06c_ResurrectionAscension

The Church has historically believed in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Critics, such as Celsus, mocked the idea of resurrection and accused eyewitnesses of wild dreams or theft of the body. The medieval Church celebrated these events on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Martin Luther and Holger Zwingli disagreed on the physical presence of Christ's body after the ascension. The modern era brought challenges to the resurrection and ascension due to biblical criticism and anti-supernaturalism. Various theories were proposed, but defenders like Wolfhard Pannenberg, Josh McDowell, and William Lane Craig argue for the historical validity of these events. Alright, the Resurrection and Ascension, Chapter 19, key terms, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Key people, Celsus, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Holdrick Zwingli, John Calvin, Ray Maras, Karl Barth, Carl Venturini, H. E. G. Paulus, David Friedrich Strauss, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, Chris Laplake, Hugh Schonfield, Wolfhard Pannenberg, Josh McDowell, and William Lane Craig. Key point, the Church has historically believed that after his crucifixion Jesus Christ rose on the third day and then he ascended into heaven 40 days later. Celsus, one of the earliest critics of Christianity, enjoyed making fun of the idea of a resurrection. Critics accused the supposed eyewitnesses of wild dreams and fanciful imaginations. Others assumed that the body must have been stolen from the tomb. The medieval Church continued to affirm the traditional belief concerning these doctrines and even celebrated them on specific days throughout the liturgical year, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Bernard of Clairvaux emphasized the importance of the ascension, claiming that if Christ has risen without ascending, it could not be said that he had gone through, but only that he had passed away. Martin Luther and Holdrick Zwingli differed in their conclusions about the human body of Christ after the ascension. Zwingli concluded that Christ's human body is physically located at the right hand of the Father. As a result, it cannot be physically present during the Lord's Supper. Luther agreed that Christ physically ascended to heaven, but he disagreed with Zwingli when it came to understanding what it meant to be seated at the right hand of the Father. To Luther, being seated at the right hand of the Father does not refer to a physical place, but rather to a position of power. As a part of the quest for the historical Jesus, biblical criticism, an attitude of anti-supernaturalism, the elevation of reason, and many other factors contributed to their search for the real Jesus in the modern era. This, of course, brought with it challenges to the resurrection and the ascension. Chapter Summary The Church has historically believed that after his crucifixion, Jesus Christ rose on the third day and then ascended into heaven forty days later. The resurrection has been believed to be a seal of approval on the death of Jesus Christ as a payment for sin and a promise of a future bodily resurrection for believers. The ascension has been believed to serve as a guarantee that Christ has received glory and honor and now rules over the world. The Church has had to defend these doctrines against numerous attacks, realizing that Christianity rises and falls on the actuality of these events. The Early Church The New Testament writers did not mention any eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection event, instead the New Testament speaks of Jesus' death, the empty tomb, and his post-resurrection appearances. Furthermore, his ascension is recorded in the Gospel of Luke and his Book of Acts. Peter links the resurrection to regeneration, while Paul links it to justification. Against the heresy of Docetism, several early writers, including Polycarp, Tertullian, and Ignatius, affirmed the biblical teaching of Christ's resurrection and ascension. It's weird that Docetism wouldn't. That's strange. Celsus, one of the earliest critics of Christianity, enjoyed making fun of the idea of the resurrection. Critics accused the supposed eyewitnesses of wild dreams and fanciful imaginations. Others assumed that the body must have been stolen from the tomb. Early Christians, such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Augustine, presented defenses against such critics. The Church's faith concerning the resurrection and ascension was recorded in the Nicene Creed. The Middle Ages The medieval Church continued to affirm the traditional belief concerning these doctrines and even celebrated them on specific days throughout the liturgical year, Good Friday and Easter. Bernard of Clairvaux emphasized the importance of the resurrection, claiming that if Christ had risen without ascending, then it could not be said that he had gone through heaven, that he had gone through, but only that he had passed away. Thomas Aquinas offered five reasons for the necessity of the ascension. The first had to do with the principle of God lifting up the humble. The second is that the Christian belief in Christ's deity is confirmed by his resurrection. The