Resurrection of Jesus

Is the Resurrection of Jesus merely a matter about theology or is it part of history with implications dealing with theology? I was watching a debate one time between Michael Licona (New Testament historian) and Bart Ehrman (New Testament textual critic) about whether historians could prove that Jesus was raised from the dead. One interesting and powerful objection to Licona's case was that the conclusion that God raised Jesus from the dead was something that could only be believed in the realm of theology and not history. In his opinion, God was outside the access of a historian to conclude anything about Jesus being raised from the dead because apparently He is outside of time and cannot be witnessed performing an act in history. Of course this seemed to not sit well with me at first because this was a man (Ehrman) who himself claimed to have been an Evangelical Christian familiar with apologetics and history and who could muster up some powerful objections to this. I, on the other hand, would not let this go without some critical thought. So I paced my room and kitchen area and pondered on why was this so important to understand in light of the debate I had just watched. I immediately remembered a comment made by Licona that physicists and cosmologists who study the universe make theoretical statements or assign theoretical explanations to help understand certain phenomena that isn't theoretical in their own nature. Take for instance the Big Bang. When Albert Einstein made his calculations and when other scientists made discoveries confirming its truth, many if not all of them became deeply troubled by the implications of the Big Bang. Why was this the case? Because, of the fact that the universe had a beginning, there began to emerge meta-physical or theological implications from the evidence that had a role in explaining the nature of the event in the history of the universe. Since the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past, then it wasn't eternal because there cannot be an infinite series of events in reality. It began to exist and therefore it had a cause for its own existence. The cause of the universe, whatever it was, had to have been timeless (time was created at the Big Bang), immaterial (there was no matter prior to the Big Bang), and personal (the cause was eternal and the effect was finite and this requires volition) with an unembodied mind involved. Now clearly, this is a very real description of God himself as described in the Bible and how he is imagined. This conclusion does not automatically say that God was the cause of it. What it does show that the conclusion has implications that run deeply into religious or theological significance. It supports theological or religious conclusions but it is based independent of them.

Back to the resurrection of Jesus, the most powerful evidence for Jesus rising from the dead comes from the 1st letter to the believers in Corinth from the Apostle Paul who tells them he gave them a tradition or the gospel and also had received it himself prior to his visit there in Corinth. Now, on historical grounds, we can establish with hardly any doubt that Jesus was indeed crucified, that he was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimithea, and that the tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week (Sunday). Why? Because his death is recorded in all the four Gospels and is mentioned in secular sources as well who had no motive or reason to make up such an event. Since he was killed and was buried, what happened to his body? The Jews made up the notion that the disciples had stolen it. This accusation affirms that the tomb was truly empty. Now what about Jesus? Did the disciples automatically assume he was risen from the dead just because they found the tomb empty? Definitely not! The resurrection of a person within history (See Dr. William Lane Craig http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html) was extremely un-Jewish in its nature.

So if Jesus was killed, buried in a tomb, and then appeared alive physically to several people (believers, enemies, and skeptics), then we have good grounds to say that historically Jesus was truly raised from the dead. But what was the nature of this event? This goes deeper than the mere historical regime of the investigation and can in fact corroborate the event even though it itself is not replicated in the event itself. For example, John wants to send Jody some flowers. He goes to the store and buys them and then sends them to her house in Ohio. He has a receipt proving he bought the flowers and one for shipping them. Now does the fact that we have documented evidence of John's actions establish what kind of person he is? Not necessarily. However, from actions entailed in this occasion, we can hypothesize and get inside the mind of John and conclude that he probably loved Jody or at least was attracted to her and wished to express his feelings towards her. Now none of the conclusions I just made are explicit in the evidence but they are implied. I don't have to interview John to reach this conclusion. And the same with the Resurrection and the Big Bang. Both in of themselves have nothing to do with theology and are merely in the realms of history, but both have implications that go beyond the visible data themselves. So when we say that God raised Jesus from the dead, we mean that God is an entity who Himself isn't needed as part of the investigation but is helpful in establishing the nature of the event and can explain it in deeper detail. It works the same way with the Big Bang. The Big Bang marked the beginning of the universe, the universe has a cause for its own existence, the cause was God (God being an entity to explain the causal nature of the event).

So it's reasonable to conclude that the Resurrection of Jesus - while a historical event - is a demonstration of a God who can act in human history whenever He chooses and can work the same today as He did many times before.