Essay 2
Created | Updated Apr 10, 2005
A discussion of Pannenberg’s observation that “It is possible to talk unmetaphorically about the revival of a dead person. For this the pictorial language of the resurrection faith is not necessary. Metaphor is only unavoidable if we are dealing with a transformation into a reality which is entirely unknown to us…”
In this essay, we shall seek to examine the view of metaphor and raising from the dead expressed by Pannenberg in the quotation above. With careful reference to relevant biblical passages, and taking “‘metaphor’ to mean ‘that figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another’” and understanding ‘metaphor’ “to be indispensable, genuinely creative of new understanding, and saying something that can be said adequately in no other way – the embodiment of new insight” we shall attempt to assess the validity of this statement .
Pannenberg’s assertion that we can “talk unmetaphorically about the revival of a dead person” sits in the context of his view that the resurrection can, as McGrath puts it, be taken “as an historical event open to critical enquiry” . As McGrath states, whilst Pannenberg did not dismiss the usage of metaphors in relation to “a transformation into a reality which is entirely unknown to us” 2 (a subject to which we shall return), he felt that if one approached the New Testament accounts of resurrection without the preconception that “dead people do not rise again” , then it was possible to investigate the resurrection as an historical event, in opposition to what McGrath cites as Strauss’s view that the resurrection was myth – that is to say not necessarily with no historic basis, but unavoidably entangled with metaphor . For Pannenberg, it was however possible to see the resurrection of Jesus (and by extension the revival of a dead person) as an event which could face historical criticism, and which could thus exist independently, and not as a ‘mythical’ metaphor.
Working within this view, we can begin to identify biblical passages which refer to the revival of a dead person seemingly separately from any metaphorical language. Instances such as the bringing back to life of a widow’s son by Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), and a similar event involving Elisha (2 Kings 4:19-37), as well as raisings of the very recently deceased by Jesus (Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5:35-43 and its parallel in Luke 8:49-56, and the widow of Nain’s son in Luke 7:11-16) contain revivals of dead people which do not seem infused with metaphorical language, but simply speak of the revival. In all of them, there is a dead person, who is returned to life by the protagonists in the story. Issues regarding whether or not these events actually happened (E.g. was one of the Kings’ passages copied from the other, were the New Testament passages invented to cast Jesus in a similar light to Elijah and Elisha etc.) are not of direct importance here, but what is crucial to note is that, in line with Pannenberg’s argument, we are able to ask these questions, seeing the events described as possible independent historical events which we can examine, as opposed to mythical accounts necessarily infused with metaphor.
In contrast to these passages, we can perhaps point to the account of the raising of Lazarus in John 11, a passage which, as Barton and Muddiman state, is metaphor-laden . Although a detailed examination of all the issues raised in this account would take us beyond the scope of this essay, we can clearly see that the raising of the dead Lazarus by Jesus not only “directly foreshadows Jesus’s own death and resurrection”, and the contrast between death and the life which is Jesus (further expressed in the ‘I am’ discourse on the resurrection and the life which accompanies this story ) but also provides a metaphor to illustrate the perhaps otherwise indescribable transition from “death to life [which] corresponds to the transition from unbelief to faith” seen in the statement that “despite her brother’s death, Martha confesses her faith in the Lord [verses 21-24]”6. Barton and Muddiman further postulate that “in his tomb [Lazarus] embodies the power of death. When he comes out of the tomb and is unbound he is an illustration of the capacity of faith [verses 40-45]. Jesus accomplishes the work of light among humanity: those who walk with him do not stumble in the dark”6. This idea is perhaps the sort of “transformation into a reality which is entirely unknown to us” for which Pannenberg feels “[m]etaphor is… unavoidable” . A similar point is seen in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul sees the resurrection of Jesus as a metaphor and pointer to the future resurrection of the dead. Barton and Muddiman cite de Boer as arguing that Paul sees “the resurrection of Christ… [as constituting] the ‘first fruits’” of the “cosmic act of resurrection” which heralds “the age of death being succeeded and overcome by an age of life” . Paul expands on this metaphor to envisage a “cosmic transformation… in successive phases”, leading from “the resurrection of Christ” to “at his coming, those who belong to him” towards “‘the end’ when God’s kingdom is complete and all the enemies of his rule are defeated”6. To express an ineffable transformation of this sort would, as Pannenberg postulates, require metaphor and for Paul, that metaphor is seen in Christ’s resurrection, hence his claims that those who are without faith in this event cannot have faith in this future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11-22).
We have perhaps thus far seen that it is possible to write of the revival of a dead person without metaphor, but that when we address issues of faith dealing with cosmic events and transformations which we cannot properly describe, metaphoric language allows the expression of these ideas through the image of resurrection. Küng offers a slightly different perspective, distinguishing between ‘revival’ – “a return to life in this space and time” – and ‘resurrection’ – where “[d]eath is not reversed… but definitively overcome: entry into a wholly other, incorruptible, eternal, ‘heavenly’ life” . Although both Pannenberg and Küng see the possibility of perceiving revival as an historical event which could be written about unmetaphorically, they differ on their attitudes to resurrection. Although Pannenberg states that the use of metaphoric language is necessary for the issues of “transformation into a reality which is entirely unknown to us”, which are associated with resurrection belief, as we have seen he argues that the actual resurrection of Jesus is still a historical event, and us such can be divorced from metaphor8. Conversely, Küng categorically states that “with the death of Jesus… resurrection by God to eternal life is not a historical event, an event which can be envisaged and imagined” . For Küng, fully divesting the ‘event’ of the resurrection from the faith surrounding it is an impossibility, and as such this momentous event transformation is beyond that “which can be envisaged or imagined”, and which would therefore necessitate the use of metaphor in language referring to the event.
