Criswell Theological Review 4.2 (1990) 373-385
Copyright © 1990 by The
JESUS'
RESURRECTION AND
CONTEMPORARY
CRITICISM:
AN
APOLOGETIC (PART II)*
GARY R. HABERMAS
I. A
Contemporary Apologetic: An Outline
As noted in
our survey of contemporary approaches to the resurrec-
tion appearances, the pivotal point is
ascertaining the cause of the
disciples'
faith. As R. Fuller asserts:
The very fact of the
church's kerygma therefore requires that the
historian
postulate some other event over and above Good Friday, an
event which
is not itself the "rise of the Easter faith" but the cause of the
Easter Faith.1 (italics
added)
Fuller finds this cause in the literal (though nonbodily)
resurrec-
tion appearances of Jesus, which he terms
"revelatory encounters."2
Yet it was
related that more radical scholars (such as R. Bultmann
and
W. Marxsen) do not believe that it is possible to ascertain
what
occurred. For
Bultmann, it is not even important to know what
caused the
disciples' faith. But J. Macquarrie, a major
interpreter,
asserts that
Bultmann's dismissal of the resurrection is an
entirely
arbitrary one:
* This is the second of two lectures read at the Criswell Lecture
Series, Criswell
College,
January, 1989.
1 R.
Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection
Narratives (
1971) 169. Cf.
J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (
Eerdmans, 1976) 124-25.
2 Fuller, 170.
374 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious.
The one valid way in
which we can ascertain whether a certain event took place or not is not
by bringing in some sweeping assumption to show that it could not
have
taken place, but to consider the historical evidence available, and
decide
on that.3
Similarly, both R. E. Brown and G. O'Collins
are examples of
those who
charge Marxsen with hypercriticism for his ad
absurdum,
reductionistic treatment of the resurrection in that he
avoids making
any
specific conclusions concerning the nature of the disciples' expe-
riences in spite of having early and reliable
material. Therefore,
Brown and O'Collins regard Marxsen's
contribution at this point as
rather
minimal.4
The chief purpose for the remainder of this essay will be to
determine, by
continuing both to investigate and utilize critical meth-
odology, if the cause of the original
eyewitnesses' faith can be further
ascertained. If
such verification is found, it will corroborate the earlier
apologetic
(which can still be presented in a very strong form) and
also
serve as a more conclusive refutation of radical scholars who
deny that
such a cause can be discovered.
A. An Early
Christian Creed
It was pointed out above that the resurrection was the center of
the
earliest Christian teaching. This is crucially based, for instance, on
1 Cor 15:3ff., where virtually all
scholars agree that Paul recorded an
ancient
creed(s) concerning Jesus' death and resurrection which is
actually much
earlier than the book in which it is recorded. That this
material is
traditional and earlier than Paul is evident from numerous
considerations, such as the usage of the technical terms "delivered"
and
"received" (which indicate the imparting of oral tradition), the
parallelism and
somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Peter
and
James, the non-Pauline words, and the possibility of an Aramaic
original.
Further pointers to the presence of traditional material in-
clude the Aramaic name Cephas
(see the parallel in Luke 24:34), the
threefold
usage of “and that” (similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic
He-
brew
means of narration), and the two references to the fulfillment of
the
Scriptures.5
3 J. Macquarrie, An
Existentialist Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1965)
185-86.
4 R.
E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus (New
(New York: Paulist, 1978) 100-15.
5 In
particular, see Fuller, 9ff.; P. Lapide,
The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish
Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsberg,
1983) 97-99. See also Brown, 81, 92; Robinson,
125; P. Van
Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel
(New York: Macmillan, 1963)
Gary R. Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CRITICISM 375
Concerning
the date of this creed, critical scholars generally
agree that
it has a very early origin. J. Jeremias terms it
"the earliest
tradition of
all."6 U. Wilckens
declares that it "indubitably goes back
to the
oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity."7
In
fact,
many scholars date Paul's receiving of this creed from two to
eight
years after the crucifixion itself, or from about A.D. 32-38.8 Most
of
those who comment on the issue hold that Paul most likely received
this
material during his visit in
are
included in the list of appearances (1 Cor 15:5, 7;
Gal 1:18-19).9
There are at least four indications
that the content of this gospel
creed (if
not the actual words themselves) is actually apostolic in
nature. (1)
As we just said, Paul recorded very early material which
recounts the
appearances of Jesus to the disciples (vv 4-7). Further,
he
probably received the list directly from a couple of them. (2) Paul
himself is
the eyewitness and apostolic source behind the appearance
recorded in
15:8. (3) Paul asserts that the apostles as a whole were
themselves
currently teaching the same message concerning Jesus'
126-27; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (
1955) 296; cf.
