Resurrection: Optional or Mandatory?

One of the disadvantages of doing the "Year of the Bible" is that we're not necessarily reading texts which match the liturgical seasons. For instance, as we go through Lent, it would be lovely to be reading through one of the gospels. I imagine it's because the date of Easter bounces around so much that one cannot set a reading schedule to match the liturgical calendar exactly.

So, it's a happy day (for nerdy pastors like me) when what we're reading each day does fit with the church season. So I'm glad we're in Romans as we approach Easter. It's not exactly a retelling of the Passion story, like you'd read in the gospels, but it's a theological "sorting out" of what Jesus' death and resurrection means. But, first things first.

Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, what a macabre question!)
Deuteronomy 17:6 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

And here's the question of the day:
Tues, Mar 24: When the Israelite army approaches a city’s gates in order to attack it, what should they do first? (Dt 20)

And here's the reflection of the day:
Romans 4 deals with an issue that for some is mandatory but for others is optional. Throughout history, in the Western world, it has "often been thought quite acceptable, sometimes even desirable, sometimes actually mandatory, that one should disbelieve in the resurrection of Jesus" (Wright, NIB Commentary on Romans). There are many reasons people choose to disbelieve this--mainly for "scientific" reasons concerning the "real facts of the world" (Wright).

Perhaps to address this concern, Paul uses Abraham and Sarah as examples of faithful believers who believed God could defy reality (or what today we'd call "science") and bring new life out of that bodies which were "as good as dead" (v19). But, the new life that Jesus receives, after his crucifixion and death, is "not merely a resuscitation into the same sort of bodily existence as before, but a new dimension of bodily existence" (Wright). Abraham and Sarah were resuscitated, in a way, through the new life of Isaac. But it was the same bodily form. Jesus was resurrected to new life, in a new bodily form.

Wright also points out that, for Paul, it is not possible to be a Christian and to disbelieve in Jesus' resurrection. It simply cannot be. To call oneself a Christian but to deny the resurrection is a heretical hybrid. There is plenty of room for discussion about how it happened and what exactly happened and how we should tell this part God's story to a scientific world that won't believe something until they see it for themselves. But for Paul, to disbelieve the resurrection is to render the rest of one's faith null and void.

It seems especially appropriate in this time of Lent to consider the so-called "impossibility" of the resurrection. This time of year, leading up to Easter, is precisely the right time to ask ourselves this question: do we, deep down in our heart of hearts where we cling to bedrock truths, believe in Jesus' resurrection? Perhaps the better question is this: have we thought about it enough to realize how "impossible" such an event is and how silly (and daring) it is for us to believe in it?

It is easy to pay lip-service to Jesus' resurrection, to glibly agree without much thought. To do this is almost as bad as to deny the resurrection. But it is not just to the deny the resurrection; it is to deny the One "who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (v24).

So, when was the last time you thought about the resurrection? Might it be time to think about it again?

Allison