E. The Center of Christianity
Chapters and investigated the possibility that the resurrection of Jesus did not actually occur. In chapter it was shown that the most influential position here was held by historian and philosopher David Hume. His essay “Of Miracles” set the stage for other views which also rejected the resurrection as an event, usually because it was held that such events were impossible from the outset because they contradicted the laws of nature.
It was apparent especially in chapter that Protestant liberalism followed Hume in this position. In fact, John Herman Randall, Jr. explains that Protestant liberalism as a whole followed Hume in this line of reasoning. Hume’s influence extended not only to the nineteenth-century liberals, but also on to this present day where men of this theological persuasion have often continued to reject the miraculous, based upon this essay.
Other scholars also note that Hume’s essay became the definitive stance for liberalism with regards to all miracles. Smith agrees with Randall in this assertion. Montgomery likewise affirms the fact that both nineteenth- and twentieth-century theology derived its belief in the impossibility of miracles from Hume.
It is interesting that these liberal theologians themselves also acknowledged that their views were based upon the stance taken by Hume. For instance, in nineteenth-century liberalism, David Strauss was explicitly willing to acknowledge this dependence. For this scholar, Hume’s essay had forever settled the question of the miraculous. Supernatural, nature-contradicting miracles simply do not occur.
Other liberals also followed the position taken by Strauss in that they also favored Hume’s position against miracles. Friedrich Schleiermacher, like Hume, asserted that miracles are found where there is little knowledge of the laws of nature. Miracles actually oppose nature and the idea of the miraculous must be abandoned. Heinrich Paulus likewise followed Hume in believing that miracles are usually said to have occurred where there is a deficient knowledge of nature. Scripture is mistaken in claiming that miracles did occur and when the workings of nature are revealed, this mistake becomes even clearer. Bruno Baur also affirmed that no events like miracles occur which break the laws of nature. For Ernst Renan, Jesus believed that miracles were common, not because they actually were, but because he was unfamiliar with the uniformity of nature’s laws.
Later in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, liberal theologians were still following Hume and his reasons for rejecting miracles. Otto Pfleiderer held a notion that was very common, especially since Hume—that the events of nature follow an unchanging regularity and order. Adolf von Harnack added his voice to the growing list of scholars who accepted, along with Hume, the belief that ancient peoples believed the miraculous because they did not understand the laws of nature. They did not realize that events which interrupt nature never occur. Thus, miracles cannot be believed.
In the twentieth century, as mentioned above, liberal theologians continued to accept Hume’s position on miracles as the definitive one. Rudolf Bultmann accepts the view that the modern conceptions of nature and science do not allow for miracles. Because of the natural laws, the universe is closed to Supernatural workings. Thus miracles are no longer acceptable in today’s world. For Paul Tillich, no events such as miracles can break the laws of nature. John A. T. Robinson holds that the Biblical miracles are myths because natural processes cannot be interrupted by God’s intervention. The New Testament cosmology must therefore be abandoned.
It is quite obvious from this foregoing survey that both nineteenth- and twentieth-century liberal theologians have followed Hume in rejecting all possibility for the miraculous. That Hume was the primary inspiration for this viewpoint is also plain.
Yet it has been shown above that Hume’s thesis failed to provide an adequate prohibitive against the occurrence of miracles. Four major objections were raised against his view. Briefly, it was first discovered that Hume utilized a series of logical errors, especially circular reasoning and begging the question. This is especially noticeable in his definition of miracle and in his assumption of the negative value of all experience of miracles, when just such an investigation of this experience might demonstrate the probability of a miracle. Second, Hume arbitrarily rejects miracles even where he recognizes a high credibility for the Supernatural event described. Third, Hume rejects miracles because of a faulty view of the uniformity of nature which he himself had rejected in other works. This incorrect view of nature is the center of his polemic and must therefore be rejected. Fourth, in spite of Hume’s agreements with modern thought in several aspects of his work, he reverted to a pre-modern stance with respect to his view of miracles. Although he rejected the then-popular view of a closed universe and opted for the use of probabilities, he inconsistently rejected miracles from the outset because they were believed to be impossible. He also ignored any probabilities for miracles and thus ruled them out in a way which is not consistent with the above modern concepts which he accepted. Here he is pre-modern and in error.
All ten of the theologians just surveyed also agree in accepting the view that the universe is closed to all occurrences of Supernatural miracles. These events are generally conceived of as being impossible because they oppose the workings of nature. Ancient peoples who accepted such reports as true were often said to have done so because they did not understand nature properly. It is therefore more possible to verify the contention of Randall, Montgomery, and Smith given above that all of liberalism as a whole followed Hume in these conclusions. J. Gresham Machen concurs with these scholars that liberalism did indeed agree in abandoning belief in the miraculous.
Because both nineteenth- and twentieth-century liberalism followed Hume’s reasoning in its rejection of the miraculous, it is thus possible to ascertain that these theologians were, like Hume, also in error concerning these views. For these reasons it is not surprising to find that almost the same criticisms of Hume which were related in chapter with regard to the use of improper presuppositions and an incorrect methodology and concerning the use of a faulty view of the uniformity of nature also apply to these other scholars. As Hume was found to be in error in these concepts, so also is liberal theology likewise in error here. Miracles cannot be ruled out by such an approach.
A second indication that the method employed by theological liberalism since Hume’s time is in error concerns the naturalistic theories which have been suggested in order to account for the resurrection of Jesus. Such hypotheses were necessary in order to explain an event which had already been rejected a la Hume. The major theories which have been formulated against the resurrection have been discussed above and refuted. An investigation of each demonstrated that they could not properly account for what is known to have occurred. Each can be adequately refuted historically, logically, and theologically.
That none of the naturalistic theories adequately accounts for the resurrection of Jesus is indeed an extremely acute point against theological liberalism’s stance on the resurrection. Our endeavor has been to find the historical conclusion which is most probable—the one which best accounts for what is known to have occurred. Yet, none of even the strongest alternative theories is even persuasive, let alone being probable. A more adequate solution is definitely needed here.
A third indication that the liberal theological position on the resurrection is incorrect is the fact that even those who formulated naturalistic theories against this event joined in the decimation of other “rival” theories. Thus it was shown earlier how Strauss and Renan (among others) were both strongly opposed to Paulus’ swoon theory. In fact, it is usually believed that Strauss himself gave the final death blow to the theory, which destroyed it for good. However, Strauss’ vision theory was opposed strenuously by such scholars as Schleiermacher, Paulus, and Keim. Once again it was a liberal theologian, Keim, who is generally considered to be the one whose logical arguments disposed of Strauss’ theory.
While such opposition by these of a similar theological stance surely does not automatically prove these theories to be wrong, the indications are that each felt that the other naturalistic theories were in error. This points to a real dissatisfaction with such theories on the part of these scholars. None could convince even those of his own theological persuasion that his view was the most probable one.
There are thus three very important reasons for holding that the answer to the resurrection which is suggested by Hume and by all of theological liberalism fails to account adequately for what is known to have occurred. First, much of the criticism directed against Hume in chapter also applies to liberalism’s approach to this event. Thus the entire methodology and the presuppositions which are used are invalid, as is the faulty view of the uniformity of nature. The resurrection and other miracles cannot properly be negated by these methods. This point alone is devastating to these positions. Second, the fact that no naturalistic theory adequately accounts for what occurred is an even stronger point against Hume and liberalism. That no probability can be established for any such alternative theory demonstrates that none of these hypotheses can be accepted as the probable solution. Third, not even those who reject the resurrection agree that any theory adequately accounts for the evidence. Rather, several scholars were content to destroy the arguments for theories which opposed their own, clearly revealing the inherent weaknesses of each.
It is popular in contemporary theology to deny Jesus’ literal resurrection and at the same time to affirm that in some way he can still be said to be alive today. For instance, Bultmann contends that although Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, he still meets us through the words of preaching as the risen Lord. Thus, while Jesus himself did not actually rise from the dead as the New Testament affirms, we can still encounter the risen Lord today by faith in the words which are preached. In fact it is only by this mode that the resurrection becomes present and it thereby becomes possible to meet the risen Jesus.
Marxsen likewise accepts such a formulation. Although Jesus is dead, his offer of faith has not lost its validity because Jesus lives today in the content of Christian preaching. Thus Jesus’ activity continues beyond the grave. He shows himself to be alive because men still continue to respond to him in faith. For Marxsen, Jesus’ resurrection is thus not the raising of a dead man from the grave, but rather the crucified and dead Jesus still influencing men to believe even today.
The purpose behind such theological maneuvers is obvious. The desire is to be able to continue to teach that the Christian faith is still valid for modern man even though many are still inclined to reject the resurrection as an actual event in history. In this way traditional beliefs which in the New Testament are a result of the resurrection can be confirmed in a way that is more harmonious with modern thought.
However, this position is quite obviously laden with several incredibilities. There are at least two valid reasons for rejecting such a theological stance.
First, such an understanding of Jesus’ resurrection, whereby he is said to be alive even though he did not literally rise from the dead, is contrary to the earliest Christian understanding of this event. The Jewish conception of resurrection involved the raising of the body. The first century Christians likewise believed in the resurrection of a spiritual body as clearly shown above, and Jesus was believed to have literally risen in this way. Therefore, to assert that this modern view is close to the New Testament is ridiculous. For the earliest believers, Jesus was said to be alive at present, but because he had literally risen from the dead, not because his influence had simply continued beyond the grave in spite of being dead.
As asserted by Maier, the modern concept that the Christian faith would still be valid even if Jesus had never risen bodily would be nothing but nonsense to Paul and other first century Christians. Brown agrees, adding that formulations such as Marxsen’s are of little value if they do not do justice to the New Testament stance, which allows only one interpretation of the resurrection—a literal resuscitation. Ladd states this well:
The New Testament knows nothing about the persistence of Jesus’ personality apart from the resurrection of the body. Neither does the New Testament know the ‘resurrection of the spirit’ to heaven.… If his body is mouldering in a Palestinian tomb, he cannot be the exalted Lord.
Admittedly, the New Testament concept of Jesus’ resurrection is not self-vindicating. But the point here is a crucial one. The testimony of Paul is that if Jesus did not rise literally in a spiritual body in such a way that he could appear to others, then he did not rise at all (1 Cor 15:1–19). This is the choice which is open to us. Either Jesus rose literally or he cannot be said to be alive in any other way than in a spiritual sense. To take a middle ground which claims that Jesus is alive but that he did not rise from the dead is not open to us. The earliest Christians in particular would not recognize such a compromising belief. If Jesus was dead, Christian theology could not be true at all. If Jesus is dead, neither can contemporary theology hold to the other affirmations and doctrines of the Christian faith. They all stand or fall together.
Second, logic alone dictates that this modern concept of the resurrection is invalid. As Ladd firmly states, if Jesus did not rise bodily from the tomb, then he is still dead. It is plain that if a person is dead he cannot still be alive unless one is speaking of spiritual immortality or of the continuation of one’s personality as he is remembered by others or some such understanding. Apart from just such a resurrection as the New Testament proclaims, Jesus cannot be said to be any more alive than anyone else who has ever died. Apart from a literal resurrection, he could still be influencing people today only in the sense of the continued affect of his life and teachings upon others. But to say that Jesus is risen because of such spiritual immortality or influence is plainly illogical and inaccurate. It also involves a gross misappropriation of words.
The early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection could not have survived if Jesus’ body was still rotting in the grave. In fact, no part of the Christian faith could be considered true if Jesus had never risen from the dead. Ladd states this fact quite well:
But if Jesus is dead, his entire message is negated. If he is dead, he cannot come in his Kingdom.… Furthermore Jesus’ teaching about the presence of the Kingdom and its blessings is also a delusion, for the presence of the Kingdom-blessings was but an anticipation of the eschatological Kingdom to be established by the heavenly Son of Man.… If Jesus is dead, his entire message about the Kingdom of God is a delusion. If Jesus is dead, the heart of the New Testament Christology is also a delusion.
