Dr. Alistair McGrath: The Resurrection

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17374

The Resurrection
By Alister McGrath
March 31, 2013

If Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, never to die again, he is instantly marked out as being distinct from every other person in history. He would be unique. There would be something dramatically different about him. The only question remaining would relate to the nature of his uniqueness - a question which Christian theology has answered in the doctrine of the incarnation. Yet the apologist will be aware that the resurrection of Christ proves a major stumbling block to many people. [40] the ­reasons for this centre upon three issues: the improbability of the event, the unreliability of the New Testament witnesses to the event, and its irrelevance to life. We shall explore some of these issues in the present section.

The New Testament is permeated by the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The consequences of this event, both for the personal experience of the first Christians and for their understanding of the understanding of the identity and significance of Jesus himself, dominate the horizons of the New Testament writers. It was on the basis of their firm belief that the one who was crucified had been raised by God from the dead, that the astonishing developments in the perceived status and identity of Jesus took place. The cross was interpreted from the standpoint of the resurrection, and Jesus' teaching was accorded reverence on account of who the resurrec­tion disclosed him to be. Jesus was worshipped and adored as the living Lord, who would come again - and not merely revered as a dead, super rabbi. The tendency to 'think of Jesus Christ as of God' (2 Clement 1:1) is already evident within the New Testament. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the most important developments in the Christian understanding of the identity and significance of Jesus Christ took place, not during the patristic period on account of the questionable influence of Greek meta­physics, but within twenty years of the crucifixion itself.

Of course, modern critics of the resurrection argue, it was easy for the first Christians to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. After all, belief in resurrections was a commonplace at the time. The first Christians may have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus was raised from the dead, when something rather different actually happened. Although the crude charges of yesteryear (for example, that the disciples stole the corpse of Jesus from its tomb, or that they were the victims of mass hysteria) are still occasionally encountered, they have generally been superceded by more subtle theories. Thus, to note the most important, the resurrection was really a symbolic event, which the first Christians confused with an historical event on account of their uncritical presuppositions.

In response to this, however, it may be pointed out that neither of the two general beliefs of the time bear any resemblance to the resurrection of Jesus. The Sadducees denied the idea of a resur­rection altogether (a fact which Paul was able to exploit at an awkward moment: Acts 23:6-8) while the majority expectation was of a general resurrection on the last day, at the end of history itself. The sheer oddness of the Christian proclamation of the resurrec­tion of Jesus in human history, at a definite time and place, is all too easily overlooked by modern critics, even though it was obvious at the time. The unthinkable appeared to have happened, and for that very reason demanded careful attention. Far from merely fitting into the popular expectation of the pattern of resurrection, what happened to Jesus actually contradicted it. The sheer novelty of the Christian position at the time has been obscured by two thousand years' experience of the Christian understanding of the resurrection - yet at the time it was wild: unorthodox and radical.

To dismiss the Christian understanding of the resurrection of Jesus because it allegedly conformed to contemporary expectations is clearly unacceptable. The idea of the resurrection Jesus being explicable as some sort of wish-fulfilment on the part of the disciples also strains the imagination somewhat. Why should the disciples have responded to the catastrophe of Jesus death by making the hitherto unprecedented suggestion that he had been raised from the dead? The history of Israel is littered ­with the corpses of pious Jewish martyrs, none of whom was ever thought of as having been raised from the dead in such a manner.

The second attack on the historicity of the resurrection Jesus mounted in recent years is based upon the parallels between pagan myths of dying and rising gods and the resurrection of Jesus. In the first part of the present century, a substantial number of scholarly works appeared drawing attention to the pagan and gnostic myths. Perhaps J. G. Frazer's Adonis, Attis, Osiris is the most famous of these in the English-speaking world. It was argued that the New Testament writers were simply reproducing this myth, which was part of the intellectual furniture of the ancient world. Rudolf Bultmann was among many scholars of the period who argued for such influence (deriving from the Mandaeans) upon the resurrection accounts and beliefs of the New Testament, and then proceeded to take the logically questionable step of arguing that such parallels discredited the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Since then, however, scholarship has moved on considerably. The parallels between the pagan myths of dying and rising gods and the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are now regarded as remote, to say the least.[41] For instance, the New Testament documents with some care give the place and the date of both the death and the resurrection of Jesus, as well as identifying the witnesses to both. The contrast with the ahis­torical narrative form of mythology is striking. Furthermore, there are no known instances of this myth being applied to any specific historical figure in pagan literature, so that the New Testa­ment writers would have given a stunningly original twist to this mythology. It is at this point that the wisdom of C. S. Lewis - who actually knew something about myths - must be acknowledged.

