St Faith's Anglican Church Burwood

Study Notes - Resurrection

What it meant to the first disciples.
What it means to us today.

Session 1.  Resurrection in the Old and New Testaments
Session 2.  Resurrection narratives (1)
Session 3.  Resurrection narratives (2)
Session 4. Resurrection and suffering
Session5.  Resurrection and the new creation
Session6.  Resurrection, death and eternal life

During August-September 2001 a Study Group on 'Resurrection' was held at St. Faith's Anglican Church, Burwood, Melbourne, Australia, led by Dr. Keys Smith, a parishioner and Graduate in Arts and Divinity. These notes are an abbreviated copy of the notes used in the Study Group and are now placed on the Web for wider distribution. The material is not original and will be familiar to scholars. The standard biblical dictionaries, commentaries and doctrinal works have been used. In dealing with the wider aspects of resurrection, the writer has been particularly helped by the work by H.A. Williams, True Resurrection, 1972. It is important to refer to the Bible references listed in the text.

Session 1. Resurrection in the Old and New Testaments.

Old Testament

Resurrection is a rising up from the dead (literarily or figuratively), in life, at the time of death or at the final resurrection of all the dead. It is not resuscitation of a corpse (that would have to die again), but a rising up to a different type of life.

Except for Daniel, there is no resurrection in OT. The dead, both righteous and unrighteous, descend to place under the earth called Sheol.

Some passages are often quoted as if the OT writers believed in resurrection, but this is not so. e.g. Isaiah 26:19 (rejuvenation of a spiritually dead Israel - compare Ezekiel and the 'valley of dried bones'); Job 19:25-27 (desperate hope to see God in his despair) ; Psalm 17:15 (waking from sleep).

Sheol

Translated in Greek as Hades. Called also the pit, the realm of death, the earth, the nether world, the place of silence, etc. Proverbs 9:18 and many other passages. Residents of Sheol are oblivious of their former life, deprived of all pleasures, released from sickness and fatigue, but divorced from the experience of God. It is a state of unending sleep and forgetfulness. Nowhere in the OT (except in Daniel) is it a place of punishment or torment.

Apocalyptic writings

These were writings, composed between about B .C. 200 to 200 A.D., which we call apocalypses. The Jewish apocalypses were successors to the prophetic writings. The prophetic writings ceased about B.C.400 and the hopes of a new age, which they had espoused, seemed to be doomed. The nation had split into two after the death of Solomon, the northern half (Israel) had been under enemy occupation since B.C.722 and the southern half (Judaea) since the fall of Jerusalem in B.C.586. Israel was a small, poverty-stricken nation under enemy occupation, and there seemed to be no hope of change. Out of this depressing situation arose the apocalyptic movement. Human endeavour was useless; only God by some cataclysmic action could bring in the new era, in which Israel again would be free, when the nation would be saved and fostered by God and its enemies be destroyed.

The main apocalyptic work in the OT is the book of Daniel but there are a number of others in the Apocrypha. In addition, there are other writings known of the same type and some amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are also Christian apocalyptic writings, not included in the NT, produced in the early church. Revelation is an example of this literary form of writing though it is not the only example in the NT. In the Gospels are apocalyptic passages (Mk.13.1-37; Mt.23.1-25.46; Lk.21.5-38) and also in Paul (I Cor.Ch.15; 1; Thess.4.13-5.11).

The apocalyptic writings are characterised by: visionary experiences; belief in two ages (the present age being evil and doomed, the new age having freedom and prosperity under God); portrayal of the end-time, which is preceded by natural disasters of a cosmic dimension; a final confrontation when God in an epic battle overcomes the evil one (Satan) and reigns supreme; encouragement of the readers because of the ultimate triumph of God.

Satan is mentioned three times in the OT (Job Ch.1-2; Zechariah ; I Chron.21.1) and in these he is represented as part of God's court and acting as an adversary to question mankind (hence the phrase in English, 'Devil s advocate' ) For several centuries Israel was under Persian rule and the official religion of Persia was Zoroastrianism. This was a dualistic religion portraying an eternal conflict between light and darkness, between good and evil. This dualism may have influenced Judaism. By the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. Satan (and his angels) became the embodiment of evil, fighting against God, subverting the human race and ultimately being defeated by God in an epic battle (the biblical Armageddon ) This is the picture of Satan in the Gospels and the NT generally and is represented in dramatic form in Revelation.

