Resurrection

General Information
The concept of resurrection from the dead is found in several religions, although it is associated particularly with Christianity because of the central belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hope of a resurrection from the dead may have entered Judaism from Persian sources, although the idea has deeper roots in Old Testament Yahwism and the concept of God's covenant with Israel. The resurrection life was variously conceived, but the type of hope that passed into early Christian thought centered on the transformation of human life from the dead into a transcendental mode of existence. This was expressed poetically as "shining like the stars in heaven" (Dan. 12:3) or becoming "like the angels" (Mark 12:25).

After the Easter experiences, earliest Christianity expressed its faith in what had happened to Jesus as resurrection in the transcendental sense. This concept is sharply distinguished from resuscitation, or a return to this worldly existence, as narrated in the raisings of Lazarus and others attributed to Jesus. Saint Paul conceived the resurrection of Jesus as the first instance of an apocalyptic type resurrection ("Christ the first fruits," 1 Cor. 15:20, 23); as a result of Christ's resurrection, all believers may hope for resurrection at the Second Coming of Christ. Paul indicates that the resurrection body will be new and "spiritual" (1 Cor. 15:35 - 54); most theologians interpret this to mean that it is the personality that is resurrected.

Islam also believes in the resurrection of the dead, as did traditional Judaism.

Reginald H Fuller

Bibliography
R H Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (1971); S H Hooke, The Resurrection of Christ as History and Experience (1967); P Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (1984); N Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (1977).

---

Resurrection

Advanced Information
That Jesus Christ died and afterward rose from the dead is both the central doctrine of Christian theology and the major fact in a defense of its teachings. This was true in the earliest church and remains so today.

The Centrality of the Resurrection
It is the witness of the NT that the resurrection of Jesus is the pivotal point of Christian theology and apologetics. Paul reports an early creed in I Cor. 15:3ff. which both includes the resurrection as an integral part of the gospel and reports several eyewitness appearances.
Then Paul relates the importance of this event, for if Jesus did not literally rise from the dead, then the entire Christian faith is fallacious (vs. 14) and ineffective (vs. 17). Additionally, preaching is valueless (vs. 14), Christian testimony is false (vs. 15), no sins have been forgiven (vs. 17), and believers have perished without any Christian hope (vs. 18). The conclusion is that, apart from this event, Christians are the most miserable of all people (vs. 19). Paul even states that without the resurrection we should "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (vs. 32). If Jesus was not raised, believers have no hope of resurrection themselves and may as well turn to hedonistic philosophies of life. He thereby strongly implies that it is this event that separates Christianity from other philosophies.

Paul teaches the centrality of the resurrection in other passages as well. In another ancient creed (Rom. 1:3-4) he recites a brief Christology and asserts that Jesus was shown to be the son of God, Christ, and Lord by his resurrection (cf. Rom. 14:9). This event also provides salvation (Rom. 10:9-10) and ensures the resurrection of believers (I Cor. 15:20; II Cor. 4:14; I Thess. 4:14).

Similarly, Luke's writings relate several instances where the resurrection provided the basis for the Christian proclamation. Jesus taught that his death and resurrection was a central message of the OT (Luke 24:25-27). Peter held that the miracles which Jesus performed, and his resurrection in particular, were the chief indications that God approved of his teachings (Acts 2:22-32). Paul's teaching frequently utilized the resurrection as the basis of the gospel message (cf. Acts 13:29-39; 17:30-31).

Other NT writings share the same hope. Jesus utilized his resurrection as the sign vindicating the authority of his teachings (Matt. 12:38-40). This event both ensures the believer's salvation (I Pet. 1:3) and provides the means by which Jesus serves as the believer's high priest (Heb. 7:23-25).

Even such a brief survey indicates the centrality of the resurrection for the NT writers. Clearly, early believers such as Paul realized that this event provided the central claim of Christianity. With it the Christian message of eternal life is secure, resting on the reality of Jesus' victory over death. Without it the Christian message is reduced to that of one of man's philosophies.

