Always be prepared to give an answer

1 Peter 3:15  has for the past several years been one of my favorite verses in the Bible. This verse states “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. (NIV)” This verse commands us to be bold (and yet polite) witnesses to Jesus’ saving power at work in our lives. It commands us to be prepared to share our faith in a reasonable and winsome way whenever the opportunity arises. 

I am also convinced that this verse endorses the project of “Christian Apologetics.” Christian Apologetics is often a confusing term to many Christians. Often it is thought to connote “apologizing” for being a Christian. This could not be further from the truth. The word “Apologetics” comes from the Greek word “Apologia” which simply means to make a defense. Thus, the term Christian Apologetics could be reasonably defined as “Defending the core doctrines of the Christian faith.”

Christian Apologetics as practiced by people such as William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, Ravi Zacharias, Nabeel Qureshi, and others, typically focuses on how belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God is more reasonable than the belief that God does not exist. Furthermore, these Apologists will try to show that the Resurrection of Jesus is supported by the historical evidence we have available. Fundamentally, the task of the Christian Apologist is to demonstrate that Christianity better corresponds to reality than any other worldview.

The work of Christian Apologists (especially the work of William Lane Craig and Nabeel Qureshi) was very helpful to me a couple of years ago when I questioned the truth of the Christian faith. Their work helped show me that the Christian faith is reasonable and can withstand the most challenging questions of the skeptics.

Unfortunately, many Christian people have a very negative view of Christian Apologetics. Sadly, I think this is sometimes due to a misunderstanding of the word “faith.” Many are convinced that having true and authentic “faith” means believing something wholeheartedly without evidence. Demanding that what we believe be reasonable is for some Christians a sign that the person asking for evidence has a weak and inauthentic faith. However, God has not asked for us to believe in him without evidence. Rather, Romans 1 demonstrates that God has revealed himself to us in nature and John 1 tells us that he has revealed himself to us in his son Jesus of Nazareth. The work of the Apologist is to show that these truths are reasonable and can be supported by the evidence. Faith is not believing “what you know ain’t so,” nor is it believing something without evidence. Finally, it is not belief based on emotion or sentimentality. Faith is placing our trust in God’s revelation of himself because it is reasonable and best corresponds to reality.

I am convinced that more Christians in the western world will need to embrace the project of Christian Apologetics in the coming years if we want to be effective in sharing our faith. Answers soaked in emotion and sentimentality will do little to sway the hearts and minds of people in the information age. Yes, we need to share our personal testimonies of how Christ saved us, we need to share how comforting Christianity is to the human heart and soul, but we must also demonstrate that Christian faith is reasonable. I see no other way to win people to Christ in the 21st century. Indeed, I am glad that when I had questions and doubts, someone was there to show me that my worldview was reasonable, without it, I doubt I would be a Christian today. Thus, whenever you are tempted to dismiss the task of Christian Apologetics remember that there are many people like me who continue to walk with Jesus largely due to the work of those that defend the Christian faith.

 

Advertisements

“Love so amazing, so divine”

Playing music has often been one of my favorite ways to wind down after a long day and today was no exception. This particular evening I found myself at my piano playing odds and ends of various Gospel songs and hymns. After a few minutes of this I began to play through, and sing, the old hymn “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross.” This has always been one of my favorite hymns both melodically and lyrically and perhaps not incidentally, one of the first songs I ever learned to play on the piano. I have probably played this song hundreds, if not thousands, of times over my life. This time however, the final lyrics touched me more deeply than usual. If you are unfamiliar with the lyrics this is how they go. “Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.” Simple, but powerful lyrics they are.

As I began to reflect on the truth of these lyrics I was reminded of the power of the Gospel. The Gospel is fundamentally a story about God’s sacrifice. Indeed, the Gospel is the greatest picture of sacrificial love that people have ever been privy to. Despite our rebellion God did not abandon us, God loved us, God became human for us, God shed his blood on the cross for us and God even tasted death for us. “Love so amazing, so divine” indeed.