At the same time as the apocalyptic movement came also the belief in resurrection of the dead; there was no hope of real action in this life (the unrighteous still prospered) so the restoration of Israel was pushed forwards into a future life.

In the OT this thought world is seen in Daniel. Daniel 12:1-2. Note that in this passage we now have some people progressing to everlasting life and others to condemnation - the different fates of the righteous and unrighteous. The fate of unrighteous = Gehenna.(Hell)

Gehenna - = Valley of Hinnom.

In OT history this valley was a place of evil practices (including human sacrifices) and the site of pagan worship which was destroyed by King Josiah 2 Kings 23:10. Later the area became a rubbish dump, always burning and so arose the association with fire and desolation.

There is some confusion in English translations; the King James Version uses 'Hell' to translate both Sheol (Hades) and Gehenna. This has been corrected in modern translations.

New Testament

There was a general belief in resurrection following apocalyptic views. The exception is the Sadduces, who did not believe in resurrection. Mark 12:18; Acts 23:8. The Pharisees and the general population believed in resurrection.

The disciples could assume that the people they were talking to, except the highly educated, believed in some form of resurrection. The situation is quite different today (see below for discussion).

In thinking of the resurrection, the essential issue is the Risen Christ. The NT does not describe the actual resurrection, the mechanism of the resurrection - its interest is that Jesus Christ was alive and was with the disciples. Christ's resurrection was a thing of the past - it was the living Christ with them that was important and this is what is important for us too. (We will come back to this in the later Sessions)

The faith was built on the belief in the resurrection of Christ. The church often stresses the Cross but it is important to note that the cross does not have significance apart from the resurrection. If Christ was not raised from the dead, the crucifixion was simply another noble person in history dying because he or she held to firm and unwavering convictions; the person receives our admiration for faithfulness to an ideal, but that is all. It follows that, without the resurrection, Christ's work of salvation through the cross is of no effect. 1 Cor.15.17. In a sense, the resurrection validated the cross. This is why the resurrection was stressed in the earliest preaching; the disciples were witnesses of the resurrection. Acts 1:8 ; Acts 2:32; Acts 3:15; and many other passages.

Paul (and all the NT writers) echoed this theme: they based their life and witness on the reality of the resurrection and of the Risen Christ.

The cross and resurrection are linked in another way, well illustrated in Paul's teaching on baptism and the Lord's Supper. Unless we participate in the suffering of Christ, by participating in the suffering of our world, then we will not know the power of the resurrection.

Discussion

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe in resurrection and a future life. So does Hinduism and Buddhism (in a different form, through re-incarnation). So do the indigenous religions (Aboriginal, etc).

The secular society does not believe this, influenced as it is by rationalism and humanism. It holds that this life is all there is and any thought of a future life is only wishful thinking. This view is very ancient; It comes from the ancient Greeks and was reinforced by the Renaissance and the 18th century Enlightenment. It rejects religious dogmas and the authority of religion; whether the Bible says so or not in irrelevant. This is the dominant view in Western secular society. This leads to the modern difficulties in accepting resurrection and Christ's resurrection in particular and by implication, our resurrection and the future life.

What arguments could you give to convince people that resurrection (Christ's resurrection, our resurrection and a future life) is a reasonable belief? (It is no use quoting the Bible, whose authority is not accepted).

Session 2. Resurrection Narratives (1)

There is a marked contrast between the importance placed on the resurrection in the NT and the poor historical evidence for it. This can be compared with the Passion narratives, which are much more unified.

(a) There is no description of resurrection itself in NT and no eyewitness account.

(b) There is confusion of events and irreconcilable accounts. For the empty tomb stories, see below for details, and for the appearances, see the next Session. It is not possible to reconcile all these accounts. Stories about the resurrection had been passed down orally in the churches with many variations and the Gospel writers did not attempt to unify these stories into a coherent account, as they did in the account of the Passion. It is therefore difficult to determine what is history and what is not.

(c) Only believers gave witness to the resurrection. This makes it difficult to obtain independent evidence.

