Saturday, January 8, 2022

Defending Resurrection Faith

My friend, John, and I are reading N.T. Wright’s book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I mentioned the book previously in a discussion about heaven. This time I want to look at the resurrection. I am impressed by Wright’s rebuttal of anyone who doubts or denies the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Wright agrees with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 that without the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, Christian faith is vain, empty, worthless. The case Wright brings in defense of the resurrection speaks specifically to those moderns who “know” that resurrection from the dead is impossible; therefore, they conclude that Christianity is built on a sham. To believe in such a thing, they say, is to abandon reason and rely solely on faith.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that we rely on our faith regarding the Bible’s claims. The atheists and the doubters also maintain their positions by believing things that cannot be proved. I like the way Geisler and Turek put it in the title of their book: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. The atheist must take it on faith that the known universe came into being through a long series of chance occurrences. Honest scientists are gradually moving away from the Darwinian explanation of evolutionary process to explain what we observe. (I dealt with this more fully in “Think About It.”)

While believers do believe certain unlikely things, that belief is not without support. In Surprised by Hope, Wright dismisses the common arguments that the disciples stole the body, or that Jesus never really died, or that mass psychosis can explain what happened. These attacks on faith that deny the resurrection are easily debunked as many apologists have done previously. What most impressed me was the way Wright demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus was completely unexpected, having no precedent either in secular thinking or the theology of the Jews.

Wright points out that much of the secular world in the first century followed Plato in thinking that the physical realm was inferior to the non-physical. This led them to imagine that after death, they would achieve a state of being that had shed all the imperfections of physicality. Hence, bodily resurrection was not something to be desired. Most of those who did not follow Plato believed there was a life after death in some far away place like the Elysian Fields of Greek mythology. The had no thought that they would be resurrected on earth.

The Jews, according to Wright, were split into two camps; the Sadducees denied any resurrection at all, while the Pharisees and others believed there would be a general resurrection of all humans at the end of time. This resurrection was the reestablishment of the kingdom of Israel the prophets spoke of. You hear that idea surface when the disciples asked the risen Jesus if He was about to restore the kingdom. Rather that correcting their kingdom idea, Jesus offered an explanation involving timing. He said only the Father knew when that would happen.

This still left them with the anomaly of Jesus’ resurrection. No one imagined, says Wright, that someone would be brought back from the dead individually some time before the general resurrection they looked forward to. Wright makes the case that nothing in the first century context would have led the disciples to invent the resurrection account. It was unheard of and therefore an unlikely fabrication meant to hide the “fact” of Jesus’ death at the hands of His enemies.

When the risen Jesus first appeared, the women thought He was a gardener or someone else, but they had no reason to think they were seeing Jesus. The same is true for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Rather than going about looking for Jesus in His new body, the disciples were gathered together in fear that their execution would be next. When Jesus made His unnatural appearance in the locked room, they thought He might be a ghost; no one said, “Oh there you are, the Risen One.” To prove his physicality to Thomas, Jesus offered a touch of His wounded hands and side. Interestingly, although it was a new body with unusual characteristics, it bore remnants of its former state. This represents another totally new idea that no first century thinker would have imagined.

That the resurrection of Jesus was a totally new idea in the first century without precedent in any historical context proves that it was thrust upon the first disciples and not invented by them. As Wright points out, the disciples heard Jesus speak of His resurrection, and they had no idea what He was talking about. They had to wait for the coming of the promised Holy Spirit to put it all together. Once they grasped it, it became the centerpiece of their preaching. To them, the resurrection was the ultimate validation of Jesus’ messiahship.

So, while we do hold the idea of the resurrection by faith, there is no reason to fear the arguments of the doubters and the atheists. In fact, it is they who should fear our argument. If Jesus did rise from the grave, a fact with abundant historical and rational support, those who deny it are signing their death warrant. Only those who believe in Christ’s resurrection will take part in the ultimate resurrection to eternal life when He returns to call His people home. To that I say, Maranatha Jesus; come quickly.

Related posts: I Don’t Believe in God; Do We Really Need God

1 comment: