DID THE RESURRECTION REALLY HAPPEN?€¦ · presence of the women as the first witnesses to Jesus'...

DID THE RESURRECTION REALLY HAPPEN? | UNCOVER.ORG.AU/RESURRECTION

of 8 | © 2015 AFES Uncover

DID THE RESURRECTION REALLY HAPPEN?

UNCOVER.ORG.AU/RESURRECTION The resurrection of Jesus forms the startling climax to each of the first accounts of Jesus' life. The resurrection challenges us to see Jesus as more than just a teacher or revolutionary: as the Son of God. At the same time, because the gospels describe the resurrection as a historical event, they invite us to test whether the claims about Jesus (and the claims of Jesus!) are true. If we're serious about valuing what's true, we can't simply dismiss the resurrection as the kind of thing that doesn't happen in the real world. We need to explore whether the resurrection did happen or not. There is no evidence that proves conclusively whether the resurrection did (or did not) happen. However, we can look at the records and the events that follow after Jesus life and death and ask what best explains them - the resurrection of Jesus, or something else? I'm going to suggest that an actual bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for:

• the accounts of his resurrection in the gospels and the letters • the radically novel convictions of the Christian faith • the growth of Christianity • the empty tomb



If the gospels don't give us a historical account of Jesus' resurrection, we need to ask what they are doing. The most likely alternatives:

• either they are conscious fabrications - the authors have knowingly constructed a story that's designed to be persuasive.

• Or they are a legend that emerged from the spiritual experiences of Jesus' followers after his death.

When we turn to the gospel accounts of the resurrection, they look more like the product of eyewitness recollections than anything else. If the gospels were not retellings of eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, we would expect them to look significantly different. When you read the gospel accounts of the resurrection alongside each other, you can't help noticing the differences in the surface details of the story. How many women go to the tomb, when they go to the tomb, whether disciples visit the tomb. If the gospels were fictionalised accounts designed to persuade people of the resurrection we would not expect these differences to be so evident. We would expect that they would be glossed over or explained away. At the same time, for all the differences on the surface, the gospels tell a consistent story: all the gospels put Mary Magdalene at the tomb, all mention that the stone in front of the tomb is out of the way by the time the visitors arrive, all describe an encounter between the women at the tomb and a startling stranger, all point to the empty tomb. The core of a consistent story, coupled with the small differences, suggest that the gospels present us with a record of eyewitness testimony - "the hurried, puzzled accounts of those who have seen with their own eyes something which took them horribly by surprise and with which they have not yet fully come to terms" (Wright 2003: 612).

Argument one Perhaps the most striking evidence for the historicity of the gospel accounts is the presence of the women as the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. At the time, the testimony of women was considered to be almost worthless. It was certainly inadmissible as evidence in a court of law (Blomberg 2009: 411). No document would call on women as it's first witnesses if it hoped to persuade the sceptical. The prominence of the women in all four gospel accounts is difficult to account for if it did not actually occur. If the gospel accounts look like the reports of eyewitnesses, their description of the resurrected Jesus fits the same pattern. The gospels provide an unusual picture of the resurrected Jesus. He is a physical being - eating (Luke 24:43), being touched (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 21:27). And yet he is not a physical being in any normal sense. He has undergone some kind of transformation: he is not recognised by his followers (Luke 24:16; John 20:14), he has the ability to appear and disappear, even appearing in locked rooms (Luke 24:31, 36; John 20:19, 26). He is described as human, but something different from human.



If Jesus' resurrection were an invention, we would expect the gospel writers to attempt an explanation of this strange nature of Jesus. We might expect them to try to describe this strange nature or to persuade their readers of the plausibility of such a nature. Instead, they simply describe the way in which this nature was evident in Jesus' actions. Again, this suggests they were simply recounting the eyewitness accounts they had received (Wright 2003: 609). There are other features that we might also expect to see if the gospels' descriptions of the resurrection were invented. If the gospels were designed to persuade people about the resurrection we might expect them to spend more time highlighting Old Testament hints about resurrection and the way in which Jesus resurrection fulfils them. As it is, only Luke's description of the resurrection makes passing mention of the resurrection as a fulfilment of Old Testament expectations (Luke 24:25-27). Even then, it does not actually explain the fulfilment to the reader! Once again, the gospels show a concern to describe what has occurred rather than to persuade their readers of the plausibility of the resurrection. Finally, given the fact that the gospels were written at a time when there were established Christian communities, we might expect to see them drawing links between Jesus' resurrection and the hope of Christian believers: how his resurrection secures a resurrection for Christians in the face of persecution, suffering and death (Wright 2002: 610). Certainly, we see these reflections in the epistles. However, they are surprisingly absent from all four gospel accounts of the resurrection. It appears, again, that the concern of the gospels is to reproduce eyewitness descriptions of the resurrection, not to craft narratives that echo with their audiences. When we turn to the New Testament letters we see similar evidence that from the very outset, Christians held to the notion that Jesus had been raised from the dead in bodily form. This was not a slowly developing legend or a belief in a spiritual resurrection that gradually developed into a belief in bodily resurrection. The earliest Christian writings we have all work from the premise that the resurrection is both factual and central to Christian belief. Not only that, but they assume that these premises are accepted facts within the early church (Barnett 1997: 129). So, for example, Paul's first letter to the Thessalonian church, believed to be the earliest Christian writing (dated to the early 50s), describes Jesus as "raised from the dead" (1:10). It is important to notice that Paul does not argue for the reality of the resurrection - he speaks about the resurrection as a shared conviction. This is even more apparent later in the letter. Paul is addressing the concern that the Thessalonian Christians have about what will happen to Christians who die. He states, "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." (4:13-14). He expects that his readers have an uncertainty about the future of Christians who have died. However, he



