176. quantum theory & res. of jesus

Quantum Theory and the

Resurrection of JesusBy Anders S. Tune

Abstract: Ever since the time of Hume it has been a truism that the worldview of empirical science, andChristian assertion of the resurrection of Jesus, are antithetical to each other. Yet post-Newtonian science,and especially quantum theory, suggests the need for a reappraisal of this truism. This reappraisal will firstexamine the implications of the indeterminism of the quantum world, to consider the physical possibility ofJesus resurrection. Second, an appraisal of the historical evidence will suggest the likelihood of Jesusresurrection. Finally, I will consider some implications of all this for contemporary Christian thought.

Key Terms: contingency, determinism, indeterminism, miracle, modern physics, probability, quantumtheory, resurrection of Jesus, resurrection traditions

The title of this article might, at first look, seemincongruous to contemporary theological sensibil-ities. How might quantum theory and the resur-rection of Jesus belong together? These scientificand theological notions would seem, at first, tohave very little to do with each other. This apparentdisjunct between scientific inference and Christianconfession is a legacy that Christian thought hascontended with since the time of David Hume,whose skepticism about religious claims, and espe-cially the miracles of the Bible, was based on thesuccesses of Newtonian physics. Yet, because of thisvery basis in a Newtonian view of the universe, itis appropriate to revisit the assumption that thediscoveries and worldview of empirical science, espe-cially quantum theory, and Christian assertion ofthe resurrection of Jesus, are antithetical to eachother.

This reconsideration will proceed in three steps.First it will examine the view of the fundamentalnature of the universe as formulated in quantumtheory, and interpretations of the apparent indeter-minism of the quantum world. Here the possibilityof Jesus resurrection as a physical event will beconsidered. Second, it will look at the historicalevidence of Jesus resurrection, as found in the Gos-

pel narratives, to determine the likelihood of Jesusresurrection. We need to split the questions in thismanner since otherwise it might be impossible togive fair consideration to the strength of the histor-ical evidence of Jesus resurrection. It is too temptingsimply to dismiss it out of hand, assuming that suchthings simply cannot happen. But such an assump-tion needs to be tested. In the third and last part,this study will examine what this reconsideration ofthe resurrection of Jesus might suggest for contem-porary Christian thought.

Quantum Theory and the NewView of the Creation

The worldview of modern physics, founded onquantum theory and the theory of general relativity,allows a new opportunity to examine the Christianclaim of Jesus resurrection in the context of a newview of creation; this is because quantum theory is sodifferent from Newtonian physics. Why is this so? Inthe legacy of Newtonian physics, it was felt thatthere was really no room for miracles, let alone the

Anders S. Tune is a campus pastor at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio, where he also occasionally teaches courses. He holds the Ph.D.

from the Catholic University of America.

166 Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 43, Number 3 . Fall 2004

chief miracle of Christianity. David Hume wrotethat A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature .the proof against a miracle is as entire as any argu-ment from experience can possibly be imagined.1

Humes assertion was categorical, andNewtonian phys-ics gave him good reason to be categorical. Newtonstheories, Hume and others recognized, implied that ifall the proper initial conditions could be determined,any action or reaction in the universe could bedescribed according to these laws, because the universeacted in an essentially deterministic fashion.2 True,Newton himself believed God still intervened in thecreation, to make necessary corrections in the course ofthings.3 But Hume and others could see the full importof Newtons theories, that, at least theoretically, all thephysical processes of the universe, and eventually evenmental processes, could ultimately be explained interms of the interactions and behavior of particles,according to certain fundamental physical laws. Manyof the gaps that Newton believed existed in theuniverse, to be filled by God, were gradually filled inby the further discoveries and theories of physicists,chemists and biologists.4

But by 1900 serious questions were being raisedabout this Newtonian view of the fundamental natureof the physical universe; and since then quantumtheory has demonstrated that the universe is, in fact,much more complicated than the Newtonian viewsuggests.5 Beginning with Max Plancks quantumhypothesis in 1900, a new view of the dynamicsof the subatomic world began to emerge. As heconsidered the phenomenon of the black-bodyradiation curve, Planck proposed that energy wasabsorbed or emitted by atoms only in discreteamounts (what Albert Einstein would later termquanta), rather than in a continuously variableway as Newtonian physics assumed.6 Subsequentexperiments would support his proposal. Planckshypothesis was a remarkable intuition; yet hedescribed it as an act of sheer desperation, andhe spent the rest of his career trying to reconcile theNewtonian and quantum views.7

However, others saw a different theoreticalpotential in the quantum hypothesis. In 1926 MaxBorn presented a paper in which he proposed thatthe waves describing the movement of quantumparticles are waves of probability and that they

are not material waves at all, as Erwin Schrodingerand others were still assuming.8 Borns proposalcaused an uproar in the physics community because,if true, it would be the death-knell to determinism inphysics. Born realized that quantum theory wasdescribing a new idea of causality, in which it isprobability that is causally determined into thefuture, not individual events.9 The most criticaljudgment on this new idea of causality came fromEinstein himself, in a letter to Born. Quantummechanics is certainly imposing, Einstein wrote.But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet thereal thing. The theory says a lot, but does not reallybring us any closer to the secret of the old one. I, atany rate, am convinced that He is not playing atdice.10 Einstein and others wondered: if the mereprobability of the behavior of subatomic particleswas the best one could discover, then how couldsuch particles behavior be described as predictableand certain? And how would their behavior relate tothe predictable and seemingly determined behaviorof larger entities like billiard balls and planets andgalaxies?

Nevertheless, Niels Bohr, Max Born, WernerHeisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and others continuedto develop their probabilistic interpretation of quan-tum theory. Their achievement, the Copenhageninterpretation, rested on two pillars: Heisenbergsuncertainty principle, and Bohrs principle of com-plementarity.11 Heisenbergs insight, which hedescribed mathematically in 1927, was that it isimpossible to describe, at the same time, the preciseposition and momentum of a subatomic particle likean electron; the best you can get is a statistical orprobabilistic description.12 The uncertainty Heisen-berg described in his equation was implied by Bornswaves of probability. Bohr then showed thatknowledge of these physical phenomena dependedon the type of experiment used to observe them.Some experiments will show electrons behaving aswaves and some will show them as particles. Bohrsprinciple of complementarity recognized that thesame subatomic particle can, paradoxically, demon-strate mutually exclusive properties, dependingon which apparatus is used to study it.13 Thusthe Copenhagen interpretation asserted a realitythat was, instead of determined and objective,

Quantum Theory and the Resurrection of Jesus . Anders S. Tune 167

a) statistical and probabilistic, and b) partly depend-ent on how it is observed.14 To describe photonsprecisely (are they waves? particles?) is impossible,since our instruments are incapable of measuringboth properties simultaneously. Indeed, our instru-ments will affect the outcome of our observations.Thus, held Bohr, only a principle of complementar-ity, which holds the wave picture and particle picturetogether while not resolving one in favor of theother, is adequate to describe this paradox imposedby the rigorous mathematical requirements of theuncertainty principle.

Einstein came back with arguments attackingthe Copenhagen interpretation. In 1935 he andothers proposed the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR)thought experiment, which seemed to show thatthe Copenhagen interpretation violated the theoryof special relativity, by requiring a signal betweenparticles to travel faster than the speed of light.15

Schrodinger added his own opposition to Bohrsview with his ingenious paradox of a cat that seemsto be both alive and dead at the same time, if onewere to accept the Copenhagen interpretationsnotion of a superposition of wave and particlestates.16 Other interpretations since then have alsobeen proposed to try and preserve determinism inquantum behavior. These include David Bohmstheory of hidden variables,17 Eugene Wigners theoryof the collapse of the wave function in conscious-ness,18 and Hugh Everetts many-worlds interpre-tation of quantum behavior.19 Yet none of these haveshown themselves to be adequate alternatives to theCopenhagen interpretation.20 And when the EPRthought experiment was experimentally tested byAlain Aspect and his colleagues in 19811982, itsassumptions were found to be invalid.21 So it is thatBorns wry comment, from 1949, still captures thesuccess of quantum theory, and its radical implica-tions for our understanding of the fundamentalphysical universe:

if God has made the world a perfect mechan-ism, he has at least conceded so much to ourimperfect intellect that, in order to predictlittle parts of it, we need not solve innumer-able differential equations but can use dicewith fair success . . . . it is still we mortals who

are playing dice for our little purposes ofprognosisGods actions are as mysteriousin classical Brownian motion as in radio-activity and quantum radiation, or in life atlarge.22

The consequences of quantum theory for modernscience have been astounding. Quantum theory has,in the words of Heinz Pagels, become the mostpowerful mathematical tool for the explication ofnatural phenomena that ever fell into humanhands, leading to the development of new inven-tions, such as the transistor, the microchip, lasers,and cryogenic technology.23 At the theoretical level,it has provided the basis for understanding chemicalbonds, molecular chemistry and molecular physics(groundwork to the discovery of DNA), supercon-ductivity, nuclear physics, and astrophysics, amongothers. It is hard to overemphasize its importance incontemporary science and technology.

But almost all of these consequences pertain tothe microworld of photons, electrons, gluons, andother subatomic particles. What about the macro-world of billiard balls, planets, galaxies, or of humanevents and the movement of time, where random-ness seems less prevalent and intrinsic to things?Clearly, there is a stability to the macroworld thatappears to be explicably causal and even deterministic,or at least nearly so. The human mind averages outthe various probabilities of events in everyday life,giving rise to a commonsense understanding of reg-ularity in human experience. Still, in principle,there is no absolute certainty for events. The reasonfor this lies ultimately in the statistical interpretationof quantum mechanics.24 Even in the macroworldevents have probabilities associated with them, andthe presence of probabilities is inescapable, partlybecause the macroworld is founded upon the micro-world of quantum mechanics. The probabilistic nat-ure of chaotic systems, while not indeterminate inthe mode of quantum interactions, nonetheless alsocontributes to the uncertainties found in events inthe macroworld, like the flows of fluids, predator-prey population fluctuations, or weather patterns.25

Thus the certainty of future events is always a rela-tive thing, even if an event has only an infinitesi-mally small chance of occurring or not occurring.


Miracles, Again?

This is pertinent to the issue of extremely unlikelyevents termed miracles in Christianity. Considerthe example under study in this article. What is theprobability of a person dying and then coming backalive from the dead? First consider the microworld ofquantum states. Here there is complete reversibilityof interactions. Quantum state A can readily becomequantum state B, as well as B become A. It is only inobservation, an event in the macroworld, that thechange in states is known to be irreversible.26 Thusin theory it is possible, even if only infinitesimallylikely, that a certain set of quantum states andhigher-ordered structures (such as a living humanbody) could change (become decaying flesh, water,and various gases) and then spontaneously return tothe previous conditions (the living body).

However, in the macroworld this seems to beimpossible. In the macroworld the phenomenon ofentropy, and its expression in the arrow of time,makes such reversibility extremely, almost infinitely,unlikely.27 In the macroworld we see a collection oftrillions of molecules spontaneously going fromorder to disorder (the increase of entropy), and notvice versa. True, statistically speaking, there is apossibility of the molecules spontaneously reversingthemselves from disorder to order; but this probabil-ity is on the order of once in billions of billions oflifetimes of our universe.28 Its likelihood is perhapssomething on the order of the probability of theright quantum conditions coming together in avacuum to produce a universe that can support lifein the first place, according to the view of some.29 Itis not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely. Thusit is possible, but only infinitesimally likely, that aperson could die, and then in a few days time returnto life, spontaneously reversing the decay and dis-order of an organisms death into the order of life.

At this point it would seem that we are back atHumes conclusion, that the proof against amiracle is as entire as any argument from experi-ence can possibly be imagined. Yet one key differ-ence remains between the assumptions of HumesNewtonian worldview, and the worldview of modern

quantum theory. The determinism of Humesview precludes the possibility of an event like ahuman being coming back to life from the dead.The indeterminism of modern quantum theory can-not preclude this possibility. While it is only infini-tesimally likely, it is still not impossible. There canbe exceptions to what otherwise appears in themacroworld to be the iron law of physical necessity.A judgment about the likelihood of its occurrencethen depends on a study of the evidence. But thepossibility cannot be precluded, since denial of thispossibility would be inconsistent with the indeter-minism of the physical universe manifest at thequantum level, as described by modern physics.

Bohr, Born and Einstein understood what was atstake in the view of the physical universe proposed inthe Copenhagen interpretation. Is the fundamentalorder of the physical universe deterministic or inde-terministic? Today most physicists conclude thatsuch indeterminacy is indeed how things are.30 Andseveral scientist-theologians provide interpretationsof this new view of the universe. Ian Barbour findsthat the uncertainty principle indicates an objectiveindeterminacy in nature, with similar contingenciesin other aspects of the world, such as evolution andhuman freedom; still, the evidences of randomnessat different levels may have no necessary connectionswith each other, even though they might influenceeach other at times.31 Arthur Peacocke comes to asimilar conclusion, that indeterminacy and chance,operating within a lawlike framework, from quan-tum fluctuations to evolution to human behavior,provide the basis of the inherent creativity of thenatural order.32 John Polkinghorne emphasizes theimportance of the structural randomness of thephysical universe, in which the intrinsic unpredict-ability of chaotic systems leaves room for theoperation of top-down organizing principles.33

While their precise characterizations might differ,each writer concludes that indeterminism is intrinsicto the physical universe, and that it is theologicallymeaningful.34

But what do these traits of indeterminacy andcontingency mean theologically?35 They can suggestthat the universe is, by its very nature, porous toGods intervention. While God does not require sucha structure to the universe for divine intervention (as


will be discussed later), the universe in fact doesappear to have, at certain points, in theological per-spective, an indeterminate nature that is porous oropen to unusual divine actions. Certainly, such aporosity cannot preclude, or prove, Gods miraculousinvolvement with his creation. God is always free toact as God sees fit; and, as a rule, Gods actions aremysterious, and hidden, to us. But, in theologicalperspective, miracles can be understood as remark-able, unexpected interventions by God in the universeand in human history, instead of violations of thelaws of nature, as Hume would have it.36 The uni-verse allows for such interventions because it is full ofindeterminacies and contingencies, and is not a closedsystem.37

Thus, while the probability that such a vast num-ber of indeterminate and contingent interactionscould occur to produce a miracle is extremely low,such an occurrence cannot be categorically pre-cluded. In saying this, I am not arguing that such amiracle, like the resurrection of Jesus, was a fluke ofnature; as a miracle, it would be Gods act. I amarguing that its occurrence cannot be precluded bythe perspective of modern science. Still, to a non-believing observer of such an event, if the historicalevidence were strong enough, it might appear to be ahighly anomalous and irregular physical event, aphysical aberration. But the person who believes inGod would probably see it differently, as a physicalexpression of the Creators creative and saving good-ness. Other views of it would also be possible. Whatsuch an event might mean will be further explored atthe end of this article.

Historical Inquiry and theLikelihood of Jesus Resurrection

The argument just made establishes, I believe, thepossibility of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, even ifit is only a very, very small possibility. But the like-lihood of his actually having risen from the deadmust be found by looking at the historical evidence.Here historical critical study of the New Testamentis at its most critical, because it is dealing with aclaim by early Christians that something happened

which is truly singular, without any precedent andcontrary to all we know from our experience abouthow the world is.

For this reason, the traditional Christian assertionof the bodily resurrection of Jesus continues to behighly controversial. The approaches of Karl Barthand Rudolf Bultmann in the earlier part of thiscentury, with their emphases on theological meaningrather than historical eventedness, were somewhateclipsed by new arguments in the 1960s and laterover what actually happened after Jesus death.38

Among the most significant of these was WolfhartPannenbergs argument for the historicity of Jesusresurrection, and reactions to his argument, andPannenbergs placement of this assertion at the cen-ter of his theology.39 More recently, one need onlyconsider studies which argue against the accuracy ofthis assertion, like Gerd Ludemanns examination ofthe biblical evidence, or the more systematic analysisof John Hick, and peruse the variety of responses tothese studies, to see just how much is at stake for allthe various approaches to Jesuss resurrection.40

Thus, the issue of the historicity of Jesuss resurrec-tion needs to be approached very carefully, with asfew preconceptions as possible.41

Which data should be analyzed? This study willexamine and compare details in 1 Cor. 15, Mk. 16,Mt. 28, Lk. 24, and John 2021, accounts whichcomprise at least five different and possibly independ-ent traditions about the resurrection of Jesus.42 Theearliest extant tradition, 1 Cor. 15:35, seems to bea pre-pauline proclamation that he adapts for hisletter. Mk. 16:18 is probably based on pre-markantraditions. While Mt. 28:110 is based on Marksaccount, many scholars consider Mt. 28:1620 tobe based on an independent tradition. Lk. 24:112seems to be an independent tradition, edited withreference to Mk. 16, while Lk. 24:1353 holdsindependent traditions received and reworked byLuke. Jn. 20:118 seems to be independent ofSynoptic traditions, though perhaps related; Jn.20:1929 is an independent tradition, with parallelsto elements in Mt. and Lk.; Jn. 21:124 may beindependent of the traditions in Jn. 20.

