Argument for the Existance of God

There seems little point in debating the existence of a god who has no impact on the contemporary world or on us personally. This paper will argue for the existence of the God of Christian orthodoxy – a personal God who is described as both transcendently powerful over the material universe and immanent in his creation, the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists and capable of supernaturally intervening in the world. The argument will prove the existence of God by examining evidence for his direct, supernatural intervention in the world, namely the argument from miracles. It will focus on the most significant miracle for the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The Argument Defined

The argument may be stated in the following propositions:
1. The occurrence of even one supernatural event, i.e. a miracle, requires the existence of a supernatural cause, i.e. God.
2. One supernatural event, that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, has occurred:
a. There are well established historical facts concerning the death, burial and subsequent appearances of Jesus Christ, and the beginning of the Church;
b. The hypothesis that “God raised Jesus Christ from the dead” provides the best explanation of those facts;
c. This hypothesis entails that a supernatural event occurred.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Question of Miracles

Before launching into a proof for the resurrection of Jesus a more basic question must be addressed in light of the dominant naturalistic worldview in which we live: is it even possible for an enlightened person to accept miracles as a possibility?

David Hume has presented the most well-known argument against miracles. He defines a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.[1]” Laws of nature, however, are established by "a firm and unalterable experience[2]”; they rest upon the testimony of multitudes of people in many different contexts.

"Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die of a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country.[3]"

He argues that the testimony of a few cannot outweigh the testimony of many because of the unreliability of those few who are typically moved by the attractive sensation of surprise and wonder associated with miracles or reports of miracles, biased by religious predisposition, unchallenged by critical thinking, and ignorant, i.e. uninformed by the advances of the Enlightenment.

In response to Hume’s argument, it may be observed that he begs the question. He assumes our experience excludes a history of miracles[4]. Also his injudicious characterization of ancient witnesses does not match the historical evidence. The question must be addressed directly: do we have reliable evidence for the occurrence of a supernatural event, the resurrection of Jesus? If so, it must be caused by a supernatural being.

The Milieu of Jesus’ Palestine

N.T. Wright devotes almost 500 pages[5] to describing the milieu from which the testimonies to Jesus’ resurrection arose. Using the test of continuity and discontinuity, he provides six areas in which the Christian testimony of Jesus’ resurrection transformed pre-existing Jewish theology in such a way as to prove that the witnesses were not predisposed to expect Jesus’ resurrection. These areas are[6]: belief in resurrection moved from being a peripheral item of belief, as it was in Second Temple Judaism, to the centre; the meaning of the resurrection sharpened; there was a single understanding of resurrection in Christianity compared with the spectrum of beliefs that were found in Judaism and paganism; the understanding of the event of the resurrection changed to become a single event occurring in two moments; a metaphorical meaning of resurrection, to include baptism and holiness, arose; and, finally, no one in Second Temple Judaism expected a resurrected Messiah because no one expected a Messiah who would die! Yet that description became central to Christian belief. The evidence shows that there was no religious predisposition to expect Jesus’ resurrection so, as Wright says, “What caused these mutations within Judaism, and why, and how?”[7]

Wright also argues “that the idea of resurrection is not something which ancient peoples could accept easily because they didn’t know the laws of nature… the ancients knew perfectly well that dead people didn’t rise[8]”. The second and fourth of Hume’s objections concerning the reliability of the testimony have therefore been addressed.

Also, early church history shows that the witnesses were challenged about their testimony. Peter and John are asked to defend their testimony before the Jewish religious authorities (Acts 4:1-17), Stephen was killed for testifying to the resurrected Jesus (Acts 8:55-56), and Paul confronted Greek philosophers in Athens with the message of the resurrection (Acts 17:31-32). Other early Church Fathers followed their example.

The Textual Evidence

Evaluating a historical event requires evaluating the written testimonies concerning that event. The textual evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is too extensive to allow for anything other than a brief survey here.

Non-Biblical sources, such as Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger contain brief references to Jesus Christ and events or beliefs related to him. Although a couple of the individual texts are disputed, or considered embellished, they corroborate the Biblical texts.
The Biblical text written closest to the actual event being reported is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Written about 55AD, this text claims to record an oral tradition that Paul had previously received and passed onto them. Presumably Paul received this tradition himself during an early visit to Jerusalem, perhaps as early as 36AD[9]. This text is clearly written within a generation of, and perhaps records eye-witness testimony from only 3 years after, the original event. This is incredible when compared with the textual evidence of other historical events, which usually are written several generations, if not hundreds of years, later.