The earliest postapostolic writings held this same message of the centrality of Jesus' resurrection. For example, Clement of Rome asserts that this event both demonstrates the truthfulness of Christ's message (Cor. 42) and is an example of the believer's resurrection (24-26). Ignatius insists on the literal facticity of this occurrence as an event in time (Mag. 11; Trall. 9; Smyr. 1), which is the believer's hope (Trall., Introduction) and an example of our resurrection (Trall. 9). He also stresses the belief that it was Jesus' flesh that was raised (Smyr. 3).

This latter issue of whether it was Jesus' flesh which was resurrected, as supported by Ignatius and later by Tertullian, or whether it was a resurrected body not composed of flesh, as championed by the Alexandrian school and Origen in particular, was a major question in early Christian theology. It was the former position, or forms of it, which gradually became the more widely accepted view in the medieval church and even afterward.

For many scholars today who accept the literal resurrection of Jesus, the emphasis has shifted to stress Paul's concept of the "spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:35-50, e.g.), endeavoring to do justice to both elements. Thus, Jesus was raised in a real body which had new, spiritual qualities.

The Resurrection and Contemporary Theology
There is virtual agreement, even among most critical theologians, that the resurrection of Jesus is the central claim of Christianity. Willi Marxsen asserts that it is still the decisive issue in Christian theology today; to have uncertainty concerning this claim is to jeopardize all of Christianity. Gunther Bornkamm agrees that without the message of Jesus' resurrection there would be no church, no NT, and no Christian faith even to this day. Jurgen Moltmann clearly states that Christianity either stands or falls with Jesus' resurrection.
Yet a major issue here concerns the question of whether all that is required is the message of the resurrection, or the literal event itself. This is not only a dispute between evangelicals and higher critical theologians, but also among these critical scholars themselves. The pivotal fact, recognized as historical by virtually all scholars, is the original experiences of the disciples. It is nearly always admitted that the disciples had real experiences and that "something happened." Yet, while contemporary scholars rarely utilize the naturalistic alternative theories, various views exist concerning the exact nature of these experiences. At the risk of oversimplification and partial repetition, at least four major critical positions can be outlined with regard to this question.

First, more radical critics hold that the nature of the original eyewitnesses' experiences cannot be ascertained. For example, Rudolf Bultmann and his followers claim that the actual cause of the disciples' transformation is obscured in the NT text. Regardless, it is not really important to inquire into the object of these experiences. Similarly, Marxsen also believes that the constitution of these encounters cannot be known, including whether the disciples actually saw the risen Jesus. Paul van Buren believes that "something happened" which changed the disciples' outlook from discouragement of faith. Although these experiences were more than subjective and were expressed in terms of actual appearances of Jesus, we still cannot judge their nature.

A second group of scholars is distinguished from the first not only by exhibiting some interest in the nature of the disciples' experiences, but often by the acceptance of the literal resurrection itself. Yet while the naturalistic theories are usually rejected, this group still insists that the event can be known only by faith completely apart from any verification.

The theologians in this second group have usually been influenced by Soren Kierkegaard and more recently by Karl Barth, who held that the resurrection may be accepted by faith as a literal event, but that it cannot be ascertained by any historical investigation. Barth emphatically rejected naturalistic theories and asserted that Jesus appeared empirically to his disciples, yet this event occurred in a different sphere of history and thus cannot be verified by history. Similar views were held by neo-orthodox theologians such as Emil Brunner and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and are also popular in more contemporary works. For example, Bornkamm notes the invalidity of naturalistic theories but yet, in a manner reminiscent of Barth, states that this event can be accepted only by faith apart from historical examination.

The third position is characterized by a significant interest in more historical aspects of the resurrection. Not only are naturalistic theories usually rejected, but the empty tomb is often held to be a historical fact. Additionally, these scholars proceed a step further by setting forth a more or less abstract reconstruction of the historical nature of the appearances. However, it is still held that the resurrection itself is an eschatological event and is not demonstrable by historical methodology, although some hold that it will be verifiable in the future.

Moltmann holds that the disciples were the recipients of appearances of the risen Jesus, which involved spoken messages and commissioned the hearers to service in the world. These events, which are not strictly verifiable, are placed in eschatological history and are subject to future verification. Ulrich Wilckens likewise concludes that history cannot decide exactly what happened. Thus, while naturalistic theories can be refuted and the facticity of the empty tomb upheld, the appearances themselves were private revelations, indications of a future, eschatological existence.

Reginald Fuller notes that the disciples' transformations necessitate a cause. This cause is Jesus' appearances, which are historically defined as visionary experiences of light and auditions of meaning communicated to the earliest eyewitnesses. The messages both proclaimed that Jesus was risen and imparted a mission to his followers. Such phenomena were not subjective visions but actual experiences. They were the source of the Easter faith and message, but are removed from historical demonstration. Joachim Jeremias similarly taught that the appearances of Jesus were spiritual visions of shining light by which the disciples experienced Jesus as the risen Lord.

The fourth approach to the resurrection is that the available historical evidence demonstrates the probability that Jesus was literally raised from the dead. Perhaps the best-known recent theologian accepting this conclusion is Wolfhart Pannenberg, who both argues against naturalistic theories and concludes that the historical facts demonstrate the empty tomb and the literal appearances of Jesus. Yet Pannenberg argues against a corporeal resurrection body in favor of appearances which are described in terms of a spiritual body which was recognized as Jesus, who appeared from heaven, imparted an audition, and, at least in Paul's case, was accompanied by a phenomenon of light.

A. M. Hunter utilizes historical investigation to conclude that Jesus' resurrection can be demonstrated by the facts. J. A. T. Robinson points out that historical studies cannot ascertain the exact details, but they may be sufficient to formulate a probable case for the probability of this event. Raymond Brown, after an extensive study of the textual data, likewise supports the historical verification of Jesus' resurrection. Additionally, Hunter, Robinson, and Brown all favor the concept of the spiritual body.

It is important to note that of these four critical positions only the first is generally characterized by a rejection of or agnostic attitude toward the literal resurrection of Jesus. Just as significant is the observation that the first position not only appears to be losing ground, but varying positions which support the facticity of the resurrection are presently quite popular.

The Resurrection as History
Historical arguments for the resurrection have traditionally been based on two lines of support. First, naturalistic theories have failed to explain away this event, chiefly because each is disproven by the known historical facts.
Additionally, critics themselves have attacked each theory. For instance, in the nineteenth century David Strauss disarmed the swoon theory while Theodor Keim and others pointed out the weaknesses in the hallucination theory. Form critical studies later revealed the futility of the legend theory popularized by the history of religions school of thought. In the twentieth century such diverse thinkers as Barth, Tillich, Bornkamm, and Pannenberg are examples of higher critical theologians who have rejected these alternative hypotheses.

Second, historical evidences for the resurrection are often cited, such as the eyewitness testimony for Jesus' appearances, the transformed lives of the disciples, the empty tomb, the inability of the Jewish leaders to disprove these claims, and the conversion of skeptics such as Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. When combined with the absence of naturalistic alternative theories these evidences are quite impressive.

However, contemporary apologetics has moved even beyond these important issues to other arguments in favor of the resurrection. One crucial center of attention has been I Cor. 15:3-4, where Paul records material which he had "received" from others and then "delivered" to his listeners. It is agreed by virtually all contemporary theologians that this material contains an ancient creed that is actually much earlier than the book in which it is recorded.

The early date of this tradition is indicated not only by Paul's rather technical terms for receiving and passing on tradition, but also by the somewhat stylized content, the non-Pauline words, the specific names of Peter and James (cf. Gal. 1:18-19), and the possible Semitic idioms used.

