Resurrection of Jesus Christ for the 21st Century

 

When discussing a topic that is alleged to have occurred about 2000 years ago, one might assume that viewpoints are fairly well settled. But in fact, the battle over the resurrection of Jesus Christ is still generating great debate among scholars today at the outset of the 21rst century, with intense research occurring on all sides. Yet, it is likely that many are unaware of the controversies concerning the reality of Christ’s resurrection. It is my hope that this article will encourage those who still believe, that the central teaching of the Christian faith is not a fantasy or fairytale, but a historical fact.

 

Early Church Belief in the Resurrection

Heretics in the early church referred to belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ as  “the faith of fools,”[1]and that those who believed in it were “deluded by a ‘very great error.’”[2] Yes, it is an amazing claim to suggest that Jesus, dead and buried for three days, was restored to life, rising triumphantly from the grave. The early church father Tertullian responded to the critics that it , “must be believed, because it is absurd.”[3] Indeed, we who believe are fools for Christ ! (1Corinthian 4:10).

 

Christians do not suggest that the resurrection relates to our normal experiences, but rather proclaim it as a fantastic miracle. However, it is not based on the kind of blind faith that Mark Twain spoke of when he said, “Faith is believing something you know ain’t so.”[4] Rather, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is among the best-attested events in human history. When judged by the same standards historians use to weigh the reliability of other historical events, the resurrection of Christ stands with solid support.

 

The apostle Paul preached that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the very foundation of Christianity. He said, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. . . But Christ has been indeed raised from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15: 14, 20). For Paul, belief in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was not an option, but a vital fact to be defended at all costs. This same conviction continued among the church fathers of the first centuries of the Christian Church. Elaine Pagels sums up the conviction of the church fathers in referring to Tertullian who “declares that anyone who denies the resurrection of the flesh is a heretic, not a Christian.”[5]

 

Christ’s Resurrection Non-negotiable

As there were believers and unbelievers in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ among professing Christians in the early church, the same situation remains today. There are those who profess Christianity, and yet deny Christ’s actual resurrection. With Tertullian, we must say that all such denials are blasphemous heresy.

Error’s of Marcus Borg

 

 For instance, Marcus Borg stated, “By the pre-Easter Jesus, I mean of course Jesus during his historical lifetime: a Galilean Jewish peasant of the first century, a flesh and blood figure of the past. This Jesus is dead and gone—a claim that does not deny Easter but simply recognize that the ‘protoplasmic’ Jesus isn’t around anymore.”[6]

 

Borg attempts a verbal sleight of hand trick, claiming to believe in Easter, while at the same time denying its very meaning. How can you claim to believe in Easter on the one hand, and on the other deny the very purpose of Easter: the actual resurrection from the dead by Jesus Christ? Borg further stated, “I see the empty tomb and whatever happened to the corpse of Jesus to be ultimately irrelevant to the truth of Easter.”[7] To say that the Christ’s resurrection is irrelevant to Easter, is like saying that the heart and brain are irrelevant to a healthy body!

 

Borg went on to say that, “As a child, I took it for granted that Easter meant that Jesus literally rose from the tomb. I now see Easter very differently. For me, it is irrelevant whether or not the tomb was empty. . . thus, as a Christian, I am very comfortable not knowing whether or not the tomb was empty, Indeed, the discovery of Jesus’ skeletal remains would not be a problem.”[8]

 

It is tragic that Borg has lost the belief in the resurrection that he once held as a child. I do not have hostility toward him, but only sadness as of one who has lost his way. I pray that he returns on the path he trod as a child. That said, it needs to be stated that if the enemies of Christianity at its founding had found the body of Jesus Christ, it would have been the end of Christianity. And it is just at this point that Borg et al flounder, for they fail to explain the very existence of the Christian Church, if in fact, Christ did not rise from the dead!

 

Lights, Camera, Action!

Borg does ask a very good question, however: “Are we to understand these stories [about Christ’s resurrection] as reporting the kind of events that could have been videotaped, if one have been there with a videocamera?”[9] The answer for Bible believing Christians must be a strong YES! Let the Bible speak for itself.

 

The Witness of Scripture

“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).

 

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the word of life” (1 John 1:1).

 

 “While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds ? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones , as you see I have.” (Luke 24:36-39).

 

“But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.’ A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. . . Jesus stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands, Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop doubting and believe.’ Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” (John 20:25-28).

 

“He appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living” (1 Corinthians 15:5-6).

 

The Bible clearly doesn’t allow for the kind of sophistry employed by Marcus Borg and the like. It is straightforward in affirming the literal bodily resurrection of Christ. Accordingly, anyone who denies Christ’s actual resurrection is a false teacher, period!