(d) Was it history at all? Resurrection of a body (with appearances through closed doors and appearing and disappearing at will, etc) is beyond natural events and so is outside history and life as we know it.
However, its effects were historical
- The empty tomb was an historical event but cannot prove the resurrection because there are other possibilities to cause the tomb to be empty. (See below).
- The appearances of Jesus are again not a proof, as other explanations are possible. (See next Session).
- The existence of the church is the most decisive proof. Although Jesus had indicated to the disciples that his death would not be the end, they did not appreciate this. They went back to their own homes desolate. Note the story of the walk to Emmaus; the disciples were astounded by the women's' news (Lk.20.22). Clearly the event was not something expected. Nor could it have been deception, stating there was resurrection when the disciples knew it was false. These men and women based their lives on it and suffered persecution and martyrdom - you don't do that on the basis of something you know to be false.
Note the marked contrast in the attitudes of the disciples before and after the resurrection - something had happened that made the difference. Skulking at home and keeping a low profile for fear of the Jews suddenly changed into boldly proclaiming the Risen Christ in Jerusalem ( the most dangerous place to do it).

(e) It is important to distinguish between the experience of the Risen Lord and the resurrection narratives. Whatever the uncertainties in the narratives, the disciples were certain that they had encountered the Risen Christ and that in this they had come to know God and the reality of the Kingdom of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus. On this they based their lives, long before the stories of the resurrection had been collected together and finally between 70 & 100 A.D. were committed to writing in our Gospels.

In the same way we encounter the Risen Lord in faith and this is not dependant on the exact details of the resurrection narratives. The emphasis is not on what happened in the past, but on its effects - on the permanent presence of Christ exalted at the right hand of God, in changed lives, in inspiration, in certainty and in confidence in final victory.

The Empty Tomb.

All four Gospels give this event. Mk.16.1-8; Mt.28.1-8; Lk.24.1-12; Jn.20.1-13.

Essentials

Variations

Clearly different versions have been handed down in the churches and now it is not possible to know what actually happened.

The empty tomb is not a proof of the resurrection because there are other possibilities

- that the women went to the wrong tomb in the dark
- that, unknown to the disciples, the body was removed by Joseph to another tomb, or by the Jews to stop veneration of the tomb, or by the Roman authorities.
- that Jesus revived and got out of the tomb. There is an Indian legend that he went to India and died in Srinigar.
- that the disciples stole the body to prove their story of the resurrection. This was the Jewish belief (Mt on the bribing of the guards)
- that the whole event was hallucination from wishful thinking
- that the whole story was a fabrication
- that Christ had risen from the dead as the texts state.

Note the essence of the story - that no one could produce the body, which would have been decisive against the preaching of the disciples.

Discussion

- Is the Gospel story the most credible of the alternatives?
- Was the resurrection history at all?
- For our experience of the Risen Lord, do we depend on the accuracy of the Gospel resurrection narratives?
- Is the resurrection the essential belief or is it the experience of the Risen Lord that is at the centre of our faith?

Session 3. Resurrection Narratives (2)

Appearances.

The word 'appeared' comes from a common word, meaning 'to see' (with the eyes), but it is frequently used (as in English) figuratively, meaning 'to perceive, recognise, experience'.

(a) Paul 1 Cor.15.1-8.

This is the earliest account of the resurrection. Paul had received the accounts, probably on his visits to Jerusalem soon after his conversion, so the account dates back to the first decade after the resurrection.

Paul lists appearances to:

- Peter
- The Twelve
- 500 at once, some still alive (to authenticate the resurrection)
- James
- Paul

Only the appearances to the Twelve correspond to the Gospel accounts. There is no special appearance to Peter (unless Lk.24.34 and Mk.16.7 refer to it) or James mentioned and it looks as if the story of the appearance to 500 is a confusion with the story of Pentecost.

Striking is the absence in Paul's account of the appearances to the women, who are recognised by all the gospels as the first witnesses of the resurrection. Why?

Paul assumes that the appearance to him is similar to that of the other disciples. Paul's account of his 'seeing' the Risen Lord is in Acts 9:3-9; 22.6-11; 26.12-18.

Notice the vision convinced Paul that it was Jesus who confronted him and in his Letters he often mentions that he had seen the Risen Lord.

