Eamon Younis: October 2023

Monday 9 October 2023

The Significance of Christ’s Physical Resurrection

By Norman L. Geisler

[Dean, Center for Research and Scholarship, Liberty University Graduate School of Religion, Lynchburg, Virginia]

The New Testament declares that without Christ’s bodily resurrection there is no salvation (Rom 10:9–10). For He “was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25). The physical resurrection of Christ’s body is just as much a part of the gospel as His death (1 Cor 15:1–5). The Apostle Paul insisted that if Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, then (a) the faith of believers is useless, (b) they are still in their sins, (c) departed loved ones are lost, (d) the apostles are false witnesses, and (e) “we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:14–19).[1]

The Orthodox View of the Resurrection Body of Christ

Orthodox Christianity has always confessed two things about the resurrection body of Christ. First, it was the same physical body in which Jesus was crucified. Second, Jesus’ body, at the moment it was resurrected, became an immortal, glorified body, a body that was physical but was also imperishable. Both are important to a biblical view of the resurrection, but the former is the primary focus of this discussion.

In his classic History of Christian Doctrine, William G. T. Shedd noted that “the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was from the beginning a cardinal and striking tenet of the Christian Church.”[2] Historically the bodily resurrection has been taken to mean a literal physical body. Indeed even some scholars who oppose the phrase admit that “until the time of the Reformation the creeds of the West spoke only of the resurrection of the flesh (sarkos anastasis; resurrectio carnis).”[3]

The Second Creed of Epiphanius (A.D. 374) confessed that Christ “suffered in the flesh; and rose again; and went into heaven in the same body, sat down gloriously at the right hand of the Father.”[4] In emphasizing the material nature of the resurrection body Augustine confidently pronounced, “It is indubitable that the resurrection of Christ, and His ascension into heaven with the flesh in which He rose, is already preached and believed in the whole world.”[5] The Westminster Confession (1647) reads, “On the third day He arose…with the same body in which He suffered” (8.4).

The Material Nature of the Resurrection Body

Evangelicals have always stressed the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection body. To emphasize this, it was even called the resurrection of the “flesh.”[6] However, many evangelical confessions have been content simply with the word “body,” since the ordinary meaning implies that which is material and physical. This belief is based on the fact that at His resurrection Jesus permanently vacated the tomb in the same physical body in which He was crucified. Furthermore Jesus’ resurrection body had crucifixion scars, could be seen and handled, and could eat food. Jesus even said His body was a body of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).

The Immortal Nature of the Resurrection Body

In addition to the physical nature of the resurrection body evangelicals have also affirmed its immortal and imperishable dimension (1 Cor 15:42–43). It is a glorified and heavenly body (Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2). That is, it is one specially suited for abode in heaven where perishable “flesh and blood” cannot enter (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus, as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20), was the first one to have a permanent, imperishable, glorified resurrection body. However, while His resurrection body is more than mortal, it is not less than physical. What is unique about the resurrection body is not a lack of materiality but the presence of imperishability (1 Cor 15:42). Christ was not the first to be raised in a physical body (Luke 7:11–15; 8:49–56; John 11:43–44), but He was the first to be raised in an immortal physical body (1 Cor 15:54; 2 Tim 1:10). The others, who were resuscitated to their former life, still had their same mortal bodies. Jesus, when He was resurrected, had the same body He had before His death, but it was made immortal.

The Case for an Immaterial Resurrection Body

Many unorthodox views are offered about what happened to Christ after His crucifixion. Some claim that His body remained in the grave and that the disciples went to the wrong tomb. Others say the disciples stole His body. These views have no credibility and have been thoroughly discredited by competent scholars, some of whom are liberal[7] or neoorthodox.[8] Recently even a Jewish rabbi concluded that Christ actually rose from the dead.[9]

Recent denials of the physical nature of the resurrection body have been more sophisticated. Some claim Jesus “rose” in spirit but not in body. Others say Jesus used telepathic communications to convince the disciples He was alive.[10] These theories are without foundation, and their fallacies have been exposed by evangelical scholars.[11] Perhaps the most subtle denial of the physical resurrection is one that claims that though Jesus rose bodily His “body” was not a tangible, material one but was essentially invisible and immaterial. According to this position the appearances of Christ were miracles by which His invisible resurrection body was made visible. That is, they were the means by which His immaterial body “materialized.”

A Statement of the Case for an Immaterial Body

Though Wolfhart Pannenberg confesses belief in the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, he denies that Christ’s body was a body of literal flesh and bones. He views the “body” as spiritual or immaterial. Consider the following quotations:

a. Jesus’ resurrection body was not perceptible.

Because the life of the resurrected Lord involves the reality of the new creation, the resurrected Lord is in fact not perceptible as one object among others in this world; therefore, he could only be experienced and designated by an extraordinary mode of experience, the vision, and only in metaphorical language.[12]

b. Jesus’ resurrection body was not visible.

With regard to the character and mode of the Easter appearances, the first thing to be considered is that it may have involved an extraordinary vision, not an event that was visible to everyone. This is especially clear with regard to the Damascus event.[13]

c. Jesus’ resurrection body was a spiritual body.

Paul must have seen a spiritual body, a soma pneumatikon, on the road to Damascus, not a person with an earthly body.[14]

d. Jesus’ resurrection body was not corporeal.

The appearances reported in the Gospels, which are not mentioned by Paul, have such a strongly legendary character that one can scarcely find a historical kernel of their own in them. Even the Gospels’ reports that correspond to Paul’s statements are heavily colored by legendary elements, particularly by the tendency toward underlining the corporeality of the appearances.[15]

e. Jesus’ resurrection body was not one of flesh.

It is self-evident for him [Paul] that the future body will be a different one from the present body, not a fleshly body but—as he says—a “spiritual body.”[16]

f. There is no material identity between preresurrection and postresurrection bodies.

The transformation of the perishable into the spiritual body will be so radical that nothing will remain unchanged. There is no substantial or structural continuity from the old to the new existence.[17]

g. The continuity between Jesus’ preresurrection and postresurrection body is historical, not material.

Something different will be produced in its place, but there is a historical continuity in the sense of a continuous transition in the consummation of the transformation itself.[18]

Recently some evangelicals are expressing similar positions.[19] The arguments offered for this view need to be examined in the light of Scripture.

The Arguments for an Immaterial Resurrection Body

Several arguments are used to deny that Christ’s resurrection body was a literal physical body.[20]

1. “Paul wrote of a ‘spiritual body.’“ A passage often cited is 1 Corinthians 15:44, in which Paul referred to the resurrection body as a “spiritual body” in contrast to the preresurrection body, which is a “natural body.” But a study of the context does not support the conclusion that the body was immaterial.

First, “spiritual” denotes a body that is immortal, not immaterial. A “spiritual” body is one dominated by the spirit, not one devoid of matter. The Greek words σῶμα πνευματικός (translated “spiritual body” here) mean a body directed by the spirit, as opposed to one under the dominion of the flesh. It is a supernatural body[21] because it is not ruled by flesh that perishes but by the spirit that endures (1 Cor 15:50–58). So “spiritual body” does not denote what is immaterial and invisible but what is immortal and imperishable because it is controlled by the spirit.

Second, the resurrection body is supernatural. The contrasts used by Paul in this passage reveal that the resurrection body was a supernatural body.

Preresurrection Body	Postresurrection Body
Earthly (v. 40)	Heavenly
Perishable (v. 42)	Imperishable
Weak (v. 42)	Powerful
Natural (v. 44)	[Supernatural]
Mortal (v. 53)	Immortal

In 1 Corinthians 15 “spiritual” (πνευματικός) should be translated “supernatural” in contrast to “natural.” This is made clear by the contrasts between perishable and imperishable, corruptible and incorruptible, and others. In fact this same Greek word πνευματικός is translated “supernatural” in 1 Corinthians 10:4, which refers to the “supernatural rock that followed them in the wilderness” (RSV). “That which belongs to the supernatural order of being is described as πν. [πνευματικός]: accordingly, the resurrection body is a σῶμα πν. [σῶμα πνευματικός, supernatural body].”[22]

Third, “spiritual” refers to material objects in other passages. A study of Paul’s use of the same word “spiritual” in other passages reveals it does not always refer to something purely immaterial. Paul spoke of the “spiritual rock” (1 Cor 10:4). But the Old Testament (Exod 17; Num 20) reveals it was a physical rock from which came literal water to drink. The point is that the water was produced supernaturally. “All ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:3–4, RSV).

The supernatural Christ was the Source of these supernatural manifestations of natural food and water. But the fact that the physical provisions came from a spiritual (i.e., supernatural) source did not make them immaterial. When Jesus supernaturally made bread for the 5,000 (John 6), He made literal bread. However, this literal, material bread could have been called “spiritual” bread (because of its supernatural source) in the same way the literal manna given to Israel is called “spiritual food” (1 Cor 10:4).[23]

When Paul spoke about a “spiritual man” (1 Cor 2:15), he obviously did not mean an invisible, immaterial man with no corporeal body. He was speaking of a flesh-and-blood human being whose life was lived by the supernatural power of God. He was referring to a literal person whose life had spiritual direction. A spiritual man is one who is “taught by the Spirit” and who “accepts the things that come from the Spirit of God” (vv. 13–14).

Dunn says that “spiritual” (πνευματικός) is used “in contrast to the merely material or to those activities, attitudes, etc. which derive from the flesh and draw their significance from the merely physical, human and worldly.”[24] So “spiritual” does not mean something purely immaterial or intangible. The spiritual man is a physical being who receives supernatural help.

2. “Jesus appeared and disappeared instantaneously.” It is also argued that Jesus’ resurrection body was essentially immaterial and invisible because the New Testament stresses the fact that it could appear[25] (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Cor 15:5–8). In each of these references the statement is made, “He appeared” or “He let Himself be seen” (aorist passive). Grammatically the action rests on the One who appears, not on the one who sees Him appear. This, it is argued, implies that Jesus was essentially invisible and hence took the initiative to make Himself visible by His resurrection appearances. However, this argument fails for several reasons.

First, Christ’s appearances are described by the word ὁράω (“to see”; passive, “to appear”). Though ὁράω is sometimes used of seeing invisible realities (Luke 1:22; 24:23), it often means to see by the naked eye. For example John used this word of seeing Jesus in His earthly body before the resurrection (John 6:36; 14:9; 19:35) and also of seeing Him in His resurrection body (20:18, 25, 29). Since the same word for body (σῶμα) is used of Jesus before and after the resurrection (John 19:38; 1 Cor 15:44; Phil 3:21) and since the same word for its appearing (ὁράω) is used of both, there is no reason for believing His resurrection body is not the same literal, physical body.

The aorist passive ὤφθη, “He was seen,” simply means that Jesus took the initiative to show Himself to the disciples, not that He was essentially invisible. The same aorist passive form (“He [they] appeared”) is used in the Greek Old Testament (2 Chron 25:21), in the Apocrypha (1 Mac. 4:6),[26] and in the New Testament (Acts 7:26) of human beings in physical bodies. In the aorist passive form the word means to initiate an appearance for public view, to move from a place where one is not seen to a place where one is seen. It does not necessarily mean that what is by nature invisible becomes visible.[27] Rather, it means more generally “to come into view.” There is no justification for translating it, “He came into visibility.”[28] For in this case it would mean that these human beings were essentially invisible before they were seen by others.

