Yesterday I touched on how in focusing so much on the physicality of the resurrection of Jesus, it is possible that we sometimes can miss important implications.
But what happens when we dismiss the actuality of resurrection to something that merely takes place in our hearts?
Is it essential that an actual, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus took place?
I think so.
It would seem to me that the Christian eschatological hope relies heavily on And is even inaugurated on the event that took place surrounding that garden tomb. When Paul is speaking of the resurrection, he says that if Christ didn't raise from the dead then there is no hope of a future resurrection of the dead.
Now I know that this doesn't prove anything concerning a physical resurrection. So why do I hold to a physical resurrection?
I echo what Tony Jones wrote about last year concerning an actual resurrection. He talks about the importance of a real resurrection because we are real people. We are not metaphors.
I think it to be extremely helpful to try and understand, the best we can, the meaning and some implications of resurrection to those living in the 1st century.
What did an actual resurrection mean for Jesus' followers who had devoted at least 3 years of their lives to him?
What did it mean for those who were oppressed by an empire, but found hope and freedom in this man named Jesus who proclaimed the good news of a different Kingdom?
What did The news of the resurrection sound like to those who were crippled, possessed, and unclean and therefore, were banned from entering into the temple (presence of God) until Jesus (really) touched them and (really) healed them?
So does it matter to those who are sick, unclean, crippled, blind, possessed, addicted, hurt, scared, suffering, and of course dead that a real resurrection took place?
I believe so.