Love of this nature simply demands a response as the old song goes. If one thinks deeply on what Jesus, the God-man, gave up for us so that we might be redeemed, we will necessarily be moved. If Jesus really gave his life for us so that we might be reconnected with a holy God, then neutrality is no longer a viable response to such a display of sacrificial love. It most certainly “demands my soul, my life, my all.”

This kind of sacrificial love demands that I give “my soul” to him and trust him as Savior and Lord. If there is anyone I can trust my destiny with, it is Jesus. He gave his life for me, and he has conquered death through his resurrection. Thus, I can be confident that I too will experience resurrection.

This kind of sacrificial love demands “my life.” Easy-believism or a fire-insurance mentality about my relationship with Jesus simply will not do. Jesus’s example of self-sacrifice demands that I serve him and serve others. There is enough selfishness in this world, there are too many people who live as if the world exists only to bring them pleasure. Many are fine with attaining pleasure at other people’s expense. I don’t want to continue this trend.

This kind of sacrificial love demands “my all.” Jesus was willing to give his all on the cross. He not only shed his blood and gave his life, but he was willing to suffer separation from his heavenly Father by becoming the perfect sacrifice for our sins. This kind of love demands that I give every part of who I am to the cause of Christ without reservation. I must be willing to sacrifice comfort, reputation, wealth, and even my own will for the cause of Christ. This is a great and difficult calling, but a necessary one considering what Jesus has done for us.

“Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.” As I close with the writing of this reflection, these lyrics remain deeply imprinted into my mind. I am reminded that the Christian call is a call to death, death to oneself that is. It is a call to sacrifice, but as Jesus’s example shows, sacrifice can bring about beautiful results. This week I will consciously try to live by these lyrics and give “my life” and “my all” to Jesus. It is the very least I can do.

On Pietists and Preaching

Lately I have been doing a lot of research on the historical movement within Christianity known as Pietism. Pietism was a movement that grew out of German Lutheranism during the 1600s and 1700s. Pietism was essentially a revival movement that taught that renewal would only be achieved in the church when both the clergy and the laity more deeply engrossed themselves in the Holy Scriptures and moved beyond a mere “head knowledge” of the Christian faith and embraced the teachings of Christianity in their “hearts.”

Pietism as an ethos deeply influenced the Anabaptist movement as well as John and Charles Wesley and the broader Methodist movement they founded. Indeed, even today, Pietism’s influence can be felt in modern Evangelicalism even if it is rarely acknowledged or recognized.

Perhaps the greatest manifesto of early Pietism was a book entitled Pia Desideria or “Pious Desires” by Philipp Jakob Spener. Spener was a Lutheran clergyman who, though devoted to the Lutheran Church, nevertheless found that his native church was severely lacking in many areas. Interestingly, a problem that Spener found especially troubling within his native church was the poor state of the clergy.

It was not that the clergy were not well educated enough. Indeed, the average Lutheran clergyman had received rigorous training in Biblical languages, systematic theology, and logical reasoning, yet for all this training and knowledge, the preaching of many a Lutheran clergyman during Spener’s day was dull and ineffective.

Sermons had become highly academic affairs where pastors would wax eloquent over the most minor of theological matters. They would often lapse into long soliloquys in foreign languages the common people had no hope of understanding. Sermons were often seen as opportunities for the pastor to show off their rhetorical prowess with little thought given to whether the sermon would be of any practical value to the laity. Sermons were primarily informational and rarely transformational.

Whenever I read church history, I read with an eye to discover wisdom for the modern church. There is “nothing new under the sun” and a careful reading of the church’s past can give us insight for how to deal with the problems of today. As a preacher myself, Spener’s critique of the preaching of his time got me to thinking. How does the preaching of the modern Evangelical church compare to that of the Lutheran church of Spener’s time? Do I repeat many of the errors of Spener’s time when I get behind the pulpit?

I must confess that I too have been guilty of simply wanting to show off what I know when I preach. I study hard and work diligently at being a competent speaker. I am proud of my work ethic and I am passionate about teaching theology. Sometimes pride creeps in. I’m convinced that when this happens, I am not as effective as I could be. It becomes about me rather than pointing people to Jesus Christ and that is never good.

Furthermore, I have personally experienced preaching that was seemingly just about dispensing information to the congregation. It was like listening to a seminary lecture only far less interesting. Worse still, I have experienced preachers that were warped with pride by their intelligence, education, and rhetorical prowess. I remember one in particular who would not cease reminding everyone that he had four degrees including one from a prestigious research university. Fellow preachers, if we are guilty of this sin of pride in our education and abilities then we need to repent. We have an important job to do. Jesus Christ must be proclaimed! We can’t get in the way!

Now, I do not want anyone to think that I am teaching against seminary education or intellectually engaging preaching. I believe very strongly in both of these things and frequently in Evangelicalism we have the very opposite problem. Preaching in many Evangelical churches is often an emotionally charged spectacle, but a doctrinal mess with little to no good content. Indeed, an anti-intellectual strain runs deeply within Evangelicalism and it’s preaching, and it negatively affects our witness. This is not the kind of preaching I am advocating for.

Spener and the Pietists thought that preaching was vitally important. If revival and renewal were to take place in their time, better preaching was required. As preachers we must daily seek to preach more effectively by presenting sermons that while thoughtful and theologically sound, are also deeply practical. We need to preach sermons that provide for our people practical instruction in righteousness. We need sermons that point people to Jesus rather than our prowess and abilities. We need to be conscious of where our people are spiritually and intellectually so that we can gradually and carefully grow them into mature and theologically informed Christians.

I understand that this balancing act of the informational and the practical will not always be easy, but it is something we must strive for. I want my preaching to be effective and powerful, I want it to be transformational. When my eulogy is spoken, I want it to be said that my preaching pointed people to Jesus Christ rather than my meager abilities.

The West must remember it’s Judeo-Christian history

Recently I was reading through the May/June 2018 edition of the Foreign Policy magazine Foreign Affairs. Although my professional background is in the pastorate and not in statecraft, I have always felt that every servant of the church should have a firm grasp of the current issues of our day. I am particularly interested in how theology, politics, and foreign policy intersect. I suspect that many people who work in the field of foreign policy might be surprised at how much their assumptions have been shaped by philosophies whose underpinnings are grounded in ancient Western theological concepts. Indeed, most people who work in the foreign policy establishment of the western world would affirm that people have certain human rights and that government policy should take into account the well-being of the people they serve. The Western foreign policy establishment tends to assume that people have human rights because all people have worth and dignity. This belief in turn stems from the Judeo-Christian principle that all people are made in the “image of God” and thus their lives have objective value and worth. Many people in modern Western culture fail to recognize the Judeo-Christian foundation of much of our thought, but it’s influence is undeniable.

In the May/June 2018 edition of Foreign Affairs, scholars Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa argue that the era of democratic ascendancy is over and that the world will increasingly be dominated by wealthy autocracies. Indeed, they note that the total wealth of autocracies already outweighs that of democracies. Their premise is a simple one, when the western democracies enjoyed unprecedented wealth and good governance it was no suprise that they dominated world affairs. It is also not surprising that much of the developing world aspired to follow their example. Now democratic societies increasingly suffer from inneffective governance and a lack of unity. Some are witnessing profound domestic strife. Government institutions are ineffective and show signs of marked strain. Many Western democracies are plagued by slow economic growth. On the other hand, many autocratic governments have embraced the economic models of the West while rejecting it’s societal distinctives. Have societies like China proven that economic freedom and autocracy can coexist, and even thrive together? Is their system the wave of the future? Should the West embrace such a way of life?

Some have argued that wealthy autocracies are the way of the future. They have also argued that autocracies are now proving that they can provide a high standard of living to their people without the problems often associated with unruly democracies. However, we must then ask the question, should a society be judged solely upon it’s ability to provide economic prosperity to it’s people? Even if autocracies prove they can produce more wealth than democratic ones, should we accept such a way of life for this reason alone? I am convinced that if Western democracies want to rediscover their vitality and provide a compelling vision for the world they must rediscover their heritage. They must demonstrate that life is not simply about accumulating things. Is life really worth living if you are supremely wealthy but can’t practice your religous beliefs without fear of reprisal? Autocracies may indeed be demonstrating that they can provide a high standard of living for their people, but they do so at a high cost to the human soul.

