Earlier in March I wrote two posts on the state of the biblioblog: Are biblioblogs dying? and Are biblioblogs dying? Don’t write the obituary yet! At the same time I was conversing with my co-bloggers via email. We were asking and answering the questions “Why do we blog?” and “What should we do with our blog?” While several ideas came to mind the first one that we knew we could implement right away was the idea of a focused, month long conversation on a particular topic. Biblioblogging has been a means of conversation that is free from the shackles of a brick-and-mortar classroom or shared proximity to the local café. While we enjoy those types of conversations as well we are determined to continue to use the charism of the Internet for the purpose of dialogue and discussion, welcoming everyone and anyone who shares our interest and who can engage others with respect.
Since April is the month of Easter it wasn’t hard for us to come up with our first subject: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. We will blog on other topics, but our goal is for each contributor to try to either write a post or three on this topic over the next few weeks or at least be diligent to comment when someone else blogs. Furthermore, we invite readers of this blog to join us and we invite bloggers to share their links to their own discussions on this subject. Anything we can do to help make bibloblogs dialogical rather than monological will be considered!
As a conversation starter let me present a few questions that may be taken up by one of our contributors or other bloggers:
– What is the nature of the resurrection? Does it have to be physical to be real? What do we mean by physical? Can someone hold to a more spiritual/ethereal understanding of the resurrection while remaining orthodox (e.g., Marcus Borg’s interpretation)?
– What are some of the best apologetic reasons for believing in the historicity of the resurrection? What are some of the more convincing critiques by skeptics against the resurrection?
– Why did Jesus die? What historical reasons can we give? What theological reasons can we give? Is there an intersection between the historical approach and the theological approach to interpreting Jesus’ death?
– What about Jesus’ burial? What sort of burial customs from first century Judea should inform our understanding of this event? What about the Crossan/Ehrman hypothesis that Jesus may not have been given a formal/proper burial? Do we need a tomb and does it need to be empty?
the archives near Emmaus 
Very interesting topics. One of most interesting approach to the resurrection I found in Pokorny’s book “From Gospel to Gospels” (BZNW 195, de Gruyter 2013) and also many interesting points made Dale Martin in this debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU5z4AlxJ4U
The greatest tragedy for our species will be that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real this the reality of God is. For what science and religion, not to mention the rest of us, thought impossible has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith and it’s on the web.
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!
Thus ‘faith’ becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His ‘Word’ of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.” Thus is a man ‘created’ in the image and likeness of his Creator.
So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk
I think the resurrection does have to be “physical”. Having said that, I wouldn’t agree that’s a thresh hold for being part of The Body of Christ you must agree to. I think John 20:31 is that.
It must be physical because Yahweh The Son “became sarks”. You cannot separate Christ into pieces. He is and remains God and human. God resurrected His dead soma into a live soma of better construction.
The OT states Messiah will be bodily resurrected, so Jesus isn’t Messiah w/o physical resurrection. In more than one place, not just the one passage alluded to “I will not allow your soma to see corruption”, it’s in Isaiah 53:1-10. The suffering servant will live again.
Since Isaiah didn’t have Platonic eschatology, this means His body rises up, IMO.
@david: thank you for the book recommendation and for reminding me of that debate!
@Patrick: I agree with you that the resurrection should be understood as physical, though Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 15 makes me wonder how we should understand physicality.
Patrick, that’s a great argument.
Brian, I wonder what ethical/practical implications could arise from only interpreting the resurrection as spiritual. It seems as if it could lead to a downplay or neglect of the body. The critique of failing to consider the body is one made by some feminist theologians. It could be almost tDocetist. It also seems to go against notions of imago Dei in that it neglects the creation. The witness of scripture gives testimony to the goodness of creation. To be fair, I haven’t read Borg’s interpretation in detail. With regard to soteriology theories, liberation theologians offer some helpful thoughts of viewing salvation as a holistic enterprise
@Kate: That is an interesting insight. It brings to mind Paul’s connection b/t spirit, resurrection, and the renewal of the cosmos in Rom. 8 or the anti-gnostic writings of Irenaeus of Lyons in this regard where the physicality of the resurrection isn’t for humans alone, but for the whole created order. If I remember correctly this is a point that Wright made in his dialogue book w. Borg. He argued that Borg’s ethereal resurrection (I don’t like to use “spiritual” because Paul does and he doesn’t seem to mean ethereal) may work for humans to some extent but it abandons creation in the process.
On a side note, ironically, though many of the Left Behind-ish eschatologies that have influenced Christianity over the last century or so would affirm a bodily resurrection their views are more aligned with the idea that the body doesn’t really, really matter because the world as we know it is going to be not merely transitioned, renewed, or reborn, but completely annihilated and replaced. For these folks the bodily resurrection only has apologetic value to say Jesus actually did rise, but it has little theological value after that. I think you are 100% correct that if we completely eliminate some continuation between the present body and the resurrected body we will have many problems forming a sensible Christian ethic of the body and of creation.