For these reasons, the modern formulation whereby it is held that Jesus is alive even though he did not literally rise from the dead cannot be valid. Such an interpretation does not coincide with the New Testament understanding of this event and thus cannot be understood as such. The New Testament presents a do-or-die attitude as regards the literal resurrection of Jesus. Only if it occurred literally can we hold Christian theology to be valid. Any other understanding of this event is therefore not possible if one still desires to embrace Christian doctrine.
In addition, this modern formulation is quite illogical. A dead man who did not rise from the dead is no more alive than any other dead individual. Such a man could only influence people by the inspiration of his past life and teachings. But such a person has not risen and is not alive any more than any other person. His present spiritual existence would therefore not be unique. Only by a literal resurrection can an individual be proclaimed as being risen.
Thus we must conclude that David Hume and theological liberalism as a whole (both nineteenth- and twentieth-century) do not offer a valid approach to the resurrection of Jesus. The methodology and presuppositions which are used have been shown to be in error, as is the incorrect conception of the uniformity of nature. Without these faulty premises the subsequent conclusions which were postulated against the resurrection most assuredly cannot be held. Also, the naturalistic theories which were proposed as alternate suggestions to account for the belief in the resurrection were shown to be inadequate to account for the known facts. These theories fall short historically, logically, and theologically. In addition, liberal theologians themselves showed that the alternate theories were not valid by demonstrating the inadequacies of each one.
It was likewise determined that the popular modern understanding of Jesus as being “risen” and “alive” today in spite of his having never risen from the dead is also a totally inadequate conception. It must be rejected, as shown above, in that it violates the earliest Christian understanding of this event and because it is quite illogical.
It is therefore necessary that the answer given by Hume and by contemporary liberal theology since his time be rejected as an inadequate solution to the question of the resurrection. None of the naturalistic theories are even historically plausible, let alone probable, and must therefore be abandoned. This theory that the resurrection did not occur thus fails at the crucial point of not being able to formulate a probable alternate theory or otherwise to properly rule out the resurrection. Any alternative theory such as these which have been examined and refuted here must therefore be rejected.
The questions discussed in this chapter are very important ones. All of Christian theology relies on the validity of the resurrection and it is therefore imperative to understand if this event is an actual occurrence. To say that Jesus is risen or alive but that he did not literally rise from the dead just compounds the dilemma. It is inadequate as an answer to the question of whether Jesus really rose. It is our desire to evaluate the other possibilities in order to ascertain if they can come any closer to a probable answer.
In chapters and the possibility was investigated that the resurrection of Jesus actually occurred, but that it cannot be demonstrated as such. It was shown in chapter that the most influential position here was that of theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. It also became obvious, especially in chapter , that many others have followed him in this belief.
It has just been found that the conclusion that the resurrection did not occur fails in that it can neither provide a probable solution to the facts or otherwise properly negate this event. Thus an answer must be found elsewhere.
Kierkegaard popularized the conclusion that the resurrection (and other miracles) actually happened, but that this event cannot be proven to have occurred. It can only be accepted by faith. It is solely by faith and not by any type of demonstration whatsoever that we come to know God.
This position was further developed by Karl Barth, who clearly accepted the resurrection as a historical event which actually occurred. But, like Kierkegaard, this event cannot be proven to have occurred at all. However, Barth followed earlier theologians like Martin Kähler in relegating the resurrection to other than totally objective history. This event was believed to have occurred in a nonverifiable type of history removed from objective tests such as historical investigation.
Many theologians followed Barth in these views. Today it is quite popular to conceive of the resurrection as a real event, but one which is not verifiable.
The rationale behind such a theory is apparently to be able to affirm the resurrection as a real event for faith but at the same time to remove this event from the critical eye of modern historiography. Thus it appears that Barth’s intention (and those who agree with him) is to remove the Christian faith from this realm of modern historical methodology and thus to keep Christianity from any possibility of being critically investigated. Such methods of verification are viewed as being opposed to the New Testament presentation of faith.
In spite of Barth’s seeming desire to “preserve” Christianity from all such critical investigations, his formulation is still quite problematical. It has already been found in chapter that history is required to investigate all possible facts surrounding an event in order to find the most probable conclusion. It was concluded that neither science or history can rule out the miraculous a priori. Rather, all of the facts must be thoroughly investigated with the conclusion which best supports the facts being viewed as the probable one. Therefore a miracle such as the resurrection might be found to be the probable conclusion and thus be viewed as an actual historical event. For this reason, Barth need not feel that the facts of Christianity must be preserved from historical or other types of investigation. If these facts are found to be probable they will thereby defend themselves. Otherwise such an event would not merit the faith which the New Testament asserts is dependent upon it. Barth is therefore in error in recommending such a procedure as being essential.
This last criticism of Barth’s method is in addition to the other major problems which have been pointed out in chapters and with regards to both Kierkegaard’s and Barth’s position (and also concerning those scholars who follow them). Briefly, there were three major criticisms directed against Kierkegaard. First, even Kierkegaard himself is not successful in building a theological system that is not first built on some reasonable foundation. For instance, his polemic for faith and subjectivity is somewhat rational, as he makes use of both logic and reason. Even his convictions were shown to be rationally-based. In fact, his entire system could not be formulated apart from reason. Thus it is shown to be impossible to have faith apart from some sort of rational basis. Second, since faith is construed as being temporally first and reason is given no real place by this scholar, it is not possible to know if such faith is valid. Since there would be no objective criteria by which to examine the Christian faith, we cannot know if it is correct in its beliefs or not. Faith must therefore be testable in order to determine if it is valid. Otherwise one never ascertains whether he was right in this faith and whether his belief was trustworthy and factual, or if it was simply spurious.
From the first two criticisms of Kierkegaard it becomes apparent that (1) reason is temporally first and (2) faith needs an objective foundation so that it can be verified. A third criticism of Kierkegaard naturally follows from these first two. Since some reasonable verification is therefore needed upon which faith can be built, a historical examination of the claims of Christianity is the most likely procedure. At any rate, such a reasonable method could not be opposed since just such an objective basis is needed.
From this treatment of Kierkegaard, some of the weaknesses of this proposed approach to the resurrection can be more clearly seen. There is definitely a need for a more objective approach to this event.
