.

Dear Friends,

We are continuing our journey through Part 4 of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. Part 4 addresses additional objections to the Christian resurrection story.

Last time, I addressed the claim that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians supported “objective vision theory” (1), which is the idea that Jesus rose again spiritually, but not bodily. Today, we’ll look at a similar attempt related to Peter’s first epistle.

More arguments against the Resurrection

• About those texts used to deny a bodily resurrection
  • “Mark 16:7 could say that Jesus’ spirit will meet the disciples.”
  • “Matthew 28:16-17 indicates that there were doubts.”
  • “John 21:12 hints that the disciples didn’t recognize Jesus.”
  • “Galatians 1:16 seems to say Paul’s experience was not physical.”
  • “First Corinthians 15:37-50 contrasts the natural physical body with the spiritual.”
  • “First Peter 3:18 seems to say Jesus’ spirit was made alive, not his body.”
• Naturalistic arguments
  • “If atheism is true, then Jesus did not rise”
  • “The Resurrection doesn’t prove God’s existence”
  • “Jesus never died, so there was no resurrection”
  • “Reports of Jesus’ appearances differ little from the reports of the angel’s appearance to Joseph Smith”
  • “Reports of the Resurrection are no more believable than today’s reports of Elvis and alien sightings”
  • “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

He is risen…ish: Peter edition

So help me God, I will try to address this objection today:

“First Peter 3:18 seems to say Jesus’ spirit was made alive, not his body.”

I’m going to say this one more time, because it’s relevant to the context: It’s not just card-carrying atheists alleging that parts of the New Testament teach a spirit-only resurrection. Prominent church leaders have been known to make the same allegations (2) (but if you go to that link, please see my rebuttal in the previous post!). So, you’re going to want to have an informed position on this critical area of Christian doctrine.

Consider the source

This is going to be a very short blog post, because I’m not going to defend a Bible translation that I don’t consider reliable.

Here is the contested passage, from the NASB:

[1Pe 3:18 NASB95] 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, [the] just for [the] unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Here is the contested passage, from the KJV:

[1Pe 3:18 KJV] 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Now ask yourself. Which of those two renderings sounds more like a spirit-only resurrection? If you said the NASB, then you picked the same version quoted by Habermas in his treatment of today’s objection. In other words, yes, “alive in the spirit” sounds more like a spirit-only resurrection than “quickened by the Spirit”. And yes, I checked on blueletterbible.org…this is not merely a translation issue. The underlying Greek texts are different for the NASB vs. the KJV.

So, my response to…

“First Peter 3:18 seems to say Jesus’ spirit was made alive, not his body.”

…is, “stick with the KJV”.

Is it really that hard, my friends?

I have not addressed Bible translations much, if at all, on this blog. I use the King James Version, and that’s about all I’ve said.

For now, I’ll just say this: it should bother you that most modern translations rip out the “thee”s and “thou”s of the KJV and replace them all with “you”. That is a bug, not a feature! See John 3:7 for an example of where this matters (I’ll go into more detail if you are interested….just leave a comment).

If you haven’t studied other languages, you might not be aware that many languages use separate pronouns for plural vs. singular 2nd person. It is English that has become the exception over the past few hundred years. All we can handle is “you”, for some reason, at least in America. If you are a Christian wanting to treat the Bible as the last word on your worldview, your decisions, your theology, etc., wouldn’t you want to preserve as much precision from the original Greek as possible? In turn, I am suspicious of the Greek manuscripts used by translators who thought it was OK to translate out the aforementioned pronoun distinctions.

The bottom line:

Jesus was quickened BY the spirit.

Amen?

Links:

(1) Objective vision theory on wikipedia (click, then scroll down)

(2) The New York Times on Reginald H. Fuller