Angus Harley

If you read any fan of Bonhoeffer, they will be swift to tell you that he believed in a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. These same folks will say that Barth believed the same.

Gotcha!

It is true that both these men believed Jesus was literally raised from the dead. It is then argued by critics of my view, that when Bonhoeffer said that miracles, the supernatural, and the bodily resurrection are myth, he didn’t necessarily deny that they happened, but merely that we cannot prove them ‘scientifically’. This argument was cited against me as a kind of ‘gotcha’ moment, for I argued that Bonhoeffer held the position that the Scripture’s teaching conveys one of mere myth. I was wrong, obviously- at least, so the critic implied.

Ignoring the dialectic

The critic was wrong because he ignored Bonhoeffer’s dialectical framework, in which he constructs all his theology. Let us remind ourselves of Bonhoeffer’s dialectical reasoning. It has a thesis, antithesis, and then a resolution/synthesis.  In regard to the resurrection. his argument was as follows:

Thesis: the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not scientifically viable; nor was it, by extension, historically provable; and, thirdly, since the ANE records are full of myth and exaggeration. NT Scriptures are riddled with such ‘myth’.  Those are the three dimensions of mythology Bonhoeffer referred to before.[1]

Antithesis: the risen and exalted Jesus comes to meet with his assembly through the pages of Scripture, using these myths to bring Gospel ‘truth’ and realization to bear.

Solution: faith meets with the risen Christ as he encounters believers in the Scripture (which are full of myth) and it is by faith alone that the believer comprehends that Jesus was actually and literally raised in his body from the dead.  

Historical, shmorical

In that system, as Barth argues, it matters not about establishing the ‘Jesus of history’ and the historicity of the supernatural acts of God. They might have happened; they might not have happened. What counts is that the Word of God (Jesus) encounters believers in the Scriptures, and their faith causes them to see the real and living Christ, and to know that he was raised bodily from the dead.

Thus saith Bonhoeffer

Of course, the reader can readily see what this implies: Bonhoeffer chooses which events of the bible are actually real and those that are not. In the ‘Did not happen’ category are the six days of creation and the virgin birth. In the ‘Did happen’ list is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. However, both lists are not relevant to faith, for faith is not tied down by history, human writings, and scientific prowess. In fact, faith is greater than all these put together, because it is the human side of the encounter with the real and living Jesus who is raised from the dead. And in any case, says Bonhoeffer, even the myth is ‘precious in the sight of God’, since God recycled all this mythological ‘waste’ (as Bultmann sees it) and turns it into faith-gold. For faith understands that all of that mythology in Scripture points beyond itself to the real deal of the resurrected and living Word, Jesus.

Fanboys vs Scripture

To be fair, there are not many actual Evangelical fanboys who understand this dialectical methodology of Bonhoeffer’s and its application to the resurrection. But some Evangelicals do! They, patently, are not convinced that Bonhoeffer has violated any sacred principle of religion. Then, maybe these fanboys can learn from Scripture.

In 1 Corinthians 15, it is categorically asserted by Paul not only that a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus took place, but he dismisses any notion at all of it not taking place. In other words, the bible does not merely assert a doctrine; it also counteracts any denial of it.  Thus, in 1 John, for example, Jesus is asserted to be the Christ; but it is then insisted that if anyone denies this in anyway, that person is an ‘antichrist’ (and that is not Harley’s assessment!). It is sheer hypocrisy to say that faith alone ‘sees’, through an encounter with Jesus, the reality of his resurrection, but that the Scriptures do not demonstrate that his bodily resurrection was truly historical. Paul’s Gospel, and the witness and testimony of the multitude who followed Christ, were considered ample ‘proof’ of the historicity of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. It is to disembowel the Scripture’s historical account of Jesus’ bodily resurrection to dismiss this record as myth, unprovable, unlikely, and so on. Put another way, Paul was countering any lack of certitude in the Corinthians concerning the real and historical resurrection of Jesus. Yet, Bonhoeffer’s view of the resurrection is praised by many, even though he creates nothing but uncertainty and doubt! Scripture does not play the games that Bonhoeffer and Barth engage in.

Evangelical hypocrisy

It is mind-numbingly shocking that Evangelicals give a green light to a man just because he says he believes in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Bonhoeffer denies the resurrection as a provable historical event. Scriptures do not help, he says, in demonstrating the resurrection’s historical viability. But how does this make Bonhoeffer a great saint? Don’t the Mormons believe in a literal resurrection from the dead? Why has the bar been set so incredibly low for Bonhoeffer? If the same conservative Evangelical leaders found someone in their assembly saying that the Ten Commandments were done with, they would immediately take them aside and tell them they were antinomian, and, even go as far to say they were sinning against God. A few would characterize these antinomians as heretics. Yet, the same Evangelicals who like Bonhoeffer will not lift an eyebrow at Bonhoeffer’s dialectical drivel that divorces faith from history, plays with words, and denies certain supernatural events (e.g., the virgin birth). This is sheer hypocrisy on an incredible scale!

[1] Angus Harley, “Bonhoeffer 4: the virgin-birth myth” All Things New Covenant, December 1, 2024, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2024/12/01/bonhoeffer-4-the-virgin-birth-myth/.