Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection Misses the Point

Posted 6 June, 2009 - 20:06 by Jacob

Awhile back on his Beliefnet blog, Tony Jones posted a short essay called: “Why it Matters that Jesus REALLY Rose”. Contrasting his self to Marcus Borg who denies the reality of Jesus’ physical, historic resurrection, Jones affirms his “belief in the actual, physical, historic resurrection of Jesus [bold in the original].” Thus, in an important sense, Jones is positioning his argument neatly within the liberal-conservative debate. It is a debate that hinges on the rather arbitrary idea that some words have literal meanings that point to real things and some words have metaphorical meanings that are more ambiguous and don’t correspond to real things. I wonder: which words are which? And how does one determine the difference between the two kinds of words—literal and metaphorical?

Tony goes on to explain his position regarding the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus like this:

Why is that important? Because I'm a real person. Because the people to whom I have ministered in Jesus' name are real persons. We're not hypotheses, fables, or legends. And we need real healing, all of us. While our realities may be largely socially constructed, we have real DNA, real physical, material properties.

Thus, since the resurrection of Jesus is his defeat of death, evil, and grief, it's important to me that it really happened. Without a resurrected Jesus, Christianity is impotent. (Exhibit A: liberal Christianity) And I don't mean a Jesus who was "resurrected" in the Disciples' hearts, and in my heart. I mean a real resurrection in the space-time continuum by a physical being known as Jesus of Nazareth, as 99.99% of Christians for the last two milennia have believed.

Although Jones doesn’t define what he means by “real,” a lot hinges on this notion.  It’s commonsense to know what “real” is, some might say. But I’m not so sure about that. Or at least, I’m not one to rely on some supposed special power that people call “commonsense” to get me through the day; I prefer to reflect on tradition rather than just accept it whole turkey. And accepting some notion, like “real,” on the grounds that it is “commonsense” is just such a tradition I wish to rethink.

“Real” has a history. Did you know that? I poked around in the Oxford English Dictionary and found out that the word real was invented during the 1400s. The word “objective” was invented later that same century. So in this sense, it is anachronistic for Jones to describe Jesus’ resurrection as “real.” But even more important, I think, is this question: Why does Jones’ faith in Jesus’ resurrection depend so much on a word invented in the 15th century? Should it be?

Whether we describe Jesus’ resurrection in terms of “real” or not, I’m willing to bet, makes little difference in regards to the transcendent God of Israel. At the same time, as I alluded to earlier, Jones’ interpretational alignment with theological conservatism on this matter does indeed make a difference. I would prefer to see Jones extricate himself from this conservative-liberal debate about the supposed realness or metaphoricalness of the resurrection story. Why? Because it misses the point.

What is the point? Following other more consistent theological thinkers like James K. A. Smith offers an alternative response (a third way) to the conservative-liberal debate. As Smith puts it: “Even if we are confronted with the physical and historical evidence of the resurrection—even if we witnessed the resurrection firsthand—what exactly this mean would require interpretation. Only by interpreting the resurrection of Jesus does one see that it confirms that he is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4)” (Smith, 49). In other words, in contrast to Jones’ argument, the resurrection is not self-evidently real. Not everyone that I or Jones or others encounter immediately accepts the rationality of the gospel, as the New Atheists make amply clear. To be able to see, to interpret well, are matters of “grace gifts that attend redemption and regeneration (Rom. 1:18-31; 1 Cor. 1:18-2:15; Eph. 4:17-18)” (Smith, 49).

So, it is not a matter of literal or metaphorical, conservative or liberal, real or fake—rather, it is ultimately a matter of interpretation. We “can properly confess that we know God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, but such knowledge rests on the gift of (particular, special) revelation, is not universally objective or demonstrable, and remains a matter of interpretation and perspective (with a significant appreciation for the role of the Spirit’s regeneration and illumination as a condition for knowledge). We confess knowledge without certainty, truth without objectivity” (Smith, 121).

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by phil - 11/06/2009 - 13:14

Jacob

I think I miss the point of what you’re saying! It seems to me that how we interpret Jesus’ resurrection depends very much on whether it was physical and bodily or not. The Bible tells us that Jesus’ resurrection is the pattern of our own resurrection (Romans 8:11, 2 Cor.4:14, etc.) Because I believe God raised Jesus physically and bodily, I hope that one day God will raise me in a similar way so that I will be able to enjoy an ongoing mutual relationship with God and others for ever. It wouldn’t give me much comfort to think that my resurrection will be no more than a lingering memory in the hearts and minds of my old acquaintances.

