The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.

The Primitive Creed of 1 Corinthians 15 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

When Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers in the first half of the sixth decade, around A .D. 54, he included in his letters some of the most primitive Christian tradition known to us. Specifically, in 1 Corinthians 15, he presents an early creedal statement summarizing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

These words surely predate Paul, that is, he himself says these words were passed on to him, and so we must push their composition to within a matter of a few short years, barely a decade after the events of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.

These are not the words of a later generation, reflecting and redacting. They are the words of the most primitive era of Christianity. And here we read in 1 Corinthians 15, 3 -8,. Now please note what Paul here relates.

The most primitive message of the faith speaks of the death of Jesus Christ for our sins, a phrase of substitution using the term huper. We know the death of Christ was a historical event, and the term death here is being used in its normative sense.

Next, the faith says he was buried, and once again, there is no reason to think of this term in any other sense than the normative one that would naturally flow from the preceding historical term, died.

And then, the earliest faith of Christianity says he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. The term used here, agairo, is the third in a chain of terms that we have seen are being used in their normative sense.

Jesus was raised from the dead in fulfillment of scriptural prophecy. The meaning of the term in this context is unambiguous. It flows naturally from what precedes and, of course, flows of necessity into what follows, that being the post-resurrection appearances of the Lord.

I emphasize these basic facts for the simple reason that our debate today truly turns in whether we will allow the scriptures to define their own teaching through their own language and native meaning, or whether we will choose to reject the testimony of the apostles and instead embrace a foreign meaning to these words that is more amenable to a post-modern world or a foreign theological paradigm.

For truly, I do not believe that there is any question at all of what the New Testament means when it says to us that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It means that the body of Jesus Christ was buried after his crucifixion, that the body was dead, expired, deceased, and that on the third day that body left the grave, not metaphorically, not allegorically, not mythically, but bodily, physically, in an incorruptible yet truly physical form.

Indeed, Paul continues from this point to address the question of the nature of the resurrection body simply because he has to do so in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the Corinthian believers accepted his message, then they would naturally ask what kind of body believers would receive at their own resurrection.

As Paul taught earlier in this letter, now God has not only raised the Lord but will also raise us up through his power, 1 Corinthians 6 .14. The Christian message is that because Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead, we too will be raised from the dead.

The power of death has been broken, eternal life is ours, only in and through Jesus Christ. And so it is natural for believers to wonder about the nature of that resurrection body. Now surely if the Corinthians had missed Paul's point, he would have stopped them immediately and said, no, you are asking the wrong question.

There is no resurrection body, for resurrection is merely spiritual. The body decays and is gone and is never seen again, and you need to realize that when we say Jesus rose from the dead, all we mean is that he was taken up to God and absorbed into him, or that his apostles are continuing his program, his kingdom here on earth, and that is how he is present.

But this is precisely what Paul does not do. Instead, he uses words and phrases and contexts that communicate with blunt and undeniable force the physicality of the resurrected Jesus. And so I would like to first insist that we need to be shown examples of agyro used in similar contexts, i .e. relating the historical death of Christ or someone else in the context of Tanniatic Judaism, which clearly, as we see in the Gospels, possessed a belief in a physical resurrection, wherein the term refers either to a mere remembrance of a person and their program, or where it refers not to a physical resurrection, but to an exaltation and absorption into God himself.

Next I would assert that the term resurrection points to the same conclusion. Raised from the dead is agyro, but another term appears, that being anastasis, from anistemi, which likewise, clearly and forcibly, in the context of the New Testament refers to a physical resurrection, that which died, coming to life again.

The lexical sources are united in this matter. Listen to the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Clearly, Paul moves effortlessly back and forth between the term raised and that of resurrection. As my brother Dr. Renahan will demonstrate, the natural use of this term in Paul's preaching found in Acts likewise proves his meaning as well.

Paul says, if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised, demonstrating the same truth concerning resurrection as we saw regarding the idea of being raised from the dead. There is also no way to avoid the salvific meaning of the death of Christ latent in this passage.

Indeed, to hope in Christ for Paul is to hope in the risen Christ, not in a Christ concept, not in a memory. Surely the testimony to the resurrection contained in the canonical Gospels themselves is fully consistent with this apostolic writing, which we can firmly date as to its writing to AD 54.

All discussions of Q Gospels or 2nd century Gnostic Gospels simply cannot overthrow the preserved testimony to the belief in substitutionary atonement and physical resurrection so plainly and forcibly found in Paul's Corinthian literature.

