The Resurrection and the Life: Why Easter is a Big Deal

If you're just interested in the biblical reasons why Easter is a big deal to Christians you can just read the first half of my article at the link below. If you want to know why it's not a big deal to Adventists, then check out the second half.

Why Easter is a Big Deal

Grace: You Don't Deserve It

God has never needed anything. He is complete in Himself and lacks nothing. He is one single being and yet He has never lacked relationship or needed love. His very being has always been defined by relationships of love. God did not need to create us and yet He did. God created us so that we might share in the love and relationships which exists within Him. The One Being, Yahweh, has always existed in an eternal dance of love between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Those who are in the Son have been adopted into that eternal dance. Both our creation and our redemption are acts of pure grace. That's grace, something given as a free gift where the giver has no obligation to do so and the recipient has no merit and deserves none of it. If both our creation and our redemption are entirely the work of God, based upon His sovereign choice, then why should we ever for moment fear for our salvation. We don't deserve it and never will. It is Him who freely gives it without cause. Through no merit of our own, we have been ushered into the dance.  

Balancing Yoga

I watched my eleven year old daughter as she followed the commands of the virtual yoga instructor in her WiiFit game.  First the Crane, then the Cobra, finishing with the Lotus as the Wii balance board measured her stillness. I found myself vaguely conflicted. My sister had recently sent me a video outlining the religious origins of Yoga and the dangers of Christians involving themselves in such practices. Several Hindu clerics interviewed in the video strongly stressed their opinion that yoga cannot be separated from Hindu spirituality and that people in the West who try to do so are deluding themselves.  Yet here was my daughter, a dedicated Christ-follower, happily stretching and exercising with her Wii completely oblivious to any Hindu connection. There is no doubt in my mind that worshipping Hindu “gods” or partaking in a religious ritual was the farthest thing from her mind. So was the video right? Was she really opening herself up to dangerous spiritual influences?   

In the past few years there has been a growing debate within the Church, to yoga or not to yoga.  A practice with roots in Eastern mysticism has found its way to the West, and in a big way. No longer is it an obscure discipline practiced by a few avant-garde types on the coasts, but by a wide stratum of socioeconomic groups in nearly every city, town, and suburb in America. In fact, in today’s culture it would be considered highly unusual to find a health club or fitness center that didn’t offer Yoga classes. So given the origins of yoga and its ubiquitous presence in our culture, how should Christians interested in maintaining a Christian world view respond?

I found myself thinking about this question recently after being commissioned to write an article on why certain cults-of-Christianity do not celebrate Easter. Invariably, members of these groups will cite pagan origins for the timing of the celebration, some of the traditional symbols, and even the name.  Most of these groups will say very similar things about Christmas. In doing research for the piece, I believe it is fair to say that there is a certain amount of truth to some of these claims.   However, to eschew Easter or Christmas because of ancient links to paganism would be missing the point. The Church developed and grew in the midst of a pagan Roman world, but rather than join in pagan worship, the Church was a counter-culture force that focused its celebration and worship on the incarnate Christ and His resurrection.  Regardless of some distant link to pagan celebrations or symbols, what was being celebrated by Christians was the birth and resurrection of Jesus so the symbols were given new meaning in that context. It doesn’t much matter where the dates came from or why Christmas trees and Easter eggs are used if the object of the days and the symbols are now focused on Jesus. Whatever pagans may have celebrated in winter and spring has been supplanted by new traditions, a new focus, and new meaning.  The links to paganism have been broken and the celebrations redeemed. Simply put, Christianity triumphed over paganism.   Few people today have any idea that these holidays ever had any link to paganism and many have even separated them from their Christian traditions and now celebrate them as secular holidays.