Paul's account stresses that
- it was a spiritual being he encounted, not a person with an earthly-like body (compare the Gospel stories)
- it was from heaven, not a being wandering around the earth
- he saw an image of light
- he heard a voice.

This experience was similar to the experiences which many others in Christian history have claimed to experience.

(b) Gospel narratives.

The main appearances were to - women Mk.28.9-10; Jn.20.14-18
- disciples at Emmaus Lk.24.13-35
- Twelve (without Thomas) Lk.24.36-43; Jn.20.19-23
- Twelve (with Thomas) Jn.20.24-29
- the disciples at a mountain in Galilee Mt.28.16-20
- disciples and account of the Ascension Lk.24.44-53 (also Acts.1.1-11).

Only Luke gives an account of the Ascension. The other Gospels assume that Jesus was raised immediately on resurrection to the 'right hand of God'. Luke's sources must have felt that some end to the earthly appearances was necessary

Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias: Jn.21.1-25 Jn 21. This is the most 'corporal' (stressing Christ's body) of all the accounts. In all the accounts Jesus is represented as appearing in a changed bodily form (disappearing at Emmaus, through closed doors, etc).

There seems to be some confusion between appearances at Jerusalem and in Galilee.

Mk.16.9-20 is not part of the original Gospel but was added later by some unknown scribe. Its statements have been taken from the Gospels and have no independent value.

Jn.21. has also been added to the original Gospel.

Note that some recognised Jesus (Twelve); others could not recognise him at first (women, Emmaus, on beach in Galilee).

Discussion.

What are we to make of these appearances?

Possibilities - Gospels stories are fabrications to confirm disciples' preaching
- hallucinations and due to abnormal mental states
- wishful thinking
- every word in the Gospels is true
- the stories express his presence in human terms, that Jesus is Lord, that he is still alive and exalted with God.

Note the use of 'body' in Hebrew thought. 'Body' can mean the physical body but more typically equals the whole person (This has implications for the use of 'body' in the church as the 'body of Christ' and the use of the word in the Eucharist). This compares with the Greek thought of body and mind (soul) as separate entities. To describe Risen Christ in bodily form was the only way the disciples could express it.

Are we bound by the resurrection narratives?

They express in first century terms their conception of Risen Lord. Can we believe in the Risen Lord without being bound by all the details in the narratives?

What is the similarity between the Gospel appearances, the appearance to Paul and to many others in Christian history?

Session 4 Resurrection and Suffering

Universality of suffering.

Suffering covers a wide range - physical illness, mental illness. loss of spouse, loss of child, financial hardship, poverty, bitterness, breakdown of relationships, despair, devaluation, homelessness, refugees, torture, etc.

No one is exempt, but suffering varies greatly in severity. There are two types - caused by natural disasters (drought, fire, flood, tornado, earthquake, volcano, etc) These are beyond human control and not caused by humans (but note flood and drought may be due to deforestation or greenhouse effects, which are man made)
- caused by humans. Self-inflicted or inflicted by others.
- In history the church has been prominent in alleviation of suffering (exceptions have been when bible is quoted e.g. pain in childbirth), but weak in prevention. It has not always been willing to tackle the causes of suffering if they upset the status quo. It has a poor record of changing social structures. In this it has followed NT, which has little to say on the structures of society - for this we have to go to the OT prophets.
- We can be sympathetic with others' suffering but ultimately we suffer alone. Suffering isolates people, the sufferers cannot do what others are doing. While we suffer the world goes on without us. Dostoevsky in his works says to a man dying of consumption "Forgive us our happiness"
- Suffering is insoluble intellectually. We cannot believe in a God who is both all-powerful and all-loving. If he is all-powerful, why does he allow it to continue, so he cannot be all-loving; if he is all-loving, he cannot be all-powerful, otherwise he would end suffering. Giving humans freedom is hardly a sufficient answer - why do innocent children suffer? And why are natural disasters allowed?

"Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet not what I want, but you want" (Mk.14.36).