W. Marxsen, The
Resurrection of Jesus of
Fortress,
1970) 80; G. Bornkamm, Jesus of
182; J. Jeremias, "Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the
Earliest Interpretation," New
Testament Theology (New York: Scribner's, 1971) 306.
6 Jeremias, 306.
7 U. Wilckens, Resurrection
(Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1977) 2.
8 For
some scholars who accept such a dating, see H. Grass, Ostergeschehen
und
Osterberichte (2d ed.;
The Early
Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology (ed. A. J. B.
Higgins;
the New
Testament," The Easter Message Today (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964)
36;
W. Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1968) 90; Fuller, 10,
14, 28, 48;
C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its
Developments (
Baker, 1980)
16; A. M. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (
1976) 100;
Brown, 81; T. Sheehan, First Coming: How the
Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986) 110, 118;
G. E. Ladd, I Believe in the
Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 105. H. Kung dates this con-
fession from A.D. 35-45 in his work On Being a
Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1976)
348. N.
Perrin holds that it is no later than A.D. 50, but he does not venture a closer
approximation. See Perrin's The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark and
Luke
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 79. O.Collins
asserts that he is not aware of any scholars
who
place the date for Paul's reception of this material after the A.D. 40s (112).
It should
be
carefully noted that the major conclusions drawn here would still follow, even
with
such a
slightly later date.
9 Goppelt notes that it is usually held by scholars
that this creed is Palestinian in
form
(36). For those who generally favor the
in n.
8. However, Grass prefers
date
(96), whereas Kung, Perrin, and Sheehan do not appear to answer the question in
their
immediate contexts.
376 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
appearances (1 Cor 15:11, 14, 15). (4) Paul specifically checked the
nature of
the gospel (which included the resurrection, 1 Cor
15:1-4)
with the
apostolic leadership and found that the content of his teach-
ing was accurate (Gal 1:11-2:1-10).10
These are strong reasons to
conclude that
this creedal data is authoritative and apostolic. As far as
this
writer knows, no contemporary scholar holds that Paul was com-
pletely mistaken at all three of these junctures.
Accordingly, this creedal statement is an invaluable report of the
original
eyewitnesses' experiences. As German historian H. von Cam-
penhausen contends concerning this pre-Pauline
material, "This ac-
count
meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly
be made
of such a text."11 A. M. Hunter likewise repeats the same
assessment.12 C. H. Dodd adds the point that anyone who would
assert the
unlikely claim that Paul was mistaken regarding the apos-
tolic nature of the gospel message must bear
the burden of proof.13
A point to be made here is that, even if one doubts the conclusion
concerning the
actual date and specific location of this creedal mate-
rial, there is still an excellent foundation
for this data being early and
apostolic in
nature, and hence authoritative. We conclude that this
pre-Pauline
report of Jesus' resurrection appearances and the atten-
dant data clearly link the eyewitness content
of the gospel with its
later
proclamation, and all of the evidence thus far shows that the
participants actually did see the risen Jesus, both individually and in
groups.
B. The
Visual Nature of Jesus' Appearances
One major advantage of the critically ascertained and accepted
historical
facts listed in part 1 is that these data deal directly with the
issue of
the disciples' experiences. On a more limited scale, the mini-
mal
amount of recognized facts may be used in arguing decisively
against each
of the naturalistic theories, although details cannot be
pursued
here.
These minimal facts also provide some of the strongest evidences
for the
literal appearances of the risen Jesus such as the disciples'
10 For
the possible meaning of i[storh?sai in Gal 1:18 and its importance in
ascertaining the inquiring nature of Paul's visit to Peter in
study by
W. R. Farmer, "Peter and Paul, and the Tradition Concerning 'The Lord's
Supper' in 1 Cor 11:23-25," in the Criswell
Theological Review, 2 (1987), esp. 122-30.
For the Petrine and apostolic nature of this confession, see
135-38.
