Christ's body after the resurrection vs. now

[dwilkins]

I have been reading quite a bit about resurrection lately. The cornerstone of this doctrine is Christ's resurrection from the grave. While reading through a number of conservative authors I noticed that they are divided about the nature of his body after resurrection. More critically to me, they are even more divided about the effect of the ascension, and whether or not Christ's body after his resurrection from the grave is or is not the same as his body now, post ascension. I haven't seen them deal with the implications of more than one transformation as a model for our resurrection, much less what was inadequate or incomplete about the first resurrection from the grave. I'm curious about whether or not anyone here has looked into these issues or has opinions on them.

Doug

[mattrose]

I'm not sure it's so much about an inadequacy in the post-resurrection/pre-ascension body of Christ. I think it has more to do with the strangeness of the 'where is His body right now' question. It's relatively easy to contemplate His body in the time between resurrection and ascension, but it is rather awkward to imagine a body floating around somewhere in the universe.

That being said, Jesus seems to have been able to appear and disappear at will in his post-resurrection state. Perhaps from the ascension onward He has just been mostly 'disappeared' (so to speak). Perhaps He has chosen to remain hidden because He wants us to understand that we are to be His body on earth.

[Paidion]

Yes. Christ was raised immortal, just as we shall be. His body has not changed from what it was at the time of resurrection. We shall also be raised immortal.

Christ was the first person to experience a true resurrection, the first to be born into the resurrection. That is why He is called, "The first-born among many brethren" (Rom 8:29) and "the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).

Other so-called "resurrections" (such as that of Lazarus) were not true resurrections but resuscitations. Lazarus died a second time, but those who are raised immortal shall never die again.

[dwilkins]

One example of the type of transformation I'm talking about can be found in Randy Alcorn's book "Heaven". In it, he is clear that Christ appeared and disappeared at times after his resurrection, but that at the moment of the ascension he was fully glorified (i.e., transformed into a glorified body). I don't think he has considered the implications of this approach, but I think that it is similar to the one assumed by most people.

Doug

[mattrose]

One example of the type of transformation I'm talking about can be found in Randy Alcorn's book "Heaven". In it, he is clear that Christ appeared and disappeared at times after his resurrection, but that at the moment of the ascension he was fully glorified (i.e., transformed into a glorified body). I don't think he has considered the implications of this approach, but I think that it is similar to the one assumed by most people.

Doug

I assume you're talking about pages 292-293 (I only ask b/c if there's another section that tackles that issue, I'd like to re-read it).

His point seems to be that at the transfiguration, Jesus appeared more 'gloriously' than during His post-resurrection/pre-ascension appearances. I don't have a major problem with thinking that in the time between resurrection and ascension Jesus 'held something of Himself back' for the sake of those around Him (were they even ready to see Him in His full glory?). But I would object strongly to the idea that there is an actual 2 stage process to resurrection... especially if the second stage is seen as dogmatically non-material.

[dwilkins]

That was indeed the section I was talking about. The problem to me is that a two phase resurrection rather clearly declares that the first one was not adequate for residence in heaven. But, I'm not aware of any element of scripture that defines resurrection as a two phase event (unless you might say that the first phase would get you to the Great White Throne Judgment and a positive verdict would get you the second phase, but this seems out of character according to Rev. 20:4-6). He seems to say pretty clearly that the glorification was a transformation of some kind that allowed Christ to be able to dwell in heaven. More importantly, I have noticed that this is sort of a folk way of understanding the resurrection that is quite common in church goers.

I'm not sure what Alcorn's understanding of cosmology is (though I suspect that it's strongly Platonic), but there is no dichotomy between spiritual and physical as far as I can tell in scripture. Paul was clear that resurrection bodies would be made of pneumas (translated spirit) in 1st Cor. 15., but his conception of pneumas was that it was a type of physical (though invisible) matter.

Doug