Introduction
When it comes to the Christian faith, there is no doctrine more important than the resurrection of Jesus. Biblical faith is not simply centered in ethical and religious teachings. Instead, it is founded on the person and work of Jesus. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, we as His followers are still dead in our sins (1Cor.15:7). Explanations try to show how something happened. That is, what is the cause for something that has happened. So let’s take a look at if the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an adequate explanation for the following data:
#1:The Resurrection of Jesus Explains God’s Actions in History
Historical verification is a way to test religious claims. We can detect God’s work in human history and apply historical tests to the Bible or any other religious book. Perhaps the most reasonable expectation is to ask where and when God has broken through in human history.
The last Anthony Flew said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” (see Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew.” Available from the Web site of Biola University at http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew).
Some skeptics lament that one of the reasons we can’t accept the resurrection of Jesus is because we don’t see people rising from the dead today. First, the entire point of the resurrection of Jesus is that it is a unique one-time unique event. If we had had all kinds of people rising from the dead (and not dying again as in the case of Jesus), that would not make the resurrection of Jesus unique at all.
#2: The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Explains the Post-Mortem Appearances to the Disciples:
The post- resurrection appearances are varied. We see them here:
• Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, shortly after his resurrection (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18)
• Jesus appeared to the women returning from the empty tomb (Matthew 28:8-10)
• Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12,13; Luke 24:13-35)
• Jesus appeared to Peter ( Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5)
• Jesus appeared to his disciples, in Jerusalem. (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23)
. • Jesus again appeared to his disciples, in Jerusalem. At this time Thomas is present (John 20:24-29)
. • Jesus appeared to his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 28:16; John 21:1,2)
• Jesus is seen by 500 believers at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6)
• Jesus appeared to James ( 1 Corinthians 15:7)
• Jesus appeared to his disciples on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20).
• Jesus appeared to his disciples (Luke 24:50-53).
• Jesus appeared to Paul on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3-6; 1 Corinthians 15:8).
I find it interesting that many New Testament scholars/historians agree that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them. Allow me to mention a few quotes here:
“We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg. 230).
“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” (E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg. 280)
“That the experiences did occur, even if they are explained in purely natural terms, is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever can agree.” (Reginald H. Fuller, Foundations of New Testament Christology, pg. 142)
Some skeptics have tried to utilize the hallucination hypothesis to explain away the resurrection appearances. To see the problems with this hypothesis, see here:
#3: The Resurrection of Jesus explains the conviction of the disciples in their proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus:
There is no reason to distrust the conviction of those that testified to having seen the risen Jesus. As we said, many historians/scholars concede that the disciples at least thought they saw the resurrected Christ. As James Warner Wallace points out in his latest book people lie or have an ulterior motive for three reasons:
1. Financial Gain: In this case, we don’t see any evidence for this. The NT shows the disciples/apostles being chased from location to location, leaving their home and families and abandoning their property and what they owned.
2. Sexual or Relational Desire: The NT does not say much about their “love lives.” There are Scriptures that speak to sexual purity and chastity.
3. Pursuit of Power: While Christianity became a state sponsored religion in the 4th century and the Popes became powerful both politically and religiously, there is no evidence (pre-70 AD), for the early disciples pursuing power as they proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. Just look at Paul’s testimony here:
“I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.” – 2 Cor. 11: 23-27
#4: The Bodily Resurrection Explains the Birth of Early Christianity/The Messianic Movement Pre-70 AD.
