This is an Orthodox icon of the Pantokrator: the “all-conquering” or “all-powerful” Christ. The sustainer of the world. The life giver.

My friend Christian asked me quite a while back if I would write something about why I am adamant about the importance of believing in the physical resurrection of Christ. In asking me this, I think he is also asking me what I find unconvincing about modernist/liberal explanations of the resurrection as strictly a spiritual event.

I very strongly disagree with spiritualized explanations of Christ’s resurrection. I fervently believe that Christ experienced some kind of bodily resurrection; that after the resurrection he possessed a body that had continuity with the body he lived, breathed, ate and was crucified in. And someday he will come to judge the living and the dead and all who are in Christ will also experience the resurrection of the body.

So first let me say up front what I can and cannot or will not do. I cannot even scratch the surface of all of the ink that has been spilled on this subject. Many, many brilliant minds have devoted years of study and wrote dissertations, books and even volumes of books on this subject. And on both sides of this issue. I will make no judgment about Christians who do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.

I will do my best to unpack some of the arguments given by those who prefer a spiritualized interpretation of the resurrection. Most of those concerns center either on the tradition of the empty tomb or on Saint Paul’s epistles, especially I Corinthians 15. For some of my more theologically astute readers this will be way too over-simplified. But I know for some of you this may be the first time you have ever heard such arguments. I will also share what I believe is a good apologetic (I once never thought I would use those two words together) concerning the resurrection. It may not be a sufficient explanation to a non-believer. However I believe it is a good explanation and reinforcement for Christians who really struggle with this issue but are still compelled to hold to the traditional stance of the Church.

There are several reasons given by those who argue against a belief in the tradition of the empty tomb. The most obvious yet perhaps the most superficial reason given is an appeal to the “conflicting” accounts in the gospels themselves. One account tells us that just Mary Magdalene went first and discovered the empty tomb while another reports that several women went. One reports two angels were present and another only states that there was one angel. Questions arise: Where was the stone? or Why were the women going in the first place? and answers can vary depending on which gospel account we look at.

Secondly, those arguing against belief in an empty tomb appeal to Paul, especially to I Corinthians 15. Paul never mentions an empty tomb. Furthermore, Paul speaks of Jesus as having a “spiritual body” after the resurrection. He also says in this passage that flesh and blood will not inherit heaven.

Those who interpret Paul as saying this spiritual body is not one that has continuity with Christ’s earthly body will then argue that the tradition of the empty tomb was a later development of the gospel writers for apologetic purposes. Paul’s writings were indeed earlier than the gospels. I make no contention of that. And Paul does use some language that may seem strange to us: a spiritual body? But I believe that this is an acknowledgment of the fact that Christ’s resurrected body was different or greater than the one he went into the tomb with. It was not a mere resuscitation. He did not just pick up where he left off. However it was still his body, it had continuity with the body that he went into the tomb with. But as I mentioned Paul did not speak of this tradition of the tomb.

If we turn aside the debate over the empty tomb, there are still several observations that we can employ in presenting our best historical case for the belief that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead. For the following six observations I am indebted to my Christology professor at Calvin: Dr. John Schneider. I do not take credit for the argument. But I do believe it is a pretty good defense of the resurrection.

First, we can say with little doubt that this man, Jesus, existed. Very few people, even those antagonist toward the Christian faith doubt this claim. Secondly, Jesus embarked on a tacit campaign to be considered God’s ‘Messiah’ or ‘Christ’. Consider Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah after the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus did not (as John the Baptist would have) deny that this claim was true about himself. Third, we know that the expectation for the Jewish Messiah was that he would be an all conquering liberator: the Pantokrator.

The fourth observation is that Jesus was crucified. This led many to believe that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Fifth, something happened to make many knowledgeable Jews believe that Jesus was/is the Messiah or Christ. That he is the all conquering liberator of humanity! Whatever happened, we must not forget that it happened in the context that Jesus was indeed crucified and his followers were for a time filled with grief and doubt. Finally, this belief that Jesus was indeed God’s Messiah persisted even in the face of systematic persecution of those who believed it.

This resurrected life giver, this all conquering liberator of humanity is who restored hope to the disciples who were filled with grief and doubt. And I believe it is this same Jesus that Paul experience on the road to Damascus. This is why he said so adamantly:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (I Corinthians 15: 12-19 NRSV).

Christian, my friend I do not know if you will find this line of reasoning convincing. I am not sure how much you are still wrestling with this issue. But I do hope that you and anyone else reading this will be encouraged by this post to continue in the faith, seeking understanding, but above that to continue to grow in love for God and neighbor.

Shalom,
Wayne