@Brian,
Yes, and there is theological value related to the scars on Jesus’ body post-resurrection. I think the resurrection has to connect with the incarnation, which has to connect with creation.
Kate, re: your last comment, have you read “Marks of His Wounds: Gender Politics and Bodily Resurrection,” by Beth Felker Jones?
Joshua, No, thanks for the recommendation.
Kate, I agree, there is insight here. I believe talk of resurrection is actually not the dichotomy we make it out to be. The resurrection is both bodily and spiritual; so the resurrection takes place in two parts. Because we make resurrection out to be an either/or dichotomy we miss stuff.
GLORIFIED BODY RESURRECTION AND TRANSFIGURED
Look at Moses in [Exo 34:29-35]. His face shone. The only way Moses could stand before God face-to-face [Exo 33:11] was if he were transfigured (bodily resurrected). Similarly, in [Matt 17:1-9][Mark 9:2-8][Luke 9:28-36] Jesus was transfigured as he spoke to Moses and Elijah. Jesus ascended out of the tomb in the same body he entered it in, yet something was happening to him bodily so he could go before this father. He said to Mariam of Magdal “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’. His body was changed afterwards; people did not recognize him (near Emmaus [Luke 24:16]), and physical dimension was not a barrier to him (as your body is not a barrier to neutrinos and electrons)[John 20:26], yet he still had form [Luke 24:39][John 20:27] when he was present.
Yet God concerns Himself more with the image He places on you than the flesh he robes you with.
GLORIFIED IMAGE OF GOD
Jesus (Yehshua) was the very image of the invisible God as first-born of all creation [Col 1:15]. His appearance (so his flesh) was plain “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.” [Isa 53:2] yet as first-born of all creation and the very image of God he displayed the radiance of God’s glory [Heb 1:3].
How could he be both plain and radiantly glorious? The radiant glory is a description of the image of God he bore, which brings us to resurrection.
RESURRECTION
Have you read the bible’s description of resurrection carefully? For example read [Rom 6:3-4] “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into the Messiah Yehshua were baptised into his death? Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him into death so that, just as the Messiah was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
If you have been baptised you have already gone through death, not bodily death, mind you, but death of the corrupted image of God. Raised out of the water of baptism, you have been raised in new-life. This means that you have already gone through one part of the resurrection. When God told Abraham your offspring will be as numerous as the stars [Exo 32:13] Abraham didn’t yet have a son, yet believed God. Even when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham still believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness [Gen 15:6]. So when Romans says that you have died with Christ, and been resurrected with him – believe it, and it will be credited to you with righteousness.
Of course if any of this is true, it has theological implications. It means that since Jesus’ own bodily resurrection, as baptisms take place means resurrection is happening all around us; and though we have eyes, don’t see it. This means that we have been living in the Eschaton for thousands of year even though we still await the glorification of the body, and the Kings return.
@Kate and @Joshua: Question: While I agree that Jesus scars say something important what do they say in relation to our own hope for resurrection? What is a Christian died long ago and her body has completely decayed with her substance being used by the earth? or if a Christian was annihilated by a bomb? or if a Christian’s family cremates their body? Does the “sameness” of Jesus’ body speak to this or is the sameness of Jesus’ body more central to his own unique resurrection than it is to our understanding of a future resurrection for all?
Brian, that’s a question I don’t really have an answer for. I’d have to go back and look at some of my resources for the resurrection class I took a few years ago.
I remember Anthony Thiselton’s Life After Death: A New Approach to the Last Things being really good.
@Joshua: No worries, I’m just thinking out loud and wondering if either of you have any thoughts. Thanks for the book recommendation.
@Brian: I don’t know, as this is purely speculative. The sameness of Jesus’ body is unique to his resurrection, for sure, and I wonder to what extent we can extend that. His scars (and perhaps our own) are a testimony to the life he (and we) lived. On the other hand, Hebrews speaks of the “great cloud of witnesses, which seems more ethereal. The resurrection depends upon a restoration to wholeness and communion with God, so one’s perception of wholeness plays into that.
I’m reminded of your post last year from Candida Moss and differently-abledness https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/candida-moss-revisits-the-nature-of-resurrected-bodies-and-disabilities/. I wonder if Nancy Eisland’s book, The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability, might help inform us. http://www.amazon.com/The-Disabled-God-Liberatory-Disability/dp/0687108012/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396451530&sr=8-2&keywords=theology+of+disability
Moss’ lecture was very thought provoking. For example, she seemed to suggest that the blind in this life may not receiving seeing eyes in the age to come, but may have “sight” superior to what the seeing in this life could ever image having. This too is speculative, but interesting since it does force us to ask ourselves whether our understanding of resurrected bodies is influenced primarily by our understanding of the “best” bodies in our present age or if it something categorically superior, though similar, to our present bodies. Paul seems to argue the latter in 1 Cor. 15. As to whether those superior bodies retain the marks of perceived inferiority in this life is an interesting question and I do think you may be right, along w. Moss, that the retention of Jesus’ scars may tell us something about how the resurrected body is both greater than we imagine and not as “perfect” as we’d want it to be in our finite imagination.