 

Errors of John Dominic Crossan

John Dominic Crossan laments in a similar vein to Marcus Borg, “It is that I know thousands of Christians for whom the bodily resurrection is equated with the resurrection. They’ve—how would I put it—reduced it to ‘do you or do you not believe that Jesus came bodily out of the tomb?’ and then that means a camera could have picked up Jesus, as it were. And that’s all they want to talk about. If they take resurrection to mean just that, then they say I can’t be a Christian. I think that is awful.”[10]

 

I think it is awful that Crossan thinks it is awful. That is, I am amazed that Crossan is surprised or offended when someone doubts his orthodoxy when he is unwilling to affirm  the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Tolerance has a place, but Christians cannot tolerate blasphemy directed at our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The early Christians believed in Christ’s actual resurrection. This seems beyond dispute. The apostles nearly all died martyr’s deaths. It seems unlikely that they would all have been willing to die for a lie. One can argue that they were all delusional or mad, but one cannot deny that they believed they saw the risen Christ.

 

Further, not only do we have the testimony of over 500 hundred contemporary witnesses to the risen Christ, but we have the evidence of the empty tomb. As we have stated, if the enemies of Christianity could produce the dead body of Jesus Christ, Christianity would never have begun, let alone grow to the largest religion in the world.

 

But rather than producing the body, the enemies put forth a story claiming that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body, and made up the story of the resurrection. Never mind that Christ’s enemies had placed a guard at the tomb to prevent the very thing from happening. But, as is so often the case, the law of unintended consequences results in Christ’s enemies actually providing support for his resurrection. This is because even they acknowledge that Christ’s tomb is empty.

 

Bishop Wright’s Defense of Christ’s Resurrection

At the forefront of scholars today defending Christ’s resurrection is N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. Wright has done extensive historical research on the sitz en lieben, that is, the historical setting of Christ’s life. The results of his research are offered in his monumental study, “The Resurrection of the Son of God.”[11] Wright described the purpose of this book as showing “that the normal historical proposals about the rise of resurrection faith in the early church, the normal proposals that try to explain things without the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus, simply won’t work historically.”[12]

 

For instance, says Wright, “I have shown against Gerd Ludemann that the idea of resurrection is not something which ancient people could accept easily, because they didn’t know the laws of nature, whereas we moderns, with post-enlightment science, have now discovered that resurrection can’t be true. That is simply absurd [as a historical argument]”[13]

Resurrection vs. Visions

Wright continued, “I’ve shown against Greg Riley that the ancient pagan stories about people eating with the dead, or seeing the dead in realistic visions and so on, are completely different from the idea of the resurrection, and that the same ancient pagans who knew all about visions and the like continued to reject resurrection with scorn.”[14]

 

In a debate with Crossan in March of 2005, Wright expanded this argument, “People in the ancient world had visions of people after they died, and that doesn’t mean they’re alive again—it means they’re dead. That’s the point. The ancient pagan writers were very clear about that. That’s one of the reasons that you have these meals with the dead at the tomb, not to bring them back again, but as a way of making sure that Uncle Joe ain’t coming back again . . . This is why Greg Riley is completely wrong in Resurrection Reconsidered—you wouldn’t then say, well, this is basically the same thing as somebody being alive again. That’s precisely what it isn’t.”[15]

 

When skeptics point to apparitions or visions of the dead to explain the disciples belief in Jesus’ resurrection, they are just plain wrong historically. For instance, Antony G. N. Flew, in a debate with Gary Habermas stated, “My best suggestion is that these were grief-related visions. Apparently, these are fairly common. People who have lost a husband, wife, or close relative and feel distressed about it suddenly have the feeling or seem to see the familiar person around the house and so on. I take it that these were grief-related visions and there was nothing there that anybody else could have seen.”[16]

 

However, when one has a vision of Grandma shortly after her funeral, they don’t go and ask for a refund for her burial plot, and make preparations for her at the nursing home, because they still know (despite the vision) that they’re loved one is in fact dead. On the other hand, Christ’s disciples didn’t claim to have a vision of him, but were actually with him, walking, carrying on conversations, touching him, eating with him, individually and in groups (at one time up to 500 people!), over a period of 40 days. This is not the stuff of illusions and hallucinations. Further, no type of vision explains the empty tomb.

Resurrection vs. Cognitive Dissonance

Wright also claims that “I have shown that the idea of resurrection faith being generated by some kind of cognitive dissonance simply doesn’t work”[17] This one is especially intriguing to me. The cognitive dissonance theory essentially states that we are uncomfortable when are actions are not in line with our beliefs and emotions.

