JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

266
Prepares the Way for the Coming Kingdom
Finally, the resurrection of Christ prepared the way for Him to sit on the throne of
David in the coming Kingdom (Ac 2:39).
THE HISTORICITY OF THE RESURRECTION
We have seen then how integral the resurrection of Jesus is to the whole fabric of the
Christian religion. Without it Christianity is torn to shreds. Thus if its credibility is in question,
the whole of the Christian religion comes into question. Therefore, the historicity of the
resurrection is critical to either undermining or buttressing the gigantic claims of Christianity.
Luke tells us in writing his second volume (Acts) that in his first volume (Gospel of
Luke) he "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day He was taken up to
heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy spirit to the apostles He had chosen. After His
suffering, He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was
alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of
God" (1:1-3).
"Many convincing proofs" is what Luke claims for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Therefore we have every right to investigate the many "proofs" or evidences.
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, like all bodily resurrections, was an event which
was at once bodily and open to normal historical investigation. If this were not true, we
would not be able to investigate the evidences.
Karl Barth has warned about allowing the gospel narratives to be subjected to critical
historical scrutiny partly because Paul and the other apostles are not calling for the "acceptance
of a well-attested historical report," but for "a decision of faith."11 According to Barth, historical
investigation cannot legitimate or provide security for such faith; nor can faith become
dependent upon the "provisional" results of historical inquiry. Barth's point is that faith is a
response to the risen Christ, not to the empty tomb. Such reasoning is faulty in that the "risen
Christ" is not risen if He did not rise from an empty tomb in Palestine as claimed by His
followers. Furthermore, Barth sees the resurrection of Christ as part of a much larger network of
ideas and events, which cannot be disclosed or verified by historical inquiry. While this is true, it
does not negate the function of historical inquiry, however limited in scope that inquiry may be.
Historical inquiry, though it does not have the tools to determine the theological implications of
Jesus' resurrection, it nevertheless has tools—historical rather than theological tools.
It is obvious that historical inquiry cannot determine whether Jesus' resurrection has
salvific value in that it completes God's redemptive plan, or whether it has eschatological
significance by guaranteeing the resurrection of Jesus' followers, etc. But historical investigation