Resurrection 101
Rev. Edmund Robinson
Unitarian Universalist Church of Wakefield
Easter: April 11, 2004

	Ah, Easter!  The Sunday when UUs all crowd into church to celebrate an event most of them do not believe took place, and expect the minister to tell them why they have come in the first place. Let’s see how well I can do this morning with this yearly theological high-wire act.  
	More than 1800 years ago there was another lawyer who tried to make sense of religion, and his name was Tertullian.  Tertullian had a keen mind expressed in a breezy, entertaining and often sarcastic writing style, and perhaps his most famous quote, in a long piece defending Christian belief is credo, quia absurdum – I believe, because it is absurd.  
	Actually, some recent scholars have shown that this is a misquote, that what Tertullian actually said was credible est, quia ineptum est, or as the whole passage is translated,
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly. He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is
impossible.

	Part of this quote expresses the feeling that many if not most UUs bring to this question of Jesus’s resurrection:  most of us tend to think it is absurd and impossible.  But unlike Tertullian, we don’t think that it is therefore likely to have happened; We don’t see the absurdity of the claim as any reason to believe in it.   
	Philosophers tell us that in this reasoning, Tertullian was following Aristotle, for in his Rhetoric 2.23.22 Aristotle shows that an argument from probability can be drawn from the sheer improbability of a story: some stories are so improbable that it is reasonable to believe them.   Or – who would make something like this up?
	Well, actually, there were plenty of good incentives for the followers of Jesus to make up the story of his resurrection.  We need to realize that our mindset in the age of science is vastly different from that of people in the early centuries after Jesus’ death.  As the passage I read earlier indicated, the miraculous nature of the resurrection story would have been taken by many people hearing it as a kind of proof that it did happen.  Tertullian was not that out of step with his readers.  It would also be taken as proof of the special character of Jesus, for both general reasons and reasons specific to the Jewish tradition.
	The general reason is that in the Mediterranean world of the First Century, mortality was the primary distinction between gods and humans.  In Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek and Roman – virtually every kind of paganism holds that the gods are immortal and humans are mortal.  Humans die, gods don’t.  And when this boundary is crossed, as when gods consort with humans and produce offspring that are semi-divine, all kinds of trouble happens.  Achilles, for example, was the product of a mating between a sea nymph and a mortal king, so to try to make sure he was immortal, his mother dipped him in the river Styx, but she had to hold him by the heel, and so he was immortal only in 99% of his body.  He was mortal in the heel, and it was in his heel that he took the wound from Paris which killed him in the Trojan war.
	So, in general immortality, was a characteristic of gods and probably the most basic one.  Not all gods are omnipotent, not all gods are all-knowing, and certainly not all gods are benevolent.  But all were immortal.  Thus to the people hearing the news in the first century, that Jesus would have regained his life after losing it in the most public, painful and humiliating way, this clearly indicated some special favor from God, if not his own divinity.
	The specific Jewish figures that the Jesus resurrection story recalls are Enoch and Elijah.   Many of you have heard of Elijah, but you are asking who is Enoch?  Well, in the book of Genesis, between the story of Cain and Abel and the story of Noah, we find a genealogical chapter, Chapter 5, which relates the nine generations from Adam to Noah.  All of these primeval patriarchs lives extraordinarily long lives; the longest was Methuselah, who lived nine hundred sixty-nine years.  For each patriarch, the verse says he lived so many years and then had a son named, so and so, and then lived so many years after that and then he died.  That is the formula.  Except for the seventh generation descendent from Adam.  Here is what the Fifth chapter says about him, beginning at the 21st verse:
21: When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methu'selah. 
22: Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methu'selah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 
23: Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 
24: Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. 

	God took him; it didn’t say he died.  This language spawned a theory that Enoch ascended into heaven directly.  The mystery surrounding Enoch is of course heightened by his being the seventh generation from Adam, because the number seven has mystical associations.
	As for Elijah, we know a lot more about him than about Enoch. As a prophet of the Lord he confronted and bested several kings of Israel, and he recruits as his disciple Elisha.  The Second Book of Kings, 2d Chapter records the end of Elijah’s  earthly existence in these words: 
8: Then Eli'jah took his mantle, and rolled it up, and struck the water, and the water was parted to the one side and to the other, till the two of them could go over on dry ground. 
9: When they had crossed, Eli'jah said to Eli'sha, "Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you." And Eli'sha said, "I pray you, let me inherit a double share of your spirit." 
10: And he said, "You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if you do not see me, it shall not be so." 
11: And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli'jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 
12: And Eli'sha saw it and he cried, "My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. 

