About the notion of revelation and its accommodation to human intelligence and opinions, Spinoza writes to Oldenburg:
At dices, Apostolos omnes omninò credidisse, quòd Christus à morte resurrexit, et ad coelum reverâ ascenderit : quod ego non nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quòd Deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit, et omnes Israëlitae, quòd Deus è coelo igne circumdatus ad montem Sinaï descenderit, et cum iis immediatè locutus fuerit, cum tamen haec, et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones, seu revelationes fuerint, captui, et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatae, quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi à mortuis resurrectionem reverâ spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelatam fuisse, nempe quòd Christus aeternitate donatus fuit, et à mortuis, (mortuos hîc intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit : sinite mortuos mortuos suos sepelire) surrexit, simulatque vitâ et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos à mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitae ejus, et mortis exemplum sequuntur.
(Letter 75, Dec-Jan 1675-6, one year before his own death)
But you are going to say that all the apostles had completely believed that Christ rose again from death and really ascended to heaven: which I don’t deny. Well, even Abraham himself believed that God had lunch with him and all the Israelites [believed] that God, surrounded by fire, descended from heaven onto Mt Sinai, and that he spoke with them directly. These and many other things of the same type were apparitions or revelations adapted to the understanding and opinions of these people, by which God wished to reveal his mind to them. I conclude therefore that Christ’s resurrection from the dead was really spiritual and that it was revealed only to the faithful according to their understanding, indeed that Christ was granted with eternity, and that he rose from the dead (I understand the dead here in the sense in which Christ said: Let the dead bury their dead), by virtue of the fact that he gave an example of unique holiness by his life and death, and that he raises his disciples from the dead exactly inasmuch as they follow this example of his life and death.
Spinoza was clearly a brilliant thinker, however he did not here at least address the Biblical perspective on the issue of Christ’s physical resurrection:
“AND IF CHRIST HAS NOT BEEN RAISED, OUR PREACHING IS USELESS AND SO IS YOUR FAITH. MORE THAN THAT, WE ARE THEN FOUND TO BE FALSE WITNESSES ABOUT GOD, FOR WE HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT GOD THAT HE RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD…And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. IF ONLY FOR THIS LIFE WE HAVE HOPE IN CHRIST, WE ARE TO BE PITIED MORE THAN ALL MEN” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19, emphasis mine).
Spinoza offers a ‘Jesus is risen in my heart and so am I, as I follow his teachings and example’, and uses Luke 9:60 where Jesus does allude to spiritual deadness to justify his position. His argument offers optimism and a warm-hearted attitude towards Jesus for one who does not believe in miracles and the supernatural (I know little of Spinoza, correct me if I’m wrong). However, many of Jesus’ immediate followers went to their deaths proclaiming a physical resurrection, in which they exulted and set their hope.
One must explain this historical anomaly. The most scholarly survey from the traditional Christian position (a physical, supernatural, bodily resurrection) might be N.T. Wright’s ‘The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)’.
Here is a link to it on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Son-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626796/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205315406&sr=8-4
It comes highly recommended.
A spiritual resurrection would have gone over better with the Greeks and Romans, and you mentioned how hard this was to accept for them (I think it was in lecture on 3/10), and we even see in the Bible how much it was scorned, Paul proclaims the resurrection to the Athenians and they sneer in response (Acts 17:32). It is certainly more palatable for our modern intellectual sensibilities, though radical for Spinoza I’m sure.
If one does not believe in the God of the Bible (a deity of the supernatural), then Spinoza offers a way to admire the teachings of Christ without having to take his miracles and the bold, supernatural claims of the Bible too seriously. Again, I recommend N.T. Wright’s book to all those interested in considering (or reconsidering?) the supernatural explanation for the resurrection.
My thoughts and perspective as a Christian.
Very good book indeed (Wright’s). Spinoza’s position is not that far from yours or Wright’s, I think, except that it comes from a philosophy in which there is no separation spirit/matter: there is only one substance. When he says ‘spiritual’, he makes no difference, I would think, with material. Reread his last sentence: “he awakes his disciples from the dead exactly inasmuch as they follow this example of his life and death.” eatenus …. quatenus: exactly in the same measure as… That is: resurrection from the dead, or life, depends on following the example given by Jesus. It is a tough saying, not a feel-good saying.