The Historical Undergirding of Christianity

I suppose in some respects this is just a follow up on the preceding post.  Having a conversation at work this morning regarding different religions, though, reminded me of how important history is to Christianity.  While it's true that both traditional Judaism and Islam are Abrahamic religions and therefore rely to a degree on the historical underpinnings of the Old Testament, Christianity stakes its entire validity on the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

This is not the sort of thing that went over well in my conversation, but I think it bears repeating and understanding.  Christianity has nothing to offer without the resurrection of Jesus.  Certainly there are similar moral principles in other religions, at least of a sort (although I think Jesus was the first person to tell us to love our enemies).  For the kind of person who wants to lead a moral life, Christianity really doesn't seem to do much more than does Judaism or Buddhism.

We can actually make the case a bit stronger.  If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then Christianity is a horrible, horrible hoax, perpetrated by people who were deceived (at best) by someone who appears to be a raving lunatic.  (Try telling your friends, "I saw Satan fall from heaven," and see how they react; cf Lu 10.18.)  While the liar, lord, lunatic trilemma is a bit trite and overused, there's a reason for it.  If he's a liar or a lunatic, you're certainly better off with a different religion.

The Resurrection of the Son of God

It took months, but I finally finished reading through N. T. Wright's seminal The Resurrection of the Son of God, in which he defends the historical interrogation of the events of Easter Morning and surveys the pagan, Jewish, and Christian understandings of resurrection and the afterlife.

It's well-written, although it assumes a fair amount from the reader:  it is a more academic work than popular.  Wright interacts with a number of resurrection skeptics and supporters.  While my own convictions in the matter are firmly settled (Jesus really did rise physically from the dead; there is no other suitable explanation for Christianity), Wright addresses the literature in pretty convincing fashion.

He advances his case in the following fashion:

1. Arguing that the resurrection may be interrogated by historians (i.e., that metaphysical naturalism isn't a precondition to studying historical events).
2. Examining the notion of death and resurrection in the pagan context (he concludes that the word used for resurrection always implies bodily resurrection—a physical resurrection).
3. Examining various Jewish notions of death and resurrection (outlining the differences between the Pharisees and Saducees).
4. Looking at the concept of resurrection in Paul, whose work is agreed to be the earliest in the NT.
5. Looking at the concept of resurrection in the rest of the NT (the other letters first, then the gospels individually).
6. Briefly considering various other explanations of the growth of Christianity.
7. Finally, concluding that the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead is the best historical explanation of the Christian church.

It's a lengthy book—738 pages of heavily footnoted text, not including the bibliography and index.  It's a worthwhile read if you have the time, and I honestly think it completely devastates the alternative positions.

There is a gripping corporeality to Christianity that's so compelling.  It begins with the physicality of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and concludes with an eternity in a physical (Wright would say transphysical) heaven, not a gnostic fantasy of spirituality.  It's so good to be a Christian.

Preterism and Universalism

While not causally related, I suppose, there is a link between preterism—the belief that some or all of the events in Revelation have occurred already (known respectively as partial and full preterism)—and universalism.

The most obvious one is that if the judgments described have already passed (e.g., because they really refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), then clearly they're not meant for those following afterward.  This, of course, ties neatly into the universalist's position that there isn't a final eternal judgment.

One of the interesting aspects of Universalism is that it is so often accompanied by different heresies, whether it's anti-trinitarianism or full preterism.  One wonders how far down the road the heresies must fall, since the resurrection is commonly mentioned with respect to judgment (Lu 14.14, 20.35 if we treat "worthy" as a statement concerning judgment; Jo 5.29; Ac 4.10–12, 17.31, 24.15; He 6.2; and others).

Not surprisingly, forgiveness is also tied to the resurrection; so in Ac 13.33 and others, the preaching of the gospel is a message of forgiveness.  The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is simultaneously an indication of a judgment to come and a proclamation that forgiveness is to be found in the person of Jesus.

While it would take too long to go down this path—it's late—I think it's worth noting the tie-in to the law, too.  In this same passage in Acts, Paul in preaching to the Jews notes that through Jesus Christ one is justified from all those things that the law of Moses condemned.  In his famous passage concerning the resurrection, Paul also writes that the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law (1Co 15.56).  I think the idea here is that sin is a mini-death, and it is empowered through the law.

Full preterism, among its many faults, upends the entire structure of the arguments pertaining to resurrection.  Indeed, virtually the whole New Testament breaks down at this point.  Allowing that there is a fairly diverse spectrum of universalist beliefs (ranging from purgatory knock-offs to no-fault judgments and others), it seems to me that they also wildly mistake the message of the New Testament.

The resurrection means at least two things:  (1) that there is a future resurrection for all people—that Jesus rose from the dead is the proof of this; and (2) that this resurrection includes one for judgment.