Reading Time: 5 minutes

To avoid the huge pitfalls of hallucination theory it is common for critics to claim the appearances were a type of vision. They claim these visions are no more credible than visions in other writings. What does the term vision mean?

Firstly, get the critic to define what they mean by vision. If they define it like vision literature, then refer to the Legend theory and the non-historical genre issue because we’ve dealt with that, the text makes no suggestion of visionary literature. Maybe ask them is the vision objective or subjective.

Objective vision

Objective is seen without the use of natural senses. However the object is real, not imaginary. There is a reality and cause outside of the mind. Christians might view Stephen’s experience of seeing Jesus in heaven as an objective vision, since there’s no hint anyone else with him saw it. Besides Stephen’s, examples of objective visions in the New Testament might include the experiences of Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10: 1–16, and that of John recorded in the Revelation. Of course, atheists reject such a conclusion that appearances of Jesus can be objective visions. Claiming an objective vision is claiming that Jesus actually appeared to others in some sort of glorified body from heaven, rather than a material one, though others in the same location might not have seen him. Such a visionary meaning would admit that Jesus rose from the dead. So an atheist must say that the disciples visions of Jesus were subjective in nature.

Subjective vision

A Subjective vision is a product of our minds and has no cause or reality outside of our mind, so it is much like a hallucination or dream. The sceptic who holds to this view is susceptible of all the problems faced in regard to hallucination theory

So subjective and objective are problematic

If the visions were objective — We still have a risen Jesus. Another way of stating this inadequacy of the objective vision theory is that it shifts the question to the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body rather than addressing the question of whether he rose from the dead. If the vision was subjective — we have hallucinations which are unpalatable.

Visions cannot account for the empty tomb,

otherwise the job of the Romans would just be to show off the body. So vision theory fails to account for the facts.

Challenge: What about Acts 9?

Many critics will respond with Acts 9 and Jesus’ appearance to Paul. They claim In contrast to what was reported by the disciples, only a blinding light in the sky and a voice is mentioned. There was no body to even touch and see. Critics have a few arguments they try to make from this. They say Paul saw visions (hallucination) and since Paul includes his encounter with the Risen Christ in a list of appearances to the disciples (i.e. the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8), he regarded the nature of the appearances to the disciples to be the same as his own (i.e. visionary). Atheist New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann argues “

Isn’t it reasonable to grant that Paul…had the same experience that the others had — and to conclude from his statement that the others had visionary experiences too?.

Gerd Lüdemann, New Testament Scholar, Atheist

Since Paul’s writings appear to the critic to be earlier than the gospels, which certainly report bodily appearances, the Gospels must reflect legendary development that occurred in the early oral traditions of Jesus, circulating after Paul’s testimony but before being written in the gospels.

Response

First we must understand what they mean by vision

Lüdemann would claim that it was a subjective vision, so we would provide all the refutations to hallucinations:

1. They are not group occurrences
2. They do not account for the empty tomb
3. They do not adequately explain the conversion of Paul
4. They do not adequately explain the conversion of James
5. There are too many personal variations
6. They didn’t come as a result of excitement or expectation

We would also describe the physicality of the appearances described by Paul since our critics here are focusing on him. Using that very chapter, Acts 9, contains details that rules out such an experience being a vision. Paul’s travelling companions saw the same light, heard the same voice, and even fell to the ground, so it’s multiply attested. One may rightly ask how we might define Paul’s experience, since it appears to be different than those of the disciples. It certainly does not appear to have been a subjective vision. Yet it does not appear to have been an objective vision either, since the experience was perceived fully by Paul’s natural senses and partially by those of his traveling companions. To believe Paul saw the gloried Christ follows well with the fact that he then aligned himself with the disciples in the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 of the physical appearances.

Furthermore, a few verses later it says “The Lord appeared to Ananias in a vision”, the significance is that only a few verses prior it doesn’t say vision and shouldn’t be associated with such. Even this such vision could well be treated differently from the deluded vision version. Why are some critics accepting some details but not others? Subjective visions have no cause or reality outside of the mind. You cannot pick and choose details to believe just because the full details do not fit into your view. It’s like saying the hobbits are evil and Smaug is the innocent one if you only watch the hobbits trying to kill him and steal the gold. You need the whole story. 

Structured response

1. The critic must define what they mean by visions, feel free to give them the 3 definitions to help them out.
   1. Vision genre would only arise the legend theory, we now know scholarly the bible was not vision literature but Greco-roman biography genre.
   2. Objective visions would suggest Christ really appeared physically!
   3. Subjective visions are basically hallucinations in disguise, they suffer the same five pitfalls.
2. Visions also do not account for an empty tomb for all to see.
3. Paul describes a bodily nature of Christ so for those who say it was just experiential, they are picking and choosing from the text.

Sources for ‘Visions’

• Huge pitfalls — Prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew held this position in his first debate with Habermas. For a transcript of the debate with follow-up notes, see Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Terry Miethe, ed., (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
• Acts 7: 55–56.
• Subjective vision — There is no extramental correlate to a subjective vision. See Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, eds., Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 197. If the biblical record is correct, Joseph’s dream (Matt. 1: 20–24) would be objective in nature, since an extramental cause was responsible for it. If a mother dreamed that she opened a door, and her son was standing there, although her son was really hundreds of miles away, one would assume that the mother did not actually see the son. She might insist that she “really” saw the son in her dream, but the son was not “really” there, nor was anyone else. When the son actually goes to her home for a visit and knocks on the door and she opens it, then there is reality to what is seen.
• Copan and Tacelli, eds., Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? 61.