People in the West must demonstrate that there is a difference between a good society and merely an efficient society. It is time for the West to demonstrate that it’s values are not mere social constructs but are in fact grounded in the mind and heart of a benevolent creator God. Furthermore, due to their grounding in God, they are not merely “Western” ideas but are for all people. Only then will the West have a truly robust and consistent response to autocracies who can provide great economic benefits to their people, but often ignore their God-given human rights. Western democracies have their flaws to be sure. We often exhibit moral blindspots when it comes to abortion, euthansia, and issues related to cloning. However, it is also undeniable that Western ideals have proven beneficial to the world many times over. The West’s emphasis on human rights, which have lead to improvements in education, healthcare, and poverty reduction the world over, are to be celebrated. The West must remember that what we believe about the divine affects how we see everything else. The resources for a Western renaissance are available but we must look to our past. We must remember the spiritual underpinnings that made us great. We must remember that people deserve to be treated a certain way because they are made in the image of a loving God. Only then will the West truly regain it’s greatness and moral influence.

 

 

Does the Historical Evidence Favor Jesus of Nazareth Rising from the Dead?

 

Just a little something to think about as we prepare for the Lord’s Day tomorrow. Blessings, Julian Pace.

Even the casual observer of the worldwide Christian church would conclude that on many issues of theology, spirituality, and practice Christians disagree, sometimes markedly so. However, this same observer would be remiss if they were to conclude as well that Christians are not united by anything at all. Indeed, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Protestant all would affirm certain doctrines as essential to the faith: The Trinity, Jesus as true God and true man, and of course the Resurrection of Jesus. Of these doctrines, perhaps none is more essential to the faith than that of the Resurrection. Indeed, if Jesus of Nazareth is dead today than the other doctrines just mentioned are mere fantasies. While the doctrine of the Resurrection has come under heated assault almost since its’ first proclamation, the good news for the Christian is that the historical foundation for this doctrine is strong. Indeed, it will be the purpose of this article to demonstrate that the Resurrection is supported by multiple lines of historical evidence and that there is no need for the Christian to have anything less than full confidence in this event’s reality.

The truth of the Resurrection has been defended by a number of intelligent and informed Christian scholars such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, N.T Wright, and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Many lines of evidence have been suggested by these scholars as supporting the factuality of Jesus’ Resurrection. In this article, I will focus only on three. First, it will be shown that the vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm that Jesus existed historically and died by crucifixion sometime in the early first century. Second, it will be shown that Jesus was probably given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and that the tomb he was interred in was found empty by his followers. Third, it will be shown that the early Christians almost certainly had veridical experiences of the Risen Lord.

It should first be noted that almost no professional historian of antiquity nor New Testament scholar rejects that Jesus of Nazareth existed historically and was crucified sometime in the early first century. Indeed, the much-celebrated New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman, who by the way is no friend of orthodox Christianity, has this to say on the matter

Despite the enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea[1]

Now, it is not the position of this article that because the vast majority of scholars accept Jesus’ existence and crucifixion then it is therefore necessarily true. However, the fact that there is almost no debate on these issues in the academy does speak well for the quality of the evidence that undergirds these two important facts about Jesus of Nazareth.

The fact of Jesus of Nazareth’s existence and crucifixion are further buttressed by the fact that a strong case can be made for the basic historical reliability of the Gospels in our New Testament. Indeed, it should be noted that E.P. Sanders, a scholar who is no conservative, in his acclaimed book The Historical Figure of Jesus makes a cogent and balanced case for the Gospels being correct on at least the important details of Jesus’ life. Interestingly, Sanders still affirms their basic historical veracity despite the fact that he is quite willing to admit that the Gospels have a number of historical and methodological problems. Sanders concludes that the Gospels contain enough eyewitness accounts and were written close enough to the lifetime of Jesus for us to consider them reasonably accurate sources for the life of Jesus.[2] Even if one is convinced that the Gospels do contain some historical errors there is simply no reason to conclude that they contain no historically accurate information about Jesus at all. Indeed, all of the Gospels were written within sixty years of Jesus’ lifetime and contain at least some eyewitness testimony.[3] Furthermore, all of them assume Jesus’ existence and all of them record that he was crucified by the Romans. Thus, it can be reasonably stated that skepticism over the basic details of Jesus’ life, such as his existence and crucifixion, is simply unwarranted. Indeed, Bart Ehrman sums up well the weakness of the case that Jesus did not exist historically

The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus[4]

Indeed, the evidence for the basic details of Jesus’ life is simply overwhelming and at this juncture simply irrefutable.

The second line of evidence is more contested within the academy, though perhaps not as greatly as one might assume. Indeed, many fine critical scholars are willing to accept that Jesus of Nazareth was given an honorable burial in a tomb and that said tomb was found empty by his early followers. Indeed, there are a number of good reasons to believe that the empty tomb narrative is basically correct. Noted apologist and scholar William Lane Craig has ably defended the fact that Jesus was given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea in his well-received book Reasonable Faith. Craig is convinced that the burial story recorded in the Gospels is accurate for two reasons. First, Craig demonstrates that the historical detail of Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea is contained in the Gospel of Mark, this is important as the Gospel of Mark is both an early and independent source for the life of Jesus and thus Craig reasons that the burial account is probably sound. Indeed, at least some scholars are convinced that Mark was written only fifteen years after Jesus’ lifetime, thus greatly increasing the likelihood that it is a reliable source for the life of Jesus.[5] Furthermore, Craig cites the German source critic Rudolf Pesch for further support as Pesch is convinced that the source behind the burial narrative dates to within seven years of Jesus’ lifetime.[6]

Second, Craig is convinced that Jesus was given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea because he thinks it is unlikely that the early Christian community would have invented a story about a member of the Sanhedrin showing such respect for the body, and thereby the person, of Jesus of Nazareth. [7] Acts 2:23, 36 and 4:10 demonstrate well the animosity the early church held towards the Sanhedrin. Indeed, Acts 2:23 records the Apostle Peter as saying “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (NASB)” The reference to “godless men” by Peter is almost certainly a reference to the Sanhedrin and demonstrates well how poorly the early Christian community viewed this body.

The burial account by Joseph of Arimathea has received some criticism from scholars. Indeed, Bart Ehrman has suggested that the Romans would have had no reason to release Jesus’ body to Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, they preferred to let bodies rot upon the crosses so as to make an example to would be rebels. Furthermore, Ehrman is convinced that Pontius Pilate, being the particularly nasty fellow that he was, would not have released Jesus’ body under any circumstances. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, it simply does not deal with the evidence in favor of the burial narrative specifically enough. To very specific lines of evidence Ehrman responds with an argument that is the equivalent of “this could have possibly happened” which is not a very strong argument. Second, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Romans may very well have bowed to Jewish pressure and allowed them to remove the bodies of those crucified. Particularly during Passover which was one of their most sacred festivals. Indeed, Josephus notes that Pilate upon entering Jerusalem offended Jewish sensibilities by displaying Roman effigies and standards within the city. After much Jewish agitation, Pilate removed the images.[8] Third, we are privy to at least one example of people being removed from the cross due to the petition of a Jew. This Jew being Josephus when he begged the Emperor Titus to release three of his acquaintances from the cross. Titus acceded to Josephus’ request. [9] Ehrman is a credible biblical scholar, and his critique should not be dismissed out of hand, but his objections are not strong enough to discount the basic historicity of the burial account of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is also much historical evidence in favor of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth finding his tomb empty a few days after his death by crucifixion. Interestingly, a study done by Gary Habermas that surveyed the vast majority of the literature pertaining to the study of the Resurrection of Jesus in English, German, and French between 1975 and 2005, showed that an impressive seventy-five percent of scholars who wrote on the subject were convinced that Jesus’ followers found his tomb empty a few days after his death by crucifixion.[10] Again, it should be noted that the argument presented here is not one in favor a majority vote deciding a historical event’s veracity. However, the fact that such a large number of scholars find the evidence in favor of the empty tomb at least credible should cause the skeptic to at least give the matter some consideration.

