Physical resurrection
At Easter, like many Christian pastors, I had the privilege of preaching the resurrection. I stated that Christianity was pointless without the true, historical, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ (download the mp3 of the sermon). Basing these comments on 1 Corinthians 15, I pointed out that Paul took great care to outline the early conviction that Christ had died, was buried, rose again and appeared to many witnesses—many of whom were still then alive for cross-examination 20-25 years later.
So imagine my sadness at the Easter message of the Dean of St George's Anglican Cathedral, Perth, Dr John Shepherd (download the text of his sermon [Word document]). Dr Shepherd said,
Well, what I do believe is that, to be a Christian, to be a member of the Christian Church, it is not necessary to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original, earthly body. The resurrection of Jesus need not be understood as a restored physical reality, but as a new spiritual reality.
As Dr Shepherd continued, he taught that Christians need not believe that Jesus' resurrection involved his physical body, effectively making it an optional extra.
Dr Shepherd trades on a perceived opposition between ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ in 1 Corinthians 15—as if a ‘spiritual body’ must be non-physical. However, there is no direct opposition between the two. Rather, the distinction is between mortal and immortal, perishable and imperishable.
The ‘flesh and blood’ idiom of 1 Corinthians 15:50 might, at first, seem to support his non-physical idea, but a close look shows it should be seen for the clear parallel it is to ‘mortal’ in the second half of the verse—apparently also a common Jewish idiom to express mere mortality (in this current world of sin). There is bodily continuity in 1 Corinthians 15 as well as transformation, such that the spiritual will operate in the realm of the body. It is more than physical, but not less!
The physicality of Christ's body is clear in Luke 24 (where, in verse 39, Jesus says he has flesh and bones and proceeds to eat with the disciples) and in John 20 (where Thomas can touch Jesus' wounds). Such unambiguous comments contradict Dr Shepherd's claim that the Gospel writers' words were just meant to be symbolic of the overwhelming sense they felt of Christ's spiritual presence.
As an Anglican minister, I am concerned because Dr Shepherd's comments appear to deny the Apostles' Creed (a key part of section 1 of the Fundamental Declarations in the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia). As readers may know, the Creed states that:
The third day he rose again from the dead [...]; and
I believe in [...] the resurrection of the body [...].
This latter line refers to our hope for the general resurrection at the end of the age. But this is, of course, patterned on Christ's resurrection. And so, by the wide catholic agreement represented in this Creed, Christ's resurrection is clearly bodily.
Furthermore, Dr Shepherd's comments totally contradict Article 4 of the Anglican Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, which state, of the Resurrection of Christ, that:
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature [...]
For the sake of many people who are disturbed by these comments, I wrote to the Archbishop of Perth to inquire whether Dr Shepherd's views are acceptable for a senior clergyman in the Anglican Church. I await his reply with interest, although you can guess my own opinion!
Friends, hold to the historical, physical, bodily resurrection with confidence, because, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17).
