Luke 24:36-39 from the New World Translation:
While they were speaking of these things he himself stood in their midst [[and said to them: “May YOU have peace.”]] But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld a spirit. So he said to them: “Why are YOU troubled, and why is it doubts come up in YOUR hearts? See my hands and my feet that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have.”
Witnesses have traditionally understood this passage to mean Jesus was demonstrating to his disciples that they were not beholding a vision or apparition, since humans cannot see spirits. (see Reasoning from the Scriptures, [New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989], pp. 334-335.) While this may be true, I think it does not answer the question of why Jesus implied he had “flesh and bones.” On this point, Witnesses have traditionally understood that Jesus had materialized a body—much like angels had (apparently) done so in ancient times.
However, Jesus’ statement of “see my hands and my feet that it is I myself, feel me and see” implies at the very least that his body was very real; indeed, tangible even. If Jesus was in fact raised a spirit, could he truly have said “see…that it is I myself”? In a sense yes and in another, no. If he was raised a spirit, and that was actually Jesus and not a vision or demon, then it was obviously him. Thus he could say “it is I myself.” In another sense, though, it was not him if it was a spirit since his disciples hadn’t known him as such. He was no longer the Jewish born man to be Messiah.
1 Corinthians 15:45 from New World Translation:
It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit…
If we understand that Jesus materialized a body in Luke 24 and was indeed raised as a spirit, then it would appear that 1 Corinthians 15:45 lends support to that understanding. But even here there are questions. Is Paul referring to the substance of the resurrected Jesus? It appears that Paul is contrasting Adam as “a living soul” with Jesus as “a life-giving spirit.” The question, then, would appear to be whether Paul is comparing substance, that is, ontology or whether he is comparing function. I think both positions have some validity to them.
There appears to be a contrast to Adam’s function and Jesus’. Adam “became a living soul.” That is, he was given life. However, Christ didn’t becoming a living soul but “a life-giving spirit.” So there appears to be a contrast between the receiver of life and the giver of life. In this sense, then, Jesus would be a “spirit” in regards to his function not ontology. This view appears to be supported by other statements in the Bible. Consider Luke 1:35:
In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.
The point here is simple: “holy spirit” is synonymous in this context with the “power of the Most High.” That is, “spirit”=”power.” If we bring this view of "spirit" into 1 Corinthians 15:45, then Jesus the “life-giving spirit” would mean Jesus is the “life-giving power [i.e., a source of life].” Jesus would be the one who dispenses life. We all know the saying of John where Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6) 1 Corinthians, then, would simply be reiterating what Jesus had said in John (or what John had Jesus saying in light of Paul). This is not to say, though, that Jesus is the ultimate source of life—But, he would be a source of life. The ultimate source of life would be Jehovah, of course; the one who allows Jesus to have life and the one who allows Jesus to be a source of life. (John 6:57)
On the other hand, the opposite view can be advanced. It could be that Paul is saying Adam became a soul, that is, a physical human being. While Jesus instead became a non-physical “spirit.” This would be the most literal reading of the words, I feel.
Whether one view is more correct than the other is another matter.
Whether one view is more correct than the other is another matter.
The Angels that materilized into human bodies in Noah's day, did they not have flesh and bones? They could produce offspring with human women, the Nephilim. Gen.6:4, num.13:33, Jude 6
ReplyDeleteIf it was his resurrected fleshly body, his disciples would have had no problem recognizing him. They were with him day and night for three and a half years. Would they suddenly forget what he looked like after only three days.
I would agree that one can come up with an explanation to "explain" the Luke 24 account. But if you were a 1st century Jew reading Luke from start to finish, would you end the book thinking that Christ was dematerialized and recreated as a spirit creature or that he was bodily resurrected and appeared to the disciples with that same body?
ReplyDeleteI just see no reason to complicate the texts, even if its possible to make it "fit" the WT view.
"a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have"
ReplyDeleteThey 'beheld' that he had flesh and bones, a fine distinction.
I've given thought to apotheios (ie. that of Enoch to Metatron - 1 Enoch 70:13= "Then I fell upon my face, while all my flesh was dissolved, and my spirit became changed."), while it is a concept that was not foreign to the time, it is not spelled in the Bible (although you could argue Elijah was an example of this - 2 Kings 2), I find it much more likely that Christ was raised a spirit and materialized 'flesh & bones'.
>>TAF- Seriously? The doctrines of the Trinity are the definition of overcomplicating scripture, forcing concepts onto the text that were the farthest idea from the Bible's writers. That sword cuts much harder your way (ie. John 14:28 - only his 'human nature', John 17:3, others).
@yahoel,
ReplyDeleteI don't subscribe to the Trinity formulation, as I would agree that it overcomplicates things. But I just have a difficult time reading Luke 24 and thinking that the author was trying to communicate to us that Jesus wasn't resurrected with a body of flesh and bones.
1corinthians15:37 makes it quite clear that it is not our bodies that are sown in death.As to the resurrection of christ and the members of the heavenly priesthood 1Corinthians15:44 states "it is sown a physical body,it is raised up a spiritual body.If there is a physical body there is a spititual one".Again it is natures of the bodies that are being contrasted.prior to their resurrection,Christ and his brothers had natural bodies.After their resurrection they recieve supernatural ones.
