Questions on Resurrection, God's Knowledge, and Man's Aloneness

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Hi, Dr. Craig. I’m an agnostic. I follow much of your work and appreciate your perspective. You have argued in the past that the Gospel empty tomb narrative is historical among other reasons because it is women that discovered the tomb and supposedly Jews would have considered these women unreliable witnesses. I do not find this argument compelling since in no case is there any evidence that the Christians were trying to prove the historicity of the empty tomb on the basis of any woman's testimony. The women are not cited by Paul as witnesses. Indeed, they are never mentioned by him nor is Joseph of Aramathea. The Gospels never say the story is based on their testimony. And Acts never appeals to their testimony to prove the empty tomb or the resurrection. I don't see how angelic appearance at the empty tomb is any different than, for example, the angelic appearance to Abraham's concubine Hagar in Genesis. Are we also to accept that story as true because Jews would not invent female witnesses, or is it more likely that the creators of such stories wrote them to be accepted at face value and thus felt no need to prove their truth by appealing to the testimony of anyone? I welcome your thoughts on my skepticism and thank you for your consideration. Corey

DR. CRAIG: I think that it's very clear that in the crucifixion and burial and empty tomb narrative the women are being used as witnesses. In the first century, the practice of ancient historians in writing historical narratives was to list the people who were witnesses of these events as a way of testifying to their credibility. And this is exactly what we find in Mark. In Mark 15 and verse 40 – this is the crucifixion narrative – it says there were also women looking on from afar, and then it names them, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James the Younger and of Joseph, and Salome. Then it narrates the burial story of Jesus, and the author says in 15:47, “Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of Joses, saw where he was laid” – two of the same women. Then in chapter 16 in the empty tomb narrative, Mark says, “When the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James...” You notice in 15:47 he calls her by the name of one son (Mary, the mother of Joses), and then here in 16:1, “Mary, the mother of James.” We know that from the earlier verse she is the mother of James and Joses. So he names them by both sons then one of the two sons and then the other son in 16:1. “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome [again] bought spices that they might go and anoint him.” So by naming the witnesses to these successive events the author is revealing to us the source of these stories that he's telling us. For the empty tomb account, there are no other witnesses. The women are the only witnesses that he's got. Now, of course, if the empty tomb story is true this would be a publicly verifiable story; namely, others could go to the site of Jesus’ burial and see that indeed the tomb was empty just as the women said. Nevertheless the role of the women here is that of witnesses to the narrative that Mark is giving. This is completely different from the story of the angel's appearance in the Old Testament to Hagar in Genesis. There there’s no attempt to name witnesses. This is about how Hagar is driven out; she's in desperate need, and so the angel comes and reassures her and gives encouragement to her. It's not at all like the empty tomb burial and crucifixion narratives where Mark is recounting these historical events and naming the people who are the source of these stories. So I think that this clearly is an attempt to use the women as witnesses. This is remarkable, as I've argued, because any legendary account would certainly have made male disciples to be the witnesses to these events. In a patriarchal society like first century Judaism, the testimony of women was not highly regarded and so no fabricator or legendary story would have women be the witnesses to these significant events at the climax of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. That's why the vast majority of New Testament historians today agree that these women are being recounted as witnesses to these events, and that it is extremely plausible that they were, in fact, the witnesses of these events because any later legendary account would have had male disciples fill that role.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Dr. Craig, I just completed the most recent Equip course on Molinism. in there you stated that God would know what I would do in any conceivable circumstance such as if I were the procurator of Judea in the first century. However, given the exacting circumstances that led to me, I could not have been in those circumstances at that time. It would seem that given everyone's past, present, and future person’s exacting circumstances for their existence it would be possible that not all of us could exist in any other possible world. Isn't it possible that this is the only possible world that could exist with all of us in it? Ted

Bill, I'm glad that Ted is taking the Equip course. You go to ReasonableFaith.org and take that. It's apparently really got him thinking.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, it has. Ted, I think that the answer to your question will depend in part on whether or not you think some sort of genealogical essentialism is true. As a substance-dualist who believes that we have souls that are distinct from our bodies, I don't see any reason to think that I couldn't have had a different body. So I think that I could have been Chinese or Nigerian or could have been born in first century Palestine. That was the presupposition of my question – was that body-soul dualism is true, and therefore I could have had a different body. Now, if you think that physicalism is true and that genealogical essentialism is true then, in fact, you could not have had different parents than the parents that you do have. Nevertheless, you could still have been born in different circumstances before your parents conceived you. They might have moved to Toledo or maybe to Madras in India, and you would have been born in another place and had a quite different life. So clearly you could have existed in different possible worlds than this one even if it is essential to you that you have the parents that you did. So it's very clearly possible that we exist in different possible worlds with all of us in it. You can have the same people in the world but we could exist in different places at that world. And other things could be different. For example, maybe your dog wouldn't exist in that possible world. But you would still exist. So I don't think you need to be worried about the idea that there is no possible world other than the actual world in which we all exist.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hi, Dr. Craig. Is it possible that God has omniscience and middle knowledge but does not use it at all times? The Bible seems to portray God in this way. In the same way that it might be boring for a person to always know who won the football game before they watch it on TV or to already have heard how a movie ends because a friend spoiled the ending for you, might it be that God would find it more interesting, exciting, surprising, challenging, or enjoyable in some way to cloak his foreknowledge and to govern humanity based on his knowledge of their thoughts on a moment-by-moment basis and to plan and direct mankind in real time? I know that he inspired the prophets to reveal his future plans, but is there any reason to believe that he laid out all the plans before the foundation of the Earth rather than at some point during human history? Could he be guiding some things to his directed end while being hands off and allowing humans to interact unguided for short amounts of time? There may be a logical or scriptural reason that this doesn't work, but as of the writing of this I'm not aware of what it might be. Thanks. Patrick