Compare the Lord's Prayer "Save us from the time of trial". This is escapism, which Jesus rejected. Some examples of escapism:
- By denying the suffering. Seen in some disabled people, parents of disabled children and people with chronic illness. Also seen in people saying they are 'fine' but really are not so (there is thin line between self-pity and dwelling on our suffering and realism and silent endurance).
- By being satisfied with an explanation for it. A doctor who may tell you why you have pain - but this does not ease the pain; you might feel happier but the knowledge does not remove the suffering. Providing an explanation does not remove the fact of suffering.
- By urging that our suffering now is made bearable by the hope of bliss in heaven and that we should accept it. This is a pernicious theory.

- That we ourselves are the cause of the suffering - blame the victim (the poor, unemployed, drug addict, gambler, etc). Sometimes the suffering is self-caused but stressing this only devalues the victim and pushes him or her further into isolation and self-hatred. Obviously it is not true of natural disasters. It might be a convenient rationalisation to absolve us from taking action, but It is not redemptive.
- That it is due to our sin. The Collect for Fourth Sunday in Lent reads, "who justly deserve to be punished for our sinful deeds" (This has been removed from recent revisions of the Prayer Book). It stresses that suffering is justly due to us. This condemnatory attitude rarely helps the victim. Note the rejection of this view in the Book of Job. This view is widespread in the community, in the church in history, in hundreds of hymns, and still in fire and brimstone preaching. It portrays God as a relentless punishing Judge (with vivid pictures of the Last Judgement) and not as a God of love and compassion.

Resurrection.

What then has resurrection got to do with suffering? Is there such a thing as resurrection from suffering? The prerequisites are:
- Acceptance that suffering is not external to us but is part of the human condition. It may be caused by an outside event (natural disaster) or is internal to us (bitterness, despair, etc) but ultimately it becomes part of us. It is easy to project our suffering on to somebody or something else. Because it is part of us, we often find it difficult to imagine the other types of suffering in others of which we have had no experience. The suffering is our own.
- We have to accept the suffering as it is, to embrace it as part of ourselves. This is what Jesus did. He did not try to explain it away or escape from it. To try to run away from suffering is to live in a world of make-believe. This must also involve recognising the evil within us and the destruction we cause to ourselves and to others - not an easy thing to do.

When we enter into our suffering and make it our own, then resurrection is possible.

Some examples:
- The early disciples suffered persecution and martyrdom. The despair and disappointment after the crucifixion was changed to joy and dedication on seeing the Risen Lord; this was resurrection and the power of the resurrection.
- Beethoven's hearing at the age of thirty started to give him trouble. He felt depressed, lonely and isolated and in his despair he even contemplated suicide. Some years later he said, "I will seize fate by the throat. It shall never wholly overcome me. How beautiful life is". After this he produced some of his greatest works. This is resurrection out of suffering.
- A couple lost a beautiful daughter in adolescence through suicide. This devastating event was a shattering experience. Several years later, they wrote in a prayer to the "God of Life', "To our astonishment, we thank you, too, for gifts of growth and love, which even her dying has brought us". This also is resurrection out of suffering.

Not only does resurrection have an effect on ourselves, but its redemptive action is passed on to others
- our resurrection is an inspiration to others who are suffering
- by transforming what is evil and destructive in our own lives, we are liberating power to destroy the evil in our society. By seeing clearly the evil in our own lives and removing it, we can see more clearly the evil in our society and this gives us the will to act upon it.
- this is one way of interpreting Jesus on the cross 'taking away the sin of the world' (the sin of the world is alive and well, so the phrase must refer to potentiality). By his acceptance of the suffering on the cross, he has released the forces needed to remove the evil in the world, and asks us in our resurrection to do likewise.

Resurrection is not something that only happened 2000 years ago, it has been happening in the lives of countless Christians down the centuries and is happening today.

Discussion.

- Do you agree that resurrection is not confined to the 1st century but is happening today in the life of Christians?
- Can you give examples of resurrection out of suffering occurring today in the lives of Christians?
- Have you had personal experience of resurrection out of suffering?

Session 5 Resurrection and the New Creation

New in Christ.

This is a constant theme in the NT - during the lifetime of Jesus

don't put new wine in old wineskins
a new teaching, with authority
new garment
new commandment

- in the light of the resurrection and the Risen Lord

new life in the Spirit
everything has become new
a new humanity
clothe yourself with the new self
new and living way
new heaven and a new earth
new Jerusalem
see, I am making all things new
new covenant (many times), 'New Testament' new age new creation (2 Cor.5.17; Gal.6.15)
- Paul uses the analogy of first creation.

