With the advances of scientific research too intricate
and numerous to recount or even summarize here, it is apparent that the present
age is one in which ‘what happens’ can be weighed, measured, timed, and, thus,
explained. That is, phenomena can be explained
in concrete terms. People sometimes accept
things that happen outside the boundaries of scientific explanation, but even
in those cases the claim has to make sense.
If one claimed the moon was made of cheese, such a claim
would be quickly and easily rejected. Simply
examine rocks brought back from the moon and the physical properties of cheese,
and look at the process by which cheese is made, and the fact that there are no
milk-producing animals on the moon, and the claim is shown to be absurd.
On the other hand, what about this claim? “Love makes my head swim.” This is not a statement any law of physics
can account for. Yet, if someone spent
time with me and saw that I had trouble concentrating, could not wipe the silly
grin off my face, and walked around in a dreamlike state, they might readily
accept the conclusion: “he’s in love alright!”
So, in our science-ruled age, non-scientific ideas are accepted by people
all the time, but non-provable ideas do have to make sense to gain a hearing.
I write these words as a Christian pastor two days after
the Christian’s highest holy day: Easter.
Can we Christians make a plausible case for the resurrection of
Jesus? Resurrection cannot be tested the
way theories and laws of physics are tested.
Who would want to be a test-subject in trying to determine that the dead
will rise? And, what would be used as a
catalyst? Christians accept the resurrection
by faith, but why should anyone outside of Christianity even give the idea any consideration?
Several New Testament scholars have tackled this question
and their work is helpful and thus worth the time of church-goers who don’t do
scholarly research in theology or Biblical studies. I say this because the 21st
century is a science-ruled, rational age.
If the Christian faith wants a voice in this age, it must be conveyed in
the language of this age, even in moments when Christianity defies the core
principles of this age (like the resurrection of those who are completely
dead).
Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and N.T. Wright are scholars
who deal extensively with the evidence, or at least indicators, that the
resurrection of Jesus is an event that happened in history. Licona, in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New
Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010) weighs what he calls the ‘Resurrection
Hypothesis’ against that of hypotheses of various Bible scholars who reject the
notion that Jesus rose because resurrection violates natural law. These
skeptics propose a number of explanations for why first century Christians
claimed that Jesus rose when they knew he actually did not. Licona compares his Resurrection Hypothesis
with that of the skeptics.
His basic argument is as follows. Jesus died by crucifixion at the hands of the
Romans. The earliest sources (Paul’s
first letter to the Corinthians) claim that Jesus rose from the grave and
appeared to his followers. There is
early source documentation that is as reliable as any source from this period
of history. That Jesus rose and appeared
to his followers adequately explains the birth of Christianity. And the actual resurrection is more plausible,
as it is described by the Bible, than the thought that what Paul and the gospel
writers present might be an intentional fiction.
If these early, first
century Jews wanted to concoct a fiction they hoped others would take as true,
they would not have had women as the earliest witnesses. The testimony of women was considered
unreliable in court cases in first century Israel. They would not have re-conceived the idea of
resurrection. None of the Messiah-claims
included a story about a crucified-resurrected Messiah. This would have been so unrecognizable, it
would be unlikely to convince any 1st century skeptics, of which
there we as many as there are today. And
finally, they would not have claimed a resurrection the authorities opposed to
the movement could disprove by producing the corpse of the one they claimed to
be alive.
Of course, there’s much
more to Licona’s argument and the other authors mentioned above significantly add
to the discussion. What believers today wanting
to show the viability of Christianity need to understand is when it comes to
resurrection, there is cogent argument to be made. Licona bases his argument on the following points:
(1) the resurrection provides explanatory scope of the events in question; (2)
it possesses explanatory power; (3) it is plausible; (4) it is less ad hoc than
other arguments; there’s no filling in the gaps with a retreat to ‘this doesn’t
accord with the laws of nature”; and, (5) it illuminates the evidence (Licona,
p.600-606).
Christians are free to
believe Jesus rose simply as an expression of faith. Christians can leave it at that. Christians can defiantly declare, “The Bible
says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
But it doesn’t settle it for those outside the church. We are called to
be witnesses declaring what God has done to those outside the church.
We can do this. We can express this faith in a way that
speaks convincingly to skeptics in a secular age ruled by naturalism and rationalism. Will such a presentation convince someone to
turn to Jesus and put their faith in him?
Probably not. Conviction of the
heart is achieved by the Holy Spirit, not powerful arguments. But, arguing for the plausibility of the
resurrection in a way that’s intelligible to a scientists’ rational mind will
help that skeptic see that Christian faith is more than an easily dismissed
fantasy. When Christians present their
faith in a well-reasoned argument, skeptics will see that there’s something
there; something worth exploring further.
No comments:
Post a Comment