what do we know about the resurrection

really

i think we can discount what Jesus said at least in a few occasions, especially when he was clearly being provocative, trying to shake people out of complacency. this is the case in many instances. for example the often debated marriage answer. it’s obvious to me from the context and the inferred tone that it’s tongue in cheek (it was a stupid question, and Jesus got a lot of them in the gospels; i can imagine he got a lot more that we never got to hear about and laugh at). but the tongue in cheek answer happened to be recorded, and so became gospel (aha).

beyond the tone and context, we have another, better piece of evidence: the scene with Jesus after his resurrection, in which he says to the Magdalene (who is, by all laws of intertextual logic, his wife), that they will indeed be together in the resurrection. in fact, he clearly says that, in this intermediate state, in which he is already resurrected but she is not yet, they cannot be together like that until their existential mismatch is resolved; this, coupled with what Jesus can partake with others in a similar existential mismatch, like food and conversation, implies that marriage is more complicated and requires an even larger existential consonance than, say, friendship.

but this is my point: if we want to know specific things about the resurrection we should look more to his experience afterward, more than what he says about it beforehand (and often with contexts that are very tendentious and with added pressures, such as public speaking). especially since he had a very provocative style of speech, and precisely more so when speaking to people outside his close group of friends and family.

consider bread and wine. his flesh and blood, he said to the people, and they must, they just must, eat and drink it. otherwise they would have no salvation. for a man who consistently is said and shown to hide his deepest and most radical teachings from the crowd and only share them in private with his inner circle, he made quite a spectacle out of this mystically cannibalistic practice. and his audience was composed of people who did not eat pork, and this tradition goes back to the preoccupation with unwittingly eating human flesh (long pork, as is sometimes described for culinary purposes), as well as a specific prohibition of consuming any kind of blood.

so it’s quite likely that he was being hyperbolic and provocative, again. (the catholics especially make a strange mess of trying to say that it is and it is not his literal flesh and blood, that it really highlights how ridiculous the question is). to his inner group his tone is changed, and in Luke he says: ‘do this in remembrance of me’, which is so much more down to earth as to clash with the shocking statement. and as for John, the author almost skips the meal entirely, and focuses on his loving service to his disciples (and his indirect facing of Judas’ betrayal). and also important, he says in Mark that he won’t drink wine again until he is in the new kingdom; and indeed, while eating is mentioned after (Jesus asks specifically for food, and eats fish), drink is nowhere mentioned. this suggests to me the same sort of deal as with marriage; it’s too important, must be saved for later, after the existential mismatch is resolved.

Jesus had to know how shocking his words were to people so guilty of small minded literalism and fanatism, and how they would react. those who were against him already, resolved to take action. those on the fence, abandoned him finally. only the close friends and family remained. plus the one who would betray him, and it was finally time for Jesus to go (he had already completed his mission; Lazarus was the proof, the trial; to himself, as well as to others).

the whole question of literal versus symbolic flesh and blood is as i said very silly, and both sides fail to take the real lesson, which is about, first, friendship and presence, and second, that it is as much about nourishment and wholeness, as it is about reverie and intoxication (in jewish tradition as well as many others, the blood is said to be where the soul lives, hence the prohibition of consuming it; Jesus seems to be saying that this intoxication aspect is thus at the center; man does not live by bread alone).

religious people today tend to ignore the importance of simple, human feelings and simple, human experiences. especially those of a pleasurable kind, possibly because they are so easy to achieve. for a person in Jesus time to have a great meal was probably more of an event.

but what we see Jesus do after the resurrection is essentially, or on the surface, rather trivial: he meets his friends, talks to them, and eats. simple, loving activities. while also specifically saving more, say, intoxicating experiences for later (like wine, and marriage).

another significant thing is that the wounds remain. what a powerful statement. or we could believe it was all for show, including his changed appearance, so that he is not recognized immediately even by the people closest to him. the authors of the gospels are at the very least competent story tellers even if you don’t believe they are honest or infallible; the presence of this seeming contradiction has to be purposeful. on the surface it makes no sense to have an enhanced appearance and also still have wounds from his previous life. but Jesus is shown to have them.

i think what it means is that the resurrection is not a rejection of life on earth, but an continuation; if it was only enhancement, then everything about this life would be shed; but the wounds to insist on its significance; the wounds remain because they cannot be redeemed or erased, but they can be built upon and overcome.

it’s easy to become obsessed with great cosmic mysteries but perhaps the hardest and most holy thing is to make the simple things meaningful. and it doesn’t happen on its own. it needs our participation, as does everything.

this is part of the reason why i stopped writing the kind of speculative stories that i used to and have since been trying to capture the potential for holiness in daily life, the specific struggles inherent in that pursuit, and the inevitable failures, too. obviously the stakes are much lower, the scope much narrower, and the excitement much smaller, than destroying the one ring, or surviving a zombie apocalypse, but they may be just as important on an individual level. to make the mundane otherwordly.

Jesus at least seemed to be excited about meeting his friends, and sharing a meal with them, after the great cosmic event of being resurrected. perhaps the ideal is to be excited for the same, even before we die.