In this article, the author investigates the manifold interpretations that were given to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a topic which has caused many disturbances in the Christian church right from the very beginning and is therefore not a modern phenomenon, although a more critical approach has gained momentum since the
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a much discussed subject. Especially in an era where modernism (rationalism and positivism) and postmodernism determine the scientific debate, there is no place for metaphysics and mythology. Can a body be resurrected or be raised (again) from the dead? It is contrary to every human experience. And yet, this is not (just) a modern question. Even 2000 years ago during the times of Christ, there were Jews (Sadducees) who rejected this option wholeheartedly (Ac 23:8). Also Greek philosophers, like Plato, Epicurus and Stoa, rejected this idea.
The reality of the existence of a person like Jesus Christ, as well as the reality of his crucifixion, can easily be substantiated, but the resurrection of a person – after 3 days – seems to belong to the sphere of fiction. And yet, Christians continue to believe that Christ was raised from the dead and is alive as living Lord. What do they mean by that? Do they really believe that he was resurrected or should this point of view be defined metaphorically?
Should they view Jesus only as a pure human being without any divine characteristics? This ‘humanistic’ approach, that is propagated by the South African Old Testament scholar Sakkie Spangenberg, views him as nothing more than a Jewish prophet and wisdom teacher (Spangenberg
Spangenberg here follows the approach of the Jesus Seminar and the American theologian John Dominic Crossan (
The opposite option is to understand the resurrection of Christ in a hyper-realistic way, as was the case with Lazarus, whose body was resuscitated after 4 days but who eventually died again. Scripture references that indicate this option are the following: Jesus asked his disciples for fish which he ate in their presence (Lk 27:42; see Jn 21:13). He also asked Thomas to put his hand in his side (Jn 20:27; see also Mt 28:9; Jn 20:17). The problem with this approach is that it uses a fundamentalist concept of Scripture interpretation and also ignores other accounts of the resurrected Christ. The fact that Christ could pass through closed doors (Jn 20:26) questions this option. The option of resuscitation leaves us with more questions than answers.
I now turn to the discussion of some of the different theological approaches to the resurrection of Christ that have developed over a period of time.
I start with the classic understanding that most Christian churches and theologians developed from the very beginning of the so-called Christ-event.
With this approach, the resurrection of Christ is not understood in the same way as the resuscitation of Lazarus, who died again. Christ went triumphantly
To understand something of the new state of Christ, the information which Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15 should be applied. He refers here to Christ as the first (
This approach is followed by some of the most prominent theologians in the history of the church.
The church-father Augustine opposed the Gnosticism of his time by emphasising the resurrection from the dead as a pivotal theme in theology. He argued that the bodily resurrection of believers rests on the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Augustinus
The church-reformer Calvin continued this line of thought. He closely relates the resurrection of Christ with the work of Christ: In the death and resurrection of Christ, we find a summary of our perfect salvation (Calvijn
It is interesting to note that Calvin
The eminent Dutch theologian Bavinck agrees with Augustine and Calvin. He views the resurrection of Christ as an impressive part of the faith of the church. Without it the church would not have existed (Bavinck
This classical approach applies not only for Protestants, as mentioned above, but also for Roman Catholic (see Neuner & Dupuis
One may ask: What are the main arguments for this classic pneumatic realism interpretation? I am going to select the most important ones. These are as follow:
There is a consensus among many prolific New Testament scholars
A very important consideration of the fact of the resurrection is the following: In the book of Acts, where we have examples of the first mission sermons, there is no reference
Another significant indication relates to the fact that the message of the risen Christ was preached in a Hellenistic context in which the resurrection of a person was severely questioned (see Van den Brink & Van der Kooi
It seems that already in the New Testament, a purely ‘spiritual’ (and gnostic) interpretation of the resurrection is mentioned but rejected (see 2 Tm 2:17, Hymenaeus and Philetus).
This truth is illustrated by the fact that Paul could summarise the gospel while only referring to the resurrection (which he also did with the cross, 1 Cor 2:2): ‘If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe
It is significant that one of the oldest books in the New Testament refers explicitly to the resurrection of Christ (1 Th 1:9–10; 4:13–18).
All four Gospels, including the one by a medical doctor (Luke), explicitly refer to the resurrection, although with variations. Even Paul tells us that he met the risen Christ.
Paul reflects on the raising of the Lord Jesus as a demonstration of the power of the God of creation (Rm 8:11; 1 Cor 5:14). Would it be impossible for God who created the universe
All four gospel writers, even Paul, mention the appearance of the risen Christ to living persons.
In the whole of the New Testament, the risen Christ is described as living Lord and not as a dead person to whom believers must thankfully relate. Would the early Christians have been willing to die for a dead person who had given them only a wonderful example of a good life? To what must the fast growth of Christianity during the early centuries be attributed? In other words, is there any difference between a Christian’s relation to Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and to Mr Nelson Mandela, on the other, both ‘freedom fighters’, and if so, how should we formulate the difference?
