Jesus' Resurrection and its Meaning

Every year around this time, tabloids tend to recycle the same old stories about "new" archaeological findings or historical reasoning bringing into question the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. As I write this post, it is Holy Week (check out my 2009 post for reflections on the readings and sermons/homilies), and naturally I am convinced of (1) the historicity and (2) the logical implications of such an improbable historical event. Let's dive in to a book-related layperson's view of the Resurrection, with a small guided tour of the household library.

What do Christians think happened?

In orthodox Christian doctrine, Jesus (titled Christ), the God-Man, died by means of crucifixion, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and was resurrected bodily thereafter. "On the third day" in Jewish thought at the time referred to any portion of a day (i.e., part of Good Friday, all of Holy Saturday, and part of Easter Sunday).

Although the Crucifixion is not the central sole topic of this post per se, it is important to establish the fact that crucifixion did indeed kill Jesus. Historians (e.g., Martin Hengel) established that crucifixion was a widespread way around the time of Christ for Romans and others to kill slaves, enemies of the state, and miscellaneous criminals. There is a fair amount of medical literature (see, for example, Retief & Cilliers 2016; Maslen & Mitchell 2006; and Habermas, Kopel & Shaw 2021) indicating that death could have occurred by asphyxiation, cardiovascular trauma (spear through the pericardium and the cardiac muscle), shock, other factors, or a combination.

Why do we think this way?

Christians' primary source for doctrines including the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the text of Scripture, as contained in the Old and New Testaments with canons established by the time of the earliest church councils. Whether or not a particular Christian denomination views apostolic tradition as having a role in the interpretation of Scripture ("sola Scriptura") depends on the branch--Roman Catholic, Reformed, or other.

As scholars including Old Testament professor John Walton have often said, the Scriptures were "written for us, but not to us." That means that we can and should benefit from reading and meditating upon the Scriptures in the present day . . . but our cultural context is very far afield from the cultural and historical contexts in which God inspired the biblical writers. That being said, I lean strongly toward the need to select and acknowledge the best source(s) of tradition and methods of analysis that help us gain the most cohesive knowledge and conclusions about what the Scriptural text is actually saying.

I frequently refer you to apologist Alisa Childers' videos. She did an interview with New Testament scholar Gary Habermas last year about the earliest Christian creeds. Gary talks about what the early statements of belief meant for the Resurrection starting around 34 minutes.

What are the implications of Jesus' resurrection?

St. Paul said it best (verses 12-20): "12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

The bottom line: if Christ existed and was in fact raised bodily from bodily death, it behooves one to believe in Him and seek to know Him better.

What do Christ's two natures have to do with this?

Lutheran (NALC) theologian, pastor, and professor Jordan Cooper, of the Just and Sinner Podcast, has a great 1-hour video on orthodox and heterodox views of Christology, i.e., the two natures (human and divine) of Christ. In the Incarnation, the eternal Christ took on a human nature and continues to possess both natures. In the Crucifixion, Christ's human nature died; it was raised to life again at the Resurrection. Dr. Cooper outlines some of the major views (heresies) on how the two natures are related. The first three are from his video; these views originated within the New Testament timeline. The rest originated later and are described at TheologyImpact.

• Docetism = Jesus was somehow divine and not really human. He appeared to be human.
• Adoptionism = Jesus was born just human but became divine at His baptism.
• Ebionism = Jesus was never really divine, but was given messianic status at His baptism.
• Arianism = Jesus was not fully divine and did not eternally exist, but was created out of similar material as God the Father.
• Apollinarianism = similar to docetism, but saying that only the divine mind/will existed.
• Nestorianism = Jesus is fully human and fully divine, but there is no communication of attributes between the two natures (a common analogy is two pieces of plywood glued together).
• Eutycheanism = Jesus' divine and human natures were mixed (fully communicating) into a third nature in which neither previous nature was distinguishable.

Is Easter more important than Christmas?

Easter is more important - but required the Incarnation for Jesus to be able to die. Both events are critical, but Easter is more critical for the Christian faith.

What should I read to get more depth on this topic?

Don't just take my recommendations . . . take Husband's, because he has read a lot more than I have! See the picture at the top of this post for relative lengths of each of his recommendations.

What I've read

In chronological order, I've recently (2021-present) read five books dealing with the Resurrection as a central or peripheral theme. The first one I am not too sure I would reread, mostly because N. T. Wright's devotional writing style is, shall we say, not a primary strength of his. He is possibly the world's foremost New Testament scholar and has an extensive biography to that effect. However, Advent for Everyone: [devotions on] Luke is decidedly not a scholarly work. As I said above, the Incarnation is a central Christian doctrine and event in the life of Jesus Christ; without taking on a human nature, He could not have died at the Crucifixion. Therefore, learning about how He came into the world as a human infant is quite important.

On this blog, you don't see me reporting on too many novels. I certainly go through seasons of life where novels are all I want to read, but this season is not one of those. Earlier this year and late last year, I started reading through Husband's box of Reader's Digest editions of classic novels, and one of them was Lloyd C. Douglas' The Robe. While containing (as novels do) a number of historical inaccuracies, this was nevertheless an enjoyable read of a centurion's perspective as to who this Man was whom he had participated in crucifying.

This year, I decided to give N. T. Wright another go, since Husband is one of his biggest fans. I was feeling up to a short book at most, and entering a period (which I am still in) of learning what I can about Christ's human nature, not having been taught a whole lot about it previously. So, at his recommendation, I read The Challenge of Jesus and wrote about it here.

Thereafter, the next recommendation was How God Became Jesus in response to agnostic Bart Ehrman's book of similar title that came out around the same time; a good summary is over at The Gospel Coalition. Five major authors, including and coordinated by Michael F. Bird, collaborated on a point-by-point examination of Ehrman's assertions and arguments about the development of christology (doctrine of Christ). The authors agree on an "early high Christology," i.e., a theological position asserting that at or before the time of when the Gospels were composed, Jesus was already regarded by Christians as God incarnate. Chapters heartily acknowledge Ehrman's strong points and his correct, helpful statements, while making extremely clear that Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, along with His self-view as Messiah, were unique among Jewish and Greco-Roman views of messiah-figures.

A book I am still working through is Martin Hengel's The Crucifixion and the Son of God. This three-part book is an exhaustive historical study of what crucifixion was, what it meant, and how widespread it was in the time and world of the incarnate Jesus; also, what "Son of God" and "Son of Man" meant. I highly recommend you work through at least the first part of this volume if you want more detail than what your study Bible can provide about these critical terms in their original historical context.

What Husband recommends I read

I was somewhat surprised at the smallness of the height of the stack of books he recommended when I asked him about this topic, given that for a specific committee I've been serving on he gave me 6 or 7 titles. However, look again at the image at the top of this post--the books are few, but they are mighty. Let's check out summaries of each (with the caveat that Wright has said that he's right about 75% of what he talks about--he doesn't know which 75%) . . .

• Craig Evans and N. T. Wright. Jesus: The Final Days. At 128 pages, this pipsqueak of a book examines the myths and facts of history and archaeology surrounding Holy Week and Easter.
• N. T. Wright. The New Testament and the People of God. This is book 1 in his "short" series, clocking in at 535 pages. Roughly the first 200 pages are used to describe his research and interpretive methods. Concepts he explores here include first-century Judaism and Christianity, and what "god" meant within the cultures of the time.
• N. T. Wright. Jesus and the Victory of God. Volume 2, at 770 pages, is a portrait of the historical Jesus, the Messiah (anointed one) of Israel.
• N. T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3, at 848 pages, looks at what happened at Easter, what it meant (how it was interpreted at the time), and how to connect those beliefs to today, given the cultural setting of when and where He actually rose.
• N. T. Wright. The Day the Revolution Began. This one is only 448 pages. Tom explores the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus, seeking to further the Reformation understanding of this critical event in history, the pivot point.
• N. T. Wright. Surprised by Hope. This one is the shortest at 352 pages. I've seen bits of the core argument in some of his other books that I've read so far--that the after-death "heaven" specifically refers to the new creation ("new heavens and new earth"). 

On a broader note, I know that differences in the Gospel accounts of various parts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection have been a source of consternation for some. Mike Licona has written a great book about this, that I also want to read at some point.

What's on your reading and meditation list this Holy Week?