I’ve been reading
several books about Jesus recently – Geza Vermes’ The Changing Faces of Jesus, Gary Habermas’ The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,
Anthony LeDonne’s The Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It?, Willi Marxsen’s The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,
and Robert Gundry’s Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, Especially Its Elites, in North America
And now I have finished reading Norman L. Geisler’s The Battle for the Resurrection[i]. And while I am more inclined to agree with Geisler’s defense of the resurrection of Jesus than I am to accept Marxen’s or Vermes’ dismissals – there is very little I like about this book. I agree with Geisler that Jesus’ resurrection was a historical event and that he was raised in physical material body. But that’s about where the agreement ends.
From the beginning Geisler’s book is antagonistic, from the very title. He sees this as a battle, as war against the enemies of historic and orthodox Christianity – at least Christianity as he understands and practices it. Those who disagree with him are unorthodox, pretenders to the faith who are challenging the very foundations of the Church. And Geisler is unwilling to tolerate any deviation in the doctrine of the resurrection within the ranks of Orthodox Christianity.[ii]
Geisler posits three
tests for what he defines as the orthodox, biblical understanding of Jesus’ resurrection:
1) It
is an event in history
2) It
is a material body
3) It
maintains numerical identity
I accept and believe the
first point of this test – though I’m not convinced by Geisler’s appeal to the inerrancy
of the bible.
The second point I
accept – but not in a way that would be acceptable to Geisler. He maintains that Jesus’ resurrection body is
a fully restored human, fleshy, material body.
I say yes…but it is different. Jesus’ resurrected, glorified body, is
different – it is changed, transformed.
Geisler argues that
Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to his disciples in which he offered to
let them touch his wounds, and when he ate with them were appearances in order
to demonstrate the material, physical nature of his resurrection. [iii]
But I’m not
convinced. His appearances to his
disciples wasn’t merely to demonstrate his material existence, but to
demonstrate his reality and the continued relationship they had with him, and
as a demonstration of the restored communion they would have with God.
It’s the third point of
this test that divides us. Geisler
maintains that the resurrection body of Jesus and that of his followers is/will
be exactly – exactly – the same as that body possessed before death. He even goes so far as to maintain that the “view
that every particle of the resurrection body will be restored is possible but
not necessary.”[iv] It would seem that Paul’s description of the
resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 (heavenly, imperishable, raised in power as a spiritual body) would argue against him, but Geisler says this
indicates that the resurrection body is a supernatural body[v]
– but still tries to argue that it’s exactly the same body.
It’s interesting that
in the whole book, Geisler never gets around to answer the underlying
question. In his entire defense of the
historical, material, numerically identical resurrection, Geisler never answers
the question: What is death?
Biblically, death is
something more than just the extinguishing of physical, material
existence. Death is separation from God –
the source of life. Death is the separation from God due to sin. And if biblical death is something more than
physical death – then any biblical explanation of the resurrection must be more
than just the physical material resurrection. Geisler never address this. For him it’s all about affirming the physical
materiality of the resurrection and castigating those who disagree with him.
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteJust found your blog, and I have enjoyed it. I agree completely with your discussion of the 3 points. I grew up in churches (Church of Christs in southwest Iowa) that agreed with Geisler and often spit out his arguments myself.
Now I lean in your direction. For me the only point worth fighting for is point 1, if it didn't happen then I agree with Paul, what's the point.
Thanks, Nate. I'm glad you enjoyed the blog, and I hope you'll return.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most distressing about Geisler's book was not that I disagreed with him in some points, but the fact that he is so willing to write off anyone who disagrees as an enemy, with whom he must battle.