Comparing these accounts, it appears that thereare some similarities among them, and many dissimi-larities. Differences include such things as which


disciples were present at the empty tomb; what theyfound there; what they heard, saw and said; how theauthorities responded; how many times Jesusappeared to the disciples; and more could be listed.Such dissimilarities have given many scholars reasonto doubt the credibility of these reports.43 Butamong these diverse traditions, some similaritiesare found. All except 1 Cor. 15 mention an emptytomb.44 Raymond Brown concludes that this trad-ition is older than the gospel narratives and likelyhas a historical basis, and Reginald Fuller finds thatit goes back to a time immediately after Jesus death,and a Palestinian context.45 Also, all the resurrectionaccounts except 1 Cor. 15 agree that Mary Magd-alene was among the first witnesses of the resurrec-tion of Jesus.46 All except 1 Cor. 15 and Mk. 16describe disciples seeing Jesus in resurrected, bodilyform;47 and even though 1 Cor. 15 does not expli-citly say this, the term ophthe can be reasonablyinterpreted as implying it.48 All, except perhaps 1Cor. 15, show that Jesus resurrection was an unanti-cipated surprise.49 This is demonstrated in the fourgospels when the women go to the tomb expecting tofind a body that they can anoint, and are surprised tofind that the tomb is empty, and that somethingextraordinary and unanticipated has occurred. Onemight also list indirect evidence, such as the remark-able boldness and confidence of the disciples afterthis event, even to the point of martyrdom, or the factthat Sunday, rather than Saturday, became the Chris-tian day of worship in the early church.50

Yet biblical scholars come to different conclusionsabout the historical events lying behind these NewTestament accounts. One conclusion of many scholarsis that the original witness of Jesus resurrection wasPeter, and that he probably saw him in Galilee, notJerusalem.51 This is based on the antiquity of Paulsaccount in 1 Cor. 15:3ff, the oldest extant version ofthe events surrounding Jesus resurrection. But thisconclusion needs careful consideration. Paulsaccount is rather general, with limited detail, as is tobe expected of a creedal tradition; and 1 Cor. 15:35 isprobably a creedal tradition.52 This lack of detailshould not be pressed too much, to try and elicitimplications it might not hold. Further, the resurrec-tion traditions of Mk. 16, Mt. 28, Lk. 24 and John2021 are more concerned with specific details.

Looking at the Evidence

So when the antiquity of the tradition of MaryMagdalenes presence at the empty tomb is disputedbecause it is not mentioned by Paul, such an infer-ence seems hasty.53 The tradition of Mary Magd-alene being the first witness has strong NewTestament support, and it need not conflict withPaul in 1 Cor. 15. In the gospels, the two witnessesof the resurrection (Mary Magdalene and Peter) areclose upon each other; and Peter would have a moreauthoritative reputation than Mary Magdalene forPauls hearers. Pauls failure to mention her maysimply be evidence of his emphasis on the authorityof the earliest witnesses, with Peters authority beingmore weighty. To argue that Pauls silence on thesethings precludes the accuracy of the gospel accountsseems to be a case of the theory driving the data,rather than vice versa.

On the point of the bodily resurrection of Jesusthe controversy becomes most intense. What shouldwe make of the New Testament evidence? GerdLudemann declares categorically that the fleshlyobjectification of Jesus is a secondary addition andunhistorical .The original seeing of the Easterwitnesses was a seeing in the spirit and not the seeingof a revived corpse.54 Robert Funk concludes thatwhat began in the earliest appearances as luminousapparitions of Jesus became, in controversy withgnostic views, a movement to replace a disembod-ied supernatural figure with a more tangible, mate-rial bodily resurrection, since, [to] the orthodoxchurch, the gnostic view undermined the claims ofthe Jerusalem authorities and the original dis-ciples.55 In a more moderate vein, Fuller concludesthat the early churchs assertion of the bodily resur-rection of Jesus should be interpreted in such a waythat the Christian cannot be required to believe thatthe Risen One literally walked on earth in an earthlyform , or that he physically ate fish , or that heinvited physical touch; rather, it was a transform-ation into an entirely new (eschatological) mode ofexistence.56 Yet these conclusions derive from anarrow interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:3ff, without givingdue consideration to all the diverse and independent


resurrection traditions in the New Testament. Theseconclusions also seem to depend as much on Enlight-enment assumptions about Biblical miracles as theydo on interpretations of the Biblical traditions.

A different approach to these traditions is, Ibelieve, more fruitful. Here I rely on the approachof John Meier to questions about the historicity ofmaterial in the gospels.57 He draws on the criteria ofembarrassment (or contradiction), discontinuity,multiple attestation, coherence, and rejection/execu-tion.58 One important assumption in his approach isthat judgments about the historicity of events pur-ported in the New Testament must be expressed interms of greater or lesser probability. Thus, theresults from such an analysis of the data will nottell us precisely, with certainty, what did or did nothappen, from the perspective of historical inquiry.Rather, the results will tell us what likely did or didnot happen. To ask more than that from the data, asa historical inquiry, is to ask too much.

When examined in light of Meiers criteria, thetraditions about Jesus resurrection yield interestingresults. The criterion of embarrassment or contradic-tion highlights how dissimilarities in the accounts,potentially embarrassing for early Christian proclam-ation, were retained in their transmission, evidencinga conservative attitude toward preserving these trad-itions.59 The criterion of discontinuity underscoresthe oddness of the resurrection of one man, and anexecuted Messiah at that, rather than the resurrectionof all the faithful.60 The agreements of the resurrec-tion accounts on a few key points becomes significantbecause of the multiple attestations involved, espe-cially since these traditions come from several inde-pendent sources. The criterion of coherence revealscontinuity between Jesus likely prediction of hisdeath, and possible prediction of his resurrection,with what finally did happen, despite the utter sur-prise of his disciples at this outcome. And the con-nection between the resurrection of Jesus and hisviolent death is very clear. Indeed, the only thingthat has broader attestation in the New Testamentthan Jesus resurrection is the fact that he died such adeath.

