But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”
While it appears clear that Thomas was expecting to see Jesus bodily, there are other things that are less clear. Proponents of a bodily resurrection believe that Jesus' body is now "glorified" and "immortal." But my question is, if Jesus' body was "glorified" and "immortalized" why was it still damaged when he appeared to Thomas? Given Paul's agricultural analogy in 1 Corinthians 15 of the seed and that which is sown, isn't that which is sown different from that which comes out?
Hi, Ivan. I think the importance of Jesus' appearance to Thomas goes beyond merely that which Thomas and the disciples expected. Had their expectations been wrong, it seems at least likely that Jesus would have corrected their expectations. Instead, He reinforces them. Furthermore, if His having become a "life-giving spirit" means, as some claim, that His resurrection body was purely immaterial, then when the disciples thought they were seeing a spirit, they were right. But Jesus offers His hands and side as proof, not just that He was the risen Christ, but that He was not a spirit. For all of these reasons I reject the view that Jesus was merely manifesting or materializing a temporary, physical body. No, this was His body, risen from the grave.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question, sure, that which was sown comes out different (so God could not have simply taken Jesus' body away). But why must that mean different in every imaginable way? The fact that His wounds remained does not mean His body was not incorruptible (unable to be corrupted) or immortal (unable to be killed). I just don't see this is being a problem for the bodily resurrection view. It is at least plausible that His crucifixion wounds remained as an eternal reminder of His redemptive work; scars, weathered skin, wear and tear from a laborer's life, all that stuff may have been changed, leaving only His crucifixion wounds.
That said, I'm not sure we have all the answers to all the questions we might be prompted to ask about Jesus' resurrection body and our resurrection bodies. I think the biblical record makes it clear that His was, and ours will be, physical. Beyond that, we've little detail.
I don't have a problem with Jesus altering his body, as there are plenty of accounts where He did exactly that: the Transfiguration and the visions in Revelation.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems that the non-physical resurrection have to do far more explaining with these accounts, which says something about their position.
Hello, Chris:
ReplyDeleteWhile it would be likely that Jesus would have corrected his disciples, I don't think it necessary. It is also possible that he did, but John didn't record it.
Do you think it possible that Jesus could have been raised bodily but was able to alter his form? Much like the early Christian tradition found in the longer version of Mark 16:12?
Best,
Ivan
He doesn't just fail to correct them (or isn't recorded to have done so), He reinforces their expectations by pointing to His flesh and blood, using that as proof, too, that He wasn't a spirit as they at first thought had appeared before them. It seems to me, then, that every detail of this account contradicts a non-physical resurrection view.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question, I'm open to that as a possibility. However, with all respect for my friend Mike @ The Apologetic Front, I don't think the Transfiguration or Revelation can be assumed to be support for that. On the Mount, Jesus calls what the disciples saw a "vision," using the same word as that which described Peter's vision of unclean animals on the sheet. I don't think we can assume that the disciples saw Jesus' body physically change appearance. As for Revelation, before John sees or hears anything, he is "in the spirit." It seems to me this was not an example of Jesus' body physically altered; rather, it was merely part of the vision.
So, could Jesus be able to alter His physical form post-resurrection? Possibly, but I don't (as of yet) see any evidence for it.
@Chris, I agree that those were visions. I guess my point was that these could be a foreshadowing of what Jesus is like in all His glory; perhaps how it will be at the second coming and in the new creation.
ReplyDelete@Mike I'm sorry, I misunderstood you :S Yeah, maybe. I don't think we have enough to be dogmatic about, though.
ReplyDeleteChris:
ReplyDeleteWith respect to John 20, I don't see how Jesus reinforces Thomas' expectations regarding a bodily resurrection. The disciples run to him and tell him "We have seen the Lord!" Thomas says he won't believe it unless he sees the nail prints. 8 days later, now, Jesus appears to them and makes Thomas a believer. I would agree that this is a reinforcement to Thomas that the Lord is now alive, but I think it would be a stretch to say that he proved to Thomas he rose physically conclusively.
It would also appear that Jesus did alter his form to enter the room, given that the "doors were locked." (vs 26)
Regarding Mike's comments about Jesus in Revelation, though it was all in a vision, it is certainly of interest that in this vision Jesus was not in the same form as John had known Jesus to be on earth. John saw an altered Jesus, one that didn't look like the who was executed nor like the one that appeared to Thomas with the wounds in his flesh.
If Jesus was raised bodily, I think one would still have to prove that he retained this body in heaven.
I don't think it's a stretch at all. Jesus didn't merely present His wounds as proof that He was Himself; He presented them to prove that He was not "a spirit." This isn't in John 20, but it is in Luke 24. I've seen the WT claim that Jesus was merely manifesting a physical body just as angels are alleged to be able to do, but look at Jesus' words: "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." If Jesus was doing nothing more than what angels had done in the past, then the wounds He presented to the disciples would have proven nothing; He could have simply been an angel or demon masquerading as the risen Christ. Therefore, I think Christ's physical wounds post-resurrection prove beyond shadow of a doubt that the nature of His resurrection was a physical one, for nothing else would have served as proof not only that the One who appeared to the disciples was, in fact, Jesus, but that He was not "a spirit."
