I believe that modern theologians must answer to God for that man’s death. One cannot make statements on such matters without accepting part of the responsibility for the consequences. The average layman probably expects that theologians would be biased in favor of the resurrection, when in fact exactly the opposite is often true. It has not been historians who have denied the historical resurrection of Jesus, but theologians. Why this strange situation? According to Carl Braaten, theologians who deny the resurrection have not done so on historical grounds; rather, theology has been derailed by existentialism and historicism, which have a stranglehold on the formation of theological statements.2 Hence, the statements of many theologians concerning the resurrection of Jesus actually are not based on fact, but are determined by philosophical assumptions. That makes statements that deny that Jesus’ resurrection was a historical fact all the more irresponsible, for their conclusion has not been determined by the facts, which support the historicity of the resurrection, but by assumptions.
The point is that the Christian faith stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus. It is no use saying, as some theologians do, “We believe in the risen Christ, not in the empty tomb!” For as has often been pointed out, one cannot really believe in the risen Christ without the empty tomb. So let us have no talk of the resurrection’s being false but having value as a symbol. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then He was a tragedy and a failure, and no amount of theologizing or symbolizing could change the situation. My student friend was right: without the resurrection there would be no Easter. As Gerald O’Collins puts it, “In a profound sense, Christianity without the resurrection is not simply Christianity without its final chapter. It is not Christianity at all.”3
But we have seen that the historical evidence supports the resurrection of Jesus. The empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith can be explained only if Jesus actually rose from the dead. This amazing fact has three profound consequences for us today:
1. The resurrection of Jesus was an act of God. In order to see that, it is important for us to remind ourselves of exactly what Jesus’ resurrection was. For Jesus’ resurrection was not just a resuscitation of the mortal body to this earthly life, as with Lazarus, miraculous as that would be. Rather Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that could be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural. In that new mode of existence, He was not bound by the physical limitations of this universe, but possessed superhuman powers. The disciples proclaimed the resurrection as an act of God: “This Jesus God raised up, to which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32). Anyone who denies this explanation is rationally obligated to produce a more plausible cause of Jesus’ resurrection and to explain how it happened. It is not enough for a skeptic glibly to assert that there might have been some cause of the resurrection other than God; rather he must name that cause, and explain its operation in this unique instance. For the resurrection of Jesus so far exceeds the causal power of nature that nothing that we have learned in the two thousand years that have elapsed since that remarkable event enables us to account for its occurrence. Most men recognize this truth, as is evident from the fact that those who have opposed the resurrection have always tried to explain away the facts without admitting that Jesus was raised. Once it is admitted that Jesus really did rise transformed from the dead, the conclusion that God raised Him up is virtually inescapable. Only a sterile, academic skepticism resists this inevitable inference.
2. The resurrection of Jesus confirms His personal claims. Jesus’ resurrection did not occur at an accidental point in history. Rather it came in the context of and as the climax to His life and ministry. Jesus, even humanly speaking, was an incredible person.4 He evidently thought of Himself as being the Son of God in a unique sense. That is seen in His prayer life. Jesus addressed God in prayer as “Abba,” the word a Jewish child used for “Papa.” For a Jew the very name of God was sacred, and no one would dare to address God in such a for one’s teaching. But Jesus did exactly the opposite. He to His heavenly Father as “Papa.” He taught His disciples to pray, “Our Father.” But he always prayed, “My Father.” God was Jesus’ Father in a distinctive sense that set Him apart from the disciples.
Jesus’ special sense of being God’s Son is evident in His words “Everything has been put into my hands by my Father, and nobody knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son—and the man to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27, Phillips). This is a claim to sonship in an exclusive and absolute sense. The relationship between Jesus and His Father is here declared to be unique. Jesus also claims to be the only one who can reveal the Father to men; in other words, Jesus claims to be the absolute revelation of God.
Jesus not only claimed to be God’s Son in a unique sense, but He also claimed to act and speak with divine authority. That is especially evident in the Sermon on the Mount. The typical rabbinic style of teaching was to quote extensively from learned teachers who provided the basis of authority for one’s teaching. But Jesus did exactly the opposite. He began, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old” (Matthew 5:33, RSV) then quoted some interpretation of the law of Moses. Then he continued (5:34) “But I say to you,” and gave His own teaching. No wonder that Matthew comments, “When Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29, RSV). Jesus’ special sense of authority is also evident in His use of the expression “Truly, truly, I say to you,” which He used as an introduction to His authoritative word on some subject.
His authority was also evident in His role as an exorcist. It is an embarrassment to many modern theologians, but it is historically certain that Jesus believed He had the power to cast out demons. That was a sign to the people of his divine authority. He said, “If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20, RSV). That saying is remarkable not only because it shows He claimed divine authority over the spiritual powers of evil, but also because it shows that Jesus believed that in Himself the kingdom of God had come. The Jews believed that the kingdom of God would come at the end of history when the Messiah would reign over Israel and the nations. But Jesus was saying, “My ability to rule the spiritual forces of darkness shows that in Me the kingdom of God is already present among you.”
We can also see Jesus’ consciousness of authority in His claim to be able to forgive sins. We find such a claim, for example, in the context of a healing miracle related by Mark. “[I will] prove to you that the Son of Man has full authority to forgive sins on earth” (Mark 2:10, Phillips). Such a claim is remarkable when one considers the Jewish belief that only God could forgive sins. Mark relates, “Some of the scribes were sitting there silently asking themselves, ‘Why does this man talk such blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:6-7, Phillips). Jesus’ claim was thus a claim to an authority held only by God.
Jesus also believed Himself to be able to work miracles. Jesus said to the disciples of John the Baptist, “Go and tell John what you hear and see; the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them” (Matthew 11:4-5, RSV). James D. G. Dunn comments on this saying: “Whatever the ‘facts’ were, Jesus evidently believed that he had cured cases of blindness, lameness and deafness—indeed there is no reason to doubt that He believed lepers had been cured under His ministry and dead restored to life.”5 One might go on to argue that Jesus could surely not have been mistaken about such palpable facts as these, but that is not the issue at hand. The point is simply that Jesus at least thought he had the power to perform miracles.