From all this it seems clear that from early on thefirst Christians were convinced that Jesus had risenfrom the dead as a living human being, in his own

body, that he had appeared to them, shared physicalexperiences with them, and blessed and commis-sioned them to bring this good news to all theworld.61 It was the same Jesus they had knownbefore his death, now able to be present amongthem in a transformed, resurrected physicality. Allof this taken together, I propose, suggests that eventhough historical inquiry cannot conclusively demon-strate the accuracy of the accounts, these commonelements of the accounts are likely accurate. Thus itcan be argued from the historical evidence, thoughnot proved, that the followers of Jesus discovered histomb to be empty several days after his death, andwere surprised by his living, physical presenceamong them in succeeding days. Such an event,and the openness in the physical universe to Godsinterventions implied by it, cannot be precluded bymodern science.

It must be acknowledged, however, that no mat-ter how much one might agree theoretically that theresurrection of Jesus can be considered in this way, itis in fact very difficult to acknowledge it happenedunless one believes it happened. It cannot be proven,scientifically or historically, that Jesus rose from thedead on the third day, in a resurrected body. Faithremains the key element in acknowledging, acceptingand understanding the resurrection of Jesus. But theargument made here still holds, in a logical sense.Certainly, the central role of faith in accepting andunderstanding the resurrection of Jesus cannot bediminished. Still, the evidence for his resurrectionshould be considered on its own merits, neitherexpecting too much nor too little from it.

The Resurrection of Jesus andChristian Thought

So far I have argued that modern physics allows forthe possibility of an event like the resurrection ofJesus, even if this possibility is very, very slight. Ihave also argued that the historical evidence for theresurrection of Jesus, taken on its own withoutassuming the impossibility of such an event, isstrong enough to suggest it likely occurred. Takentogether, these two arguments conclude that the


resurrection of Jesus most likely occurred, though itcannot be proven to have occurred. To a modernunbelieving observer, it might seem to be an extremelyunlikely and random aberration. To the believer, itwould seem to be the intervention of God in a parti-cular time and place, among a certain group of people,in a particular mans life.

In this regard it is significant that this event was acomplete surprise to Jesus disciples, a point thatsome New Testament writers, especially Paul, seemto gloss over in their attempts to show that it waspredicted in Scripture. It is something that shouldnot happen, yet it does happen. It is only later thatthe followers of Jesus and the later New Testamentwriters begin to see the big picture of what it means,and then only in a process they describe as no lessthan Gods own Spirit giving them understanding.Ideas from the Jewish thought of the time, ideas thatwould have been common currency for the disciplesof Jesus, like Gods creation of the world, Godsjustice and mercy, the final judgment, the resurrec-tion of the just, all these ideas still made sense tothem. But now they would make sense in a new way,with a new urgency. Now they knew that the pro-mises of God to Israel had been fulfilled in theresurrection of Jesus.62 And they would risk theirlives to share this good news.

What might this mean for contemporary Chris-tian thought?63 The modern scientific discovery ofindeterminacy in physical nature at the molecularlevel and beneath, as well as the role of chance andmutation in biological and other macroworld pro-cesses, provides a new opportunity for Christianreflection, especially on the resurrection of Jesus.But theologians do not fully agree on this. IanBarbour notes correlations between the modernscientific paradigm and Christian process thought,especially the latters acceptance of indeterminacy asone of its basic postulates.64 Yet he also seems tolimit Gods activity to natural processes like evolu-tion, interpreted in a theistic and Christian way,without recourse to any notion of the miraculous.65

Similarly, Arthur Peacocke understands God to beinvolved in exploration of the many kinds of unful-filled potentialities of the universe he has created,though not likely in the manner of miraculous inter-ventions.66 John Polkinghorne sees evidence for

Gods activity in the increasing complexificationin cosmic history demonstrated in cosmic and bio-logical evolution, and in particular critical pointsat which a divine influence was exercised in parti-cular ways, which are scientifically undiscerniblebecause of the cloudy nature of these events.67

Elizabeth Johnson, working with Thomistic cat-egories of primary and secondary causes as well asfeminist insights into relationality, concludes thatAbsolute Holy Mystery [God] dwells within, encom-passes, empowers the evolutionary process, makingthe world through the process of things being them-selves, thus making the world through chance.68

Wolfhart Pannenberg finds that the biblical beliefin God as creator asserts the incalculability and con-tingency of each individual event [as] an expression ofthe freedom of the Creator, so that the continuationof creaturely forms and states is at every momentmiraculous.69 Thus, while many contemporary theo-logians give significant place to the role of indetermin-acy in their understandings of Gods relationship tothe universe, only a few emphasize or, in some cases,even allow for miraculous interventions by God.