The translation of ὤφθη as “He appeared” is confirmed by several authorities. Arndt and Gingrich point out that the word is used “of persons who appear in a natural way.”[29] Michaelis notes that appearances “occur in a reality which can be perceived by the natural senses.”[30] Second, nowhere is a distinct appearance of the resurrected Christ called a miracle.[31] Each appearance was the manifestation of the supernatural Christ, but the fact that He could appear was not in itself supernatural. A resurrection body can be seen with the natural eyes.

Third, the fact that Jesus’ resurrection body could be seen was not a miracle, but the way in which it often appeared was a miracle. For the Gospels say that Jesus appeared suddenly. They also assert that Jesus could disappear suddenly. Luke wrote of the two disciples on the Emmaus Road, “Their eyes were opened and they recognized Him, and He vanished from their sight” (Luke 24:31, italics added). Jesus also disappeared from the disciples on other occasions (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). But if Jesus could disappear suddenly, as well as appear suddenly, then His ability to appear cannot be taken as evidence that His resurrection body was essentially invisible. For His ability to disappear suddenly could be used as evidence that it was not essentially immaterial.[32]

A more plausible explanation for the instant appearances and disappearances is that suddenness is one of the indications of supernaturalness, not of invisibility. After all, the believer’s resurrection body will be a “supernatural body” (1 Cor 15:44, RSV). Suddenness is a characteristic of miraculous power in general. When Jesus or the apostles performed a supernatural healing, the disease departed “immediately” (e.g., Matt 8:3; Mark 1:31; John 5:9; Acts 9:18, 34). So the sudden appearance or disappearance of the resurrection body is an indication of its supernatural ability, not of its immateriality.

Philip was suddenly and supernaturally transported through the air in his preresurrection body. “The Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again” (Acts 8:39, italics added). So if a sudden appearance or disappearance is proof that a body is immaterial, one would have to conclude that Philip had a resurrection body before he died! But the Scriptures declare that Christ is the first one to receive a resurrection body (1 Cor 15:20). Sudden appearance or disappearance, then, is not proof of the immaterial but simply of the supernatural.

Fourth, there are more reasonable explanations for the stress in the New Testament on Christ’s self-initiated “appearances.” They were proofs that He had conquered death. Jesus said, “I am the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev 1:18; cf. John 10:18).

No human being saw Jesus being resurrected. But the fact that He appeared repeatedly for 40 days (Acts 1:3) to more than 500 people (1 Cor 15:6) on 12 occasions[33] is indisputable evidence that He rose bodily from the dead. These many appearances do not say that the resurrection body was invisible and immaterial; instead they show that it was material and immortal. Without an empty tomb and repeated appearances of the same body that was once buried in it, there would be no proof of the resurrection. So it is not surprising at all that the Bible emphasizes the many resurrection appearances of Christ. They are the real proof of His physical resurrection.

3. “Resurrection appearances are called visions.” Reference to a resurrection appearance as a vision is also used to support the immaterial view of the resurrection body.34 Luke recorded that women at the tomb “had also seen a vision of angels, who said that He was alive” (Luke 24:23). Angels are ordinarily invisible, unseen realities. The miracle is that these spiritual realities could be seen. Likewise it is argued that a spiritual body is angel-like and cannot be seen.[35] Some also point out that Paul’s companions on the Damascus Road did not see Christ.[36] Hence the experience of the resurrected Christ is called a vision. But this reasoning is flawed. First, Luke 24:23 does not say seeing the resurrected Christ was a vision; it refers only to seeing the angels at the tomb as a vision. The Gospels never speak of a resurrection appearance of Christ as a vision.[37]

Second, Jesus’ postresurrection encounters were never called visions. The difference between a vision and a physical appearance is significant. A vision is an experience in which a person “sees” or perceives mentally or spiritually an invisible, spiritual reality such as God or angels, or perceives as in a dream or trance an absent physical reality. An appearance, however, is an experience of actually seeing a physical, visible object. (An exception to this distinction seems to be the “appearing” of an angel to Joseph [Matt 1:20]. But this is explained as occurring in a dream.) In Zacharias’s vision (Luke 1:22) he “saw” Gabriel, an angel, and “heard” him (Luke 1:11–20), and in Peter’s vision he, being in a trance, “saw” heaven opened and heard a voice (Acts 10:10–17). Saul “saw” Ananias in a dream (9:12). Cornelius “saw” an angel in a “vision” (10:3). However, these men did not literally see or hear these things with the naked eye or ear. The objects were realities spiritually perceived.[38] Even Ananias, when seen by Saul in a dream, did not physically appear.

Third, the contention that Paul’s experience must have been a vision because those with him did not see Christ is unfounded for several reasons. (a) Paul listed this as a physical appearance of Jesus along with those received by the other apostles immediately after His resurrection (1 Cor 15:8). (b) Unlike a vision, this appearance had physical phenomena associated with it, such as sound and light. (c) Those who were with him experienced the same physical phenomena. They heard the sound (Acts 9:7)[39] and saw the light (22:9). The fact that they “did not see anyone” (9:7) is not surprising since even Paul was physically blinded by the brightness of the light they all saw (9:8–9). Apparently only Paul looked straight into the light. So only he actually saw Christ (1 Cor 9:1), and only he was literally stricken blind by it (cf. Acts 22:11; 26:13). Nonetheless for those with Paul it was an experience of a physical reality, not a mere vision.

4. “Christ was sovereign over His appearances.” It is also argued that Jesus’ sovereignty over His appearances indicates that He was essentially invisible, making Himself visible only when He wished to do so. It is noted that Jesus did not appear to unbelievers, which supposedly indicates that He was not naturally visible to the naked eye. However, this conclusion is unwarranted.

First, Jesus did appear to unbelievers. As far as His resurrection is concerned even His disciples were at first unbelieving. When Mary Magdalene and others reported Jesus was resurrected, their “words appeared to them [the apostles] as nonsense, and they would not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Later Jesus had to chide the two disciples on the road to Emmaus about disbelief in His resurrection: “Oh foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25). Even after Jesus had appeared to the women, to Peter, to the two disciples, and to the 10 apostles, still Thomas said, “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). In addition to appearing to His unbelieving disciples Jesus also appeared to some who were not His disciples at all, including His unbelieving brother James (John 7:5; 1 Cor 15:7) and probably also Jude (Jude 1). He also appeared to the anti-Christian and unbelieving Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9). So it is wrong to claim that the resurrected Jesus did not appear to unbelievers.

Second, the fact that Jesus was selective about those who saw Him does not indicate that He was essentially invisible. Jesus was also in control of those who wanted to lay hands on Him before the resurrection. On one occasion an unbelieving crowd tried to “throw Him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, He went His way” (Luke 4:29–30; cf. John 8:59; 10:39). Furthermore even before His resurrection Jesus was also selective about those for whom He performed miracles. He refused to perform miracles in His own home area “because of their unbelief” (Matt 13:58), and He disappointed Herod who had hoped to see Him perform a miracle (Luke 23:8). The truth is that Jesus refused “to cast pearls before swine” (Matt 7:6). In submission to the Father’s will (John 5:30) He was sovereign over His activities both before and after His resurrection. But this in no way proves that He was essentially invisible and immaterial either before or after His resurrection.

5. “Jesus could move through closed doors.” Since the resurrected Christ could appear in a room with closed doors (John 20:19, 26), it is argued this proves that His body must have been essentially immaterial. But this does not follow for several reasons. First, John 20:19 and 26 do not actually say He went through a door. The verses simply affirm that He got into the room even though the doors were locked. Conceivably He could have used His power to unlock the door just as was done to release Peter from prison (Acts 12:10). Second, Jesus could have done miracles like this in His preresurrection physical body, if He had chosen to do so. As the Son of God, His miraculous powers were as great before the resurrection as afterward.

Third, before His resurrection Jesus performed miracles with His body—miracles that transcended natural laws, such as walking on water (John 6:16–20). But walking on water did not prove that His preresurrection body was invisible or immaterial. Fourth, though physical, the resurrection body is by its very nature a supernatural body. Hence it should be expected that it could do supernatural things such as entering a room with closed doors. Fifth, even if Jesus’ resurrection body went through doors, this does not mean it was not material. According to modern physics it is not impossible for a material object to pass through a door. It is only statistically improbable. Physical objects are mostly empty space. All that is necessary for one object to pass through another object is the right alignment of the particles in the two physical objects. This is no problem for the One who created the human body.

6. “The elements of the physical body decay.” Some have argued in favor of an immaterial resurrection body on the grounds that a physical resurrection body would imply “a crassly materialistic view of resurrection according to which the scattered fragments of decomposed corpses were to be reassembled.”[40] However, in modern science it is known that the physical body remains physical, even though the molecules in it change every seven years or so. Also there are biblical grounds to argue that Jesus’ resurrection body possessed the same physical molecules as His preresurrection body. For unlike other human bodies, Jesus’ body did not become corrupt while in the tomb. Even if there were some initial dissolution involved in His death, there was no eventual decay. Hence the same basic matter of Jesus’ preresurrected body was in His resurrected body. Quoting the psalmist, Peter said of Jesus, “He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay” (Acts 2:31). On the same point Paul added by contrast that the prophet could not have spoken about David since his body “underwent decay” (Acts 13:36). So the argument that belief in a physical resurrection body is crassly materialistic is mistaken.

7. “Paul said God will destroy the body.” Paul wrote, “Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them” (1 Cor 6:13). Because of this verse it is argued that “the resurrection body will not have the anatomy or physiology of the earthly body.”[41] However, this inference is unjustified. First, when Paul wrote that God will destroy both food and the stomach, he was referring to the process of death, not to the nature of the resurrection body. Second, while the resurrection body does not need to eat, it does have the ability to eat (Luke 24:30, 42–43; John 21:12–13; Acts 10:41; cf. Acts 1:4, NIV).

8. “Resurrection is different from resuscitation.” Some also argue that Jesus’ body was not material because His resurrection was not a mere resuscitation of a physical corpse. True, Jesus’ resurrection was not a mere resuscitation. Resuscitated corpses died again; Jesus’ resurrection body was immortal. He conquered death (Heb 2:14; 1 Cor 15:54–55), whereas merely resuscitated bodies were eventually overcome again by death. However, the fact that Jesus was the first to be raised in an immortal body does not mean it was an immaterial body. Nor does it follow that since Jesus’ resurrection body could not die it could not be seen. The immortal is not necessarily invisible. Here again, the resurrection body differs from resuscitation, not because it is immaterial but because it is immortal.

9. “Jesus appeared in a ‘different form.’“ Some propose that after the resurrection “we cannot rule out the possibility that the visible form of Jesus had altered in some mysterious way, delaying recognition of him.” It is suggested that “the expression ‘he appeared in another form’ in the Markan appendix (Mark 16:12) encapsulates this.”[42] However, this conclusion is unnecessary for several reasons. First, there are serious questions about the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20. It is not found in some of the oldest and best manuscripts.[43] Second, even granting the authenticity of this passage, Luke, writing of the same event (Luke 24:13–32), said “their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him” (v. 16). Whether this resulted from a divine action or from human dullness (cf. v. 25), the “different form” (Mark 16:12) could possibly refer to His wearing different clothes or to the dimness of light in the dawn (John 20:15). The word “form” (μορφή) can mean simply an “outward appearance.”[44] Fourth, at best the words “another form” in Mark 16:12 are an obscure and isolated reference on which it is unwise to base any significant doctrinal pronouncement. Fifth, whatever a “different form” means it certainly does not mean a form other than a physical material body. For Jesus ate physical food as a proof that He was “flesh and bones” and not a “spirit” (Luke 24:38–43).

