• Augustine Pamplany CST

Is Jesus risen from the Dead? Traditionally, faith has its strong response in the affirmative. Undisputedly, as a supernatural mystery, resurrection is very much a matter of faith. The primacy of faith in the mystery of resurrection does not invalidate the scope of the rational and logical appropriation of the factuality of resurrection. Although a rational analysis of the historical accounts of the resurrection narratives may appear to be a speculative luxury to the innocent believers, such an attempt is all the more an imperative in the post-truth era where perennial truths are often portrayed as mythical and obsolete.

The Unimpeachable Honesty of the Gospels

As for an objective seeker or a confused sceptic, the overall scenario in which the narratives of resurrection unfolds themselves becomes a compelling landscape challenging any treatment of resurrection as a wishful fantasy. There is an unimpeachable honesty and integrity to the Gospels which bestow credibility to the accounts of resurrection. Compared to conventional biographers and writers, evangelists are unique and distinct to keenly disclose the dark shades of the major actors who are close to Jesus. Normally, autobiographies and biographies are vulnerable to selective writing highlighting only the flowery side of the personality of the subjects, skipping the unpleasant elements. The gospels have the diametrically opposite pedagogy of proclaiming failures and deceits with drumbeat from the mountaintop.
When the evangelists were narrating the arrest of Jesus, they had no hesitation to lay down for history the three denials of the main disciple, Peter. Biblical scholarship has it that probably Peter insisted with the evangelists to mention his denials and all evangelists were unanimous in nakedly describing this disturbing episode. Despite the brevity of narratives, they are loaded with the plights, fowls, falls, deceits and confessions of the persons close to Jesus. Evangelists did not shy away from crying out for posterity that “Then all his disciples deserted him and ran away” (Mk 14:50). How tempting it would have been for conventional authors to hush up such disastrous turnarounds at the momentous hour of reckoning! The evangelists did not try to hide the fact they were drowsy when the Master had been sweating blood: “And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, ‘So, could you not watch with me one hour?’” (Mt 26:40). As for the evangelist Mathew, the only self-reference in the Gospel according to him is to highlight his own unpleasant background as a tax collector! (Mt 9:9). It appears as though every bit and every cell of the person and tools of the evangelists bore the imprints of honesty, genuineness and authenticity.
The rational veracity and credence of the resurrection is to be appropriated within this overarching scheme of the irreproachable honesty of the Gospels. “Whoever is faithful in small matters will be faithful in large ones; whoever is dishonest in small matters will be dishonest in large ones” (Lk 16:10). Evangelists were faithful not just in small matters, but in the most challenging circumstances. As regards the resurrection, it is unreasonable to think that they would wield their crude imaginations to fabricate the most decisive turning point in their narration of the salvation history. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the integrity of the evangelists complement the credulity of the Resurrection of the Jesus. Faith in resurrection is not an evasive intuition, rather it is complemented by reason and logic.
Yet another important corroborative fact that further consolidates the stream of argument above is the apparent difference or even contradictions in the resurrection narratives. All four evangelists have their own narratives of the resurrection. The subjective inspirations and experiences of the evangelists, sometimes seemingly contradictory, have found their inroads into their narratives of the resurrection of Christ. The contradictions in the historical details of the narratives only confirm the compelling force of the individual experiences of the authors. It is suggestive of the historical as well as the trans-historical nature of the mystery of resurrection.

“The basic idea of the profession of faith in the resurrection of the bodies is that the matter with which our bodies are composed is not ultimately destined to be doomed, rather to be glorified.”

Mark’s gospel was written first and Mathew, Luke and John had Mark’s version with them when they wrote their gospels. However, no author tried to wipe out the differences or to present a uniform description of the resurrection to make it appealing to the readers. Although that might have been the natural logical way, that would have reduced the mystery of resurrection to the mere empirical standards of scientific objectivity. The rich elusiveness of the mystery of resurrection is well captured in the seemingly different narratives of resurrection by different evangelists. Differences in narrations are not contradictory, but only complement the historical as well as trans-historical nature of resurrection. Differences or even contradictions in narratives only strengthen the truth of the historicity of the resurrection. A single historical event open to diverse individual experiences results in diverse layers of expressions of the experience! The historical resurrection, while being fully historical, cannot be subsumed exclusively to historical frameworks. That is how the fuller nuances of resurrection ever remains to be grappled with faith.

Who Moved the Stone?

