Resurrection Arguments Courtesy of N.T. Wright

I very recently wrote about N.T. Wright, “I won’t quote him at length here because while some of his work has been literally life changing to me, I am utterly frustrated by Wright’s intractability around LGTBQ+ dignity and so I’ve generally stopped recommending him outside of some limited cases.” A friend of mine said to me, “if his ideas changed your life, I still want to hear about them.” Let me be clear about my frustration with Wright. He is by all accounts a devout, caring, deeply loving, generous and brilliant Pauline expert. I owe a great deal of my belief in the resurrection to a marriage of the right and left hemispheres of my brain resulting from my mystical experiences of the living Christ as well as to N.T. Wright’s historical arguments for the resurrection. But his argument against LGBTQ+ inclusion is maddeningly illogical, uncharacteristically reactionary and (I’m being charitable here) downright frumpy. I will save my thoughts about his anti-LGTBQ+ arguments for next week.

I think your approach to explaining the resurrection stories comes down simply to your preconceived philosophy on materialism. Materialists would argue that, since we all know that dead bodies do not rise, thus resurrection is impossible, we need to understand the resurrection accounts as a combinative result of grief, group psychology and rhetorical efforts to claim the Jesus messiah movement had not failed. Wright’s take is that there is really no sense to be made of these stories or the rise of Christianity at all unless Easter happened, and whatever Easter was, it was described as best as possible in human language in the many strange and wonderful resurrection accounts. To flip the materialist’s argument on itself, we do indeed all know that dead bodies do not rise so it seems unlikely early Christians would choose to make that up unprompted by at least something that they understood to be the resurrection.

As a side note, this informs my study of the entire Bible. Both materialists and Christians believe that something happened at Easter. That something was either the resurrection or as the materialist would argue the early disciples had a different experience of a mass hallucination, grief-centered self-deception or even decided to lie (to what ends I cannot imagine). The Easter event, that something-that-happened, caused the early Christians to rethink theology and comb through scripture to look for clues. Here I significantly diverge from the materialist, because the materialist would argue that none of this proves the resurrection is true, the disciples were just making up more stories or coopting older scripture to support their case. I think those stories and the coopting of scripture is even more evidence for the resurrection. Wright wonders why a bunch of devout Jews would rethink their theology, abandon Jewish law, begin meeting on Sundays and make many more radical changes to their lives and beliefs. They weren’t twisting old scripture to support their case; they were looking for clues for something really shocking that they had experienced. I talk about this post-resurrection response using a specific example in the post How Many Donkeys?

I have always been able to hold a lot of conflicting ideas in my head at the same time without too much stress. I’m willing to test out different frameworks one way or the other just trying to make sense of what we know of the world. Other people seem to be more bothered by ambiguity and cling to religious fealty to either Biblical literalism or atheistic materialism. I don’t know why we should approach the resurrection with either Biblical literalism or materialism a priori. In fact, I frequently argue that both positions are logically unsound so I would advise against either as a frame for your worldview. Atheism is just another form of fundamentalism and fundamentalists are almost always wrong.

Materialists Explain Away the Stories Assuming the Resurrection Must Be Untrue

The materialist approach to the resurrection stories would start with the insistence that the resurrection is impossible. With that as the point of origin, the rest of their work deals with trying to explain why the Jesus movement would espouse something we all know is impossible and why would other people also begin to believe something that is impossible.

The arguments typically involve a spectrum of ideas like:

• The disciples were deliberately lying to keep their movement alive. This seems totally implausible to me as Wright points out the death of a messianic movement always either ended the movement or followers chose a new leader. I doubt that people who knew they were lying about Jesus’ resurrection would still claim Jesus was messiah. People lie about their leaders today, but typically for some gain, wealth, power, or other benefit. The only thing you gained by being a Jesus follower was death. Other people might die for a lie, but why would the disciples knowingly start down this path unless “something,” happened? Disappearing from Rome’s violent gaze makes a lot more sense unless they believed the story they were telling.
• The disciples were in shock and needed to soothe their grief. Certainly, there are many documented experiences with recently deceased loved ones. I’ve experienced one very dramatically myself. Is it grief? Maybe. Is it real? Maybe. Either way, these types of experiences have been familiar to all humans throughout history and it’s a giant leap from experiencing someone after death to claiming that person is still alive and somehow operating as the messiah. In other words, they knew what ghosts were, but no one ever claimed a ghost was the risen messiah.
• Perhaps it was a group hallucination. Sure. Strange things happen to groups sometimes. I believe Christ is active and alive in my life, so I come at this with that bias. But many other people also say Christ is alive and active in their lives, too. Are we all hallucinating some 2,000 years later?
• People believe what they want to believe and are very good at convincing themselves by any means necessary. I think this is quite true. The Heaven’s Gate website is still active. Of course, this might be because the webmaster donned black athletic wear, a pair of black Nike shoes and offed herself. Others argue that there are a couple of webmastering believers left waiting for Heaven’s Gate to flourish again. It has, however, failed to flourish. Christianity on the other hand, has flourished despite the many willing deaths of early believers including the disciples who you would think would’ve known better. Christianity flourished despite some wildly unpopular beliefs like loving your enemies, giving your money away, rejecting the surrounding culture and religion and in some cases broken families, alienation and death.