ReplyDeleteAs for the doors being locked, the text never says Jesus materialized before their eyes. In Acts 12 an angel causes the shackles to fall from Peter's wrists, and it unlocks the gate. Jesus may have simply unlocked the door to the closed room. Of course, that the disciples thought what they were seeing was "a spirit" may lend support to the thought that Jesus materialized before their eyes, but even if that's the case that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus altered His form. In Acts 8 Philip was apparently teleported from before the ethiopian's eyes, taken to Azotus. Teleportation does not imply alteration, but may be simply an instantaneous change of location.
As for Jesus' body in heaven, I don't agree with you that in order for Him to have raised bodily, that one must "prove" that He retained His body in heaven. I think it's the reverse, that what we think is the nature of Jesus' body in heaven is the result of what we think was the nature of Jesus' body at the resurrection. In other words, if one believes He was raised physically, which is what the various texts we've looked at support, then of course we think He retains His physical body to this day. The latter is the result of the former. However, this would mean, I suppose, that one could cast doubt on a physical resurrection by somehow "proving" that Jesus' physical body could not be retained in heaven, but I've never seen that demonstrated from the text; it's merely an assumption most people make.
ReplyDeleteChris:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your statement that "if Jesus was doing nothing more than what angels had done in the past" that "the wounds he presented to the disciples would have proven nothing." I think it would have proven something, namely, that he was alive again. I think that was the entire point of his appearances: to convince his disciples that he lives again. (Acts 1:3)
If Jesus simply unlocked the door to the room, what purpose does that serve in John's retelling of the story? I think he placed it there for a reason. He is showing that even though the doors were locked, he somehow found a way in. I think, though, your use of Acts 8:39-40 can be legitimate for explaining this.
If we grant Jesus was raised bodily, for the purpose of speaking to his disciples for 40 days regarding the kingdom (Acts 1:3), I don't think it necessarily follows that he retained this same physical body. John who describes Jesus' body as being marked with his execution wounds, doesn't seem to described Jesus in the same way in Revelation.
Throughout the Bible, the only beings that suddenly appear/disappear at will are materialized angels. As for Jesus' Body; you don't usually retain something that you give-up/ransom.
ReplyDelete@Ivan:
ReplyDeleteCould not a spirit materialize a physical body with wounds that were not really the result of the crucifixion? This is my problem with your argument. I agree His appearances were for the purpose of convincing His disciples that He lives again. But if angels can materialize physically, how did His appearances prove He lives again?
I sincerely appreciate you saying that my appeal to Acts 8:39-40 could explain Jesus appearing in the room despite the door being locked. And I agree with you that the author probably included that the doors were locked specifically to show the miraculousness of Jesus' appearance. I just don't think He had to materialize out of thin air for that to happen. But as I explained, even if He did, that doesn't mean He has the capacity to alter His form; He may have merely instantaneously appeared there ("teleported," at risk of sounding too sci-fi :P).
As for whether or not He retained His physical body, I agree that if we grant that He did rise physically (which, of course, I claim the Bible expressly teaches), that does not, in and of itself, demand that He retained it after the ascension. However, I think there are other biblical reasons to conclude that He did. I don't have the time at this moment to bring those in, I'll do so a bit later. In the meantime, however, that Jesus' body is not said to include the wounds in Revelation does not mean they aren't there; He may simply have not mentioned that. Furthermore, I don't think the way Jesus is described in the vision recorded in Revelation is necessarily a literal description of His appearance, since it is a vision.
@lekozza:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I reject the claim that only angels are ever described as appearing or disappearing. Philip dematerialized before the eyes of the ethiopian, apparently, presumably to materialize elsewhere. Second, I reject the claim that angels are ever recorded as manifesting corporeal bodies. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'd like to dialogue about those occurrences you would claim are examples of it.
As for the claim that you don't usually retain something you ransom, this is contradicted by Paul's statement that the body which is sown is the very body which rises from the grave. Beyond that, Jesus said, "I lay down My life so that I may take it again" (John 10:17-18). And He said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," and John records that "He was speaking of the temple of His body" (John 2:19-21). So Jesus Himself said that the thing which He gave was the thing He took back. So the claim that He could not have retained that which He gave up as a ransom.
Sorry, that should have read, "So the claim that He could not have retained that which He gave up as a ransom is an empty claim, a bald assertion."
ReplyDeleteFYI guys, I'm going to dinner with my family and will not be returning until late tonight, so if you post something and I don't immediately respond, that's why :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the engaging dialogue, Ivan!
Chris,
ReplyDeleteYou said: Could not a spirit materialize a physical body with wounds that were not really the result of the crucifixion?
My Reply: Yes, but I don't think you are arguing that, right?
You said: But if angels can materialize physically, how did His appearances prove He lives again?
My Reply: In order for someone to materialize, they would have to be alive. So if Jesus could do that, well, he was alive! But I think your question basically boils down to, 'If we grant materialization, how do we know it was Jesus and not a demon'? Would that be a correct summation?
You said: In the meantime, however, that Jesus' body is not said to include the wounds in Revelation does not mean they aren't there; He may simply have not mentioned that.
My Reply: I'll concede that.
You said: Furthermore, I don't think the way Jesus is described in the vision recorded in Revelation is necessarily a literal description of His appearance, since it is a vision.
My Reply: I think, correct me if I am wrong, that this is the only time in the entire Bible where the *ascended* Jesus is ever described. True, this is all in a vision, but I think that even in a vision, we can learn something from Jesus' appearance.