Dr. Jim Renihan on the Resurrection

The text is of importance for our discussion. Now I would like to focus on the text of the book of Acts, an 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 agero.

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 40 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 being.

The use of zonta makes this point and it is buttressed by citing the reality of witnesses and infallible proofs.

FF 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, from before Agrippa's court and Festus's 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?