DR. CRAIG: Richard Swinburne has proposed a view like this. He thinks that God has foreknowledge of all future events but that he chooses not to use it – that he sort of ignores it, maybe somehow puts it into his subconscious or something like this. I find this to be an extremely odd suggestion that God would have knowledge that he's not aware of. When I look at Scripture, it seems to me that the Scriptures teach that God has foreknowledge of the future, and moreover that he has middle knowledge of what free creatures would do if they were in different circumstances. And I see no reason to think that God attenuates his knowledge in the way that Patrick is suggesting. On the contrary, the psalmist says “even before a word is on my tongue thou oh Lord knowest it all together.” So if God knows our very thoughts before we think them, what reason is there to imagine that he has suppressed this knowledge of the future that the Bible says that he has? So I'm not persuaded that this is a scriptural view. Now, I want to add quickly though that I agree with Patrick that having complete foreknowledge of the future and even middle knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom does not preclude that God is guiding some things to his directed ends while being hands off and letting humans interact unguided for short amounts of time. That is the Molinistic view – that God is allowing free creatures to do whatever they freely want to do and that he takes hands off and lets them do what they will. It's just that they can't avoid God's knowing what they will do, but they are still free to do whatever they want. And if they were to do differently then God's knowledge would be different. So I don't think he needs to be concerned that complete foreknowledge of the future or middle knowledge is in any way incompatible with human freedom and contingency.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hi, Dr. Craig. I've been a believer for some time now, and recently I've been struggling with a question. I believe that God's goodness, kindness, and love can't be outdone. However, I'm having trouble thinking through the following scenario. In the Bible it seems that God only grants forgiveness to those that come to him. So if I forgive someone who doesn't ask me for forgiveness or if I just let it go without them asking me for forgiveness, would this not be me being more forgiving than God? Does God ever just let things go without the individual asking for forgiveness? I appreciate your time and look forward to your responses. Zach

DR. CRAIG: I think that the question that Zach is asking here has to do with the necessity of the atonement – is it necessary for Christ to die on the cross to atone for our sins, or could God just have pardoned us for our sins without Christ making atonement? It may surprise you to learn that a good many Christian theologians historically have thought that, yes, it is possible that God could have simply forgiven people without Christ making atonement for their sin. St. Augustine was of this opinion. So was Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius. On their view the choice of atoning for sins is a contingent decision taken by God. Grotius, like Aquinas, argued that it was the most appropriate way for God to reconcile humanity to himself because nothing shows the heinousness of sin and the depth of God's love for us like the cross of Jesus Christ. So even though God could have freely pardoned people without Christ's atonement, God chose the method of the atonement because this would be most effective in displaying both his love and justice and bringing people freely to a knowledge of himself. We should resist the assumption that just offering a universal pardon for sin would mean that everybody is saved. That's not true. If God just blinked at sin and said “I just pardon you all,” that pardon would still need to be accepted by people in order for them to come into personal relationship with God. And it may well be that in a world in which God simply offered universal pardon that not everyone would embrace his love and forgiveness and be reconciled to God. In fact, it might be that even more people would be impenitent and refuse to come to God and acknowledge and worship him than in a world in which he chose the atonement as the way of reconciling the world to himself. So the issue is debated among theologians. Other theologians (and I count myself among these) think that God's justice is an essential property of God and that therefore God could not have simply blinked at sin and offered a universal pardon without the satisfaction of divine justice. So it seems to me that God's holiness and essential justice requires that every sin be punished. Therefore, I'm persuaded that the atonement of Christ was necessary in order for the reconciliation of humanity to take place. So you've got two different views here that are open to Christians. The one view would be that God could offer a universal pardon without the sacrifice of Christ that then may or may not be effective in bringing people into reconciliation with him. Then you've got the other view that indeed God's justice requires that sin be punished and that God's justice be satisfied that enables him then to issue a divine pardon which people then are free to accept or reject as they choose. The issue that Zach is raising isn't really about “Do you need to come to God and ask forgiveness?” On the Christian view, no one comes to God on his own initiative. It will only be in response to the convicting and drawing of the Holy Spirit on a person's heart. But the question will be, in order for that reconciliation (in order for that pardon) to be possible, does the justice of God need to be satisfied first? It seems to me that it does.

KEVIN HARRIS: One final question today from Facebook said,

Dear Dr. Craig, I have a question about Adam's aloneness. In Genesis 2:18 God said it is not good for man to be alone so he gave him a human companion. But this occurred before the Fall in Genesis 3. Adam and God's relationship had not yet been broken due to sin. So why did Adam need another human for companionship and fellowship if he had an unbroken relationship with God? Thanks. Larry

DR. CRAIG: Well, I think that this shows so clearly that man is not created as an isolated individual – a sort of hermit – but he is created to be in relation with others. Particularly the bond of marriage is an intimate relation between a man and his wife that God created them to have. This is, I think, eloquent testimony to the fact that the Christian view of humanity is not one of Lone Rangers or radical individualism. Rather, it is one of corporate solidarity in which we were made to be in relation with others.^[1]