11 H.
von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the
Empty Tomb," Tradi-
tion and Life in the
105.
12 Hunter, 100.
13 Dodd, 16.
Gary R. Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CRITICISM 377
early
eyewitness claims which have not been explained away on
alternative
grounds, their transformation into persons who were even
willing to
die for their faith in this specific Gospel content, and the
claimed
visual experiences and corresponding transformations of Paul
and
James. The fact of the resurrection as the very center of the
earliest
preaching and the evidences for the empty tomb14 are also
significant in
this regard. Therefore, the critically ascertained histori-
cal data
include material which further verify the disciples' report
concerning
their witnessing of Jesus' resurrection appearances, all in
the absence
of viable alternative schemes.
Due to similar studies of the relevant facts, most critical
scholars
have
concluded that the disciples' experiences were definitely visual
in
nature, for no other conclusion satisfies all the data. Historian
M. Grant asserts
that an investigation can actually "prove" that the
earliest
witnesses were convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus.15
C. Braaten explains that even recent critics and skeptics
agree with
the
conclusion that, at least for the early believers, the Easter appear-
ances were real events in space and time.16 R. Fuller labels the
disciples'
belief in the risen Jesus as "one of the indisputable facts of
history."
Then Fuller states that we can also be sure that the disciples
had some
sort of visionary experiences and that this "is a fact upon
which both
believer and unbeliever may agree."17
Thus, as W. Pannenberg asserts,
"few scholars, even few rather
critical
scholars, doubt that there had been visionary experiences."18
But since
the hypothesis of hallucinations (or other subjective theories)
fails
badly in its attempt to explain the data19 as recognized by critical
scholars,20 the facts certainly favor the view that the original disciples
14 For
other defenses of the empty tomb besides that of von Campenhausen,
see
E. L. Bode,
"The First Easter Morning," Analecta
Biblica 45 (
Press, 1970)
155-75; W. L. Craig, "The Empty Tomb of Jesus," Gospel Perspectives:
Studies of
History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham;
Tomb Really Empty?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977)
23-29.
15 M. Grant, Jesus: An
Historian's Review of the Gospels (
1977) 176.
16 C. Braaten, History and Hermeneutics
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) 78.
17 R.
H. Fuller, The Foundations of the New
Testament Christology (
Scribners, 1965) 142.
18 W. Pannenberg, "The Historicity of the Resurrection: The
Identity of Christ"
The
Intellectuals Speak Out about God (ed. R. A. Varghese;
way,
1984) 260.
19 For
details, see G. R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry
(Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1976), 127-45.
20 For
examples of such scholars, see K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (ed. G. W.
Bromiley and
T. F. Torrance;
378 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
experienced some
sort of appearances of the risen Jesus. In other
words,
while we will mention the issue of corporeality below, the
actual core
elements of the disciples' experiences indicate their per-
ception of actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
And in fact, as
J. D. G.
Dunn points out, there is widespread agreement among
con-
temporary
theologians of just this conclusion: Jesus appeared to his
disciples, and
not just as a spirit.21 And this must be carefully stated:
this is
not true simply because critics say that it is, but because the
facts
dictate this conclusion. In
other words, while critical conclusions
at this
point are helpful, the most important consideration is that the
factual data
demonstrate that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his
death.
Since this data can be established
by critical procedures which
utilize the minimal amount of knowable historical
facts, contemporary
scholars
should not reject such evidence by referring to "discrepan-
cies" in the NT texts or to its general
"unreliability." Not only are such
critical
claims problematical on other grounds not discussed here, but
it has
been concluded that the resurrection can be historically demon-
strated even
when the minimum amount of critically admitted his-
torical
facts is utilized.
Neither should it be concluded, as is popular
today,
merely that "something" occurred which is indescribable due
to
naturalistic premises, or to the nature of history itself, or because of
the
"legendary character" or "cloudiness" of the NT texts.
Neither
should it
be said that Jesus lives on through his teachings but not
literally.
Again, these and other such views are confronted by the
historically
ascertainable data which are, in turn, admitted by virtually
all scholars and which are
adequate
historically to demonstrate the
literal
resurrection appearances of Jesus.
Briefly stated, instead of simply relating what they believe we
cannot know concerning the NT resurrection
accounts, critics should
concentrate on
what even they admit can be known about these texts.