So I don’t think it misses the point to consider what sort of resurrection Jesus underwent but rather it is an essential question to answer before we can begin to consider its significance and repurcussions.

And I don’t think Tony Jones’ faith in Jesus’ resurrection depends on a word invented in the 15th century! The concept of realness existed long before the word ‘real’ was invented in English. I don’t know biblical Hebrew or Greek but perhaps those languages already had a for realness? But even if they didn’t, the concept has always been there. It is surely manifested in Jesus’ description of himself as the true manna from heaven, and Peter describing what he saw when Jesus was transfigured on the mountain top.

You seem to suggest that the literal/metaphorical question of Jesus’ resurrection hinges on the meaning of individual, isolated words. But I don’t think it’s a case of single words scattered here and there throughout the New Testament but rather large chunks of narrative in the Gospels and carefully structured arguments in the epistles (esp. the first half of 1 Cor.15). If the crucifixion was literal and the resurrection was metaphorical, at which point in each Gospel does the narrative cross over from fact to allegory? To me the Gospel writers show no signs of interweaving objective historical reporting with subjective flights of fancy.

Phil

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Jacob - 11/06/2009 - 14:44

How would you know that real existed before the word “real” was invented? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “real” was invented in the 15th century. So, it seems like a logical and historical impossibility to say that real existed before the word “real” was invented. Would you ever say that Jesus drove a Toyota? Probably not. Why? Because we both know that Toyota was not invented then. Why then you say that Jesus’ resurrection was “real”?

I’m suggesting that the literal/metaphorical, objective/subjective debates miss the point. The line between the two is quite arbitrary. I’m arguing that the most consistent way to approach Jesus’ resurrection is as an interpretation. The question is: what does Jesus’ resurrection mean for us now, in the present? How does it affect our lives? How does it shape our relationships with ourselves, our neighbors, our enemies, and our God?

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by phil - 11/06/2009 - 17:27

Jacob

I see no anachronism in describing Jesus’ resurrection as ‘real’ even though that word was not coined in the English language until the 15th century, just as I wouldn’t hesitate to describe Solomon as ‘polygamous’ (16th century), Eglon king of Moab as ‘obese’ (17th century), and the man exorcised by the seven sons of Sceva as ‘berserk’ (19th century). A word is only a token or symbol representing a concept or entity that is distinct from the word itself. The word ‘Toyota’ (representing a certain type of car) was coined about the same time as Mr. Toyota designed his first car. But my commonsense tells me that Tony Jones is using the word ‘real’ to mean the same thing John meant when he described the Word of life as something he heard, saw with his eyes, and touched with his hands (1 John 1:1), and which Jesus meant when he demonstrated the reality of his resurrection by eating broiled fish (Luke 24:43).

I think you are absolutely right to be asking what Jesus’ resurrection means for us now, how it affects our lives, and how it shapes our relationships with God and others. But I can’t properly answer those questions for myself if I fudge the issue between a literal, historical resurrection and a Walter Mitty delusion. And I can’t see any value in sidestepping the question of whether Jesus’ resurrection is the former or the latter.

Phil

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Jacob - 11/06/2009 - 20:37

If you can’t see the reasons that I’ve presented, then this isn’t much of a conversation. It is more along the lines of you telling me what you believe and how I’m wrong for not believing along with you.

Is there no other possible interpretation than the one you’ve presented and defended here?

I believe that there is.

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by CalvinDrake - 03/08/2009 - 09:43

See photos of Jesus
http://calvindrakeministries.blogspot.com

Calvin Drake Ministries - Biblical reserach School

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Stranger - 11/06/2009 - 23:40

Nice dodge Jacob…

Phil’s point is right on. The OED be damned, the real/unreal distinction matters regardless of when the word ‘real’ was ‘invented’.
Was the tomb empty or not? Were the resurrection appearances made up or not?
These are intelligible and important questions.

Phil’s question is the right one—given that the tomb was empty and that Jesus appeared to his disciples, what does this mean?
He follows a certain interpretation of Paul in taking it as an assurance of his own future resurrection and resulting immortality. Is this the way it ought to be taken? And if so, is immortality desirable?