In short, there is no scientific, biblical, or theological reason for forsaking the historic evangelical view that Jesus’ resurrection body is a literal, physical body. All the arguments used to prove the immaterial nature of His resurrection body fall short of the mark. Furthermore they run headlong into the overwhelming evidence that His resurrected body was a literal, physical body of flesh and bones.

Evidence for the Physical Nature of the Resurrection Body

The biblical basis for the belief that Christ’s resurrection body was a literal, material body of flesh and bones is strong.

The Empty Tomb Shows That the Physical Body Rose

Combined with the appearances of the crucified Christ, the empty tomb is a strong indication of the physical nature of His resurrection body. The angels said, “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying” (Matt 28:6). Later Peter entered the tomb and “beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face cloth…not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself” (John 20:6–7). These details emphasize the fact that the literal, physical body of Jesus that once lay there had been resurrected (Acts 13:29–30).

Jesus Was Touched and Handled

Jesus challenged Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side” (John 20:27). Thomas responded, “My Lord and my God!” (v. 28). When Mary was clinging to Jesus after His resurrection, He said to her, “Stop clinging to Me; for I have not yet returned to the Father” (John 20:17). Matthew said the women “took hold of [Jesus’] feet and worshiped Him” (Matt 28:9). On another occasion Jesus said, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see” (Luke 24:39). These passages leave no room for views that deny that Jesus’ body both before and after the resurrection was a literal, physical body that could be handled and touched.

Jesus’ Resurrection Body Had Flesh and Bones

Jesus said, “Touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). Jesus’ resurrection body was one of actual human flesh (σάρξ, Acts 2:31), but it was incorruptible and immortal (1 Cor 15:42, 53). Paul wrote that “in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9, italics added).

Jesus Ate After the Resurrection

To prove to the disciples that He had a real physical body Jesus asked them if they had anything there to eat. When “they gave Him a piece of broiled fish…He took it and ate it before them” (Luke 24:42–43). It would have been deception on Jesus’ part to have offered His ability to eat physical food as a proof of His bodily resurrection if He had not been resurrected in a physical body.[45]

The fact that Jesus had a physical body that could eat was such a significant proof of His literal resurrection body that it is referred to in Peter’s short summary of the ministry of Christ in Acts 10. He said that the apostles “ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead” (Acts 10:41).

Christ’s Resurrection Body Has Wounds

Another unmistakable evidence of the physical nature of Jesus’ resurrected body is the fact that it has the physical wounds from His crucifixion. Jesus said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving but believing” (John 20:27). This same body ascended into heaven where He is still seen as “a Lamb, standing as if slain” (Rev 5:6). And when Christ returns, He will be “this Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Even the physical scars of His crucifixion will be visible at His Second Coming, for John declared, “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him” (Rev 1:7). And Zechariah wrote, “They will look on Me whom they have pierced” (Zech 12:10). Thus it is evident that the body that was resurrected is the same physical body that died. And the same physical body that was resurrected ascended into heaven and will return to earth (Acts 1:10–11).

Jesus’ Resurrection Body Was Physically Recognizable

Jesus was physically recognizable in His resurrection body. The usual words for “see” (ὀράω, θεωρέω) and “recognize” (ἐπιγινώσκω) were used (Matt 28:7, 17; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:24; John 20:14; 1 Cor 9:1; etc.). Indeed His resurrection body had the same unmistakable scars of His crucifixion (John 20:27). On some occasions He was not initially recognized by some of the disciples. There were reasons for this. Sometimes it was because of their perplexity (Luke 24:17–21) or sorrow (John 20:11–15). Other times the difficulty in recognizing Jesus may have resulted from the dimness of the light in the dawn (20:14–15) or the visual distance (21:4). On one occasion they were startled by the suddenness of His appearance (Luke 24:36–37). Also after the resurrection He wore different clothes than before since His other garments were taken at the crucifixion (John 19:23–24). And the initial inability to recognize Jesus may have been due in part to the fact that the disciples were spiritually dull (Luke 24:25–26) and disbelieving (John 20:24–25). However, in every instance the fact that they eventually recognized Him from His appearance, voice, scars, etc., is ample proof that He was resurrected in the same physical body in which He had died.

Jesus’ Resurrection Body Could Be Seen and Heard

Not only could Jesus’ resurrection body be touched and handled, but it could also be seen and heard. Matthew recorded that “when they saw Him, they worshiped Him” (Matt 28:17). When the two disciples were eating with Him, they “recognized”[46] Him (Luke 24:31), perhaps from His bodily movements (v. 35). Mary recognized Jesus from the tone of His voice (John 20:15–16). Thomas eventually recognized Jesus from His crucifixion scars (20:27–28). All the disciples saw and heard Him over a 40-day period in which He gave “many convincing proofs” that He was alive (Acts 1:3; cf. 4:2, 20).

Continuity between Death and Resurrection

Further evidence of the material nature of Jesus’ resurrection body comes from the close and repeated connection made in the New Testament between Jesus’ death and His resurrection. Paul considered it of “first importance” that “Christ died for our sins…that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day” (1 Cor 15:3–4). The same connection between the physical body that was buried and the one that was resurrected is repeated elsewhere (Rom 6:3–5; Col 2:12).

It is noteworthy that “as an ex-Pharisee, Paul could not have used such traditional language without recognizing its intent to portray the raising of a corpse.”[47] Thus the inseparable connection of the preresurrection and postresurrection body of Jesus as noted by Paul, the converted Pharisee, is strong indication that he was affirming the physical nature of the resurrection body.

Resurrection Was from among the Dead

Resurrection is often described as “from (ἐκ) the dead” (Mark 9:9; Luke 24:46; John 2:22; Acts 3:15; Rom 4:24; 1 Cor 15:12). This means that Jesus was resurrected out from among the dead ones, that is, from the grave where corpses are buried (Acts 13:29–30). This same phrase is used to describe Lazarus’ being raised “from the dead” (John 12:1). This makes it clear that the phrase refers to a resurrection of a physical corpse out of a tomb or graveyard. Again, “for one who had been a Pharisee, such phraseology could carry only one meaning—physical resurrection.”[48]

Continuity between the Body Sown and Raised

First Corinthians 15:35–44 implies an identity between the physical body that is buried and the one that is resurrected. Paul compared the preresurrection and postresurrection states to a seed that is sown and the plant that comes from it which has material continuity with it. As Paul wrote, “it is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body” (1 Cor 15:42). That is, the body that is resurrected is the same body that was sown. If a material body was buried and an immaterial body were raised, then it would not be one and the same body. But in this text Paul clearly affirmed the identity between the preresurrection and postresurrection body.

The New Testament Use of σῶμα (“Body”)

When the Greek word for body (σῶμα) refers in the New Testament to a human, it is always used of a physical body. When Paul used σῶμα to describe the resurrection body of Christ (1 Cor 15:42–44), he indicated his belief that it was a physical body. Gundry, in his definitive exegetical work on σῶμα, points to “Paul’s exceptionless use of sōma for a physical body” as evidence of the physical nature of the resurrection body.[49] Thus he concludes that “the consistent and exclusive use of sōma for the physical body in anthropological contexts resists dematerialization of the resurrection, whether by idealism or by existentialism.”[50]

For those who think Paul should have used another word to express physical resurrection,[51] Gundry responds, “Paul uses sōma precisely because the physicality of the resurrection is central to his soteriology.”[52] This consistent use of the word σῶμα for a physical body is further confirmation that the resurrection body of Christ was a literal, material body.

The Significance of the Physical Nature of the Resurrection

What difference does it make whether Jesus rose in a material body or an immaterial one? If one believes that Christ conquered death, is that not enough? Actually the significance of the physical resurrection of Christ is far-reaching. The view that denies the literal, physical resurrection of Christ has some serious problems.

Denying the Physical Resurrection Is Unusual

The denial that Christ’s resurrection involved a literal, physical body is a highly unusual view. The historic orthodox view of the nature of the resurrection body is that it is a real material body.

For the common person the word “body” in his confession of Christ’s resurrection means a literal, physical organism as opposed to something immaterial. Webster defines body as “the organized physical substance of an animal or plant…the material part or nature of a human being.”[53] In the commonly accepted sense of the term it is incongruous to speak of an “immaterial body.” Only when one’s thinking is influenced by a Platonic, Gnostic, or existential philosophy does he speak of an “immaterial body.” After all, since body means material, it makes no sense to speak of an immaterial material. The same applies to the phrase “spiritual corporeality.”[54]

When one reads in evangelical confessions, “We believe that…He arose from the dead in the same body, though glorified, in which He had lived and died,”[55] he instinctively understands this to mean a physical body. Hence it has seemed unnecessary to most evangelicals to add words like “material” or “physical” to the words “body.” For that is exactly what the words “bodily resurrection” mean.

However, occasionally certain groups (usually those that are Platonic in origin) have denied the material nature of the body either before or after the resurrection.[56] By contrast Christians used phrases like “resurrection of the flesh”[57] to describe the resurrection body. This emphasizes the fact that “body” means physical body.

To affirm that bodily resurrection means anything other than a physical body is unusual.

Denying the Physical Resurrection Body Is Unnecessary

There are no biblical or theological reasons to deny the physical nature of the resurrection body. There are, of course, good grounds for affirming that a believer in his resurrection body will be able to do more than he can in his present physical body. Believers’ bodies will be changed to immortal bodies (1 Cor 15:51). They will be transformed from perishable to imperishable bodies. They will possess all the abilities of the present physical body plus many more, such as the ability to enter rooms with locked doors (John 20:19, 26) and to travel at great speeds (Luke 24:31). But while their transformed bodies will be more than mere physical bodies, they will not be less than physical bodies.

Denying the Physical Resurrection Body Is Unbiblical

As already shown, the biblical evidence for the physical nature of the resurrection body is overwhelming. Jesus called His resurrection body “flesh and bones,” and He ate physical food to prove it. The disciples touched Him, heard His voice, and saw Him with their physical eyes. Jesus showed them His crucifixion scars, and they saw the empty tomb where once His physical body lay. One could not ask for more substantial evidence than this of His literal, material resurrection body. As Walvoord has written, “Christ in His resurrection did not receive another body but the same body.”[58]

In his classic work The Nature of the Resurrection Body, J. A. Schep wrote, “We may say, therefore, that the entire early Church, in the West and in the East alike, publicly confessed belief in the resurrection of the flesh.” And “in the Western creeds…this confessional formula has retained its place with hardly any exception. Up to the Reformation there is no exception at all.”[59] Further, “the Churches of the East retained the expression ‘the resurrection of the flesh’ up to the Council of Constantinople in 381.” When it was dropped, it was, according to Schep, “without any intention to reject the Western formulations as unscriptural, [the Eastern Church simply] went her own way in formulating the truth.”[60] So to deny physical resurrection is to go against the orthodox confessions.

There are several doctrinal problems with any view that denies the physical resurrection of Christ. First, there is a problem of deception. No one can look squarely at the Gospel records of Christ’s postresurrection appearances and deny that Jesus tried to convince the skeptical disciples that He had a real physical body. The statements in Luke 24:37–43 and John 20:27 could leave no other reasonable impression on the disciples’ minds than that Jesus was seeking to convince them He had a literal, physical resurrection body. But if Jesus’ resurrection body was only immaterial, He was knowingly misleading them to believe what He knew was not true; He was lying.

