Category: Resurrection

He is Preparing a Place (Revelation 20–21)

On By Jovan PayesIn Eschatology, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Publications, Resurrection, Revelation, Theology

[This is a pre-publication version of my chapter submission for the 88th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship (2024), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the lectureship book: Triumph of the Lamb: The Battle with Evil in Revelation  (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]

When the famous New Testament scholar, A. T. Robertson (1863–1934), taught a course on interpreting Revelation, it’s been said that he walked into class with double armfuls of books which he thunderously dropped on the table and said, “Here are the various approaches to interpreting Revelation. Take your pick.”[1] Revelation 20–21 is a veritable asteroid field of perplexing questions. To minimize as much speculation as possible it will be important to consider the uniqueness of the book’s genre and its allusions to the Old Testament. God not only inspired the words but also chose the literary genre to communicate these words (2 Tim. 3:16–17; Russell 52–56). 

Additionally, it is essential to understand literary movements from the situation facing the first-century church (2:1–3:22), to the challenge of belief (13:1–14:) to the imagery of God’s judgment on his enemies (19:11–21).[2] We will the be ready to appreciate God’s judgment on Satan and his followers (20:1–10), the future fate of the Beast worshippers (20:11–15), and the final vindication of the redeemed in the heavens (21:1–27).

EXEGESIS

Genre, Allusions, and Literary Movement

First, some brief comments are needed with regard to genre. There seems to be no single genre that perfectly represents the complexity of Revelation. Suggested by its opening, it is necessary to accept the interplay between prophetic expectations, apocalyptic imagery, and its epistolary immediacy to the seven churches of Asia Minor (1:4–8; Carson and Moo 713–16). Prophetic literature appears to be the common genre assumption to the book due to its intertextual echoes of the Hebrew prophets (1:1; cf. Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah), but its drama is framed by visionary language (apocalyptic) not historical realism (Ryken 165–66). 

Apocalyptic language is a special type of visionary literature which graphically portrays the future vindication of God’s people. They typically suffer at the hands of God’s enemies, and are called to hope as God destroys the present order and establishes his kingdom (1:1; Placher, Mouw, Peters 347). Although the language is highly visual, it is not ahistorical. Finally, Revelation’s opening and closing demonstrates it functioned as an occasional circular epistle among a specific group of churches (1:4–9; 2:1–3:22; 22:18–20). John’s Apocalypse addressed real historical problems facing the first-century Christians of the western Asia Minor.

Second, a significant feature of Revelation is its dense use of intertextual allusions to Old Testament texts and motifs. The imagery and story can stand on its own, but the allusions are highly informative for understanding its message. The book has more allusions to the Old Testament “than all other books of the NT put together” (Beale and Campbell 17). Some may be categorized as “clear allusions” based on their near identical language. For example, Isaiah’s “new heavens and new earth” is clearly taken to introduce the “new Jerusalem” (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Others may be categorized as “probable allusions” based on how uniquely traceable the idea and language is to the Old Testament. In Revelation 20:5–6, the martyrs are said to have experienced the “first resurrection” (c.f. 20:11–14). Resurrection is certainly found in the New Testament, but its motif is typically connected to Daniel 12:2–echoed by Jesus (John 5:29). The Holy Spirit guided John to establish these links to form the thought-world of Revelation to see their fulfillment, typology, or extend their meaning (Luter 463–65).[3]

Third, “structure guides the audience’s understanding of the text” (Lee 173). There are three noteworthy movements to pay attention to. The first of these movements is the “present situation” facing the first-century church exhibited in the letters “to the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4; 2:1–3:22). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.] The churches were facing pressures of first century Greco-Roman political-religious life and these are directly bound to the language of the book (Mounce 84). The second movement is found at the structural center of the book (13:1–14:20). This section creates a “moment of decision” for the reader. Will one give allegiance to Satan and his Beast, or will one worship the Lamb? John makes it abundantly clear, one’s choice will be consequential. 

The final movement portrays Jesus (“the Word of God,” 19:13) riding triumphantly as the “Divine Warrior” on a white horse riding victoriously against Satan, his beast and false prophet condemning them to “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:11–21).[4] This movement seals the fate of Satan. The ending of the “old world” of persecution, deception, and unrighteousness are quickly replaced by the “new order” of God’s righteous kingdom. 

Revelation 20–21

The question of the nature of the eschatological millennium in Revelation is one of the most challenging interpretive debates throughout church history (McGinn 527–38).[5] This “end times” question is important, but not so much that it must distract from understanding the apocalyptic imagery of divine vindication, the fate of Satan and his followers, and the hope of a glorious “new” Jerusalem. Understanding the literary goal of the present chapters is our primary concern, afterwhich an approach will be offered to address the millennium question. 

Following the initial failure of Satan (19:11–21), John takes his readers through four visional experiences marked by the phrase, “Then I saw…” (20:1, 4, 11; 20:1). The first vision is of the millennial incarceration of the dragon (20:1–3), the second being the millennial reign of the martyrs with Christ interrupted by the failed final coup of Satan (20:4–10), and in the third vision John sees the final fate of the living and the dead who were not written in the book of life (20:11–14). The fourth vision takes in the visual grandeur of the new holy city of Jerusalem, in the new heavens and new earth, and its extraordinary features (21:1–22:5).

The Fate of the Satan’s Rebellion (Rev. 20:1–10) 

The first vision of the millennial incarceration of the dragon begins with the descent of another angelic figure from the host of heaven who carries the previously mentioned “key” to the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1) and a great chain. The imagery of the key is used three other times to represent control or access. The exalted Christ is said to possess the “keys of Death and Hades” (1:18) and “the key of David” (3:7). An angel of God who blew the fifth trumpet who was “given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” and opened it (9:1–2). Throughout Revelation various angels appear to carry out various elements of God’s executive plans (Rev. 1:1; 5:11; 7:2; 8:3; 10:1; 12:7; 14:15, 17–18; 18:1, 21; 19:17). This angel chains Satan to the bottomless pit for “a thousand years” (20:2).

The idea of a “bottomless pit” reoccurs only a handful of times in Revelation but is a common trope of ancient cosmology of the underworld. References are found in the sheol references in the Old Testament (i.e., the grave, realm of the dead), non-canonical apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, and Greek myths of Hades and Titan myths. Such language appears in the New Testament regarding rebellious angels–complete with binding them in chains (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). Jesus declares the gates of the hadean realm would not prevail against his messianic mission (Matt. 16:18–19). Satan/the Devil, surprisingly, is cast in the pit temporarily for a thousand years to prevent further deception of the nations (20:3).

Satan (adversary, accuser; 2:9) and Devil (slanderer; 2:10) appear early in Revelation and are explicitly identified as “the great dragon… that ancient serpent…the deceiver of the whole world” cast down from heaven to earth with his angels (12:9). John’s recipients already knew that Satan had placed real political and religious pressure on their churches (Smyrna 2:9–10, Pergamum 2:13, Thyatira 2:24, Philadelphia 3:9), but John reveals that his deceptive and corruptive influence is everywhere. In Revelation, Satan operates through “nesting egg” avatars. The blasphemous beast from the sea (Nero redivivus?) who marveled the world over to worship him with his claim of a resurrection (13:1–4), gave rise to the miracle-working faux-lamb beast who initiated the cultic and political allegiance to totalitarianism by worship of the image of the first beast (the Caesar cult?; 13:11–18), who then gave rise to the false prophet and his miracle working demonic spirits to manipulate the kings of the earth to war against God (16:12–16). These have all been defeated. All that remains is Satan in exile, bound to the bottomless pit.

The martyrs of Christ, then, are resurrected to reign for a thousand years (20:4–6) but are interrupted when Satan initiates a failed coup resulting in his final demise in the lake of fire (20:7–10). This second vision begins with the preparation of a judgment scene reminiscent of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians in which he affirms that “the saints will judge the world… [and] angels” (6:2–3a). There are thrones reserved for those empowered to judge, but it is not clear who they are (Rev. 20:4). The proximity of this group to the resurrected martyrs lends strength to believe that the resurrected faithful of God will be involved in the cosmic judgment (20:4–5). This seems even more likely as the “rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” as they did not experience “the first resurrection” (20:5). The resurrected martyrs will be judges, priests, and reign with God in this millennia (20:6). This outcome of victory is consistent with the letters to Thyatira and Laodicea (1:5b–6; 2:26–27; 3:21), and with the baptismal language of being raised and seated with Christ (Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:15; for the resurrection see end of section).

The release of Satan points to two related facts: God is in full control and Satan is always inferior in power (20:7; cf. Job 1:6–2:10). Yet, these inevitabilities never seem to bother him! At the close of the millennial reign Satan will re-emerge with the purpose “to deceive the nations.” This time he must recruit afresh. He plans to go to battle against God’s people like Gog the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, from the land of Magog (Ezek. 38–39). Gog and Magog are a shorthand for the ambition to “seize spoil and carry off plunder” from the vulnerable land of God’s people (Ezek. 38:10–11). God condemned Gog’s fate to be a burial in “the Valley of the Travelers, east of the sea” as a sign of his utter failure (Ezek. 39:11–16). So too, Satan/the Devil will attempt a coup but as he surrounds “the beloved city” fire from heaven consumes his forces, but he will be “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur… tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:9–10). Satan, his avatars, nor his chicaneries ever appear again.

The Doomed Fate of the Beast Worshippers (Rev. 20:11–15) 

In the third vision, John sees the final fate of those who were not written in the book of life (20:11–14). The “book of life” is first introduced in the letter to the church in Sardis as a directory of those who walk with the exalted Christ and conquer over spiritual trials (3:5). Yet, God has always had such a book, exclusion from it was a sign of impending judgment (Exod. 32:33). In Revelation, it refers to those who have succumbed to the manipulation of the beast, worshiped it, rebelled against God, and lived unclean lives of moral and spiritual corruption (13:8; 17:8; 21:27). Their fate is to experience “the second death,” which is to be thrown into the lake of fire “forever and ever” with the beast, the false prophet, and Satan/the Devil (19:20; 20:10, 14–15; 21:8).

This lake of fire is the final and permanent act of divine judgment. Previously an angel declared, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark  on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (14:9–10). While some Christians reject the idea of eternal conscious torment for the lost and rebellious, this language could not be understood otherwise. The passive verb (tormented, basanídzō), the temporal language, and the heavenly witnesses suggests an eternal conscious experience. Granted, the portrayal is framed in the apocalyptic vision, but as stated above this does suggest that such a judgment will not happen.

The order of events leading to judgment is noteworthy. A bodily resurrection precedes standing before the throne of judgment, as they were exhumed from the sea and hadean realm (20:12–13). As the cosmos was laid bare, there was no terrain or hiding spots from God’s eye, as “earth and sky fled away” from him (20:11). This post-millennial resurrection (“come to life”) of exclusively beast worshippers was accomplished by God’s power (20:5). It is thought provoking to consider that a bodily resurrection of the wicked precedes being cast into the lake of fire to experience an eternal punishment for evil done in the body. Perhaps Jesus’ words are not exaggerations for effect when he said, “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [gehenna]” (Matt 10:28; 18:8–9). It is startling to see that not only the wicked and lost, but even the “containers” of disembodied spirits (Death and Hades), are thrown in the lake of fire. Revelation affirms, then, that hell is God’s ultimate answer of holy justice to the corrosive problem of moral and spiritual evil. Nothing associated with evil survives the second death.

The “New” Fate of the Lamb Worshippers (Rev. 21:1–27)

The fourth vision takes in the visual grandeur of the founding and features of the new holy city of Jerusalem, in the new heavens and new earth (21:1–27). The transition is as quick as the blink of an eye. This transition is an anticipated feature of apocalyptic literature. The old world in which God’s people suffer has fallen and God will replace it with his “new” kingdom imbued with peace and righteousness (21:1). The “holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” had been anticipated since the letter to the church in Philadelphia (3:12; 21:2). The garden in Genesis and the tabernacle reveal, for example, God’s desire to dwell with his people provided they walk in holiness with him (Gen. 2:1–3:24; Exod. 25:8; 29:45–46; Lev. 16:16). In the new Jerusalem, “the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev. 21:3). God will share his intimate presence with his people by comforting, protecting, and ensuring the “former things have passed away” (21:4).

“New” appears in Revelation eight times. Four appear between verses 1–5. John sees the “new heavens and a new earth” (21:1), the “new Jerusalem” (21:2; 3:12), and hears God affirm “I am making all things new” (21:5). This “new” creation originates out of heaven and comes down to the plain of existence which has lost all of its features due to the immanent presence of God (20:11; 21:1).[6] Clearly, the old “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) has “passed away” along with its sea (Rev. 21:1). Nothing of the old order remains except for those who have faithfully worshiped the lamb (21:7–8, 27). It is “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” who declares, “It is done!” (21:6; Gen. 2:1–3). The new creation is not tenuously “very good” (Gen. 1:31; 3:1), every one evil will be in judgment (Rev. 21:8; 14:9–10).

In Revelation 16:17–17:18, there is also a declaration that God’s work is “done” (16:17). This is followed by an angel showing John the judgment of “the great prostitute” who reigns over many waters and the kings of the earth (17:1, 18). In this section, an angel from earlier reappears to lead John to see that the only city left is the “new Jerusalem,” equated as the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (21:9). The dueling women of Revelation (the prostitute and the bride) materialize the divergent outcomes of the dueling women of Proverbs 1–9 (Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly). John saw the combined beauty of its materials used, its impressive protective boundaries, the explicit knowledge of its citizens’ names inscribed, and the work of the apostolic office serving as its foundation (21:11–14). The materials of the new holy city are made from the various streams of the scheme of redemption woven into a tapestry of the gospel that can only be related visually by the glittering brilliance of precious jewels and stones (21:15–21). The city is pure and beautiful, and is the refreshing end of our pilgrimage (22:1–5; Heb. 4:9–10; 11:10).

Several elements seem to have surprised John about the new Jerusalem all of which are the result of the immanent presence of God (21:22–26). The Jerusalem temple where the Spirit of God dwelt has been replaced by the actual presence of “the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). Creation itself will lack the sun and never have night again, as God and the Lamb are its source of light (21:23). Light is the natural extension of the character of God (John 1:4–5). In this “new heavens and new earth,” as in its Isaiah counterparts (65:17; 66:22), humanity and creation will experience peaceful living and will generate glory for the express purpose of God’s praise (21:24–27; Beale and Campbell 492). 

ILLUSTRATIONS

First-Century Persecution

Revelation points to a first-century church experiencing persecution. The New Testament provides evidence that like their master, the early Christians experienced rejection and religious persecution. Jesus’ death on the cross was the result of a calculated rejection by the Jewish religious establishment. The Lord told his disciples, “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours” (John 15:20). The apostles certainly experienced persecution for their claims that Jesus fulfilled the anticipation of the messiah, and were often used as political trophies to appease the rank and file anti-Christian Jew (Acts 12:1–3). This was mostly infighting among Jews that rejected Christ and Jews that accepted Christ. Historically, Emperor Claudius (r. 41–54) expelled Jews from the city of Rome over their ongoing instigations over a certain Chrestus (i.e., Christos, Christ; Suetonius, Claudius 25; Acts 18:1–2).

Nevertheless, as Christianity expanded throughout the Greco-Roman world other forms of problems emerged. Social and religious tensions emerged as former pagans no longer participated in the placating of the gods, which made the Christian stand out (1 Pet. 4:1–19). Texts like 1 Peter reveal there were consequential reactions by the local community Christians found themselves in for not participating in traditional cultic practices, there did not seem to be a top-down Roman policy of persecution. Instead, persecution at that level was sporadic and episodic. Two notable figures were Nero in A.D. 64 and Domitian in A.D. 96. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote of Nero’s actions to blame the Christians for the great fire of Rome. Tacitus wrote, he “fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians” (Annals 15.44). Domitian, on the other hand, persecuted Christians as a side-effect from their rejection of the imperial cult which affirmed that “Caesar is Lord” (McFayden 46). Such situations play into the Roman paradigm which Revelation subverts.

APPLICATIONS

The Resurrection of the Body

Scripture forces the Christian to see the bodily resurrection as an essential component of the “end times.” The language of resurrection in Revelation 20:4b–5 is particularly uncomplicated. The resurrection of the dead (beheaded) martyrs simply occurs when they “came to life” (20:4b). In Daniel, the general resurrection is framed as when many who “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (12:2; cf. John 5:29). In Ezekiel, a grotesque vision of dry bones reassembling underscores not only affirms God’s creative power to make these bones live again, but also to resurrect the Judahite state dead in captivity (37:1–14). 

In the history of the church, the procurator Festus summarizes the Christian claim that, “a certain Jesus, who was dead… Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). In the early fifties, Paul likely provides the earliest Christian explanation of the bodily resurrection of Christ and its future implications for the believer (1 Cor. 15:1–8). Christ’s resurrection made him the “firstfruits” from the dead, providing hope the Christian will likewise “bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:20, 49). It is impressive that the language of bodily resurrection spans the prophetic, the epistolary, and the historical genres of Scripture. 

Understanding the Millennium

Revelation 20:1–10 is one short but it has become the center for many systems of belief about the end times. Revelation 20:1–10 tends to “wags the dog” of interpretation for the Apocalypse if you begin the interpretation process with an unchecked eschatological (end times) assumption(s). For this reason Frank Pack (1916–1998) observed, “The question of the millennium… has made this the most difficult portion of the Book of Revelation to understand” (45). These visions of John are “not intended to map out a linear future timeline of history but to inspire people who are suffering for their faith to persevere, whatever the time” (Tidball 244). Nevertheless, the three broad approaches have locked horns throughout church history. 

The three most common are premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism (cf. McGrath 442–43; Tidball 244–45; Pack 45–48). While the most popular, premillennialism anticipates Christ’s return before the millennium inaugurated by the rapture and tribulation. It relies on a literal treatment and unnatural proof texting of scattered prophetic literature and encourages speculation of the end times contrary to Jesus’ words (Matt. 24:36, 42). Postmillennialism rose to prominence in the nineteenth century as an optimistic alternative, seeing the evangelistic mission of the church vital to the coming of Christ but it has fallen out of favor in the aftermath of the world wars. Finally, amillennialism does not hold that there is any period of history that should be marked as “the millennium,” but instead typically sees it as symbolic of the entire Christian age. This is likely the better reading of the language of Revelation than the previous two.

APPLICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Why are the words and the literary genre important for God’s inspired purpose in writing Revelation?
  2. Does the rich apocalyptic language suggest that there is no historical foundation behind the image? Where does Revelation point to its historical setting?
  3. What story do you find in contemporary media (books, movies, etc.) that is compelling in the way it outlines good and evil? Which one would you use to illustrate evil vs. good to someone you know?
  4. What is a fair speculation as to why God temporarily bound Satan and allowed him to try for one more attack on God’s people?
  5. Eternal conscious torment of the wicked and lost is a hard topic to talk about. How does justice play a role in understanding this topic?
  6. The new city of Jerusalem in the new heavens and new earth is said to be free of evil and corruption. Why do you think free moral beings will be able to live in a place like that and not sin?
  7. The resurrection of the body is part of Revelation’s picture of the new heavenly existence. How does Paul’s explanation help think about the resurrection of our bodies and the end times?

ENDNOTES

  1. Boyd Luter, “Interpreting the Book of Revelation,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David A. Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 474.
  2. This approach to Revelation is based on the literary chiastic structure developed in Michelle V. Lee, “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation,” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164–94.
  3. A short list of other allusions: Genesis 1:1 as the basis for “new” heavens and earth (Rev. 21:1); Isaiah throne room motif of the thrice-holy God (Isa. 6:1–7; Rev. 4–5; 20:4, 11); in Daniel, God victoriously vindicates his saints against the beasts (7:1–28; Rev. 20:7–10); the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6) alludes to similar ideas in Isaiah (44:6; 48:12); Ezekiel 37–39 as important imagery for the Gog and Magog siege of Jerusalem (Rev. 20:7–9).
  4. David E. Aune marks this passage with strong Christological implications for the exalted Christ portrayed as the Divine Warrior who is designated with the following four “names” (317–18): (1) “Faithful and True” (19:11), (2) “he has a name written that no one knows but himself” (19:12), (3) “the Word of God” (19:14), and (4) “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16).
  5. Students of the outline of Revelation will observe that 20:1–22:5 is the proper closing of this unit, as John is shown the central placement of “the river of the water of life” in the new Jerusalem sourced from the throne of God with whom they will have an unmediated communion.
  6. John’s language here does not perfectly align with Peter’s (2 Pet. 3:8–10), but the difference can be accounted for by their different audience and purposes, but more particularly by the ways they compartmentalize different aspects of the end of the present age.

WORKS CITED

Aune, David E. “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 292–319 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

Beale, G. K., and David H. Campbell. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Logos electronic edition.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Lee, Michelle Vidle. “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation.” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164–94.

Luter, Boyd. “Interpreting the Book of Revelation.” Pages 457–80 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: B&H, 2001.

McFayden, Donald. “The Occasion of the Domitian Persecution.” American Journal of Theology 24 (1920): 46–66.

McGinn, Bernard. “Revelation.” Pages 523–41 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. 1987. Reprint, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Pack, Frank. Revelation, Part 2. Austin: Sweet, 1965.

Placher, William C., Richard J. Mouw, and Ted Peters. “Where Are We Going? Eschatology.” Pages 329–65 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Russell, Walt. Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000.

Ryken, Leland. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Tidball, Derek. The Voices of the New Testament: Invitation to a Biblical Roundtable. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.

Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, 2021, Biblical Criticism, Christian Apologetics, Early Christianity, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Resurrection, Theology1 Comment

[Note: This paper has been published. Go to the end of the article to download the published version.]

The historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the foundation of orthodox Christianity. The apostle Paul asserts, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor 15:14).[1] One argument skeptics, like former Catholic Priest and Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan, use to counter the force of the historical claim of a bodily resurrection of Jesus is to say that the early Christians experienced hallucinations.

I intend to demonstrate the early Christian claim of Jesus appearing bodily after his resurrection­, as reflected in Paul, is the best explanation for the resurrection appearances of the New Testament over Crossan’s hallucination theory.

I first critique the hallucination theory of Crossan for contradicting the bodily resurrection language of the New Testament. Second, I demonstrate how Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. Finally, I dispute Crossan’s denial of the falsifiable of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Early Christians Believed in a Bodily Resurrection

The language of the miracle claim asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples (John 20:27; Luke 24:39). However, a secular worldview primed by naturalism demands an alternative explanation of “what really happened” to Jesus other than a bodily resurrection.[2] The horns of the dilemma were posed by David F. Strauss (1808–1874), “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not really rise again.”[3] However, all the details of passion-week Friday, such as, scourging, dehydration, crucifixion, etc., make any interpretation Jesus did not die to be “at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[4] The category of hallucination, as an explanation theory, is a popular attempt to claim the disciples hallucinated the bodily appearances of Jesus, and mass hysteria then spread their claim. As Dale C. Allison, Jr., frames it,

it was not the empty tomb that begot the hallucinations but hallucinations that begot the empty tomb.[5]

Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus (T&T Clark, 2005)

The charge is ancient. In the third-century AD, Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) combatted Celsus’ second-century claim that the disciples suffered a “delusion.”[6]

Another pushback against the orthodox view of a bodily resurrection is that it is just a fictional myth that developed over time as a result of a personal hallucination of Paul. To establish this claim, liberal Bible critic Crossan introduces the writings of two early non-Christian historians (Josephus and Tacitus) which he believes limit “what happened both before and after Jesus’s execution.” [7] Crossan argues their religious profiles of the Christian movement lack mention of the resurrection. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas speaks of the “living Jesus” and the Epistle of Barnabas is void of resurrection talk. Crossan believes this evidence affirms that early Christian faith did not need to believe in a post-mortem appearance of Jesus. He further claims that Paul uses his experience of Jesus appearing to him (1 Cor 15:8) to give him the gravitas to be the equal of all the apostles in a political powerplay.[8]

Crossan’s novel hallucination theory also requires that the present passive indicative verb ōphthē, translated “appeared” in most translations, actually means “revealed.” This would be a culturally conditioned “trance” where Paul experienced an “altered state of consciousness” and used this personal experience to stabilize the infighting in the Corinthian church.[9] Crossan’s theory requires the church to have completely misread Paul’s testimony by taking his personal experience for apostolic orthodoxy. Crossan’s theory offers a “growth-politics” twist to the category of the hallucination theory.

The words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, however, do not support Crossan’s theory. In fact, this passage is a test-case of the united shape of the earliest Christian tradition concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus.[10] The minimal facts theory of apologist Gary R. Habermas provides a firm critical foundation to respond to Crossan. The minimal facts theory is a critical approach that uses “the minimal, best-established facts surrounding the appearances” of Jesus that even Bible critics grant “to determine what really happened after Jesus’ death.”[11] Habermas has established four historical facts.

First, there is very little controversy that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, as even Crossan dates the letter to AD 53–54.[12] Second, Paul’s articulation of the gospel predates him, “I delivered to you… what I also received” (1 Cor 15:3). Here Paul affirms the normative nature of what he is preaching. Third, Paul received this “tradition” anywhere between AD 32–38, less than a decade after the crucifixion.[13] Fourth, this reception of the creed occurred during Paul’s Jerusalem information gathering “visit” (cf. historéō) with Peter and James (Gal 1:18–20) and anchors his tradition to the early Jerusalem church.[14]

Bible critical scholar, A. M. Hunter (1906–1991), argues that Paul claims in this passage “a very early Christian summary” of what the united apostolic voice affirms about the gospel and Jesus resurrection appearances (15:11);[15] namely, “that Christ died for our sins… that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day… and that he appeared” (15:3–5). The bodily death and resurrection appearances of Jesus legitimizes the existence of the Christian faith, for “in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (15:20; cf. 15:6, 14). There is no powerplay. Paul is in fact arguing from within the earliest Christian tradition and meaning of resurrection appearance. This is a substantial point since Crossan’s theory offers a reinterpretation of the early Christian tradition which cannot be sustained internally.

Ultimately, a naturalistic argument forces Crossan’s hand to redefine what is a resurrection and how one experiences it. Resurrection was not, according to N. T. Wright, a generic term for “life after death” but instead “the second stage in a two-stage process of what happens after death: the first stage being nonbodily and the second being a renewed bodily existence… Paul really did believe in the bodily resurrection” (cf. 1 Cor 9:1).[16] It is precisely this firm belief in the bodily resurrection that invalidates Crosson’s theory for Paul, and is in conformity with other the New Testament descriptions of the bodily resurrection appearances of Jesus.[17]

Beyond the evidence of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 of multiple eyewitnesses there are the public resurrection expectations and appearances in the Gospels; moreover, there are the resurrection creedal statements in the sermons of Acts.[18] It points to a clear unified belief among the earliest Christians that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and appeared in a renewed bodily existence. Bodily existence is the expected concept non-believers were to understand as the Christian view of the resurrection, as Judean Procurator Festus explains to Herod Agrippa II, “a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). The New Testament evidence affirms, then, the early Christian claim that Jesus was a live again.

No Mechanism for Hallucination

As we shall argue, there are no cause for Paul to need a hallucination. Such a theory redefines the unified Christian claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Crossan, keenly aware that Paul provides the earliest creedal statement, posits that Paul is the key for all the New Testament internal evidence. For Crossan what really happened is Paul was desperate to have a trance experience of the resurrection. He theorizes the Easter tradition developed over the years into its current boundaries of the canonical New Testament. Crossan offers “apparition–which involves trance” as the alternative dissociated state in which he believes Paul experienced resurrection.[19]

Based on the work by Erika Bourguignon on “dissociational” states, Crossan affirms trance to be “a human universal” that may be a culturally trained and controlled experience by one’s social and religious expectations.[20] Crossan’s reading of Paul’s words is an eisegetical fallacy importing a modern socio-religious model of an “altered state of consciousness” into Paul’s experiences to establish his political equality with the other apostles.[21] Again Crossan claims, “Paul needs… to equate his own experience” with the apostles to establish “its validity and legitimacy but not necessarily its mode or manner.”[22] Crossan’s methodology is problematic on this point.

However, there are three major problems with Crossan’s hallucination theory. First, Crossan imports an anachronistic definition into the use ōphthē in Paul’s words. It should be noted with significance that in the Greek Old Testament ōphthē is used in appearances of God (i.e., theophanies) to Abraham, and clearly to Abraham in bodily form where he ate with the Lord (Gen 18:1).[23] Paul was quite familiar with Genesis as he makes substantial arguments about justification by faith with the stories of Abraham in Galatians and Romans. To posit a modern theory while ignoring this Old Testament tradition of the verb, “he appeared,” ignores the textual evidence. Furthermore, it calls into question the validity of Crossan’s exegetical methodology.

Second, he exchanges his own meaning for Paul’s intended meaning of the verb ōphthē.[24] Crossan’s claim puts the power of the trance in Paul’s hands, but Paul’s verbal word choice indicates the appearance was out of his hands. Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace, reminds in grammatical instances like this, “volition rests wholly with the subject [Jesus], while the dative noun is merely recipient [Paul].”[25] It is Jesus who “appeared.” Paul did not conjure a “revelation” of Jesus.

Third, Crossan’s portrayal of Paul as desperate for apostolic power does not agree with Paul’s own success in Judaism prior to his conversion and call. He writes,

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely jealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. (Gal 1:13b–14)

Paul had the pedigree of a rising Jewish leader (Phil 3:4–8). There is no explainable mechanism which accounts for exchanging this advancement in Judaism for the trials of following Christ outside of an actual appearance of the resurrected Jesus which he did not initiate in a trance. Paul joins the pre-existing united voice of the apostolic witnesses, other earlier skeptical witnesses (non-believing siblings of Jesus), and the large groups seeing Jesus post-burial. Crossan’s theory do not adequately take these elements into account. Furthermore, Habermas’s minimal facts theory renders his mechanism historically implausible since its critical timetable places Paul as recipient, not creator, of the bodily resurrection confession.

Paul’s Claim was Falsifiable

This conclusion then leads to question of falsifiability. The early Christians claimed a dead man lived again. Writing about twenty years after the resurrection Paul asserts there were many eyewitnesses who could verify or falsify his claim that Jesus rose bodily. Paul wrote, “I delivered to you…what I also received” (1 Cor 15:2) and proceeds to outline six lines of eyewitness testimony evidence: Cephas, the twelve, over five hundred, James, all the apostles, and Paul. The most audacious claim is that Jesus appeared “to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:6). Paul’s submission invites investigation into the genuineness of the resurrection of Jesus and is essential to Paul’s argument for the validity of the gospel. Paul’s claim to have “seen the Lord” is falsifiable (1 Cor 9:1). Even Crossan understands the surface argument of this passage, and observes, “no Jesus resurrection, no general resurrection; or, no general resurrection, no Jesus resurrection.”[26] He does not however believe it.

Crossan believes that it would be impossible to falsify the traditional empty tomb and resurrection stories. When asked whether “the empty tomb” was historical, Crossan emphatically responds, “No.” Crossan expands,

“I doubt there was any tomb for Jesus in the first place. I don’t think any of Jesus’ followers even knew where he was buried–if he was buried at all.”[27]

John Dominic Crossan in Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Westminster John Knox, 1996)

From Roman sources Crossan argues the Roman expectation for the crucified was the denial of both body and burial.[28] To the point, Crossan says, the “final penalty was to lie unburied as food for carrion birds and beasts [i.e., animals that eat decaying flesh].”[29] Crucifixion meant, then, “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion”; consequently, there was little likelihood of Jesus’ body making it off the cross let alone into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:42; Matt 27:1–61).[30] It would likely take “bribery, mercy, or indifference” to get the Romans to release the body over to a Jew seeking to avoid violating Jewish protocols of burying the hung (Deut 21:22–23).

Such a “hope” would be the exception, for only one contemporary crucified body remains have been found where thousands have been so executed; as such, it “is not history.”[31] This clearly undermines the Gospel tradition of the empty tomb where Jesus had been buried.

Crossan’s historical reconstruction of customary expectations and practices is a strong counterargument against falsification by the presentation of the cadaver of Jesus. If there is no body which survives the cross, there is no body to be buried, and therefore the Christian claim cannot be falsified. However, Crossan cannot historically rule out that Jesus was buried as Mark affirms. He can only suggest burial would be highly unlikely. Crossan’s alternative depends on advancing a legendary basis for the burial of Jesus. Yet, William Lane Craig responds this “would ignore the specific evidence” in Jesus’ case.[32] As established by the “minimal facts” critical theory, the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 is very early. Furthermore, this four-line creedal formula affirms crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and then appearance.

The burial of Jesus was essential to the creed and Mark’s reference to it is substantial corroboration. First, the “assured results” of critical scholarship considers Mark the earliest gospel as it is the most “bare bones” narrative of Jesus.[33] Second, the Passion week narrative includes Jesus’ rejection and crucifixion. Third, Mark introduces Jesus’ burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb from which he resurrects. Mark retains the burial tradition.[34] Crossan’s methodology is prejudicial because it rules out, beforehand (a priori), the established testimony of the earliest claim of the Christians: Christ was buried, was raised, and he appeared.

Conclusion

This paper affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus over the challenge raised by the hallucination theory developed by Crossan. The language of the New Testament asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples, to unbelievers, and to many others. Crossan claimed that the resurrection from the dead was not a main element of the Christian faith. However, a critical examination of the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 verifies that the primary and earlier Christian creedal tradition which teaches that Jesus arose bodily and appeared. There is no other normative belief in the New Testament than Jesus resurrected from the dead.  

Second, Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. The alternative theory offered by Crossan that Paul had a dissociative hallucination-trance experience to gain religious political power is based on seriously flawed exegetical methodology. There is ultimately no proper mechanism for Paul’s conversion to Christianity and his claim of seeing the resurrected Jesus, when he was living a successful Jewish life as a persecutor of the church. Paul’s claim that he saw the Lord resurrected must be taken seriously.

Finally, I asserted the early Christian claim of a bodily resurrection would have been falsifiable by the cadaver of Jesus. Crossan’s claim that Jesus’ body would likely never have survived nor made it to a burial actually is self-defeating because he cannot rule out known exceptions. In Jesus’ case, there were elements to his story that made it possible for Jesus to be taken off the cross and buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This is in keeping with the earliest Christian claim regarding his burial.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Gary R. Habermas explains that a naturalist theory for the resurrection draws “from a host of philosophical backgrounds, the basic idea is to suggest an alternative explanation in place of divine causation… ‘Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. What really happened is (fill in the blank).’” Habermas, “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Trinity Journal 22 (2001): 180.
  3. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th edition, translated by George Eliot (London: Sonnenschein, 1902), 736. The longer form: “a dead man has returned to life, is composed of two such contradictory elements, that whenever it is attempted to maintain the one, the other threatens to disappear. If he has really returned to life, it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly dead; if he was really dead, it is difficult to believe that he has really become living” (735–36).
  4. William Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (1986): 1436.
  5. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 204. Allison offers seven categories and sub-categories of resurrection appearance hypotheses each with different psychological catalysts (199–213).
  6. Origen Contra Celsum 2.60: “But Celsus, unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream, and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman half-mad,— a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.”
  7. Josephus Antiquities 18.63; Tacitus Annals 15.44. cf. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 161–62. Italics added.
  8. Crossan, Jesus, 166.
  9. Ibid., 167; 87–88.
  10. The following four arguments presume the work of Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” In Defense of Miracles, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 264.
  11. Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 262.
  12. Possibly later, like 64. Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861–1986, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University, 1988), 308; Crossan, Jesus, 163.
  13. C. H. Dodd argues that Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was “not more than seven years after the Crucifixion,” The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (reprint, New York: Harper & Brothers, n.d.), 16.
  14. William R. Farmer, “Peter and Paul and the Tradition Concerning ‘The Lord Supper’ in 1 Cor 11:23–26,” Criswell Theological Review 2.1 (1987): 122–28; Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 265–67.
  15. A. M. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 99. John Dominic Crossan argues that Paul went to great pains to validate his own apostleship, yet, it was not the voice but a competing voice among many regarding the importance of the resurrection, Jesus, 159–92.
  16. N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A Dialogue,” The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 17.
  17. 1 John 1:1–4; John 20:1–21:24; Acts 1:1–3, 2:29–32.
  18. Expectations: Matt 28:8–20; Luke 24:13–52; John 20:10–23, 26–30, 21:1–14; Mark 16:6–7; statements: 1:1–3; 2:23–24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30–34; 17:31; 23:6; 24:21; 26:8, 23.
  19. Crossan, Jesus, 160–61. Italics are original.
  20. Ibid., 87–89.
  21. Ibid., 166–67; Acts 9:3–4, 22:6–7, 26:13–14.
  22. Ibid., 169.
  23. Genesis 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2, 24.
  24. The following argument is based on Daniel B. Wallace’s discussion of the dative + the present passive indicative form of ōphthē in the New Testament in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 165, footnote 72; “horáo,” Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Ardnt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 719.
  25. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 165. What Wallace says for Paul applies equally to all listed in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8: Cephas and the twelve, the “more than five-hundred,” and James and the apostles. Crossan, Jesus, 164.
  26. John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts, Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 122.
  27. Suetonius, Defied Augustus 13.1–2, Tacitus, Annals 6.29.
  28. John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 160.
  29. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163. In Crossan’s perspective, Joseph of Arimathea is purely a construct of Mark’s imagination; see his discussion on Luke 23:50–54 and John 19:35–42.
  30. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163–68.
  31. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 208.
  32. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 150.
  33. Strobel, Case for Christ, 209.

Click here to download the published version of this research paper. To subscribe to Sufficient Evidence click here.

Are Miracles Possible?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

  • Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
  • Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
  • Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
  • Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  2. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  3. James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
  4. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
  5. James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
  6. Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
  7. Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  8. Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  9. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.