Lewis realized that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus bore no relation to real mythology, despite the claims of some theologians who had dabbled in the field. Perhaps most important, however, was his realization that the gnostic redeemer myths - which the New Testament writers allegedly took over and applied to Jesus - were to be dated from later than the New Testament itself. If anyone borrowed any ideas from anyone, it seems it was the gnostics who took up Christian ideas.

The challenge posed to the historicity of the resurrection by these theories has thus passed into textbooks of the history of ideas. But an important point must be made before we proceed any further. We have seen how allegedly responsible academic scholarship, regarded as competent in its own day, was seen to pose a serious challenge to a central aspect of the Christian faith. It was taken seriously by theologians and popular religious writers. Yet the sheer provisionality of scholarship seems to have been ignored. Scholarship proceeds by evaluation of evidence and hypotheses, a process which takes decades, in which what one generation took as self-evident is often later demonstrated to be wrong. The fate of the resurrection myth is a case in point: in 1920, it was treated virtually as an established fact of serious and responsible scholarship; three quarters of a century later, it is regarded as an interesting, if now discredited, idea.

How many more such theories, which now seem persuasive and to pose a challenge to the Christian faith, will be treated as obsolete in fifty years' time? Christianity can hardly be expected to abandon its proclamation of the risen Christ as Saviour and Lord on such flimsy grounds. Furthermore, as anyone who works in the field of the history of ideas knows, it is remarkable how rapidly the assured presuppositions of one generation are abandoned by another. Christianity has a duty to speak for two thousand years of history, as well as for an untold period in the future, in refusing to allow the short-term preoccupations of modernity to dictate its character for posterity.

A third line of criticism of the historicity of the resurrection is due to the German sociologist Ernst Troeltsch, who argued that, as dead men don't rise, Jesus couldn't have risen. The basic principle underlying this objection goes back to David Hume, and concerns the need for present-day analogues for historical events. Before accepting that an event took place in the past, we need to be persuaded that it still takes place in the present. Troeltsch asserted that since we have no contemporary experi­ence of the resurrection of a dead human being, we have reason for supposing that no dead man has ever been raised.

Of course, as Christianity has insisted that the resurrection of Jesus was a unique historical event, the absence of present-day analogues is only to be expected. If people were raised from the dead on a regular basis, there would be no difficulty in accepting that Jesus Christ had been thus raised. But it would not stand out. It would not be different. It would not say anything, either about the identity of Jesus himself, or about the God who chose to raise him in this way. The resurrection was taken so seriously because it was realized that it was totally out of the ordinary, unique in the proper sense of the word.

Nevertheless, a more sophisticated reply to this line of criticism is needed. The most vigorous response to Troeltsch's criticism has been made by Wolfhart Pannenberg, who pointed out that Troeltsch had adopted a remarkably dogmatic view of reality, based upon questionable metaphysical presuppositions, effec­tively dictating what could and could not have happened in history on the basis of his preconceived views. Troeltsch, Pannen­berg argued, had already laid down in advance that the resurrec­tion could not happen. The argument seemed to move as follows:

a. Dead people do not rise from the dead. b. Therefore Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead. c. End of discussion.

But this is unacceptably superficial. The philosophical question of induction, noted earlier, does not allow the conclusion to be drawn from the premise. Observation does not determine fixed laws, which may be used to determine whether something did or did not happen in the past. It merely establishes the probability of events of a certain type.

For Pannenberg, the decisive factor in determining what hap­pened on the first Easter Day is the evidence contained in the New Testament, and not dogmatic and provisional scholarly theories about the nature of reality. How, asks Pannenberg, are we to account for the New Testament evidence? What is its most probable explanation? The historical evidence liberates us from the dogmatic metaphysical presuppositions about what can and what can't have happened in history that underlie Troeltsch's critique of the resurrection, and allows us to return to the Jesus of history. For Pannenberg, the resurrection of Jesus is the most probable and plausible explanation of the historical evidence. Perhaps it lacks the absolute certainty which the more funda­mentalist of metaphysicians seem to demand - but, as Bishop Butler so carefully demonstrated in his Analogy of Religion, prob­ability is the law of religious life, whether orthodox or deist.


Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and senior research fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford. He holds doctorates in molecular biophysics as well as in historical and systematic theology. He is Director of the Oxford Centre for Evangelism and Apologetics. View all resources by Alister McGrath

Notes

40 For full analysis of the issues, see Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resur­rection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), with full bibliography.
41 See Gary R. Habermas, 'Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions', Religious Studies 25 (1989), pp. 167-177.

Kings College Choir sings Jesus Christ is Risen today. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMwPEmUMP7U&feature=em-share_video_user

Westminster Confession of Faith (32.1): Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead

Chapter 32: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead

1: The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

Robert Shaw says this:

I. It is here supposed that death is an event common to all men. "It is appointed unto men once to die."—Heb. ix. 27. This is the immutable appointment of Heaven, which cannot be reversed, and which none can frustrate. When meditating upon this subject, the royal Psalmist exclaimed: "What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?"—Ps. lxxxix. 48. Job speaks of death as an event which certainly awaited him, and of the grave as the common receptacle of all mankind: "I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living."—Job xxx. 23. Our own observation abundantly confirms the declaration of Scripture. Nor are we at a loss to account for the introduction of death into our world, and its universal prevalence over the human race: "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."—Rom. v. 12.

There is, indeed, a vast difference between the death of the righteous and that of the wicked. To the latter, death is the effect of the law-curse, and the harbinger of everlasting destruction; but to the former, death is not the proper punishment of sin, but the termination of all sin and sorrow, and an entrance into life eternal. To them death is divested of its sting, and rendered powerless to do them any real injury. Not only is it disarmed of its power to hurt them—it is compelled to perform a friendly part to them. It is their release from warfare—their deliverance from woe—their departure to be with Christ. But although death is no real loss, but rather great gain to the righteous; yet, as it consists in the dissolution of the union between the soul and the body, it is an event from which they are not exempted.

God could, no doubt, if he pleased, easily save his saints from natural death. Of this he gave a proof in the case of Enoch and of Elijah. For good reasons, however, he has determined otherwise. 1. That the righteous, as well as others, should be subjected to temporal death, is best adapted to the present plan of the divine government, and seems necessary, if not to the preservation, at least to the comfort of human society. According to the plan of the divine government, rewards and punishments are principally reserved for a future world. But if the righteous were exempted from death, while the wicked fell under its stroke, this would be a manifestation of the final destiny of every man that is removed out of this world. Death, therefore, happens to the righteous in the same outward form, and attended with the same external circumstances, as it happens to the wicked, that there may be no visible distinction between them. 2. Were the righteous to be distinguished from the wicked by being translated to heaven without tasting of death, this would introduce great confusion into society. Without producing any salutary effect upon the wicked, it would render them more regardless of character, and remove one powerful stimulus—the prospect of future fame—which animates them to noble exertions for the benefit of society. It would also greatly affect the character and the happiness of the living. Were the parent singled out as the object of the divine displeasure, by being subjected to death, this would fix a brand of infamy upon his children; or if the child were taken away in a manner so expressive of its future destiny, this would pierce the heart of the parent, especially if serious, with inexpressible anguish. No class, indeed, would be more affected by such a state of things than the righteous themselves. Hence death is the common lot of the godly and of the wicked. 3. This arrangement affords occasion for a richer display of the power and grace of God. As the hour of death is the most trying to men, so the power and grace of God are most gloriously displayed, in supporting his people in that solemn hour; in enabling them, in the exercise of faith and hope, to rise superior to the fear of death, and to triumph over this last enemy as conquerors. And how illustriously will his power be displayed in raising up their bodies at the last day! 4. Another reason, we conceive, why the righteous are subjected to temporal death, is, that they may be conformed to Christ, their glorious head. He tasted of death before he was crowned with glory and honour; and they also must enter into glory through "the valley of the shadow of death."

