I’m taking your statement that Paul “just drives me nuts” as it relates to his statement in Romans 12:20 as a statement of derision. If I have misunderstood, then I apologize. Paul is quoting almost exactly from Proverbs 25:21-22. The writer of the proverb goes on to add that in doing good to your enemy not only will you “heap burning coals on his head” but God will reward you for it. You are correct in your concern for how you think about the context of what the “first century writers are talking about.” Understanding the historical context helps us to correctly interpret and apply the truth of Scripture.

The “heaping coals” statement in Proverbs and Romans is fascinating. It apparently refers to an ancient Egyptian practice of a man taking a pan of hot coals, placing it on his head and walking around in public. This practice was a public expression of repentance that comes from the conviction caused by the inward “burning” of shame and guilt experienced because of some evil or sinful act. The man was telling the community that he was guilty, he was remorseful and he was repentant. The Biblical use of this expression in conjunction with the mandate to Christians to do good to our enemies is to remind the Christian that our purpose is not to defend our honor when wronged but to hope for the repentance and the salvation the one who wronged us. In doing good to our enemy, perhaps they will feel the “burning” of guilt that leads to salvation. Let me share some examples.

Since I’m speaking about Paul, I will use him as the first example. I believe that Paul experienced the application of the “burning coals” in his own life. When Paul was a young man and before he became a follower of Christ he was called Saul. He was a persecutor of the followers of Christ. Stephen, a devout follower of Christ, preached a sermon that lead to his stoning specifically after he declared that he could see the resurrected Christ. Paul (Saul) was watching the stoning. The last words that he heard from Stephen’s mouth before he died were, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:58-60) Stephen prayed for his persecutors. Stephen prayed for Paul while being stoned to death. Stephen was doing good towards his enemy. I believe Paul felt the “burning coals” of guilt for this sin when he came to point when he repented of sins and became a follower of Christ.

Stephen in his expression of love for his enemies was following the example of Jesus Himself. As Jesus was suffering under the torture of the cross he prayed for his enemies, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) This expression of love for His enemies brought the “burning coals” response to one of the Roman centurions participating in the crucifixion. After seeing all that had happened, the centurion began praising God and said, “Certainly this man was innocent.” (Luke 23:47) This statement appears to be a salvific response of a repentant sinner.

When Paul tells us that it will heap burning coals on the head of our enemy by doing good to him he is simply following the example of others who came before him. He is following Stephen’s example, he is following Jesus’ example and he is following the writer of Proverbs example. He is being obedient to the commands of Jesus to love our enemies and to expect a reward from God for doing so. (Mathew 5:44, Luke 6:27-35) The goal of doing good to our enemies is to bring about a shame the leads to repentance and salvation. Paul’s “burning coals” statement is an expression love that the world rarely sees. In fact it is a divine expression of love. It is an expression of love that can only come from one who has experienced the power of the reality of the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This brings me to my second point.
Paul would not have such profound concern and love for his enemies had the resurrection been anything other than a historical reality because for him it was the reason that he counted everything in life that he had accomplished before knowing the resurrected Christ as rubbish. (Philippians 3:7-8) For human beings to be able strive toward the magnificent goal of becoming like Christ then we must have the historical reality of the resurrection. Without it then we have no power to accomplish the goal. (Philippians 3:10-11) The historical bodily resurrection of Christ is, as you point out, the foundation that Christianity is built upon.

Without the reality of the historical bodily resurrection of Christ we lose much. For example, we lose the reliability of Old Testament and all that we learn from it. That there is a God and that He created the universe. We lose our understanding of why there is evil in the world, why there is suffering and death. We lose the trustworthiness of the prophets that foretold of the coming messiah, his death and his resurrection.

We also lose the trustworthiness of the New Testament and all it declares. For example we lose our understanding of why Jesus had “a message that utterly resonated in the hearts and the minds of the first century world” when that message came “from the mouth of an irrelevant, itinerant peasant.” We lose our understanding of why He came and died on a cross. We lose an understanding of why Jesus’ disciples hid in fear for their lives and in doubt of whom they believed immediately following the crucifixion and then suddenly burst on the world stage preaching a message that would lead to prison, torture and death. We lose the truthfulness of Jesus Himself who claimed that He would rise again after three days. We lose the deity of Jesus. We lose the hope that we who followed Christ will ever see our loved ones again who have died before use. We lose the assurance of salvation from the judgment of God.
All of the power of Christianity is lost without the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Josh, the logic of your major premise is flawed because it is not consistent with your own definition of Christianity. Your definition, “Christianity is built upon the existence of a historical person, Jesus. The crux of the Christian faith is belief in a specific historical event: that Jesus was executed on a cross in the typical Roman style, and then buried. Jesus then rose bodily from death and eventually ascended into Heaven.” This definition is contradictory to your premise that, “Christianity must exist in a form that allows for events such as the resurrection to be questioned, re-imagined, and re-thought.” Christianity cannot logically exist in any form other than what it is. If you go through the exercise that Chris in his response has challenged you with, any tenets you create that are not consistent with what Christianity is, will be other than Christianity. My chromosomes declare that I’m male. No amount of questioning, re-imagination, re-thought or re-tooling for that matter will belie the fact that I’m a male. Nor will it work for Christianity. Christianity is what it is. The literal, historical, bodily resurrection of Christ is the definitive mark.

I’m praying for you Josh as you look for the truth. I am praying that you not find yourself like the Apostle Philip who was looking for more truth when he said to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to Philip, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘show us the Father’?” (John 14:8-9)

Philip had all he needed right before his eyes and he couldn’t see the truth.

However, I just getting really uncomfortable with how to think about what these first century writers are talking about. Their operating in a context that is so fundamentally different that I’m afraid I’m importing all kinds of stuff on their words that they never intended. I think you’re right about Paul. The resurrection for him was a very real event. But I struggle with Paul. The part of Romans where he talks about being kind to heap hot coals just drives me nuts every time I read it.

Yet, like I just said, I think he’s significantly earlier than the gospels.

As for your question…I’ll think about that, and what it would mean. I don’t know that I can answer, because a big part of this whole thing is trying to discover those things, but I’ll think and see what I can do.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Paul clearly wasn’t talking about some metaphorical “raising” – he counted himself as an eyewitness, and undoubtedly had talked to many other eyewitnesses.

Here’s my question for you, Josh, maybe you can devote your next blog post to it: what are the primary tenets of this Christianity you describe if they don’t include a for-real resurrection of Jesus?