It would be wrong to suggest, however, that Küng is arguing that the resurrection did not happen, and was purely a metaphor. For him it was still “a real event in the divine sphere”, though not necessarily bound to “the substratum or the elements of this particular body” . Paul similarly is convinced of the actuality of the resurrection, something which he strongly asserts in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20. Both these theologians are convinced that there was a historical resurrection, which in itself provided a metaphor for cosmic transformation, a metaphor which is of such central importance that it would be impossible to speak of the resurrection without it. A similar argument is seen in David Jenkins’s controversial (and oft-misquoted) sermon in 1984, in which he claimed that the resurrection was “not just a conjuring trick with bones”, for if it was, that is all it would be. What was of greater importance was not the literal event, but the higher truth which was expressed through it, a truth which could be adequately expressed only through metaphor, in which case it must be both impossible and pointless to try and remove metaphor from the literal event and try to establish it as a completely independent historical occurrence.
This interpretation, however, begs the question as to whether a similar argument could be applied to the apparently unmetaphorical accounts of revival of the dead that we considered earlier. Although metaphor does not seem to be explicitly expressed in the texts (as it is in, for example, the raising of Lazarus) it seems quite possible that the events detailed may be “speak[ing] about one thing [i.e. the revival of the dead person] in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another”, pointing to a higher message . Whilst questions about the historical accuracy of the story would seem to be somewhat inapplicable if it is primarily a metaphor, they may indicate that the reason for a story’s telling was not that it actually happened, and so it must convey a message or further meaning of some sort.
Barton and Muddiman suggest that the Elisha story (2 Kings 4:19-37) whilst containing a story of a revival, makes several important points . Elisha’s prayer in verse 33 is quite possibly “a concession to the piety of a later time [i.e. when the story was written]” whilst the story contains the overall theme of the miraculous power of Elisha, and in particular the “decisive action and faith of a mother” (seen in verses 22-30)14. The similar story in 1 Kings 17:17-24 was, according to Barton and Muddiman, possibly this story edited back into the tale of Elijah in order to expound a higher message. Whilst it illustrates that “it is worthwhile to support itinerant men of God”, it also adds to the “main theme of the Elijah cycle: the true God versus false gods”14. This story contradicts “other oriental beliefs which feared and revered death as a deity”, as in calling on God twice in the story (vv. 20f.) it is illustrated that it “is of course God making all this possible” and “that death is not an independent supernatural power”14.
Similarly the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:35-43 and parallel in Luke 8:49-56) and the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16) recall the Kings passages, reinforce Jesus’s importance and inheritance from the Old Testament prophets, and underscore a message that “Jesus brings life from death” . The mocking crowd in the story of Jairus’s daughter also highlights the importance of faith, for “[t]he true nature of the action of Jesus, in rescuing the girl from death itself, is only open to the eye of faith and publicizing it in a context of unbelief will not by itself create faith”15.
We must therefore raise the question of why the editors of each of these books felt it important to include these stories. Was it because they actually happened? This would seem rather unlikely, since as we have seen it was possible that the same event was simply attributed to various different people. Why would this be done? Perhaps in order to highlight an important message concerning the person in question, to say “something that… [could] be said adequately in no other way” . To return to our earlier point, what was of central interest for the writers here? To state that someone was literally raised from the dead by the protagonist or to offer a metaphor of the higher importance of the events described? If, as we have seen looks likely, the concern of the writers was to stress the latter, which was expressed in the former, it seems exceptionally unlikely that they would have bothered to recount the event were it not for the metaphor it conveyed. I would argue therefore that it must consequently be both impossible and pointless to divorce these stories from their metaphors, as doing so would remove their very meaning.
In conclusion then, we have seen that the resurrection holds as its central theme its metaphor for a “transformation into a reality which is entirely unknown to us” and that even biblical stories which may at first glance seem to be straightforward accounts of revival from the dead are invested with higher meaning, and it is this which is the reason for their preservation. I would argue therefore that it must, in fact, be biblically impossible to “talk unmetaphorically about the revival of a dead person” . I would postulate that today, however, the advances of modern medicine have certainly allowed the immediate resuscitation of someone who has died, something which, as news and medical reports show, can be talked of unmetaphorically. I contend, however, that these events cannot be likened to those biblical passages we have considered, as each of the texts indicates that a length of time has passed between death and revival, a length beyond which modern medicine cannot revive someone. Therefore, I would argue, that if such an instance of revival from the dead after such a time period were to occur today it would, by virtue of the event contradicting current scientific laws, be a ‘miracle’, and thus would be similarly impossible to divorce from a higher message perceived in the occurrence. I believe therefore that although we can still not “talk unmetaphorically about the revival of a dead person” in the sort of timeframes envisaged in the biblical accounts, the continuing advancement of medical science may eventually make this a possibility17.
