This is an enjoyable and quite helpful read, but it also contains some confusing parts. As with much of Tim Keller's work, there are some really profound insights, but there are also some frustrating arguments. Keller is learned and this book is well-researched, and while he is pastoral at times, sometimes I wish he would push in a little deeper into some of his bolder claims. In this review, I will proceed chronologically through the arguments of the book.
One of the medicines that our generation needs in abundance is a hope that is grounded in spite of human nature—something for which we have not properly accounted. The resurrection is the Christian's hope, and this book is filled with not only reasons for the reliability of the resurrection, but also with New Testament implications for the resurrection on us.
The book begins with reasons that we can trust that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead in accordance with the Scriptures, and I think this would be beneficial for any Christian to read in order to bolster their understanding of our reasonable faith. Basing most of his material from N.T. Wright's hefty volume on the resurrection, Keller begins by addressing commonly stated objections to the resurrection narrative. I include some brief summaries of the arguments below:
1. Objection: Theories of Jesus' resurrection came decades after his life.
The summary of 1 Cor. 15:3-7 about the resurrection was formulated within months of Jesus's death and was widespread by the time of writing, according to reasonable scholarship concerning this passage. Keller writes, "A growing movement of Jews who worshipped a human being as the Son of God was completely unprecedented. And it happened immediately after Jesus's death" (6).
2. Objection: The disciples were only speaking of the resurrection as his presence in their hearts.
This is not an adequate explanation for their speeches and writings, since they gave a time stamp for the resurrection, namely that our Lord rose on "the third day." This signals that this was being conveyed as a historical event.
3. Objection: The resurrection was a hoax.
There were hundreds of corroborating eyewitnesses, whom Paul recognizes explicitly (1 Cor. 15).
4. Objection: The ancients were a credulous people./The disciples convinced themselves that the resurrection occurred.
The claim of resurrection was an incredible claim in that culture, even as it is today: "Such a resurrection was too unimaginable for Jews" (8).
Next, Keller moves to provide Paul's evidence for the resurrection, which I summarize below:
1. The tomb was empty.
"The fact of the empty tomb is accepted by most scholars, including those who don't accept the resurrection...'it is hard to imagine belief in a risen Jesus getting very far if one could easily point to the grave in which he was still present'" (9, quotation from Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?).
2. A large and diverse group of people testified that they had seen the risen Jesus.
Paul speaks of hundreds of eyewitnesses of the risen Christ. In addition, the eyewitness accounts provided in the Gospels claim that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, and "Since women in that patriarchal culture were not allowed to give evidence in court, there would be no plausible reason that the gospel writers would have invented them" (10).
In summary, Keller cites a great quote from Wright, who says, "if you rule out a resurrection, you have a formidable challenge—to come up with a historically possible alternate explanation for these two facts, as well as for the birth of the church itself" (11).
Keller also provides a couple additional pieces of evidence:
3. The "strangeness of the risen Jesus" makes it unlikely that it was a fiction of the disciples.
Some Jewish apocalyptic literature include figures of blinding light, and biblical accounts also include dazzling or ghostly figures (Dan. 12:2-3, 1 Sam. 28:13), but Jesus appears with a resurrected body that has continuity and discontinuity with his former body (e.g. he retains his wounds, he is able to travel across space in supernatural ways), and he appears to have a "resuscitated" but "transformed" new body that has no precedence in literature. It is not plausible to believe that these stories were merely made up.
4. The early church's faith and belief in the resurrection is inexplicable otherwise.
Belief in the resurrection was universal among Christian belief, even though resurrection was unbelievable to the people of that generation and culture.
In an age that is dominated by the advances of science and technology, Keller is compelled to respond to the question, "What about empirical evidence?" In response, he helpfully acknowledges that while "no event in past history can be empirically proven the way something can be tested in a laboratory," it is also true that, as Wright argues, "No other explanations have been offered, in two thousand years of sneering skepticism...that can satisfactorily account for how the tomb came to be empty, how the disciples came to see Jesus, and how their lives and worldview were transformed" (14). Ours is a reasonable faith—we are not strictly "fideists" who have a blind faith. Ours is a historical faith built on certain essential historical facts, without which our entire faith is vain and we would be most pitiable. The resurrection is one of those historical facts. However, Keller writes pastorally when he reminds us, "Even if you come to believe, on rational grounds, that the resurrection of Jesus probably happened, you still must exercise faith to become a Christian...We must appropriate these truths personally, by faith" (15). All that I would add is that this does not come from the heart of man, but by the Spirit. While we do not exalt man's reason above the sovereign work of God, neither do we condemn reason, which is the faculty we use to comprehend the things of God. This section concerning reasons for the resurrection are helpful and compelling, and I think it would do Christians well to think about them.
One of Keller's main emphases throughout the book is that the resurrection has such profound bearing on us right now because "when Jesus rose, he brought the future kingdom of God into the present. It is not yet here fully but it is here substantially, and Christians live an impoverished life if they do not realize what is available to them" (24). This is a crucial part of his understanding of the kingdom of God. Citing Geerhardus Vos, Keller writes, "The kingdom of God, then, 'means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces'" (27). Keller rightly emphasizes that the "Kingdom is already here, but not yet in its fullness," and he cautions against overemphasizing either truth (29). One of the issues that I take with Keller in this book is that he seems to uncritically lean toward an over-realized eschatology at times when he writes about the renewal of society and culture using the resources of Christianity. To his credit, he strives for balance, but there are some statements that, though qualified, still could be interpreted as saying too much, such as: "The 'already' means that Christians can expect to use God's power to change social conditions and communities" (31). It is clear from other parts of the book that this is not a triumphalist view, but I don't think the reader is given any clues as to how to understand this "power to change." Elsewhere, he writes that "being a Christian makes us partners and participants with Christ in his work of spreading the healing and energizing kingdom power throughout the world" (47). If we are talking in a spiritual sense, I would agree entirely. In a physical and material sense, I might agree in a limited sense, but it is those types of statements that I think are easy to abuse. In this cultural moment, I'm afraid that the material understanding will take precedence over the more consequential spiritual understanding. However, this book is a good corrective for those who may be tempted to casually dismiss all social issues since "It's all going to burn anyway."