ReplyDeleteP.S Galatians1:1"Paul an apostle,neither from men nor through a man,but through Jesus Christ.."
ReplyDelete>>TAF sorry, I meant no offense, if any was taken
ReplyDeleteI think the Jews of Jesus day were very much attuned to the fact that angels materialized in Noah’s day. But those angels who left their original positions could no longer materialize as humans after the Flood. Thus Jesus statement "a spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones" They were frightened that he might be an evil spirit. The angels that remained faithful to Jehovah however on numerous occasions materialized in human form at Jehovah's direction. Lot in Sodom, Abraham, at Jesus tomb. What mother would not recognize her own son?
ReplyDeleteTo me the clincher is Jesus appearance to Saul. Just the glory of Jesus blinded Saul. Saul did not see Jesus in human form but just a glimpse of his glory or spiritual nature. 1Tim.6:16 "(Jesus) dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see."
Mike:
ReplyDeleteYou said: I don't subscribe to the Trinity formulation, as I would agree that it overcomplicates things
Can you elaborate on that? Don't (didn't) you hold to the Trinity doctrine?
- Ivan
tljgl:
ReplyDeleteThere are various reasons for why Jesus' disciples weren't able to recognize him. Luke gives the reason behind one such occurrence:
(Luke 24:16)but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
@Aservantofjehovah,
ReplyDelete1 Cor. 15:36 expressly contradicts what you are saying. The body you sow can only come to life if it dies, which is why Paul uses the analogy of wheat. How can this be unless the body that dies is raised?
v. 37 says "you do not sow the body which is to be." The only thing you can "sow" is the body that dies. Only God can sow the "body which is to be," which is precisely what v. 38 says.
The point is, the body that is sown in death (by us) is raised to life (by God) imperishable, spiritual, and immortal.
@Yahoel,
No offense taken and I fully understand your reason for doing so, as you were calling for consistency. But keep in mind that most Trinitarians would see that as a red herring. I'm a bit more generous I suppose :-)
@Ivan,
You are correct that I once strongly held to the traditional Trinitarian formulations. I haven't really "come out" and expressed my views publicly simply because i'm not completely sure what I believe on the issue anymore.
The best I can describe it is something along the lines of the Christology advocated by Bauckham and Hurtado. It seems to me that if God wanted Father, Son, and spirit formulated with Greek categories and jargon into a cohesive formulation, then He would have done so in Scripture.
@TAF 1corinthians15:36"You unreasonable person what you sow is not made alive unless it dies."this says nothing of a body being sown in death.we know this because the 'it' spoken of recieves a body upon resurrection, at 1Corinthians15:38"but God gives it a body Just as it has pleased him,and to each of the seeds its own body."so it is the person or soul that is sown in death and is transformed upon resurrection.
ReplyDelete1corinthians15:50"However this I say brothers,that flesh and blood CANNOT inherit God's kingdom,neither does corruption inherit incorruption"All who inherit the heavenly priesthood must be divested of their human nature.If this were not the case then paul's statement at galatians3:28 would be an absurdity.for Christ would still be the jewish man he was while on the earth,and those hoping to have a resurrection (romans6:5) like his would likewise maintain their gender and ethnic distinctions
ReplyDelete@asoj
ReplyDeleteWe know it is a body because Paul tells us it is a body throughout the chapter. Moreover, you'd have to prove that one can sow a non-physical body in order for it to "come to life." You have to import "person or soul" into the text for your argument to even begin. But the text doesn't use those terms: it uses body. So v. 36 makes perfect sense; your body that is sown, dies. And that same body comes to life imperishable and immortal.
As for 1 Cor. 15:50, I agree that all must lose their "human nature" which is perishable and mortal. But this is a far cry from saying that they must become immaterial spirit creatures. If such were the case, I wonder if you would see the sheep in Matt. 25:34 as immaterial spirit creatures, since they all inherit the kingdom as well.
if it recieves a body.Then obviously we are talking of a body but something else 1corinthians15:38.Unless you would have us believe that we are going to have two bodies in the resurrection.The person is sown in death upon coming to life Jehovah gives him a body at no point does he have more than one body.The sheep at mathew25:34 Do not receive the kingdom spoken of at 1corinthians15:50 this kingdom can only be recieved via a resurrection.Revelation20:1-3.Those at matthew25:34 survive the great tribulation and thereafter progress to human perfection perfection.revelation7:9-17
ReplyDeletePlease re-read that text:
ReplyDelete(Matthew 25:31-34)“When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, YOU who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the founding of the world.
The ones "on his right," that is, the "sheep," do "inherit the kingdom prepared" for them since the "founding of the world."
@asoj
ReplyDeleteYes, a body is given, but v. 53 explains what that entails: "For this perishable must *put on* the imperishable." That is, it is something that is added. Thus, there is no problem with any believer who is physically resurrected to say that God will give them a new body.
As for Matt. 24:34, how can you state that the sheep don't inherit the kingdom spoken of at 1 Cor. 15:50? Are those spoken of there not sheep?
Isn't matter just one form of energy? (You know, deduced from E=mc2)
ReplyDelete