existence impels Christians to feed the hungry, to house the homeless, and to provide medical care. Respect for bodily existence raises questions about purely utilitarian calculations in beginning-of-life and end-of-life matters such as abortion and euthanasia. Affirming the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event in which Jesus was re-embodied is consistent with the affirmation of the dignity of all bodily existence, including the very young and the very old. It also speaks a word of hope to those who have been marginalized for some bodily characteristic, whether that be gender, skin-color, infirmity, or relative physical or mental disability: God will ultimately vindicate that human suffering which occurs in virtue of our embodied existence by granting the transformation of our bodies into a fully perfected state: the resurrection of Jesus is God’s seal on that promise for all of us. The body-affirming understanding of the resurrection of Jesus directs Christian ethical reasoning toward a holistic view of the human person and respect for basic material needs.
Fourth, the orthodox understanding provides solid grounding for continued humility. The belief that God intervened in human history carries with it the implication that humankind is not so evolved as to beyond the need of divine help. It also implies that there are possibilities for human transformation that are yet beyond our imagination, and that we are not capable of engineering humanity into a utopian state. The affirmation of the resurrection of Jesus as an objective, historical reality also keeps the death of Jesus in human view: the very rejection of God’s self-presentation in Jesus reminds us that we are always quite capable of rejecting God and God’s will, and in need of God’s gracious response to our incompleteness.
I offer these considerations not as compelling arguments, or even as a complete typology of reasons for affirming the resurrection of Jesus as a discrete historical event. These four motivations however might at least be indicative not only of the range of thinking among those who would uphold this view.
The Revisionist View of the Resurrection of Jesus
For some, the label “revisionist” may mean intellectually unfounded and academically irresponsible; for others, “revisionist” may mean radically rethought so as to bring contemporary humanity in touch with the spiritual dynamism of the early church; for still others, “revisionist” may mean relegating theology to a role subservient to other disciplines, such as philosophy, science, or history. By “revisionist” I mean the sincere attempt to reinterpret the resurrection of Jesus in ways more intellectually and spiritually satisfying than the orthodox understanding. While it could be successfully argued that there are many possible revisionist understandings of the resurrection of Jesus, I will choose the one that I understand to be perennial and, in many Christian circles, currently ascendant.
For many down through the centuries, the “resurrection” of Jesus can be understood along the following lines. Jesus, the popular preacher of the immanence of God’s reign, was arrested, vilified, and crucified, his influence seemingly extinguished by the jealousy of the religious leaders of his day and the mighty indifference of the secular government. However, in remembering his teachings, and recalling his willingness to live according to those teachings even if it meant his death, the life of Jesus continued to inspire his disciples to imitate their master: in their renewed dedication to live lives completely dedicated to the good news of God’s justice and love, Jesus’ influence was “resurrected,” brought back to life among his faithful followers. In such a scheme, the proclamation that God has “raised” Jesus means essentially that God has “exalted” Jesus in the minds of his disciples, and made him “Lord” by allowing his memory to become a controlling influence on the life of their community.
First, the revisionist understanding takes away the emphasis on the metaphysical. Categories of thought and experience change from century to century, and from culture to culture. Sometimes categories change within a given culture within a single century, as happened in the West with the adoption of Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the nineteenth century or Einstein’s theory of special relativity in the twentieth. We can’t be expected to live in the thought world of the first century, with a flat earth, heaven “above” and hell “below.” We don’t routinely cast out evil spirits anymore, but treat people for mental illness instead. We need to reinterpret the narrative accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in contemporary terms. To ask contemporary Christians to learn the language of ancient metaphysics is too daunting a task, and to ask people to abandon the fruits of human progress and embrace an outmoded worldview is cruel and unworthy of consideration. For most of us, highly abstract theoretical considerations that we might broadly call “metaphysical” are not what we enjoy talking about, much less pretend to understand, so how can that be an element of the gospel that Jesus preached to the poor and the downtrodden?
Second, the revisionist understanding places the emphasis on the ethical. If Christians are to live as people of hope, the resurrection of Jesus is the centerpiece of a faith that says God never gives up on any of us, no matter how dismal or unfair our circumstances. As the Gospels depict, Jesus’ life is the ultimate morality tale: even if the entire world is against you, stay true to God, and God will vindicate you and your efforts. Even if you do not live to see this vindication, the truth will win out eventually, and your life will be understood and esteemed for its value by those who come after you. Granted we would all love to experience our vindication in our own lifetime, but we are called to take up the invitation to live as courageously as Jesus did, offering ourselves for the ongoing life of the world, even if that means the ultimate sacrifice of never knowing how or when your contribution will be appreciated. Perhaps this is what was meant by “becoming as little children,” and being able to “give no thought for tomorrow,” but abandoning oneself to God’s assessment of our worth. This take on the resurrection of Jesus is not for the faint-hearted, but calls for a robust, courageous and world-engaging faith.
Third, the revisionist understanding acknowledges that you are not your body. The “I” that I know is different from my body: I can in some respects overcome my body, using mind over matter. This is a philosophical position that might conceivably be welcomed by those who are disabled, disfigured, or for other reasons that have to do with the condition of their bodies are marginalized by society. This also resonates with seniors, many of whom have to come to terms with the weakening of their bodies and the resulting lack of endurance and agility, and may also resonate with persons who are or are on the road to being transgendered and/or in the process of sex-reassignment. It may also be cherished by certain self-improvement movements, who focus on the mastery of the body. Discerning the action of God in Christ might lead us to look beyond the obvious features of the incarnation such as Jesus’ maleness, his Jewishness, his personal piety, and even his first-century worldview. These elements of Jesus’ life aren’t things we can aspire to, so the meaning of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus must lie beyond these physical and temporal considerations in a system of insights that is truly universal.
Fourth, the revisionist understanding makes the resurrection of Jesus something we can discuss in terms of contemporary historical reasoning. In a post-Enlightenment world, we no longer believe in miracles, at least not in the sense of events that require supernatural intervention. When historians encounter tales of miracles in ancient or medieval texts, they rightly assume that they are products of imagination or ignorance, stemming from a lack of scientific understanding of how the world actually works. Impartial historians would do far better to interpret the death and “resurrection” of Jesus within what we know of the unalterable laws of biology, namely that dead people do not spontaneously reanimate. Any other position is a retreat from the advance of scientific knowledge, and represents a break with the fundamental dictum that truth is truth no matter where we find it. A symbolic or subjective renewal of appreciation of what Jesus taught and stood for would be in keeping with our contemporary worldviews, and be salvageable for the inspiration of humanity in the third millennium. The narratives of Jesus’ death and resurrection don’t record a single historical event, but rather they represent an enduring appreciation of what has always been true, that the ongoing power of life conquers the ongoing power of death over the course of cosmological history just as surely as hope conquers despair within the smaller parameters of human history.
Can We Dismiss the Question?
On the one hand, most discussion of key points of doctrine should probably be considered as sincere