The factual
basis is enough to show that Jesus' resurrection is by far
the best
historical explanation of this data. While critics may still have
questions
concerning other issues in the NT, the minimal facts are
adequate in
themselves to show that the same Jesus who had died by
crucifixion
shortly before had later appeared to his followers.
However, evangelicals must go beyond this critical consensus to
include not
only the testimony of Paul, but also that of the Gospels. In
speaking of
the nature of the apostles' experiences, it should be noted
"The Resurrection
and Biblical Criticism," Commonweal
(1967) 233; Pannenberg, Jesus-
God and Man, 94-97; Bornkamm,
185; Lapide, 124-26; N. Clark, Interpreting the
Resurrection (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967),
100-101. .
21 J.
D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1985) 73-75.
Gary R. Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CRITICISM 379
again that
most critical scholars in the first four models stress the
descriptions of Paul's experience on the road to
critics do
recognize the fact that the Gospels likewise contain some
early
material concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. For
instance,
Luke 24:34 is believed to be based on tradition perhaps as
early as
that of the creed recorded by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3ff.22
After applying form-critical techniques to the Gospels, Dodd
shows that
these books contain several reports of the resurrected Jesus
which rely
on early tradition. He cites the appearances recorded in
Matt
28:8-10, 16-20; John 20:19-21, and, to a lesser extent, Luke
24:36-49, as
being based on such early material. However, he states
that the
other Gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances lack
the
mythical tendencies of much ancient literature and, thus, also
merit
careful consideration in a formulation of the appearances of the
risen
Jesus.23 At any rate, I wish to add that there are numerous
reasons why
the Gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances
should be
utilized as records of what the eyewitnesses actually saw,
along with
Paul's account. Evangelicals cannot be content to offer
only
critical conclusions such as those of Dodd, but must go beyond
them,
although such cannot be done in this essay.
As already stated, most critical theologians still hold either,
that
the
resurrection can be accepted by faith as an actual event or that
some sort
of appearances (abstract or bodily) may be postulated as
historical
realities. Although it is beyond the limits of this essay to
attempt to
describe the actual characteristics of Jesus' resurrection
body or
to endeavor to reconcile the various accounts, it may be
stated that
the combined testimony of the NT is that Jesus rose in a
literal,
physical body which was transformed.24 This is the report of
the
earliest eyewitnesses.
We have outlined several sets of arguments for Jesus'
resurrection,
namely, the
failure of the naturalistic alternative theories, the positive
evidences, the
early pre-Pauline creedal material, and a minimal-facts
argument
based on data ascertained and recognized as historical by
virtually all
scholars. I think that evidence such as this conclusively
shows that
the reported claims of the earliest eyewitnesses have been
vindicated:
Jesus was literally raised from the dead and appeared
physically to a
number of his followers, both individually and in
groups.
22 Jeremias, 306; Bultmann, 1.45;
Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus, 93.
23 C.
H. Dodd, "The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism
of the
Gospels," More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1968).
24 We
will return briefly to the importance of this topic in the next section.
380 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
II. New Prospects for Future Study
Actually, evangelicals have long been involved in defending the
historicity of
the resurrection appearances of Jesus. While some have
questioned the
need to indulge constantly in these apologetics, such is
required by
the new faces of contemporary criticism. Critics appar-
ently realize that this event is the center of
the Christian faith, as
explained in
part 1 of this essay. Accordingly, it appears that new
attempts to
deal with it on critical grounds can take many forms.
While this
is not to imply that there are "devious liberals" who lie
awake at
night attempting to invent schemes against Jesus' resurrec-
tion, it is simply true that those who
formulate alternative renditions
of the
Christian message should somehow respond to the chief Chris-
tian miracle claim. Accordingly, there is an
important need to con-
tinue to combat new attempts that question the
historicity of this
event.
The new faces of critical thought pose many challenges to belief
in the
resurrection. At the same time, still other recent developments
provide
exciting positive prospects for the future study of this event.
Both such
potential denials and affirmations need to be briefly ad-
dressed in
turn.
One area of recent concern is the response of the so-called New
Age movement. We cannot pause here in order to provide a detailed
definition,
except to say that, to the extent to which this is a common
movement at
all, it might be characterized as a conglomeration of
differentiated views which appear chiefly to combine elements of
Eastern philosophy with certain Western, often scientific,
perspectives.