Second, the denial of the physical nature of the resurrection body is a Christological error. It is a kind of neo-Docetism. The Docetists were a second-century unorthodox group who denied that Jesus was truly human.[61] They believed that Jesus was God but that He only appeared to be human. A similar heresy existed in the first century. John wrote of it when he warned against those who deny that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2). John was explicitly referring to the Incarnation,[62] but the perfect participle “has come” may also indicate that Christ, having taken on and continuing in the flesh, still remains (after His resurrection) in the flesh.[63] In the parallel passage in 2 John 7 he used the present participle, calling anyone a “deceiver” who does not “acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming [and remaining] in the flesh.” Hence John was speaking of Christ as being in the flesh even when he wrote, which was after the resurrection.[64] Thus denying the material nature of the resurrection body, as postresurrectional Docetism does, denies that the One who came in the flesh was also raised in the flesh.

Third, there are soteriological problems with denying the material resurrection of Christ. As noted earlier, the New Testament teaches that belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ is essential for salvation (Rom 10:9–10). It is part of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1–5).

Without a physical resurrection there is no material continuity between the preresurrection and postresurrection body.[65] Indeed they would be two different bodies. However, as Gundry correctly observes,

A physical continuity is also needed. If a human spirit—sort of third party—be the only connection between the mortal and resurrected bodies, the relationship of the two bodies to each other is extrinsic and to that decree unimpressive as a demonstration of Christ’s victory over death.[66]

In even stronger terms he concludes that “the resurrection of Christ was and the resurrection of Christians will be physical in nature.”[67] He adds, “Anything less than that undercuts Paul’s ultimate intention that redeemed man possess physical means of concrete activity for eternal service and worship of God in a restored creation.”[68]

Fourth, there is an eschatological problem with the denial of the physical resurrection. If Christ did not rise in a material body, victorious over death, believers have no hope that they will be victorious over physical death either (2 Tim 1:10). Only because of the physical resurrection of Christ can believers triumphantly proclaim, “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (1 Cor 15:55). Only through the physical resurrection has He “abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim 1:10).

Notes

A previous version of this argument appeared in Norman L. Geisler, “The Apologetic Significance of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Philosophical Society 10 (1987): 15-37.
William G. T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine, 2 vols. (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers), 2:403.
See Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), p. 132. Harris adds, “Here ‘flesh’ refers to the material components, the substance, of the body: the flesh-body as distinct from the soul.”
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: The Greek and Latin Creeds, 3 vols. (1919; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 2:37.
Augustine The City of God 22.5.
Ibid., 22. 20–21.
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane H. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), chap. 3, esp. pp. 88-114.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 4. 1. 335.
Rabbi Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983), esp. pp. 92-93, 120–31, 150–53.
Michael Perry, The Easter Enigma (London: Faber & Faber, 1959), pp. 141-95.
See William Craig, The Son Rises (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981) and Gary Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).
Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, p. 99.
Ibid., p. 93.
Ibid., p. 92.
Ibid., p. 8.
Ibid., p. 75.
Ibid., p. 76.
Ibid.
Harris claims that after Jesus’ resurrection “his essential state was one of invisibility and therefore immateriality” (Raised Immortal, p. 53, italics his). He says that “the identity between the physical and spiritual bodies can scarcely be material or substantial or physical” (ibid., p. 126). In fact he believes the resurrection body is “angel-like and without physical instincts” not a body of flesh, for it is “without physical instincts” (ibid., p. 123, italics his). Though Harris does believe in Jesus’ empty tomb, the body that was raised was not a body of flesh, for it is “without physical instincts: it will be neither fleshly nor fleshy” (ibid., p. 124, italics his). Neither does it “have the anatomy or physiology of the earthly body” (ibid.).
Jehovah’s Witnesses also hold to an immaterial view of the nature of the resurrected Christ. They claim that “Jesus was put to death in the flesh and was resurrected an invisible spirit creature” (Samuel Rutherford, “Let God Be True” [Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1946], p. 122). Jesus “was put to death a man, but was raised from the dead a spirit being” (Charles T. Russell, At-One-Ment between God and Man [Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1899], pp. 453-54). The “human body, the one crucified, was removed from the tomb by the power of God…. The Scriptures do not reveal what became of that body, except that it did not decay or corrupt” (Samuel Rutherford, The Harp of God [Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1928], p. 172). Jesus’ postdeath “appearances” were simply His ability as a spirit to “materialize” for the purpose of communicating with His disciples (Charles T. Russell, The Kingdom at Hand [Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1944], p. 259).
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 685. Of course God, being spirit (John 4:24), does not have material substance. He is said to be πνεῦμα (“spirit”) in His essence. This does not contradict the fact that Jesus’ physical resurrected body is called σῶμα πνεματικός (“spiritual [supernatural] body”).
Ibid. (italics theirs).
The manna is also called “bread of God,” “bread from heaven,” and even “bread of angels” (John 6:32–33; Ps 78:25). Again all these “spiritual” descriptions are of literal physical food that the Israelites picked up off the ground each morning except on the Sabbath (Exod 16; Num 11).
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “Spirit, Holy Spirit,” by J. D. G. Dunn, 3:707 (italics added).
Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 46-47.
Edwin Hatch and Henry Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 2:105–7.
When the expression “he was seen” (ὤφθη) is used of God and angels (Luke 1:11; Acts 7:2), who are invisible realities, ὤφθη refers to an invisible entity becoming visible. But since the same expression is used of other humans with physical bodies and since Christ is said to have had a body (σῶμα), there is no reason in His case to take the expression to refer to anything but a literal, physical body.
Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 53-54.
Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 581.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “ὁράω,” by Wilhelm Michaelis, 5:356.
The use of the term “signs” (σημεῖα, “miraculous signs”) in John 20:30 could include the resurrection appearances, but the verse does not distinctly say so. The word probably refers to the many miracles John included in his book to establish the deity of Christ. Ellicott says that John referred to the whole work of Christ, and not to His resurrected life only “because (1) there were not ‘many other signs’ during the forty days; (2) the words ‘did Jesus’ are not applicable to the manifestations to the disciples; (3) the words ‘in this book’ refer to all that has preceded” (Charles John Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6 vols. [reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954], 6:545).
It is obvious that Jesus’ resurrection body was not a normal physical body. It could disappear from sight (Luke 24:31, 51). It could enter a closed room (John 20:26). It was immortal (Rom 6:9). But these kinds of things are to be expected from a supernatural body. Jesus did similar things while He was in His natural body. For example He supernaturally walked on water (John 6:16–21). But what He did before His resurrection in a natural body by the supernatural power of God, that He was able to do after His resurrection by the very supernatural nature of His resurrected body.
The 12 resurrection appearances of Christ in order are: 1. To Mary Magdalene (John 20:11–17). 2. To the other Mary and Salome (Matt 28:9–10). 3. To Peter (Luke 24:34). 4. To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–32). 5. To the 10 apostles (Luke 24:33–49). 6. To Thomas and the other 10 apostles (John 20:26–30). 7. To the seven apostles (John 21:1–25). 8. To all the apostles in Galilee (Matt 28:16–20). 9. To 500 brethren (1 Cor 15:6). 10. To James (1 Cor 15:7). 11. To the 11 apostles before His ascension (Acts 1:4–9). 12. To the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:8).
Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, pp. 93-95, 99. Harris does not use this point to support his view (see his Easter in Durham [Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1985], pp. 23-24, and Raised Immortal, pp. 61-62), but his view amounts to the same thing. For he argues that the resurrection body was essentially immaterial and could only be seen with the natural eye if a miracle occurred by which it “materialized” (Easter in Durham, p. 17). It is only in this sense that he speaks about Jesus’ resurrection body being seen, heard, or touched (ibid., pp. 20-24). According to Harris, Jesus’ physical body was resurrected, but the resurrected body itself was not one of flesh or material substance (see supra, n. 19, and Raised Immortal, pp. 124-26). So there is little difference between a miracle of materialization or a miracle of visualization. Both views deny the essential materiality and physicality of the resurrection body. Ironically both views posit some kind of miracle to do it.
Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 123.
Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, p. 93.
Harris assumes that the statement “I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19) refers to the appearance of Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road (Raised Immortal, p. 48). However, the verse refers to the subsequent “vision” to Ananias through whom God gave Paul’s commission to minister to the Gentiles (Acts 9:10–19). This is apparent for several reasons. First, the word “vision” (ὀπτάσια) is never used of a resurrection appearance in the New Testament. It is always used of a purely visionary experience (Luke 1:22; 24:23; 2 Cor 12:1). Second, Paul said nothing in Acts 26:19 about seeing the Lord as he did when he referred in Acts 22:8; 26:15 to his Damascus experience. Third, when Paul had a “vision,” he clearly designated it as such (2 Cor 12:1) in distinction from a real appearance. Fourth, Paul did not receive his missionary mandate from his Damascus Road experience (Acts 9:1–9). Rather, he was told to “enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do” (v. 6). Fifth, it was there in the city through a “vision” (v. 10) to Ananias that Paul was given his missionary mandate “to bear My [Christ’s] name before the Gentiles” (v. 15). Paul referred to this mandate through Ananias’ vision when he said, “I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision” (26:19). As Michaelis correctly notes about visions, the New Testament always “distinguish[es] them from the Damascus experience” (“ὁράω,” 5:357).
Sometimes, however, a person actually saw an angel with the naked eye and/or was touched by an angel (e.g., Gen 18:8; 32:24; 1 Kings 19:5–7). These were physical appearances, not visions, for in these instances the angels temporarily assumed a physical form. In the resurrection appearances of Christ, on the other hand, people saw Christ with the naked eye in His continued and permanent visible, physical form.
Those with Paul heard the “sound” (Acts 9:7), but they “did not understand the voice” (22:9). That is, they heard the audible sound but did not understand the meaning of what was said.
Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 126.
Ibid., p. 124.
Ibid., p. 56.
See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, rev. and expanded ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), pp. 486-89.
Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 530.
Angels who assumed bodily form also ate food in the Old Testament (Gen 18:8; 19:3). But they never offered their ability to eat as an evidence that they had been resurrected in a material body. So this cannot be used to prove that their temporarily assumed “bodies” were of the same nature as Christ’s resurrection body. Furthermore angels did not claim to have once been in a physical body, nor to be now resurrected in that body, scars and all. The cases are so different in most details that nothing can be validly inferred from this one similarity. Indeed angels are by nature spirits (Heb 1:14). Their appearances in visible form were not their normal state of existence.
The Greek word here is ἐπιγινώσκω, meaning “to know, understand, or recognize” (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pp. 290-91). This is a normal term for physical recognition (Mark 6:33, 54; Acts 3:10).
Robert Gundry, Sōmain Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 176.
Ibid., p. 177.
Gundry, Sōmain Biblical Theology, p. 168.
Ibid.
Some have suggested that Paul should have used “flesh” (σάρξ) to express physical resurrection. But Gundry notes that “Paul avoids ‘flesh’ in writing about the resurrection of human beings simply because the term would connote weakness, not because he wants to avoid the physical resurrection” (ibid., p. 167). However, Luke did use the word σάρξ of the resurrection body in Luke 24:39 and Acts 2:31. But in these passages the context protects it from being understood in any weak sense by stressing God’s power in it and Christ’s exaltation resulting from it (cf. esp. Acts 2:32–33).
Ibid., p. 169.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1985), p. 164.
Gundry, Sōmain Biblical Theology, p. 164.
Doctrinal Statement, Dallas Theological Seminary, Article 6, par. 5.
This tendency to “spiritualize,” along with its concomitant hermeneutic of allegorizing, has emerged intermittently in the church since the time of Origen and the Alexandrian influence on Christianity (Origen De Principiis 2.10).
Augustine The City of God 22.5.
John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 203.
J. A. Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), p. 221.
Ibid., p. 223.
F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 413.
I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), p. 205.
Schep, The Nature of the Resurrection Body, pp. 71-72.
As Stott wrote, “The perfect tense (elēluthota) [in 1 John 4:2] compared with the present tense in 2 John 7 (erchomenon), seems to emphasize that the flesh assumed by the Son of God in the incarnation has become His permanent possession” (John R. W. Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964], p. 154).
Harris argues there is no material continuity between the preresurrection and postresurrection embodiments of Christ. He insists that the continuity is only personal and not substantial. He says, “The identity between the physical and spiritual bodies can scarcely be material or substantial” (Raised Immortal, p. 126; cf. pp. 54-56). He adds, “One and the same person finds expression in two successive but different types of bodies. There are two dwellings but only one occupant” (ibid., p. 126).
Gundry, Sōmain Biblical Theology, p. 176.
Ibid., p. 182.
Ibid.