Peace,
 -Daniel-

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Jacob - 12/06/2009 - 02:58

First of all, it isn’t a dodge.

Second of all, it may not matter to you that your claims are illogical and anachronistic, but in my view those points undermine your argument. Neither of you have addressed my concerns; you both have only dismissed them. But they too are intelligible and legitimate concerns. Aren’t they? Why not address them?

Third. Was the tomb empty or not? Were the resurrection appearances made up or not? I agree these are intelligible and important questions.

However, the answers you give are acts of trusting faith. None of us can replay history. None of us were there. All that we have are the stories in the gospels and those more recently written by historians and archaeologists. Whatever your ultimate answer is to the question of the tomb, your answer is founded on faith and not objective knowledge.

Fourth. Like I asked before: is there any other possibility other than your interpretation?

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by phil - 13/06/2009 - 22:24

Jacob

I am finding this conversation stimulating—thank you! Please don’t think I am attacking you personally or belittling your opinion. I am simply challenging your opinion because I think you are wrong. I welcome it when other people challenge my opinions. I know I’ve got blind spots. Iron sharpens iron!

I can see 3 possible ways of understanding Jesus’ resurrection:
(1) Jesus’ physical body was resurrected
(2) Jesus’ soul/spirit survived beyond death but his corpse rotted
(3) neither of the above but the hearts of Jesus’ disciples were ignited with the same spark, energy, and driving force they had seen in their Master

Apologies if I misunderstand you but I think the point you are making is that it doesn’t matter which of the above scenarios happened—the important question is how to respond to Jesus’ resurrection regardless of what actually happened. But the point I am making is that the way we respond to Jesus’ resurrection is significantly affected by the historical facts.

I personally believe Jesus’ physical body was resurrected and never saw corruption but I did not join this conversation to try to defend that view. Many people, more able than I, have attempted to do so and I’m sure you’re familiar with their arguments. I am simply trying to say that I don’t see how we can duck the question of what actually happened if we are to react appropriately.

For example, before he was crucified Jesus claimed he would rise from the dead. N.T.Wright has argued (successfully in my opinion) that to a first century Jew those words would mean rising to an embodied state and not to a nebulous, ethereal existence. (See “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem” by N.T.Wright). If in fact Jesus rose only in the sense that his philosophy and sense of mission were reincarnated in his followers, then Jesus made a false prediction. In which case he was a false prophet and not to be trusted in anything he said. Why should I then submit to him as my lord and obey his commands, and why should I suppose that he will be able to help me get through the coming judgement? In fact, since he claimed to be the world’s judge, if he was only a false prophet then there may not even be a judgement. So then why don’t I eat, drink, and be merry?

Another way the nature of Jesus’ resurrection determines my response to it is that if scenario #3 is correct, then the power of his resurrection depends entirely on my own ability to allow it to motivate and animate me. That’s OK when I have a good day but what about when life kicks me in the teeth and I want to stop the world and get off, or when I wake up in the mornings and suddenly feel a niggling doubt about whether God really exists and whether I’ve been deceived all this time? At those moments I don’t think scenario #3 would be of any benefit to me at all. But if scenario #1 is true, then I can put my hope in an objective power outside of myself to carry me through the vicissitudes of this life and to protect me from my own foolishness and weakness. Paul wrote to the Ephesians: “I want you to know about the great and mighty power that God has for us believers. It is the same wonderful power he used when he raised Christ from death.” I thank God for that!

Regarding your point that I can’t replay history to see what really did happen to Jesus’ corpse and therefore I have to rely on faith and not objective knowledge, I think the same could be said of my belief that the earth is spherical and that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the UK. I don’t have objective knowledge but I proceed on the assumption that those things are true because of the likelihood from the strength of the evidence. This article explains what I’m trying to say:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/the-sufficiency-of-probablility/

I’m interested to know what you meant by saying that the line between the literal/metaphorical, objective/subjective is quite arbitrary. Is it?

Phil

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Jacob - 14/06/2009 - 00:06

I too think the conversation is stimulating.

From the start, let me bring to your attention a distinction between our two different views on the matter of Jesus’ resurrection.

You, along with Wright and other theological realists, presume that it is possible to talk about what actually, really happened on that day on Calvary.

I, along with other theological non-realists, presume that it is not possible to talk about what actually, really happened on that day on Calvary. All we can do is talk about what others—like the writers of the gospels, historians, theologians, artists, archaeologists, etc—have talked about and continue to talk about.

You said: “I think the point you are making is that it doesn’t matter which of the above scenarios happened—the important question is how to respond to Jesus’ resurrection regardless of what actually happened.”

To a point, I agree with your reading of my words. But I think that it goes beyond not mattering. Let me be clear: I don’t think that it is even possible to talk about what really happened. We should, therefore, focus on living in the way of Jesus in the present. You want to look back in history at some key event, I want to look forward toward coming kingdom of God.

You said: “But the point I am making is that the way we respond to Jesus’ resurrection is significantly affected by the historical facts.”

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. The “historical facts” are not set in stone, but intense matters of debate and interpretation by any number of historians, theologians, laymen, archaeologists, etc. The “historical facts,” I argue, do not impose themselves on you; rather, you interpret the “historical facts” from your perspective. And your perspective is one of a theological realists, which is someone who presumes that it is possible to get outside their words be in direct and immediate contact with the One True Reality.

You said: “I am simply trying to say that I don’t see how we can duck the question of what actually happened if we are to react appropriately.”

Because you presume that appropriate action is connected to some distant, metaphysical, ahistorical event. That isn’t only view of the matter, however.

I presume that appropriate action is connected to everyday interactions. Appropriate action is defined not by some metaphysical event, but is rooted in the community in which you live. We depend not on some metaphysical event to correct our action, but on other members of our community. We depend on people telling us that we’ve crossed the line.

“Why should I then submit to him as my lord and obey his commands, and why should I suppose that he will be able to help me get through the coming judgement?”

Not because of some metaphysical event that you argue objectively imposes itself on us. Rather, I argue that an individual should make a personal commitment to follow in the way of Jesus for its own sake. It is a faithful commitment, one based on trust, like a child trusts his father, and not on some objective force like gravity.

“In fact, since he claimed to be the world’s judge, if he was only a false prophet then there may not even be a judgement. So then why don’t I eat, drink, and be merry?”

Because you have made a personal commitment. And commitments are not easy. People stray all the time. Yet they persist in trying.

You said: “Regarding your point that I can’t replay history to see what really did happen to Jesus’ corpse and therefore I have to rely on faith and not objective knowledge, I think the same could be said of my belief that the earth is spherical and that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the UK. I don’t have objective knowledge but I proceed on the assumption that those things are true because of the likelihood from the strength of the evidence.”

I agree. But what you are saying makes *my* point: proceeding through life on certain assumptions is exactly *not* a matter of proceeding through life because some objective force determines my actions.

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by phil - 15/06/2009 - 17:38

Thank you Jacob for taking the time to explain your position. I admit I find it very alien to my own way of thinking but I would like to try to understand your view better.

I do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus can determine our actions objectively in the same way that gravity determines what happens when we walk over the edge of a cliff. Our interpretation is an essential step in the process of reacting. For example, many people saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead but not every one of those observers consequently believed in Jesus. However, don’t you think that the question of a past event’s factuality sometimes shapes how we should respond? For example, if I drink a glass of nitric acid and then wake up and discover I only dreamed it, I can laugh at myself and just ignore it. But if it wasn’t a dream but something I really did, then I ought to rush to hospital immediately.

It seems to me that Jesus and the biblical authors were theological realists. Luke expected Theophilus to be able to know the certainty of the historical events surrounding the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth, and he expected Theophilus to obtain this certainty from Luke’s own interpretation derived from the testimony of other people who were eyewitnesses of the events (Luke 1:1-4). John wrote his account of Jesus’ earthly life so that people who had never met Jesus could read John’s testimony and thereby believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31). Jesus expected his 12 apostles to speak to other people and then for those other people to believe in Jesus, merely on the strength of what those falliable, biased, culturally-shackled apostles told them (John 17:20). Peter earnestly emphasized to his readers that the first advent of the glorious Son of God was no myth or metaphor but a real historical event. Peter had seen it with his own eyes and he believed his observation should influence their response (2 Peter 1:16-18). Do you agree with the above statements, and if so, why don’t you think your non-realist position defies God’s epistemological design for us?

Why do you follow Jesus? According to your viewpoint, the man Jesus of Nazareth may not have existed since you never met him personally and you are relying on hearsay. Perhaps Jesus’ teachings are not the commands of God but merely the product of some very noble yet very human philosophers, and therefore in principle there is no more reason to suffer and sacrifice and gamble everything on Jesus than on Confucius or Socrates or Mohammed?