	So here are two specific examples from the Hebrew Bible which would have been known to the Jewish hearers of the resurrection story.  In fact, the account of the crucifixion in Matthew has the bystanders say Jesus is calling for Elijah, and as they were giving him wine to drink on the sponge they say, wait, let us see whether Elijah comes and takes him down.”
	To give a more complete picture of the background, I should mention the pagan resurrection myths.  James Frazer wrote an influential book in 1905 called the Golden Bough, which argues, among other things, that the Jesus resurrection story is copied from resurrection myths of several pagan religions of the ancient Near East, particularly Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Osiris in Egypt,  and Adonis in Phoenicia.  However, more recent scholarship shows that Frazer was leaping to conclusions in his argument, and each of these myths contain significant differences from the Christian story. 
	Now all of this is fascinating, but you will say, what does it have to do with us?  What does it do to the quest to make Jesus relevant to life here in the 21st century?  Just this: I think that the resurrection story is part of the envelope in which the message was packaged, but it is not the message.  In other words, if it had not been for the resurrection story, people would not have thought of Jesus as uniquely favored by God and would not have paid any attention to his teachings.
	The Greek word for message is Kerygma.  Jesus’ kerygma is the whole point of his ministry. To the extent that we today can believe that he was divinely inspired, our job is to try to figure out this kerygma today.  And we don’t want to confuse the letter with the envelope it is packaged in.
	Now this is bold surgery, I admit.  I would not place the central kerygma of Jesus where most Christians would place it:  in the proposition which St. Paul states it in 1 Corinthians 15, a passage which was probably a sort of creed of the very early church: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.”
	Contradicting Paul, or bypassing Paul in the search for Jesus, is not something anyone ought to do lightly.  Paul was the first person in the Jesus movement to have written anything which survives, which gives him great authority; yet he never saw Jesus raised from the dead; in fact, he never met Jesus and the only way he knew anything about Jesus was from first persecuting Jesus’ followers and then communicating with Jesus in the vision which led to his conversion and other visions after that. 
	Notice that Paul doesn’t just say Jesus was raised from the dead, but he also says according to the scriptures.  According to my annotated bible, the scriptures which predicted this resurrection are two: Psalm 16 and Hosea Chapter 6.  Psalm 16 verse 10 says “For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit.”   Hosea is a little more specific; he  says 
6 - 1: "Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up. 
2: After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. 
3: Let us know, let us press on to know the LORD; his going forth is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth." 