And yet, despite this forceful presentation, there are some who miss Paul's point and focus upon a later phrase he uses so as to, in essence, completely overturn his teaching. I refer to 1 Corinthians 15, 42 -44 which reads,.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Some have focused upon the assertion, it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body, as if this is a denial on Paul's part of the physical nature of the resurrection.

But this is clearly an error that can be demonstrated both by examination of the context, as well as the actual terms that Paul uses. When we follow the context, we see Paul's point in the resurrection of the body is likened to four pairs of contrasting terms.

Perishable-imperishable, dishonorable-glorious, weak-power, and then soma-psychicon and soma-pneumaticon. Now I gave the last pair in the original tongue so as to avoid importing concepts not found in the original.

The contrasting pairs are not, I repeat, not indicating physical, non-physical, so there is no reason at all to assume that the fourth pair all of a sudden breaks out of the context to make this kind of assertion.

But even more so, the terms Paul uses proves this as well. The contrast is between soulish and spiritual. Paul had used the same term, soulish, psychicon, in 1 Corinthians 2 .14, where he says the natural or soulish man does not discern the things of the Spirit of God.

So he is not talking about a physical man versus a non-physical man, but a natural, un-regenerate, earthy man versus the regenerated, spirit-led man. Likewise, the contrast in 1 Corinthians 15 .44 is not between a physical body and a spiritual body, but between a natural, earthly body, subject to corruption, and a spiritual, spirit-animated, incorruptible body, that of the resurrection.

If we simply look carefully at the terms and the context, we can discern Paul's meaning. And so I conclude that the testimony of the scriptures is very clear. The terms are plain. The lexical sources, united.

The context, compelling. Our hope is in a risen Christ, and if we have no risen Christ, then we are, as Paul rightly said, of all men, most to be pitied. Thank you very much.

Jesus Lives and Jesus Is Lord

Well, good afternoon. I gather the microphone is okay. Anybody having any trouble hearing me? This is the first time I've ever spoken from a rolling podium, so we'll see how it goes. Let me begin by saying it's very nice to have been invited to be on this cruise with you, partly because of the pleasure of the cruise itself, and also because of the opportunity to talk with you all about something of vital importance.

And I want to begin by saying that I'm going to reject the debating labels of affirmative and negative. And it's because I don't see my role today as negative. I would prefer, if we need to have terms to see my role, and I think Dom would say the same about his, as alternative affirmative.

For both Dom and I affirm the utter importance of the resurrection of Jesus, the utter importance of Easter. Without Easter, we wouldn't even know about Jesus. He would simply have been another crucified Jew in a century that saw thousands of Jews crucified for their loyalty to God, forgotten, perhaps having left a bit of a trace somewhere in an ancient source, but basically unknown to us.

And so what I'm doing is presenting an alternative affirmative. And I want to begin very briefly by affirming that I speak to you as a Christian who is deeply involved in the life of the Church, and who is committed to the removal of Christianity in our time.

And if you want to know how I define the word Christian, if I had to do it in a single sentence, and of course no single sentence is adequate, but some single sentences are more adequate than others, I would put it this way.

At the center of the Christian life is a relationship with God as known in Jesus. A relationship with God as known in Jesus. That's what makes us Christian rather than Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist. Now, I suspect that a major disagreement between Dom and me on the one hand and James and Jim on the other hand is about the historical factuality of the Easter stories.

And when I speak of the historical factuality of the Easter stories, I mean something very precise. I mean, do you think of the empty tomb and of the appearances of the risen Christ as the kinds of events that could have been videotaped or photographed if you had been there with that kind of equipment?

Or to put it only slightly differently, are we to think of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Christ as the kinds of events that a disinterested observer would have seen had he or she been there?

If your answer to that question is yes, then you're affirming the historical factuality in a quite literal sense of the Easter stories. If your answer to that question is no, these stories might still be understood to be profoundly meaningful.

But what I want to stress most strongly as I make this initial point is that feel free to believe whatever you want about whether or not the tomb really was empty and whether or not you could have videotaped the appearances of the risen Christ.

Believe whatever you want about that. I don't even want to argue about that. What I want to do is to ask and briefly answer the question, what do these stories mean? And as I give a very concise answer to that question in the six minutes remaining to me, there are two primary meanings that I hear in the Easter stories.

