Jesus' resurrection has a history, not just a historical fact (Lk 24:1-12)

Easter is a time to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. But how do we understand the resurrection of Jesus? Resurrection of Jesus gives hope to those whose loved are died. Also resurrection of Jesus is an evidence of that Jesus is Lord, and he overcomes death. These understandings are justified, but according to Luke, the angels provide a different understanding. They said,

Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. (24:6-7, 9:22)

This is not just to remind the women that Jesus had already told them about his resurrection, and therefore, they should not be afraid. But rather this is to remind them that Jesus’ resurrection has to be understood in the sense of suffering, unfair treatment and being killed. The word, remember, has a special meaning in Luke. It reminds us Jesus’ word in the last supper, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’. In this sense, resurrection is not just a very general description of the future of a dying life. Rather resurrection is a response to a life that is killed violently and unjustly. Resurrection of Jesus is not just a historical fact, but also has a history. What is the history of Jesus' resurrection?

First, it is about why Jesus was handed over to sinners. It is because Jesus challenges the religious rules that construct boundary between people, and he takes the side of the marginalized. It is because he preaches the kingdom of God that challenges the power of religious authorities. It is because he violates the social order by promoting a new family that is not bounded by marriage, giving birth and blood. This is the history of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. If crucifixion is a no to Jesus’ option, I would say resurrection then is a yes to Jesus’ option.

Second, it is about who these sinners were. In Lk 9, they are elders, priest and scribes, but in Lk 24, they are sinners. They are not general sinners like you and I, but they are sinners, because they know what they have done is wrong, but they refuse to follow what the truth is. Even though they find no reason to put Jesus into death, they lie by accusing Jesus as revolutionary against the Roman Empire. They are sinners because they have lost their conscience and let selfish and greedy dominate. In this sense, the resurrection of Jesus is a threat to the sinners. On the one hand, they are afraid of being revenged for what they have done. On the other hand, they are afraid of their hypocrisy being revealed. The resurrection of Jesus disallows darkness.

Third, it is about what they did on Jesus. Even though the Roman governor Pontius Pilate finds Jesus no guilty, but the sinners do not allow him to release Jesus. They want Jesus to be crucified, but put the blame on the Romans so that they are clean. Killing is a method to make people keep silence. On the one way, the victim is no longer able to speak out, for he is killed. On the other hand, this threatens other to keep silence, for they do not want to be killed. Resurrection of Jesus is to challenge that killing is not the powerful weapon as one thinks. The death cannot accuse, but resurrection can. In this sense, resurrection is a prosecution of any brutal and inhuman act.

These are the background for our understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, that is, the triumph of the truth, shining the darkness, and a prosecution of any brutal and inhuman act. Nevertheless, the church is inclined to understand the resurrection of Jesus ahistorically and individually. As a result, we are unable to respond the political and economic world theologically. Also, the sinners are longer afraid of Jesus' resurrection.

Since Jesus’ resurrection is a no to any anti-life action and a prosecution of anti-life, what would the church do in the current event of 貨櫃搬運工人工業行動? What are the anti-life elements in treating the workers? Since Jesus’ resurrection is a challenge to the sinners who trample the life of others, what would the church do in the current event of貨櫃搬運工人工業行動? Who are these sinners? Are they contracters, capitalism, and others?

I have no intention to politicize the resurrection of Jesus, but the early church knows that resurrection of Jesus has a history, and to believe of Jesus' resurrection would bring them to trouble. We Christian can't avoid of getting into politics, because Jesus is resurrected.

John 12:1-8 An ethic of thanksgiving

If you have the amount of money equivalence to 300 days’ wages of a worker (300 denarii), how would you spend? Would you agree with Mary spending this amount of money for Jesus? Or would you agree with Judas that the money should be spent for the poor? Ethically speaking, utilitarianism would consider that the happiness spending 300 denarii on the poor is happier than on Jesus, for more people would be benefited. Besides, the need of the poor is more urgent than the need of Jesus. Therefore, spending the money on the poor is a good choice. On the other hand, deontologists would consider right that matters. Right here is applied to a universal principle. Helping the poor is morally right, while spending the money on perfume is one’s right, but this is not a matter of morally right. Being morally right is more worth than an emphasis on one’s right. Although one’s right should not be violated, we have the right to criticize. This happens to the most recent TV show 《叻哥游世界》, and he is criticized as extravagant. Most probably, Jesus would agree with utilitarianism and deontological ethics, but he defends Mary’s doing by saying that ‘she bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’ Does Jesus agree that it is right to have an expensive funeral?

Jesus’ comment reflects that it is understandable to spend extra money for the deceased, but this is not about the necessity of having an expensive funeral. However, I am puzzled that Mary has had any vantage knowledge of Jesus’ death so that she brought the perfume for his burial. In fact, Mary used the perfume for Jesus during his meal, not his burial. Why does Jesus say that ‘she bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial’? First, it is a way to defend what Mary has done. Second, Jesus makes use of it as a reminder to his disciples that he is soon to be killed. Now, we return to the basic question: How does Mary justify spending 300 days’ wages of a worker for perfume for Jesus if this is not a matter of exercising one’s right? Why does Jesus allow her to do it?

Since Mary’s brother Lazarus was in the feast (John 12:1-2), I would say that what Mary did was an act of thanksgiving, for Jesus brought her brother’s life back. An ethic of thanksgiving is beyond an ethic of utilitarianism and deontological ethics. First, an ethic of thanksgiving is about a conversion from a life of calculability to a life of appreciation. Thanksgiving is not a result of a rational calculation of return to what someone has done something for you, but a sense of appreciation of what someone has done something for you. Basically, a life of calculability is a kind of consumer’s mentality. Since a consumer’s mentality is about the right to receive what I have paid, there is no thank you. One may say thank you is possible, because it is free. There is no room of appreciation. Judas is dominated by the life of calculability, and as a result, he is not only unable to appreciate what Mary has done for his Master, but also full of discontent. On the contrary, Mary knows exactly how much she has done for Jesus cannot repay what Jesus has done for her and her family. She learns to say thank you, appreciate and feel happy.

Second, an ethic of thanksgiving is about one’s conversion from a stranger- relationship to an encounter-relationship. A stranger-relationship has no intention to build up any kind of relation. A stranger-relationship is dominated by rules and principles, and lack of人情味. This is something like the blindfold of Lady Justice, but everyday life is not the court. 人情味 allows one to treat other in a way not necessarily bound by principles and rules, but in a flexible way. Due to人情味, the shop-owner in the market does not collect the exact amount of money I am supposed to pay. Besides, the shop-owner will keep something good for me. An encounter-relationship requires one not only to see the other as a communicable person, but also a person calling me. I would say that God’s forgiveness is a kind of人情味. It is illogical and irrational, but treats me human. Jesus shows appreciation to Mary’s doing, for it is人情味 between them.

Would you agree with Mary spending this amount of money for Jesus? Or would you agree with Judas that the money should be spent for the poor? The issue is not the decision-making, but an ethic of thanksgiving featured by a life of appreciation and a encounter-relationship. Such kind of life can choose to spend the money for Jesus as well as for the poor. The matter is whether you share this life.