The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is recorded in a number of early sources. Not only is it recorded in the Gospel of Mark but it is also found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. The latter passage states

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (NASB)

Scholarly consensus places the writing of the 1 Corinthians sometime around C.E. 55 which is only about twelve years or so after the lifetime of Jesus. Furthermore, William Lane Craig and Dale Allison are both convinced that the passage Paul quotes here is probably the product of an early Christian writer other than himself.[11] Thus the tradition behind this passage could date to within seven years of Jesus’ lifetime. It should be noted that while the empty tomb is not explicitly mentioned it is strongly implied by the phrase “He was buried.”

Perhaps the most interesting detail of the Markan account of the empty tomb is that the writer of Mark’s Gospel records for us that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women (Mark 16:1-8). While this does strike us moderns as unusual, this was truly noteworthy in first century Palestine. This is because in Jesus’ day women were not seen as reliable witnesses to an event regardless of the circumstances.[12] If the Apostles created a legend about the tomb being empty it is unlikely that the legend would have recorded that women were the primary witnesses to the empty tomb. The fact that Mark’s Gospel records what was probably a rather embarrassing detail to the early Christian church, greatly increases the likelihood that the account is true.

Several objections to the truth of the empty tomb have been suggested. Perhaps the most popular secular explanations of the empty tomb are the Wrong-Tomb Theory, The Apparent Death Theory, and the Conspiracy Theory. The Wrong-Tomb Theory explains the empty tomb away by asserting that the disciples simply visited the wrong tomb on Easter morning. This explanation is implausible for two reasons. First, if the story of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea is true then there is no reason to believe that Jesus’ final resting place was not reasonably well known. Second, it is implausible to suggest that the Sanhedrin would have allowed the early Christian belief in the Resurrection to continue if the correct tomb could have been located and Jesus’ body put on display for all to see that he was truly dead.

Almost no one defends the Apparent Death Theory as an explanation for the empty tomb any longer, though it was embraced by some people, including Friedrich Schleiermacher the great liberal theologian, in the early nineteenth century.[13] This view states that when Jesus was taken from the cross he was not truly dead. Once laid in the tomb Jesus revived and presented himself to his disciples as the Risen Lord. This view is at best deeply problematic for it ignores the fact that the Romans were expert executioners who simply would not have allowed for a mistake of this magnitude.[14] Simply put, no one who endured the entire punishment of crucifixion could have reasonably survived.

The Conspiracy Theory, like the Apparent Death Theory, has fallen on hard times lately and is simply not an explanation that critical scholars take very seriously any longer. This theory states that the early disciples stole Jesus’ body from the tomb and lied about his Resurrection. This view falls apart for the simple reason that it fails to take into account that the early Christians were willing to give their lives for their faith. Indeed, one wonders why a group of disillusioned men who just saw their beloved Rabbi die a terrible death would cook up such a conspiracy when there was so little to gain from doing so. The well-respected New Testament scholar Michael Licona perhaps says it best

The disciples’ willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs indicates that they certainly regarded those beliefs as true. The case is strong that they did not willfully lie about the appearances of the risen Jesus. Liars make poor martyrs. … The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus.[15]

Indeed, due to the fatal flaws inherent to the Conspiracy Theory, it was only embraced by a few deists in the nineteenth century. Its’ multiple flaws must indeed force us to conclude that a better explanation must be available.

The third and final line of evidence is that there are multiple accounts of many people seeing Jesus of Nazareth alive after his crucifixion. Indeed, the Gospels and the New Testament epistles provide for us multiple early and independent sources that demonstrate that many early Christians were eyewitnesses to the Risen Lord.[16] In 1 Corinthians 15, a source that dates to within at least fifteen years of Jesus’ lifetime, the Apostle Paul mentions that Jesus was seen by “Peter”, “The Apostles”, as well as “five-hundred other Christians.” Interestingly, Paul also mentions that James, the brother of Jesus who at first rejected his claims to messiahship (Mark 3:21), saw Jesus of Nazareth alive after his crucifixion. It is almost certain historically that much of Jesus’ family rejected his ministry prior to his Resurrection as this detail is recorded in Mark which is an early source. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the early Christian church would have invented something so embarrassing. The fact that James later came to believe in Jesus must force us to conclude that some very powerful experience must have made him change his mind about his brother. Indeed, the plethora of evidence has forced the hardly conservative New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders to conclude

