How does one approach her/his own death? This question only allows a nuanced answer. There are so many different forms of death, so many beliefs concerning the after death, and so many different ways men and women react at the hour of their death. The prospect for death appears to be very different whether or not one believes that there is something after death.
I would like to offer the perspective of a catholic priest. When we give faith to the promises of the resurrection, we have a treasure. Yet, some descriptions of the resurrection may belong more to mythology than to the biblical prophecy, fueling legitimate doubts from those who question the grounds of resurrection.
More regrettable, some theologies of the resurrection make Jesus’ death just a transition, simply presenting the resurrection as a death-erasing process. If Jesus’ death is just a transition, then He didn’t actually take upon himself human evil, and therefore He did not take upon himself the sin of the world. And if Jesus didn’t take upon himself the sin of the world, it follows that there is simply no resurrection, nothing after death, no eternal life.
I will argue, from an exegetical perspective, that Jesus’ resurrection is no mere reviviscence. Yet, what kind of life we will inherit remains unclear.
1 – Faith as a treasure.
“Death is the end of a wonderful experience. It is sad,” Philip says. “Death is the final stage of life. It means I cease to exist. It is a great enemy. I love life so much! Who wants to loose something very special s/he loves?” Philip firmly believes there is no god and nothing after death.[1] In his non-believing family, death was not denied but was not talked about. There was nothing more to say about it than: “Such person died and will be buried such day.” Philip recalls crying alone over his grand-mother’s death.
Philip wants to die happy. He doesn’t want to know about death’s coming. “If I knew I was dying, I might be depressed.” He wishes euphoric drugs be available to him. He believes in “happy drugs” at the end of life.
I find some denial in Philip’s words. The absence of an after-life perspective makes death a final point, not a transition, not a promise. Whether one believes or not that there is something after death influences her/his perspective on death. Furthermore, suffering is thought of as an argument against the existence of God: if God exists, how could there be so much suffering in this world?
By contrast, David and Josephine [2] hold strong belief in eternal life. They see death as a transition, an opening to something that is not clearly known but is promised. Their faith helps them stand in trust and confidence before the perspective of death. Faith in resurrection appears to be a treasure to face death. It brings peace and confidence.
2 - How are suffering and death compatible with the existence of God?
When reflecting on suffering, shouldn’t one differentiate between evil and tragedy? Evil is caused by a will, an intention. Evil is attributable to someone. Tragedy, by contrast, occurs by chance. No one can be held accountable for it. Devastating acts of nature are random. They have no intention. No one is responsible for the hurricane Katrina hitting
I don’t believe in a God that masters the world.[3] I rather believe in a God that creates the world like oceans create continents: by respectfully withdrawing.[4] Yet, presenting our Christian perspective on resurrection needs some caution. The Gospel narratives give indication of what it might be.
3 – "Woman, why are you crying?"
What is the content of faith in the resurrection? How do we speak about the resurrection? Do we say a lot about it? Do we know a lot about it? The way we talk about the resurrection tells a lot about our conception of the “after death.” Do we integrate the fact that Jesus’ closest disciples did not recognize him, as shown in the following gospel passages?
"Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away, and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "Woman" he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" Gospel of John, 20, 13-16.
“She did not realize that it was Jesus.” How is that possible? Mary has been one of the prominent disciples. She has shared a lot of time in Jesus’ presence, in his discipleship. What is the evangelist telling us? Is he implying that Mary did not realize it was Jesus because she was not looking at him? Is he implying that Mary was so troubled and moved with grief that she could not connect with Jesus’ presence? Is he implying that she just could not believe it was Jesus, therefore something in her refused to see him, to recognize him?
Other passages display similar disciple’s inability to recognize Jesus.
4 – Mediation versus immediacy.
Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the
This is the second occurrence of this literary figure in this gospel narrative. It becomes obvious that there is a meaning to it. Which?
He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they answered. He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" John, 21, 5-7.
The disciple whom Jesus loved realizes it is Jesus because of the large number of fish. A mediation – a way into understanding - has been necessary.
When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. […] None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. John, 21, 9-12.
“Who are you?” Why would they ask such a question to someone with whom they shared the mission for three years night and day? Again, what meaning is the evangelist unfolding for us? The resurrected Jesus is not immediately recognizable; it needs a mediation. The evangelist continues “They knew it was the Lord.” It is the Lord. Not just Jesus but the Lord. Something has changed.
Not only John the evangelist, but also Luke, points out that recognizing Jesus is no mere identification of an unchanged Jesus.
[Two disciples] were going to a village called Emmaus. […] As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. Luke, 24, 13-16.
When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, Gospel of Luke, 24, 30-31a.
Again a mediation has been necessary to overcome some dissimilarity in Jesus’ appearance. He is not identical. His identity is changed He is the Lord, not just the powerful prophet. What is the teaching here?
5 - The resurrection does not wipe out Jesus’ suffering and death.