In addition to the one given above, four major criticisms were also presented concerning Barth’s modification of this method. Briefly, the first criticism concerns Barth’s development of the idea that Jesus’ resurrection occurred in prehistory or parahistory. It involves a twofold critique. History knows of no such concept where events can occur on the boundary or outskirts of history. This realm cannot be measured by historical methods and is thus invalid. Additionally, Barth allows no verification for events in prehistory, but still insists that they are actually historical. However, actual history can be examined and investigated. If the resurrection occurred in history it must be open to such investigation or it cannot be referred to as objective history. Second, like Kierkegaard, Barth’s method allows no means whereby the Christian faith can be examined. Thus, once again, it cannot be determined if this faith is valid or not. To remove Christianity from any investigation is to make it so subjective that no one could actually ascertain its trustworthiness. One could not be sure whether one’s belief was factual.
Third, Barth accepts the death of Jesus as an event which occurred in real history in the modern sense of the word, while the resurrection is relegated to prehistory. Yet both events are believed to be revelatory. Barth is therefore illogical to declare that God does not reveal Himself in objective, verifiable events. Since He did so at the cross, He could also do so with the resurrection. Thus the resurrection could also logically be history in the modern verifiable, objective sense. The fourth criticism of Barth is that he has clearly been shown to be wrong in his belief that the New Testament does not ever try to demonstrate the resurrection. To the contrary, such a procedure occurs several times. Thus he cannot claim Scriptural backing for his method.
For the reasons stated here, this second possible solution to the resurrection also fails to account properly for the facts which are known to be true. Admittedly, it is laden with fewer problems that the first method discussed in the last chapter. For instance, this solution is not required to offer any naturalistic alternative views concerning the resurrection. But the approach taken by Kierkegaard, Barth, and others cannot adequately deal with all of the criticisms raised here and must therefore be rejected as an incorrect treatment of Jesus’ resurrection.
As concluded in chapters and , Kierkegaard and Barth both agree that faith in Christ is the most important element of Christianity. The same was also found to be true in this study in chapter above, with faith as the more crucial element being built upon a reasonable look at the facts. Therefore, their conception of faith can remain valid even though the methodology by which they reach this conclusion is faulty. This is because the same conclusion, namely the importance of faith, can also be reached objectively.
For both Kierkegaard and Barth, the center of Christianity is salvation by faith and commitment to Jesus as the Christ. Salvation is achieved when an individual is convicted that he is a sinner and experiences a complete change in his life by repentance. This spiritual experience consists of the individual trusting the death of Christ on the cross as a substitutionary death to pay for his sins and surrendering his life to God in faith as a result. Both of these theologians also stress the subsequent commitment and the changed life which will result from a genuine conversion.
Because of the aforementioned study of the reason-faith relationship, these conclusions concerning the primary importance of faith must therefore be accepted as valid. They faithfully represent the New Testament position on this subject and will be found to be even more trustworthy if the resurrection is found to be an actual historical event because a firm, objective grounding will then have been given to this concept of faith.
The third possible solution to the resurrection of Jesus was investigated in chapters and , a solution which postulated that the resurrection actually occurred and that it can be demonstrated to be a historical event. It was determined in chapter that Wolfhart Pannenberg is probably the best known representative of this viewpoint. Several other scholars likewise hold this view without following Pannenberg in these conclusions. In chapter the views of three other key scholars who also believe that the resurrection can be demonstrated to have occurred in history were also enumerated.
Generally speaking, each of these four scholars holds that history must be investigated in order to ascertain if the resurrection occurred. All agree that one must not be prejudiced concerning what is possible or impossible in such an investigation. The only way to ascertain if a Supernatural event such as the resurrection has actually occurred is to examine the facts and then decide which conclusion best fits these facts. This conclusion is to be accepted as the most probable one and is thus to be viewed as a historical fact, even if it is a miracle.
After an examination of the available evidence, each of these four scholars arrives at the conclusion that the resurrection is the event that best explains what happened. The method varies a little between each of these men, but the primary result is the same. The facts are best explained by the resurrection and as this is the most probable solution, it is regarded as historical fact.
In spite of the logical approach taken by these scholars, some difficulties were detected in their work. This was especially true of Pannenberg’s thesis. First, his concept of God was discovered to be quite arbitrary, lacking a sufficient amount of demonstration. Contrary to Pannenberg’s belief, Jesus does not speak exclusively of God’s working from the future. To hold such a position one must already have assumed that God works in this way in order to interpret all verses in light of this idea. This would be especially difficult with the verses which were shown to teach the opposite view. Second, in spite of Pannenberg’s conception of the indirect Self-revelation of God, it was shown that the Jews also viewed revelation as occurring directly through both the spoken word of the prophets and the written word of Scripture. Thus it cannot be held that the indirect revelation of God in history was the only means of revelation accepted by the Jews.
Third, it was found that Pannenberg’s overall system lacks proof at several crucial points. It is especially in the formulation of his seven theses that there is a decided lack of evidence for his views. This proclivity is perhaps best evidenced by the connection of both revelation and the fate of Jesus with the end of history. Several problems which arise as a result of these formulations were pointed out above. In fact, Pannenberg’s theological framework as a whole, although interesting, sometimes lacks the demonstration needed to establish it beyond the realm of philosophical speculation. Fourth, Pannenberg’s treatment of the resurrection fails in two respects. First, he firmly accepts this occurrence as a historical event, but rejects any strongly objective appearances of Jesus even when the evidence indicates otherwise. But it was shown that such conclusions are unwarranted and that the witness of the New Testament is to the contrary. Nevertheless, this scholar does indeed believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead and appear to his disciples.
The second part of this fourth criticism concerns Pannenberg’s treatment of the naturalistic theories which have been composed in opposition to the resurrection. With the exception of the subjective vision theory, his critique of these alternate theories is not as strong as it could have been. Yet it is imperative that these naturalistic views be refuted as conclusively as possible. Since the resurrection is the central element in the Christian faith, it is essential to ascertain if this event actually occurred. Therefore, a complete refutation of the naturalistic hypotheses would allow a more accurate decision on the probability of the resurrection. Also, the more thorough the refutation of these alternate views is, the easier it is both to conclude that there are no views which are more probable than Jesus’ resurrection as a historical event and the more probable the resurrection is shown to be.
