Unlike almost all other revealed religions, however, Christianity bases the truth of its claims on objective historical events rather than on purely subjective truth claims. These amazing events – Jesus’ execution, his burial in a tomb, the finding of the tomb empty, and the subsequent appearances of the risen Christ to many individuals and groups of people over a period of 40 days afterward - are the foundation of the claims of the authors of the New Testament.
As N.T. Wright, author of the voluminous scholarly work “The Resurrection of the Son of God” observed, there were about a dozen or so other messianic movements in Judaism for the period of 200 years or so around the time of Christ. All of those movements, with the exception of Christianity, ended with the violent death of the leader. The Jewish messiah was to overthrow Roman rule and free the Jewish people from Roman oppression. Death at the hands of the Romans was thus a sure-fire indicator that this person was not the messiah.
The followers of these other would-be messiahs had the choice to either abandon the movement or find another messiah. The early Christians did neither, but instead began to proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth, who had been executed by Roman authorities, nevertheless was the awaited Jewish Messiah as well as Lord of all the earth. They insisted that this bizarre statement was true because God had raised Jesus from the dead, and they had seen the evidence with their own eyes: the tomb was empty, and Jesus himself had appeared to them, announcing his Resurrection in person.
So how important is the Resurrection? Well, Paul certainly considered it important when he wrote
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christfrom the dead.
1 Cor. 15: 14-15
Furthermore, Paul proclaimed to the philosophers in Athens these words:
Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-- an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from
Acts 17:29-31
The Resurrection is the proof of the pudding as far as the Gospel is concerned. If Jesus really rose from the dead, then everyone should be a Christian. If he did not rise from the dead, then no one should be.
5 comments:
I have a debate on the resurrection at Resurrection Debate
Comments always welcome....
Or if you fancy defending Wright's ideas , there is always the Wright forum
Wright's implied claim that no Jew ever took Daniel 9:26 as a prophecy that the Messiah would die, is an interesting one to defend.
'The Jewish messiah was to overthrow Roman rule and free the Jewish people from Roman oppression'
Is that what the woman in John 4 believed Jesus was? What was their about her encounter with Jesus that led her to that belief in Jesus as the person to overthrow Roman rule?
Steven,
Welcome back! Thanks for the links to these debate threads. I may check them out later when I have more time. We just finished a big move and we're still unpacking. Plus, I think Tommy is still waiting for a response from me on the "Unbelievable?" forum, but it's all I can do to keep up my own blog right now.
I'm just wondering, though, what issue it is exactly that you have with the woman at at the well? You asked, "What was their about her encounter with Jesus that led her to that belief in Jesus as the person to overthrow Roman rule?"
If you mean why did she think Jesus was the messiah, Jesus revealed a bunch of personal information about herself that he would have had no way of knowing, and then told her he was the messiah. She went back to the town and told her friends and neighbors, and then asked, "could this be the Christ?" So I guess I'm not clear on what exactly it is that you see as a problem (if indeed you see a problem here).
I see. So if somebody knows a bunch of stuff about somebody they have never met, the natural conclusion is that they are going to overthrow the Romans?
Or perhaps the author of John has the woman take Jesus for the sort of Messiah that John thought Jesus was.
I guess the thief on the cross alos thought of the dying Jesus as the man who would overthrow Roman rule '"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom'
Perhaps the thief had not read Wright, where he would have learned that before the resurrection, not one single Jew thought of a crucified Messiah, or a kingdom as anything other than what the Messiah would bring when he had overthrown the Romans (not something a man being crucified was likely to do).
And then that thief would have avoided becoming an embarrassment to Wright's apologetics...
Steven,
You said, "I see. So if somebody knows a bunch of stuff about somebody they have never met, the natural conclusion is that they are going to overthrow the Romans?"
I think you missed a crucial part of the story: Jesus told her that he was the messiah after he revealed personal information to her. Notice that after Jesus told her about herself, she said "I can see you are a prophet." After that she said, "I know that Messiah is coming," indicating that she didn't just assume Jesus was the messiah because he told her things about herself as you've mischaracterized the exchange here. In fact she didn’t even say to her townspeople, "this is the messiah", rather she said, "could this be the messiah?" It was a question implying that she wasn't sure of it but thought it possible. I think you need to pay more attention to the details so you don't make these kinds of simple mistakes.
You said, "Perhaps the thief had not read Wright, where he would have learned that before the resurrection, not one single Jew thought of a crucified Messiah, or a kingdom as anything other than what the Messiah would bring when he had overthrown the Romans (not something a man being crucified was likely to do)."
Interesting point. Notice though that the first thief said, "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" Also notice what the bystanders said: "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One." What exactly was going through the mind of the second thief is pretty hard to say based on the scant evidence. This is what Luke records: "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong. Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
The first statement was a rebuke to the first thief who said if Jesus was really the Christ he should save himself and them. Certainly the other people in the story except for the second thief gave verbal assent to the fact that if Jesus was really the messiah he should have saved himself from execution. The second thief didn’t actually identify him as the messiah, but indicated that he believed Jesus was an innocent man and would be coming into a kingdom. Did the second thief know something nobody else around knew? Possibly. But this hardly disproves the idea that the Jews expected a conquering messiah. Wright’s conclusions about the general expectations of the messiah appear to be confirmed by the fact that everyone except for the second thief who commented on it expected that if Jesus really was the messiah then he would save himself from execution. If one Jew in the process of being executed had a special revelation of this kind, it’s the exception that proves the rule.
Wright’s summary statement of the Jewish messianic expectations are as follows, and are based on a plethora of scholarly research into what Jewish leaders, teachers, and scholars actually wrote from this time period: "the Messiah was supposed to win the decisive victory over the pagans, to rebuild or cleanse the Temple, and in some way or other to bring true, God-given justice and peace to the whole world. What nobody expected the Messiah to do was to die at the hands of the pagans instead of defeating them; to mount a symbolic attack on the Temple, warning it of imminent judgment, instead of rebuilding or cleansing it; and to suffer unjust violence at the hands of the pagans instead of bringing them justice and peace" (The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 557).
I’m afraid I don’t see your argument as doing anything to challenge this idea, which is not something N.T. Wright just made up himself. It’s the consensus view among scholars of Second Temple Judaism.
Post a Comment