Why I Believe the Lord Came Forth From the Grave Mortal

Scriptural Proofs

“For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living” (Rom 14:9)

Paul tells us that the Lord

1. died
2. rose
3. revived

Rising from death is one thing, being revived another. Paul uses two different words in the Greek.
We know that all those who will be immortalized in the future go through a multi-stage process: they rise from the grave, are judged, and will be immortalized. Why would Paul mislead us into thinking this was a multi-step process for Christ if he rose from the grave immortal?

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" (Eph 4:8)

Leading captivity (death) captive is to have victory over death. If the Lord was literally cleansed "after the veil of his flesh was rent and before he awoke at the early dawn of the third day" (as some misunderstand brother Thomas to say) then here is an amazing thing. That time period begins after he is dead and ends before he awakes to life. This would be to say that he led captivity captive when he was captive to death! It would also be to say that the Lord had victory over death, at the very time he was in grave. And it also would be to say that he who "descended first into the lower parts of the earth" had at the same time "ascended up on high".
I would posit that Paul's timing is correct: the Lord decended first into the lower parts of the earth and then after emerging from the tomb, ascended up on high in which captivity was now his captive. So there must be some sense in which the Lord ascended prior to his ascension in Acts 1:9. Ascending to heaven doesn't necessarily mean a physical ascent.

"And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them." (Rev. 11:12)

And I believe this is accounted for:

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and tomy God, and your God" (John 20:17)

There are two basic views of this particular verse. One says that the Lord was gently rebuking Mary not to cling to him for his stay on earth would be short and that he would be ascending to the Father to sit at His right hand. This idea, where it has been presented, sometimes indicates that Mary was physically restraining the Lord by clinging to him as an emotional response. I don't see any proof of that in the text. Rather I see reasons why that is unlikely:

1. The Bible doesn't even say that Mary touched him. "She turned and said to Him, 'Rabboni!'" Immediately the Lord responds, "touch me not". Everyone who puts forth this idea assumes that Mary not only turned to him but that she embraced him. It's an assumption.
2. Some suggest that Mary was so overpowered with emotion that she was physically restraining him in her embrace. It seems unlikely to me, that a 33 year old man, now restored to mortal life, would find the physical restraint of Mary to be such that he had to tell her to let him go. I look first for a doctrinal teaching in the Bible text, and I don't see anything in this suggestion.
3. Rather than physical restraint some have suggested that the Lord's response was a rebuke that Mary's affection must be taken to a spiritual level. Again, that's just an assumption and the Lord's words don't suggest that her affection was misplaced. It seems unlikely that the Lord would choose to appear to Mary first (a commendation) only to tell her she was somehow failing to be spiritual enough.
4. The Lord had just emerged from the tomb. It really doesn't make sense to me that the Lord would have to tell Mary not to cling on to him for he was going to leave earth forty days later (!) to sit at the Father's right hand. That, I just don't see, could possibly be a pressing point at that particular time. The real issue to Mary's mind was that he was alive — whereas she knew he had been dead — resurrection! And when the time came for him to leave, she wasn't going to stop his ascension. The Lord had just emerged from the tomb and she had no idea he was leaving, some forty days later, anyway, so there wouldn't have been any thought of "preventing" him from doing anything. In other words, the reason given for this particular interpretation seems forced and quite out of context. There might be another reason brethren believe this. I have yet to hear it or read it.
5. If you look at the Greek word translated touch... in all 37 other occurrences in 32 verses it never means "cling to". It always is translated touch, "If I may but touch his clothes...", "then touched he their eyes... ", "Who touched me...". Never do these verses indicate that something was being held on to and in some cases it wouldn't make sense: "If I may but cling to his clothes" — this was a woman of faith and she knew the healing power was in touching the hem of his garment; "then he clung onto their eyes" — need I say more? From the Bible text I just don't see any reason to view this as "clinging to".
6. The Lord follows the command of "touch me not" with his reason: "for I am not yet ascended to my Father". The reason the Lord gives himself makes sense to me. Asthe antitypical firstfruits he had not yet been presented before the Father to be "lifted up", "inspected" and accepted (immortalized). Furthermore he was unclean having been in the grave. It is true that he had not been made unclean, according to Mosaic Law during his ministry, even though he had touched the dead. But it is also true that he had not been dead himself. And there is no reason to suppose that the Lord was not "under the law". He told Mary to "touch me not". This was very different from how he treated the disciples later that day in John 20:19-20 which is suggestive of his having been immortalized after verse 18 and before verse 19. Notice that he also, at that time, gave the disciples the holy spirit, which again indicates he is immortal and endued with power from on high (cp. Matt 27:46; John 20:22; Luke 24:49). Also note how he dealt, eight days later, with Thomas in John 20:24.
7. The final proof, to my mind, is that the Lord then tells Mary, "but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". Now if the ascension he spoke of was 40 days later, why didn't he wait till that evening to tell the disciples himself? Again, is there some teaching to be advanced by this? The modern interpretation has the Lord effectively saying "Don't physically restrain me for I haven't physically ascended up to heaven. But go tell my brethren that I am going to ascend in forty days". Once again, I just do not find that a substantive interpretation.
8. I have never found brother Thomas or brother Roberts teaching that "touch me not" means to "not cling to". They teach it means he was mortal and unclean and that he had not yet ascended to his Father's nature. Where did the idea come from? The earliest references I personally can find are these.
   1. It appears in The Christadelphian first in 1923 on the authority of the R.V margin. But even there bro. Walker says, "The only other 'ascent to the Father' was the ascent from human nature to the divine nature. This gives us the clue to a right understanding." It appears again in 1934. In 1940 it is repeated with references made to Rotherham and Weymouth, but again in the context of the Lord arising to Divine nature. Less detail but the "cling to" idea appears in 1950, 1965, 1972 and 1985.
   2. It appears in The Testimony magazine in 1940 (quoting a Weymouth footnote), again in 1954, 1959, 1975 and 1976
   3. It appears in Logos magazine first 1967, then in 1969 and 1975
   4. It appears in The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine in 1985