Westminster Confession of Faith (33): Of the Last Judgement

While in Advent 2011, while it is the day of Christmas Eve 2011, and while reviewing the infancy narrative of the God-Word-Man, the Second Adam, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ and Theanthropos, we do not lost sight of the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. Furthermore, though the day of Christmas Eve, neither do we lose sight of the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension:  this Eve we will have the Eucharist or the Communion Service near midnight. We'll kneel and receive the Sacrament of His Body and Blood at St. Peter's by-the-Sea.  Here is chapter 33 of the Westminster Confession of Faith with comments following by Robert Shaw (1845). 

Chapter 33: Of the Last Judgment

1: God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

2: The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

3: As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

Robert Shaw, 1845, has offered this exposition.

Exposition

There is a particular judgment which passes upon every individual immediately after death; for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement."—Heb. ix. 27. There is also a general judgment, which shall take place after the resurrection of the dead, at the last day. The present sections—1. Declare the certainty of a future judgment; 2. Affirm that the administration of this judgement is committed to Jesus Christ; 3. Point out the parties who shall appear before his tribunal; 4. The matters to be tried; and, 6. The sentence to be pronounced.

I. The certainty of a future judgment. We are told that Paul reasoned before Felix of judgment to come.—Acts xxiv. 26. He proved this truth by arguments drawn from the nature and reason of things; and such arguments are not to be overlooked by us, though our faith stands upon a more sure foundation.

1. The certainty of a future judgment appears from the dictates of conscience. Men, even when destitute of supernatural revelation, apprehend an essential difference between good and evil. When they do what is right, their conscience approves and commends their conduct; and when they do what is wrong, their conscience reproaches and condemns them. If they have committed some atrocious crime, conscience stings them with remorse; and this it does although the crime be secret, and concealed from every human eye. Whence does this arise, but from an awful foreboding of future retribution? The Apostle Paul, accordingly, shows that all mankind have a witness in themselves that there shall be a future judgment.—Rom. ii. 15.

2. Reason infers a future judgment from the state of things in this world. Here we take for granted these two fundamental principles of religion—the being of God, and his providence in the government of the world. All who acknowledge these truths must, and do, believe that God is infinitely just and righteous, infinitely wise and holy, infinitely good and merciful; and that he cannot be otherwise. From this it necessarily results that it must be well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked. But the most superficial view of the present state of things is sufficient to convince he that God does not, in this world, dispense prosperity only to the good, and adversity only to the evil: "There be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous."—Eccl. viii. 14. The promiscuous dispensations of Providence have perplexed the minds of men in every age, and tried the faith of the children of God.—Ps. lxxiii. 4-17; Jer. xii. 1, 2; Hab. i. 13. But reason rightly exercised would lead us to the conclusion that, upon the supposition of the being and providence of God, there must be a day coming when these things will be brought under review, and when a wide and visible difference shall be made between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

3. God has given testimony to this truth in all the extraordinary judgments which he has executed since the beginning of the world. Though much wickedness remains unpunished and undiscerned in this world, yet God sometimes executes judgment upon daring offenders, show that he judges in the earth, and to give warning to men of a judgment to come. In signal judgments, "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the ungodliness of men;" and an intimation is given of what he will further do hereafter.—2 Pet. ii. 5, 6, iii. 5, 7.

4. That there is a judgment to come is confirmed by the most explicit testimonies of scripture. Enoch predicted the approach of this day of universal decision as a salutary admonition to that profligate age in which he lived.—Jude 14, 15. Solomon addressed this solemn warning to the voluptuous: "Know that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment."—Eccl. xi. 9. Job put his friends in mind that there is a judgment; and the Psalmist frequently represents it in very solemn language.—Job xix. 29; Ps. l. 3-6, xcviii. 9. Our Lord, during his personal ministry, frequently foretold his coming to judgment; and the testimonies to this truth in the writings of his apostles are numerous.—Matt. xxv. 31-46, Rom. xiv. 10, 12; 2 Cor. v.10.

5. This truth is confirmed by the resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul, having affirmed that "God will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained," adds, "whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."—Acts xvii. 31. The resurrection of Christ is a specimen and pledge of a general resurrection—that grand preparative for the judgment. It is an incontestable proof of our Lord's divine mission, and is, therefore, an authentic attestation of all his claims. In the days of his humiliation, when he was accused and condemned before the tribunal of men, he plainly warned them of a future judgment, and declared that he himself would be the judge: " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."—Matt. xxvi. 64. Now, since God hath raised him from the dead, although be was condemned as a blasphemer for this very declaration, is not this an undeniable proof from heaven of the truth of what he then asserted?

