Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection 9

If Christ had no need of the flesh, why did he heal it? The strongest proof of all is that he raised the dead. To what end? Was it not to demonstrate the kind of resurrection that is to come? How, then, did he raise the dead—was it their souls or their bodies? Clearly, it was both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, he would have needed to show his own body lying in the tomb and his soul existing apart from it. Instead, he did not do this; he raised the body, confirming the promise of life within it. Why, then, did he raise the flesh that had suffered, if not to reveal the bodily resurrection? To confirm this, he appeared to disciples who, though they saw him, still doubted whether he had truly risen in the body. 'Do you not yet have faith?' he said. 'See that it is I myself.' He let them touch him and showed them the nail marks in his hands. After they examined him from every side and recognized that he was truly himself, still in the body, they asked him to eat with them so they could learn through this act that he had risen bodily. He ate honeycomb and fish. Having proved that the resurrection is truly of the flesh, and wishing also to show—as he said our dwelling is in heaven—that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven, he was taken up before their eyes while still in the flesh. Therefore, if anyone still demands demonstrative arguments about the resurrection after all that has been said, he differs in no way from the Sadducees; for the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God and transcends all reason, confirmed by faith and witnessed in works.