So, as it currently stands, it appears to originate from a RV marginal note and has been supported by references to Weymouth and Rotherham. If readers have additional information it would be most appreciated.

"Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH." Zec 3:3-8

If the Lord was to be raised immortal this prophetic enactment makes no sense. He STOOD BEFORE THE ANGEL in filthy garments and then had a change of raiment. That, in prophetic language, reads as decisively as it can.

It has been suggested by one author that the Lord was mortal his entire 40 days. This doesn't seem to be the case based on the above arguments. In addition we are told:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) (1st John 1:1-2)

What Christadelphians Have Historically Taught

"We believe, on the evidence of Romans 6:4 and other places, that the Lord was raised mortal, but 'changed in the twinkling of an eye'" (Logos, 1975, p. 375)

"As the Lord was raised mortal and then elevated to immortality, so there must be growth of the newness of life in him." (Logos, 1965, p. 31)

"He shall also quicken your mortal bodies" — Jesus rose mortal from the grave (Rom. 14:9), and thus patterned the process by which we can rise to life eternal (Rom. 6: 5) (Logos, 1966, p. 182)

Now, without question, Jesus is the first fruits of those who are to be raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:23); and every one knows that the “first fruits” are the same in kind and in process of development as the rest of the harvest. In the case of Jesus, a period elapsed between his coming out of the grave and his change of nature; so must it be with his brethren. (Henry Sulley,The Christadelphian, 1899)
"They are living persons such as Jesus was when restored to life; and like him, waiting for the same things to be wrought in them. The risen Jesus waited to be changed, or transformed, into what he was not on emerging from the tomb. The true believers, who hope not to die, knowing that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, are also waiting to be changed or transformed into what they are not. The position of Jesus and this remnant is identical. He had not long to wait for his change. When it did come, it was “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”—quick as a flash of lightning. This was his reviving after he rose, and by which he was made Lord and Christ." (Eureka, vol 5, p. 18)
What was the Body that came out of Joseph's sepulchre? The same that was crucified, died, and was buried there-"out of the earth, earthy." An earthy body is not consubstantial with the Father, who is Spirit. At the emergence from the tomb, there was inequality of substance between the Father and the Son. (John Thomas, Catechesis, #23)

Now, Christ was the anti-typical lamb slain, and the question is, how, and by whom was he presented in the anti-typical holiest of all—heaven itself, (Heb. 9:24), to have the offering of his mortal body accepted and endorsed by the flashing forth of the spirit-fire upon him, to change him “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” into a “life-giving spirit.” The history of the case affords a simple answer; He ascended to the presence of the Father, both as the victim and the officiating priest, and when the offering was accepted and consumed by the out-shedding of the spirit upon his substance, that is, when he was glorified, he transmitted the spirit to his disciples on the day of Pentecost. This is Peter’s account of it on the occasion: “Being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear,” (Acts 2:33.) Again, when accounting to the wonder-stricken crowd for the miraculous cure of “a certain man, lame from his mother’s womb,” he says, “Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power, or holiness, we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified his son, Jesus, ” (Acts 3:12–13). From this, it would follow that Jesus was not glorified till after his ascension, and that. therefore, our correspondent’s assumption, that he came forth from the grave in spiritual nature, is unfounded.  (The Christadelphian, 1867)