The New Age Movement

By Norman L. Geisler

[Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Background: A Shift in World Views

On Mars Hill the Apostle Paul faced the Epicureans and the Stoics (Acts 17:18). The Epicureans were the atheists of the day and the Stoics were the pantheists. Today Christianity again stands between the materialist and the mystic. Present-day “Epicureans” are secular humanists, and contemporary “Stoics” are proponents of what has come to be known as the New Age movement.

Western society is experiencing an ideological shift from an atheistic to a pantheistic orientation. The basic difference between these two views is that atheists claim there is no God at all, but pantheists say God is all and all is God. Atheistic materialists believe all is matter, but mystics hold that all is mind.

The shift from secular humanism[1] to New Age pantheism has occurred gradually over the past few decades. It has been a relatively smooth transition because of the commonalities of these two world views. Both atheism and pantheism hold in common a basic naturalistic approach to the world. (1) Both deny an absolute distinction between Creator and creation. Both deny there is any God beyond the universe. (2) Both deny that a God supernaturally intervenes in the universe (by miracles).[2] (3) And in the final analysis both believe that man is God (or Ultimate), though not all atheists admit this.

Western atheism and Eastern pantheism also have a common enemy. They are both diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian theism. As Alice Bailey clearly declared, New Agers are committed to “The Gradual Dissolution of Orthodox Judaism.”[3] Benjamin Creme is just as emphatically anti-Christian. “To my way of thinking,” he says, “the Christian Churches have released into the world a view of the Christ which is impossible for modern people to accept: as the one and only Son of God, sacrificed by a loving Father to save us from the results of our sins—a blood sacrifice, straight out of the old Jewish dispensation.”[4]

Other New Age sources are equally emphatic in their rejection of biblical theism. Pantheism does not reject a God in nature. “It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions [such as Judaism and Christianity], gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the ever unknowable.”[5]

The shift from the Old Age humanism to New Age pantheism is manifest in numerous ways in today’s culture. First, there is the growth in pantheistic religions and cults. Along with Christian Science, Unity, Bahai, and Scientology, the growth in “guruism” in the West has been phenomenal. Transcendental meditation, yoga, Hare Krishna, the Church Universal and Triumphant, and the Unification Church are only a few of the more popular cultic manifestations of New Age thought. Along with these are dozens of space cults and the more popular religion of the Force.[6]

Second, New Age thought permeates the media. Many of the most popular movies of the past decade are pantheistic, including “Star Wars,” “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Return of the Jedi,” “Poltergeist,” “The Exorcist,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” “ET,” “Close Encounters,” and “The Dark Crystal” (by Jim Henson, a fairy tale of pantheism). Television too has experienced more than its share of occult, magic, and other Eastern influences, from “I Dream of Jeannie” to “Bewitched.” Even children’s cartoons feature “He Man,” “Masters of the Universe,” and numerous magical manifestations of Eastern mysticism. And children’s comics are literally filled with occult manifestations of New Age thought.

Third, much of pop pantheism was generated by the Beatles when they embraced the Mahareshi. George Harrison expressed this in “My Sweet Lord,” a song of praise to Krishna. This same trend continues unabated to date and has even manifested itself in outright satanic lyrics in some hard rock songs.

Fourth, pantheistic influence surfaced in the public schools through the teaching of transcendental meditation (popularly known as TM). Despite the fact that they were found by the court to be religious in nature, other forms of yoga, meditation, imaginary guides, and exploration of “inner space” and “confluent education”[7] continue in public schools. Likewise the human potential movement and pantheistic forms of positive thinking methods are frequently taught in schools.

Fifth, the broader culture evidences numerous influences of pantheistic thought from EST (now FORUM) business seminars to holistic health fads (usually vegetarian), relaxation techniques, biofeedback, and biorhythms. The popularity of horoscopes and the supranormal are also indications of New Age thought. The increased belief in reincarnation is an amazing evidence of the turn to the East. A Gallup poll in 1982 showed that nearly one-fourth of all Americans believe in reincarnation, with 30 percent of college students believing it.[8] And the most important fiction writer of the New Age is the bestselling author Carlos Castenada, who wrote The Teachings of Don Juan, Tales of Power, The Ring of Power, and others.

Basic Principles of the New Age Movement

Unlike most religious movements the various New Age religions have no central headquarters or organization.[9] However, they do have a commonality of core beliefs and goals, and a common consciousness.

Definition Of New Age Religions

Various terms have been used to describe this rise of pantheistic thought in the West. It has been called the Aquarian Conspiracy, New Consciousness, New Orientalism, Cosmic Humanism, Cosmic Consciousness, Mystical Humanism, Human Potential Movement, and Holistic Health Movement. But the umbrellalike term that encompasses them all is the New Age Movement.

As a working definition, the New Age Movement is a broad coalition of various networking[10] organizations that (a) believe in a new world religion (pantheism), (b) are working for a new world order, and (c) expect a New Age Christ. Of course not all who participate in the New Age movement are necessarily conscious of all these aspects.

New Age Jargon And Symbols

Words common to New Age thought include awakening, centering, consciousness, cosmic energy, force, global village, holistic, human potential, initiation, interdependent, network, planetary vision, rebirth, spaceship earth, synergistic, transcendent, transformational, transpersonal, and unity.

Of course New Age belief has no franchise on these words. Not everyone who uses these words is necessarily buying into New Age pantheism. All meaning is discovered by context and usage.

A number of symbols, some old and some new, have been adopted by the New Age including the rainbow, pyramid, triangle, eye in a triangle, unicorn, pegasus, concentric circles, rays of light, swastika, yin-yang, goathead on a pentagram, and even the numerals 666 worked into art. But here again, not all who use some of these symbols belong to the New Age movement. After all the rainbow was set up by God as a sign of His promise, and no New Ager should rob a Christian of its true significance.

New Age Prayer

The New Age Movement has a prayer known as “The Great Invocation,” which has been translated into over 50 languages. It is often found as a book marker in New Age literature. According to George Trevelyan, leader of the New Age movement in England, “it expresses truths common to all major religions, and is now being used across the world by people of many differing faiths and creeds. It is a prayer which focuses the call for help from man to the Higher Worlds.”[11] It reads as follows:

From the point of Light
within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into
the minds of men.
Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love
within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into
the hearts of men.
May Christ return to Earth.

From the centre where the
Will of God is known
Let purpose guide the little
wills of men—
The purpose which the
Masters know and serve.

From the centre which we
call the race of men
Let the Plan of Love and
Light work out.
And may it seal the door
where Evil dwells.
Let Light and Love and
Power restore the Plan on Earth.

Since most of the words seem “innocent” enough, the prayer needs some explaining. To the author(s) of this prayer, “God” is a pantheistic God, not a theistic one. “Love” is not a volitional act of compassion by a person but is an impersonal cosmic energy that unifies everything. “Christ” refers not to Jesus Christ but to the universal Christ spirit, which they believe has dwelt in different great religious leaders including Buddha, Jesus, and other gurus. “Masters” refer to occult leaders who give revelations. “The plan” is the occult plan whereby a new world order is to be established by the cooperative participation of the masses in occult powers.

New Age “Holy Books” And Fundamental Teachings

Like most religious movements the New Age has books with “revelations” of New Age religious thought. Some of the more important ones are these: Isis Unveiled, by Helena P. Blavatsky (1877); Oahspe, by Newbrough (1882); The Secret Doctrines, by Helena P. Blavatsky (1888); The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ,[12] by Levi Dowling (1907); The Urantia Book, by Bill Sadler (1955); Revelation: The Birth of a New Age, by David Spangler (1976); and Messages from Maitreya the Christ, by Benjamin Creme (1980).

The last two writers have written many books that supposedly present revelations, prophecies, and teachings of the New Age.[13] Creme for example claims to receive telepathic messages from the Christ. David Spangler claims that the revelations now being received by New Agers like himself are every bit as important as what were given to Jesus.

There are several summaries of New Age “fundamentals” by their own writers. Blavatsky, the famous Russian mystic and foremother of the New Age movement, listed three basic beliefs or “secret doctrines”: impersonal, eternal God; eternal cycles of nature; and man’s identity with God and reincarnation.[14]

The English follower of Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, summarized New Age teaching in four beliefs: the fact of [pantheistic] God, man’s relationship to God, the fact of immortality and of eternal persistence, and the continuity of revelation and the divine approaches.[15]

Benjamin Creme, the self-appointed “John the Baptist” of the New Age Christ, lists four fundamental teachings of New Age religion: God’s [pantheistic] existence, man’s immortality, continuing revelations from messengers, and man’s ability to evolve into Godhood.[16]

In an excellent book evaluating the New Age movement, Douglas Groothuis lists six basic beliefs: all is one, all is God, humanity is God, change in consciousness, all religions are one, and cosmic evolutionary optimism.[17] At least 14 doctrines are typical of New Age religions. While not all New Age groups hold all these beliefs, most groups embrace most of them. And all groups are characterized by the pantheistic perspective reflected in them. These beliefs are: (1) an impersonal god (force), (2) an eternal universe, (3) an illusory nature of matter, (4) a cyclical nature of life, (5) the necessity of reincarnations, (6) the evolution of man into Godhood, (7) continuing revelations from beings beyond the world, (8) the identity of man with God, (9) the need for meditation (or other consciousness-changing techniques), (10) occult practices (astrology, mediums, etc.), (11) vegetarianism and holistic health, (12) pacifism (or anti-war activities), (13) one world (global) order, and (14) syncretism (unity of all religions).

Some Leaders of the New Age Movement

The New Age movement has many dimensions. Its ancient pantheistic roots go back to Hindu and Greek thought. The modern Western roots reach into the last century.

Modern Sources

The Russian mystic, occultist, and cofounder of theosophy Helena Petrova Blavatsky is the grandmother of the New Age movement. She is the author of Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrines (1888). These books are mystical “Bibles” of New Age thought.