That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know[17]

E.P. Sanders expresses well the opinion of many New Testament scholars. Most are convinced that the early Christians had experiences of some kind that lead them to believe that Jesus was alive. However, whether these experiences were veridical or the product of hallucinations is typically where scholars diverge.

The most common response to the early Christians experiencing the Risen Lord is that they were the victims of hallucinations. However, the problem with this explanation is that early and independent sources affirm that “groups” of people were witnesses to the Risen Lord (1 Corinthians 15) and most Psychologists remain unconvinced that “groups” of people can experience the same hallucination at the same time.[18] Furthermore, we would be justified in remaining skeptical about the truth of Jesus’ Resurrection if only some or even one of his early followers came to the conclusion that he had been resurrected. Indeed, sometimes people convince themselves of falsehoods when under serious emotional and mental pressure. However, the judgement of most New Testament scholars is that very many early Christians were convinced that they had experienced a resurrected Jesus of Nazareth.[19] With these considerations in mind, the Hallucination hypothesis simply does not explain why groups of people were convinced they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

In conclusion, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is quite strong. Not only is there overwhelming evidence for his existence and crucifixion, a reasonable case can be made that he was given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea, his tomb was found empty by his followers, and that they saw him alive after his crucifixion. With these facts in mind, Christians should not shy away from skeptics when they ask tough questions about the Christian faith. The evidence is strongly in favor of Jesus rising again on the third day and we should not be afraid to affirm his resurrection as a historical reality. Furthermore, as Christians we should readily take comfort in the truth that our own resurrection has been rendered certain because Jesus’ resurrection has been confirmed by the historical evidence as well as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. With all this in mind, perhaps the only thing left to say would have to be “Even so come, Lord Jesus come! (Rev 22:20)”

Endnotes

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.12

[2] E.P. Sanders, The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. 57

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

[4]Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2013. 96

[5] John A.T Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.

[6] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 362

[7] Ibid, 364.

[8] Josephus, Jewish War 2.9, 2.4

[9] Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, 76

[10] Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Research From 1975 To The Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?” Journal For The Study Of The Historical Jesus3.2 (2005): 135-53. 141

[11] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 365

[12] Ibid, 367

[13] William Lane Craig, “Jesus’ Resurrection.” http://Www.reasonablefaith.org. Accessed August 10, 2017. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-resurrection.

[14] Ibid

[15] Michael R. Licona, The resurrection of Jesus: a new historiographical approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. 370.

[16] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 381

[17] E.P. Sanders, The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. 280

[18] Gary R. Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: Hallucination.” http://www.equip.org. Accessed August 10, 2017. http://www.equip.org/article/explaining-away-jesus-resurrection-hallucination/.

[19] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 392

 

Select Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist?: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 362.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic theology. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002.

Habermas, Gary R.”Resurrection Research From 1975 To The Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?” Journal For The Study Of The Historical Jesus3.2 (2005): 135-53.

Licona, Michael R. The resurrection of Jesus: a new historiographical approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. 370.

Sanders, E.P. The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1996.

Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.

 

 

 

 

Wolfhart Pannenberg: Theologian of the Resurrection

With Easter Sunday rapidly approaching it is only fitting to recognize one of the greatest defenders of the historicity of the Resurrection in the twentieth Century, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg felt that the study of Theology should be undertaken like other Academic disciplines and in his lifelong quest for truth he found that the Christian faith was deeply intellectually satisfying. I hope you enjoy reading about one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Blessings and peace to all, Julian Pace.

