Mark 16:12—Did Jesus appear in different bodies after His resurrection?

Problem: According to Mark, Jesus appeared here in “another form.” From this, some argue that after the resurrection Jesus assumed different bodies on different occasions, but did not have the same continuously physical body He had before the Resurrection. But this is contrary to the orthodox understanding of the Resurrection, as is indicated by many other verses

Expanded from [Luke 24:34](Luke_24.34.php:
Luke 24:34
—Was Jesus invisible to mortal eyes before and after He appeared?
Problem:
The phrase “He appeared” means “He made Himself visible” to them (cf.
1 Cor. 15:5–8
). Jesus also disappeared (
Luke 24:31
). Some
take this to mean that Jesus was not essentially material, but simply materialized when He appeared to His disciples and dematerialized when He disappeared. However, other passages declare that Jesus had the same continuously material body of flesh and bones in which He died (
Luke 24:39
;
John 20:27
).
Solution:
That Jesus’ resurrection body was essentially material is clear from the following facts. First of all, Christ’s resurrection body could be seen with the naked eye during His appearances. They are described by the word
hora_o
(“to see”). Although this word is sometimes used of seeing invisible realities (cf.
Lk. 1:22
;
24:23
), it often means to see by the naked eye. For example, John uses the same word (
hora_o
) of seeing Jesus in His earthly body before the Resurrection (
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 (
s_oma
) is used of Jesus before and after the Resurrection (cf.
1 Cor. 15:44
;
Phil. 3:21
), and since the same word for seeing it (
hora_o
) is used of both, there is no reason for believing the resurrection body is not the same literal, physical body.
Furthermore, even in the phrase “he let Himself be seen” (aorist passive,
ophth_e
), it simply means that Jesus took the initiative to show Himself to the disciples, not that He was essentially invisible. The same form (“He [they] appeared”) is used in the Greek OT (
2 Chron. 25:21
), in the Apocrypha (
1 Mac. 4:6
), and in the NT (
Acts 7:26
) of purely human beings appearing in normal physical bodies. In this 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. Rather, it means more generally “to come into view.” There is no reason to understand it as referring to something invisible by nature becoming visible, as some do. For in this case it would mean that these human beings in normal pre-resurrection bodies were essentially invisible before they were seen by others.
Furthermore, the same event that is described by “He appeared” or “let Himself be seen” (aorist passive), such as the appearance to Paul (
1 Cor. 15:8
), is also described in the active voice. Paul wrote of this same experience in the same book, “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (
1 Cor. 9:1
). But if the resurrection body can be seen by the naked eye, then it is not invisible until it makes itself visible by some alleged “materialization.”
Jesus also disappeared from the disciples on other occasions (see
Luke 24:51
;
Acts 1:9
). But if Jesus could disappear suddenly, as well as appear, then His ability to appear cannot be taken as evidence that His resurrection body was essentially invisible. For by the same reasoning His ability to disappear suddenly could be used as evidence that it was essentially material and could suddenly become immaterial.
Finally, there are much more reasonable explanations for the stress on Christ’s self-initiated “appearances.” First of all, they were the proof that He had conquered death (
Acts 13:30–31
;
17:31
;
Rom. 1:4
). Jesus said, “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold I am alive forever more. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death” (
Rev. 1:18
; cf.
John 10:18
). The translation (“He let Himself be seen,”
1 Cor. 15:5ff
) is a perfectly fitting way to express this self-initiated triumphalism. He was sovereign over death as well as His resurrection appearances.
Furthermore, no human being saw the actual moment of the Resurrection. But the fact that Jesus appeared repeatedly in the same body for some 40 days (
Acts 1:3
) to over 500 different people (
1 Cor. 15:6
) on 12 different occasions is indisputable evidence that He really rose bodily from the dead. In brief, the reason for the stress on the many appearances of Christ is not because the resurrection body was essentially invisible and immaterial, but rather to show that it was actually 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 strongly stresses the many appearances of Christ. They are the real proof of the physical Resurrection.

).

Solution: This conclusion is unnecessary for several reasons.

First, there are serious questions about the authenticity of the text involved. Mark 16:9–20 is not found in some of the oldest and best manuscripts

Expanded from [Mark 16:9–20](Mark_16.9-20.php:

Mark 16:9–20—Why is this passage of Scripture omitted in some Bibles?

Problem: Most modern Bibles contain this ending of the Gospel of Mark, including the kjv, asv, nasb, and the nkjv. However, both the rsv and the niv set it off from the rest of the text. A note in the niv says, “Most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not haveMark 16:9–20.” Were these verses in the original Gospel of Mark?

Solution: Scholars are divided over the authenticity of these verses. Those who follow the received text tradition point to the fact that this text is found in the majority of biblical manuscripts down through the centuries. Thus, they believe it was in the original manuscript of Mark.

On the other hand, those who follow the critical text tradition insist that we should not add evidence, but weigh it. Truth is not determined, they say, by majority vote, but by the most qualified witnesses. They point to the following arguments for rejecting these verses: (1) These verses are lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, as well as in important Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic manuscripts. (2) Many of the ancient church fathers reveal no knowledge of these verses, including Clement, Origen, and Eusebius. Jerome admitted that almost all Greek copies do not have it. (3) Many manuscripts that do have this section place a mark by it indicating it is a spurious addition to the text. (4) There is another (shorter) ending to Mark that is found in some manuscripts. (5) Others point to the fact that the style and vocabulary are not the same as the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

Whether or not this piece of text belongs in the original, the truth it contains certainly accords with it. So, the bottom line is that it does not make any difference, since if it does belong here there is nothing in it contrary to the rest of Scripture. And if it does not belong, there is no truth missing in the Bible, since everything taught here is found elsewhere in Scripture. This includes tongues (see Acts 2:1ff), baptism (Acts 2:38), and God’s 1st century supernatural protection of His messengers unwittingly bitten by poisonous snakes (cf. Acts 28:3–5). So, in the final analysis, it is simply a debate about whether this particular text belongs in the Bible, not over whether any truth is missing.

---

above). And in reconstructing the original texts from the existing manuscripts, many scholars believe that the older texts are more reliable, since they are closer to the original manuscripts.

Second, even granting its authenticity, the event of which it is a summary (cf. Luke 24:13–32) simply says “their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him” (Luke 24:16, nasb). This makes it clear that the miraculous element was not in Jesus’ body, but in the eyes of the disciples (Luke 24:16, 31). Recognition of Jesus was kept from them until their eyes were opened.

Third, at best this is an obscure and isolated reference. And it is never wise to base any significant doctrinal pronouncement on such a text.

Fourth, whatever “another form” means, it certainly does not mean a form other than His real physical, material body. For, on this very occasion Jesus ate physical food (Luke 24:30), which later in this very chapter He gave as a proof that He was “flesh and bones” and not an immaterial “spirit” (vv. 38–43).

Finally, “another form” probably means other than that of a gardener for which Mary mistook Him earlier (John 20:15). Here Jesus appeared in the form of a traveler (Luke 24:13–14).

---