Re-surrection - note the etymology of the word.

The disciples were convinced that with the resurrection, the Risen Lord and the giving of the Holy Spirit, everything had changed.

Four aspects of change with the coming of Christ

(a) Resurrection of the body (For resurrection of the body and death - see next Session)
- Miracles of the Gospels

- There are many stories of the healing of the blind, deaf and dumb, leper, paralytic, etc.

- This continued in the early church; in the power of the resurrection we hear of healings, Acts.2.43; Acts.3.1-10; James.5.14-15.
- There are stories of healing throughout the whole history of the church. In the modern church, especially in the charismatic churches, there is great emphasis on the healing ministry and well-publicised healing services.

Some notes on spiritual healing:
- NT looks on person as a whole - physical, mental and spiritual. 'Body' = the whole person. This can be contrasted with the ancient Greek idea of the separation of the mind (soul) and body. The materialistic view of medicine in 19th C, that the body was only a machine is dead but has not yet been entirely abandoned.
- there are Intimate relations between body, mind and spirit (e.g. blushing with embarrassment or anger, mouth waters with sight of food, urinary and bowel actions with stress, physical symptoms from mental states, action of drugs on mind, dementia from destruction of nerve cells, mental or physical well-being with forgiveness.) There is thus no theoretical barrier to the idea that the spiritual state will affect illness.
- it is a constant theme in the Bible that all people are made in the image of God and the God is within us; there is something of the divine in all people (and in all creation). Compare the lovely Indian form of greeting, a bow with hands together in the attitude of prayer, signifying 'I honour the God in you'. On this view it is therefore not 'unnatural' for the body to be affected by spiritual means.
- The problems with 'faith healing' are more practical. The vast majority cannot be scientifically proved - the diagnosis is not established (often just self-diagnosis), there is no documented follow-up (with appropriate clinical tests) and failures are rarely reported. Many factors are involved in healing and much is unexplained in medicine. All doctors have seen serious diseases (such as cancer) melt away without treatment; if there happens to have been prayer at the time, it is likely that this will be claimed as the result of prayer (when other factors may be involved). This is the fallacy expressed in the Latin phrase 'post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The influence of the mind on the body, especially the heightened atmosphere of a gospel meeting or under conditions of mass hysteria, is not taken into account. The after effects of the emotional build-up and then disappointment can be devastating; some consider the whole show a fraud and reject the belief in God altogether, others are made to feel that their faith was too weak and are consumed by guilt, not realizing that healing does not always follow faith - a notable example is Paul and his 'thorn in the flesh' (2 Cor.12.7-10). There is often the assumption that recovery is always the ultimate goal in life; is this so?

Most people would hold that spiritual healing in some cases (a resurrection of the body from illness) does occur, but that one needs to be sceptical of many of the claims made.

It seems more appropriate to look on 'spiritual healing' and of our prayers for the sick as a petition, asking that God's power strengthen the person in his or her illness and leave the question whether it removes the disease or not open.

Discussion

- What is your attitude to 'faith healing'?

- Has anyone present had the experience of healing with prayer?
- In what way are our prayers for the sick in worship effective?

(b) Resurrection of the mind. Paul says Rom.12.2 'be transformed by the renewing of your minds' Some ways the mind can be renewed:
- by abandoning the mechanistic view of the world. The rise of science and technology has fostered the idea that the body and mind are only a machine. This leaves out the essential reality of the self. Nietzsche said, "Grey cold eyes do not know the value of things"
- by keeping our minds focussed on people, not systems. We hear much concerning the statistics of AIDS in Africa or of the nuclear disaster in the Ukraine or of computer models of social welfare or of the economics of the 'market'. These methods (valid in their own sphere) are often divorced from the living reality of the persons involved. This depersonalisation is the basic cause behind poverty-stricken societies explodng in rebellion, or protests against globilisation or privatisation.
- by removal of prejudice, e.g. racism, Anti-Semitism, religious bigotry, class conflict, colour prejudice, anti-migrants, etc. All of us need to analyse our prejudices and see how they fit in with the values of the Gospel.
- by uncritical support for ideologies. Chanting of ideological slogans without thinking our way through their consequences on people is an example of lazy thinking.