The resurrection introduces change. It is not just the cancellation of death, not just a bad moment to get through, after which one recovers what death had threatened. If the resurrection is presented as just a difficult moment to pass, death is denied, and the dying process just appears as an illness. “Hold on, be strong, everything will be alright.” This is not a Christian perspective. No, not everything will be alright. The resurrection does not wipe out Jesus’ suffering and death. Jesus’ suffering is not ended. His love for the world is still wounded day after day. His resurrection opens an afterward, but does not negate the present sufferings. Day after day, God is still put on the cross, sharing human suffering and death. This has been admirably described by Elie Wiesel.
Elie Wiesel tells us a true story. It takes place in a concentration camp during the Second World War. The Nazis were working their final solution, consisting in the savage murdering of six million people, mostly Jews, but also Gypsies, Gays, Communists etc. One night, back from working, Elie Wiesel, a young Jewish man, and his fellow prisoners were forced to watch the hanging of three fellow prisoners by the Nazis. One of those hanged was a small boy. Because he was so light, he did not die quickly when the chair under him was tipped over. Instead, he slowly choked to death for over a half hour. One prisoner behind Wiesel kept asking, wondering aloud “Where is God, where is He now?” Wiesel heard another internal voice answering “Here he is – he is hanging here on this gallows”. [5]
6 - Is there such a thing as redemptive suffering?
A concep of resurrection as a mere reviviscence negates the reality of the dying process, and consequently also denies Jesus’ passion and suffering. Therefore, it also negates Jesus’ redemptive act as he takes on himself the sin of the world. How so?
Marie Balmary wrote an insightful commentary of Leviticus 19,17 where she shows that if not manifested, sin is invisible, unacknowledged – and therefore not forgiven.[6]
Let there be no hate in your heart for your brother; instead be sure to (rebuke, correct) make a protest to your neighbor (reprove him openly), so that you will not be guilty of sinning along with him (suffer sin upon him, bear sin because of him, lest thou incur sin through him). Alternative translations in brackets. Leviticus 19,17.
By taking on himself human hatred, human religious intransigence, Jesus opens forgiveness to it. By calling Jesus to a new life, God manifests that this hatred is vanquished and forgiven. Jesus’ resurrection is no denial of His passion, suffering, supplication at
7 – Appeasing the fear of destruction of the self
The way we talk about the resurrection reveals our understanding of death. Philip Ariès[7] shows that contemporary fear of death is closely linked to the fear of destruction of the self. No appeasement of that fear will come from a theology of resurrection that simply denies not only death but also dying; dying includes anguish, pain, anger, depression. It would just be fooling people. Instead, what we say about death and resurrection, if faithful to the gospel narratives, will take into account the modified corporeality of the resurrected Jesus. Our own resurrection is prefigured by Jesus’. It will not be a reviviscence, a mere wiping away of death. It will be a transformation, a passage.
[1] Philip, 59 years old, was allowed to retire as a surveyor when his wife increased her income. He has lived abroad, as a Peace Corps fellow in western central Africa, where he met his wife, Jamie who followed her family all over Europe and
[2] David, 74 years old, has been a Catholic priest for 45 years. He holds a PhD in theology, had taught theology in the seminary and has been a pastor in two large parishes in
Josephine, 51 years old, is a NC state employee, head of a dietary counseling service for public schools and state-run institutions. She and her husband are fervent Catholics, both very active as volunteers in several outreach programs (meals on wheels,
[3] I am referring here to the work of Hans Jonas: The Concept of God after Auschwitz. I believe his conception of God is helpful to challenge a providential God manipulating life and death, or instead a powerful-but-non-intervening God.
Jonas tries to resolve the paradox of holding altogether that God is good, and almighty, and yet there are tragedies. The reality of
Then he develops his own speculative vision of God. First, he argues, we must speak of “a suffering God”. For Jonas, “the relation of God in the world implies a suffering on the side of God as of the moment of creation, and surely as of the moment of the creation of the man”. Second, we must speak of “a becoming God,” a God who emerges in time rather than possessing a completed being who remains strictly identical, a God who is affected and changed by the world. Third, we must speak of “a caring God,” a God who has left something for other agents to do and thereby make divine caring dependent on these agents. Fourth and last, we must speak of a God who is not omnipotent. Jonas rejects the popular option that God has all the power but has chosen not to use it. The Holocaust renders this fact untenable since one would have expected such a God to have intervened. He concludes that this elimination of divine omnipotence leaves a theoretical choice between some preexistent (theological or ontological) dualism and a divine self-limitation through the creation from nothing. He chooses the latter option as the more viable
Hans Jonas, The Concept of God after
[4] Simone Weil suggests that Creation, like the cross, is an act of kenosis. When He created the world, God "surrenders himself to necessity. She proposes that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo means that God opens "a void" within Himself "in a voluntary act of self-emptying or withdrawal."
[5] Elie Wiesel, Night [Farrbar, Straus and
[6] Le Sacrifice interdit : Freud et la Bible. by Marie Balmary, Paris, Grasset ed., 1994.
[7] Western Attitudes Towards Death from the Middle Ages to the Present. Ariès, Philippe, (1985). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire