Questions on the Atonement and the Resurrection Part Two

DR. CRAIG: Hello! This is William Lane Craig. Every spring at Reasonable Faith we have a spring campaign to raise funds for the ministry. Your giving to Reasonable Faith helps to support, for example, our Equip project which has just released a new course on doctrine of Scripture. We've also released a new video in our animation series on the attributes of God called “The Eternity of God.” This year I'm especially excited about our spring campaign because we have an extraordinary premium to offer those of you who become strategic donors at the highest level. We have three stages, or levels, of donors: $30 per month, $50 per month, and $100 per month. For those of you who are in the top tier, you will receive – free – a copy of Volume 1 of my newly released Systematic Philosophical Theology. This is a $65 value, and it will be yours free of charge for your sustaining donor membership in Reasonable Faith. If you've already got a copy of Volume 1, as many do, we also will be making available Volume 2A for a premium so that you can choose between Volume 1 or Volume 2, which I don't even have a copy of yet to show to you but will be released in April. We thank you for your interest and your support of Reasonable Faith, and I hope that you'll take advantage of this really wonderful offer this year to become a sustaining strategic donor and to join us in reading the Systematic Philosophical Theology.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Greetings, Dr. Craig. I'm a big fan. I'm about halfway through your book on the atonement. You may cover my question later in the book. In Luke 11 where Jesus gives instructions on how to pray, he tells his disciples to ask God to forgive us our sins for we ourselves also forgive everyone in debt to us. My question is this. If Jews relied on the sacrificial system to atone for their sins, why did he tell them to just ask God to forgive them without any sacrifice or substitution? Thanks in advance. Jason, United States

DR. CRAIG: This is a really interesting question. Did Jesus and his disciples participate in the temple sacrifices? Now, we know that Jesus celebrated Passover on a regular basis. He was raised in a family that celebrated Passover, and he himself was zealous to celebrate the Passover feast during his lifetime and with his disciples at his Last Supper. So if he did not encourage the disciples to participate in temple sacrifices, perhaps it would have been because of the new covenant that he was inaugurating in his blood. At the Last Supper he gives them the bread, he distributes it and says "This is my body which is for you." And then he gives them the cup of wine, and says, "Drink you, all of this. This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many.” If Jesus saw that the old system of sacrifices was passing away, it could have been because he saw that his own sacrificial and atoning death was imminent which would put a permanent end to those temple sacrifices.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Hi, Dr. Craig. It was put to me by a Muslim neighbor that Joseph of Arimathea would not have asked for Jesus' body because he would get into serious trouble. Why would the authorities give Joseph the body of Jesus and not kill him as well? Thanks for any help. Donald, UK

DR. CRAIG: I think the reason is because Joseph was a Sanhedrist; that is to say, he was part of the Jewish Supreme Court that had condemned Jesus and delivered him over to the Romans to be executed. And Pilate was anxious to maintain good relations with the temple authorities and the Sanhedrists. In fact, there are a number of New Testament scholars who think that in begging for the corpse of Jesus and giving it a proper burial that Joseph may have actually been acting as an emissary of the Sanhedrists – that he was delegated this responsibility from them because it was important for Jews that the bodies be taken down from the cross and given proper burial before nightfall. Otherwise, the land would be contaminated. So, in virtue of his official position, it's not at all improbable that Pilate would have honored this request especially if, as the Gospels say, Pilate was convinced of Jesus’ innocence.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Hello, Dr. Craig. I recently came across the argument that God could not have raised Jesus from the dead because it would be logically incoherent. This person claimed that God bringing someone back from the dead would be equivalent to God making 2 + 2 = 5. I conceded I did not think God could ever make 2 + 2 = 5, similar to how I don't think God could ever make a rock too big for him to lift, and so on. However, I am now left wondering if the resurrection would fall under the logically incoherent category since I believe it would require God changing the laws of nature similar to making 2 + 2 = 5. I'm sure there's a good answer to this predicament, but I cannot think of one. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Stokes, US.

DR. CRAIG: What Stokes needs to appreciate is that the laws of nature are not logical necessities like 2 + 2 = 4. Rather, the laws of nature contain what are called implicit ceteris paribus conditions; that is to say, “all things being equal.” The laws of nature predict what will happen, all things being equal, if there are no interfering natural or supernatural factors. They describe what will happen under purely natural circumstances. And so when God intervenes to cause a miracle that cannot be brought about by the natural causes that are operative at a specific time and place, he does not violate a law of nature because that law has these implicit conditions that the law holds only in cases in which all other things are equal what will happen under purely natural circumstances.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Dr. Craig, in your book The Son Rises, when I read the chapter on the appearances of Jesus, I noticed that you only mentioned the wide scholarly consensus regarding the appearance to Peter. As such, I take that as an indicator that your case specifically doesn't depend crucially on wide scholarly agreement at least on this point. Is that correct, or have I misunderstood? Thank you, and I hope to hear your thoughts on this. Samuel, United States