I see a parallel with yoga in Western culture.  Many Americans who participate in yoga as an exercise regime have no idea that there ever was any underlying spiritual connection. The overwhelming majority are probably much like my daughter and see yoga as a purely secular exercise. Most would be surprised, and perhaps even incredulous, if someone were to tell them yoga was at one time linked to religion. Simply put, these individuals are exercising not worshipping.  However, some may object to drawing such a comparison to how ancient pagan festivals were transformed into something positive. After all, those festivals are now completely dead traditions with no counterpart in today’s culture. The transformation of Easter and Christmas is a fait accompli, while in the case of yoga there are still currently millions of people in eastern religions practicing various forms of yoga as a spiritual discipline. Unlike the holidays of Easter and Christmas, yoga is far from being completely and permanently transformed worldwide. While somewhat rare in the west, it must be admitted that certain strains of yoga still have ties to Hinduism. So is it possible for a Christian to simply enjoy the physical benefits of yoga while rejecting any practices and beliefs associated with Hinduism?

In answering the question above, I found it helpful to turn to a similar dilemma facing the early Church in Corinth. The Corinthian believers were living in a culture saturated in polytheistic idolatry. It was common practice in the pagan temples to slaughter animals and offer the meat to the gods with a certain portion of the offered meat being sold in the marketplace. Evidently, some within the Church were concerned that purchasing and eating meat offered to idols was either spiritually dangerous or at least made them complicit in something associated with pagan practices. The apostle Paul addressed this concern in his first letter to the Corinthians.

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (NRSV)

Paul is essentially saying that the origin of the food doesn’t really matter because believers know that pagan gods are false gods and there is only one true God. Believers can divorce the food from its origin because their faith is in Jesus, not the so-called gods that the food was offered to. Paul goes on in chapter 10 to assure the Corinthian believers that they can eat anything in the market place with a good conscience.

  Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for "the earth and its fullness are the Lord's." If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I mean the other's conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else's conscience?  If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. - 1 Corinthians 10:25-31 (NRSV)

Paul’s basic message is that there is nothing wrong with the meat itself, only the significance that some might give to the meat.  A Christian who rejects paganism can enjoy the meat as food and glorify God. The principle would seem to be applicable to westernized yoga. Westernized yoga has been divorced from its Hindu origins and is marketed as a healthy fitness routine. Certainly it is true that much research backs up the health benefits of yoga. So, like meat offered to idols, there is nothing wrong with yoga in and of itself, only in the significance that some might give to the exercise. Many Christians participate regularly in yoga exercises and stretching as a way of maintaining their health while utterly rejecting Hinduism. They are enjoying the health benefits of yoga while glorifying the one true God.

To be sure, both chapters 8 and 10 contain a great deal of instruction from Paul about not using our freedom and knowledge about such things in a way which might cause others to stumble or to injure their own consciences. We must take these commands to be cognizant and respectful of our weaker brothers and sisters seriously.  Our personal health and fitness must be secondary to loving our fellow believers. However, Paul also appears to bristle at the idea of being denounced by those who might try to use the issue in a judgmental way. So how do we balance the voluntary restriction of our liberty for love’s sake while avoiding the trap of uniformed legalism? Perhaps the best approach is to go out of our way to inform, educate, and studiously avoid any unnecessary offense or misunderstanding. Perhaps we could do a better job of stating up front that while some yoga may have ties to Hinduism that is not something we embrace or participate in. We need to explore ways to explain, label, and define our exercise regime as just that, a program for gaining increased flexibility, reducing stress, and promoting health and fitness. Perhaps it’s time for westernized yoga to have its own name that clarifies the break with its past.   There are no doubt a myriad of ways that we can protect our brothers and sisters from error while benefitting from a wonderfully healthy practice. Given the totality of the Apostle Paul’s instructions, we should expend effort in doing so prior to completely eschewing a good thing.

This topic will no doubt remain controversial. Honest concerned Christians will take various views depending on their conscience. That’s okay. These things are worth having a dialogue about, just as they were in first century Corinth.  In my case, I’m no longer worried about my daughter doing yoga on the Wii. I am convinced she is exercising with thanks and giving glory to God in everything she does.

The Grand Design: No God Required

Recently, I read with great interest excerpts from Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design. In his book Hawking posits that God is not necessary in order to account for the creation of the universe. Let me say right up front that my grasp of physics and mathematics is rudimentary at best. In addition, my intellect is quite obviously not even a pale shade of what Hawking possesses. Given my severe limitations, when compared to Hawking, it may seem an incredible act of hubris to question the conclusions of such a genius. However, in this book Hawking writes at a relatively accessible popular level and goes beyond the limits of physics and mathematics in order to draw metaphysical conclusions. So in this case, it seems that even a lay person might be able to point out a few leaps of faith in reaching his conclusions.