He vehemently defended the Resurrection but denied the Virgin Birth. He was hugely influential but leaves few disciples. – Fred Sanders writing for Christianity Today upon the death of Wolfhart Pannenberg

It would not be implausible to say that one day church historians will include Wolfhart Pannenberg, along with Karl Barth, Thomas Oden, and J.I. Packer, as one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century. Pannenberg’s prowess in the fields of theology, philosophy, history, and the natural sciences set him apart from his contemporaries. In his lifetime, he molded a unique theological system that on the one hand was generally traditional and Lutheran, yet probing and rational in a way that placed him squarely within the tradition of the Enlightenment. It is probable that his most important contribution to Christian theology was his stirring defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and how he saw this event as the key to all of history, indeed the key to all revelation as well.[1]

Wolfhart Pannenberg was born in Stettin, Germany (now Szczecin, Poland) in 1928, and though he was baptized as an infant into the established Lutheran church he was raised in a secular household. Despite his unchurched and secular background, Pannenberg was apparently a spiritually sensitive person and at sixteen was privy to what he would later call his “Light Experience”.[2] This powerful experience led Pannenberg to critically investigate the world’s religions in light of their philosophical and intellectual merits. The results of this intellectual quest, combined with the guidance of Pannenberg’s literature teacher who was a member of the Confessing Church during the second World War, led Pannenberg to conclude that Christianity was the most reasonable faith system available and therefore he became a Christian.[3]

For virtually his entire career, Pannenberg was a creature of the academy and it is in the field of academic theology that he produced the most written work. However, it should not be overlooked that his contributions in defending the historicity of the Resurrection have influenced and continue to shape the thinking of Evangelical theologians and New Testament scholars to the present day.[4] Indeed, this aspect of his theological output is probably his most enduring legacy. While Pannenberg’s staunch defense of the historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection has won him many admirers in the Evangelical and Roman Catholic world, his liberal German peers were shocked at his findings. While Pannenberg was undoubtedly shaped by the liberal biblical criticism that was, and remains, rampant in German universities, this did not stop him from making the case that the evidence from the Pauline epistles and the existence of the church itself plausibly leads to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed rise from the dead.[5]

Dean of Beeson Divinity School Timothy George, is right to point out that Pannenberg’s thinking on several critical theological issues present some problems for Evangelicals.[6] Pannenberg rejected the Virgin birth, Chalcedonian Christology, as well as the concept of biblical inerrancy. However, this did not stop Pannenberg from taking the scriptures seriously and he felt that since the Bible was the record of God’s dealings with man it should be studied vigorously. In conclusion, Evangelicals should approach the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg critically but also with an eye to learn. Despite his errors on important theological issues, Pannenberg’s work on the Resurrection has inspired many other Evangelical theologians and scholars to defend the Resurrection’s historicity with an even greater level of sophistication. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder how many have been persuaded to accept the claims of Christ in part due to the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg demonstrated that Christianity is a belief system that is firmly grounded in historical events and therefore one need not sacrifice rational thinking and critical investigation on the altar of blind faith. For this reason alone, Pannenberg deserves our enduring respect and admiration.

References

[1] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: (The Westminster Press, 1977), 67-69.

[2] Michael Root, “The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg.” First Things (March 2012): 3-4. Accessed April 5, 2017. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/the­achievement­of­wolfhart­pannenberg.

[3] Michael Root, “The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg.” 3.

[4] William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection of Jesus” Accessed April 5, 2017. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus. It is evident when reading Craig that the influence of Pannenberg is present. This is only reasonable as Craig did doctoral work under Pannenberg in Germany. Other Evangelicals like Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have built on Pannenberg’s work on the Resurrection.

[5] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man. 88-106.

[6] David Roach “Dean George on Wolfhart Pannenberg.” Accessed April 5, 2017 http://www.beesondivinity.com/fromthedean/posts/dean-george-on-wolfhart-pannenberg.

For Further Reading

Braaten, Carl E., and Philip Clayton, eds. The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Twelve American Critiques with an Autobiographical Essay and Response. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1988.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1983.

Olive, Don. Wolfhart Pannenberg. Makers of the Modern Theological Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Word Publishing, 1977.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus-God and Man. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1977.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. The Apostles Creed: In the Light of Today’s Questions. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1972.