It was likewise found that Daniel Fuller, Ladd, and Maier also fell prey to this last criticism. Like Pannenberg, these three scholars were also successful in refuting the major alternative theories. But also like Pannenberg, seldom was a complete refutation given. Once again, a more thorough and entire negation of the rival views on the part of all four scholars would reveal even more positively if there were any probable solutions other than the literal resurrection of Jesus. The more complete this investigation and refutation is, the easier it is the verify that the resurrection is the most probable answer and the more probable this event itself becomes. Since all four scholars endeavor to establish the probability of this event, the object should of course be to do so as accurately and thoroughly as possible.
In addition to this one common criticism made of all four of these scholars concerning their incomplete treatments of the alternate theories, other more individual criticisms were pointed out above. But in all cases, these critiques did not annul the defense of the resurrection which was presented by each of the four. In fact, it is quite difficult to annul these approaches when it is realized that to successfully abrogate them, one would have to propose a more probable naturalistic solution to the resurrection.
Significantly, it was not only negative evidence (such as that which was presented against the alternate theories) which was ascertained to favor the resurrection as an actual even in history. It was also shown that there were positive facts and pointers which also indicate that this is the most probable explanation of the facts. For example, Daniel Fuller points to the conversion of Paul and the existence of the Gentile mission. Maier presented historical evidence of various types to corroborate his position.
It is for these reasons that the third possible approach to the resurrection, which proposes that this event actually occurred and that it can be demonstrated, presents itself as the best solution to the question of Jesus’ resurrection. As will now be shown, the conclusion which best fits the facts is that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead can be demonstrated to have occurred as a historical event. The following discussion in the last chapter is not dependent upon the work of these four scholars discussed here, but still arrives at a similar conclusion.
It has been ascertained that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the historical event which best accounts for the known facts surrounding this occurrence. The objective in this chapter is to present one final demonstration by this writer that this event is the most probable. As explained earlier in this work, the word “demonstration” is used here not in the sense of “absolute proof,” but rather as a reference to probabilities. Thus, it is asserted that the factual evidence is strong enough to warrant the conviction that the resurrection is the most probable conclusion for what occurred.
Modern historiography usually rules out the possibility of the miraculous a priori. According to this method, history is closed to the Supernatural workings of God in events such as miracles. In spite of the popularity of this procedure, it must be recognized that such a position is a historical presupposition.
This modern concept of history emerged from the intellectual environment beginning in the Enlightenment and continued on to nineteenth-century historical positivism. Miracles such as the resurrection were ruled out from the outset, often because of a supposed conflict with the concept of history. The result was an a priori rejection of all Supernatural intervention into history.
One might wonder how historical this approach really is in actuality. In the case of a miracle-claim, the prevailing technique is to dismiss the possibility of it even before any investigation of the facts.
However, such was found to be an incorrect procedure in chapters and above. Science cannot rule out the miraculous a priori because the universe is no longer conceived of in terms of a closed system in which all events happen by means of a prescribed regularity. Science therefore cannot know beforehand that such miracles cannot occur. There can thus be no rejection of miracles such as the resurrection simply by referring to a modern world in which such Supernatural events do not occur.
In fact, modern science is quite limited as to what it can say about the resurrection. The scientific method is obviously concerned with measurable quantities. Concepts such as peace, freedom, or love cannot, of course, be measured in a test tube. Neither can a Geiger counter be used to verify the existence of Julius Caesar. In other words, empirical science has no instruments or other means whereby past history can be investigated. In addition, history is nonrepeatable, which is also required in order for science to make a proper judgment. Therefore, all that can be ascertained via empirical science is that the resurrection cannot be negated because of the scientific worldview. Rather, an impartial historical investigation of the facts is needed to see if this event actually occurred.
This is where the science of history emerges as the more proper method to be used in this instance. As with science, it was also shown that neither can history employ the scientific worldview to rule out miracles a priori. We are thus faced once again with the need to historically investigate all of the facts to find the most probable solution. Modern historiography cannot negate the resurrection as a historical event without such an examination. It is clearly impossible (as shown in chapters and ) to properly dismiss such a miracle-claim beforehand.
In this work, the historical method which is employed is therefore one which investigates the facts first before a decision is made as to what can or did occur. The status of probability is given to the event which is the best explanation for the known facts. Such an inductive approach is actually more scientific in its endeavor to base the final conclusion upon a thorough historical investigation of what is known to have occurred.
Throughout this work, many references have been made to the known historical facts and how the resurrection is the best explanation for these events. What are these facts? What are the events and circumstances which are known to have happened in conjunction with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead?
Surrounding the resurrection event are many facts which are usually recognized as being historical by most scholars who deal with this subject. It is known that Jesus actually died and that he was buried. Also historical is the fact that, after the death of their Master, the disciples were extremely depressed and disillusioned. For them, Jesus’ ministry had been ended prematurely by the Roman cross. It is unanimously agreed that they were thus quite discouraged and downcast. Afterward, as confounding as it was, the tomb in which Jesus was laid was later found to be empty.
Very soon afterward, history relates that the disciples had several experiences which they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. After these experiences there was a drastic change in their disposition—a transformation which made them bold preachers even in the very city where Jesus was crucified and buried. The result of this preaching was the birth of the Christian church, which began to meet on Sunday rather than on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Lastly, it is an unquestionable historical fact that one of the most avid persecutors of the Christian church, Saul of Tarsus, was converted to Christianity by what he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
From this summary, a minimum of ten historical facts can be gleaned which are held as being historical by the majority of theologians today: (1) Jesus actually died on the cross and (2) was buried in a tomb. (3) The disciples were extremely disillusioned and disconcerted by the death of Jesus, being bereft of all hope. (4) The same tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty just a few days later, probably with the graveclothes still inside. (5) The disciples were the recipients of several experiences which they believed were resurrection appearances of Jesus. (6) Afterward, the disciples experienced a complete transformation, being willing to die for their new faith. (7) The resultant preaching often took place in Jerusalem, the exact place where Jesus was killed and buried. (8) This preaching led to the birth of the church, (9) featuring Sunday as the most important day of worship, instead of Saturday. (10) Later, Paul was converted to Christianity by means of an experience which he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
These, then, are the historical facts which must be dealt with and explained. The Gospels and New Testament as a whole agree with all ten of these either explicitly or implicitly. None of them is denied in any of the writings of the New Testament. In addition, as we have seen at various points in this work, the majority of theologians accept these as historical facts as well. It is therefore evident that the explanation which is given to the resurrection must also account for these events. The answer that is postulated in these early writings is that Jesus literally rose from the dead. Any alternate explanation must explain all of these facts adequately and still cross the hardest hurdle by proposing a probable naturalistic theory for the appearances to the disciples. Thus, one who would deny the resurrection must both adequately explain all of these facts and offer a probable alternate view to the appearances. But as we have seen, no such probable alternative views exist, as even the more popular naturalistic theories fail to properly account for the facts which occurred.