If Jesus was not resurrected, what meaningful interpretation should be given to the empty tomb? (see Berkouwer
The transition of the Sabbath (seventh day) as day of worship to the Sunday (first day) as ‘Day of the Lord’ which took place in the early church can be fully attributed to the fact that Christ was raised from the dead on the Sunday (first day) morning.
It was these kind of considerations that led theologians to the following conclusions:
It is for sure the case that, also in a complete historical sense, there would have been no gospel, not a single message, no letter in the New Testament, no faith, no church, no worship service, no prayer in Christendom up to now without the message of the resurrection of Christ. (Bornkamm
Without the central salvific fact of the resurrection of Christ, there would never have been a New Testament and the religion that is called Christianity would never have existed. (Durand
The resurrection of Jesus is one of the central themes of the Christian faith. The resurrection, together with the cross of Jesus it forms the core of the early Christian speaking about Jesus. (Van de Beek
To this, we may add three other considerations:
How can Western theologians communicate in a sensible way with Eastern Orthodox theologians, who did not experience the
African ever really experienced the full weight of
It is significant that prominent (natural) scientists who were atheists but later became Christians have no problem accepting the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I refer here to one of the world’s most prominent scientists, namely Francis Collins (see Chesterton
One may argue that we do not interpret every article of the
Licona concludes his great study with the following words: ‘I judged that the resurrection hypothesis is by far the best explanation of the historical bedrock’ (Licona
This interpretation has been developed by the South African theologian Jaap Durand in close relationship with Greshake.
… are not meant to be testimonies to the resurrection as event, but testimonies to the risen One as person
… it is neither a miracle, breaking the laws of nature nor a supernatural intervention that can be located and dated in space and time, what happened transcends the limits of history. (p. 9)
The resurrection is not a historical event in the usual sense of the word.
The identity of Christ and the Spirit is central to the metaphor under discussion as well as to Paul’s preaching of the resurrected Lord in general. It must be clear (Durand
the Pauline metaphor of ‘Christ (the Spirit) in us’ is hermeneutically the most suitable point of departure for a theological approach to the resurrection of Christ.
The Pauline metaphor of the indwelling of the risen Christ in us should be taken as the starting point for a theological interpretation of the resurrection of Christ. Through the indwelling of the risen Christ as the life-giving Spirit in me, the past of the cross and the future of my own resurrection become a present reality. As stated by Durand (
The resurrection of Christ is the salvific event by which God irrevocably accepts and fills the fallen creation as his own reality. He unites the human race to himself through the risen and glorified Christ in such a way that he in his Godhead can never again be thought of as being without them. In so doing he retrospectively affirms the incarnation and the cross and in anticipation he guarantees the future consummation. (p. 14)
On the question of what happens with believers after death, Durand (
through the Spirit of the risen Christ the resurrection becomes part of my own life. I am irrevocably united to God, partaking in his eternity. This is the beginning of the resurrection life in me, in fact the beginning of my own resurrection, which comes to completion at the moment of my death. (p. 17)
When Paul refers to ‘body’ in 1 Corinthians 15, we should interpret it as a metaphor which tells us ‘that the same person at the moment of death will live on in a different mode of existence, partaking in the life-giving Spirit of the resurrected Christ’ (Durand
Durand mentions that these views evade the many questions raised by the idea of an intermediate state and although many formulations tend to a one-sided metaphorical approach, he is of the opinion that he does not radically depart from the traditional thought (Durand
This same approach is also followed by the Dutch theologian B. Telder (
The
Bultmann uses the concepts ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ existence, which he borrows from Heidegger, to clarify his approach. A person should cross from an inauthentic existence to an authentic existence – that is from an existence of alienation, anxiety, agony, guilt and finiteness to an existence of liberation and freedom. Such an existence can only be produced by the gospel of the cross and through faith. Salvation means that a person rejects all hope that he or she can arrive at an authentic existence in his or her own strength, because it can only be received by the grace of God (Bultmann
Another author who seems to appreciate the views of Bultmann is the eminent Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng (see
The views of Bultmann not only influenced the debate in Germany and Europe but also captured the attention of a wide range of South African theologians. There are theologians of the Hervormde Kerk (NHKA) that have great appreciation for the stance taken by Bultmann, such as Pelser (
This debate is also carried on in the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) and it is difficult to say whether it has been brought to full clarity (see Gaum
I now turn in more detail to the views of the South African theologian Klaus Nürnberger. I do so because he is one of the prominent theologians in South Africa, well-informed, a man of intelligent argumentation and always thought-provoking. His approach to contextualise the biblical message for modern persons and to take careful note of the contribution of science in this regard is extremely important. It will become clear, however, that Nürnberger questions the traditional interpretation of the resurrection and closely relates to the approach of Bultmann.
In 1975, Nürnberger was the first South African to publish a full study on systematic theology (in Afrikaans), called
It is imperative to understand his basic motivation, namely to take the historical nature of the biblical Scriptures seriously and to make the ancient message plausible to our contemporaries. For this reason, he has adopted the approach of experiential realism – according to 1 Corinthians 9:19–23.