The bare facts in 1 Corinthians 15 are fleshed out with more extensive, complementary treatments in each of the four Gospels[10]. These early records also provide eye-witness testimony and allow us to identify certain historically reliable facts.

The Historical Facts

William Lane Craig has consistently argued for three or four incontrovertible facts: “
Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea; Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers; on multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced post-resurrection appearances of Jesus; and, the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite (as noted above) their having every predisposition to the contrary[11]”.
Habermas more precisely identifies twelve separate facts that can be considered to be knowable history:

“(1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and (2) was buried afterwards. (3) Jesus’ death caused his disciples to experience despair and lose hope, believing that their master was dead. (4) More controversially, the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later. (5) The disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Due to these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed… (7) This message was the center of preaching in the earliest church and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.

As a direct result of this preaching, (9) the church was born, (10) featuring Sunday as the special day of worship. (11) James, a brother of Jesus who had been a skeptic, was converted when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later, Paul was also converted to the Christian faith by an experience which he, likewise, thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus. [12]”

Testing the Hypothesis

Any successful hypothesis must account for all the facts better than any alternative hypothesis. Various hypotheses have tried to account for Jesus’ resurrection. Osborne lists the following[13]:
The Political Theory: the disciples stole the body in order to gain notoriety and recognition for themselves. This does not cohere with the ethical teaching of those same men, nor account for their willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs;
The Swoon Theory: Jesus merely fainted on the cross and was later revived in the tomb. However, could Jesus have recovered from a flogging, crucifixion and piercing so quickly as to appear strong and healthy to his disciples?
The Mythical View: the resurrection narratives are understood as myths created by the early church to portray the significance of Jesus’ message and death. But how could such an elaborate myth have developed in such a short period of time? Again, why would the disciples die for a myth? The character of the stories is different from pagan myths.
The Subjective Vision Theory: the disciples had a series of dreams in which they saw Jesus, and these became the basis for the resurrection narratives. But Jesus appeared to people who were not expecting him. A dream could not account for Paul’s turnaround. When and why did the dreams cease?
The Objective Vision Theory: the visions were sent from God to teach Jesus’ followers that his resurrection was a spiritual reality. This view is tries to attribute the account of the resurrection to a supernatural cause without an actual physical miracle.
The Corporeal View: God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and this involved a transformation of his physical body so that it was capable of existing spiritually.

The naturalist hypotheses fail to successfully account for the known facts. Knowing that Jesus endured a severe flogging, crucifixion and impalement to the point of death, and that he was buried in a guarded, identifiable location, how do we account for the empty tomb? The disciples were in no state of mind to steal the body and had plenty of incentive over the successive decades to recant any such lie. The Jewish and Roman authorities had great incentive to produce the body as the sect grew in popularity. There do not appear to be any other parties with a vested interest who are viable alternatives for providing a naturalistic explanation for the missing body. The supernatural “God raised Jesus from the dead” hypothesis appears to be the most elegant explanation that fits with known facts.

How does one account for the many reported appearances of the resurrected Jesus? The subjective vision theory, which seeks to attribute the appearances to psychological breaks from reality, has been thoroughly discredited. The appearances were to people who were not expecting them. In the case of the men walking to Emmaus, they did not even recognize it as an appearance until it ended. This theory cannot account for how Mary by the tomb, and the disciples in a locked room, and two men walking to Emmaus, and a crowd of five hundred on a distant mountain top could all have the same vision. The supernatural “God raised Jesus from the dead” hypothesis appears to be the most elegant explanation that fits with known facts.

How does one account for the mutations of Jewish theology and practice, and the transformation of the individual disciples, that led to the birth of the Church? Neither the Political Theory nor the Myth Theory provides a credible response. The known facts state that the disciples were transformed: from demoralized and fearful to bold proclaimers of and sufferers for their witness. What did they gain? Stephen, for example, maintained his witness to the resurrected Christ even as he was being killed (Acts 7:54-60). Tradition records the martyrdom of almost all the remaining disciples.

Could these known facts simply be myths? Given that this message was being publicly proclaimed in the same city in which Jesus was killed and buried within weeks of the actual event, there was insufficient time for a myth to develop. The written testimony is sourced within a few years of the actual events, and uses an even earlier oral tradition. The supernatural “God raised Jesus from the dead” hypothesis appears to be the most elegant explanation that fits with known facts.

Conclusion

Having argued that a supernatural even requires the existence of a supernatural being, and that the supernatural “God raised Jesus from the dead” hypothesis provides a more coherent, rational and elegantly simple explanation of the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, and the radical transformation of Jesus’ followers than alternative hypotheses, the conclusion must follow: God exists.

