Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
Let’s review where we have come from. So far in this series, we have tried to trace broad trends in the evolution of ideas about the future of both individual existence after death and the fate of the world. We have done this in order to set a reasonably large enough context to begin to responsibly explore our master question about bodily resurrection in general and the meaning of the report (first Jewish, and then later Christian) of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
We have tried to be somewhat careful. We affirm Tom Wright’s caution regarding the general confusion that he sees in the contemporary theological conversation, our hymns, our liturgical practices and our funerals. I have written about this issue, but will speak in much more detail soon.
We have also tried to identify places in Hebrew scripture where these ideas can be grounded. This is a tricky task, in that what we have is a complex document redacted over time and framed by canonical decisions that reflect ideological points of view. For example, I have long been grateful for the work of James A. Sanders and his book, Torah and Canon, where he points out that the Jewish canonical decision to interrupt the broad narrative of the emergence of the Jewish people and the nation truncates that narrative into what in time became Torah (what Christians would call the Pentateuch). Sanders points out that such a canonical decision affirms the priority of the rule of law over the authority of monarchy. It subtly elevates the priestly role above that of kingship.
In the Hebrew writings that we have examined, we are surprised to discern that there is not a lot about the idea of resurrection. Tom Wright suggests however that during our next period to be studied, generally termed 2nd Temple Judaism, there is a great diversity of ideas that emerge about this question. We are familar with some of this. Opinions range from those held by the Sadducee party on the one hand, who deny resurrection, to the Pharisee party, on the other hand who affirm an apocalyptic vision of the resurrection of the dead.
The question remains as to how we got here. James Tabor, who has been our primary source for this Biblical survey notes the following about the next step in this process.
One can find, as we have seen, the general outline of the major themes of Jewish eschatology in the Hebrew Prophets. However, such a general hope for change was apparently not enough to satisfy some of this period’s minority parties that were disenfranchised from the social, political, and religious establishment–groups that experienced real or imagined persecution. Increasingly we find evidence of a turn to some very definite apocalyptic schemes and scenarios. Apocalypticism focuses on the “signs of the end,” which have been revealed by God to his special “elect” or “chosen” ones. They alone understand the secrets of the cosmos, particularly the “times and the seasons” that will lead to God’s dramatic intervention.
Tabor summarizes these new changes,
Side by side with the expanded speculation about when and how the end of the age would arrive are two important developments regarding the future of individuals beyond death. First, there is a vastly increased concern with the state and fortunes of the dead, both wicked and righteous, before the end of the age. Second, we see the full-blown development of the notion that some (or all) of the dead will rise to face a final judgment.
In the Hebrew scriptures, the master canonical apocalyptic texts, of course, come from the book of Daniel. Again Tabor writes,
The most important and influential apocalyptic work in the Bible is the Book of Daniel. Scholars date this text to near the time of the Maccabean revolt, c. 165 B.C.E. Chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 contain visions that claim to show the sequence of events, in some detail, that will lead up to the time of the end, when God sets up his Kingdom over all the earth. The basic scenario is this: Following a succession of world kingdoms (Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome–as they were subsequently interpreted), a terribly evil ruler would come, march into Palestine, defile the Temple at Jerusalem, persecute God’s people for a limited time (about three and a half years), but be utterly and decisively crushed by the sudden intervention of God (Dan. 7:19-25; 8:23-26; 11:31-45). The resurrection of the dead and final judgment would follow, with the Kingdom passed to God’s elect and persecuted “saints” (see especially Dan 2:44; 7:13-18, 26-27). This basic scheme of events became enormously influential among Jewish and Christian groups of the period and is the backbone of all the major apocalyptic schemes in the New Testament. Each time a likely candidate showed up in Palestine–whether Antiochus Epiphanes (the original subject of the visions), the Roman general Pompey (63 B.CE), the threat of the emperor Caligula to have his statue placed in the Jewish temple (41 CE), or the actual destruction of the Temple in August of 70 CE by the Roman general Titus–the specific expectations of Daniel’s scheme came into play. Various groups of Jews and Christians would be whipped up into a kind of apocalyptic frenzy, utterly convinced that the time of God’s Kingdom was at hand.
Non-canonical texts include 2 Esdras. Tabor notes,
[This text] builds on the book of Daniel and is concerned with the “delay” of the end. In a crucial section, (12:10-30), the author recasts Daniel’s basic vision and brings it down to his own time, with detailed predictions of what lies just ahead leading up to the arrival of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God.
Or again,
2 Maccabees (written sometime between the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.) also reflects an interesting state of development in this regard. Not only does the author believe in the resurrection (at least of the righteous martyrs), but he advocates prayer and sacrifice for the dead and believes that they can intercede for those on earth and vice versa (2 Macc. 12:43-45, 15:11-16).
From the Wisom of Solomon, Tabor notes that, the author goes on to declare that in the time of their visitation they will “shine forth” (be resurrected?) and will end up governing and ruling nations in the Kingdom of God (3:7-8).
I find it quite helpful to speak of this period of 2nd Temple Judaism as a time of severe cognitive dissonance. By this, I mean that there is a huge disconect between the way it is supposed to be and the way that it is. So if you are a Jew, born during first century Common Era, here I am - back from exile supposed to be the center of the world (after all didn’t G-d promise that?) and instead I’ve got Romans running the show.
Cognitive dissonance explains a lot. It must eventually be resolved. Given the continued occupation (with the exception of the short period of the restoration of the nation), we can see in the Sadducee priestly party a willingness to compromise with the occupation forces – in essence they say, “you can govern as long as we can be in charge of the temple.” We are then not surprised that the more provocative political ideology associated with apocalypitic visions of resurrection would not form part of the Saducee party’s platform. Zealots, who advocated the overthrow of the opposition (ancient insurgents, if you will) would see in these emerging images a kind of justification of martyrdom not unlike what we are there for God’s intervention. Finally, the Pharisee party argued for the Resurrection of the Dead. Jesus may not a been a formal member of the Pharisee party, but his teachings were very close. Like them, he affirmed the idea of a Resurrection of the Dead and argued with the Sadducees about it. (Mark 12:18-27) Paul, a Pharisee, who when he began to see the Jewish Jesus movement as a legitimate way to interpret this pillar of the thought of the Pharisees joined the Jesus movement and became, because of his diaspora experience, an apostle to the Gentiles.
We can not understand the resurrection of Jesus without understanding these evolving notions. But, at this point, we are ready to move into the early Christian Jewish witness that Jesus, as Paul came to affirm, in his bodily resurrection was the first fruit of this larger step into a new age, an age of a new creation.
In our next post, we will begin to explore how in the early Christian Jewish movement these ideas changed one more time.
