What About the Resurrection?, Part One

I have recently posed the question, Can We Take the Bible Literally? There are undoubtedly many texts that aren't meant to be taken literally. The Scriptures, at times, employ poetic license, allegory, apocalyptic, parable, and other non-literal forms and genres. So I don't believe every text is to be taken literally.  

Nor do I think it's always necessary to force the pre-modern biblical texts into a scientific mold as if they were written to either demonize or to be harmonized with modern theories or discoveries. Modern science wasn't even on the biblical authors' radar screens. 

While God knows all the secrets of the universe, I doubt that he revealed them to these authors who originally addressed pre-moderns. The biblical authors wrote within the framework of pre-scientific understandings, sometimes reflected in the Scriptures themselves, which does not make the biblical theology any less true.

I believe that God took the biblical authors where they were, not revealing everything to them, but just what was pertinent to human redemption. If it were proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt (which it has not been) that creation did not take place in six literal days, or that the Book of Jonah is a parable, or that the "demons" Jesus cast out were actually diseases, this would not shake my faith in the least. But are some texts intended to be taken literally as objectively and historically true? Does the theological truth of some texts depend upon the literalness of historical events described therein?

I think a case in point would be the resurrection narratives in Matthew's Gospel. Matthew clearly argues for a historical, literal, and bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Matthew dispels the rumor that disciples stole the body of Jesus. The tomb was well-guarded and well-secured (Matthew 27:62-66).

The rumor of the stolen body began with guards who claimed to have been asleep at the time of the alleged grave robbery (Matthew 28:11-15). As Rubel Shelly asked in his book, Prepare to Answer: A Defense of the Christian Faith, what court would accept the testimony of those who claim to have been asleep during the incident in question? Moreover, Shelly contends that had the disciples stolen the body, both religious and Roman officials had both the means and the motive to produce the body. They could "examine every piece of evidence" and "interrogate every witness" (p. 205). 

We must reckon with the empty tomb when pondering the claims of the Christian faith. What did happen to the body of Jesus?  

More later---soon---I promise.                   

Comments

[preacherman]

Great post brother.
I believe that we as believers can take the resurrection literally.
We should take the resurrection literally because it is central to the essential saving faith that we have as believers.

I do think Christians pick and choose what we want to take literal. Sometimes for our good and sometimes to control and manipulate people for our own agendas.

[Warren Baldwin]

I rest in the thought that if God can create life then he can "re-create" it or resurrect it) after death.

Wade, have you read, "There is No/A God by Antony Flew yet? I just received it today for my birthday. It is about how Flew, a former athiest, changed his mind.

[Wade Tannehill]

Preacherman,

I agree that we sometimes pick and choose what to take literally and I'm sure that I would be accused of such since I do not see the overall truthfulness of Scripture standing or falling based upon the literalness of every biblical narrative. I think we should consider whether the point being made by a given biblical author requires a literal understanding. In the case of the resurrection, I believe that Matthew's point is moot if the resurrection was not a real historical event in time. And in this case I do think the entire truthfulness of Scripture hinges upon the literalness of a text.

[Wade Tannehill]

Warren,

No, I have not read that yet, but I would like to get around to it sometime. Thanks for letting me know about it.