At this point, the reflection on the significance of this supernatural event becomes relevant to us personally. This is not just a single, ancient historical event, it is the first moment in God’s great act of restoring all of Creation to himself. How will we respond to, “The Kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the Good News”? (Mark 1:15)

Bibliography

Craig, William Lane, Assessing the New Testament evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. [1989] Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY.
Craig, William Lane, God? : a debate between a Christian and an atheist / William Lane Craig, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. [2004] Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Craig, William Lane, The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy. [1985] Edwin Mellor Press, Lewiston, NY.
Craig, William Lane, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann. Edited by Copan, Paul H., Tacelli, Ronald K., [2000] Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Craig, William Lane, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection: our response to the empty tomb. [1981] Servant Books, Ann Arbor, MI.
Crossan, John D., Stewart, Robert B., and Wright N.T. The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue [2006] Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN
Habermas, Gary R. Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic [1989] Criswell Theological Review 4.1 pp.159-74.
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Vol. XXXVII, Part 3. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; http://www.bartleby.com/, 2001. www.bartleby.com/37/3/. [10/20/2009]. Published April 24, 2001 by Bartleby.com; © 2001 Copyright Bartleby.com, Inc
Osborne, Grant R. The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study. [1984] Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3 [2003] Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN {I am most disappointed that Denver Seminary library does not contain such a crucial book!}


[1] Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding [1909-1914] X, I
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid
[4] See Craig The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy. [1985] p.502-517 for a detailed response to Hume’s argument, but he begins by stating that Hume’s argument “seems either question-begging or mistaken”.
[5] Wright The Resurrection of the Son of God [2003]
[6] Crossan, Stewart, and Wright The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue [2006] p.18-19.
[7] Ibid p.19-20.
[8] Ibid p.17.
[9] See Craig Assessing the New Testament evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. [1989] p.7-19 where, after a comprehensive review of the evidence for and against this position, Craig concludes that Jerusalem in 36AD is most likely to be Paul’s source of the tradition.
[10] For a comprehensive assessment of the textual evidence in the gospels, see Osborne The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study [1984] p.43-192.
[11] Craig Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection: our response to the empty tomb. [1981] p.39-123; Craig Assessing the New Testament evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. [1989] p.351-418; Craig Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann [2000] p. 32-34; Craig God? : a debate between a Christian and an atheist / William Lane Craig, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. [2004] p.22-24.
[12] Habermas Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic [1989] p.161-162.
[13] Osborne The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study [1984] p.276-279. Several authors provide different lists with different emphases. Habernas [1989] lists five approaches from contemporary scholarship but his focus is on critical scholarship, not directly addressing the existence of God. Craig [1981] p.18-38 surveys three alternatives: the “conspiracy theory” (equivalent to Osborne’s Political Theory), the “apparent death theory” (equivalent to Osborne’s Swoon Theory), and the “Wrong Tomb Theory”.

The 30-Day Leviticus Challenge

August 2008, Christianity Today published an article entitled “The 30 Day Leviticus Challenge”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/august/13.30.html

I was asked to write a one-page review of it for O.T. Hebrew class.

The 30 Day Leviticus Challenge Reflection

Studying the book of Leviticus concentrates attention on two major confusions among Christians. Firstly, what do we do with all the stuff that came before Jesus? Secondly, how do we follow Jesus without falling into licentiousness or legalism?

Daniel Harrell’s article argues that these issues cannot be ignored because they affect our thinking about and practice of our faith today:

“As a Christian, you can’t fully comprehend the New Testament and its vocabulary… without first understanding Leviticus. The second greatest commandment, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ comes from Leviticus.”

Interestingly, his approach was not to provide a hermeneutical approach. In fact, he admits that his “Levites for a month” adopted different hermeneutical approaches. One must assume he modeled one approach in his sermon series. The focus of the article was on the challenges presented and lessons learned by experientially engaging with the text.

A key pre-understanding that was brought to the exercise was that Leviticus was intended to be lived communally. Those who personally participated, as well as those who observed through social media, were pushed to engage more thoughtfully than usual with the Biblical text and to practice it more faithfully. Then came Harrell’s statement,

“For the participants in the Levitical experiment, its power for personal transformation was unexpected and perhaps the most rewarding aspect.”

Surprised? Thinking hard about what the text means and practicing it faithfully is transformational! Does this inform us more about the book of Leviticus, or about our own usual approach to and response to the teaching of the Bible more generally? The relative obscurity of Leviticus may have forced Harrell to bring his best to the task. Hopefully his example will inspire us with all of Scripture.