A literal resurrection: does it matter?

[Josh]

Does it matter whether Jesus physically rose from the grave or not? Would it be enough for the Christian faith if he only symbolically rose from the dead in the hearts of his followers?

Thoughts?

[Josh]

1 Corinthians 15: 13-26, 30-32

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”

Paul believed that without the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, his "Christian life" was an exercise in futility.

I agree.

I know there are Christians who have embraced the idea that it doesn't ultimately matter. Come, let us reason together

[christopher]

I'm trying to understand the point here.

Which Christians are you referring to? As far as I know, only the most liberal stripes of people that call themselves Christians believe the resurrection either was not physical or doesn't matter. Is that who you're talking about?

[stevekimes]

Actually there are many Christians who deny a physical resurrection. They are, for all practical purposes, Gnostics-- people who claim that the spirit is not only superior to the flesh, but that we are all better off without flesh at all. Catholics hedge this way as do many Protestants. It can be seen clearest when people speak of "heaven" as the goal, when, according to the Bible, it is a renewed earth.

[christopher]

Maybe I'm naive because I've really only run in Evangelical circles, but I've never heard anyone that I've known deny the physical resurrection of Jesus, not even Catholics. I've only heard it from ultra-liberal theologians. I could be wrong on that, but that's my perception anyway.

I don't think I would consider Gnostics Christians since John referred to them as "anti-christ" (1John 4, 2John)

Granted, many Christians speak of Heaven as the final destination rather than a physical resurrection of believers, but I think it's more out of ignorance of orthodox teaching rather than a conviction that Jesus was not resurrected, don't you? I'd bet 99 out of 100 of those people would still say that Jesus rose bodily.

[Kirby]

Let throw this question out:
WHY does a physical resurrection matter?
After all, it is the salvation of our eternal SPIRIT that really matters, no? What use does a physical body have, eternally speaking, anyway?

The idea of resurrection is to illustrate new life, or to illustrate a victory over death. Does it matter whether it was literal or not? I guess this just boils down to my "it really doesn't matter" view...

[Josh]

@chris:

There are many sub-divisions of Christianity that have begun to embrace a non-literal resurrection, following the lead of thinkers and authors like Borg and Crossan. As far as I'm aware, many Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians might fall into this camp.

@kirby:

Let's start with why Paul thought it mattered, which I agree with-

if Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, then:

a) the early Christians were liars, which undermines their credibility in general

b) the evidence for our hope in a physical resurrection is removed.




Some might advocate for a merely spiritual resurrection (like the Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance), but my understanding of Borg and Crossan's version of the resurrection is that it is merely a private, internal realization the disciples had about the ongoing life of the spirit of Jesus, as any atheist might also have after the death of a loved one, without really suggesting that Jesus necessarily lived on in conscious ability to communicate to his followers. Their version of the resurrection is basically, "He's alive in our hearts"

[Josh]

from Barna research:

One of the most substantial differences of opinion occurred between mainline Protestants (83% of whom take the resurrection literally) and non-mainline Protestants (among whom 95% accept the resurrection as fact). Overall, 82% of Catholics embrace the resurrection narrative as being true

[christopher]

Well, like I said, I may be sheltered from this since I would probably be classified among the "non-mainline" Protestants in the study. I thought of the people you mentioned to, but I didn't want to name them. I just don't normally think of them as Christians, but more as spiritualists that reduce Jesus to merely a good teacher and role model of spiritual truths.

[christopher]

Kirby,

From a strictly scriptural standpoint, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that Jesus did not rise physically, especially with statements like:

John 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."
NKJV

.
And I think it matters greatly especially because of what Josh mentioned about the credibility of witnesses.

Having said that, I think I would have to admit that a future physical resurrection of believers is a lot more debatable from a scriptural standpoint even though it's my default position and the orthodox position of the church. There are Christians on both sides of that argument as well. But to be honest, I'd be fine with either being true. So, on that level, I would agree with you that it doesn't matter too much because either end is glorious.

[Josh]

Sept 1, 2011 22:15:24 GMT -8 christopher said:

Well, like I said, I may be sheltered from this since I would probably be classified among the "non-mainline" Protestants in the study. I thought of the people you mentioned to, but I didn't want to name them. I just don't normally think of them as Christians, but more as spiritualists that reduce Jesus to merely a good teacher and role model of spiritual truths.

They think of themselves as Christians and they have influence on Christians and denominations. For instance, Borg is the first canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.

[Michael]

You all have sliced and diced the subject pretty thoroughly, and I don't have a lot to add. I agree that you really have to tie the whole new testament all up in knots to deny physical resurrection and still call the NT authoritative. It really doesn't make sense otherwise, IMO. But here are some other reasons why I think a literal resurrection matters:

First, resurrection means what it means: specifically, it refers to the belief that the dead will ultimately be raised and have their bodies restored to them. With the exception of the reference in Revelation 20:5, Revelation being highly symbolic in general, there's no reason to take any of the other references to resurrection in the NT non-literally. But if it's not literal, then our eternal state should really be called something else. Like, eternal spirit life, or nirvana, or something.