Phil

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Jacob - 15/06/2009 - 18:24

You bring up a great example: “many people saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead but not every one of those observers consequently believed in Jesus.”

To answer your question: “don’t you think that the question of a past event’s factuality sometimes shapes how we should respond?”

No, I don’t. You assume that a past events “factuality” is something outside interpretation and you assume further that somehow you can get outside your interpretation and get at the Real Fact. I don’t make those assumptions. Rather, I argue that we are responding to other peoples’ interpretations of the ‘facts’ and not the facts themselves.

That Jesus raised Lazarus, as the Bible says, and people disagreed about what they saw is a strong warrant for my argument. The meanings of events happening right in front of your face are not apparent to observers. Those events, to be understood well, have to be heard and seen through a certain colored lens. Not everyone sees and hears the signs of God.

You said: “For example, if I drink a glass of nitric acid and then wake up and discover I only dreamed it, I can laugh at myself and just ignore it. But if it wasn’t a dream but something I really did, then I ought to rush to hospital immediately.”

And your point is? I don’t understand the significance of what you are trying to say.

You said: “It seems to me that Jesus and the biblical authors were theological realists.”

Like saying Jesus’ resurrection was “real” is anachronistic, calling Jesus a “theological realist” is anachronistic. You are reading the Bible from *your* perspective and, not surprisingly, it says what you understand it to say: that you are in line with “God’s epistemological design for us” and Jacob is not. The Bible is not written from a theologically realist perspective because that was not historically possible; theological realism is comparatively much more recent. That’s basically what I would say.

You said: “According to your viewpoint, the man Jesus of Nazareth may not have existed since you never met him personally and you are relying on hearsay. Perhaps Jesus’ teachings are not the commands of God but merely the product of some very noble yet very human philosophers, and therefore in principle there is no more reason to suffer and sacrifice and gamble everything on Jesus than on Confucius or Socrates or Mohammed?”

Let me be clear, these are your interpretations of my words. For me, it is not a matter of whether Jesus may or may not have existed. And it is not a matter of hearsay. Let me be clear: these are not even questions that I concern myself with. Worrying about whether Jesus did or did not exist and whether talk of Jesus is accurate or hearsay are concerns that an epistemological skeptic worries about. An epistemological skeptic is always worried about getting down to an unmovable foundation, about knowing with a sense of certainty that they are Right, so they continually doubt.

Historically, I think that we can all agree, many people have committed their selves to Confucius and Socrates and Mohammed—committed their selves even to death. I do not call their commitments into question because I am confident in my commitment, in my God, and the way to Him through Jesus. I am personally committed to following Jesus for the sake of following Jesus, because I trust that he is the way, the light and the truth. That is reason enough.

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by russellhw - 29/06/2009 - 07:26

What a great discussion. Jacob, I’m pleased to see that there are people out there who feel that their faith does not require justification through evidence. It is, after all, a belief in things not seen.

I see many Christians caught up in trying to convince others of a factual basis for what they believe when we have only our own interpretation of those records, however comprehensive they may seem if you already believe them to be historically accurate. I don’t discount that the events may have occurred as they are recounted in the gospels, and I see valid points in both the realist and non-realist position, but it seems to me a waste of energy trying to defend a position of hope with emperical data. Is that not counter-intuitive? I have my own reasons for believing, and they are real enough for me.

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Mr. T - 22/07/2009 - 00:32

Jacob, I appreciate your perspective [and James K.A. Smith’s] on knowing, interpreting, believing, trusting, and declaring the resurrection of Jesus. Reality, rationality, self-evident truth, knowledge and faith… and how people acquire any of that… is a point worthy of discussion.

I encountered the living Jesus when I was on the edge of adulthood, after being presented with the evangelical-style gospel… and I encountered him in a revelatory and transformative “Damascus road”-type of experience. I realize I could be considered delusional by some, but I’m comfortable with living in this delusion for the past 30+ years. I traded anguish for deep fulfillment. I feel connected to others who have experienced this mass-Jesus-delusion over the past 2000 years. I sense the personal care and involvement of God in the forming of my life.