In all these ways (and others) life is impoverished and restricted to narrow limits. Resurrection is to open the mind to people, to create a society where people matter, where the gifts of human creativity are treasured.

Discussion - Discuss the ways in which the mind can be blinkered?
- Discuss the ways we can re-orientate our minds?

(c) Resurrection of relationships.

John says "Love another'. Paul says 'Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour'. This is the message through the whole NT.

Resurrection is to break out of the cycle of hatred, animosity, bitterness, abuse, violence and division.

Examples - marital conflict, family breakdown, personal vendettas, devaluing those who disagree with us, social snobbery.

The miracle of resurrection is to be able to alter the past.

Discussion - Do Christians give the impression that they have renewed relationships?
- What does the love of one another mean in the examples above?

(d) Resurrection from sin. This is one of the major themes of the NT and in the teaching of the church.

Sin, a religious term, has many meanings, but all have the basic meaning of ' missing the mark'. It is rooted in selfishness, self-interest, self-centeredness, self-indulgence.

It not only involves personal sins but also our involvement in the sins of our society (exploitation, greed, devaluation of people, etc.)

God is the centre of everything; we try to put ourselves at the centre (this is the theme of the creation story in Genesis). Thus sin involves rebellion against God and is a form of idolatry.

Because sin is centered on self - pride is the worst of all sins.

The Gospel message is that if we repent (turn around, strike out in a new direction) that God will forgive us and bring us into a new relationship with him. This is the symbolism of baptism "those who are baptised in it (water) may be one with Christ in his death and resurrection. May they die to sin, rise to newness of life and continue for ever in Jesus Christ our Lord"

An example comes from Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment. At the end of the story Raskolnikov, a murderer, is in prison and the love of Sonia redeems him.

In the same way, the love of Christ makes all things new. Resurrection is not only some event that happened in the past, but a power that can make things now new in our own lives and the lives of our community.

Discussion - Does the church overemphasise sin in its presentation of the Gospel instead of the gospel of love and hope?
- are pride and arrogance the worst of all sins?
- Is there a distinction between forgiveness of sin and the memory of it?

Session 6 Resurrection, Death and Eternal Life

1. Death.

It is inevitable and comes to all.

People approach death in various ways - anticipation, acceptance, resignation, hostility, fear. Most deaths are peaceful at the end. Few deaths occur in pain with good palliative care.

All the major and indigenous religions believe in an after-life.

2. Body - Mind - Spirit (Soul)

This confusing terminology divides man into parts. Human beings have an essential unity; they do not have minds or spirits, they are body, mind and spirit in one.
- mind depends on the nervous system (seen in loss of mind in brain lesions and dementia) There is no evidence that the mind can exist apart from the body.
- The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 and has studied intensively telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, visions, use of drugs, near-death experiences, etc. Over 100 years of research has produced no firm evidence of an after-life. Science cannot help us.

3. Incompleteness of life.

After all the effort - to be born, educated, grow in moral and spiritual values and then be discarded seems incredible; such effort has no point in it, it has no meaning.

Paul says, 1 Cor.15.32 "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". The Latin poet, Catullus, captures this hopelessness,

"Lesbia, live with me and love me so/ We'll laugh at all the sour-faced strictures of the wise/ This sun once set will rise again/ When our sun sets, follows night and endless sleep."(Translated by Peter Whigham, Penguin Classics).

This is basically the position of the humanists.

Paul expresses this sense of incompleteness when he says (1 Cor.15.12) "Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known", and Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov echoes the same feeling, "I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for".

Incompleteness implies an intermediate state; hence the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory with the opportunity of growth and development. The Reformers reacted against this view, because of the abuses associated with it. Buddhism and Hinduism also recognise the incompleteness of life and meet it with the doctrine of reincarnation.

4. What happens at death?

Two contradictory ideas have been held by Christians.

(a) The Greek idea that the body disintegrates but the soul continues.