Yet this last point should be revisited, in light ofwhat I have argued here about the resurrection ofJesus, because of what this event suggests about thenature of things. In Christian perspective, the resur-rection of Jesus implies that the universe is porousto the interventions of God, a porosity located in theuniverses contingent nature. Certainly, God does notrequire this porosity to intervene or interact with thecreation, since God is free to do what God wills to do.But the physical realities described by modernphysics, in theological perspective, suggest that sucha porosity is, in fact, there, as part of the fundamentalstructure of the universe as created by God.70 Theindeterminacy of the quantum world becomes in thisperspective a mask for God, hiding Gods continuingcreation, suggesting the universes utter dependenceon the God who, Paul tells us, calls into existence thethings that do not exist (Rom. 4:17). And God doesnot will destruction for creaturely life, but will remakeit, and not let death to be its final word.71

Further, there appears to be a purposeful direc-tion to the course of both human history and naturalhistory, toward a goal suggested by Jesus own resur-rection event.72 This is the eschatological horizon in


Jesus teaching highlighted by many biblical scho-lars. In his resurrection this horizon does not merelyremain an idea but becomes a reality God hasbrought about in this one instance, and promisesto bring about in every instance, for all creation.The heat death of the universe described bymodern physics, which in millions of billions ofyears finds entropy ending the possibility of anyfurther physical processes in the universe, is not whatGod has in store for the creation. Rather, there is afinal meaning to the universe, disclosed in Jesusresurrection and his new, eschatological existence:God will make the universe new. Another miracle,even bigger, waits at the end of all things, becauseof Gods unconditional love for humans and allcreation.

Finally, Jesus identity is intimately tied to theidentity of the God who brought this about, whichplaces Jesus pre-resurrection life and death in a newlight. This is the point made by Wolfhart Pannenbergand Karl Rahner.73 Jesus resurrection means that hehad, and has, a special relationship with God,whom he called Father. At the very least, ittends to validate the claims he made about himself,that he spoke for God, that he could heal andforgive sins in Gods name, that in his ministry hewas bringing in the kingdom of God. The deathand resurrection of Jesus suggest that God involvesGods self intimately in the sufferings, tragedies andjoys of creaturely life, in surprising ways. And thereis also the suggestion of a modern meaning to thesacramental dimension of Christian confession ofthe resurrection of Jesus. It can mean that, to Chris-tian eyes, because of his resurrection and its escha-tological meaning, because of Gods presence to andin all things as creator and redeemer, Jesus Christ ispresent in every part of the universe, from quarks toplanets to DNA to black holes and galaxies, andthat he is present in mercy. Is this merely hyperbole?It could certainly seem that way. Yet the event fromwhich this Christian vision and hope gains its bearingshould give one pause. For the God who created allthings, and freely sustains them in existence, is also freeto act in their midst in mercy, for their restoration andsalvation. The Christian argument is that God has soacted in Jesus. And modern science, remarkably, canplay a constructive role in this argument.

Endnotes

1. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, inAn Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and a Letter from a Gentle-man to His Friend in Edinburgh, ed. by Eric Steinberg (Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company, 1977), 76.

2. In a previous passage in his Enquiry Hume acknowledges just howimportant Newtons achievements and view of the physical universe werefor the intellectual climate in which Humes own views could develop;see Enquiry, 89. Also see Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historicaland Contemporary Issues, (New York: HarperCollins, Inc., 1997),165166.

3. Dudley Shapere, Newton, Isaac, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,vol. 5, eds. Paul Edwards et al. (New York: The Macmillan Co. & The FreePress, 1967), 490491.

4. Ernan McMullin, Natural Science and Belief in a Creator: Histor-ical Notes, in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest forUnderstanding, eds. Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and GeorgeV. Coyne, S.J. (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988), 66.

5. I want to thank William Dollhopf, chair of the Department ofPhysics at Wittenberg University, for his critical insights and his excellentsuggestions for this article.

6. Heinz R. Pagels, The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Languageof Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982), 26. Pagels provides anexcellent non-technical account of quantum theorys development, and alucid explanation of its meaning.

7. Ibid., 26.

8. Physical Aspects of Quantum Mechanics, in Max Born, Physics inMy Generation (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1969), 12. The presentationwas in 1926; the subsequent article was published in Nature 119 (1927),translated by Robert Oppenheimer.

9. Pagels, 82, emphasis mine. C. J. Isham notes that while probabilitiesof subatomic behaviors, rather than individual subatomic events, evolve indynamical systems, the dynamical systems still evolve deterministically; seeQuantum Theories of the Creation of the Universe, in Quantum Cosmol-ogy and the Laws of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, eds.Robert J. Russell, Nancey Murphy and C. J. Isham, 2nd ed. (Vatican Cityand Berkeley: Vatican Observatory Publications and The Center for The-ology and the Natural Sciences, 1999), 65.

10. Albert Einstein, in a letter to Max Born on December 4, 1926, inThe Born-Einstein Letters. Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Maxand Hedwig Born from 19161955 with commentaries by Max Born, trans.by Irene Born (London: Macmillan Press, 1971), 91.

11. Pagels, 87.

12. Ibid., 91.

13. Ibid., 94.

14. Ibid., 95.

15. Jim Baggott, The Meaning of Quantum Theory: A Guide for Studentsof Chemistry and Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 99.

16. Ibid., 104.

17. Ibid., 162ff.

18. Ibid., 187ff.

19. Ibid., 194ff. The problems posed to this theory by the lack of anyevidence of parallel universes is discussed by William R. Stoeger in Con-temporary Physics and the Ontological Status of the Laws of Nature, inQuantum Cosmology, 224225.


20. See John Polkinghornes critique of these views in The QuantumWorld (London and New York: Longman, 1984), 5669.

21. Baggott, 139ff.

22. Max Born, Einsteins Statistical Theories, in Max Born, Physics inMy Generation (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1969), 63. Originally pub-lished in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949).

23. Pagels, 9798. C. J. Isham notes that for most physicists quantumtheory is seen as a black-box that churns out useful results, but which givesno direct picture of (or assigns any meaning to) the reality that is assumedby most scientists to lie beneath their observations. See his article Quan-tum Theories in Quantum Cosmology, 87.