Alice A. Bailey (d. 1949) was an English mystic who received telepathic communications from Tibetan occult master Djwhal Khul (known as D.K.) for 30 years about “The Plan” for a new world order. She is the author of numerous works, including Letters on Occult Meditation (1922), Discipleship in the New Age (1944), The Reappearance of the Christ (1948), and The Externalisation {sic} of the [occult] Hierarchy (1957). Bailey contributed much of the vocabulary to the New Age movement.

Contemporary Spokespersons

General presentation. Marilyn Ferguson’s book The Aquarian Conspiracy (1980) is one of the best overall popular presentations of New Age thought. It is well written and interesting.

Religious dimension. David Spangler is one of the foremost writers of New Age religious belief. His main works include Revelation: The Birth of a New Age (1976) and Reflections on the Christ (1978). Benjamin Creme’s works fit into this category as well. He wrote The Reappearance of the Christ (1980) and Messages from Maitreya the Christ (1980). Also George Trevelyan’s books, A Vision of the Aquarian Age (1977) and Operation Redemption (1981), have been quite influential.

Political dimension. Two names stand out here: Mark Satin, New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society (1979), and Robert Muller, New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality (1982).

Scientific dimension. In the area of the new physics, The Tao of Physics, by Fitjof Capra, is a notable New Age work, as are David Bohm’s Quantum Theory and Wholeness and the Implicate Order. In the area of cosmology, Paul Davies’ books, God and the New Physics and Superforce, are a modern pantheistic explanation of origins.

Psychological dimension. Abraham Maslow’s work, The Farthest Reaches of Human Nature (1971), and Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences (1980), are part of the New Age phenomena. Other psychologists, such as Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, and Rollo May, have New Age themes. Barbara Brown has produced a New Age anthropology in her book Supermind (1983).

Health and dietary dimensions. Viktoras Kulvinskas produced The New Age Directory of Holistic Health Guide (1981). There is also Survival into the 21st Century: Planetary Healer’s Manual (1925), and Leslie Kaslof’s Wholistic Dimensions in Healing (1978).

Historical and cultural dimensions. Two New Age historians and cultural apologists stand out: Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends (1972) and Unfinished Animal (1977), and William Irwin Thompson, From Nation to Emanation (1982).

There are endless other New Age groups, including communes, camping programs, music, schools, even New Age businessmen’s organizations and centers (like Findhorn Community, Scotland). There are ecology groups, political action organizations, lobbying groups (such as New Directions) and even New Age publishing houses (such as Lucis Publishing Company, formerly Lucifer Publishing Company). A complete list of these groups is included toward the back of Mark Satin’s book, New Age Politics.

New Age Magazines And Journals

Among the numerous publications with New Age themes the following should be mentioned: East-West Journal, Yoga Journal, New Age, New Realities, and Whole Life Times. Of course New Age articles can be found in the magazines of most of the pantheistic religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Christian Science, Unity, Scientology, and others. New Age articles even appear in Science Digest and other mainline magazines.

New Age Doctrines

A brief analysis of some New Age teachings about God, the world, man, Christ, salvation, and the future will be helpful in understanding the movement.

Revelation

New Agers believe in special and continual revelations. In fact they believe that

the Word of God [is] revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’an; in this day, the Bayan; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.[18]

That is, there is a progression of continual revelations, with the latter superseding the former.

As for the Bible, Alice Bailey adds, “Little as the orthodox Christian may care to admit it, the entire Gospel story in its four forms or presentations, contains little else except symbolic details about the Mysteries.”[19]

The Hindu leader, Mahatma Gandhi, declared clearly, “I do not regard everything said in the Bible as the final word of God or exhaustive or even acceptable from the moral stand-point.”[20] Of the Gospels he said,

I may say that I do not accept everything in the Gospels as historical truth. And it must be remembered that he was working amongst his own people, and he said he had not come to destroy but to fulfill. I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount and the Letters of Paul. They are a graft on Christ’s teaching, his own gloss apart from Christ’s own experience.[21]

In short, New Agers pick and choose in the Bible as it fits their own purposes. Indeed, Levi Dowling rewrote the Gospels to make Christ into a pantheistic occult magician who believed in reincarnation.[22]

Contemporary New Age writers speak of “revelation,” “inspiration,” “overshadowing,” and “visions.” Creme described his telepathic communications this way:

It descends on me and comes down as far as the solar plexus and a kind of cone is formed, like that, in light. There is an emotional outflow as well. It is the mental overshadowing which produces the rapport so that I can hear, inwardly, the words. The astral overshadowing allows what is called the True Spirit of the Christ, the energy of the Cosmic Christ, to flow out to the audience and through the audience to the world…. I am aware of His Presence, I can sense part of His mind in my mind. It is difficult to describe, but it is there.[23]

Likewise, Spangler tells of receiving his revelations as follows:

I found that my consciousness came into contact with a force or a presence. It could not be accurately described as a being but definitely as a point of revelation, a mirror of sorts. This resulted in six statements of vision, six communications, which were put out in little booklets from Findhorn and which inspired a number of questions. In an attempt to answer the questions I ended up writing the book called, Revelation: The Birth of a New Age.[24]

In this book Spangler said,

When I sat down to write, I envisioned a publication of about twenty to thirty pages. I had no intention of writing a book. However, as I began, it was as if I were overlighted by another aspect of this presence of Limitless Love and Truth. Insights which I had gained over the years through my communions with higher levels, new information, and a deeper identification with some of the processes behind that presence all came together in a synthesis of inspiration, and I found myself writing non-stop for several days.[25]

These “revelations” are continual. For, as Alice Bailey put it, “Never has Deity left Itself at any time without witness. Never has man demanded light that the light has not been forthcoming. Never has there been a time, cycle or world period when there was not the giving out of the teaching and spiritual help which human need demanded.”[26]

Since revelations from the occult Masters are not infallible and are even contingent on human cooperation, their prophecies are not infallible. Indeed, they often conflict. In spite of this, some claim a unique role for their “revelations.” Spangler, for example, claims:

No other revelation to equal it has been offered to humanity, but all revelations of the past have led up to it. Jesus gave the great bridge through proclaiming our kinship with God, our sonship with him. Buddha gave the great bridge in enabling us to find the balance of our own being so that the energies we receive are expressed in harmony with the whole. Through knowing wisdom and through knowing love we now should be at a point, and we are at a point, where God can reasonably say to us, “All right, I have given you the keys. I have given you the tools. Now build with me.”[27]

God

The New Age view of God is pantheistic. God is all and all is God. God is an impersonal force or energy. The most popular presentation of such a God is in George Lucas’s “Star Wars” movie series. Lucas wrote, “When you are born, you have an energy field around you. You could call it an aura. An archaic description would be a halo…. When you die, your energy field joins all other energy fields in the universe, and while you’re still living that larger energy field is sympathetic to your own energy field.”[28] Or as Creme put it, “God is the sum total of all that exists in the whole of the manifested and unmanifested universe.”[29] God is “Limitless Love.”[30] By love some New Agers mean “a great cosmic energy” that streams from the center of the universe.[31]

But yet God, according to New Agers, is literally indefinable.[32] He is beyond all thought and speech,33 and is literally “unspeakable, incomparable, beyond description…what is that? It is impossible to say!”[34]

Thus the pantheistic God is not a definite person but a presence that transcends all individual beings. As Spangler claimed, “Am I God? Am I a Christ? Am I a Being come to you from the dwelling places of the Infinite? I am all these things, yet more.”[35] What is more than God? In Spangler’s words, it is a “presence” that transcends all concepts of God, an infinite reality.[36] Thus “that central Reality can be called by any name that man may choose according to his mental or emotional bent, racial tradition and heritage, for it cannot be defined or conditioned by names.”[37]

Indeed God is called both good and evil. He has a “light side” and a “dark side.”[38]

Spangler even went so far as to say that the ultimate force in the universe has two sides—the “Christ” side and the “Lucifer” side.

Christ is the same force as Lucifer but moving in seemingly the opposite direction. Lucifer moves in to create the light within through the pressure of experience. Christ moves out to release that light, that wisdom, that love into creation so what has been forged in the furnace of creation can become a light unto the world and not simply stagnate within the being.[39]

Jesus Christ

The New Age view of Jesus Christ involves a separation of the human Jesus from the divine Christ spirit (or office), which New Agers believe dwelt in Him and other great religious teachers. According to Benjamin Creme, “Christ” said, “I am your Friend and Brother, not a God.”[40] Again, “the Christ is not God.”[41] When a woman knelt to worship Jesus, He supposedly replied, “Good woman, stay; take heed to what you do; you may not worship man; this is idolatry.”[42]

Jesus is divine “in exactly the sense that we are divine.”[43] That is, “He is Divine, having perfected Himself and manifested the Divinity potential in each of us.”[44] For according to some New Agers, “Christ was the most advanced human ever to walk on this planet.”[45] But this same Christ spirit dwelt in “Hercules, Hermes, Rama, Mithra…Krishna, Buddha, and the Christ.” All these were “perfect men in their time, all sons of men who become Sons of God, for having revealed their innate Divinity.”[46]

So, as Creme admits, “in the esoteric [occult] tradition the Christ is not the name of an individual but of an office in the Hierarchy” (of occult masters). That is, Christ is a master occult magician who, according to Dowling, solved “the problem of the ages” by showing that “human flesh can be transmitted into flesh divine.”[47]

Actually many pantheists believe that Jesus did not die.[48] As Dowling affirms, “Jesus did not sleep within the tomb.”[49] He was alive, though unmanifest. In His resurrection He simply transmuted from “carnal flesh and blood to flesh of God.”[50] Jesus took on a body of a “higher tone,” that is, a spiritual one.[51] Even this is not unique, for the pantheistic Christ said, “What I have done, all men will do; and what I am, all men will be.”[52] Occultists relate all this to degrees of initiation. Jesus was a third-degree “initiate” when He entered the world. He became a fourth-degree “initiate” at His crucifixion and a fifth-degree “initiate” at the resurrection. The same process is open to all men.