The enumerating of these facts also makes it evident that there are positive historical facts which support a belief in the resurrection as well. This event therefore does not only depend upon what Ladd refers to as “anti-criticism,” or the dismissal of all naturalistic theories which have been formulated against the resurrection. In other words, it is not only the evidence from the elimination of all alternate theories which makes the resurrection plausible, but there are actual “positive” facts which also demonstrate that this event is the most probable.
There are at least seven strong facts which indicate that Jesus actually rose from the dead. The first and by far the strongest fact is the positive New Testament claim that the disciples did indeed see the risen Jesus. There is not only the eyewitness testimony of Paul to this fact, but the gospels are at least close to and include the eyewitness testimony of the disciples (see Luke 1:1–4 as an example), as discussed above. Paul also records the extremely important fact that the original disciples were also preaching about the appearances of the risen Jesus to them (1 Cor 15:11–15).
The power of this New Testament testimony is twofold. First, no alternative theory is sufficient enough to explain these appearances and the subsequent conviction of their reality. But it is not only the rejection of these theories that makes this claim so important. Second, the known facts surrounding this event tend to corroborate it and make the claim highly credible. For instance, the disciples came to believe firmly in the resurrection despite their overwhelming disillusionment and disbelief. Thus, they came to believe in spite of themselves. Other facts are also left unexplained apart from the literal resurrection of Jesus.
Other events in addition to the actual appearances are also positive evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Second, the incredible change in the lives of the disciples from dejected men who fled at the arrest of Jesus to bold preachers who asserted the teachings of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus even in the face of their own death indicates unequivocally that these men firmly believed that Jesus had risen. Such elation is usually not the action of men who have been deceived by any kind of falsehood, either. Such undoubting belief even to the point of dying for their faith is not the mark of men who had even the faintest misgivings about this event. The transformation of the disciples is best accounted for by actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
Third, the evidence of the empty tomb, while not in itself providing proof of the resurrection, is a positive point in favor of those who accept this event as historical. At the same time it requires a probable explanation by those who reject this event. Even more in favor of the resurrection is the discovery of the graveclothes inside the tomb, still unraveled with the body simply missing.
The attitude of the Jewish leaders in the book of Acts reveals a fourth set of historical circumstances strongly in favor of Jesus’ literal resurrection. When the disciples were confronted by the Jewish elders on various occasions in the early chapters of this book (see especially Acts 4–5), these followers of Jesus were not charged with spreading false tales about Jesus’ resurrection. Neither did the Jews go to Jesus’ tomb, reveal his body, and thus crush the central belief of Christianity.
Fifth, the very birth of the Christian church depends upon the message of Jesus’ resurrection. This event forms the very center of Christianity and of the earliest Christian message. According to the earliest testimony, there would have been no church today apart from this event.
A sixth fact pointing to the resurrection is the commemorating of this event in the Christian worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The first day of the week was referred to as “the Lord’s day” because Jesus was believed to have risen on a Sunday (see Rev 1:10; cf. John 20:19, 26). Early Jewish Christians apparently still gathered at the local synagogue for worship on Saturday, but for the Christian believer, Sunday was the day for such important practices as partaking of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7) and the gathering of one’s offering (1 Cor 16:2). Soon Sunday became the day of pre-eminence for the Christians. But something must account for this day of worship since it was not the usual day. The New Testament witnesses that the change was due to Jesus’ resurrection.
A seventh historical fact which makes the resurrection even more probable is the conversion of Paul. This enemy of the Christian church was suddenly converted to the faith which he had so avidly opposed. As Daniel Fuller shows, other naturalistic views which would account for this conversion are not convincing and must be rejected. Paul claimed his turnabout was due to an appearance of the risen Jesus and it is this view which still fits the facts best.
These seven facts are therefore “positive” evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in addition to the “negative” evidence supplied by a refutation of the alternative views. The appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, the complete change in the disciples, the empty tomb, the attitude of the Jewish leaders in Acts, the existence of the church, the Christian worship day of Sunday, and Paul’s conversion are strong facts in favor of the resurrection. Earlier, other historical evidence was also given, such as Daniel Fuller’s thesis about the existence of the Gentile mission being dependent on the resurrection and Paul Maier’s presentation of both specific and circumstantial historical evidence for this event.
However, contemporary theology has provided additional evidence for the resurrection which reinforces each of these other points of evidence. As explained in chapter , the application of form criticism to the gospel records was thought to be helpful in ascertaining what the earliest church believed about Jesus. One of the main expectations was to uncover how the miraculous element was due to later additions and was not actually a part of the life of Jesus. But such was not to be the case.
Contrary to what may have been expected if the origin of everything miraculous in the New Testament was the faith of the early church rather than a real part of Jesus’ life, scholars cannot reach a form critical layer of tradition in which the resurrection belief is not present. In other words, form criticism has demonstrated that the resurrection belief is in the earliest strata of Christian belief. As Carl Braaten explains these results:
The form-critical study of the earliest Christian traditions has established beyond reasonable doubt that faith in the risen Christ is the point of departure and the essential content of the kerygma. Without the Easter faith there would have been no Christian church and the New Testament would not have been written. The belief that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day is as old as the Christian faith and is now, as ever before, the article by which the church stands or falls … it may be refreshing to know that even the more skeptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity … the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers.