So much for the most common materialist approaches at explaining the resurrection stories. I’m not here to dissuade you because I believe I never could. A truly committed naturalist would rather believe almost any other natural explanation rather than the resurrection. This is the paradox of faith; it only makes sense once you take your leap. You must taste and see for yourself.

Wright Lines Up the Dots If You Are Open to Belief

Let’s set aside Biblical literalists who would simply argue that the resurrection stories must be true because the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Good for you if that is your position, again I’m not going to convince you otherwise here. I will never be able to accept that position for myself, however, so I am very grateful to Wright for giving me what I believe is a logical way to believe in the resurrection. Wright doesn’t prove the resurrection – no one can. But he provides what for me is the most compelling explanation of the events.

This is one blogger’s summary; I will get it wrong in places either through too hasty a summary or a misunderstanding. You really should read Surprised by Hope on your own. The hastiest of all summaries would be that if you are willing to accept that the resurrection can happen, suddenly all the weird inexplicable pieces fall into place. Early followers changed their beliefs in some shocking ways and the best way to explain those shifts as well as some other historical puzzles is to accept their belief in the resurrection. I would argue this on a personal level as well: Christianity makes sense of the world for me, and the pieces fall into place even in my most private experiences.

N.T. Wright argues for Jesus’ resurrection mostly in these ways:

1. Unexpected Shifts in Early Christian Beliefs:  He contends that the beliefs of the early Jewish Christians changed dramatically in ways that wouldn’t have happened without the resurrection.
2. The Empty Tomb: The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is significant evidence that his body wasn’t stolen or simply misplaced.
3. Post-Resurrection Appearances:  The reports of Jesus appearing to various people, both followers and even skeptics, after his death are strong indicators of something extraordinary happening.
4. Strange Historical Puzzles: Some of the strange facts around early Christianity make more sense if the resurrection actually happened.

I will mostly focus on the first and the last points in this article. Wright argues for the empty tomb, but so much has been written about that and it is generally accepted to be historical fact, so I won’t write about it here. For what it’s worth, Crossan and Ehrman don’t believe in the empty tomb so not all scholars are convinced. I don’t think Wright adds a lot more to the traditional argument so you can Google that yourself.

Similarly, Wright lists the post-resurrection appearances as evidence. I don’t think that is particularly convincing, even though I personally believe something miraculous happened. Dale Allison has some interesting work on the resurrection accounts, and I recommend him over Wright on that topic.

Dramatic Shifts in Early Christian Beliefs

N.T. Wright argues that early Christian beliefs about the afterlife underwent seven significant changes, or “mutations,” that are difficult to explain without the resurrection of Jesus.