Man

According to New Age thinkers man is basically a spiritual being, not a material one. That is, he is “energy.” “Man is a thought of God; all thoughts of God are infinite; they are not measured by time; for things that are concerned with time begin and end.”[53] Man is a soul force. “It is a subatomic force, the intelligent energy that organizes life. It is…everywhere—[it] is that [which] we call ‘God.’“[54]

Man is the “Breath made flesh.”[55] “The spiritual being, Man, descended from a subtler plane to assume a body, the necessary sheath in which to live amid earth vibrations.”[56] But his “body” is not real. “It is a manifest; is the result of force; it is but naught; is an illusion, nothing more.”[57]

Man is basically spirit, and he is essentially good. As Shirley MacLaine put it, “mankind and all life, is basically good.”[58] Thus “we ascend until we reach the pinnacle of that which life is spent to build—the Temple of Perfected Man.”[59] For “at the Transfiguration Christ revealed the glory which is innate in all men.”[60] Thus Dowling’s Jesus said, “What I can do all men can do. Go preach the gospel of the omnipotence of Man.”[61]

Since man is infinite and omnipotent, his main task is to discover his own divinity. As one writer stated, “One of the major teachings of the Christ [is] the fact of God immanent, immanent in all creation, in mankind and all creation, that there is nothing else but God; that we are all part of a great Being.”[62] Marilyn Ferguson illustrates this as she vividly describes the story of a man watching his sister drink milk: “All of a sudden I saw that she was God and the milk was God. I mean, all she was doing was pouring God into God.”[63]

A New Age “Christ” (known as Lord Maitreya) supposedly gave this message: “My purpose is to show man that he need fear no more, that all of Light and Truth rests within his heart, that when this simple fact is known man will become God.”[64] So “man is an emerging God and thus requires the formation of modes of loving which will allow this God to flourish.”[65] Accordingly “the tragedy of the human race was that we had forgotten we were each Divine.”[66]

But if man is God, to whom does man pray? Creme gives a forthright answer:

One doesn’t pray to oneself, one prays to the God within. The thing is to learn to invoke that energy which is the energy of God. Prayer and worship as we know it today will gradually die out and men will be trained to invoke the power of Deity. This is one reason why the Great Invocation was given out—to enable us to learn the technique of invocation.[67]

Actually New Agers believe in “prayer” not as intercession but as meditation. They believe in consciousness-altering techniques such as yoga, hypnotism, biofeedback, peak experiences, psychotherapies, and psychotechnologies.[68] The goal of prayer is “attunement” or “at-one-ment” with God. It is the modern version of Plotinus’s mystical union with God.[69]

Not only is man infinite, omnipotent, and immaterial; he is also essentially immortal, according to New Age thinkers. “Man cannot die; the spirit is one with God, and while God lives man cannot die.”[70] So eventually “man will come to know himself as the Divine Being he is.”[71]

Sin and Salvation

New Age thought has no place for sin. Man is basically good. “Evil” is not moral guilt but spiritual imbalance. As Spangler put it, “Man holds the ultimate responsibility for the redemption of what we have come to call ‘evil energies,’ which are simply energies that have been used out of timing or out of place, or not suited to the needs of evolution.”[72]

In The Aquarian Gospel one reads that “evil is the inharmonious blending of the colours, tones, or forms of good.”[73] “Evil” exists only on the lower level. As the Zen masters claim, for a man of “character,” “the notions of right and wrong and the praise and blame of others do not disturb him.”[74] New Ager Mark Satin agrees, saying, “In a spiritual state, morality is impossible.”[75] So for New Agers, as “for Hindu thought there is no problem of Evil.”[76] As Mary Baker Eddy claimed, evil is an illusion, an error of mortal mind.[77]

Belief in good and bad is a form of dualism rejected by the monistic views of New Agers. New Age ethics “is not based on…dualistic concepts of ‘good’ or ‘bad.’“[78] New Age religion “does not share the Western view that there is a moral law, enjoined by God or by nature, which it is man’s duty to obey.”[79]

This is not to say New Agers are without moral values, but only that the ones they have are chosen by man, not revealed by God. As Satin put it, “We recognize that we’re responsible for choosing everything—our parents, our personalities, everything. We even experience events as if we’ve created or willed them in some way.”[80]

Rather than believing in opposites like good and evil, right and wrong, New Age proponents hold to one all-embracing cosmic force called “love.” This “love” is “a totally impersonal but all inclusive cohesive, binding force which draws all men and all things together, and holds them together. It is the energy which makes humanity One.”[81]

Since there is no sin (such as breaking of moral law), there is no need for a payment for sin. Thus New Agers do not believe Christ died for man’s sin. In fact the “Jesus” of The Aquarian Gospel opposed the concept of a Passover lamb. Dowling records these words:

I am disturbed about this service of the pascal feast. I thought the temple was the house of God where love and kindness dwell. Do you not hear the bleating of those lambs, the pleading of those doves that men are killing over there? Do you not smell that awful stench that comes from burning flesh? Can man be kind and just, and still be filled with cruelty? A God that takes delight in sacrifice, in blood and burning flesh, is not my Father-God. I want to find a God of love, and you, my master, you are wise, and surely you can tell me where to find the God of love.[82]

Creme rejects orthodox Christianity because it presents “a picture of the Christ impossible for the majority of thinking people today to accept—as the One and Only Son of God, sacrificed by His Loving Father to save Humanity from the results of its sins; as a Blood Sacrifice straight out of the old and outworn Jewish Dispensation.”[83] Bailey adds, “It is impossible to believe that they [New Agers] are interested in the views of the Fundamentalists or in the theories of the theologians upon the Virgin Birth, the Vicarious Atonement.”[84]

How then can a person be saved? According to New Age religions, “salvation” is not redemption from sin; it is reunification with God. It is overcoming the inexorable law of karma, which condemns one to suffer in the next life for things done in this one. As Shirley MacLaine, movie star and “pop” theologian of the New Age, stated, “If you are good and faithful in your struggle in this life, the next one will be easier.”[85] So in Spangler’s words, “man is his own Satan just as man is his own salvation.”[86] This salvation is achieved by some form of consciousness changing or meditation by which one overcomes duality, multiplicity, and inharmony and becomes one with the One (God).[87] This then is the “attunement” or at-one-ment that constitutes New Age “salvation.”

According to the New Age “prophet” David Spangler it is Lucifer who helps bring unity or wholeness into one’s life. “Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness, and as we move into a new age, which is the age of man’s wholeness, each of us in some way is brought to that point which I term the Luciferic initiation.”[88] Spangler further says,

Lucifer, like Christ, stands at the door of man’s consciousness and knocks. If man says, “Go away because I do not like what you represent, I am afraid of you,” Lucifer will play tricks on that fellow. If man says, “Come in, and I will give to you the treat of my love and understanding and I will uplift you in the light and presence of the Christ, my outflow,” then Lucifer becomes something else again. He becomes the being who carries that great treat, the ultimate treat, the light of wisdom.[89]

Lucifer guides all men through a series of experiences geared to awaken in them a sense or awareness of their inner divinity. This guidance continues until a “new light” comes into being (within them) that is capable of manifesting the “One Light” (God). After this light has come into being, the Christ then works to draw that same light out of each man so that there will be an outward manifestation of the newly recognized inner divinity. As Spangler explains, “Lucifer moves in to create the light within through the pressure of experience. Christ moves out to release that light, that wisdom, that love into creation so what has been forged in the furnace of creation can become a light unto the world and not simply stagnate within the being.”[90] Thus Lucifer and the Christ are seen as partners in this endeavor. It is because of Lucifer’s benevolent role that Spangler calls him “an agent of God’s love.”[91]

The goal of the whole process is “Luciferic Initiation,” which refers to a transformation of consciousness. This consciousness is one that recognizes that all past experiences were part of a plan (led by Lucifer) that ultimately led to the recognition and manifestation of one’s inner divinity. This is largely what esoteric salvation is. In light of this it is wrong to fear and reject Lucifer. For the person with this type of attitude Lucifer “plays tricks.”

Eventually, according to New Age belief, everyone will be saved. “The Exponents and the Representatives of all the world faiths are there waiting—under His [the Christ’s] guidance—to reveal to all those who today struggle in the maelstrom of world affairs, and who seek to solve the world crisis, that they are not alone. God Transcendent is working through the Christ and the spiritual Hierarchy to bring relief.”[92] Or, as Robert Short sees it, the “gospel” of the New Age film series “Star Wars” declares that “eventually everyone—even Darth Vader and the Devil—will thankfully serve Christ and worship him.”[93]

There are many ways to salvation, according to New Agers. “There are a number of paths that can help us return to that experience of unity, that can help us feel at home again in the spiritual and religious states of consciousness. In Unfinished Animal Theodore Roszak lists over 150 such paths!”94 In fact New Agers believe there is unity in all religions. This is why Baha’ism is so popular among New Agers. As Bailey commented,

God works in many ways, through many faiths and religious agencies; this is one reason for the elimination of non-essential doctrines. By the emphasizing of the essential doctrines and in their union will the fullness of truth be revealed. This, the new world religion will do and its implementation will proceed apace, after the reappearance of the Christ.[95]

Future Things

Most New Agers are working for a new world order and unity-in-diversity of all cultures, religions, and countries. Some (e.g., Spangler and Trevelyan) have only a general eschatology, in which Christ “returns” in all humanity. Others have a rather clearly defined doctrine of last things. Bailey gives three basic assumptions of New Age belief about the future.

That the reappearance of the Christ is inevitable and assured.
That He is today and has been actively working—through the medium of the spiritual Hierarchy of our planet, of which He is the Head—for the welfare of humanity.
That certain teachings will be given and certain energies will be released by Him in the routine of His work and coming.[96]

Creme claims that “the Christ” said He would return in June 1945. This “Christ” laid down four conditions:

That a measure of peace should be restored in the world;
That the principle of Sharing should be in process of controlling economic affairs;
That the energy of goodwill should be manifesting, and leading to the implementation of right human relationships;
That the political and religious organizations throughout the world should be releasing their followers from authoritarian supervision over their beliefs and thinking.[97]

Actually the pantheistic “Christ” was not to return but only to reappear[98] since, according to Creme, “the Christ” reappeared on July 8, 1977.

He came into the world by aeroplane and so fulfilled the prophecy of “coming in the clouds.” On July 8th, 1977 He descended from the Himalayas into the Indian sub-continent and went to one of the chief cities there. He had an acclimatisation period between July 8th and 18th, and then on July 19th, entered a certain modern country by aero-plane. He is now an ordinary man in the world—an extraordinary, ordinary man.[99]

Following this a full-page ad appeared in major newspapers around the world with the headline, “The Christ Is Now Here.”

Creme believes that “one day soon, men and women all over the world will gather round their radio and television sets to hear and see the Christ: to see His face, and to hear His words dropping silently into their minds—in their own language.”[100] “In this way they will know that He is truly the Christ, the World Teacher…. Also in this way, the Christ will demonstrate the future ability of the race as a whole to communicate mentally, telepathically, over vast distances and at will.”[101] Bailey was frank to admit that “the Christ Who will return will not be like the Christ Who (apparently) departed.”[102]

Furthermore, “The Christ is not God. When I say, ‘the coming of Christ,’ I don’t mean the coming of God, I mean the coming of a divine man, a man who has manifested His divinity by the same process that we are going through—the incarnational process, gradually perfecting Himself.”[103]

According to Creme, the present “Christ” is a reincarnation of the Christ spirit in an occult master who has lived in the Himalayas for the past 2, 000 years.[104] Jesus (of Nazareth), on the other hand, “now lives in a Syrian body which is some 600 years old, and has His base in Palestine.”

In the last 2, 000 years [Jesus has] worked in the closest relation to the Christ, saving His time and energy where possible, and has special work to do with the Christian churches. He is one of the Masters Who will very shortly return to outer work in the world, taking over the Throne of St. Peter, in Rome. He will seek to transform the Christian Churches, in so far as they are flexible enough to respond correctly to the new reality which the return of the Christ and the Masters will create.[105]

This New Age occult “Christ” will soon manifest Himself “creating and vitalizing the new world religion.”[106] He “will emphasize our inner connectedness as souls, identical with the one soul [God].”[107] This New Age “Christ” will set up a new world order. This will “involve the reconstruction of the world financial and economic order.”[108] By his “presence in the world, He seeks to save millions from death and misery through starvation, and to release from bondage those now languishing in the prisons of the world for the ‘crime’ of independent thought.”[109]

World government will not be imposed on mankind but will be the result of the manifested brotherhood. The sharing and the co-operation of all mankind, the redistribution of the produce of the world, will result in world government. Any attempt to achieve or impose world government without the acceptance of sharing is doomed to failure.[110]

Of course the “Christ’s” manifestation is conditional.[111] It depends on human effort to bring about the “kingdom.” For “the Christ and the Masters are not going to do anything but show the way. They are not going to build the new age. We have to build it. We have still to make the inner changes. We have still to make the decisions of accepting the Plan.”[112] As Spangler says, we are “co-creators” of the New Age. In short, just as secular humanism is a form of postmillennial atheism, the New Age movement is an expression of postmillennial pantheism.