Other scholars likewise concur with Braaten in this view. Reginald Fuller agrees that there was no time in which the resurrection was not the center of Christian preaching. Ramm asserts that the most important purpose served by form criticism has been to show that the miracles, and the resurrection in particular, have been embedded in Christian belief from the very beginning. Wand notes that the further back that the texts are studied, the more clear it becomes that the risen Christ is the same as the Jesus of history.
Thus form criticism only served to strengthen the belief that the resurrection is the historical basis of the Christian faith. It likewise confirmed the fact that this event occupied this very important position in theology since the very beginnings of Christianity.
In enumerating these historical facts surrounding the resurrection, it becomes apparent that this event is the best explanation for what has occurred. However, there is not only the evidence of these facts, but there is also the evidence from the refuted naturalistic theories. In addition, it was also found that there are at least seven major historical facts in favor of the resurrection besides those listed by such scholars as Maier and Daniel Fuller. These considerations therefore show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is the most probable conclusion to this historical question, especially when it is recognized that no alternate theories or other facts militate against this event.
It becomes especially apparent from the material presented in this chapter (as well as in the rest of this work) that the pivotal point in this discussion is the experiences of the earliest followers of Jesus. All admit that these witnesses really believed that Jesus actually rose from the dead. But the focal point here concerns whether these experiences were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.
Naturalistic theories of these experiences have been proposed ever since the earliest proclamation of these beliefs. Of the several alternative views which were refuted here, there were three major hypotheses. These were the swoon theory popularized by Heinrich Paulus, the subjective vision theory formulated by David Strauss, and the legend or myth theory taught by Otto Pfleiderer and others.
It has been a very important emphasis in this work to provide a detailed and complete refutation of each of the naturalistic theories, especially these three major ones. Although it may be thought that the tendency was to overkill each of the theories by presenting more evidence than was necessary to dispose of them, it must be strenuously objected that such was the exact intention of this writer, and for good reason. The need for a complete refutation of the alternative theories is too often overlooked in the works of those who also opt for the belief that the resurrection can be demonstrated. It is apparently not realized that the more thorough such a refutation is, the more probable the resurrection becomes.
The reason for this assertion is acute. There are several very important facts which point to the facticity of the resurrection, the main one being the appearances to the disciples. As long as a key alternate theory remains unrefuted (in whole or in part), these facts which point to the resurrection cannot be accorded the full impact which they warrant. But the more the alternate theories are refuted, the more outstanding the facts favoring the disciples’ claims become, thus leaving the resurrection as still even more probable. Then it follows that the more completely such naturalistic theories are rejected, the higher the probability for the resurrection becomes as the facts which demonstrate the reality of this event are thereby shown to be valid. This is especially so when no other alternate theories are shown to be probable. Therefore we perceive the importance of complete refutations of these other views.
In examining the approaches of Pannenberg, Daniel Fuller, Ladd, and Maier, it was found that each was not complete in his refutation of alternate views (to varying degrees). This is true in two different respects. First, many of the main reasons for rejecting each of the major theories were not presented. In other words, seldom was a theory rejected as thoroughly or strongly as it might have been.
Second, each of these scholars neglected completely (or almost so) one or more of the three major theories. In Pannenberg’s section dealing with a defense of the resurrection against the alternate theories in his volume Jesus—God and Man, the swoon theory is neglected. Fuller’s treatise omits any specific refutation of Strauss’ vision theory or of the legend or myth theory, although both are cited as alternate hypotheses. Also, the swoon theory is quickly passed over with very little disproof. Ladd also ignores the legend or myth theory in his treatment of the naturalistic theories, as does Maier. Although it has been ascertained that these scholars were generally successful in their overall treatments of the resurrection, one cannot help but think that since it was their desire to demonstrate the probability of the resurrection, a more complete refutation would have been desirable.
Since a more adequate refutation of the alternate theories makes the resurrection more probable, the treatment of the three major theories and several lesser ones in this work has endeavored to be complete. In fact, the desire was specifically to present more evidence than was necessary in order to dismiss each one. The New Testament states that Jesus rose from the dead and demonstrated this by appearing to his followers. Other facts also corroborate this event. With these naturalistic theories thus shown to be quite inadequate to properly explain what occurred, the facts for the resurrection are shown to be highly probable. If one believes that it is still difficult to accept such a Supernatural event, it is even more difficult to formulate an alternative view which logically, historically, and theologically accounts for the known facts. The resurrection is the highly probable historical fact which best accounts for what occurred.
One interesting point with regard to the facts of the resurrection is that, after an examination of the evidence, many scholars who had once rejected this event came to believe that it could be demonstrated to have occurred. They were convinced by the weight of the facts that this event was historical. This is not to say that no one who had been taught that the resurrection occurred has ever rejected such information later. But this writer knows of no instance where the resurrection was rejected after an examination of the facts, as was the case with these who accepted the reality of this event after just such an examination, against their former views.
Frank Morison, a lawyer, is surely one of the best examples of a scholar who became convinced against his earlier convictions after studying the evidence for the resurrection. As a young man, Morison began a serious study of the life of Jesus, being much influenced by the works of German liberal scholarship. He did not accept the miracles in Jesus’ life and was determined to remove what he felt were mythical outgrowths.
Ten years after his first studies he received the opportunity to study the life of Jesus in depth. An examination of the last week of Jesus’ life in particular brought him to a study of the resurrection. However, in endeavoring to write a book exposing these myths which he thought he would find, he was compelled by the factual evidence to write quite a different book in favor of the resurrection. This work, entitled Who Moved the Stone?, became a defense of the resurrection against the theological views formerly held by Morison himself. He explains that it was because of his investigation of the facts that he reversed his former views and that caused him to realize not only that the resurrection occurred, but that it could be demonstrated.
The late Simon Greenleaf, past Harvard professor of law and one of the greatest legal minds that America has ever produced, was a religious skeptic. Challenged by his students to apply the techniques of his legal masterpiece A Treatise on the Law of Evidence to the resurrection of Jesus, Greenleaf became a believer. He later wrote a book, the long title of which is An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In this work he defends the resurrection and explains how, when judged by the laws of legal evidence, this event can be demonstrated to have actually occurred.