1. From Many Views to One: Judaism offered various ideas about the afterlife, but Christianity embraced a singular concept: resurrection. This meant that upon death, your soul wouldn’t simply wait in Sheol. Instead, you would be resurrected with a new body, like Jesus’, on Judgment Day. In other words, Jews disagreed or were agnostic about the afterlife. Strangely, Christians fiercely promoted a belief in particular kind of resurrection faith that aligned to belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
2. Resurrection’s Importance: In Judaism, resurrection was a peripheral belief. The Sadducees didn’t believe in it at all. Christianity, however, placed it at the very center of its faith. I would argue that they felt it was central because they’d seen it in Jesus. In fact, there must have been some disagreements about resurrection in Corinth that Paul addresses. His evidence for resurrection? Jesus’ resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:12 Paul writes: ^“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?”
3. The Nature of Resurrection: Judaism offered diverse views on what a resurrected body might be like. Christianity presented a unified concept: an incorruptible body, still composed of your original material but transformed into a spiritual form.
4. The Timing of Resurrection: Judaism traditionally placed resurrection at the end times, on Judgment Day. Christianity introduced a split concept: the Messiah (Jesus) had already been resurrected, while the general resurrection of the righteous would occur later. Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 15:23: “But each in its own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”
5. Transforming the World: A new view of eschatology emerged, focusing on collaborating with God to actively transform the world, not just passively waiting for the end times. This may seem strange to us, because a lot of casual Christians seem to think we’re all just going to die and sit on a cloud playing the harp or something. But the resurrection convinced the early Christians—as it should convince us—that the kingdom is right now and requires action.
6. The Metaphor of Rebirth: The concept of being “born-again” became a powerful metaphor for spiritual transformation, linked to the idea of resurrection.
7. Resurrection and the Messiah: Judaism didn’t expect the Messiah to die, let alone be resurrected. The idea that a dead person would return to lead was as underisible then as it is now. Christianity’s concept of the Messiah was radically redefined by Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection.

Further Evidence for the Resurrection

Beyond the dramatic shifts in early Christian beliefs, N.T. Wright argues that several historical puzzles find their solution only in the reality of Jesus’ physical resurrection.

1. Everyone knew that messiahs don’t die, they conquer. Jews traditionally expected their Messiah to be a conquering warrior, not someone who would suffer a humiliating death. There were plenty of other messiah movements in history, but when the leader died, they disbanded, or they found a new leader. You certainly don’t try to make people follow a dead messiah. If there was a resurrection, it would explain their willingness to promote a belief that was completely laughable to everyone they’d meet.
2. Jews already had a concept of exaltation, so they didn’t need to invent resurrection. If the early Christians simply wanted to elevate Jesus’ status, they could have easily invented a story using the existing Jewish concept of exaltation – a spiritual promotion without bodily resurrection. Inventing a bodily resurrection, a radical departure from Jewish theology, would have been unnecessary and potentially off-putting. Ehrman argues that you can see evidence of a low Christology that he calls exaltation Christology competing with a higher Christology involving resurrection and incarnation. Ehrman of course argues that this is evidence that the higher Christology evolved over time. I think it makes a case for how difficult a sell the resurrection was and adds some weight that this isn’t the story you would choose to make up to support your case.
3. Early Christians displayed a remarkable fearlessness towards sickness and death. They cared for the sick, even those with contagious diseases, and testified to their faith even under threat of torture and execution. Their defiance of death suggests a newfound belief in a future beyond the grave, hinting at Jesus’ resurrection as the source of their courage.
4. The gospel accounts, especially the Gospel of Mark, are not terrific pieces of literature but read as straightforward and unembellished accounts of Jesus’ life and death. If these stories were fabricated, they likely would have incorporated more fantastical elements to support developing theological ideas. Instead, the central message comes across plainly: Jesus died a public death yet was later encountered alive by his disciples. Unlike Wright, I personally believe a good deal of embellishing went on. But Mark does read a little bit slapdash like someone wanting to get the core message down quickly.
5. It’s highly unlikely that the story of the women discovering the empty tomb was invented. In that era, female testimony held little legal weight. Fabricators would likely have chosen male disciples for this pivotal role. The inclusion of women as the first witnesses suggests the story is based on actual events. Besides, choosing women as the first to experience the risen Christ is such a Jesus move. Most, but not all, historians agree with this point. It is noncontroversial.
6. The Gospels don’t mention the concept of a general resurrection, a belief many Jews held at the time. This surprising omission suggests the early Christians were preoccupied with a more immediate event – the resurrection of Jesus himself, which may have led them to believe the general resurrection was no longer relevant.

Overall, Wright argues these “puzzles” point towards a real historical event – the bodily resurrection of Jesus – that explains the otherwise puzzling behavior and beliefs of the early Christians.

You may say that all this shows is that the first followers of Jesus believed in the resurrection and were able to convince others of it later. Maybe only Peter and Paul had some kind of hallucination or ghostly experience yet were so good rhetorically they were able to convince followers to abandon the current conventional wisdom about God, the Messiah and the afterlife. Fine. Go on with your life. It may just be the weirdest story ever told. Or it might just be true. I’m convinced something happened to them, it happened to me, and it can happen to you. Taste and see.