Doug said: "Interesting article Ethan. Thanks for posting it, it give us more depth on your position". Who is the "us" he refers to? Does he have a frog in his pocket? He was the only one who stood in opposition to this doctrine, as you rightly pointed out. It was obviously my position, too. Good critique of his answer, and the subtle digs he embedded in them. And yet, he still tried to wiggle out of it. Thanks for holding his feet to the fire.

Actually nobdysfool, "us" is me and my wife. I genuinely meant that question to be an honest exploration of his ideas. He went and got all defensive on me for simply posting scripture and then posting a question about that scripture.

[EthanNorth]

DouglasKC: "Actually nobdysfool, "us" is me and my wife"

Ethan: A very weak and pathetic cop-out. The context of your statement was in response to the participants on this forum--you know that. Those that engage in heretical doctrine also exhibit corrupt morals. While orthodoxy doesn't guarantee orthopraxy, heresy always manifests itself in heteropraxy.

DouglasKC: "I genuinely meant that question to be an honest exploration of his ideas (emphasis added)"

Ethan: He's doing it again. They aren't "my ideas," i.e., as if it were a novel and peculiar invention of mine. It is the position of the Christian faith based upon the New Testament. Solid, reputable scholarship has been provided substantiating this fact.

Again it is an unethical, albeit subtle, implication, vis., that I am pitted against everyone else here and I have the peculiar, novel belief that is up against serious Biblical scholarship and the Christian faith, when in point of fact it is Douglass that is at total odds with the serious scholarship on the subject and it is Douglas that stands outside and against the Christian faith.

Douglas has been shown that he is ignorant of basic Biblical theology, Christian teaching and grammatical usage. His comments concerning Dr. Robert Gundry's definitive work, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1976) alone, vis., that not only is Dr. Gundry "wrong" but he is dead wrong, categorize him as more of a crackpot than simply someone that is ignorant of the facts (which he most assuredly is).

Douglas cannot read NT Greek; he knows nothing of Greek grammar, syntax or usage; he knows nothing about Greek prepositions, Greek tenses, or the use of the Greek article. Yet he claims that Dr. Robert Gundry's definitive work on the subject is not merely "wrong" but dead wrong. That he has never read Dr. Gundry's work seems to be inconsequential to him.

As I previously stated, when it gets to that level, Douglas has no recourse but to resort to crackpot statements and call into question the scholarly abilities of men such as Dr. Gundry, which he has no ability or scholarly basis to evaluate the work let alone say it is "dead wrong" and claim to be a superior expert in NT Greek than he (and scores of other actual Biblical scholars).

Douglas, if I handed you the NA27 and you had nothing but the NA27, without any outside reference of any kind, could you read the Gospel of John?

[drstevej]

More than decimation (decimate = to reduce by one tenth), devastation!

[fishtank]

Wonderful article, Ethan, and a complete decimation (to borrow the_doc's term for overwhelming exposition and analysis) of Doug's heretical view concerning the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Thank you for posting it! What is the Armstrongite view of the resurrection?

[wgeorge2001]

You are correct concerning the bodily ressurrection of Jesus Christ. The book of Luke ;chapter 24; culminates with Lord Jesus Christ appearing to his disciples:
36:And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37: But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38:And he said unto them,Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39:Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; ;handle me,and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Luke 24:36-39.

So we see that the Lord arose in bodily form and so there should be no dispute as to this fact. Paul the apostle clearly states that belief of the bodily ressurrection of Jesus Christ is essential doctrine to the church because we will have the same type of body after the death of the flesh; he clearly states that if Christ be not risen;our faith is vain and we are yet in our sins. He then goes on to state the nature of the risen body in ICo.15:42-45.
42:So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption:
43: It is sown in dishounour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44: It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body, There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickining spirit.
I have no doubt that the quickend body is like the body that Lord Jesus Christ appeared in after his resurrection from the dead to his disciples; a body of flesh and bones(not blood) that is spiritual and immortal and uncorrupted; all this to the honor and Glory of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit; we await the redemption of our bodies after the death of the flesh.

[DouglasKC]

Well that was all very nice and well Ethan. It was yet another devasting response that highlights your sheer genius when it comes to scripture. But generally when you start a thread you are expected to answer the questions of US. So let US try again shall we:

1. Why is marriage not an aspect of the resurrection? Do you think it's possible that our resurrected bodies are essentially "sexless", meaning that we no longer sexually reproduce and this is the reason why we no longer marry? What would your explanation be?
2. Why do you think the author neglected to include this verse in his article as further evidence of a flesh and bone resurrection?
3. What in your opinion, would best describe the body of an angel?

[nobdysfool]

More than decimation (decimate = to reduce by one tenth), devastation!

You're absolutely right! I chose the wrong word...yours is better!

[nobdysfool]

What is the Armstrongite view of the resurrection?

Essentially, Armstrongites do not believe in a bodily resurrection, they believe Jesus received a new "spiritual" body, immaterial but able to appear solid. They never really explain what happened to Jesus' earthly body when He received a "spiritual" body, but they do not believe that His earthly body was raised from the dead. It's a serious error, as it strikes at the core of Christian belief. It is heresy, pure and simple. The Bible clearly teaches Jesus' physical resurrection, and a flesh and bone physical body for the Risen Lord. It is an incorruptible, supernatural, glorified, flesh and bone spiritual body, the same kind as Christians will receive at the Lord's Second Coming. This is not the only doctrine that the Armstrongites (and their offshoots, including the United Church of God) are wrong about, they hold heretical views on other doctrines too. See the thread "Is Satan Bound Today" for more complete exposition on this subject (chiefly the last 1000 posts, more or less)

Hope that helps!

[EthanNorth]

fishtank: "What is the Armstrongite view of the resurrection?"

Ethan: Thanks for your comments, fishtank. They are appreciated.

Regarding your question, first, nobdysfool's comments were correct regarding the Armstrongism/United Church of God teaching on the "resurrection."

I'll provide a few cites from the primary materials which the United Church of God derives its religious traditions from, a man that Armstrongites consider to be "the end-time Elijah," and "the only man in 1,850 years to understand the Bible," and of course, "the only man to have preached the Gospel in 1,850 years."

Preliminary Considerations

These claims need to be kept in mind when evaluating the statements of Herbert W. Armstrong; his writings are not considered to be those of a person they consider a great Biblical expositor, or even the greatest Biblical theologian in Church history.

No, no...that is not the situation in any sense. They consider Herbert W. Armstrong to have been an apostle; they consider him to have been inspired of God; they consider his teachings to be absolutely necessary to understand "the truth" (Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages, p. xii).; they hold him to be the only man in 1,850 years to have known, let alone preached, "the gospel"; Armstrong was the one that "raised up the Church" in "our generation" (Herbert Armstrong, Ministerial Conference transcript, May 6, 1974, p. 9).

Sound familiar? It should.

Joseph Smith made essentially the same claim (Mormons). So did Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science). And Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses; Adventist off-shoot). And David Koresh (Branch Davidians; Adventist off-shoot). The message is basically the same in regard to the foundational premise of all the modern American cults:

"the entire Christian faith has been wrong and of Satan for the past 2,000 years—all of it—now God is going to use me [fill in your favorite cult leader name] to make everything right again."

This was believed by the Worldwide Church of God for years after the death of Armstrong in 1986. As late as 1991 the Worldwide Church of God stated:

"Strange to say, almost everyone for these past 19 centuries has been looking in the wrong place for the Church that Jesus built. A great gap lies between the practices of the apostolic Church Jesus founded and those of today's mainstream Christianity" (No author cited in the article, The Plain Truth. March 1991), p. 8

Of course, the Plain Truth article goes on to reveal the "big surprise" of exactly where the Church that Jesus built can be found. Can you guess? It's the Worldwide Church of God! Since the doctrinal upheavals of the mid-1990s the United Church of God (and other claimants to the throne) have perpetuated the doctrines and foundational premises of Armstrongism.

The United Church of God is dedicated to the teachings of Armstrongism as divine truth and mimicks his works wherever possible (this has been conclusively documented).

The leadership of the organization is fully aware of the large body of documented facts regarding Armstrong's false doctrines, false prophecies, the scandals due to Armstrong's many moral failings, the legal scandals, the scandals regarding his remarriage and divorce, the scandals involving incest, alcoholism, etc., and seeks to not make this connection apparent to the general public for PR purposes.

You should also keep this in mind when interacting with them. As you may recall DouglasKC at first attempted to disavow any real knowledge of Armstrong and tried to distance his doctrines from those of Armstrong. This is not by happenstance.

When a baptized member of the United Church of God makes such assertions, he or she is lying to you. Now, people get bent out of shape these days when someone says something is a lie. But Scripture says no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21).

Other Armstrongism spin-offs, such as the Global Church of God, at least make no bones about it—Herbert Armstrong "is the man."

Is Armstrong viewed as someone to be questioned in regard to doctrinal matters? Is Scripture the sole and final authority or is what Armstrong says Scripture teaches the actual final authority? Is critical thinking and questioning of Armstrong's central doctrines encouraged and tolerated or is any thinking critical of Armstrong's doctrine equated with sin?

"That UNIVERSAL sin of REBELLION (raising issues, thinking, and reasoning) plunged the whole earth into physical chaos, confusion and utter DARKNESS" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Dear Brethren Letter. 1974).

It is important to provide the Biblical teaching concerning such men as Armstrong, whether they should be given any heed at all:

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' "You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:20-22).

Good advice from Moses. And it should be made clear that I personally do not think that a person that sincerely makes a false prophecy is to be automatically castigated and forever shunned. People make mistakes. William Miller, for example, made false prophecies and repented of them and admitted it was error to even attempt it.

Herbert Armstrong—in contrast—made a career out of making false prophecies for decades. His entire organization was built upon his false prophetic claims.

Armstrong's Self Claims

Herbert Armstrong's self claim regarding the source of his statements—did he simply offer personal theories of possible prophetic sections of Scripture? Or did he claim to have been speaking by the direct inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ?:

"The 'Day of the Eternal' a time foretold in more than thirty prophecies is going to strike between 5 and 10 years from now! You will know, then, how REAL it is. You will wish, then, you had heeded. I am not writing foolishly, but very soberly, ON AUTHORITY of the living Christ!" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. February 1967. repeated use of upper case in the original), p. 47.

A moment of indescretion on the part of Armstrong?

"No evidence needs to be produced that the living Christ, Head of the Church of God, called and chose me to be his instrument which he has used in raising up and guiding His Church of this generation" (Herbert Armstrong, Ministerial Conference transcript. May 4, 1974), p. 9.

Herbert's statements regarding those that claim to receive callings from God:

"God's true servants are not called by weird dreams and visions which God keeps hidden from His already - called and ordained officers of the Church" (Herbert Armstrong, The Plain Truth. October 1958, emphasis mine), p. 16.

But, of course, Armstrong either forgot he wrote that in 1958, or he exempted himself:

"The first call to God's ministry came while we were living in the single room in Mrs. Brookhart's apartment. But, neither of us recognized it then. One night my wife had a dream so vivid and impressive it overwhelmed and shook her tremendously" (Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong. 1967 edition), p. 207.

The (Sorry) Record [just a tip of the iceberg]

The "best" responses I have ever received in approximately ten years of researching the Armstrong religion is that "no one's perfect! others have made false prophecies too!"

That this red herring has nothing to do with the track record of false prophecies, false doctrines and sordid life of Herbert Armstrong seems to "not compute" in the grid of Armstrong's diehard devotees.

Armstrong speaks:

"The year 1936 will see the end of the Times of the Gentiles.... we may expect the present worldwide depression, time of trouble and fear of war to continue until the year 1936!... quickly after that time, we may expect to see the heavenly signs of the sun and moon becoming dark, the stars falling.... which shall be followed by the 'Day of the Lord."' (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth June-July 1934), p. 5.

"Mussolini and the Pope will hatch up an idea between them of setting up a world headquarters at JERUSALEM-and so Mussolini's armies will enter into Palestine (Daniel 11:41), and eventually will capture just half of the city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:2)" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. March 1938), p. 8.

"The Italians will capture both Palestine and Egypt." (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. August-Sept. 1940).

"That is NOT a message to ancient Israel-but to OUR NATIONS of TODAY. The 'Day of the Eternal'-a time foretold in more than thirty prophecies-is going to strike between 5 and 10 years from now!" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Feb. 1967), p. 47.

Armstrong's claims regarding his personal history

Herbert Armstrong:

"For some years I worked in cooperation with the Church of God...I never joined them-never became one of their members" (Herbert Armstrong, Dear Members Letter, May 2, 1974), p. 2.

Church of God (7th day):

"Mr. Armstrong was a minister of the Church of God (7th Day)" (David M. Kauer, secretary-treasurer of the Church of God (7th day), Denver office, in a letter to B. R. Guillory, dated March 19, 1974).

Herbert Armstrong:

"I received no salary or remuneration of any kind from either the Salem or Stanberry organization. The story that I went out from them...is 100% false! I was never even a member of them" (Dear Members Letter. May 2, 1974), p. 4.

Church of God (7th day):

"It is time consuming to go through old records. However, in our ledger we find that Mr. Armstrong received pay as late as March 1937" (Chris W. Royer of the Church of God (7th Day), Salem, West Virginia office, in a letter to Bill Hughes, dated July 22, 1976).

The Armstrongite View of the "Resurrection"

So what do they believe about the "resurrection"? (in quotes because they completely misdefine the word itself in its normal grammatical-historical context; the word has always meant the raising of the body from the grave when being used in a Biblical context).

Armstrongism—including the United Church of God—denies the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ and instead teach a doctrine of a type of reincarnation; Armstrongism completely rejects that the Man Jesus Christ was raised bodily from the grave, and repudiates in direct terms that He had (and has) a body of flesh in any manner (contra Luke 24:37-39).

"Now notice carefully God the Father did not cause Jesus Christ to get back into the body which had died. Nowhere does the Scripture say He was alive or that God had Him get back into the human body that had died and was now resurrected" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963), p. 10.

Contra Luke:

"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).

According to Armstrongism, He was not raised from the grave but was recreated. He ceased to exist and His body was "dissolved"—this is directly lifted from the Jehovah's Witnesses; no longer was there any Incarnation of God as Man—it was only a temporary thing to Armstrongism. This, as has been documented from the epistles of John, is the spirit of antichrist, and is "another jesus" whom neither the apostles or the faith once for all time delivered (Jude 3) has ever preached.

Moreover, it should be noted that even Armstrong's view of the "temporary incarnation" was not really an incarnation at all and was a basterdized version of the Biblical doctrine. Armstrong taught that Jesus Christ, in the "incarnation," ceased to be actual Deity. He was only "god" in His "memory" of existing prior to the Incarnation.

Armstrongism not only teaches that He just a man, but He was a man with a sinful nature. Armstrong had no conception whatsoever of Christ having a perfect, sinless human nature (as did Adam before the Fall—hence one of the reasons Jesus is called the "Second Adam" in Scripture). The descending pattern of Armstrong's Christology is readily apparent—Armstrong wanted nothing to do with the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12.

"The only difference between Jesus and any other human is that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Ibid. emphasis Armstrong's).

As Walter Martin noted:

The Worldwide Church of God does indeed honor Christ with its lips, but in the cold analytical dawn of Biblical examination and analysis, there can be little doubt that its heart is far from Him" (Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Minn: Bethany House, 1985), p. 336.

Herbert Armstrong took his teaching on the "resurrection" of Christ directly from the Jehovah's Witnesses, who in turn derived it from Greek paganism and gnosticism.

They view the very notion of a bodily Resurrection to be repugnant; the body of flesh is not something to be redeemed and raised but is something to be discarded as undesirable and to be a polluting element. This is in line with their teaching that men may "become God as God is God." Being a creature is something to be shunned as not "good enough" (Gen. 3:1-4ff).

As previously documented, the category of Armstrong's false view:

The pagan Celsus wrote:

"The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods" (cited in Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984), p. 73.

Likewise, Plato viewed the ideal for man is the end of "corporeal defilement" and an existence as wholly spirit (documented in Murray Harris, Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 116.

The Biblical record is explicitly clear:

"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).

The Incarnation of God the Son was (and is) real. Jesus Christ, as the Son of Man, was truly and literally raised bodily from the grave. And because He, as the Son of Man, was raised bodily from the grave, we have the promise of the redemption of the entire human person, the complete victory over sin and death.

[Matchett-PI]

Truth BTTT!!!

[fishtank]

Doug, is this what you believe?

[Wrigley]

No physical bodily resurrection. spirtual only.