IL The administration of the future judgement is committed to Jesus Christ: "He is ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead."—Acts x. 42. It is, indeed, frequently said, that "God shall judge the world;" and the Psalmist declares, "None else is judge but God."—Ps. l. 6. How are these declarations to be reconciled? The words of Paul enable us to solve the difficulty. He has told us that "God will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained."—Acts xvii. 31. It thus appears that God the Father judges the world by the Son. The supreme judiciary power is in the Godhead, and the exercise of that power is committed to Christ, as mediator—John v. 22.

There is a peculiar fitness and propriety in this constitution: - 1. It is fit that this high office should be conferred upon Christ, as an honorary reward for his extreme abasement and ignominious sufferings. 2. Inasmuch as men are to be judged after the resurrection in an embodied state, it is fit they should have a visible judge. 3. It is also fit that Christ should be the supreme judge, as it must contribute greatly to the consolation of the saints that they shall be judged by him who is a partaker of their nature, who redeemed them to God by his blood, and who is their advocate with the Father. 4. It may be added, that hereby the condemnation of the wicked will be rendered more conspicuously just; for if a Mediator—a Saviour—the Friend of sinners—condemns them, they must be worthy of condemnation indeed.

III. We are next to consider the parties who shall appear before the tribunal of Christ. The Scripture says nothing of the judgment of good angels, but it clearly teaches that the apostate angels will be judged. - Jude 4; 2 Pet. ii. 4. That men universally shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ is expressly declared.—2 Cor. v. 10. We are told that Christ "shall judge the quick and tile dead at his appearing."—2 Tim.. iv. 1. This expression, "the quick and the dead," comprehends all mankind. By the dead, are to be understood all who died before the period of Christ's coming to judgement; and by the quick, such as shall then be found alive.

IV. The matter to be tried. This is expressed in the most comprehensive terms: "God shall bring every world into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."—Eccl. xii. 14. All the works of the sons of men will be tried, and they shall receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. Not only the actions of the life, but also the words of men shall be judged; for our Saviour has assured us that "for every idle word which men shall speak, they shall give an account in the day of judgment."—Matt. xii. 36. And not only the actions and words, but also the very thoughts of men shall be brought into judgement; for we are told "God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." - Rom. ii. 16.

V. The sentence to be pronounced will be answerable to the several states in which mankind shall be found. They shall receive their doom according to their works. - Rev. xx. 13. It is to be remarked, that the good works of the righteous will be produced in that day, not as the grounds of their acquittal, and of their being adjudged to eternal life, but as the evidences of their gracious state, as being interested in the righteousness of Christ. But the evil deeds of the wicked will be brought forward, not only as evidences of their being strangers to Christ, but also as the grounds of their condemnation. To the glorious company on his right hand the King will say: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." How different the sentence that will be passed on the guilty crowd on his left hand! To them he will say: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The sentence shall no sooner be passed than it shall be executed. While fallen angels and wicked men shall be driven from the presence of the Judge into the pit of eternal perdition, the righteous shall be conducted into heavenly mansions, end "shad go no more out." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." The same expression being applied to the happiness of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked, we may conclude that both will be of equal duration.

Section III.—As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.

Exposition

The day of the eternal judgment is fixed in the counsels of God; but, that we may be kept habitually watchful, the knowledge of that day is wisely concealed from us. Though a long series of ages may elapse before Christ shall come in the clouds of heaven to judge the world, let every one remember that the day of his own death is equally important to him as the day of the universal judgment; for where death leaves him, judgment will find him. Let him, therefore, "be diligent, that he may be found of God in peace, without spot and blameless." Let every reader study to improve the talents with which he is entrusted, and be solicitous to obtain the approbation of his Master in heaven. How highly will he commend all those who have been diligent and faithful in his service! He will bestow upon them that best of plaudits: "Well done, good and faithful servant;" and will introduce them into "the joy of their Lord." Well may the genuine believer "love the appearing" of Christ; for when Christ shall appear, he also shall appear with him in glory. And since Christ proclaims in his Word, "Surely I come quickly", let every Christian joyfully respond, "Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus."