The resurrection of Christ is a claim that lies at the heart of Christian thought. It is a claim that meets with a lot of questions. From historians, there is the question of is it true. From the theologian, the philosopher and the spiritualist, there is the question whether the truth of the claim is material to the idea of Christianity. It is the second question that I am going to write about here.
Many commentators from different disciplinary areas have admired the Sermon on the Mount and assorted sayings of Christ for its clarity, the continued relevance of the sayings to the present days and philosophical consistency. Often, they detach it from the claim of the resurrection and say that it is not material for our spiritual development. In this, there could be two categories of people. One, for those whom the speaker and the spoken are two different things and for others the spoken (and the done) are the only ways of defining the speaker and often the spoken is the speaker. For the latter, the saying from Christ, 'Before Abraham, I AM' is a strong indicator of his claim that he was indeed divine. For them, it has to be either true or false and if it is false, the questions about other things he said about kingdom of God, God etc becomes difficult to accept at face value because here was an intentional lier. And then the ethics that flows from it will have to be examined carefully. Clearly, I am taking a side on the issue of whether he actually said that. I am also talking specifically about taking the word of a person because you know him to be a truthful person. Not about applying your reason to examine what he said and then taking a call on the truth of it.
Now, for those to whom the speaker is immaterial and the spoken words are the only matters at hand, those who want to apply their reason.......it is to them that I have to make an argument and a claim. There is a part in Christ's statement about turning the other cheek. When faced with violent action, do not defend yourself, let alone counter attack. What is the basis for it? It is a clear call to adopt non violence as a principle and not merely as a principle. What can be the world view in which that is doable. When faced with the massive scale of violence of a Hitler, Winston Churchill called for arms against Hitler, Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler. What explains the difference. In my view, this one call from Christ to turn the other cheek is the clear marker of the boundaries of the temporal earthly kingdom and the glorious eternal kingdom of God. Without a glorious eternity, it is difficult to conceive a reasoning for turning the other cheek. Our history of the world does not give us enough reasons to do that. The demands of establishing peace and a reign of fairness and love in any time bound manner (whatever be the length of time) demands some form of violence to counter the 'violence of the evil'. The more massive the scale of violence, the less time we can tolerate. Which is why Barack Obama, in spite of his best attempts to adopt the Gandhian world view on non violence, had to concede that he cannot abjure violence as the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He chose to concede this when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
But when you do have a glorious eternity to think about, one has the option of turning the other cheek. Without the belief in a glorious eternity, one cannot cross the final frontier of the earthly kingdom and turn the other cheek. And I am not saying eternity. I am saying glorious eternity. For if there is no value for eternity, again one is left with no meaning or purpose for turning the other cheek. That begets the question, what is eternal. It is timelessness and what exists eternally. The only thing that is eternal is God. And God is glorious in himself. There is no cause for God's glory. He is uncaused and his attributes are uncaused. If there is a glorious eternal and it matters to us (if we take turning the other cheek seriously), then we must think of what is beyond death. And it is here that the Christian claim of resurrection comes in. There is eternity and death is not an end. There is a God who can transcend death. And the only basis we have for that claim is the resurrection of Christ. In the absence of that, one questions the claim of eternity. When one questions the claim of eternity, one questions the sagacity of turning the other cheek. So for that saying of Christ to hold true, resurrection is his only argument. Of course, you can choose to apply your mind and pick what you want and leave what you dont want from what Christ said.
Many commentators from different disciplinary areas have admired the Sermon on the Mount and assorted sayings of Christ for its clarity, the continued relevance of the sayings to the present days and philosophical consistency. Often, they detach it from the claim of the resurrection and say that it is not material for our spiritual development. In this, there could be two categories of people. One, for those whom the speaker and the spoken are two different things and for others the spoken (and the done) are the only ways of defining the speaker and often the spoken is the speaker. For the latter, the saying from Christ, 'Before Abraham, I AM' is a strong indicator of his claim that he was indeed divine. For them, it has to be either true or false and if it is false, the questions about other things he said about kingdom of God, God etc becomes difficult to accept at face value because here was an intentional lier. And then the ethics that flows from it will have to be examined carefully. Clearly, I am taking a side on the issue of whether he actually said that. I am also talking specifically about taking the word of a person because you know him to be a truthful person. Not about applying your reason to examine what he said and then taking a call on the truth of it.
Now, for those to whom the speaker is immaterial and the spoken words are the only matters at hand, those who want to apply their reason.......it is to them that I have to make an argument and a claim. There is a part in Christ's statement about turning the other cheek. When faced with violent action, do not defend yourself, let alone counter attack. What is the basis for it? It is a clear call to adopt non violence as a principle and not merely as a principle. What can be the world view in which that is doable. When faced with the massive scale of violence of a Hitler, Winston Churchill called for arms against Hitler, Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler. What explains the difference. In my view, this one call from Christ to turn the other cheek is the clear marker of the boundaries of the temporal earthly kingdom and the glorious eternal kingdom of God. Without a glorious eternity, it is difficult to conceive a reasoning for turning the other cheek. Our history of the world does not give us enough reasons to do that. The demands of establishing peace and a reign of fairness and love in any time bound manner (whatever be the length of time) demands some form of violence to counter the 'violence of the evil'. The more massive the scale of violence, the less time we can tolerate. Which is why Barack Obama, in spite of his best attempts to adopt the Gandhian world view on non violence, had to concede that he cannot abjure violence as the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He chose to concede this when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
But when you do have a glorious eternity to think about, one has the option of turning the other cheek. Without the belief in a glorious eternity, one cannot cross the final frontier of the earthly kingdom and turn the other cheek. And I am not saying eternity. I am saying glorious eternity. For if there is no value for eternity, again one is left with no meaning or purpose for turning the other cheek. That begets the question, what is eternal. It is timelessness and what exists eternally. The only thing that is eternal is God. And God is glorious in himself. There is no cause for God's glory. He is uncaused and his attributes are uncaused. If there is a glorious eternal and it matters to us (if we take turning the other cheek seriously), then we must think of what is beyond death. And it is here that the Christian claim of resurrection comes in. There is eternity and death is not an end. There is a God who can transcend death. And the only basis we have for that claim is the resurrection of Christ. In the absence of that, one questions the claim of eternity. When one questions the claim of eternity, one questions the sagacity of turning the other cheek. So for that saying of Christ to hold true, resurrection is his only argument. Of course, you can choose to apply your mind and pick what you want and leave what you dont want from what Christ said.