	Now for a second put aside your thinking caps and just listen to these words; they are really beautiful.  He will come to us as the showers.  There is an image of refreshment.
	Yet what I see it as poetry,  Paul sees as proof-text.  Paul uses it to argue that this man Jesus of Nazareth is the very one the scriptures were talking about, and miracle of miracles, he actually was raised on the third day, just like it says.  As in many other uses of Hebrew scripture in the New Testament, it is what a lawyer would call a mis-citation of precedent.  In other words, I think it is more accurate to call this Hosea passage poetry than prophecy.
	But I left you hanging a few minutes ago. I said that the idea that Jesus dies for our sins and was resurrected is not the kerygma, the message, but I didn’t say what I thought the kerygma was.  I take Jesus’ central message from Robert Horsley’s description: it was about the kingless Kingdom of God, the way that the oppressed Jewish peasants of Galilee could reclaim their ancient heritage under the impossible conditions under which they lived.  In both Luke and Matthew, Jesus sends his disciples out to the towns around the northen end of the Sea of Galilee, and he directs them to take very little clothing and no money, and he empowers them to do healing and drive out demons in his name, and he gives them one message: the kingdom is coming, the kingdom is nigh.  
	The kingdom is the message.  The resurrection is what the message is packaged in.  You don’t have to buy the resurrection to hear the message.  
	But the package has been effective.  If it had not been for the resurrection story, we would not hear Jesus’ message today.  In the competitive cauldron of religious politics in the first century, Messianic pretenders were arising daily.   Most of them vanished into history without a trace.  
	I’ll just digress a moment to tell you about one we happen to know about, a man also named Jesus.  This was Jesus, son of Ananias.  In the year 62, according to the historian Josephus, at the feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem, a character showed up named Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant.  He stood up in the temple and began to cry out, “A voice from the East, a Voice from the West, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all people.”  He went about day and night saying these words, and finally the good people of Jerusalem had him arrested, but he would not cease from his cries.  The magistrates questioned him, but he would not answer them and they had him whipped.  Finally, he was sent to the Roman governor Albinus, who asked him where these words came from and he also would not answer, but kept repeating the words.  Albinus decided he was simply mad and let him go.
	I bring this other Jesus up only to show that there were hundreds of false prophets and preachers, and the reason we know something about Jesus of Nazareth is undoubtedly because of the recounting of his miraculous resurrection. 
	Now this is radical surgery, as I have said.  Most orthodox Christians would be aghast at the suggestion that we can simply ignore the resurrection to get at the truth of Jesus.  But I’m not suggesting we ignore it; I’m just suggesting that we don’t need to hinge our acceptance of Jesus’ messages about loving our neighbor and forgiving our enemies and concern for the poor on a belief in a bodily rising from the dead that is reported to have happened to one person 2000 years ago.
	For we can each achieve resurrection in our own way, and we do it through the inspiration of the holy, in whatever form the holy may take for us.  We create ourselves anew, we are reborn in spirit.  We can believe in spiritual resurrection at the same time we hold fast to the conviction that our physical deaths are final.  
	Now I’m not going to tell you I’ve got any inside information on the afterlife, and I try to keep an open mind about it.  I went to South Carolina to conduct the  funeral of my old friend Mona this week, and I got to thinking that it would be nice if I could think that someday I’d see Mona again, and all the other people I’ve lost along the way.  Yet I also think that carrying the idea of death as a full stop is the way to get the most out of every minute of life.  
	I think the resurrection and the kingdom are both tasks with which we are concerned, even we liberals here in the 21st century.  We are concerned with bringing about the kingdom here in this time and in this place. 
	And resurrection is something we practice. If this sermon hasn’t seemed the most incisive you have ever heard, perhaps it is because I spent part of the time I had set aside for preparing it fulfilling a dead woman’s wishes. I got this call on Monday night.  Mona had died.  Mona and her late husband Al had been great friends; they were into all things Irish, as I was, and their best friends were an Irish couple.  Al died just as I was leaving Charleston in 1995, and I had lost touch with Mona, but she had not forgotten me.  In the last three years, she has mentioned to her family and friends several times that she’s love to get Edmund down from Boston to play some Irish music for her at a party.
	So I got the call on Monday; Mona had died the day before, would I come down and conduct the funeral on Friday – and stay around for the wake?  Sometimes life is what happens to you when you’re making other plans.  I couldn’t say no.  So I flew down, I conducted the funeral, I played Irish music for three hours, and I flew back Saturday morning with this sermon a few hastily scribbled notes on legal pads.   If I could help fulfill my deceased friend’s wish, it would help all of her family and friends with the grieving process, and to help with the grieving, to help heal the wounds and recover from the losses, is the kind of resurrection we can practice, here and now, every day.   Let us return to the Lord, that he may heal us, says Hosea. He has stricken, and he will bind us up.    
	Terry Deacon, a guru of evolutionary anthropology and neurobiology and a confirmed humanist – he rarely sets foot in the chapel on Star Island – told me once that he believes nothing we do is ever wasted.  Every word and every action we take in his life has consequences, and consequences which last far beyond our lifetimes.  The world we inhabit is the result of all the actions performed by all beings since the beginning of time.  The East has a word for this; it is called Karma.  This is a kind of resurrection we can believe in.
	But maybe we need more.  With today’s mind, we cannot accept the literal truth of the story that was told 2000 years ago in order to get people to accept the real message.  But I for one accept that message.  I think we need a kingdom restored here.  I think we are in a world of trouble, and if we re true to the kernel of Jesus’ teachings, not just the husk in which it was packaged, we will work to bring about resurrection and the kingdom. 
	Sometimes I think we are not so different from the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean in the First Century, as the Roman juggernaut moved in and laid waste to their traditional religions and practices, turning their economies upside down and turning the peasants off their lands.  The family farm has just about disappeared in our generation now, and the empire, the pharaoh, or in our case about five agri-business corporations, control what you will eat. Just as five media corporations control what news you will be allowed to have, and five entertainment conglomerates control what you view and listen to.We are losing control of our lives and some sort of renewal movement is needed here, just as it was in Jesus’ day.  Let us resurrect the true spirit of Jesus.  In the words of Hosea, Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord; his appearing is as sure as the dawn, he will come to us like the showers, like the spring rains that water the earth.”  Let justice roll down like waters, and make all things new.

Amen.