He is no longer simply the earthborn body that was crucified and buried. After he came forth from the tomb, which of itself under the law was defiling to the party buried, and to any living person who should touch him, Jesus was also upon the third day "justified by spirit," or "made perfect," in ascending by the power of the Spirit from the earthborn nature, to consubstantiality of substance with the Father, "who is spirit" (John 4:24). Thus freed from all earthiness, he became spirit, upon the principle he had laid down in his discourse to Nicodemus, that "that which has been born out of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence, the perfected Jesus is the Spirit-Nucleus of the Perfect Man to be revealed, or apocalypsed. (Eureka, volume 5, p. 233)

To say that Christ was “energised into immortal vigour from the very tomb in which he lay,” is merely an unproved and unprovable assertion. Two things at least suggest the contrary, viz., the saying, “touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” and the fact that Christ was the antitypical sheaf of first fruits of the harvest, which was wont to be waved before the Lord on the morrow after the Sabbath, with the object of its being accepted ( Lev. 23:10 , 11 ). This suggests a similar thing on the part of the antitype. We know the morrow after the Sabbath answers fittingly to the day on which Christ rose from the dead. Following that, his offering or presentation before the Father, and his acceptance, signified by his being “changed in a moment” (as his finally accepted brethren will be), are all things first implied in the type, secondly in what Christ said to Mary, and thirdly in what will take place in the case of his brethren, of which he must needs be the example. 12–13.—The “mortal flesh” in which the life of Jesus is yet to be manifested, describes equally the case of the resurrected brethren and the living brethren contemporary with that event. For it is simply a case of this mortal alive, or this mortal reproduced from the grave, that must put on immortality. (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1889)

If the same kind of body did not come forth that was buried, it would not be Resurrection, but only surrection, as in the case of the first man. Jesus "rose AGAIN" (1 Cor. 15:4); his coming forth was therefore resurrection. He rose again the same Jesus that was buried, only that instead of being dead, he was alive again. He was buried under the curse of the law, which "made him a curse for" our benefit (Gal. 3:13): he came forth while that same law was in force and operation. His coming forth upon the arena of his execution did not relieve him from the curse of that law, which sentenced him to continuous and everlasting death; so that, if they could have recaptured him, the Mosaic authorities would doubtless have returned him into death. That law regarded him as dead, and its authorities refused credence to the report, that he had come to life. After he had come forth he saw Mary, a Jewess, who mistook him for the gardener, so like other men did he appear. Having convinced her of her error, he checked the impulse of her affection by saying to her, "Touch me not!" It was defiling for Jews to touch a thing declared to be unclean by the law. Any thing from the grave was enacted to be unclean, in reference to him who should come out of the tomb, until that he should be 'revived" (Rom. 14:9) or "made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). Christ was "the end of the law," the substance or body of the shadow (Rom. 10:4; Col. 2:17); its lines concentred in the things pertaining to his body. The interdict forbidding it to be touched was indicative of its not then having been changed into spirit; and that it was still earthy and inferior to the substance of the Father. He gave the reason why he forbade his body to be touched; "for," he said, "I have not yet ascended to my Father". No one might touch him until that ascent had taken place. It did not occur till after Mary left him; but it had doubtless taken place before his walk with Cleopas and another to Emmaus; for they appear to have travelled very sociably together. The swallowing up of every particle of the earthiness of an earthy body, is an instantaneous operation; the work of "a moment, or the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:51,52). It was one of the events that transpired in relation to Jesus on the third day. He "rose and revived" on the third day (Rom. 14:9). He not only rose on the third day, but he revived on the same day. Rising is one thing, reviving is another; and two different words are used by the apostle to express the different ideas." (Eureka, vol 5, p. 236-237)

Such was the model, or "Heavenly Man," whose image, intellectual, moral, and material, all must bear who may become the future constituents of the Perfect Man, who comes upon the world as a thief. I have been rather particular in the exposition of the things connected with the body of Jesus, which being made subjectively to know orach chayim, "the way of lives," became "the Way" (John 14:6) illustrative of the manner in which all his brethren will experimentally pass from the humiliation of death to the exaltation of eternal life and glory. They, as he, come forth from the unclean house of death earthy, and, therefore, unclean bodies. (Eureka, vol 5, p. 238)