24. Pagels, 117.

25. One of the best discussions of the philosophical and theologicalimplications of chaos theory is found in Robert J. Russell, et al., eds., Chaosand Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Vatican City andBerkeley: Vatican Observatory Publications and the Center for Theologyand the Natural Sciences, 2nd ed., 1997). Contributors propose various waysto understand chaos, but two views predominate. John Polkinghorne arguesthat chaos implies an openness in physical phenomena that allows for atrue kind of top-down causality in which God can affect events in thephysical universe (154). Yet others, in the same volume, maintain thatchaotic phenomena are essentially deterministic, and do not provideroom for divine intervention. Wesley Wildman and Robert J. Russellconclude that chaos theory, rather than supporting metaphysical indeter-minism, instead strengthens the hypothesis of metaphysical determinism,arguing that many kinds of apparent randomness in nature should besubsumed under deterministic covering laws (84). Theological implicationsof this point are delineated by Willem Drees (227228) and Thomas Tracy(313314).

26. Pagels, 131.

27. The phenomenon of life, while perhaps appearing to be an excep-tion to entropy, is not. Life, in fact, uses entropy to its advantage, to buildits complexity; on this see Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time,expanded ed. (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), 156; and Arthur Peacocke,Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and BecomingNatural, Divine andHuman (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 3132. Still, in the naturalworld of living organisms, there appear to be no exceptions to the finalityand irreversibility of the death of an organism.

28. Pagels, 127.

29. Pagels discusses the theory of the universe as a spontaneous conver-sion of the vacuum into a Big Bang, an event that has an infinitesimal butfinite probability; see pp. 318319.

30. On theological aspects of chance in the universe see Elizabeth A.Johnson, Does God Play Dice? Divine Providence and Chance, Theo-logical Studies 57 (Mar. 1996), 318. Ultimately, it is impossible to knowwhether chance events are truly chance, or if they camouflage Gods inter-ventions.

31. Barbour, 193, 212, 231, 235.

32. Peacocke, 65; see pp. 47ff, 115ff, for his extended discussions of thissubject.

33. John Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 25, 77.

34. Their respective views on whether or not God intervenes throughmiracles will be discussed later in the article.

35. This is contingency understood as uncertainty of occurrence, ratherthan as pure chance; see the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), s.v.

36. Cf. Keith Wards definition of miracles, in the context of quantumtheory, as discontinuous emergent events which disclose the underlyingcharacter of the divine presence and prefigure the consummation of value

which is the goal of creation, disclosing its spiritual foundation and goal;in God as a Principle of Cosmological Explanation, in Quantum Cosmol-ogy, 260.

37. My view differs from William Pollards view in Chance and Provi-dence (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1958), 66, where he identifiesthe Biblical notion of providence with the appearance of chance andaccident in history. While chance in the physical universe might be acover for Gods determining all things, as Pollard argues, it might alsosimply be chance as a creature of Gods making. It is impossible to knowone way or the other. My view is closer to Nancey Murphys position, thatby tampering with initial conditions at the quantum level, God can bringabout extraordinary events, events out of keeping with the general regular-ities we observe Chaos and Complexity, 347. I would emphasize, however,that such a proposal will always be speculative, since the indeterminacies ofquantum mechanics hide any evidence of Gods action at this level of thephysical universe. And, theologically speaking, God might will and create insuch a way, or might not, and is fully free to do as he wills. In anotherapproach, Mark William Worthing, in God, Creation, and ContemporaryPhysics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 142146, makes the interestinganalogy of miracles to the notion of singularities in physics. Arthur Pea-cocke, on the other hand, concludes that given the growing ability of thesciences to give intelligible naturalistic explanationsno eventspassthrough this sieve, but consideration of this possibility can never be entirelyprecluded; see his Theology for a Scientific Age, 183.

38. William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for theHistoricity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Studies in the Bible and Early Chris-tianity, Vol. 16 (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), xixiii.

39. See his work JesusGod and Man, 2nd ed., trans. by LewisL. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,1968), 53108.

40. See Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience,Theology, trans. by John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994),174176, 180181; and John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate:Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,1993), 24.

41. Scholarship on the resurrection of Jesus, including its historicity andmeaning, is immense, and I cannot address it all here. Some of the moreimportant works are Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and BodilyResurrection of Jesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1973); Reginald Fuller,The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1980); Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contem-porary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984); GerdLudemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology; Gavin DCosta, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford, UK and Rockport, MA:Oneworld Publications, 1996); and Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall,and Gerald OCollins, eds., The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposiumon the Resurrection of Jesus, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).N. T. Wrights recent book on the subject, Resurrection of the Son of God,vol. 3, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Augsburg Fortress,2003), was published too late for consideration in this article.

42. Detailed discussion of these accounts is beyond the scope of thisarticle, but can be found in Brown, Fuller, Perkins, and Ludemann, as wellas in various commentaries on the individual New Testament books. I drawon Perkins for the likely provenances of these accounts; see Perkins, 8889,114116, 126127, 131, 151, 157, 163, 168169, 172178.

43. Some of these dissimilarities, and the problems they have raisedfor belief in the resurrection, are discussed in Brown, 99102; and in Fuller,26.

44. Mk. 16:6; Mt. 28:6, 13; Lk. 24:3, 2324; Jn. 20:2, 13.

45. See Brown, 126; Fuller, 4849, 56, 69.

46. Mk. 16:1; Mt. 28:1; Lk. 24:10, 22; Jn. 20:1, 11. Brown, 122, note204, observes that the mention of women as witnesses seems authentic, sincein that culture womens testimony would have less public authority.


47. 1 Cor. 15:57; Mt. 28:9, 17; Lk. 24:1516, 36; Jn. 20:1415, 19,26, 21:4. Fuller, 115, describes such an emphasis on the bodily resurrectionof Jesus as quite contrary to the apocalyptic framework of 1 Cor. 15:5,and to the views of Paul, Mark and Matthew; it is, in his view, a progres-sive materialization by the Biblical writers (123).