In ruling out God as the force behind the formation of the universe, Hawking appeals rather to gravitation as a sufficient force for creation. While his conclusion is tied to complex string theory, it seems to lead to other problems on a more basic level. Hawking is placing a good deal of faith in something that is, as of yet, not fully explained by anyone, including himself. It has been demonstrated that Newtonian physics alone cannot explain gravity. Most theories today use principles of general relativity to explain gravitation. In these models space-time is curved by matter which helps to explain the attraction between objects of mass. However, general relativity does not play nicely with the growing science of quantum mechanics where the force of gravity must be explained quite differently. In quantum mechanics, gravity is related to the attraction and exchange of virtual gravitons. At this point, no one can truly tie Newtonian physics, general relativity, and quantum theories of gravity together.

If I understand Hawking’s approach, he is proposing string theory as a possible future unifying solution, but it appears that string theory is really being used as a Trojan horse to sneak in the concept of nearly infinite parallel universes. This construct is necessary in order to explain the mind blowing degree of fine tuning observed in this particular universe. If there are nearly infinite universes, then surely one is highly fine tuned for life. Never mind that this owes more to sci-fi then it does to actual hard evidence.  These are all fascinating theories, but when it comes right down to it, we’re still no closer to really understanding why gravity actually exists as opposed to nothing existing at all. Basically we can describe the effects and facts of gravity, but cannot truly define a root cause for gravity that would bind all the various observations and theories together in a coherent way. In short, Hawking is appealing to an incredibly complex force he does not fully understand and cannot completely explain, and yet he has great faith that this force is sufficient to rule out God's involvement. To depend on this unexplained force as the sole "creator" and shaper of the universe seems like a leap of faith to me.

Hawking has an even larger problem than this. All of the most accepted cosmological models point back to a point when time-space (as well as matter, energy, and gravity) must have first come into being. Hawking says that God was not necessary to spark the existence of something from nothing, but does not adequately explain just what could other than simply resorting to his nearly infinite universes theory. Suggesting more than one universe, even universes nearing infinity, brings us no closer to an original cause. Whatever the cause, it would have to be independent of time-space, matter, energy, and gravity. Or to put it another way, the cause would have to pre-exist time-space, matter, energy, and gravity. The cause would also have to be greater than or equal to the effect, i.e. the cause would have to be greater than or equal to the observable time-space universe and all forces within it. We should also point out that we cannot logically have an infinite regression of causes, so at some point there must be an uncaused first cause which meets these criteria. Hawking doesn't explain what this might be. There is no point in appealing to gravity if you can't explain gravity, its cause, or why it exists as opposed to nothing existing. Hawking wants to tie the various theories of gravity together, which of necessity must involve matter, but we’re still left with the problem of matter coming from nothing. Whether we focus on gravity, matter, or both, we still have to deal with an uncaused first cause.

All this is to say, it takes faith to believe there is no God. Those of us involved in apologetic endeavors should be prepared to reason with those who have real questions about origins. We, unfortunately, have sometimes projected an almost anti-intellectual image of the Church, as if faith and reason are not compatible or reason somehow is antithetical to faith. There is no dichotomy here. Hawking mixes his faith in the ability of science to eventually explain everything into his reasoning and conclusions. We too take some things on faith, but that does not mean that Christianity is incompatible with reason. Rather, we believe that Christianity corresponds to reality. If that’s true, then Christianity is reasonable and can stand up to scrutiny. Belief is not dependent on blind leaps of faith, but on faith grounded in evidence. Each of us needs to grapple with the question of origins and decide whether gravity alone is a sufficient explanation for why there is something rather than nothing or if logically there must be an uncaused first caused. In his book Hawking hails the death philosophy. Let us hope that in saying philosophy is dead he is not also abandoning the underlying logic required to reach reasonable conclusions.