Another scholar who was convinced by an examination of the evidence is medical doctor Viggo Olsen. He described himself as an agnostic who did not believe in the Supernatural elements of Christianity. But more than this, he constantly questioned the Christian faith and attempted to disprove it. Through the process of trying to expose these beliefs, he studied the resurrection and other evidences. Later he became convinced that God did exist and that there was more than a sufficient amount of demonstration for the resurrection. He realized that this event actually occurred and that as such it was the center of the Christian faith. It is noteworthy that Simon Greenleaf’s book on the Christian evidences was a key influence on Olsen.
Other scholars who have looked impartially at the facts have often likewise concluded that the evidence for the resurrection establishes it as a historical event. For instance, such was the conclusion of lawyer Sir Edward Clarke, KC, who also investigated the resurrection in terms of the evidential aspect. He remarked that this factual support was conclusive, as he had often secured a positive verdict in courts of law with less evidence. McDowell lists numerous other instances where other scholars came to similar conclusions after an impartial examination of the facts.
When speaking of such examples, the New Testament instances of similar results should not be ignored. It is known, for instance, that Jesus’ brother James was almost assuredly not a believer before the resurrection (John 7:5; cf. Mark 3:21, 31–34). But after an appearance from Jesus he became a Christian and the leader of the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 15:7; cf. Gal 2:1–10). The example of Paul changing from a persecutor of the church (Acts 7:57–59; 9:1–2) to an ardent follower of Christ has already been mentioned above (see 1 Cor 15:8–9). Again it was an appearance of the risen Jesus that caused this change of heart. It is the opinion of contemporary theological scholarship that both of these men became Christians in spite of their former beliefs because of an appearance of the risen Lord.
This brief presentation has shown that many have accepted the resurrection as a historical event after a careful investigation of the data, even when formerly opposed to this belief. Also extremely interesting is the stance taken by two “God-is-dead” or secular theologians, William Hamilton and John A. T. Robinson. In spite of the secular theological positions of these two men, they also recognize the strong evidence for the resurrection.
For Hamilton, the resurrection and empty tomb are highly probable. In fact, he believes that the resurrection may be affirmed as a regular historical event. Robinson admits that the empty tomb is very difficult to dismiss because of the good evidence for this event.
This survey of several scholars was presented in order to show how strong the evidence for the resurrection is for the one who looks impartially at the facts. Several scholars who were once opposed to this belief were convinced otherwise after an investigation of the evidence, as were others who studied the data in favor of this event. The New Testament also records two examples of men who were convinced by resurrection appearances of Jesus against their former views. Even two secular theologians were able to grant a high credibility to the resurrection, as one accepted it as a historical event while the other admitted that it would be hard to reject the strong evidence in favor of it.
Such is the convincing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As church historian Wand reminds us about this event,
All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of it, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.
This serves as a good reminder about our earlier conclusion to accept the answer to the question of the resurrection which best fits the facts. Wand notes that if naturalistic theories are unable to account for an event which claims that a miracle has taken place, then a Supernatural alternative must not be viewed as impossible. It is unscientific to begin with the presupposition that miraculous events cannot occur. Rather, a critical historian can only examine the facts involved in the situation before him and decide on the basis of this evidence. If the probable event is a Supernatural one, then it must be accepted as such, as with the resurrection. Modern science and history cannot refute this event, as we have seen.
Therefore, in accordance with this historical principle, the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead must be accepted as an actual historical event according to its high degree of plausibility. Once again, those who find it difficult to accept this conclusion will have an even more difficult time endeavoring to formulate an alternative theory which is historically probable. It is not only possible to completely refute all of the naturalistic alternate theories which oppose a literal resurrection, as shown above, but there are several important facts in favor of this event. The most important of these facts is that, in all probability, Jesus appeared empirically to his followers after his death on the cross and no other thesis apart from the literal resurrection is capable of properly explaining these appearances. The resurrection of Jesus is thereby highly probable.
It must be concluded that the knowledge that Jesus’ resurrection is a historical fact is one of ultimate importance to the Christian faith. As was shown in chapter , one cannot hold that Jesus is dead and that he never rose from the tomb and still hold that Jesus is alive today in any unique sense. Neither can one hold that such doctrines as Christology and subsequent beliefs concerning salvation can have the same validity if the one around whom such beliefs revolve is dead, not even being able to conquer death himself. If such were the case, there would thus be no reason to suspect that Christians will receive such blessings either. As Paul asserts, apart from the resurrection there is no Christian faith at all (1 Cor 15:12–19). For this reason, the reality of the resurrection is absolutely essential for Christian faith.
Therefore, the conclusion which asserts that Jesus actually rose from the dead is no meaningless assertion. It is not a matter of simply affirming the resurrection. To the contrary, it is very important to accept this event as historical, for in so doing the remainder of the Christian faith is demonstrated to be valid.
This is also why it was asserted earlier that the concept of faith as defined by Kierkegaard and Barth could remain valid in spite of the critiques of these two theologians. Each of these scholars agrees with the New Testament in recognizing that every individual man is a sinner in need of repentance, or a total change in one’s life. A total surrender to God in faith, trusting Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross to forgive these sins, is needed for salvation. The result is a total change in one’s life, a total commitment based upon the death of Jesus. In these principles, Kierkegaard and Barth both follow the New Testament definition of salvation. Jesus claimed to have come to this world chiefly to die a substitutionary death in order to procure such salvation for those who commit their lives in faith to God through His Son (see Mark 10:45; John 1:12–13; 1 Cor 15:1–4).
Such teachings are often ignored today as outmoded products of ancient superstitions. But in light of our conclusions concerning Jesus’ resurrection, such tendencies to dismiss the New Testament teaching on salvation are unwarranted. Since the resurrection is accepted as a Supernatural event, as shown here, then Jesus’ ministry to mankind was for a reason. It would be illogical to accept the Supernatural demonstration of Jesus’ mission and then reject the message which is corroborated by it. As the resurrection event cannot be denied, neither can the resurrection message of the subsequent availability of this salvation.