third focuses on the hope that the resurrection gives to believers. The fourth is that the resurrection encourages believers to live holy lives. And the fifth and final reason has to do with justification, which for Aquinas had to do with progress and good works. Aquinas further said that the ascension was the cause of man's salvation for two reasons. On the part of the Christian, man's soul is lifted up to Jesus, which fosters faith, hope, love, and reverence. On the part of Christ, his ascension prepared the way for believers, initiated his ministry of prayer for believers, and endowed spiritual gifts. Through Reformation and post-Reformation, the Reformers also continued to affirm the historic position of the resurrection and ascension. Nevertheless, Martin Luther and Holger Zwingli came to different conclusions about the human body of Christ as a result of this doctrine. Zwingli concluded that Christ's human body is located at the right hand of the Father and as a result it cannot be physically present during the Lord's Supper. Luther agreed that Christ had physically ascended into heaven, but he disagreed with Zwingli when it came to understanding what it meant to be seated at the right hand of the Father. To Luther, being seated at the right hand of the Father does not refer to a physical place but rather to a position of power. Thus Luther believed Christ to be present everywhere, both physically and spiritually. This of course included Christ's presence during the Lord's Supper. John Calvin emphasized the importance of the ascension by pointing to Christ's gift of the Holy Spirit. When Christ's ascent into heaven opened up the way to heaven for believers, Calvin further listed the intercessory work of Christ before the throne as another benefit of the ascension. Lastly, Calvin said that the ascension enabled Christ to be able to pour out spiritual blessings on the Church. The Modern Period The overall consensus of the Church had held up to this point in its history began to fall apart during the modern era. Biblical criticism, an attitude of anti-supernaturalism, the elevation of reason, and many other factors, contributed to the search for the real Jesus. This of course brought with it challenges to the resurrection and the ascension. Ray Morris taught that Jesus was taught to preach a moral and political salvation rather than a spiritual one. Thus his resurrection and ascension were not needed. He believed the disciples to have fabricated the story of Jesus' resurrection. Moreover, they did so because they were power-hungry, greedy, and deceptive men. Carl Bahrd, I guess, I'm not sure, and Carl Denchirini pioneered an H.E.G. Paulus popularized the idea that Jesus did not die but rather faked his death and then proclaimed his resurrection. David Friedrich Strauss simply explained the events away, arguing that the Gospel writers had only used mythological language in their writings. Thus these events were not historical events but only mythological ideas. Albert Schweitzer explained things away by suggesting that Jesus had a messianic consciousness that was steeped in the eschatological doctrine and expectations of his time. Schweitzer avers that this eschatologically expectant culture led Jesus to predict his imminent return prior to the completion of his disciples' ministry. When this did not happen, Schweitzer says that Jesus changed his attitude and direction of ministry to discussion of sufferings that would usher in the coming of the kingdom. Rudolf Bultmann emphasized the Christ of faith over the historical Jesus. As a result, he rejected the resurrection and ascension since they cannot be proven as historical events. Keir Southall Lake denied the resurrection of Christ by proposing that the women who went to the tomb could not have been indefinitely certain of the events that they had observed since it was doubtful that they could have identified the proper tomb. He goes on to suggest that the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead provoked the women to point to an empty tomb for proof. Hugh Schonfield spoke of the possibility that Jesus had plotted with his disciples to fake his death and deceive the world. Jesus did not plan this deception with his closest disciples, but rather with trusted outsiders. Apparently, a secret drug was given to Jesus on the cross through a vinegar-soaked sponge, which caused Jesus to pass into unconsciousness as if he was dead. Joseph of Arimathea, who is thought to be one of Jesus' conspirators, quickly whisked Jesus' body off to the tomb, where he would not regain consciousness for hours. William Paley, seeking to defend the historical position, doubted that men would pretend to have seen things that they never saw, assert things of which they had no knowledge, and lie about something in order to teach honesty and virtue, while being convinced of Christ's being an imposter. Further, he doubted that these men would persist in such claims so as to knowingly bring upon themselves hatred, danger, and death. That's William Paley. One of the most notable defenders of the historical position was Wolfhard Pannenberg. More contemporary defenders include the popular writer Josh McDowell and the more scholarly writer William Lane Craig.