Objections to Jesus Being the First Fruits in a Literal Sense

I have received a couple of questions which have bearing on whether or not the resurrection of Jesus in a glorified resurrection body was a unique event or not. I would summarize the questions as:

1.       If Elijah had a glorified resurrection body when he appeared at the transfiguration of Jesus, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Moses also had a glorified resurrection body at the transfiguration?

2.       If the people mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53 were resurrected in glorified bodies, then how can you say that Jesus was the first to have a glorified resurrection body?

I want to deal with those questions here, but let me first say that I had two purposes in bringing up Moses in Part VI of State of the Dead Bible Study (the segment that occasioned the questions):

1.       Someone asked me about that particular story

2.       I want to make the point that some things that we who were raised SDA have always assumed to be true aren’t necessarily so, or at least can’t be found in the Bible. I am not trying to say that we can use Moses to prove or disprove “absent from the body, present with the Lord”. I’m only saying that there is no good biblical reason to insist that Moses has already been bodily resurrected. You can find that teaching in Ellen White’s writings, but not in the Bible.

Okay, so with that preamble, let me attempt to make two suppositions that I hope are points of agreement for all involved:

1.       The Bible tells us God is spirit. The Bible also tells us that angels are spirits. There are many places in the Bible where God reveals himself in visual ways. There are many places in the Bible where angels reveal themselves in visual ways and even appear to take on various forms. So it appears it is possible for spirits to be revealed in visual ways.

2.       There are several people in the OT and NT who are raised from the dead not long after death, but were not given glorified resurrection bodies. They presumably became sick or grew old and died at some point thereafter.

So hopefully we can all agree with the two suppositions above. Now I’ll state a few things that I’m sure we won’t all agree on, but I hope they are worth thinking about anyway.

1.       The Bible never says that Moses was resurrected. It just says he was dead and tells us that God buried him. To insist that Moses was resurrected with a glorified resurrection body is to read something into the Bible that isn’t there. More specifically it’s to read a teaching from Ellen White into the Bible where it does not exist.

2.       The Bible never says that Elijah was given a glorified resurrection body. It simply says that he “went up by a whirlwind to heaven”. Elijah was swept off the face of the earth into the very presence of God who is spirit. That does not require a physical body. Someday heaven will be very physical when we dwell in the earth made new in our glorified bodies. However, right now Heaven is the very presence of God and it need not be a “place” within the created physical universe as we know it. Most scholars believe Heaven, as it is today, is in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.

3.       The fact that the disciples “saw” visual representations of Moses and Elijah in no way necessitates either one having a glorified resurrection body. God was doing something very special and intentional in the transfiguration. God allowed the disciples to see Jesus glorified, see visual manifestations of Moses and Elijah, and hear the Father’s voice for a specific reason. Moses represented the Law and Elijah represented the Prophets, but God said, “This is my beloved Son, listen to Him!” God gave an awe inspiring visual and auditory demonstration of a theme that rings throughout the New Testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets and supersedes both the Law and the Prophets.

4.       The Bible never says that the people in Mathew 27 were resurrected with glorified bodies. We just don’t know that. Many commentators believe that these were like many others who were raised from the dead during Jesus’ ministry. They were miraculously brought back to life, but not glorified (sometimes referred to as resuscitation as opposed to resurrection). They would later grow old or sick and die. The folks in Matthew 27 were apparently coming out of the Jerusalem cemetery and may have been people who had recently died (similar to Lazarus). Finally, the Greek (and the more literal English translations) seem to suggest that the tombs were opened by the earthquake at the time of Jesus’ death, but that the dead did not come out of those opened tombs and go into the city until after Jesus resurrection. So even if we were to assume they had been resurrected (as opposed to resuscitated) it still appears it was likely after Jesus’ resurrection. I personally think it more likely that these folks were more like Lazarus, but the bottom line is we just don’t know.

5.       I personally believe that the resurrection of Jesus in a glorified resurrection body is a singular unique event in history. I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christian belief and without peer in human experience. It is the event we can point to as proof that Jesus is who He said He was and can do what He said. By this we know that He is God in the flesh. By this we know that we one day will rise from the dead in imperishable glorified bodies as well. The Bible seems to support the notion that there is a distinct order. Christ first, then those who believe in the Messiah, then comes the end.

    ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. ²³ But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, ²⁴ then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 (NASB)

So for those who believe that Christ’s resurrection is less than unique in human history and that others have gone before, I believe it is incumbent upon them to show clearly and distinctly where the Bible teaches this. By saying this, I do not mean taking the teachings of Ellen White and reading them back into passages where they do not exist. I mean clearly showing where the Bible says that any other human before Jesus was ever resurrected with a glorified resurrection body. I have never found such a teaching in the Bible without having to read something into it that isn’t there. If I’m missing it, please let me know.

State of the Dead Bible Study: Part VII

I once went to see the Oscar winning film Gladiator with a SDA friend of mine.  Near the beginning of the film we find out that the hero, Maximus, dreams of leaving the wars and returning to the life he loves of raising crops with his wife and son.  Unfortunately, before he is able to return to the fields that he loves so much, his wife and son are murdered and he is made a gladiator slave.  In the final scene, as Maximus lays dying in the Coliseum, we see an image of him walking through a field of ripe grain with his wife and son before him in the sunlight…….fade to black………

I was very impressed with Ridley Scott’s film which later won best picture.  On the way out of the theater I remarked to my SDA friend how much I enjoyed the movie.  His comment to me was, “I liked it right up until the point where it got into all that spiritualism.  I couldn’t recommend it because of the spiritualism.”  I was stunned.  A well crafted film that managed to combine epic story-telling, action, and breath taking cinematography had just been dismissed out of hand because of one beautifully artistic scene near the end.  The entire movie was worthless because it promoted “spiritualism”. 

Had my friend said he disagreed with the idea that a polytheistic Roman who died apart from Christ would be in Heaven, then I could have heartily agreed with him.  But that wasn’t why my friend was so offended.  He was offended by the portrayal of conscious existence at death.  I have run into this same attitude with close family members as well.  Any art that so much as hints at conscious existence at death is written off as being either “spiritualism”, or more often, “satanic”. 

Perhaps I should not be surprised by this as I grew up believing that the idea of conscious existence at death was the first lie Satan ever told.  So therefore any teacher, preacher, movie, song, TV show, or book that suggested a conscious existence at death must be satanic in so far as they were promoting Satan’s lie.  But if conscious existence at death is Satan’s lie and those who teach it are false teachers, what does that say about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?  Jesus tells a very interesting story in Luke, chapter 16.

Luke 16:19-31 (NASB)
¹⁹ "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.
²⁰ "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,
²¹ and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
²² "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
²³ "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw* Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
²⁴ "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
²⁵ "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
²⁶ 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
²⁷ "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house—
²⁸ for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
²⁹ "But Abraham said*, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
³⁰ "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
³¹ "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Now I have heard some try to dismiss this passage by saying, “Well, it’s only a parable and the main point isn’t the state of the dead.”  This may very well only be a parable, but if it is, then it is the only recorded parable of Jesus where he uses a name for one of the characters.  Because of this, many commentators believe that Jesus is recounting actual events involving people some in the crowd would have known.  However, I’m fine with assuming that this is a parable.  I also agree completely that the main point isn’t the state of the dead. 

However, neither of those points allows us to dismiss the significance of the illustration Jesus is using here.  Assuming this is a parable, then we can say that Jesus’ parables ALWAYS made use of something TRUE from life to illustrate an even greater spiritual TRUTH.  It just doesn’t work to say that Jesus was illustrating a truth by using a falsehood.   Can you imagine Jesus saying, “You know that point I was making? Well, it was a true point, but the way I went about making it was absolutely false.  In fact, I was using an illustration that is a satanic lie to make my point.  My illustration is dangerous spiritualism, but the point is still valid.”?  Why would Jesus say something that was completely false and thereby mislead generations of Christians?  Why would he wait until the 1840s to raise up a group to correct the misconception he started over 1800 year’s before?  That’s a long time to leave Christians confused and misled by a satanic illustration.