 

In the case of the apostles, it is suggested, that they were so upset psychologically with Christ’s death, that it was easier to delude themselves into believing in his resurrection, than to face the fact that Christ was dead.  That is, the apostles were so convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was going to set up a political kingdom, that when he died, they couldn’t face this contradiction to their beliefs, and so imagined that he was in fact yet alive.

 

Might we rather suggest that it was Christ’s enemies who in fact suffered this fate since rather than accepting the powerful evidence of the risen Christ and the empty tomb (something contrary to their beliefs), they made up a story that Christ’s disciples stole his body!

 

Changes from Jewish to Christian Resurrection beliefs

Wright focuses on the great differences between Jewish beliefs and expectations concerning resurrection hope before Christ, and the beliefs of Christians following the resurrection of Jesus. Wright calls these differences mutations (he outlines six of them). I will mention two important ones here.

 

Wright states that, “Resurrection as an event has split in two. . . First centuries Jews expected the resurrection . . . [to be] . . . a single event. But [for] Christian writers . . . the resurrection is now a two stage event . . . Christ the firstfruits, and then at his coming, those who belong to him.”[18] Wright believes that Christ’s resurrection is the only reasonable explanation for the rise of this view among first century Jews.

 

A Crucified Messiah?

Wright strikes at the heart of critics of Christ’s resurrection with his (6^th) mutation, in which the Jewish expectation of the Messiah as one who would establish a political kingdom and bring about a golden age is replaced by the Christian idea of a crucified and risen Messiah.

 

Wright states, “Nobody expected the Messiah to be raised from the dead, for the simple reason that nobody in Judaism at the time expected a Messiah would die.”[19]

 

Further, says Wright, “The disciples, at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, were completely devastated. Everybody in their world knew that if you were following a prophet or a Messiah or a leader or whatever and that person got executed by the Roman authorities, it meant you had backed the wrong horse. Since everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah, the only thing that explains why they said Jesus was the Messiah is that they really did believe He had been bodily raised from the dead.”[20]

 

Wright drove this point home in a recent debate with Crossan in which he compared the followers of Jesus to a similar situation. “Supposing, three of four days later [after the death of a Jewish Messianic figure in A.D. 70], some lucky Jew who managed to escape with some friends and be hiding out somewhere saying, ‘You know, I think Simon really was the Messiah, You know, we felt God’s power at work when he was leading us. I really think he was and is God’s Annointed One.’ His friends would say, ‘You must be crazy. The Romans caught him; they killed him, just like they always do. You know perfectly well what that means. It means that he couldn’t possibly be the Messiah, because we all know that when the pagans execute somebody—celebrating their triumph over him—that shows that he couldn’t have been the Messiah.’ So, without something happening next, all of that stuff goes down the tubes. I think that scene in Luke 24 . . .  is spot-on in terms of first century Jewish perceptions: ‘We had hoped that he would be the one to redeem Israel,’ but the implication is, we know that the fact that they killed him shows that he can’t have been. Without something to reverse that, they would say, ‘we’ve just been living in a wonderful dream, but now it’s all over and we’ve woken up.”[21]

 

If Jesus had not risen from the dead, there may have been a movement among his faithful followers, honoring his teachings and example, such as occurred with John the Baptist after his death, but as N.T. Wright so powerfully argues, without Christ’s resurrection, his followers would not have traveled to the ends of the world proclaiming Jesus as Messiah, along with the proclamation of the resurrection itself.

 

Conclusion

 

It is unfortunate that just as in the early church, there are those today who take the name of Christian, and yet deny Christ’s resurrection. We take no pleasure in standing against those who deny Christ, but stand we must: with Christ and against false teachers.

 

I want to end this article with an interesting story concerning belief in Christ’s resurrection.

 

“About 1930, the Bolshevik, Bukharin, journeyed from Moscow to Kiev. His mission was to address a huge assembly. His subject, atheism. For a solid hour he aimed his heavy artillery at Christianity, hurling argument and ridicule. At last he was finished and viewed what seemed to be the smoldering ashes of men’s faith. ‘Are there any questions?’ Bukharin demanded. A solitary man arose and asked permission to speak. He mounted the platform and moved close to the Communist. The audience was breathlessly silent as the man surveyed them first to the right, then to the left. At last he shouted the ancient orthodox greeting, “Christ Is Risen!’ The vast assembly arose as one man, and the response came crashing like the sound of an avalanche, ‘He Is Risen Indeed!’”[22]

 

Steve Lagoon