The old saying, “Jesus is just one of several messiah’s in the first century” is not only patently false but also a gross oversimplification. Just because someone leads a messianic revolt does not qualify them as “the Messiah” (notice the capital “M”). Here are some of the figures who claimed royal prerogatives between 4 B.C.E and 68-70 C.E but are not called “the” or “a” Messiah:
1. In Galilee 4 B.C.E.: Judas, son of bandit leader Ezekias (War 2.56;Ant.17.271-72)
2. In Perea 4 B.C.E.: Simon the Herodian slave (War 2.57-59;Ant 17.273-77)
3. In Judea 4 B.C.E.: Athronges, the shepherd (War 2.60-65;Ant 17.278-84)
4. Menahem: grandson of Judas the Galilean (War 2.433-34, 444)
5. Simon, son of Gioras (bar Giora) (War 2.521, 625-54;4.503-10, 529;7.26-36, 154)
Given I have written about this issue, I will briefly summarize: The crucifixion of Jesus is attested by all four Gospels. Therefore, it passes the test of multiple attestation. It is also recorded early in Paul’s writings (1 Cor.15), and by non-Christian authors Josephus, Ant.18:64; Tacitus, Ann.15.44.3. Donald Juel discusses the challenge of a crucified Messiah:
“The idea of a crucified Messiah is not only unprecedented within Jewish tradition; it is so contrary to the whole notion of a deliverer from the line of David, so out of harmony with the constellation of biblical texts we can identify from various Jewish sources that catalyzed around the royal figure later known as the “the Christ” that terms like “scandal” and “foolishness” are the only appropriate responses. Irony is the only means of telling such a story, because it is so counterintuitive.[1]
Roman crucifixion was viewed as a punishment for those a lower status- dangerous criminals, slaves, or anyone who caused a threat to Roman order and authority. Given that Jewish nationalism was quite prevalent in the first century, the Romans also used crucifixion as a means to end the uprising of any revolts. There is a relevant verse to crucifixion in Deuteronomy 21:22-23: “If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.”
Furthermore, this theme became more interesting in the discovery of what is called The Temple Scroll in 1977. This scroll is one of the longest scrolls of all that was found at Qumran. It can be observed in column 64:7-12 that the passage just mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is seen as referring to the crucifixion. However, the theme in the Temple Scroll is expanded to include those who are crucified are cursed by God and men. It says:
“If a man passes on information about his people and betrays his people to a foreign people and does evil to his people, than you shall hang him on the wood so he dies. On the strength of two witnesses or the strength of three witnesses he shall be killed and they shall hang him on the wood. If a man has committed a capital offense and flees to the nations and curses his people, the Israelites, then you shall also hang him on the wood, so that he dies. Yet, they shall not let his corpse hang on the wood, but must bury it on the same day, for cursed by God and man are those who are hanged on the wood, and you shall not pollute the earth.” (2)
The context of this verse is describing the public display of the corpse of an executed criminal. The New Testament writers expanded this theme to include persons who had been crucified (Acts 5:30; 13:29; Gal 3:13;1 Pet.2:24). To say that crucifixion was portrayed in a negative light within Judaism in the first century is an understatement. “Anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse”-the very method of death brought a divine curse upon the crucified. In other words, anyone who was crucified was assumed not to be the Anointed One of God. Paul could not of made it any clearer when he stated, “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor.1:23-24). We can conclude that apart from the resurrection, the Jesus movement would of faded out very quickly (just as we see in the ones listed above).
#5: The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Explains Paul’s Christology
Paul’s Letters (dated 47 to 60 AD) are the earliest records we have for the life of Jesus. To see any objections to Pauline authorship, click here. They are also the earliest letters we have for the Christology of Jesus. In several of Paul’s Letters Jesus is referred to as “Lord” (Gr. kyrios). Hence, the willingness to do this place Jesus in a role attributed to God in Jewish expectation.” For a Jewish person, when the title “Lord” (Heb. Adonai) was used in place of the divine name YHWH, this was the highest designation a Jewish person could use for deity.
Also, as pointed out by Richard Bauckham in his work on this topic, Paul believed that Jesus was God by attributing attributes to him that were distinctly reserved for God. And he did so in a distinctly Jewish manner while also preserving monotheism.
To see more on why the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what happened to Paul, click here:
Conclusion:
I have barely covered all the arguments for and against the resurrection of Jesus. If you want to go deeper, see the online article called The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
While the Christian has a responsibility to uphold and defend the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:15), Christians also are called to make daily application of the resurrection into their daily lives (Romans 6:1:7:25). If Christians understood that God wanted to radically transform their lives through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the world would be a different place. The Gospel is not simply a message about the death of Jesus, but his resurrection as well (1 Corinthians 15:1-12). We as Christians are called to live the resurrected life by bringing restoration and justice to a world that desperately needs hope.
