Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 33:3 (Sep 1990)
Article: Identity And Resurrection: A Review Article
Author: Francis J. Beckwith

JETS 33:3 (September 1990) p. 369

Identity And Resurrection: A Review Article

Francis J. Beckwith*

If evangelicals were in fact liberals, they would “dialogue for the Bible,” heretics would reside in the “community of the alternative religious movements,” and we would be told that “love probably should be tolerant.” As it is, however, evangelicals have a proclivity for framing their disagreements and ideas in the language of adversarial conflict, usually employing terminology germane to the fields of military science and jurisprudence. Thus the inerrancy debate is the “battle for the Bible”; pseudo-Christian sects reside in the “kingdom of the cults”; we are told that “love must be tough” and that our faith is based on “evidence that demands a verdict.”

The most recent conflict within evangelicalism involves the nature of Christ’s resurrection, dubbed by one author as the “battle for the resurrection.” The two books I am reviewing in this article are both scholarly treatments of the conflict. Both volumes present exegetical, historical and philosophical reasons for their positions. But in a limited amount of space it would not do justice to either text to attempt to summarize accurately the entire content of each and then to compare and contrast one with the other. For this reason my review will focus on the two questions surrounding the dispute the authors have with each other: (1) What is the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body? (2) Does Murray J. Harris really deny the literal physical resurrection of Jesus?

I. Norman L. Geisler, The Battle For The Resurrection 1

In answer to the first question, Norman Geisler writes that there is a numerical identity between the pre- and post-resurrection Jesus: “Jesus was raised immortal in the same physical body in which he died. That is, His resurrection body was numerically the same as His pro-resurrection body.” As to the nature of this body, “the resurrection body is a material body. It is not invisible or immaterial by nature.” Furthermore “Jesus’ resurrection was a historical event. It happened in the space-time world. … Regardless of the supernatural nature of the event, the resurrection was as much a part of history as was His incarnation before His death” (pp. 63-64). Thus for Geisler the resurrected body of Jesus was (1) numerically identical with his pre-resurrection body, (2) physical, and (3) historically observable. Geisler’s support for his conclusions is three-pronged:

* Francis Beckwith is lecturer in philosophy at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.

JETS 33:3 (September 1990) p. 370

Scripture (chap. 3), Church history (...