'John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
But his soul goes marching on'

The body is despised, in some Greek thought considered as evil, and a hindrance to us and we wish to be released from it. Despite this widespread belief, it is not the view of the church

(b) Resurrection body
We think of the body as the material part of us (following Greek thought). This was not the Hebrew view. They could not conceive of a person without a body, the body was an integral part of the person.
- some have taken the body literally, i.e. resurrection of the flesh. In view of the dispersion of the molecules of body, this is not credible. But this view does honour the body (as does the incarnation); its care is important, deeds done in the body are also important and the body becomes the core of our identity.

Paul rejected this view. 1 Cor.15.50 "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".
- Paul (1 Cor 15) holds that we are transformed into a 'spiritual body'. There is continuity with the old body (compare Christ's appearances) but it has none of its limitations. It is a new body appropriate to the next stage of our existence as the present body is appropriate for our present existence.

In the Funeral Service of our Prayer Books, we state; 'and who shall change our mortal body that it may be like his glorious body' Resurrection is about transformation not resuscitation.

5. What then is the final goal? What are the results of resurrection and union with the Risen Lord? Christ says (Jn.10.10 'I came that they may have life and have it abundantly'. Christ promises eternal life now in the future. The goal is stated by Paul. Phil.3.12-14.

Compare this with the conventional pictures of heaven - harps, angels, celestial choirs, emerald thrones - it is hard to imagine anything more boring! The mental pictures are often combined with lurid pictures of Hell. An amusing rhyme about Jonathon Edwards (an 18th century Calvanist) reads,

"Whenever Mr Edwards spake In church about damnation, The very benches used to quake In awful agitation".

It is difficult to see how this fits in with a loving God!.

The goal of abundant life has two components:
- the vision of God. ! Cor.13.12 'For now we see in a mirror, dimly; but then we will see face to face'

We will see the glory, majesty, grandeur, holiness and the love of God permanently. This has always been the goal of the mystics. But the vision of God is not only an individual experience (often the fault of the mystics); the goal is also communal. So the second component is that we become,
- participants in the completed kingdom of God - we are in that kingdom now but sadly it is so unrealised and incomplete.

The characteristics of the Kingdom of God are:
- God reigns
- There is full human development - we will have life abundantly
- There are full loving relationships between people
- There is peace, righteousness and justice
- There is the removal of human limitations
- There is a permanent relationship with a loving God
-- There is a vision of God in all his glory and holiness (as mentioned above).

The Bible envisages that when the Kingdom of God is realised in its fullness that Christ will inaugurate the completed Kingdom (the so-called Second Coming of Christ). We will be judged, not on whether we go to church or follow religious rituals, but how faithful we have been to Christ's law of love. What happens to those failing to meet this standard is in God's hands, but knowing that he is a God of love he will not consign these to the tortures so often depicted in art and literature. God takes us as we are and never forsakes us (otherwise what hope is there for us) and there is no reason why he should forsake those who fail to respond to his love.

With God's grace, the Kingdom is something worth striving for - now and in the future. There will be continuity with the present, which makes the present important. It will not come at death - what is the point of striving if we are going to be perfect at death. There will a further stage of development. But our goal will not be handed to us on a plate. We cannot know God without striving. The missionary doctor, Albert Schweitzer said, "He comes to us as One Unknown, without a name, as of old by the lakeside. He comes to those who knew Him not, He speaks to us the same word, "Follow me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil in our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings, which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience, who He is"

6. Discussion - How do you picture your state in the after-life?
- What mental picture do you have of heaven
- How do you reconcile judgement and love?
- Is the goal we have outlined adequate and how do we work for that goal now?

7. Conclusion

Resurrection is transformation of old ways, old attitudes, old philosophies, old relationships. In Christ all things are made new - now and in the future. The following extracts from letters to the author resonate with hope in Christ:

This is a letter from a friend who lost her husband in World War 2,
Shall I wear mourning for my soldier dead,
I, a believer? Give me red
And give me royal purple for the King
At whose high court my love is entering.
Dress me in green for growth, for life made new.
In all earth's garden blooms no hue too bright,
To robe me for my love who walks in light.

This is another letter written by an elderly friend,
Of Life and Death
Help us, dear Lord, to know and to accept
That the glad miracle of human life
Leads to the miracle of human death.
Afraid, we dread the parting and the pain,
Bring us to see the balance of your world,
And know that, cradled in undying arms,
We feel the miracle of our new birth

May the Risen Lord bring you joy and peace.