To give you those two meanings in two very short sentences before I expand each, first, Jesus lives. And secondly, Jesus is Lord. I'm claiming that those are the two primary cumulative meanings of the Easter traditions in the New Testament.

So to the first one, Jesus lives. By that I mean simply that his followers continued to experience him after his death. And by the way, I think people throughout the centuries, Christians throughout the centuries have continued to have experiences of Jesus as a figure of the present after his death.

So I'm not just talking about the 40 days between Easter and Ascension, as Luke in the first chapter of Acts puts it, but I'm talking about Jesus through the centuries being experienced as a living figure of the present.

When I think of how his early followers experienced him as a living figure, let me mention at least three ways. I think they had visions of the risen Christ. Paul's experience on the Damascus Road was clearly a vision, and I don't think either Jim or James would deny that.

And I think it's very possible that some of the other experiences reported in the Gospels were also visions. Now I want to underline, visions are not all hallucinations. Some visions are psychotic, but some visions, I'm convinced, are disclosures of something that is real.

And let me emphasize also that in a vision, you may not only see something, you may also hear a voice. Visions can even include a tactile sense, a sense of being touched or embraced. And in a vision, you might even see whatever you're seeing in a vision eat something.

So the fact that the risen Christ is reported to have eaten a fish does not count against a vision. You might see that in a vision. And to those people who might say, you mean it was only a vision? I would simply say, anybody who has ever had a vision would never say only a vision.

In addition to visions, I think there were experiences in a non-visionary way of the presence of the Spirit of Christ in the community, the same presence that his followers had known in and around him during his lifetime, continuing to be experienced.

And that's why they said, it's Jesus. And I think there also were experiences of the power that they had known in Jesus during his lifetime, continuing to operate within the community. So that's the first affirmation of Easter, as I understand it.

Jesus lives. He is a figure of the present, not simply a figure of the past. You won't find Jesus in the land of the dead. As the angel says in the story of the empty tomb, why do you seek the living amongst the dead?

He is not here. He is risen. The second meaning of Easter. Jesus is Lord. This is probably the simplest and most widespread post-Easter Christian affirmation of faith in the New Testament. What does it mean to say that Jesus is Lord?

Well, it means that God has raised Jesus to God's right hand. And notice that language is manifestly metaphorical. God does not have hands. God does not have feet. But we all understand what the metaphor means.

God has raised Jesus to God's right hand. God has given to Jesus a position of honor, power, and authority. Or in very compact, somewhat abstract language, God has vindicated Jesus. God has raised Jesus up.

God has said yes to Jesus. And the context in which that becomes profoundly meaningful is that the powers of this world, Roman imperial authority, working together with local collaborators from amongst the Jewish people, the temple authorities, the powers of this world by crucifying Jesus had said no to Jesus and to what he was passionate about.

Good Friday is the authority's no to Jesus. Easter is God's yes to Jesus. God has vindicated Jesus. And it's crucially important to realize that Lord was one of the titles of the Roman Emperor. So was Son of God.

So was Savior. So was the one who has brought peace on earth. For the early Christian movement to say Jesus is Lord is to say the Emperor is not. Caesar is not. Empire is not. The powers of this world are not.

And thus the meaning of Easter as I see it is both deeply personal and political. Personal in that the path of death and resurrection is the path of personal liberation and reconnection with God for all of us.

Political in that the affirmation is Jesus is Lord. The powers of this world are not. Some Christians ask the question and probably all of you have been asked the question and may have asked it yourself.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? It's a crucially important question. And our answer to that question determines whether we remain in bondage, in exile, blind, and so forth.

An utterly important question. And I want to suggest to you that Easter as well as the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole suggests an equally important parallel question identical in its wording with the exception of one word.

Do you accept Jesus Christ as your political Lord and Savior? Both meanings are there. And both meanings are at the very heart of what Easter means. Thank you.

Presuppositions, Scripture, and Theological Formulation

Time permitting, I would like to make three points. And they in brief are these. Presuppositions are foundational to our discussion. And my points two and three flow from this first one. The second point is that the text is of foundational importance to our discussion.

And the third of them is that theological formulation is foundational to the importance of our discussion. Now what I'd like to do in the time allotted to me is open up these points briefly. I seriously doubt that I'll get to the third, but maybe I can smuggle it into our question and answer session later on.