This argument in the historicity of the resurrection of Christ is vindicated by the personal faith odyssey of the English writer Albert Henry Ross, popularly known as Frank Morrison. Ross was a sceptic who used his analytical and legal scruples to prove that resurrection story was a myth. The ironical result of rigorous scrutiny of the evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ by Ross was the publication of Who Moved the Stone, in 1930. It is now considered as one of the best resources in Christian apologetics. It explains in succinct detail his journey from scepticism to faith.
Ross began his study with the professed intent to investigate the events surrounding resurrection with a critical eye. Through meticulous research and analysis of historical sources, including the Gospel accounts, Ross systematically examined the events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion, the burial, and the subsequent empty tomb. Ross carefully dissected various theories proposed to explain away the resurrection. He found that swoon theory (Jesus did not actually die on the cross) and the conspiracy theory (Jesus’ followers stole his body from the tomb) lacked any credibility. He also carefully examined the character of the disciples, their reactions to Jesus’ death and resurrection, and the transformation they underwent after witnessing these events.
As Ross continued his investigation, contrary to his professed intent, he became increasingly convinced of the truth of the resurrection. In a compelling and engaging narrative, Ross ultimately concluded that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the most plausible explanation for the events surrounding his death and the empty tomb. He held that it is not resurrection but its negation that lacks evidence: “Men deny the resurrection today not because of the evidence, but in spite of it. …The real heart of the problem of the empty tomb lies not in the evidence, but in the philosophy of life that controls the conclusions.” He thinks that the world is incapable of disproving resurrection to date. “What then are we to make of this strange story—that three days after He was laid to rest, Jesus of Nazareth came forth from the tomb alive? The world has tried to solve that problem for almost two thousand years, and it has failed.” Countering the arguments to the contrary, he refuses to consider the event of resurrection as one of the miracles stories of the early Christian community. He said, “The empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus alive after His death are no longer to be regarded simply as part of that vast mass of miracle stories which was such a prominent characteristic of early Christian literature.”

Thou art Dust! Thou Shall “Fly”!

The resurrection of Christ instils the hope in the resurrection of all the dead. The basic idea of the profession of faith in the resurrection of the bodies is that the matter with which our bodies are composed is not ultimately destined to be doomed, rather to be glorified! Thou art dust! But Thou art not meant to return to dust! Rather, thou shall get wings to fly! Thou shall transcend!
Does this hope in the resurrection of the bodies have any rational ground? Although theological mysteries are not meant to be proved by natural sciences, recent developments in physical and mental sciences have bestowed greater respectability to belief in the resurrection. Matter is no longer the dead, passive and inert stuff of the old materialism. Analogically it is vibrant with consciousness or in religious terms, with the spirit of God. It was not without a reason that the Church Father Gregory of Nyssa said that matter is the energy of God.

The Physics of Immortality

The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead is a famous book by physicist Frank Tipler, published in 1994. This book offers a scientifically speculative plausibility of the eventual resurrection of all humans, combining ideas from cosmology, quantum physics, and theology. Tipler introduces the concept of the Omega Point, a hypothetical state in the distant future. As the entropy of the universe reaches its maximum it will reverse and this would allow for the resurrection of all past individuals. Omega Point represents the fulfilment of the entire purpose of the cosmos where all knowledge and consciousness will converge. Tipler speculates that developments in technology will allow one day to resurrect individuals by reconstructing their consciousness from historical data stored in the universe’s ultimate computer.
Tipler’s idea of individual and cosmic resurrection, founded heavily on speculative and unproven assumptions, significantly differs from the Christian vision. However, it is loaded with theological overtones. Tipler argues that the Omega Point can be interpreted as a scientific validation of religious beliefs in the afterlife and divine intervention.
It may be recollected in this context that St. Paul had envisaged the transcendence of the entire creation in the fullness of time. “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; . . . the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now” (Rm 8:19-22). On a poetic note, shall we say that it is the same beauty that was transformed on Mount Tabor that transforms itself into plants, trees, flowers and butterflies? Or that the entire universe is a Mount Tabor, in the miracles of which His face shines like the sun and his clothes becoming as dazzling as light?

Emptiness on the Cross and the Empty Tomb

Night yields the stars! Sprout is the gift of the broken womb of the grain! Christ’s resurrection was not without its own irony. The Cosmic Pasch was achieved by the Christic Lamb. The emptiness on the cross was the ransom for the empty tomb. The most eloquent of the solitary lamentations in history burst out from the deep recesses of the worst spiritual, and psychological emptiness – el el lama sabachthani! Expressing the most intimate sentiments require the powerful medium of one’s mother tongue itself. Evangelists did not fail to capture the intensity of this worst kenosis as they put it in the original Aramaic.
All physical tortures might have been joyful to him as the Father was with him as the unencumbered presence and ache of His heart. But at the point of el el lama sabachthani, He did suffer; For, he lost his Father. Moments before the Son of God died, as for Him, His Father Died. He lost his Faith! He is now a hapless atheist! The moment He wanted His Father most, His Father abandoned Him! This is the peak of Kenosis. The spiritual emptiness of the cross is the worst of the self-emptying kenosis. Well, this was a moment of resurrection too! The insurmountable and invincible Spirit of the “godless” Christ refuses to give up! “Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit!” Christ’s leap into the darkness! Resurrection was already anticipated on the emptiness of the Cross.
In as much as the empty tomb, the Cross with Crucified Christ is also a proclamation of the resurrection of the bodies and of the entire world. Resurrection was already carved in invisible silence on the cross. As the English theologian Arthur Peacocke writes, “If Jesus is indeed the paradigm, and paragon, of the potential unity of the created with the Creator, then the tragedy of his actual human life can be seen as a drawing back of the curtain to unveil a God suffering in and with the sufferings of creative and created man and so implicitly, by a natural extension, with all creation. Jesus then is, as it were, a bearer of God’s pain, the pain of the creative process.”
“Light bring sorrow, my child, darkness is bliss!” Thus goes the mystical lines of the renowned Malayalam poet Akkitham Achuthan Namboothiri. These lines were carved out of the mystical appropriation of sorrow and suffering in the Buddhist philosophy. Shedding a few drop of tears daily on account of the sorrows of the world is the mission and ministry of every human being. That cosmic empathetic gesture is a beautiful exercise in the homework for Resurrection!