Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection

by stephen-t-davis

Philosopher Davis argues that Christian belief in the resurrection is rational on historical, philosophical, and theological grounds. Each of the book's ten chapters takes up a different aspect of the Christian concept of bodily resurrection and subsequently deals with such matters as preservation of personal identity and soul-body dualism, issues in biblical scholarship, and the reliability of New Testament accounts.

Genres: Theology

220 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1993

Reviews

[Jaden A · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I were to do it again, I would have read 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus' by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona as a primer on the resurrection.

However, Steven T. Davis makes some excellent points in this book. For example, he explains how some worldviews by metaphysical fiat rule out the possibility of miracles thereby rendering any "facts" concerning the resurrection as (though inexplicable) anything but a miraculous event. He also speaks to the general resurrection and how we are to think of human ontology, especially during the intermediate state.

I was not on quite board with chapters six and seven. Davis argues for the possibility of resurrection (even if) it happens to be the case that physicalism is true, i.e., in terms of personal identity humans simply are made of matter only. Davis makes clear that he believes humans are a body-soul composite, but nonetheless supposing the worst case scenario argues for the truth of resurrection on physicalism.

While I am sympathetic towards his goal, I do not think that these chapters were necessary nor do I find them very helpful, especially as someone who is an inerrantist.

His other chapters on history, the empty tomb, judgement, apologetics, and meaning are satisfactory. The one caveat I would make is that I disagree with Davis concerning the fate of those who never hear the gospel. Davis claims that we do not know. I would argue abductively that Paul's statements in Romans demonstrate that those who never hear the preaching of the gospel are condemned.

[Toby · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Risen Indeed (which has been on my shelf for about 20 years) in preparation for some teaching that I was doing on the Resurrection of Jesus, although most of the book was in fact pitched at a level that wouldn't have been suitable for my course. It is different from the other books that I have read (Licona, Wright) both in scale (far shorter) and in scope (philosophical rather than historical). Some chapters were more interesting than others. He does a helpful critique on Hume at the beginning, and some sensitive chapters on judgement and apologetics at the end. The chapters on identity and resurrection, in conversation with Bernard Williams and Derek Parfitt, felt more esoteric and will appeal to a far smaller subset of readers. Interesting (sort of) though the question is as to whether multiple resurrections of our bodies could happen (at a cost to individual identity), I don't think that this is at the forefront of most believers minds.

[Ian Bordenave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen Davis, a Christian philosopher, argues that Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead is a rational belief to hold. He grants, however, that naturalists will never accept such a belief. They believe that the laws of nature can never be defied, of which resurrection from the dead, that is, becoming immortal, would be included. Davis, on the other hand, wishes to convince supernaturalists of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. Supernaturalists believe that miracles can happen. Still, some if not many supernaturalists might argue for Jesus’s spiritual rather than bodily resurrection. Davis hopes to show supernaturalists that Jesus’s bodily resurrection is more in keeping with the Christian message that not even death can beat God. I enjoyed Davis’s discussion of the resurrection, both Christ’s and humanity’s, but felt he could have been briefer.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some chapters were better than others. The book is a collection of essays that have been refurbished into a book-length discussion on the resurrection. But as so often happens with such a book it lacks a little cohesiveness. However, the chapters themselves are good and Davis is a very good communicator of philosophical ideas related to the resurrection.

[Scott Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting and challenging book. I am not sure how strong the author holds to the orthodox view on the mind/body with respect to the place of the believer's soul after death, and before the bodily resurrection (e.g. dualism). However he seems to have moved into the orthodox camp in this regards (see note 10 on p.xi; his later critique of Platonic dualism on p.46; and chapter 4 entitled, "General Resurrection and Dualism"). It is wise to note his definition of the doctrine of dualism, "(1) that human beings consist of both material bodies and immaterial souls and (2) that the soul is the essence of the person (the real you is your soul, not your body). It then can be added that the body corrupts at death and eventually ceases to exist, but the soul is essentially immortal." Davis continues to "explore and defend a third way of understanding the traditional Christian notion of resurrection, a theory held in one form or another by virtually all (but not quite all) of the Church Fathers who discussed resurrection. I will call this theory 'temporary disembodiment.'" (p.86f). However Davis strongest arguments are found in Chapter 6 entitled, "General Resurrection and Physicalism" wherein he declares, "I am also of the opinion that the Christian view of resurrection is viable even on a materialist or phyicalist basis - that is to say, even if human beings are essentially and entirely material objects" (p.110). This emphasis on the physical aspect of the resurrection and the identity of man is one of Davis' major themes which he attempts to defend.

[Jennifer Robb · Rating 3 out of 5]

A (mostly) philosophical defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Ray Clendenen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've had this book on my shelves for several years and finally got around to reading it. I'm glad I did. It is a wonderful book not only on the resurrection of Jesus but also on the resurrection of the saints. Written by a conservative evangelical philosopher conversant with biblical exegesis, it has much to offer. I appreciate his philosophical, analytical approach, raising questions, offering possible answers, and arguing for the answer(s) most convincing to him. I didn't always agree, but his humble, honest attitude made this ok. He portrays the book as "a Christian philosophy of resurrection" that presents a "soft apologetic." That is, he argues that belief in Jesus's bodily resurrection and the bodily resurrection of those who belong to him by faith is rational from a supernaturalist perspective, that is, for one who accepts that God can act in history. He does not favor "hard apologetics," the view that it is irrational not to believe in the resurrection, because he does not think a convincing case has been made for it. Resurrection is "defensible on historical, philosophical, and theological grounds." It also has "important practical and theological ramifications." He argues against the view of some Christians that Jesus's empty tomb is not important for faith. He argues against "classical dualism," that the body is evil, and in favor of what he calls "temporary disembodiment." While the "soul" is separable from the body, neither body nor soul alone "constitutes a complete human being." His chapter on "universalism and judgment" argues against universalism and in support of hell as a place of miserable (though not fiery) separation from communion with God, but that those who are there would prefer it to heaven. He pleads ignorance of the fate of those who die in ignorance of Christ, but he conjectures that "there are ways" by which they "can be reconciled to God through Christ." One conjecture he likes is "postmortem evangelism," although he's disinclined to see this as offering a second chance to "those who have freely and knowingly chosen in this life to live apart from God." He does not discuss the doctrine of election, but he's clearly not a calvinist.