I'm just trying to be fair with you. I hope to do that. First, presuppositions are important. Reformation and post-Reformation theology is based on Principia. Most of the great systems of theology which flowed from this era begin with Prolegomena, establishing the nature and the method of theology.

Now from this nature and method, they proceeded to discuss the two great Principia. And so closely were they related that sometimes the Principia seemed to be a part of Prolegomena itself. Now the Principia are the fundamental principles or the foundation upon which theological formulation is built.

Now you ask, what are these two Principia? Let me read, let me explain them to you. The first is the Principium Cognoscendi. It is the principle of knowing or cognitive foundation. And this term by the Reformers and the post-Reformation Protestants was a term that was applied to scripture as the noetic or epistemological Principium Theologiae, the foundational principle of theology.

And without it, they asserted, and I believe that they were right, that there can be no true knowledge of God and therefore no theological system. So we must begin with this principle of knowledge, which is a recognition of the nature of Holy Scripture.

Now the second Principia is the Principium Ascendi, the principle of being or the essential foundation. And it is applied to God as considered as the objective ground of theology, without whom there could be neither divine revelation nor theology.

Now these are James and mine Principia, and they serve as presuppositions for our argument. From our perspective, to reject these Principia is to undermine all possibility of Christian theology, and it turns the discussion into subjectivity without hope of theological resolution.

Now these things need to be said at the outset so that we might all understand that our discussion today is, in a sense, being carried on in two distinct theological languages. Drs. Borg and Crossan may well say some things that seem outlandish to us.

We may see it as outlandish to them. But if we can acknowledge an awareness of these differences, we can perhaps make progress in hearing one another and not simply talk past each other. Now I wish to speak to these two Principia and their relevance for this debate.

And as I said, my next two points flow out of the reality of these foundational principles. So number two, the text is of importance for our discussion. Now I would like to focus on the text of the Book of Acts and historical record of the spread of Christianity, and a demonstration of how Christians, writing one generation after the event of the Resurrection, actually viewed that event.

Now by my count, we have referenced to the Resurrection of Jesus nearly 30 times in that book. These occurrences surround three key terms and their cognates, zoe, anistemi, and agerum. Now we can only take a furtive glance at these three terms in a couple of texts where they appear, but they are greatly enlightening.

The first of them is in Acts 1 .3. Luke, in the introduction to this book, when he writes to Theophilus, whoever Theophilus may have been, speaks about Jesus in the past and Jesus in the present. And he wants to remind Theophilus of the earlier book, which we call the Gospel of Luke.

But he says this in his third verse, To whom he also presented himself alive after his suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Now we notice that Luke uses the language of presenting himself alive, zonta, after his suffering. And in this word, Luke introduces a theme that will be central to his presentation, and he does so in such a way that no one is able to mistake his terms.

Now you notice he doesn't use either of the words that typically are used to speak of resurrection. He speaks about life, and he uses the word that typically refers to living being. The use of zonta makes this point, and it is buttressed by citing the reality of witnesses and infallible proofs.

F .F. Bruce, for example, tells us that Aristotle wrote that the word that we have translated as signs means a compelling sign, something that gave demonstration. Now this text cannot be understood in any other way, but in terms of a physical resurrection of Jesus' body after his sufferings, Luke says he was alive, and he demonstrated that he was alive, and that sets the tone for all of the rest of the discussion of resurrection in the book of Acts.

Now the second passage that I would like to turn to very briefly is in Acts 17. I wish that we could work our way through all of the different texts in the book of Acts, but there are two places in Acts 17 that are of interest for our discussion.

For example, when Paul comes into Athens, having reasoned in the synagogue, he also goes into the marketplace, and we are told that there were certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who encountered him, and they said, what does this babbler seem to say?

While others said, he seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. Later on, during the same visit to Athens, Paul stands in the center of Greek philosophy at a place called the Areopagus, and there in the Areopagus, he speaks to his audience about who Christ is, and when he comes down to the end, he says this, God has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained.

He has given assurance of this to all by raising him from the dead. And when they, that is the Greek philosophers, when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, we will hear you again on this matter.

So Paul departed from among them. Now notice the reactions that Paul receives when he speaks about the resurrection, explicitly related to the resurrection of Jesus. Why did he receive such mocking responses?

Well, if the resurrection does not describe a physical resurrection, what would have been the basis for the words and behavior of his opponents? Thirdly, we look at Acts chapter 23, where Paul, after being taken prison in the city of Jerusalem, is allowed to speak to the Jewish high council, the Sanhedrin.

