Many people approach the resurrection thinking that “those things dont happen” and therefore, by definition, exclude that posssibility (i.e. that there was indeed a resurection) and try to find another way of explaining the fact that Christianity had to come from somewhere. Thus Keller’s point, if not the resurrection then where?
Second of all, if we allow that there might be a resurrection it changes how we look at the world. The resuurection makes our world pliable and changeable in ways that are actually pretty encouraging (if you ask me). It is not just that we know God can act, it is that we know that “the world can change”. That is to say, that the world can respond to efforts for change, and it doesn’t necessarily need to go to hell in a handbasket. Christians should always be optimistic people because of the fact of the resurrection.
The challenge for Christian people is to see the resurrection for what it is. It is not just a verdict on you and I (first condemnation and then exaltation) it is something that should shape every experience. That’s a fight for the Christian who is surrounded by influences in the opposite direction.
]]>What makes this such a bold assertion from Paul is that the letter was a “public document written only 15 to 20 years after the resurrection of Christ”. Many of the 500 people who saw this miraculous event were still alive and anyone could question them about it. For those of us who weren’t there with the disciples it’s good to think about why the resurrection is credible.
]]>