The author assists us by giving us a summary of his message in a nutshell at the beginning of his book, which I will now summarise to clarify his way of thinking because it is important for his understanding of the resurrection.
He starts by saying that theology is the quest of believers for an understanding of what they believe, which means that faith comes first and then follows theology. Religious faith is the intuition that reality is derived from a transcendent Source and headed towards a transcendent Destiny, while theology seeks to clarify this intuition. And then follows what may be called the essence of the whole argument (Nürnberger
Christian faith responds to the ‘
As far as the biblical material is concerned, the author focuses on Genesis and Deuteronomy, Paul and his school, the Synoptic Gospels and the writings of John.
The Word of God is not described as a static entity but as a Word that emerged and evolved in human history in the form of a
In the face of all contradictory indications, we believe this reality to be the ever new outcome of God’s creative power and benevolent intentionality. Faith is therefore always a
The author views it as the task of theology to provide a reasonably comprehensive and consistent overview of the Christian faith as a whole.
How does Nürnberger view the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
It is interesting that he prefers to use the concept ‘elevation’ instead of ‘resurrection’ to describe what happened to Christ after his crucifixion and burial. For Nürnberger, the cross of Christ is ‘the core of the New Testament message’ (Nürnberger
The idea of a bodily resurrection of Christ is untenable. Science excludes the message of a real resurrection of Christ. ‘The risen Christ is the
‘Resurrection is not a
In another study, Nürnberger (
The question now arises whether there is any difference between the views of Nürnberger and that of Bultmann. Although he sometimes criticises Bultmann (Nürnberger
‘Bultmann indeed influenced me because through him I understood, for the first time, that we must distinguish between the intended meaning of the message and its packaging in ancient world-views that are no longer immediately plausible for us today.’
With this view, Nürnberger radically deviates from the views which he defended in his systematic theology of 1975 where he rejected the stance of Bultmann (Nürnberger
As is the case with Bultmann’s, Nürnberger’s approach raises some serious questions of which I am going to mention some.
It is clear that Nürnberger differentiates between faith and science and also interrelates them. The question which arises is how can we actively avoid that science dominates and overrules faith to such an extent that faith becomes superfluous? How can we avoid scientism? If science tells us that the universe, which started with a Big Bang, will one day collapse in a Big Crunch which will be the end of the universe,
The following question becomes unavoidable: How can we hold on to the basic gospel message of the cross and the resurrection on the one hand while accepting the effect of the modern world view and science on the meaning of that gospel and thus dehistoricising and demythologising the resurrection on the other hand? In other words, how should we use the results of science in such a way that it does not change the essence of the gospel message, thus avoiding scientism?
Christian faith hopes for the total renewal of the universe as God’s final plan with his creation.
In a personal e-mail conversation (K. Nürnberger, pers. comm., 11 Jun. 2017) with Nürnberger, he assured me of the following, which I quote:
For KN science does not have the last word, because (a) in terms of the current worldview it is always provisional and (b) in terms of the redemptive intentionality of God as it manifested itself in Christ it has nothing to say whatsoever.
Christ is alive for KN. He has written a whole chapter on the elevation of Christ. He used the word ‘elevation’ of Christ rather than ‘
My approach of experiential realism is based on 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 – becoming all things to all people – thus driven by a missionary agenda.
We have travelled a long way in search of an answer on the question how we should interpret the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a question which involves the interpretation of Scripture, the relation between faith and science, Christology and in the end eschatology. We had a look –
It seems that this whole debate boils down to one simple question: what is the essence of the gospel: the cross
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
After a careful analysis of the views of the ‘New Reformers’, Durand (
See in this regard the profound criticism of Wright (
See in this regard the many confessions of the Christian churches worldwide.
I follow here the advice of Noordmans (
See Calvijn
See, for instance, H.N. Ridderbos, G. Sevenster, H. Conzelmann, G. Bornkam., O. Cullmann; N.T. Wright; S. Joubert, T. van der Walt, A.B. du Toit, J. van der Watt.
Nürnberger (
See Nürnberger
See Heidelberg Catechism 16.44.
Greshake presented the resurrection as an event that takes place for individuals already at the moment of death, not at the last day; those who die move on at once from time to eternity, to the presence of the last day, to the return of Christ, to the resurrection and the judgement. See Pannenberg’s (
See McGrath (
See the remark of Karl Barth on Küng’s book
See in this regard the critical debate between Pelser (
See Heyns (
See the critical reaction of König (
See Nürnberger
See here the classic Reformed Form for the Lord’s Supper where participants are reminded not to cling with their hearts unto the bread and wine
See
See Collins (
It must be acknowledged that scientists disagree on this matter: While Hawking (
On the relationship between faith and science, see also Van Huyssteen (
In an article on the new heaven and the new earth, Nürnberger writes as follows:
Finally, there will be no death in God’s eschatological future. Or expressed in cosmic terms, the process of entropy will be superseded by a new creation. That is the hardest nut to crack for a modern scientifically informed consciousness. (Nürnberger
Wilkinson (
See the following hesitant formulation of Nürnberger ( When faced with the prospect of eternal