48. See Stephen T. Davis, Seeing the Risen Jesus, in The Resurrection,134147. A similar point is made by Hans Conzelmann in A Commentaryon the First Epistle to the Corinthians, HermeneiaA Critical and HistoricalCommentary on the Bible, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1975), 257, note 74. However, Brown describes the wide variety ofmeanings the term can have (9092), and that Paul seems to consider hisown vision of the resurrected Jesus as on par with that of the other apostles;see Brown, 90, note 153.

49. Mt. 28:5, 8; Mk. 16:5, 8; Lk. 24:34, 12, 22, 37; Jn. 20:2, 9, 13,25.

50. On the significance of the change from Saturday to Sunday for theday of worship, see Richard Swinburne, Evidence for the Resurrection, inThe Resurrection, 207212.

51. Brown, 108109; Fuller, 3435; Ludemann, 97100, 174.

52. On the formulaic and creedal nature of this tradition, see Conzelmann,251257.

53. Contrast the view of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, who finds that itwas the women disciples who first experienced and announced the resur-rected Jesus; see In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstructionof Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983),138140.

54. Ludemann, 163. A similar view, though with more nuance andmore sympathy for the early Christians, is found in John Dominic Crossan,The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immedi-ately After the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998),xixxxxi, 550573.

55. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (SanFrancisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 269, 273.

56. Fuller, 172173.

57. John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1:The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991),168177. Meiers approach has been critiqued; Luke Timothy Johnsoncomments that criteria for historicity like Meiers can be slippery andsubjective; see Johnsons The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for theHistorical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (New York: Harper-SanFrancisco, 1996), 129. It should also be noted that Meier himself holds,quoting Gerald OCollins, that while the resurrection is a real, bodilyevent it is not an event in space and time and hence should not be calledhistorical; see Meier, 201, note 2.

58. Meier, 168177.

59. On the process of the transmission of these traditions, see Brown,81.

60. Pheme Perkins survey of first-century Jewish attitudes about theresurrection of the dead provides no example of one man rising bodily fromthe dead, without the other righteous; see Resurrection, 3756; she alsohighlights the distinctive nature of the Christian understanding of theresurrection, in contrast to Greco-Roman views; ibid., 5663. The samelack of such an example can be seen in George Nickelsburgs survey of thesubject in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, eds. David Noel Freedmanet al. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 684688.

61. Not all scholars would speak of shared physical experiences.Brown, 111113, 125126, notes that in these accounts Jesus seems nolonger bound by the space-and-time laws of ordinary human experience;rather, it is an inherently eschatological event, and thus outside the boundsof space and time. Even so, he concludes (127128), Christians can rightlyspeak of a bodily resurrection of Jesus, an eschatologically transformed

body. Fuller, 49, concludes that the appearances occurred over a periodof some three years or so, first in Galilee to Peter, then in Jerusalem, then toPaul on his way to Damascus.

62. N.T. Wright underscores that the resurrection of Jesus vindicateswhat Jesus was already believed to be by the disciples; see The New Testamentand the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 400401. Iwould modify this to say that it vindicated their belief in him, and alsoutterly transformed it. The immediate result of that transformation is theearly church and the New Testament.

63. Some fascinating discussion on the theological significance of theresurrection of Jesus can be found in Ted Peters, et al., eds., Resurrection:Theological and Scientific Assessments (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 2002), especially in the essays by RobertJ. Russell, John Polkinghorne, Nancy Murphy, Gunter Thomas, ErnstM. Conradie, and Ted Peters.

64. Barbour, 324.

65. Ibid., 273275, 297.

66. Peacocke, 119, 183.

67. Polkinghorne, 78. Polkinghorne does not see this as a return to aGod of the gaps, since his view draws on the intrinsically open characterof physical process rather than patches of human ignorance (79).

68. Johnson, Dice, 15.

69. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, trans. by Geoffrey W.Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1994), 46. Pannenberg has a continuous dialogue with various scientificnotions of causality, including quantum indeterminacy, in his sectionon The World of Creatures, 59136.

70. William P. Alston makes a similar point in his article Divine Action,Human Freedom, and the Laws of Nature, in Quantum Cosmology and theLaws of Nature, 187191. However, while Alstons argument moves from thegeneral philosophical premise (permeability of universe to divine intervention)to the particular case (a man walking on water), my argument moves from theparticular case (the resurrection of Jesus) to a general conclusion (porosity ofuniverse to Gods intervention). My approach is, I believe, more consistentwith the approach of the NT writers, and their sources.

71. Robert J. Russell makes the interesting argument that God createdthe universe so that the universe is transformable by Gods new act toproduce the new creation, something revealed in Jesus resurrection, whichwill result in a permanent change in at least most of the present laws ofnature; see Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology, and Scientific Cosmology;The Mutual Interaction of Christian Theology and Science, in Resurrection:Theological and Scientific Assessments, 2122. My own view would be similar,with the stress on Gods freedom to act in this way, as revealed in Jesusresurrection.

72. It should be emphasized here that Jesus resurrected, bodily humanexistence has an eschatological nature, and is thus not a mere resuscitation ofa corpse; see Brown, 127128; and Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 2,343363. But while I agree with Pannenberg that the existence of the risenJesus was eschatologically ordered, I differ somewhat in my interpretation ofthat existence. I would say that Jesus risen, eschatological existence wascorporeal in a way that was very similar to his pre-death existence, so that hecould be touched and embraced, and eat food. In this sense it is a trulycorporeal new creation.

73. Pannenberg made his most complete argument in his JesusGodand Man, 53ff. The resurrection of Jesus continues to be a centerpiece in hissystematic theology; see Systematic Theology, vol. 2, 343372. Rahner alsosees an intimate connection between the disciples experiences of the resur-rected Jesus and the Christologies of the New Testament and early church;see his Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Chris-tianity, trans. by William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 274282.Pannenberg acknowledges the similarities between Rahners views and hisown; see his Systematic Theology, vol. 2, 287288.


176. quantum theory & res. of jesus

Documents