Of interest here are the regular sorts of charges made from this
or
another
syncretistic viewpoint. Typically, queries can perhaps be said
to come
from two primary directions. Fairly frequently, the resurrec-
tion is even admitted, with the questioner
centering on the uniqueness
of
Jesus. In other words, the historical event is allowed, presumably
because
great religious personages are believed to be attended by
spectacular
signs, while, for this very reason, Jesus is believed to be
one of a
number of God's messengers.
On the other hand, a less frequent move is to question the
resurrection itself. While one of the older naturalistic theories might
still be
utilized, another option, especially given the background of an
alternative
religious perspective, is to charge that other religious per-
sonages were also raised from the dead.
Each of these and similar challenges needs to be met on its own
grounds. If
the resurrection is granted as an actual historical event but
Jesus'
uniqueness is questioned, the Christian believer ought
to con-
Gary R. Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CRITICISM 381
centrate on the latter. Indeed, Jesus made
numerous unique claims in
comparison to
those of other religious persuasions,25 but it seems that
such are
too seldom defended in any great detail by evangelicals. And
if the
resurrection is an historical fact and if Jesus made unique
claims,
then it may be argued that the former further confirms the
truthfulness of the latter.26
However, if a critic is comparing Jesus' resurrection to lesser
phenomena on
the part of other teachers, this provides another place
to
start. If naturalistic theories are proposed, it is probably an indica-
tion that the individual is not aware of the
teachers' historical fates.
Lastly,
those who claim that others have also been raised from the
dead
ought to be thoroughly challenged. It is one thing to claim such
a
resurrection; it is quite another to demonstrate it in historical terms.27
A second tendency which appears to be regaining popularity in
certain
quarters is to argue that gnostic sources generally
either down-
play the
death and resurrection of Jesus or present a spiritual resurrec-
tion instead of a bodily one. It is claimed
that these texts should be
given some
consideration along with the more traditional sources.28
Again, such charges warrant a serious critique. Contrary to the
claims of
the proponents of this thesis, the gnostic writings
are much
later than
canonical texts; they do not demonstrate pre-Gospel tradi-
tions that are relevant to our discussion; they
lack eyewitness testi-
mony; and they are opposed to Jesus' own
teachings.29 Further, there
is no
necessary denial of Jesus' death and resurrection here at all. H.
Koester, a
chief supporter, still affirms both Jesus' death by crucifixion
and the
reality of his appearances, although the latter are not defined.30
25 For
some important studies on the uniqueness of Jesus' claims vis-a-vis
those in
other
religions, see
Pluralism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1984);
Faiths (London: Oxford University Press, 1970;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984);
S. Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984).
26 G.
R. Habermas, The
Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (
Baker, 1980;
appendices 1-3.
27 Besides
our earlier arguments, on the last point in particular, see G. R. Haber-
mas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian
Religions," Religious Studies,
25. 167-77.
28 For
some contemporary background to this debate, see C. W. Hedrick and
R. Hodgson,
Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early
Christianity (
Hendrickson,
1986); and C. Tuckett, Nag Hammadi
and the Gospel Tradition (Edin-
burgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1986).
29 For
a technical discussion, see Tuckett's work above. For
an overview of some
of the
problems involved in such claims, see G. R. Habermas,
The Verdict of History:
Conclusive
Evidence for the Life of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), esp. 36-
42, 62-72.
382 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Interestingly
in terms of our earlier study, W. Farmer notes in a brief
critique of
some of these trends that Bultmann's influence is
still
apparent.31
A third development to be briefly addressed is the predominant
tendency in
much of contemporary theological thought to divorce
literal
appearances of Jesus from a physical resurrection body. Thus it
is more
typically believed that Jesus was actually raised from the
dead, but
not corporeally. We have already discussed in part 1 of this
article how
the latter is a minority view among critical scholars,
largely due
to a mistrust of the Gospel accounts. It has been suggested
that
evangelicals need to counter this tendency by bolstering the
credibility of
the Gospels in general, and the resurrection accounts in
particular. We
cannot stop after doing only the first, which is more
frequently the
practice. But for critical scholars, the individual texts
need to
be ascertained before they can be utilized to argue to the
nature of
the resurrection body of Jesus. And here the goal is actually
twofold-both
to argue the case against critical scholars and to keep
these
views from making any further penetration into the evangelical
camp
itself.32 To be sure, other challenges to the biblical teaching of
Jesus'
resurrection might also be mentioned.33 But
these three are per-
haps more
potentially threatening because of their current influence.
