Why is the Resurrection so important?

As we prepare for Easter, I thought it would be a good time to think about the resurrection in different ways. Imagine you are part of Jesus' first disciples some 50 days after Jesus' execution. Jesus is no longer with you, and those in power are willing to execute you, or anyone else that bucks their religious establishment. Yet, you desire to go out and get other people to follow this Jesus, this supposed insurrectionist who taught what the Sanhedrin charged as blasphemy. You want to go and "make disciples of all nations." What could be so convincing that it would lead to thousands of conversions in just a few years after Jesus' death?  What testimony would be so powerful for others to believe in spite of all the negative consequences? 

When we look at the speeches of both Peter and Paul in the New Testament we find that the one thing they always focused on in their messages is that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death, but rose again.  It is the resurrection of Christ that formed the foundation and the fuel of the new Christian faith. Everywhere the disciples went, they preached Jesus being raised from the dead, and this is what transformed Christianity form a small group of scared disciples to a world-changing faith reaching across the globe.

It's hard to not understate the importance of the resurrection to Christianity.  There's a Greek legend of the servant Damocles, who told his wealthy and prosperous king he would like nothing more than to switch places with him to enjoy the luxuries such a position affords. The king offered his throne for a single day and the servant immediately accepted. However, after taking his seat on the king's throne, Damocles saw that the king had placed a sword hanging directly over his head, suspended only by a single hair. The point was to show that the position of kingship is tenuous at best. Break that hair and Damocles' life is ended. In a similar way, Christianity's claims of authority hang by the thread of the resurrection. The Apostle Paul states this explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says:

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

Paul here lays out a very clear test. If Jesus was never raised from the dead, we not only have no hope in rising ourselves, but we believe in vain, we're holding onto a worthless faith. Paul even says we are akin to that person we sometimes see in Warner Brothers cartoons who thinks he's Napoleon.  If we believe in a fable that is ridiculous; we are to be most pitied among all men.

 The stakes are indeed high; however I'm also comforted by them. It gives us a way to make sure that we aren't believing a lie. Unlike virtually every other world religion out there, we can investigate the claims of Christianity and dismiss it if it proves faulty. And our tests aren't based on feelings or some subjective criteria. We can look at the claims of the resurrection from the same perspective as those who study other historical events and draw well-considered conclusions. We can base our faith upon facts.

Holding to a Rational Belief

Photo By *christopher* 

Has someone ever told you that you should never try to tell someone else their faith is misplaced? They claim faith requires no proof; believing is the opposite of using facts and evidence, and since faith is a personal choice the underlying theology really doesn't matter much. Faith brings comfort to a person, but his comfort could be different than yours, so his faith is legitimate for him as much as yours is for you. This kind of thinking is why many people feel that everyone is entitled to believe as they choose.

Now, I agree that all have the right to their beliefs. But defining faith in this way misconstrues what the concept of faith is all about. The claim that "all faiths are simply a choice and are equally valid" really translates to "all faiths have an equal claim to truth and there's no way to discern whether any of them are true or not." That's just not the case. For example, I don't think anyone today would give Greek mythology serious consideration as a true belief. But how do we know that Greek mythology isn't a viable religion? Because we use reason and evidence to see that its claims about how the world works are unsupportable. They are internally inconsistent and externally incoherent with what we know about the world.

Similarly, we can look at today's different faith systems and see that they cannot all be true since they make competing claims about how the world works. As an example, the monotheistic faiths such as classical Judaism, Christianity and Islam claim that there is a God who is distinct and separate from His creation, while pantheistic faiths such as Vedanta Hinduism or the New Age hold to the idea that all is God. Now, one or the other may be true, but they certainly cannot both be true at the same time. Therefore, any faith that teaches all ways to God are equally valid, such as the Bah'ai faith, holds to a logical contradiction and can be dismissed simply as being illogical. It simply doesn't match the way the world works.

Now, I'm not saying that faith is unnecessary or that reason can do all the work. I am saying, though, that any faith that forces you to deny reason is a faith not worth holding. Christianity is a faith built on evidence: historical evidence of a real event. Of course it requires faith, but we can investigate its claims on the basis of history to see whether they stand up. Mormonism, for example, also makes claims about historical events, but they are unsupportable. If the things claimed in the Book of Mormons are demonstrably false, then it follows that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God and we have good reason for not believing Mormonism to be true.

I think it's a mistake to lump anything with a "religion" or "faith" tag into a category marked untestable. There certainly are ways we can make informed judgments about what we believe. That's why Paul tells us "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."

Being reasonable or rational means holding on to true beliefs. So, if someone questions of whether it's rational to be a Christian, that means we need to talk about whether Christian beliefs are true—which requires honest inquiry. To not check out the claims of Christianity when they very well may be true would be a very irrational thing to do.

A. N. Sherwin-White on Jesus as Historical Figure

Oxford historian A.N. Sherwin-White was a well-recognized scholar in the history of ancient Rome. He was president of the Society for Promotion of Roman Studies and was a fellow of the British Academy. Dr. Sherwin-White knew ancient history as well as anyone. He also knew myth, how to separate myth from history, and what made good grounds for judging historical aspects of ancient sources. Here, he comments on the comparative historical support for the life of Jesus of Nazareth and the life of Tiberius Caesar:

It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism that the more advanced exponents of it apparently maintain—so far as an amateur can understand the matter—that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious when one compares the case for the best-known contemporary of Christ, who like Christ is a well-documented figure—Tiberius Caesar. The story of his reign is known from four sources, the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, written some eighty or ninety years later, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third-century history of Cassius Dio. These disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events. Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius.' But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius. The divergences between the synoptic gospels, or between them and the Fourth Gospel, are no worse than the contradictions in the Tiberius material."