Sources:
1. Donald H. Juel, “The Trial and Death of the Historical Jesus” featured in The Quest For Jesus And The Christian Faith: Word &World Supplement Series 3 (St. Paul Minnesota: Word and World Luther Seminary, 1997), 105. 2. Roy A. Harrisville, Fracture: The Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006), 17-18
You say ” If you can prove that the literate, well-educated people who wrote the gospels were insulated from any dying-and-rising story from another religion, then I’ll have to drop my point. Until then, this natural explanation makes “inspiration” from these other sources the obvious reason why Jesus rose from the dead. Doesn’t prove that it happened that way, of course, but the burden of proof is not mine.”
I have already answered this issue in detail. Sorry you keep missing it. Read the comments carefully. I think I am moving on now. Thanks for the discussion.
Bob,
You kind of ignored my last set of comments. You were the one who said the resurrection was not a unique one time event and that there are all kinds of other resurrection stories. As I said, there is no evidence Paul or any NT author plagiarized the Jesus story from dying and rising god stories. And we see Paul going to the Jew first in The Book of Acts. Paul goes to the synagogue first in Salamis (13:5), Pisidian Antioch (13:14), Iconium (14:1), Thessalonica (17:2), Berea (17:10), Corinth (18:4) and Ephesus (18:19 and 19:8). And there is still zero evidence that dying and rising gods were all over the place in Palestine in the Second Temple Period. And even if they were, as I said, Paul and others would avoid them due to the syncretism issue. Furthermore, you don’t have any evidence the NT authors had contact with them. You say naturalistic answers are sufficient. Well, no they are not. They have poor explanatory power and weak explanatory scope. I listed a few of them in my post. You can post nature if all there is (an ontological claim), but that would be an extraordinary claim in itself. And then if that is your ontological claim, that obviously determines your epistemology. So to say “nature of all there is” and then posit that the burden of proof is on me is incorrect. So in the end, the debate is about metaphysics.
Eric:
If you can prove that the literate, well-educated people who wrote the gospels were insulated from any dying-and-rising story from another religion, then I’ll have to drop my point. Until then, this natural explanation makes “inspiration” from these other sources the obvious reason why Jesus rose from the dead.
Doesn’t prove that it happened that way, of course, but the burden of proof is not mine.
If the only thing that will satisfy you is a resurrected Jesus appearing to you at the foot of your bed, than so be it. But then again, you could just say you are hallucinating and it would not guarantee you will bow your knee to Him. Also, you and other atheists all have issues of confirmation bias and presuppositions. So it cuts both ways. You say there are resurrection stories everywhere. This is a tired and old internet myth that has been shown to not be the same as the resurrection of Jesus.
A good background study of Second Temple Judaism is helpful. To Jews, Religious syncretism is a form of idolatry. First, the Jewish Scriptures forbids worshiping anyone other than the God of Israel (Ex. 20:1–5; Deut. 5:6–9). Remember that following the exile and subsequent intertestamental struggles, the Jews no longer fell prey to physical idolatry. So to assert that the Israel always had problems with idolatry in their early formation which would lead to further into idolatry in the Second Temple period leads me to cry “anachronism.” Remember, idolatry is rarely mentioned in the Gospels. But there are warnings about idolatry in other portions of the New Testament( 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ;
Gal 5:20 ; Eph. 5:5 ; Col 3:5 ; 1 Peter 4:3 ; Rev 21:8). Paul instructs believers not to associate with idolaters ( 1 Cor. 5:11 ; 10:14 ) and even commends the Thessalonian for their turning from the service of idols “to serve the living and true God” ( 1 Thess1:9). So I guess my question is the following: Why would Paul or the early disciples commit an idolatrous act and but then later speak against idolatry? It seems rather inconsistent.
Also, perhaps the most recent treatment thorough treatment on the subject of dying
and rising gods in the ancient Near East is that of T.N.G. Mettinger’s The Riddle of the
Resurrection (2001).
“For the earliest Christians, “the resurrection of Jesus was one-time event, historical event that took place at one specific point in the earth’s topography. The empty tomb was seen as a historical datum (221). Whereas the death and rising gods were loosely related to the seasonal cycle with their death and return were seen as reflected in the
changes of plant life. The death and resurrection of Jesus is one-time event,
not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes…… (221).
The death of Jesus is presented in sources as vicarious suffering as an act of atonement for sins. The myth of Dumuzi has an arrangement with bilocation and substitution, but there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious sufferings for sins” (221). There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and
resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites in the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.” (The Riddle of the Resurrection: Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East), 2001, p. 221).
Also, any of the other so called resurrected people have barely and primary and secondary sources.
And for the record, I am using inference to the best explanation in the post.
Eric: “This is a tired and old internet myth that has been shown to not be the same as the resurrection of Jesus.”
So you’re saying that the stories from other religions are not the same as those from Christianity. Hey–we agree! Now let’s focus on the actual issue. Palestine in the time of Jesus was awash in dying-and-rising stories. That doesn’t prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, of course, but in an environment from which false dying-and-rising stories are common, the best bet is that yet another one is also false.
See http://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/8331/ This has some good articles and further research.
Eric: ” To Jews, Religious syncretism is a form of idolatry.”
Why is this relevant? Paul wasn’t preaching to Jews, remember? The New Testament comes from a Greek culture, full of these other stories. Indeed, Paul’s early converts had likely been believers in some other religion, hardly a sterile environment in which to grow this new culture. All sorts of new ideas could’ve been expected to come into early Christianity.
Of course, I don’t intend to prove this. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. I’m simply saying that the natural explanation for the gospel story is sufficient. No need to handwave supernatural beings into existence to explain anything.
First, the entire point of the resurrection of Jesus is that it is a unique one-time unique event.
Oh, come on. Religious stories are full to overflowing with resurrections. They are claimed every day as ‘evidence’ of the latest guru’s magical abilities, with dozens of ‘witnesses’ proclaiming they are true… right up until the claims consistently fail to meet the requirements for testing their validity. Saying Jesus’ resurrection is ‘unique’ does not make it so. In fact, you simply ignore Matthew 27: 44-5 and these dozens of other ‘unique’ zombies walking about.
You presume that ancient historical accounts – if squinted at in just the right way – compensate and mitigate our knowledge of how cellular damage caused from cellular death is neither reversible nor reasonable, as if by historical ‘witness’ accounts alone we can add some measure of confidence overturning how we know reality operates for everyone everywhere all the time to allow us the imaginative wiggle room needed to believe in the unbelievable, to make a singular exception, and think it not just possible but probable… a probability that just so happens to fall into agreement with our religious bias as well as our desire for the claim to be true. What are the odds?
Well, the probability is certain (P=1) that the believer who first infuses the premise that some religious faith is true (meaning claims about it are a reflection of the reality we share) suddenly discovers evidence from reality that just so happens to show him- or herself to be correct. These results are only surprising to those who have no clue how confirmation bias works and why it is so pervasive. But what should be obvious is that those who try to present their faith as a conclusion from rather a premise for reality are fooling themselves that they now – through the acceptance that their faith is true – have special insight that others more skeptical lack. This is a rather clear hint that one is actively fooling him- or herself, not to support any kind of understanding how reality operates but to support faith claims that are contrary to and in conflict with it.
Gotta disagree, I’m afraid. That the gospel story is just a legendary accretion that built up over the decades explains things quite well–and no need to handwave a god into existence.
I’ve written further about why the crucifixion story makes no sense.
Bob, the legendary answer is one that has been around for a while. If you mean that the resurrection story came to be many decades later, that is incorrect. The earliest records for the resurrection are in Paul’s letters. But the info he got for it pre date his letters. I wrote a post on the topic a ways back. http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/2012/10/01/the-earliest-record-of-the-death-and-resurrection-of-jesus-a-look-at-1-corinthians-153-7/
You’re arguing, “Given the presupposition of the correctness of the gospel account, we can rationalize how the facts support this.” But, of course, this isn’t how anyone approaches a question. We start with the evidence and discover a conclusion, rather than the other way around.
If the resurrection story got into the oral tradition six months after the death, does that prove that the incredible gospel claims are true? I’ll need a lot more than that.