And Paul perceived that there were two different parties present before him, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And so he says, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am being judged.

And Luke tells us when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection and no angel or spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.

Now we're all aware of this division between Sadducees and Pharisees, but Paul exploits it, and it could not be more clear how he exploited it and why he did so. The Pharisees, who believed in a physical resurrection, at this time, strangely, came to his defense.

And the Sadducees were offended by the words that he spoke. Very quickly, the fourth text that I want to look at is in Acts chapter 26, where Paul in the continuing narrative of the events that follow Acts 23, is now in Caesarea, standing on trial or in defense of himself before Festus, the Roman governor, before Agrippa, the puppet king of Israel, before dignitaries from the city of Caesarea, before Agrippa's court and Festus' officers.

And he comes and he speaks to them plainly and clearly about the resurrection. Early on in his speech, he asks this poignant question, why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?

And I guess I will stop there. Press, pardon me? Okay, all right, thank you. At the end of the same text, we find Paul speaking once more about the resurrection. And when he does so, Festus interrupts him suddenly in a loud voice and essentially says, Paul, you're insane.

Festus understood what the apostle was seeking to teach, that he was talking about something that was unacceptable in pagan philosophy at the time, that Paul was speaking of a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Now, there's more that we could say, but my time is up and I will yield to Dr. Crossan.

Presuppositions Are Organic and Interactive

I'll play with my magic machine for a minute. My subject is the resurrection, but I'd like to start by talking about myself, which admittedly is from the sublime to the ridiculous. But I do want to raise that issue of presuppositions on a personal level.

My name is John Dominic Crossan. My passport says John Crossan. That's my civil name. My middle name, Dominic, which is the only name I go by for anyone who knows me, is my religious name. It has nothing to do with any civil capacity.

It's in Latin Dominicus, and it was first of all in Latin. It means belonging to the Lord. That is a life commitment, not an accidental name. Secondly, I abbreviate it always as Dom, and people think that's nice.

Dom is short for Dominic. Not quite. The title of Jupiter in the Roman Empire was Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Jupiter, the best and the strongest. When Christians said D-O-M, they meant Deo Optimo Maximo, which is not simply saying that God was the greatest and the strongest, but to God.

In other words, I dedicate my life to God, the greatest, the best, and the strongest. That is a life commitment. I want to insist on that because that is what this is all about. Otherwise, resurrection is simply a battle of concepts.

Secondly, I got that name, Dominicus, Frater Dominicus, when I was 16. In 1950, I entered a Roman Catholic religious order. If you want to know what born again is like, try entering a Roman Catholic religious order in Ireland in 1950.

It makes being born again, if I may say this without offense, in an evangelical community look rather like a Sunday picnic. So I, too, have been born again, but differently. When I entered the order, I was going to say I was a conservative Roman Catholic.

That would make you think there might have been liberal Roman Catholics around. I was a Irish Roman Catholic, whatever. Whatever everyone said, you took for granted. There were no liberal conservatives, radicals.

There was just traditional Roman Catholicism. So I started with all the presuppositions of what Jim calls Principia. I pronounce it differently. That doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm right or whatever.

That's the way I learned to do it. Presuppositions. I started off with all the presuppositions of classical, traditional Roman Catholicism in an Irish context. No problems, no questions. And it took me, in the monastic scholasticate, almost five years before I ever started studying anything in the Bible.

I didn't have anything like you might imagine a traditional seminary Bible training. We were busy learning Thomas Aquinas deep in the 13th century, and none of that shook any of the foundations or the presuppositions.

Then I started reading the Bible and teaching the Bible and reading the New Testament and taking seriously, as I said the other night, there are four versions of the same gospel and their relationships.

And what started to happen is my presuppositions started to change. No, I disagree completely that presuppositions or Principia are some sort of a static, almost mechanical, almost non-moving entity.

They are interactive with data. And in my case, they were interactive with the data of the New Testament and the gospel especially. I do agree. I do agree. Presuppositions are foundational. But presuppositions are organic.

They're vital. They're interactive. They interact with your data. Otherwise, you're not part of God's world, which is always changing. Changing, however, is very difficult. So my point I take from my own experience is presuppositions must, in a very dangerously dynamic, interactive way, react with the data.

The data does change the presuppositions. By the time I was finished, I had troubles with both. Well, I'm not going to put it that way. I had trouble with papal infallibility, which had no trouble with biblical inerrancy.