A.N. Sherwin-White. Aspects of Roman Citizenship and the Question of Historicity. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 204) 187-188.

Top Ten Neglected Books for Apologists - #3 Darwin's Enigma

Evolution is always a hot topic in apologetics circles and I've seen a true renaissance in the way Christians have approached the myriad of issues surrounding the claim that the entire diversity of life on this plant derives from a single organism plus chance mutations honed by natural selection. Such stalwarts as Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Michael Behe are familiar to most who deal in this subject matter.

However, in 1984 the phrase intelligent design had yet to be coined and Phillip Johnson was a full nine years away from publishing his landmark Darwin on Trial. But it was this year that Darwin's Enigma by Luther Sunderland was first published, a remarkable book in many respects. This still stands as one of my favorite approaches to examining the evidence for the neo-Darwinian model that is offered as the only rational viewpoint by the scientific establishment.

Initially entitled Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Sunderland takes a careful look at the story of evolutionary development offered as fact in school textbooks and compares it to the evidence that paleontology has actually uncovered.'The main reason I like the book so much was that Sunderland's approach was to find some of the primary people working with the evidence of the fossil record and get them to comment specifically as to what the evidence shows. He writes:

In December of 1978 the New York State Board of Regents directed the New York State Education Department to do a detailed study of how theories on origins should be treated in a revised version of the state's Regents Biology Syllabus. As part of their study they invited the author to supply pertinent scientific information to the Bureau of Science Education which was conducting the study.

During the next year the author conducted taped interviews with officials in five natural history museums containing some of the largest fossil collections in the world. The interviews were with Dr. Colin Patterson in London; Dr. Niles Eldredge in New York City; Dr. David M. Raup in Chicago; Dr. David Pilbeam in Boston; and Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist at the New York State Natural History Museum. Written transcripts of the interviews were given to the New York State Education Department for use in their study on origins.

In these interviews, the paleontologists were questioned in detail about the nature of the fossil record from the deepest deposits containing fossils to the most recent. Typed transcripts of the five interviews were then sent to the interviewees for editing. All but Dr. Patterson made editorial corrections before they were published for use by educators in various states.

This book presents the substance of these interviews through the use of short excerpts and summaries of the replies to the questions.[1]

Because this was well before the rise of the intelligent design movement, and because it had the auspices of the New York state educators, those interviewed seemed to be very candid in their replies. I would doubt that now, given the political heat the subject has taken on, any respondent would answer as freely as the paleontologists did here. It was truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

So, what kind of information did the experts provide? One famous quote appearing in the book was given by Colin Patterson, noted paleontologist at the British Museum. In a rather excerpt from a letter, Patterson writes, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them." P atterson later summed up his statement by saying "If you ask,'What is the evidence for continuity?' you would have to say, 'There isn't any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.'"[2]

These are the true nuggets of Darwin's Enigma and they truly help people separate the conjecture of the neo-Darwinian model from the evidence that we have.'Certainly, in the thirty five years since the original interviews were conducted more evidence has emerged.'But although we have more fossils, we haven't found much that answers the questioned Sunderland posed any differently. No one has settled the gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium issue.

Darwin's Enigma is a great read and will help you understand some of the assumptions that evolutionists make as they seek to explain the incredible variety of living entities on our planet without invoking a creator. The best part about all of this is that the entire book is available to read online for free. Rendered in html, you can access it here.

References

1. Sunderland, Luther D. Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems El Cajon, CA: Master Books 1988. 89.
2. Ibid.

Top Ten Neglected Books for Apologists - #8 Who Moved the Stone?

The resurrection of Jesus is the center point of any apologetic for the Christian faith.  Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 15 when he writes "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.  If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."  Christianity is not a faith founded on pragmatism, but it is a faith that's based on an historical event, Jesus rising from the dead.

This conclusion has not escaped Christianity's critics.  More than once, those antagonistic to the faith have realized that by knocking out the resurrection, they would with one swift blow topple all of Christian theology. Frank Morison was one such skeptic. In his first chapter, Morison explains that he thought the historical nature of Jesus "rested on very insecure foundations." He then decides to try and debunk the faith by examining the last seven days of Jesus’ life. In this way he could finally highlight the flaws in the fable. But, as Morison attests, his book does not become the undoing of Christianity. Indeed, it becomes the tale of "a man who originally set out to write one kind of book but and found himself compelled by sheer force of circumstance to write another."  Following the evidence, Morison reasons through each of the popular scenarios offered to escape the miracle and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the resurrection must be true.  At the end of his journey , Morison has been left with no choice but to embrace the resurrection as a real event.

While the book has parallels with Simon Greenleaf's landmark The Testimony of the Evangelists, Morison is a reporter and not a judicial scholar, so his writing is a bit more approachable.  Also, since this book was written in the twentieth century, the language and thought are more accessible to the common reader today.

Scholarly books on the resurrection have grown tremendously in the last twenty years, with scholars like N.T. Wright, Michael Licona, William Lane Craig, and Gary Habermas continuing to produce an incredible amount of evidence for the reality of the resurrection.  But Who Moved the Stone? is a nice, compact way to open the topic up to friends or family that would not otherwise read such weighty tomes. Lee Strobel credits this book as an important stepping stone in his journey to faith.  Give Morison a read, and I think you’ll find it more enjoyable and thought provoking than you may realize.