It almost feels like blasphemy to write the paragraph I did above, and yet that’s essentially what those who try to explain away this passage are saying when you peel away all their layers of double talk.  We’re talking about God in the flesh.  We’re talking about the greatest teacher, preacher, and prophet to ever walk among us.  This is the illustration He chose and the people in His illustration are conscious and communicative at death.  If we accuse other teachers and preachers of spiritualism and promoting the lies of Satan when they say such things, should we accuse Jesus of the same thing?  Well, I guess one might if they were consistent, but it would be a grave mistake. 

This isn’t “spiritualism”.  It reflects a spiritual reality that Christ knew to be true and the rest of the Bible confirms.  Although I would not want to make a passage like this the primary source of my doctrine, Jesus’ illustration fits perfectly with the rest of His teaching and the didactic teaching of His apostles so I can accept this story as representing spiritual reality.  I don’t need or want to explain it away and dismiss it.

I believe we have been guilty of falsely accusing some of our Christian brothers and sisters of spiritualism for preaching and teaching things that the Bible itself preaches and teaches.  I know I have to personally repent of such accusations that I have made.  My accusations and judgments were made out of my own ignorance, but I bear the responsibility for that ignorance. 

Now that I know what the Bible teaches on this subject, I can now watch films that depict a conscious existence at death without becoming angry and agitated.  I may not agree with every theological implication in the way it is presented, but I can at least enjoy the story for its artistic merit without fearing a satanic deception.  But much more importantly, now that I know what the bible teaches on this subject I am now much more comfortable fellowshipping with Christians who believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Based upon much prayer and Bible study, I now believe that at death I will be consciously with the Lord awaiting the resurrection of my perfect imperishable body.  I don’t know exactly this means or what it will be like, but perhaps it will be just a little like Ridley Scott’s vision of walking through a beautiful field of ripened grain, surrounded by sunlight and loved ones.

I hope this study has been helpful.  I’ve certainly enjoyed presenting it.  Now that we’re done with the study, please let me know if there are additional questions or items for discussion.  Thank you for reading!

State of the Dead Bible Study: Part VI

Before addressing the questions dealing with the death of Moses and the Rich Man and Lazarus, I had asked for the opportunity to first lay a foundation for my thoughts.  I believe I am now ready to address these two cases starting with Moses.

If you grew up Adventist, you probably grew up believing that Moses was bodily resurrected from the grave with a perfect, imperishable, resurrection body just like we will have some day. But the question arises; do we really have any strong biblical reason to believe that Moses was the first person to be resurrected from the grave with an imperishable resurrection body?  Although the point may be debatable, I personally don’t see any particularly good reason to think that Moses was the first to rise from the grave with a resurrection body and I can think of at least one very good theological reason to think this is not the case. Let’s start with what the Bible has to say on the death of Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:1-12 (NASB)
¹ Now Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan,
² and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the western sea,
³ and the Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar.
⁴ Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there."
⁵ So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
⁶ And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day.
⁷ Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.
⁸ So the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end.
⁹ Now Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him; and the sons of Israel listened to him and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.
¹⁰ Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
¹¹ for all the signs and wonders which the LORD sent him to perform in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land,
¹² and for all the mighty power and for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.

That’s it.  Those are the very last versus of the Torah.  We’re basically told three things:

1. Moses died.
2. God buried Moses.
3. No one knows Moses’ burial place.

It is likely that God buried Moses in a remote spot and did not allow anyone to know where it was because the children of Israel would have worshipped the spot and/or the body if they had known where it was.  The Israelites had a tendency toward this type of idolatry as evidenced by the fact that they were worshipping the bronze serpent that Moses had made as late as the time of Hezekiah.  Even this good thing had been turned into a false object of worship and had become a snare to them.  It is likely that the tomb of Moses would have been a snare to them as well.

But whatever the reason for God burying Moses, not a single thing is said or even suggested about resurrecting Moses in a resurrection body.  You would think that if such a significant event in history had occurred, the Bible might mention it.  If Moses was the first fruits from the dead, that is, the first to receive an imperishable resurrection body like we will one day enjoy, then you would certainly think the Bible would say so, but it doesn’t.

A Jewish tradition arose stating that Michael the Archangel (no, Michael is not Jesus, but that’s another study) was assigned the task of burying Moses by God.  According to this tradition, Michael and Satan disputed over the body of Moses.  This tradition was evidently recorded in a noncanonical work variously referred to as “The Testament of Moses” or “The Assumption of Moses”.  In his epistle, Jude alludes to this tradition about the burial of Moses.  It should be noted that such an allusion to popular tradition does not mean that “The Testament of Moses” was inspired, only that Jude found this well-known story to be helpful in illustrating the point he was making.

Jude 1:9 (NASB)
⁹ But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Jude’s main point in using this illustration has nothing to do with Moses at all.  Rather Jude is making a point about showing proper fear and respect regarding spiritual beings that are more powerful than we are.  But what I want us to note is that Jude is not saying that Michael resurrected Moses.  To the contrary he is alluding to a Jewish tradition that said that Michael buried Moses.

Now let’s look at what God tells Joshua after the death of Moses.

Joshua 1:1-2 (NASB)
¹ Now it came about after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, that the LORD spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' servant, saying,
² "Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel.

God just says that Moses is dead.  There is no hint whatsoever that Moses has been resurrected in a resurrection body.  If this had happened, how could God say that Moses was “dead” in any sense of the word?  Surely after we have our resurrection bodies we will no longer be referred to as “dead”!  Compare what God says about Moses to what the angels say about Jesus at His resurrection: "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen.” - Luke 24:6-7.  There’s a big difference!  God simply says that Moses is dead, but when Jesus rises from the dead with a resurrection body the angles make it clear that He is not among the dead, He is “living”.

But here’s the biggest reason that I don’t think it’s theologically possible for Moses to have risen from the grave with a resurrection body.  If Moses had risen from the grave with a resurrection body then he would be the first fruits from the dead and not Jesus Christ.  The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus is the first fruits from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 (NASB)
²⁰ But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
²¹ For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
²³ But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,

Other people in the Bible had been brought back to life after dying (resuscitation), but they all eventually grew old or sick and died again.  Only Jesus has been resurrected from the grave with a perfect imperishable resurrection body guaranteeing that one day we will have resurrection bodies just like His.  If Moses had done it first, then Jesus would not be the first fruits from the dead.

So here is a summary of the reasons that I think it is highly unlikely that Moses was resurrected from the grave with a resurrection body:

1. The Bible never says that Moses was resurrected; only that he was buried.
2. The Bible specifically calls Moses “dead”.
3. Jewish tradition does not claim that Moses was resurrected with a resurrection body, only that Michael buried him.
4. Jesus is the first fruits from the dead, the first to have an imperishable resurrection body, not Moses.

So why were we taught our whole lives that Moses rose from the grave with a resurrection body?  We were taught that because of this account in the Gospels which is rather embarrassing for SDA theology.

Luke 9:28-36 (NASB)
²⁸ Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.
²⁹ And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming.
³⁰ And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah,
³¹ who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
³² Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.
³³ And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah"—not realizing what he was saying.
³⁴ While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.
³⁵ Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!"
³⁶ And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.

The transfiguration creates no problems whatsoever for evangelical Christian theology because Christianity has always believed that the dead do not cease to exist, but are consciously awaiting resurrection.  So to have Moses appearing with Christ raises no problems at all because it is in harmony with the rest of what the Bible says on death.  But it creates a HUGE problem if you happen to teach that there is no spirit and death is a state of non-existence.  If you teach that, then you are backed into a corner and have to find a way to explain how Moses could be dead and also be present at the transfiguration.  The only way out of such a thorny dilemma seems to be inventing the story that Moses was resurrected.  Never mind that the Bible never says any such thing.  This seems to be a necessary invention if you are going to maintain that there is no spirit and people are non-existent at death. 

All this raises the question, why insist that there is no spirit and that people are non-existent at death in the face of so much biblical evidence against this view?  The answer is simple and it has nothing to do with good hermeneutics.  The SDA teaching on the state of the dead is a necessary teaching that is required to maintain the integrity of another key SDA distinctive, the Investigative Judgment.  Exploring how the SDA teaching on the state of the dead is necessarily linked to the SDA teaching of the Investigative Judgment is beyond the scope of this study, but anyone with a basic working knowledge of both aberrant doctrines will likely be able to make the connection.

In part seven, I’ll talk a bit about Lazarus and the Rich Man.