I had trouble with both. But it was papal infallibility that was going to cause me trouble, not biblical inerrancy. So from my experience, presuppositions are foundational. But no, they are not static.

They're dynamic. They're vital. They're interactive. They're organic. Now, let me turn to speak of resurrection. In its context, if you lived as a Jew and your experience, excuse me, your faith was that God owned the world and the world belonged to God, and your experience as a Jew was that the world was unjust, and you were getting most of its brutality, then your faith announced, proclaimed necessarily that someday God would clean up the mess of the world.

God had to do it. It belonged to God. That's called eschatology. And the first, the first most important initial act that God had to perform comes that great cleanup, was the bodily resurrection, especially of the martyrs.

Bodily as an affront, no doubt, to Platonism, because martyrs had been tortured in their bodies. God had to raise the martyrs above all else. Now, nothing as I read this tells me whether they're speaking literally or metaphorically.

That's, of course, the heart of our debate. You can insist that's what they're saying and it's literal. I can say that's what they're saying and it's metaphorical. At the time of Jesus, for many people, including John the Baptist, the announcement was that the kingdom of God, the great cleanup, is imminent.

God's action would happen any day in our generation, tomorrow maybe, but soon. What Jesus said, what Paul said, using different theologies, is no. It has begun and you are called to participate in it.

What? Nobody has ever said that before. Right. But what if we don't participate in it? Will it still have begun? I think the answer from Jesus would have been no. You're waiting for God and God is waiting for you.

It's a collaborative, interactive eschaton and it can be said in three ways in the New Testament. The kingdom of God has already begun, which is absolutely meaningless unless we are called to cooperate with God in it.

Not us without God, not God without us. Secondly, and this would take much more time to unwrap, the Son of Man, the Son of Man who opposes the great beastly kingdoms of Daniel 7, the human one, is already among us, not coming soon, already among us.

And thirdly, the general resurrection, the first business when God cleans up the world, has already begun with Jesus. Now, when I hear all of that and in that context, and I don't begin by reading 1 Corinthians 15, I begin with 1 Corinthians 15 in that matrix.

James quoted it first, no general resurrection, no Jesus resurrection, no Jesus resurrection, no general resurrection. They stand or fall together. The general resurrection has begun. None of that makes any sense whatsoever in a first century context unless it means you are called to participate in it.

And that is what I want to insist on in this debate. If you take it literally, and take it as literally as you want, and I'm not mocking it, take it literally, it still means you're called to participate.

If you are not leading a resurrected life, then you have no right to speak of the resurrection of Jesus. You might speak of the exaltation of Jesus, but you have no right to speak of the resurrection of Jesus.

So what is essential for me, what is something I would not give for, is not, well, do you take it literally or do you take it metaphorically? Let's debate about that. How does your life proclaim in specific detail to the world that the resurrection has begun and you are living an exemplary life that displays it?

Thank you.

The Empty Tomb, the Body of Jesus, and the Meaning of Easter

What do you believe, and you two may not actually agree perfectly at this point, and if there are any differences, it'd be nice to know what they are. What do you believe happened to the physical body of Jesus Christ?

Can I go first?

Okay. I do not think they knew, first of all. I think as I read the story proceeding, now again, presupposition here, from Mark into Matthew and Luke into John, and I watch the story of the burial increasing towards a more and more proper burial, I don't think the earliest followers of Jesus knew exactly what happened to the body.

That is their best hope, what is in Mark. How do I know that? Because I watch how Matthew and Luke, now again, a presupposition, read Mark and see the changes they have to make. So my judgment is they did not know.

Whenever I don't know something like that, I fall back on generalities. What would you expect to happen? The best hope would be exactly what they said, that a pious Jew, like in the book of Tobit, buried Jesus out of general respect for the Sabbath, but that would mean he would also have to also bury anyone crucified with Jesus, and therefore that's what Matthew and Luke saw, that the tomb had to be empty to be empty.

So that is not important for me. If you ask me how I think the earliest Christians said and why they said Jesus was raised, two things, that from Jesus they had learned experientially, not just theologically, that the kingdom has begun, they have already seen its power, and the visions that Marcus mentioned.

I consider them to be real, not hallucinations or anything like that. They had visions. Those two things explain for me historically, simply as a historian, why they said Jesus is raised from the dead, and I can't explain it without those two.