I continue The Resurrection of the Son of God in Chapter 10, pp. 450-79. This chapter continues Part 2 with the focus on the resurrection writings in the New Testament non-Gospel, non-Pauline books. This includes Acts, the General Epistles, and Revelation.
Acts (pp. 451-7) is full of resurrection, much to the chagrin of the skeptics. As I thought about Wright’s comments on Acts and perused some of the passages, one of Wright’s emphases that jumped out at me was just how deeply Acts grounds Jesus’ resurrection as the culmination of the story of Israel—in several major speeches in Acts, the speakers retell the story of Israel and point to Jesus’ resurrection as the fulfillment of the long awaited repentance and forgiveness of sins. In other words, it is through Jesus that the exile comes to an end and the resurrection is what demonstrates it. The reason this is so strange is that a first-century Jewish person would look around at Rome’s occupation and dismiss such a claim. ‘We are still under the yoke of Rome!’ But the point, as Wright as repeatedly emphasized, is that Jesus is addressing the root cause—the underlying sin issue that separates not just Israel, but every person. All of humanity is in exile and needs deliverance. I note that Paul’s great speech to Agrippa in Acts 26 ends with “by reason of [Jesus’] resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” (26:23, my emphasis)
This cannot be emphasized enough—it is the resurrection that demonstrates that Jesus’ claims are true. How am I to know that forgiveness of sins is accomplished? How will I know that reconciliation with God is achieved? The resurrection is the vindication of the Son of Man. And Son of God (Ro. 1:4)!
Back to the General Epistles. In these, resurrection has a consistent presence or at least is part of the necessary background (e.g., Hebrews). I found Wright’s discussion on 2 Peter 3:5-13 (pp. 462-3) helpful in clarifying a (probable mis-) translation in verse 10. Is Peter saying that the existing heavens and earth will be destroyed and a new one take their place? The better reading, rather than “will be burned up,” is actually “will be found.” Given the context of the passage, did the flood actually destroy the entire earth (3:6), or was it more like a very thorough washing that cleansed it? I go a bit further and think that the resurrection of Jesus provides the pattern for the ‘new’ heavens and earth. Jesus’ resurrection was the (re-)invigoration of his dead body and renewed it instantly into the ‘new’ creation prototype. There was continuity between the old and ‘new’. The resurrection isn’t like trading your old phone in and getting a new, different, one. It is like taking your old phone in and getting it back fully upgraded and better than ever. I think this is what is meant by new heavens and new earth. It is a cleansed and restored creation.
Wright summarizes his discussion on resurrection in the New Testament with several points. He notes that resurrection is a major concern in early Christianity (p. 477), though it was not in Judaism. Christianity has almost no variation of the ‘life after death’ state that other religious or people groups have around the same time. Resurrection has been ‘split’ in two, Jesus first, then later, all the people. In other words, we have both continuity and discontinuity between Judaism.
The next chapter—quite long—focuses on the post-New Testament early century Christian writings containing resurrection.