The fact of the Resurrection

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32775, 27 November 1971, Page 10

The fact of the Resurrection

(Reviewed by J.0.R.) Resurrection —A Symbol of Hope. By - Lloyd Geering. Hodder and Stoughton. 256 pp. Professor Geering is quite convinced that the traditional belief in the Resurrection of Jesus by which it is contended that the self-identity of Jesus continued beyond his crucifixion is false. The original belief of the disciples did not include such an event. Rather, each knew a wonderful apprehension of truth as a result of the contemplation of the love-to-the-limit life of Jesus which ended in the Crucifixion. This experience was felt to be ultimate for man in that it revealed both what man really could be, and also bore upon it the stamp of divine approval. The Gospels, which were written much later than this event, in Professor Geering’s opinion reveal a confused picture. Some witnesses think that the empty tomb is significant. Others do not mention the empty tomb. Some talk of the resurrection of the body, but others refer to this only in a spiritual sense. Professor Geering sees in this confusion an attempt on the part of the evangelists to look for language to describe this great experience. Fortunately for them, near at hand was a resurrection language which had developed from old nature myths illustrating the battle between life and death. The Jews had transformed these myths and applied them to their own history. So it was that they looked forward to an end point in time when their national destiny would be clearly revealed to all by God as divinely ordained. Such was their assurance that they were God’s people that by the time of Christ many Jews could only contemplate their martyrs as living beyond the grave, exalted to the nearer presence of God. It is understandable that the disciples should eagerly turn to such an idiom to describe the significance of their great existential experience. So it is that Professor Geering says that the Easter faith precedes any statements about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He further adds with approval that the concept of existence beyond the grave is meaningless to a twentieth century man. - What can be said about this position? Undoubtedly, the resolution of the debate between New Testament scholars as to what the documents in the New Testament say actually occurred will decide whether Professor Geering is right or wrong. This debate has not concluded yet, and we must await what scholars will finally say is their considered opinion. Professor Geering ought to have admitted that there are still many scholars who disagree with him. Logically, there are a number of implications that are raised by Professor Geering’s conclusions. One could agree with Professor Geering’s point of view and never use the word God. The resurrection experience could be precipitated by a concentration on Jesus and there would be no’need to say that God either existed or was involved at all. This is rather strange for churchfolk to accept, as it represents only a form of Christian humanism. Another problem which poses itself to the reviewer’s mind is that Professor Geering seems to give more importance to resurrection language than to the event itself. If Jesus had in fact risen bodily from the dead then all the past resurrection language would have had to be adapted to this new event. Professor Geering, by contrast, says, that if there had been no resurrection language then we would not have heard anything of the resurrection from the