These facts have accounted for the critical agreement as to the early origin of this material. In fact, Fuller, Hunter, and Pannenberg date Paul's receiving of this creed from three to eight years after the crucifixion itself. These data are quite significant in that they further indicate that both Paul and the other eyewitnesses proclaimed the death and resurrection of Jesus (I Cor. 15:11) immediately after the events themselves. This anchors their report firmly in early eyewitness testimony and not in legendary reports arising later.

Another extremely strong argument for the resurrection is derived from the known facts that are admitted as historical by virtually all critical scholars who deal with this subject. Events such as Jesus' death by crucifixion, the subsequent despair of the disciples, their experiences which they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus, their corresponding transformations, and the conversion of Paul due to a similar experience are five facts which are critically established and accepted as historical by most scholars.

Of these facts the nature of the disciples' experiences is the most crucial. As historian Michael Grant asserts, historical investigation demonstrates that the earliest eyewitnesses were convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus. Carl Braaten explains that skeptical historians agree with this conclusion. One major advantage of these critically accepted historical facts is that they deal directly with the issue of these experiences. On a more limited scale these facts are capable both of arguing decisively against each of the naturalistic alternative theories and of providing some strong evidences for the literal appearances of the risen Jesus as reported by the eyewitnesses.

Not only can the historical resurrection be established on this basis, but the additional advantage of these facts is that they are admitted by virtually all scholars as knowable history. Since such a minimum number of facts is adequate to historically establish the literal resurrection as the best explanation for the data, this event therefore should not be rejected even by those critics who disbelieve the reliability of Scripture. Their questions on other issues do not disprove this basic conclusion, which can be established by critical and historical procedures.

Especially when viewed in conjunction with the eyewitness evidence from the early creed, we have a strong twofold apologetic for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. This contemporary approach also complements the more traditional apologetic summarized earlier, all of which combine to historically demonstrate the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead.

As Paul asserted in I Cor. 15:12-20, the resurrection is the center of the Christian faith and theology. This event signals the approval of Jesus' teachings (Acts 2:22-23) and thus continues to provide a basis for Christian belief today. It guarantees the reality of eternal life for all who trust the gospel (I Cor. 15:1-4, 20).

G R Habermas
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, 334-52; D. Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center; G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus; E. Brunner, Dogmatics, II, 366-72; R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT; D. P. Fuller, Easter Faith and History; R. H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives; M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels; G. R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic; A. M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel; J. Jeremias, NT Theology; W. Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth; J. Moltmann, Revolution and the Future; J. Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus; W. Pannenberg, Jesus, God and Man; J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the NT? P. M. van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel; U. Wilkens, Resurrection.

---

Resurrection

Advanced Information
The Resurrection is one of the cardinal facts and doctrines of the gospel. If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain (1 Cor. 15:14). The whole of the New Testament revelation rests on this as an historical fact. On the day of Pentecost Peter argued the necessity of Christ's resurrection from the prediction in Ps. 16 (Acts 2:24-28). In his own discourses, also, our Lord clearly intimates his resurrection (Matt. 20:19; Mark 9:9; 14:28; Luke 18:33; John 2:19-22). The evangelists give circumstantial accounts of the facts connected with that event, and the apostles, also, in their public teaching largely insist upon it.

Ten different appearances of our risen Lord are recorded in the New Testament. They may be arranged as follows:

• To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre alone. This is recorded at length only by John (20:11-18), and alluded to by Mark (16:9-11).
• To certain women, "the other Mary," Salome, Joanna, and others, as they returned from the sepulchre. Matthew (28:1-10) alone gives an account of this. (Comp. Mark 16:1-8, and Luke 24:1-11.)
• To Simon Peter alone on the day of the resurrection. (See Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5.)
• To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection, recorded fully only by Luke (24:13-35. Comp. Mark 16:12, 13).
• To the ten disciples (Thomas being absent) and others "with them," at Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection day. One of the evangelists gives an account of this appearance, John (20:19-24).
• To the disciples again (Thomas being present) at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:33-40; John 20:26-28. See also 1 Cor. 15:5).
• To the disciples when fishing at the Sea of Galilee. Of this appearance also John (21:1-23) alone gives an account.
• To the eleven, and above 500 brethren at once, at an appointed place in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:6; comp. Matt. 28:16-20).
• To James, but under what circumstances we are not informed (1 Cor. 15:7).
• To the apostles immediately before the ascension. They accompanied him from Jerusalem to Mount Olivet, and there they saw him ascend "till a cloud received him out of their sight" (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-10).

It is worthy of note that it is distinctly related that on most of these occasions our Lord afforded his disciples the amplest opportunity of testing the fact of his resurrection. He conversed with them face to face. They touched him (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:27), and he ate bread with them (Luke 24:42, 43; John 21:12, 13). (11.) In addition to the above, mention might be made of Christ's manifestation of himself to Paul at Damascus, who speaks of it as an appearance of the risen Saviour (Acts 9:3-9, 17; 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1). It is implied in the words of Luke (Acts 1:3) that there may have been other appearances of which we have no record.
The resurrection is spoken of as the act (1) of God the Father (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:24; 3:15; Rom. 8:11; Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12; Heb. 13:20); (2) of Christ himself (John 2:19; 10:18); and (3) of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 3:18). The resurrection is a public testimony of Christ's release from his undertaking as surety, and an evidence of the Father's acceptance of his work of redemption. It is a victory over death and the grave for all his followers.

The importance of Christ's resurrection will be seen when we consider that if he rose the gospel is true, and if he rose not it is false. His resurrection from the dead makes it manifest that his sacrifice was accepted. Our justification was secured by his obedience to the death, and therefore he was raised from the dead (Rom. 4:25). His resurrection is a proof that he made a full atonement for our sins, that his sacrifice was accepted as a satisfaction to divine justice, and his blood a ransom for sinners.

It is also a pledge and an earnest of the resurrection of all believers (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:47-49; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). As he lives, they shall live also. It proved him to be the Son of God, inasmuch as it authenticated all his claims (John 2:19; 10:17). "If Christ did not rise, the whole scheme of redemption is a failure, and all the predictions and anticipations of its glorious results for time and for eternity, for men and for angels of every rank and order, are proved to be chimeras. 'But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.'

Therefore the Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation. The kingdom of darkness has been overthrown, Satan has fallen as lightning from heaven, and the triumph of truth over error, of good over evil, of happiness over misery is for ever secured." Hodge. With reference to the report which the Roman soldiers were bribed (Matt. 28:12-14) to circulate concerning Christ's resurrection, "his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept," Matthew Henry in his "Commentary," under John 20:1-10, fittingly remarks, "The grave-clothes in which Christ had been buried were found in very good order, which serves for an evidence that his body was not 'stolen away while men slept.' Robbers of tombs have been known to take away 'the clothes' and leave the body; but none ever took away 'the body' and left the clothes, especially when they were 'fine linen' and new (Mark 15:46). Any one would rather choose to carry a dead body in its clothes than naked. Or if they that were supposed to have stolen it would have left the grave-clothes behind, yet it cannot be supposed they would find leisure to 'fold up the linen.'"

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

---

Resurrection

From: Home Bible Study Commentary by James M. Gray

Matthew Chapter 28
Perhaps the most important comment we can make on this chapter will be the order of the ten events on the day of which it speaks. (1) The three women, Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother of James; and Salome, start for the sepulcher, followed by other women bearing spices. (2) These find the stone rolled away and Mary Magdalene, goes to tell the disciples (Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1, 2). (3) Mary, the mother of James, draws near the tomb and discovers the angel (Matthew 28:2). (4) She returns to meet the other women bearing the spices. (5) Peter and John arrive, look in and go away. (6) Mary Magdalene returns, sees the two angels and Jesus (John 20:11-18). (7) She goes to tell the disciples. (8) Mary, the mother of James, returns with the other women, all of whom see the two angels (Luke 24:4, 5; Mark 15:15). (9) They receive the angel's message. (10) While seeking the disciples are met by Jesus (Matthew 28:8-10).
Another comment of interest is the order of the appearances of Jesus on this day. (1) To Mary Magdalene (John 20:14-18); (2) To the women returning from the tomb with the angel's message (Matthew 28:8-10); (3) To Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5); (4) To the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31); (5) To the apostles in the absence of Thomas (Luke 24: 36-43; John 20:19-24)).

In dividing the chapter we have (1) The narative of the resurrection with the appearance of Jesus to the women (vv. 1-10); (2) The false invention of the Jews (v. 11-15); (3) The gathering in Galilee (vv. 16-20). We can only touch upon the most important things, one of which is Christ's reference to His disciples as His "brethren" (v. 10). For the first time does he use that word in such connection, showing that until His death and resurrection on their behalf the relationship had not become possible. (Compare Ps. 22: 22 and Heb. 2:11, 12.)

Another important thing is verse 13, "Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we slept." We give excerpts from Gaebelein on this verse: "The watch recover from their fright, and some hasten to the city. Surely something happened or why should they leave their post to make a report? Then it is strange they went to the priests first and not the Roman governor. This was an irregular proceeding, from which we conclude that what they had to report was of greater importance for the priests than Pilate. Who knows but these priests had instructed the guard that if He should come forth they were to come to them first of all?

Their report was a witness of the resurrection and that the tomb was empty. "The Sanhedrin was hastily summoned to receive the report in an offical way. The straightforward statement, as men of military training are apt to report, made doubt about veracity impossible. To impeach them would have been insane. But what would happen if this truth got out among the people? "The resurrection must be denied which could only be by inventing a lie. The only possible lie was that His disciples stole the body. The story is incredible.

It is easier to believe He arose from the dead than to believe what the Jews invented about His resurrection. The disciples had forgotten about the resurrection promised and they were a scattered, poor, timid lot of people. But even if they had been anxious to steal the body, how could they have done it? Here was the company of armed men. Then there was the sealed, heavy stone. "But the ridiculous side of the lie came out with the report the soldiers were to circulate. The disciples came and stole the body, while they were sleeping! It is incredible that all these men had fallen asleep at the same time, and so fast asleep that the commotion of rolling away the stone and the carring away of the dead did not disturb them.

Furthermore, sleeping at a post meant death for the Roman soldier. One might have nodded and risked his life, but that all slept is an impossiblity. But the report is foolish; they were asleep, and while asleep witnessed how the disciples stole the body of Jesus! It was a miserable lie, and is continued to the present day." We might mention here the testimony of Josephus, who says in his antiquities: "He appeared to them alive on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him."

A third matter of importance is the "Great Commission" as it is called (vv. 19, 20). Note the word "Name" as indicative of the Trinity. It is not names but "Name." "Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one true God. The conjunction in one name of the three affirms equality and oneness of substance." Note the peculiarity of the terms. This is the Kingdom commission, as another expresses it, not the Christian commission. The latter is in Luke, distinctively the Gentile Gospel, but not here, which is distinctively the Jewish Gospel. And this is all the more remarkable because in Luke, the disciples are commanded to go to the Jews (24:47), while here they are commanded to go to "all nations."

It points to the close of the age when the commission will be carried out by the faithful remnant of the Jews so often spoken about. It has not yet been carried out. The story of the Acts is not its fulfilment. Its accomplishment has been interrupted, but will be taken up before the Lord comes to deliver Israel at the last.

Questions 1. Repeat the order of the events on the day of resurrection. 2. Do the same with reference to the appearances of Jesus. 3. Divide the chapter into three parts. 4. How would you answer the argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus? 5. What is the significance of the word "Name" in the "Great Commission"? 6. How do you distinguish the "Commission" in Matthew from that in Luke?

sourced with kind permission:Believe