DR. CRAIG: Samuel is absolutely correct that the evidence doesn't depend on the consensus of scholarly opinion. The evidence stands on its own, whatever anybody thinks. Rather, the appeal to scholarly consensus is merely evidence that others also find these arguments convincing. So I'll present, say, five or six arguments in support of the historicity of the empty tomb or in support of resurrection appearances, and then I'll point out that these are not simply the conclusions of some biblical fundamentalist or radical conservative, but rather these represent the viewpoint of the wide majority of New Testament scholars, liberal and conservative alike. So the consensus of scholarship is not offered as evidence of the facts in question. Rather, it's offered as evidence that these arguments really are convincing to those who will look at them with an open mind.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question:

Hi there, Dr. William Lane Craig. I'm Muslim and a longtime viewer and have watched your debates on kalam cosmological arguments. Now my question relates to crucifixion of Jesus and the denial in the Qur’an as it is taken as universal, tested historical fact and hence the Achilles heel for Islam. My question is: Who saw it? Disciples were not at the crucifixion scene. Mark 16:8 ends without women telling what they saw. In John 20:24-25, the famous Doubting Thomas story, suggests people were still questioning crucifixion. And in Luke 24, Jesus opens disciples to fulfillment passages in the Old Testament after all was said and done. Paul famously said in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that Christ died for our sins “according to Scripture” not some universal event they all saw. So the majority of these passages seem to suggest crucifixion was long open to discussion, disputed, and argued for. Far from certain or established fact. Therefore, my question is how is this event deemed unquestionable when from your own Scriptures it is far from certain. The story of Doubting Thomas makes no sense in the Gospel of John in 90 to 95 AD. People were all on the same page, but they heavily contested the issue. Thank you, and hope to hear your reply on this. Whipton, Finland

DR. CRAIG: Whipton asks, "Who saw it?" The answer is: everybody saw it! The crucifixion of Jesus was a public event in Jerusalem when hundreds of thousands of people had flocked to Jerusalem for the Passover event. Such a public crucifixion by the Romans on the eve of Passover could not have been overlooked or ignored. Crucifixion was done where people could see publicly what happens to those who dare to defy Rome. It was an object lesson to the populace. So this was a public event that couldn't be denied. Now, in the case of Doubting Thomas, I think Whipton has misunderstood this story. What Thomas doubted was not that Jesus was crucified and dead. What he doubted was that he was risen and alive! So that certainly would have been a contested issue – whether Jesus was risen and alive or whether perhaps his body had been stolen from the tomb or the disciples were liars and charlatans. But there was no doubt that Jesus had been publicly crucified and killed.

KEVIN HARRIS: A couple of questions from Facebook. Another one on the 500 here, looks like. It says,

Dear Dr. Craig, One of the most popular claims made by Christian apologists is that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people after his resurrection. This is based on a passage from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians: “then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive though some have fallen asleep.” At first glance this seems like compelling evidence. After all, if a court case had 500 eyewitnesses on one side, wouldn't that guarantee a verdict in their favor? However, Paul is the only source for this alleged mass appearance. None of these 500 witnesses left any written testimony, nor are they named anywhere in historical records. What we have is not 500 firsthand accounts, but rather a single secondhand claim from Paul. These witnesses cannot be cross-examined or corroborated. Imagine presenting this in court? “I know 500 people who saw it, but I can't tell you their names or where they live. Trust me.” Any reasonable jury would dismiss this immediately. This argument then relies entirely on Paul's credibility, not on any verifiable evidence. How do you respond? Bailey.

DR. CRAIG: I would ask Bailey to advert to my earlier response to Phillip [in the immediately prior podcast^[1]] concerning the appearance to the 500 brethren. Bailey is certainly right to raise these questions and cautions, but as I explained, this parenthetical comment by Paul “most of whom are still alive though some have fallen asleep” shows that he did know the names and addresses, so to speak, of those who had been at this appearance and could direct inquirers to them should they so desire. So I don't think we can just dismiss this as being a fiction that had somehow come down to Paul. Paul knew these people, and he knew that the event had transpired.

KEVIN HARRIS: One more question today, also from Facebook:

Dear Dr. Craig, My teenage son asked me which was worse for Jesus: the physical torment of the crucifixion or the mental pain of having all the world's sins placed on him? I complimented him on the thoughtful question, but didn't really know how to answer. Any help would be appreciated. Judson

DR. CRAIG: I think the answer to the question, Judson, is clearly it was the pain of bearing the punishment for the sins of all humanity. On the cross, Jesus went through hell for us. He suffered what we deserved as the just punishment for our sins which is separation from God. Jesus experienced on the cross that relational rupture with his Father that he had never known in all eternity and felt the alienation and estrangement from God that comes as the punishment for sin justly deserved. So, as excruciating and horrible as physical crucifixion was, the anguish of bearing the sins of the world was incomparably greater.^[2]