At the same time, there are also new, positive prospects for
future
study. Christians should always be willing to investigate areas
which
potentially illuminate the glorious event of Jesus' resurrection.
Many (if not
most) evangelical studies on the resurrection appear to
30 H.
Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.;
History and Literature
of
Early Christianity;
31 For
a brief but insightful critique, see W. R. Farmer, "The Church's Stake in
the
Question of
'Q'," Perkins Journal of Theology, 39 (1986) 9-19.
32 For
the importance of this doctrine and a statement of the classic orthodox
position, see
N. L. Geisler, "The Significance of Christ's
Physical Resurrection," BSac
(1989)
148-70; N. L. Geisler, The
Nelson, 1989).
33 For
example, the rather radical nature of T. Sheehan's thesis is set forth in his
volume First
Coming: How the
works of
his were almost immediately greeted by what could only be described as a
barrage from
many critics. See, for an example, A. Plantinga,
"Sheehan's Shenanigans:
How Theology
Becomes Tomfoolery," The Reformed Journal (April, 1987) 19-25;
R. E. Brown,
Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (New York: Paulist,
1985), chap. 3
esp.
58-65; D.
D.
of
Knowing," Commonweal (1984) 431-33; A. Greeley, "The
Provisional Path to Mys-
tery," Commonweal (1984) 503-32;
J. M. Cameron, "A New, New Testament," The
Century (1987)28-30,
and by W. M. Thompson in Commonweal (1986) 377-79.
Gary R. Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CRITICISM 383
stress
apologetic interests. As stated above, we need to continue such
endeavors,
including solid spadework in the appropriate historical,
philosophical, theological, and exegetical areas. However, I would
suggest that
evangelicals also need to explore other meaningful ave-
nues of study with regard to the resurrection
of Jesus.
It appears to me, for example, that the interface between the
resurrection of Jesus and the practical Christian life needs to be
explored in
much more detail. Does the truth of the resurrection
address
major concerns such as doubt or the fear of death? Why did
this
event contribute so singularly to the transformation of the lives of
the
first Christians in the early chapters of Acts? What did Paul mean
in Phil
3:10 by the possibility of possessing the power of Christ's
resurrection? Or, how do Jesus' appearances provide believers with a
foretaste of
heaven?
On the other hand, theoretical interests are still important.
Further
critical
research needs to be done in the philosophy of history. Another
major
interest in some recent discussions concerns an infinite God
acting in
finite space and time. A related issue is the relationship
between the
resurrection and the laws of physics--how would a
miraculous act
of God be understood in the world of post-Einsteinian
science?34
In a more apologetic vein, the NT thesis is that the resurrection
is
the
chief evidence for crucial areas of Christian theology. We are
repeatedly told
that the resurrection ensures the truthfulness of great
doctrines such
as the person and deity of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22-24;
Rom 1:3-4),
the gospel message (Acts 17:30-31), and the reality of
heaven (1
Pet 1:3-5). In particular, the resurrection of Jesus is the
pattern for
the believer's resurrection, as well.35
In the NT, Jesus' resurrection was both at the center of the
gospel
proclamation and was also the chief buttressing evidence. It is possible
(if not likely) that this event still does not occupy the
central position
that it
did in the early church.
Above, we made one possible suggestion how the resurrection
might be
utilized along with the unique claims of Jesus. These two
subjects work
together to answer critical queries. Another way to use
the
resurrection may be most effective in proclaiming the gospel,
especially to
skeptics. According to virtually all scholars who study
the
subject, Jesus' central teaching was the
34 On
this last subject, see T. F. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection
(Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans,1976); cf. O'Collins,
76-81.
35 See Rom 6:8-9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:20; 2 Cor 4:14; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2; 1 Thess
4:14.
See Jesus'
own words in John 14:19.
384 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
entrance
requirements.36 Since the
resurrection is an historical event, it
can be
argued that this indicates God's approval of Jesus' teachings.37
As such, we
have a strong, twofold reason for accepting Jesus' call to
salvation.
First, if God approved of any of Jesus' teachings, such would
most
assuredly pertain to his message concerning the Kingdom of
God and the
essentials for the entrance to eternal life, since this was
his
chief proclamation. In other words, as Jesus' central teaching and
the
subject which he said he was most desirous to communicate,
God's
approval through the event of the resurrection would extend
most of
all to it.
Second, not to miss the forest for the trees, the resurrection is
unlike any
other miracle in that its very occurrence involves eternal
life.
This cannot be said of the Israelites crossing the
feeding of
the 5,000, or the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Even in
the last
case, although God showed that he could raise the dead,
eternal life
was not a necessary result since Lazarus died again.
But uniquely
in the case of Jesus, his resurrection was the mani-
festation of eternal life. He was raised in a
physical body which was
transformed,
especially in his appearance to Paul. Being in the best
position to
explain this significance, Jesus indicated that he was im-
mortal; he
would never die again. In a sense, then, when the disciples
witnessed the
resurrection appearances of Jesus, they were actually
confronted with
walking, talking, eternal life. Jesus further explained
that such
existence was a reality for all of his followers.
Here, it would seem, is an example of utilizing the truth of
Jesus'
resurrection to show that, in a twofold sense, eternal life is a reality. It
was both
Jesus' central teaching and was actually illustrated by the
resurrection itself. As such, the resurrection evidences God's answer to
man's
deepest needs.38
Therefore, at a number of crucial points, believers are confronted
with both
challenges to belief and positive prospects for future study
of
Jesus' resurrection. It is imperative that further work continue to be
done on
this subject of central importance to the Christian faith.
36 This
is frequently repeated as the central focus of Jesus' own message. See, for
instances,
Mark 1:14-15; 2:11; 10:45; Luke 19:10; 22:29; John 3:3; 12:41-50. Virtually all
critical
scholars agree that the
For details,
see n. 38.
37
Further details concerning a couple of possible ways to reason this point are
found in Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic,
chaps. 1-3.
38 For
this argument in more complete form see Habermas, The Resurrection of
Jesus: An Apologetic, chaps. 4-5; appendix 3.
Gary R. Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CRITICISM 385
Conclusion
In this two-part essay I initially endeavored to identify in an
introductory manner the current state of contemporary theological
thought with
regard to the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Then,
after
stating a more traditional defense of these occurrences, I made
some
suggestions about a contemporary apologetic, dealing specifi-
cally with the early creedal material in I Cor 15:3ff. and the visual
nature of
Jesus' appearances. But then it was pointed out that there
are also
some recent challenges to belief in the resurrection which
must be
dealt with by believers. We cannot either deny the impor-
tance of apologetic efforts or fail to respond
to ongoing indictments.
Further, as important as apologetic efforts are,
there are also
additional
areas to be pursued in regard to resurrection studies. The
relation
between this grand event and theology on the one hand, and
the
practical Christian life on the other, are crucial examples.
One overall purpose of this study has been, in a small way, to
introduce the
comprehensiveness of the resurrection. I like to use the
illustration of a multifaceted diamond to describe this event. Just as a
diamond may
be turned at various angles to expose its brilliance, so
believers need
a vision of the awesomeness of the resurrection event.
It, too, has
various "faces" which can, alternately, confront and answer
critical
objections, enjoy the spotlight of historical (and other) inves-
tigation, and at the same time address needs in
the life of the believer
such as
dealing with doubts, fear of death, and obtaining daily power.
Further,
this event is also at the center of the Christian gospel and
ensures the
believer's eternal life.
Seen from still a different angle, God's grace is manifest in the
resurrection. Is it simply a coincidence that this level of evidence is
available for
this event? For example, what if such data were avail-
able to
study, say, the Israelites crossing the
resurrection? While such would admittedly be important, I would
think that
it is more than coincidence that all of this data converges at
just the
point of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the central claim
in all
of Scripture. Then, when it is remembered that the resurrection
also
addresses the deepest practical fears and needs of Christians, as
well, we
perhaps begin to understand its multifaceted nature. It was
the
center of the early church's gospel proclamation, and we need a
vision of
how it still occupies this position of importance in both
theoretical and
practical aspects today. For the believer, it forms the
connection
between Jesus and eternity itself.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: