If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is vain. We are found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise if it be true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not raised and if he is not raised, your faith is vain and you are yet in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep (died) in Christ have perished. - (1 Cor, 15: 14-18)

Clearly the Apostle regards the denial of the resurrection as tantamount with the denial of the future life of the soul.

Our discussion then, will not focus on the fact of the resurrection but on the nature of resurrection (especially with regards to Christ own resurrection). The reason for such a discussion is twofold: First, it is well known to those of us involved in cult-apologetics that there are a number of pseudo-Christian cults which deny the Christian doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Christ was raised a "divine spirit being," or as an "invisible spirit creature" and that his (Jesus) body either "dissolved into gases or...is preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God's love." (See Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. V, p.454); Christian Scientist teach that Jesus did not die physically but rose in the "spiritual realm of reality" (See Science and Health, p. 34); and, New Age cults such as The Baha'i Faith teach Christ's resurrection was not a literal, physical event, but a figure of speech: "The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body...and have no connection with material things." (See Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p.97).

Second, within the past six years or so, two scholars (one a New Testament Scholar from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School [TEDS], Dr. Murray Harris and the other a rather well-known Christian Apologist, Dr. Norman Geisler) became involved in a heated debate over the nature of the resurrection of Christ. Geisler accused Harris of holding a view of Christ's resurrection similar to the Jehovah's Witness and, of course, Harris (along with several other prominent TEDS faculty) denied that he in fact held a sub-biblical view of Christ's resurrection. The debate went on for quite some time with Geisler publishing articles, fliers, and even a book called The Battle for the Resurrection in hopes of exposing what he considered outright heresy. Harris responded to Geisler's allegations through correspondence, interviews, etc., and finally wrote a lengthy discourse on the subject of resurrection (called From Grave to Glory) with a direct, point-by-point response to Geisler showing how he misrepresented his views and the views of others by misquotation, by distortion, by omission, and by ignoring important distinctions. Unfortunately the controversy generated by this debate left Christians on both sides somewhat unsettled. Here were two Evangelical Christian brothers and scholars feuding over not whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead, but over the issue of what kind of resurrection body did Jesus possess!

Our objective this evening is to discuss the issue, draw some inferences and conclusions from Scripture, and try to get a better idea theologically of what this subject entails, and then better understand what we look forward to when Christ returns and we too will be changed, forever possessing our glorious resurrection bodies fashioned by the Lord for our home in heaven!

In that our "vile" bodies will be fashioned like Christ's glorious body in a future resurrection (Phil. 3:21), we must investigate what the Bible says in regards to both the nature of the resurrection body and then specifically to what the Bible reveals in regards to Jesus' own resurrection body. But before we look at these areas, we need to look briefly at the nature of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the resurrection narratives. The New Testament records some eleven separate appearances of Jesus during the forty days he remained on earth before his ascension: 1) to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18); 2) to Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Matt. 28:9,10); 3) to the two travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32); 4) to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5); 5) to the eleven disciples (and others), Thomas being absent (Luke 24:33, 36-43; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5); 6) the eleven disciples (John 20:26-29); 7) to seven of the disciples in Galilee (John 21: 1-22); 8) to the eleven (Matt. 28:16-20); 9) to more than 500 brethren (1 Cor. 15:6; Luke 24:44-49); 10) to James (1 Cor. 15:7a); 11) to the eleven (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:7b). The New Testament also records three appearances of Jesus after his ascension into heaven: to Steven (Acts 7:55,56); to Paul (Acts 9:3-7, 17, 27; 22:6-10, 14,15; 26:12-18), and to the Apostle John (Rev. 1:12-18). After reading these accounts of Christ's post-resurrection appearances there can be no doubt that they were personal, physical (not spiritual), and bodily. The all important question with respect to these appearances is did Jesus possess a body that was in every way identical with the body that was laid in the tomb? According to Harris the Gospels and the Acts stress both the material nature and nonmaterial character of Christ's resurrection body. For example, Luke 24:39 speaks of the material nature of Christ's body ("Look at my hands and feet...touch me and see...") while John 20:19 speaks of the nonmaterial character of Christ's body ("although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them.") and offers three main solutions to the above question:
 

1. Jesus' resurrection body was basically "material," or "fleshly" but either was capable of temporary dematerialization or had nonmaterial properties
2. In his resurrected state Jesus possessed a "spiritual body" which could be expressed in an immaterial or a material mode
3. His body was in the process of transition from the material to the spiritual during the forty days of appearances.

Whatever the case (I would elect #ii as the correct view), one thing is clear, a radical transformation of Jesus' earthy body took place in that he transcended the normal laws of physical existence-he was not bound by material or spatial limitations (he could pass through a sealed tomb (Matt. 28:2,6) and through closed doors (John 20:19,26); and he appeared and disappeared at will (Luke 24:31,36). These feats are impossible (baring a direct miracle of God) by virtue of the limitations of a purely physical body. But with Christ, who possessed a "spiritual body" composed of "flesh and bone" (Luke 24:36), these feats were not out of the ordinary. The question still remains: What was the relationship between Christ's bodily state before the Resurrection and his mode of existence after the Resurrection?

We've already seen that the resurrected Christ possessed a body capable of transcending the normal laws of physical existence so it was different in at least that sense (although we have yet to define a "spiritual body"). Yet, Jesus' identity, his person, did not in the least bit change. There is every indication that the same Jesus who died and was buried is the person who was raised from the dead: Mark 16:6 ("You seek Jesus of Nazareth...He has risen."); Luke 24:39,40 (the marks of crucifixion were visible on at least two occasions; Luke 24:30,31-35 ("the breaking of the bread"); John 20:16 (his tone of voice indicated he was the same Jesus who had died and was alive). But if this is the case, why then could not the disciples or others recognize him when he appeared to them? If it was the same Jesus they knew and worshipped before his death, what prevented them from instantly identifying him after his resurrection? (In Luke 24:36 and John 20:19 Jesus appeared to the disciples and they thought that he was a ghost or spirit - Jesus had to assure them by pointing to the scars of the crucifixion that he was who he said he was: "...it is I myself...handle me and see...")

In order to understand more fully why the disciples could not recognize Jesus immediately, or why the two travelers on the road to Emmaus were unable to recognize Him, or why Mary in the garden mistook Jesus for the gardener, we need to look at what the Scriptures have to say regarding the nature of the resurrection body.
 
 

The Nature of the Resurrection Body

For the purposes of our discussion, we will focus on verses 35-50 which answers the questions, How are the dead raised up? and with what manner or kind of body do they come?

After reading Paul's thoughts on the subject it seems quite clear that he is addressing two common errors in regard to the nature of the resurrection body: 1) that it is the same body that was laid in the grave, simply reconstituted; and, 2) that the new body is unrelated to the original one. In other words, God will fashion the new body (related to the former, yet different), one is sown in corruption and dishonor, a new body, a different body arises incorruptible and glorious possessing the same identity as the former (1 Cor. 15:36 suggests both continuity and discontinuity, that is, identity with difference,). Vincent (Word Studies) states the question is not what will be the substance of the risen body, but what will be its organization.

That the resurrection body will be different from our earthy body of corruption is implied by Paul's appeal to: 1) the evidence of somatic variety within the universe (v.44b); 2) the corroborative testimony of the Scriptural statement about the first Adam, who had a physical body, which implies a last (or Second Adam) who had or gained a spiritual body (v.45); 3) the self-evident truth that creatures of 'flesh and blood" cannot hope to inherit the eternal kingdom of God in their perishable, physical bodies (v. 50) - See Harris, From Grave to Glory,p.193.
 
 

Characteristics of the Resurrection Body

1. it is of divine origin (v.38)
2. it is spiritual (v. 44)
3. it is imperishable (v. 42)
4. it is glorious (v. 43)
5. it is powerful (v. 43)
6. it is heavenly (v. 48)
7. it is angel-like: without sexual passions or procreative powers (Matt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25; Luke 20:36)
8. it is adaptable (it may assume either an immaterial or material mode)

Hodge suggest the following characteristics in his Systematic Theology, Vol.III:

1. Our bodies after the resurrection will retain the human form
2. Our future body will be a glorified likeness of what it was on earth
3. We shall retain all our faculties in the future life (including memory)
4. Our future bodies will be incorruptible
5. The future body will be immortal

Theological Issues Regarding the Resurrection Body

1. In what sense is the resurrection body "spiritual?" (1 Cor. 15:44)
2. Will the bodily resurrection of believers be precisely the same as the resurrection of Jesus?
3. Is the glorified Jesus still "in the flesh"?

 Other inferences or considerations which come to play in a discussion of the resurrection body of Jesus worth thinking about:
 

1. If the resurrection of Jesus involved his exaltation to the right hand of God, his resurrection appearances were from heaven and were in his "body of glory" (Phil. 3:21), which cannot be equated with his "body of flesh" (Col. 1:22).
2. The gospels record three instances of his passing through what, to any material body, was a material obstruction.
3. If, in his resurrected state, Jesus was normally invisible to the human eye, it follows that he also usually lacked a fleshly form, for a person who customarily cannot be seen (rather than simply is not seen) must at times of his invisibility be both intangible and immaterial.
4. If Jesus had a fleshly body continuously throughout the forty days: 
1. where was he when he was not appearing? and 
2. why did his disciples show no concern for his physical needs?
5. The appearances of Jesus, which were real and material, were designed to convince his disciples of the reality of his personal identity as the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, not the physical nature of the resurrection body.

Conclusion