Which brings me to my next point: while Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all teach a form of bodily resurrection, what's unique about the Christian faith is that our "founder" has already risen, demonstrating the fulfillment of his own words, showing his power over sin and death, and being a firstfruits of what is to come for all of us (1 Cor 15:20). The literal resurrection of Jesus brings validity to the faith. Our savior lives. Right now. Death couldn't keep him down. You take that away, and it's just another religion, IMO.

Lastly -- and this is more of a personal reason of why literal resurrection is important to me -- I've struggled with poor physical health most of my life, and it's gotten more severe these last couple of years. I'm looking forward to having a body that works right, where I'm fully awake, able to engage in physical and social activity with full bodily strength and mental awareness. There is a hope there that wouldn't exist if our eternal state were merely ethereal. That hope actually helps me get through the day today. Of course, my personal feelings don't make physical resurrection true, but if it is true, as I believe it is, it's definitely icing on the cake of my faith.

[Josh]

With the exception of the reference in Revelation 20:5

Nice call. Much agreed


Thanks for the personal touch as well.

Which gets me thinking in general how God delights in physicality. A longing for a disembodied afterlife implies that physicality is somehow inferior to spirit. Plato may have thought so, but not Yahweh.

[christopher]

Hey Mike. I hear what you're saying about the body thing. A physical resurrection is what I'm hoping for as well. But, I can't say I have an iron clad case for what I hope is true.

You wrote:

With the exception of the reference in Revelation 20:5, Revelation being highly symbolic in general, there's no reason to take any of the other references to resurrection in the NT non-literally.

Have you ever debated (or read) a full preterist that is really informed of their view? I'm not a full preterist (well, ok, maybe fuller than some people ) and I find them to be some of the most cantankerous debaters I've met, but I have a hard time refuting their arguments. They actually make a pretty good case on these other NT passages being non-literal.

But again, my hope is that they're wrong. However, since I cannot say with a high degree of certainty that they are, I have to resign myself to the possibility of either future being possible, either of which is totally fine by me. I'm sure whatever future is true, will turn out to be the best one imaginable.

So, if it turns out that we don't get the icing on our cake, let's just remember that it's the most fattening part ;D.

[Michael]

Aww mannnn! I've given up Dispensationalism, I'm up in the air on Hell, I'm whipsawed on the earth's age, and you say I might have to consider giving up in a literal resurrection too? It's all too much! Maybe I should just go back into my cave of ignorance!

Seriously though, if you have a good reference for the full preterist argument, I'll put it on my reading list.

Thanks!

[Kirby]

But again, my hope is that they're wrong. However, since I cannot say with a high degree of certainty that they are, I have to resign myself to the possibility of either future being possible, either of which is totally fine by me. I'm sure whatever future is true, will turn out to be the best one imaginable.

That's kind of my point! Why does it matter??

[Josh]

Two things, in short:

#1: I'm not afraid of the big, bad wolf (full preterism)
#2: I think we're confusing two senses of the question: why does it matter?



#1. I've interacted with full preterism but it hasn't rendered me agnostic about the future bodily resurrection. Full preterists and liberals often first start their assault by tried to undermine the definition of resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. We have a thread on that already somewhere. I'll post a link, because I think it was a pretty thorough defense if I recall.

As for other arguments, it's really important to understand that in Jesus' day the Pharisees were the leading champions of a future, final physical resurrection for mankind (as opposed to the Sadducees). It's very important to note that when Jesus discusses the topic, he comes down firmly on the side of the Pharisees on that issue. He talks about the resurrection without reservation- using a loaded term which, unpacked, carried a lot of theological detail. Never once does Jesus, when affirming the resurrection held by that time by most Jews, contradict the fact that the hope was a hope of physical restoration. Rather, he vindicates the Pharisee's view on the subject.

Likewise, we see Paul doing exactly the same thing (Acts 23-24)- sidely squarely with the Pharisees' view on the subject.

And perhaps the best clincher for me is in Acts 17, where Paul is well received by the Greek philosophers in Athens up until he starts speaking of the resurrection of the dead, at which point many of them accusse him of babbling? Why? If by "resurrection" he was merely talking about "living on after death in a disembodied state", they would have been fine with that, because it's precisely the view that Plato held. It was the Jewish insistence/ Paul's insistence on a physical resurrection that threw them for a loop.

If anyone wants to read more than 1,000 pages backing up this line of thinking, N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God would be a great place to start (his magnum opus)