Comparisons and Contrasts

One reason professing Christians are being deceived by New Age beliefs is that they look mainly at the similarities between New Age and Christian beliefs. These are numerous: both believe in God, Christ, prayer, life after death, and many moral values. They also use terms such as revelation, cross, redemption, resurrection, and second coming.

However, like counterfeit currency, counterfeit religions are not detected by noting their similarities to the genuine, but by taking note of their differences. After all, a counterfeit $10 bill has many similarities to a real one. Hence it behooves believers to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1), knowing that many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The following chart contrasts major teachings of biblical Christianity and New Age pantheism.

	Biblical Christianity	New Age Pantheism
God	Father	Force
	Personal	Impersonal
	Only Good	Good and evil
	Created all things	Is all things
Man	Made like God	Is God
	Is evil	Is good
	Spirit/body	Spirit only
	Resurrection	Reincarnation
Jesus Christ	Same Person	Different persons (“Jesus” and “Christ”)
	God-Man	God Spirit in man
	Death/resurrection	Death/reincarnations
Salvation	From moral guilt	From disharmony
	By grace	By human effort
	Victory over sin	Victory over fear
Faith	In divine power	In human potential
	Objective focus	Subjective focus
	To see God’s will done	To see man’s will done
Miracle	Done at God’s command	Done at man’s command
	Supernatural power (of the Creator)	Supranormal power (of creatures)
	Associated with good	Associated with evil

Failure to make such crucial differences led the well-known author of The Gospel according to Peanuts, Robert Short, to claim mistakenly that the God of the Bible and of “Star Wars” are one and the same God.[113]

Careful examination reveals that the Christian theistic view and New Age pantheistic view of God are diametrically opposed. The God of the Bible is not an impersonal force; He is a personal Father. The true God is not a combination of good and evil; He is absolutely perfect (Matt 5:48); He is so holy that He cannot look approvingly on evil (Hab 1:13). Furthermore He is not identical with all things; He created all things (Gen 1:1; Col 1:15–16). These contrasts show the difference between the true, living God and the false god of the New Age religions. The same kind of stark contrast exists between the God-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ of Scripture and the reincarnate occult master known as “Christ” in New Age thought.

Books Evaluating New Age Thinking

Space does not allow for a critique of pantheistic New Age thought. This is provided for, however, in the following books.

Bobgan, Martin and Diedre. Hypnosis and the Christian. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984.
Bowen, William, Jr. Globalism—America’s Demise. Shreveport: Huntington House, 1984.
Clark, David K. The Pantheism of Alan Watts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978.
Crouse, Bill. A Primer on Occult Philosophy. Dallas: Probe Insight Paper, 1983.
Cumbey, Constance E. The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. Shreveport: Huntington House, 1983.
Cumbey, Constance E. A Planned Deception: The Staging of a New Age Messiah. East Detroit, MI: Pointe Publishers, 1985.
Geisler, Norman. False Gods of Our Time. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1985.
Geisler, Norman, and Watkins, William. Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today’s World Views. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1984, chap. 4.
Geisler, Norman, and Amano, J. Yutaka. Religion of the Force. Dallas, TX: Quest Publications, 1983.
Geisler Norman. The Reincarnation Sensation. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986.
Groothuis, Douglas R. Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Guinness, Os. The Dust of Death. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Hunt, Dave. The Cult Explosion: An Exposé of Today’s Cults and Why They Prosper. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1980.
Hunt, Dave. Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1983.
Hunt, Dave, and McMahon, T. A. The Seduction of Christianity. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1985.
Johnson, David L. A Reasoned Look at Asian Religions. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985.
Maharaj, Rabindranath R. Escape into the Light. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1984.
Matrisciana, Caryl. Gods of the New Age. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1985.
Raschke, Carl A. The Interruption of Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the Origins of the New Religious Consciousness. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980.
Reisser, Paul C. The Holistic Healers. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983.
Rhodes, Ronald. “An Examination and Evaluation of the New Age Christology of David Spangler.” ThD diss, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986.
Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976.
Vitz, Paul. Psychology as Religion. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.
Wilson, Clifford, and Weldon, John. Occult Shock and Psychic Forces. San Diego: Master Books, 1980.

In addition to articles in the SCP [Spiritual Counterfeits Project] Journal (e.g., August 1978 and Winter 1981–82), articles critiquing New Age thought appear regularly in Forward (San Juan Capistrano, CA) and Cornerstone magazine (Chicago), and from time to time in other evangelical magazines such as Christianity Today (e.g., May 16, 1986), Eternity (e.g., October 1984), and Moody Monthly (e.g., February 1985).

A critique of the basic pantheistic world view of New Age religions is found in the author’s Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today’s World Views, chapter 4. The best general evaluation of the New Age movement to date is Douglas Groothuis’s work, Unmasking the New Age.

Notes

For an exposition and evaluation of secular humanism, see Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983).
This antisupernaturalism is examined in Norman L. Geisler, Miraclesand Modern Thought (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).
Alice Bailey, The Externalisation {sic} of the Hierarchy (New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1957), p. 551.
Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom (North Hollywood, CA: Tara Center, 1980), p. 47.
The Golden Book of the Theosophical Society, ed. C. Jinarajadasa (London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1925), pp. 45-46.
See a critique of this in Norman L. Geisler and J. Yutaka Amano, TheReligion of the Force (Dallas, TX: Quest Publications, 1983).
In Confluent Education Beverly Galyean admits: “I think the whole purpose of life is to reown the Godlikeness within us; the perfect love, the perfect wisdom, the perfect understanding…. The system of confluent education as I work with it is totally dependent on that view” (quoted by Christianity Today, May 16, 1986, p. 20).
Reincarnation is evaluated in Norman L. Geisler and J. Yutaka Amano, The Reincarnation Sensation (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986).
There are some broad-based groups, such as The Unity-in-Diversity Council, World Trade Center, 350 South Figueroa Street, Suite 370, Los Angeles, CA 90071; and The International Cooperation Council, which publishes the Directory for a New World, Los Angeles, 1979.
Networking is done by “conferences, phone calls, air travel, books, phantom organizations, papers, pamphleteering, photocopying, lectures, workshops, parties, grapevine, mutual friends, summit meetings, coalitions, tapes, newsletters” (Marilyn Ferguson, The AquarianConspiracy [Los Angeles: J. B. Torcher, 1980], pp. 62-63).
See George Trevelyan, A Vision of the Aquarian Age: The EmergingSpiritual World View (Walpole, NH: Stillpoint Publishing, 1984), p. 171.
The Aquarian Gospel is a rewriting of the life of Jesus from a pantheistic perspective in which Jesus is presented as a pantheist who believes in reincarnation and is a master (occult) magician. See Levi Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ (1907; reprint, Marina del Rey, CA: DeVorss & Co., 1982).
Visions from Findhorn: Anthology (Farres, Scotland: Findhorn Publications, 1978), p. 82.
Max Heindel, Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine (1933; reprint, Marina del Rey, CA: DeVorss & Co., 1979), pp. 61-64).
Alice Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ (New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1979), pp. 144-50.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 150.
Douglas R. Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 18-30.
Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah (Wilmette, IL: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1952), p. 270.
Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 126.
M. K. Gandhi, The Message of Jesus Christ (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhauan, 1963), p. 41.
Ibid., p. 55.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel 7.37.19 (p. 77).
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 108.
David Spangler, Revelation: The Birth of a New Age (San Francisco: Rainbow Bridge, 1976), p. 77.
Ibid., p. 22.
Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 147.
David Spangler, Reflections on the Christ (Farres, Scotland: Lecture series, 1978), p. 87.
Time, May 19, 1980, p. 73.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 115.
Spangler, Revelation, p. 60.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 122.
Ibid., p. 111.
P. Swami, The Spiritual Heritage of India (Hollywood, CA: Vedata Press, 1963), p. 45.
Upanishads, 6.7, quoted by Alan Watts, The Way of Zen (New York: Vintage Books, 1957), p. 34.
Spangler, Revelation, p. 60.
Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, p. 82.
Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 144.
George Lucas, The Empire Strikes Back (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980), p. 134.
Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, p. 40.
Benjamin Creme, Messages from Maitreya the Christ, vol. 1 (Los Angeles: Tara Press, 1980), no. 19, p. 46.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 115.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 36.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 120.
Ibid., p. 25.
Shirley MacLaine, Out on a Limb (New York: Bantam Books, 1983), p. 91.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 28.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 261.
Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Boston: Allison V. Stewart, 1909), 44:20–30.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 255.
Ibid., p. 261.
Ibid., p. 184.
Ibid., p. 261.
Ibid., p. 18.
MacLaine, Out on a Limb, p. 326.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 57.
Trevelyan, A Vision of the Aquarian Age, p. 11.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 57.
MacLaine, Out on a Limb, p. 204.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 55.
Bailey, The Externalisation {sic} of the Hierarchy, p. 604.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 263.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 134.
Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and SocialTransformation in the 1980’s (Los Angeles: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1980), p. 382.
Creme, Messages from Maitreya the Christ, no. 98, p. 204.
Ibid., no. 81, p. 170.
MacLaine, Out on a Limb, p. 347.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, pp. 135-36.
See Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age, pp. 47-48.
See Plotinus Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna, 3d ed. (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), 5. 5. 6; 6. 9. 4.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 19.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 36.
Spangler, Revelation, p. 38.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 78.
Watts, The Way of Zen, p. 20.
Mark Satin, New Age Politics, rev. ed. (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1979), p. 98.
Watts, The Way of Zen, p. 35.
Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health, 584:1–16.
Spangler, Revelation, p. 13.
Watts, The Way of Zen, p. 52.
Satin, New Age Politics, p. 100.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 123.
Dowling, The Aquarian Gospel, p. 52.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 25.
Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 143.
MacLaine, Out on a Limb, p. 45.
Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, p. 39.
Ibid., p. 29.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., p. 41.
Ibid., p. 40.
Ibid., p. 41.
Bailey, The Externalisation {sic} of the Hierarchy, p. 593.
Robert Short, The Gospel from Outer Space (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1983), p. 55.
Satin, New Age Politics, p. 112.
Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 59.
Ibid., p. 66.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 32.
Bailey, The Reapppearance of the Christ, p. 597.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 55.
Ibid., p. 37.
Ibid.
Bailey, The Externalisation {sic} of the Hierarchy, p. 612.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 115.
Ibid., p. 54.
Ibid., p. 46.
Bailey, The Externalisation {sic} of the Hierarchy, p. 612; cf. Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 169.
Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ, p. 37.
Ibid., p. 34.
Ibid., p. 37.
Ibid., p. 169.
Ibid., p. 31.
Ibid., p. 158.
Robert Short, The Gospel from Outer Space, p. 55.

Eamon Younis

Tuesday 10 October 2023

ISRAEL IS AT WAR WW3?! God showed me WAR WAS COMING!!

Israel's War: PRE-PLANNED by Pentagon-2023

What's Really Going on in Israel? (2023-)

Monday 9 October 2023

The Significance of Christ’s Physical Resurrection

The New Age Movement