The Blessed Hope

Steve Hays shares some good thoughts on resurrection as it relates to the Licona debate.

The only thing I’d add to what he’s said is that those who have been mocking (and if not mocking then at least describing) Matthew 27:52-53 as a “zombie apocalypse” is that they’re description is wrong. Zombies are not resurrected in any sense that the Bible uses the term. In Scripture people are resurrected to life; they’re not the walking dead, the living dead, or anything of the like. They’re alive!


10 thoughts on “The Blessed Hope

  1. “Good thoughts”? Sadly, another post that misses the whole issue of Matthew 27: 52-53! It is not a statement or reconstruction to the whole of the resurrection theology! This seems to be just reactionary to idea that we must see everything historical, as if there is no literary element in Holy Scripture. Simply ignorant to my mind! So ya want to make this an issue of “orthodoxy”? Well the list of those that would be outside the pale, “theologically”, would be large!

  2. Nick: Anticipating a preemptive strike, this is simply a huge “flip-flop” to allow and support a blog that states that those that don’t see or believe the historical in Matt. 27:52-53, are perhaps not true believers? And oh yes, this is the issue, even between the lines! Again, even more than theological war, but supposed “orthodoxy”!

  3. I see Fr. Robert is one of those people who likes to substitute adjectives for arguments. Typically, he’s oblivious to his own reactionary reflexes. It’s always the Other who’s reactionary. The Other who must be ignorant.

    i) To begin with, I didn’t say if the account could or couldn’t contain a “literary” element. Rather, as I explicitly said, I was addressing professing believers who find the account “inherently” or “intrinsically” implausible. And if that’s the case, then, by parity of argument, you’re going to find the resurrection of Lazarus, the resurrection of the just, the general resurrection, and/or the resurrection of Christ inherently implausible inasmuch as they all share the same core principle.

    ii) In addition, notice that Fr. Robert doesn’t offer anything resembling a counterargument to what I wrote.

  4. First, Steve, you and I know what you were “implying” so lets get around the BS! And second, to my point, there does not need to be any “counterargument”, but the so-called argument of Licona, etc. It’s all really pretty simple! So lets not play games here! This is a blog, if we were face to face it might be somewhat different? But as I have said before, the blog is always a poor commutator! Anyway that’s how “I” feel! :)

  5. Let’s see: Fr. Robert initially responds to my post with comments that have zero argumentative force. When I point out that his comments have zero argumentative force, he responds with a follow-up comment that has…zero argumentative force. At least he’s consistently anti-intellectual.

  6. As to Fr. Robert’s conspiratorial suspicions about my hidden agenda, I’ve done several posts defending Licona against unscrupulous charges. Some people might think I’ve gone too easy on him.

  7. Fr. Robert: Yes, good thoughts. Unfortunately I can’t say that your thoughts on the issue are very good or clear for that matter. You’ve been rambling on for days and I still can’t figure out why you believe what you believe or what exactly turned you to your belief. Just saying Licona’s name doesn’t suffice. Just saying France’s name doesn’t suffice. When Kyle pointed out some problems in Licona’s argument you basically ignored it and kept repeating yourself.

    Also, you’ve now said twice that you can’t communicate properly on blogs, or something of the sort. I’m going to have to agree. I haven’t been able to understand you. So I’m going to ask that you stop commenting until you are able to express yourself clearly. And you might have noticed that I’ve deleted some of your comments. I will continue to delete all irrelevant comments and I’m going to start deleting all repetitive comments as well. I’ve been as patient as I can be.

    Steve: I’m with you. I noted to Fr. Robert yesterday that I’m still unclear as to what his actual arguments for his interpretation are. He keeps asserting the same thing as if that constitutes an argument.

  8. Nick: I will just leave, this has just become a “fudamentalist” issue, it seems. Sad though, we all know that I did not just repeat Licona, in fact if anyone, I was mostly using R.T. France! I think you guys are running scared of the argument and issue, myself!

  9. As to the charge of “ignorance,” although I don’t claim to be a great scholar like the late F. F. Bruce, I do own commentaries on Matthew by Blomberg, Carson (REBC 2010), Chamblin (Mentor 2010, 2 vols), Davies/Allison (3 vols), France (2007), Gundry (2nd ed. 1994), Hagner (2 vols), Hill, Keener (1999), Meyer, Morris, Nolland, Osborne, Ridderbos, Turner, and Zahn.

    I also own some standard works on Biblical hermeneutics like:

    Craig Blomberg: A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis

    D. Bock and B. Fanning, eds. Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis

    Jorge Gracia, How Can We Know What God Means? The Interpretation of Revelation

    K. Vanhoozer, ed. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s