Resurrection and Its Meanings

And you thought Houdini was cool.From the Mailbag:

Here, you write:

"...  I think that Mark intends to take all of the Hebrew Bible as a pattern for his story, to rewrite the Hebrew Bible through the new experience (which conspicuously had a fairly pale though I think still-distinct resurrection account in its original form.)"

But, I thought one of the major things pulled out by many Christians is Paul saying in 1Corinthians 14:15 -  

 "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty."

I'm confused - is it super vital to believe it or not? Does rejecting the Resurrection of Jesus as an actual historical event really make all the other things Jesus said (many of which are also found in other religions....) meaningless?

I think that it's a little tendentious to suggest that Paul (who likely writes 1 Corinthians before the Gospel of Mark was published) means anything but what he says there.

That is, Paul believed in the factual resurrection (which he had not witnessed, precisely, in the same way that his 500 witnesses had).  He insists that Christ "appeared" to him, but in his account of that appearance (Galatians 1:11-16), the vision is a little different than, say, the Resurrected Christ in John.  There in John, Jesus invites his disciples to handle his body (John 20:27) and even eats a little with them (John 21:12).  There is a physical normalcy there, a clear insistence that Jesus is neither "spiritual" nor "metaphorical," though this is problematic since John is quite likely a very allegorical gospel.

Reading the (very abbreviated) account of the resurrection in the original version of Mark (Mark 16:1-8), you have to wonder where Mark's explosion of wonder went.  "Wait a sec.  So a messenger says he's alive and going to Galilee, and that's it?"

Let's begin with the most simple statement: the assertion of the Resurrection is central to the New Testament and therefore to Christianity. 

What it means is another matter.

Mark might mean it to be metaphorical for the continuance of the gospel message.  Or not.

Paul almost certainly does not.

John means pretty much everything allegorically, so it's kind of problematic to read anything he says outside the parameters he sets there in the gospel.  Doesn't mean he doesn't believe it "literally."  But that's not his intention.Surprise!

And in the middle of all this, it's awfully important to wonder what the modes of discourse were for the people who wrote these books.  That is, did they even have a way of talking about things as "factually historical" as distinct from "figurative, but just as true as a literal truth"?  I think they did, and we see it exactly once, where Paul insists on his 500 witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15.

But even Paul's purpose in insisting on the Resurrection, it seems to me, is to solidify his claim that the churches he writes to are communities of the living spirit of God, outposts of the Kingdom of God in a hostile pagan world, and communities of agape-love.

And if Jesus is raised, but raised as something other than the locus and catalyst of love, it really doesn't matter whether he's raised.  To be all-powerful but tyrannical is no recommendation.

To be the locus and catalyst of love is to be alive, perhaps.

In any case, those of us in the 21st century who do not have a strong practical experience of resurrection might mean anything by the word, whatever it is we tell ourselves that we believe.  Sometimes a church will put a demand on that belief... and that's a hard thing.  It's always hard to be told what you have to think.

When that happens, I think it's worth asking, "What's the exact nature of my real encounter with the life of Jesus?  What can I truly mean by it?"

Otherwise, some of the things we might mean are worth meaning.

 Some, not so much.

Comments

[Kim]

Otter writes:

But even Paul's purpose in insisting on the Resurrection, it seems to me, is to solidify his claim that the churches he writes to are communities of the living spirit of God,...

If this is a possible purpose of the resurrection, what do you think is the purpose of the death? Meaning, not just a necessity for a resurrected body, but an additional purpose in a sacrificed Christ. How would you address the idea that Christ "died for our sins". I read a poem by Nick Flynn (resorting to poetry again-- I know, I know) and he voices this sort of repulsion at the whole idea of it. I never picked up on any such reaction with Christian friends, but I think the sentiment is something to think about.

The pertinent snippet:

..."You know the way Jesus

rips open his shirt
to show us his heart, all flaming and thorny,
the way he points to it. I'm afraid

the way I'll miss you will be this obvious.

I have a friend who everyone warns me
is dangerous, he hides
bloody images of Jesus
around my house, for me to find

when I come home; Jesus
behind the cupboard door, Jesus tucked

into the mirror. He wants to save me
but we disagree from what. My version of hell
is someone ripping open his shirt

and saying, Look what I did for you. . .