One of my favorite sections included a lot of great material about the display of the glory of God and how this changes us, since we are being conformed to the image of Christ as we behold Him in resurrected glory since we are united to Him. Keller also does a great job setting the resurrection as The Great Reversal, which follows a pattern of subversive patterns throughout Scripture, which G. K. Beale calls "God's ironic overturning of human wisdom" (61). God chose to show his power to save through the weakness of the Son in His death. Keller does a great job tracing out how this type of thinking pervades Pauline theology.
Keller also included two thought-provoking chapters about Jesus's post-resurrection encounters with various people, including a great section on Peter. Keller treads the oft-trodden ground of following Peter's story of failure and the subsequent portrait of restoration and forgiveness he receives from our Lord. Keller does an excellent job showing how Peter painfully experienced the fragility of his own self-constructed identity—based on his superiority over the other disciples—which led to hostility that came as a result of that fragile identity being challenged (as evidenced by his denials). In response, Jesus sought him in order that he might have a godly repentance, characterized by a sorrow and grief for offending one whom we love, rather than a worldly sorrow concerned only with the effects of our sin. Peter's paradigm for discipleship needed to be reoriented. In response, our Lord restored Peter with free grace, and the entire sequence of events reminds us that "A Christian identity is based ultimately on a realization of the magnitude of God's unchanging love for us" (104).
Another issue I have with this book is how limited (or non-existent) a role gospel proclamation plays. In speaking of our hopes, Keller writes, "Our goal is the future of the resurrection—the creation of a new humanity. And this will come about not with clashing swords but through deeds of sacrificial service, the mark of the upside-down dynamic of cross and resurrection. We secure true freedom and the good of others through the sacrifice of our own freedoms and goods" (134). A lot of that is all fine and good, except that its vision is anemic without the proclamation of the gospel at the center. Though there are certainly many parts of the book that would undermine this, it is possible to fill in these "deeds" with only elements of a social gospel. It must be explicitly stated that these self-sacrificing acts of good works are essential for Christian character and witness, but it is the preaching of the Word and the proclamation of the gospel that must be the primary mission of the Church. Souls depend on robust preaching, even when doing so is unpopular. This type of self-sacrifice is especially required in this moment and in every subsequent moment until our Lord returns in glory to consummate the kingdom. Deeds of righteousness and justice cannot be neglected, and they are invaluable for our testimony and witness, but faith comes from hearing the Word of God, and the ministry of the Word is the primary means God uses in the world to bring sinners to Himself. The resurrection demands proclamation, not just our imitation as a paradigm for sacrificial giving.
Keller's section on race (he acknowledges that this is a socially constructed term in the appendix) was mostly helpful. He emphasizes that race and ethnicity are relativized compared to our more fundamental identity: "in Christ." However, Christians—and here he is mainly speaking into the present moment—would do well to "be less defensive" and "quick to repent" while listening to others without a posture of self-justification (140). This is important to recognize, and I hope it is increasingly true of me.
Keller's connection between sexual relationships and the resurrection, which comes through the union we have in Christ, was very well done in my opinion. While discussing the early Church, Keller writes, "The biblical condemnation of porneia...was one of the distinctive marks of the early Christians...The Christian sex ethic was understood by the apostles to be a nonnegotiable part of orthodoxy" (148). Regarding the logic of sexual ethics, "Sexual union was made by God to deepen and reflect the whole life union of marriage, and only the whole life union of marriage qualified you for sexual union" (150). Keller notes that Paul argued that "sex must be a pointer to whole-life union with an earthly spouse" in 1 Cor. 6:16, and he also argued that "it also is to be a pointer to our whole-life union to Christ, our heavenly spouse" in 1 Cor. 6:15,17,18,19 (151). In summary, "our spiritual union with Christ is to be a model for sexual unions between human beings" (151).
One of my biggest frustrations with the book came when he, essentially, belittles personal morality and holiness as doing nothing of significance with relation to the decay around us compared to using the nebulous "liberating, repairing power of God" in society (156). Striving for personal holiness is an incredibly powerful force in the world, not to mention a primary responsibility. When we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it can have an outstanding effect on the society around us, which is easily demonstrable from the witness of Church history. This is so frustrating because I fear that this mentality can lead to distraction. We need more pastors to urge us unto holiness, not away from it.
The section on justice was almost just as frustrating. In many ways, there is a lot of good balance in this section. But, it is riddled with some shoehorned Tim Keller "third way"-isms. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it is what characterizes the political messaging of his that I have read. This political paradigm sometimes leads to careless caricatures, such as rendering laissez-faire capitalism incompatible with biblical economic justice for some unstated reason—presumably due to greed, which is endemic to human nature, not merely capitalism—though it is perfectly reasonable for Christians in a capitalistic system to voluntarily "share [their goods] with the poor and weaker of society" (162). Another issue is the conflation of defining justice and the gracious, voluntary actions taken by Christians in society.
The book concludes with a great reminder of the Christian hope for the future, which secularism cannot provide, especially after the carnage of the 20th century. All Christians would benefit from this chapter, and we must proclaim the hope it contains to the world. Though we must confront the evil resident in human nature, God graciously offers redemption. This is good news!