This revelation happened to me before I was conversant in the bible or church traditions and teachings. I wrongly assumed that my experience was consistent with other christians’ conversions. My understanding of Jesus seemed God-initiated and I figured if it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone in the same fashion. I quickly bumped into a large contingent of church people who had been raised in churchy-style doctrinal understandings of Jesus. I soon realized the majority of christians I would encounter, wouldn’t have necessarily shared my kind of experience.

I had to reconcile myself with a variety of ways that Jesus is embraced, encountered, believed in, called upon, and interpreted. My experiential faith became one of a diversity of ways in which some of us wrestle with the meaning and the person of Jesus. Those who insist this faith has to fit a specific criteria are often trying to make it fit their own experience… making God in our own image, or according to our limited understanding, as it were.

So I’m appreciative of a larger understanding than a one-size-fits-all kind of faith. I’m in favor of less polemic argument about certainty and unknowables, and a little more emphasis on God-initiated graces. And I think you and Smith point to such:

“We “can properly confess that we know God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, but such knowledge rests on the gift of (particular, special) revelation, is not universally objective or demonstrable, and remains a matter of interpretation and perspective (with a significant appreciation for the role of the Spirit’s regeneration and illumination as a condition for knowledge). We confess knowledge without certainty, truth without objectivity” (Smith, 121).”

I’m comfortable with that. Tony Jones is a personal friend and I know he would love having a face-to-face conversation with you about these subjects… because that’s what we do all the time in our little faith community.

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by vcg3rd - 10/08/2009 - 16:45

“The Bible is not written from a theologically realist perspective because that was not historically possible; theological realism is comparatively much more recent. That’s basically what I would say.”

Well then I suppose you do not believe gravity was a force before Newton described it? “Theological realism” is a description of a practice that one can engage in without knowing the term.

My mom and I used to play a little game called “This Little Piggy.” She played it with me before I could speak. Was I not playing “This Little Piggy” because I was unable to label it?

Po-mo chic, undisciplined in any one area, collects a mixed bag of buzz words and criticisms, mistakes ironical detachment as wisdom and posturing as argumentation.

“That Jesus raised Lazarus, as the Bible says, and people disagreed about what they saw is a strong warrant for my argument. The meanings of events happening right in front of your face are not apparent to observers. Those events, to be understood well, have to be heard and seen through a certain colored lens. Not everyone sees and hears the signs of God.”

If you actually read the story of Lazarus you will see that there was no competing perceptual battle for interpretations. Everyone agreed to what they had seen. The concern by those in power was, what is always is: What will happen to my place, position and power?

“What are we to do? This man is performing so many signs. If we let him go on like this everyone will believe in him and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”

An encounter with the real Jesus, then and now, forces that crisis upon us all. Like Augustine we pray: “Lord save me but not yet.” We don’t question He is Lord. we do not question His power to save. We only know that we are not ready to submit and surrender our lives. Into His hands we are unwilling to commend our spirits.

The language is interesting. “Many who had seen believed in him,” and “Everyone will believe *in* him.” There is a difference in believing THAT and believing IN. No one disputed the resurrection of Lazarus. They believe THAT it happened, but not all believed IN the one who did it.

It’s not about facts and perceptions. There was no epistemological or perceptual dispute. Those who did not want Jesus to be successful still called what he did “signs.” This is sometimes translated miracle, but it generally means, according to the Lexical aid, “A miracle with an ethical end or purpose. They are valuable not so much for what they are as for what they indicate about the grace and power of the doer or of his immediate connection with a higher spiritual world.”

The only dispute was what to do about it. Some believed IN and followed Jesus. Some believed THAT and plotted to kill Jesus. The story closed: “So from that day on they planned to put him to death.”

Re: Why the Question of the "Reality" of Jesus' Resurrection ...

by Jacob - 29/08/2009 - 21:43

“Well then I suppose you do not believe gravity was a force before Newton described it? “Theological realism” is a description of a practice that one can engage in without knowing the term.”

But theological realism is not a practice one can engage in before theological realism was invented. That is called anachronistic. Saying Jesus was a realist makes about as much snese as saying Jesus drove a Toyota—neither one are historically possible.

“My mom and I used to play a little game called “This Little Piggy.” She played it with me before I could speak. Was I not playing “This Little Piggy” because I was unable to label it?”

I don’t think that either one of you was playing this little piggy until someone at sometime invented the child’s game. Concretely, I would say that your mom was playing this little piggy until you learned how to play this little piggy. Until that time, who knows what you were playing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.