Though there is some aspect of ‘sameness’ to Jesus’ post resurrection body there seems to be no (theological) reason to believe that we’ll continue to possess infirmities post-resurrection. With respect to Nancy Eisland, I wonder if the bible might not inform us better instead, being both more authoritative, and insightful.
Of the body the bible says “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” [1 Cor 6:13b] This clearly places focus on what is essential and what is peripheral with respect to why we even have bodies at all. Our bodies were made to adorn the Image of God, and the Image of God was made to adorn the body.
Even so, creation groans for our redemption. “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons (and daughters), the redemption of our bodies.”
This means that the bodies we now possess, like the image of God itself, is marred by our general condition of sin, and awaits restoration so God’s glory might be fully revealed. Of a blind man Yehshua says “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.“.
Infirmities, disabilities, our need for external sustenance, even our gender (which facilitates procreation) are all peripheral to why we have bodies, and so are hallmarks of our state of falleness. Speaking directly to food [1 Cor 6:13a] says “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food’—and God will destroy both one and the other.“.
Therefore, we recognize what is peripheral to the Glory of God, and our adornment of His image, seeing that all will all pass away on bodily resurrection: infirmities, sexuality, the need for sustenance etc. If these things all pass away, so will the things they beget: blindness, marriage, … etc.
But what if “infirmities” are no longer “disabilities” in the age to come, but signs of grace, like Jesus’ scars?
I suppose there’s room for speculation about that Brian. I can’t find direct citations that speak to it, but I won’t deny there are verses that arguably could be used for inference.
Speaking about my own presuppositions, I see creation being restored to pre-sin times, thus ‘good’ in the eyes of God, humanity walking before God without shame.
I’m inclined to believe such a creation restores all things to their original ‘intended state’, whichever best displays God’s glory. Did the original state include infirmities, or where they an attribute of our rebellion? Certainly Jesus’ wounds were an attribute of our rebellion.
Even so, if God is pleased to allow infirmities (though not disabilities) – who am I to argue?
Brian, thanks for getting the ball rolling!
If Jesus’ resurrection was merely spiritual, I wonder what, if any hope this would be. It’s at least quite the limited hope in our present existence.
The affirmation that Jesus’ resurrection was physical tells us that God also affirms creation and is thus committed to healing and restoring her. And because the Christian confession is that Jesus’ resurrection was physical, I believe it also births new hope into our present and physical existence. Coming at it from a Pentecostal perspective, healing miracles are the outflow of Jesus’ resurrection, which at the same time attest that Jesus’ resurrection has happened. These miracles are indicators, proclaiming to us that the same power that rose Jesus from the dead has broken into our present existence – that God’s kingdom has come. Yet, and as we’re aware, the kingdom is also not fully present. Then, miracles function as signs that new creation is coming. Thus, not only do they proclaim to us that resurrection has happened – they also function as markers of hope, bearing witness that the redemption of our bodies is on the way – that God’s healing project of the world is underway.
Back to what I said in the beginning. I think if Jesus’ resurrection was merely spiritual, it would mean that God doesn’t affirm creation, that God isn’t committed to healing the world. Which would thus give us no hope about physical existence whatsoever.
Andrew,
Thanks for the compliment.
Bryan,
My preacher has always held that the “resurrected body” is still physical, it’s just trans physical and somehow no longer corruptible. Jesus ate and had “mass” when He appeared to the disciples, yet, He seems also to have been able to walk through walls, etc.
That’s not a ghost/spirit, yet, it is beyond sarks as we know the term.
@Andrew: Fair answer. I do find that there is an important connection b/t ideas of resurrection and new creation, ala Rom. 8.
@Daniel: I hadn’t thought of the connection b/t signs and wonders and resurrection, though we might say that the resurrection itself is the greatest sign and wonder and that like lesser signs and wonders it points to an age to come. I think you’re correct that if the resurrection is understood as less than physical in some analogous sense than the idea of the miraculous is demoted to, at best, aids to get through this difficult like imprisoned in flesh. But if the flesh itself is to be renewed than we may see miracles as God’s way of acknowledging that he intends to restore all physical things.
@Patrick: I like that way of putting it: trans-physical. It is not less than physicality, but neither is it merely the same as our present understanding of physicality.
JohnDave added his thoughts here: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/a-spiritual-resurrection-doesnt-pay-the-bills/