expects no such uncertainty concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He speaks of Jesus' resurrection as a shared, uncontroversial assumption and uses this to introduce the idea that dead Christians have a future based on that resurrection of Christ. This would be a tricky move if Paul did not expect that his Thessalonian readers shared his belief in the resurrection of Jesus. This shared conviction in the resurrection is in itself is no proof of the resurrection, but it does show that the resurrection was accepted as an uncontroversial truth within two decades of Jesus' life and death. In fact, it is likely that this shared conviction was held even earlier. In 1 Corinthians 15 (dated to the mid 50s), Paul again works from a shared assumption about Jesus' resurrection to correct the Corinthian understanding of the wider resurrection of Christians (15:12ff). This time, though, he indicates that this shared conviction significantly predates his letter. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) The language in v.3 suggests that Paul is quoting a creed - a "pre-formed tradition" - that was passed on by word of mouth to preserve and communicate the Christians' convictions about Jesus. There is no date attached to the creed, but for Paul to quote the creed as an authoritative source suggests it was a well established statement of Christian belief. This assumption that the resurrection is an uncontroversial belief among Christians fits better with a historical resurrection than it does with the resurrection being a story developed at a distance from Jesus' death.

Argument two The second big argument for the historicity of the resurrection involves the radically new nature of a faith built around the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Christian belief in the resurrection looks like received witness rather than an invention because it so radically cuts across the religious expectations of the time. It is difficult to see the idea of bodily resurrection not just taking root, but defining the life of the church, if it did not actually occur. There are three points to consider here. When the early Christians maintained that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they were claiming something without parallel (Blomberg 2009: 410). Among the pagan religions there were a variety of beliefs concerning life after death - death leads to a shadowy underworld or perhaps a joyful afterlife. Amidst all the variety, there was no bodily resurrection. N. T. Wright points to he influence of Homer and



Plato on the belief of Jesus' time and says, "Homer does not imagine that there is a way back; Plato does not suppose anyone in their right mind would want one." (2002: online) While the Egyptians may have used the concept of resurrection, for them it had nothing to do with a bodily return from the dead. The ancient belief in the apotheosis (the elevation to divine status) of rulers and heroes was also significantly different to the idea of bodily resurrection. Apotheosis was spiritual rather than bodily and it ended in heaven, not back on earth. Typically, though, the hope of the ancients was directed towards a better life here on earth: wealth, peace, stability, productive harvests, a large family, an enduring reputation (Wright 2002: online). There was no inspiration for the idea of bodily resurrection among the pagan religions. Within Judaism resurrection was affirmed, although not universally. The resurrection was seen as an event for the future, often associated with a time when God would intervene in history to bring about a world of justice. At that time, all God's people would be raised bodily. It is important to notice that the resurrection terminology was not a way of describing the state of the individual after death. It referred specifically to a bodily rising from the dead: a reversal of the effects of death (Wright 2002: online). So, when the early Christians suggested that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they were following Jewish tradition up to a point, but with a very significant departure from the teaching they had inherited: resurrection had occurred in the here and now, rather than the future and it had occurred for one man, not the entirety of God's people. It is important to notice that this difference is more than just a difference in timing. It is a radical reinterpretation of the place of resurrection in God's plans. What once belonged to the future as a means of God's righting the world has come into the present and occurred for one man rather than for all. While it is possible that the early Christians could have created such a radical reinterpretation of Jewish teaching, it hardly seems likely, that it would have taken off among the Jews, given the nature of Jesus' death. The Jewish law asserted that anyone killed by hanging on a tree was cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23). Jesus' crucifixion should have crushed the hopes of Jesus' disciples. For the disciples themselves to then assert that Jesus had been raised by God the very same God who cursed him would have been a radically unexpected conclusion to draw. It is even more unlikely that they would have fabricated a story of a crucified and risen man with the intention of persuading their Jewish audience to believe in Jesus (Blomberg 2009: 411). Equally offensive to the Jews, if not more so, was the Christian claim that Jesus was divine. For Christians, the resurrection of Jesus was the product and the proof of his divinity (see Romans 1:4). This assertion flew in the face of fierce Jewish monotheism. The central prayer in the Hebrew faith, the Shema, begins, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) For the early Christians to then assert Jesus' divinity was a radical departure from and deep affront to their religious roots (see for example the controversy recorded in Luke 5:18-24). Once again it is hard to see how the early Christians would devise such a



notion and even harder to see how they would dream of promoting it in their Jewish environment. Again, none of these factors decisively prove the truth of the resurrection. However, when they're taken together, they show that the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection involved a willingness to depart from a number of crucial tenets of their former Jewish beliefs. It appears more plausible that these departures were based on a reaction to a real resurrection, rather than a series of controversial religious innovations.

Argument three The third argument for the historicity of the resurrection focuses on the explosive growth of early Christianity. With Jesus execution as a criminal, we might expect a number of possible changes to his following: the phenomenal growth of his movement is not one of them. Had Jesus simply been a wise teacher, we might expect that he would be venerated as a martyred teacher. The early church's response however, was from the earliest to worship him as the risen Lord (Barnett 1997: 129). When other messianic movements of the time faced the loss of their leader, they typically followed one of two paths (Blomberg 2009: 412). Firstly, the messianic leadership might be passed passed to another family member. Christianity was unique in asserting that the dying leader maintained his identity as the Messiah. Secondly, the movement might simply die out. Given the disciples wholesale abandonment of Jesus before his death, this might be the expected outcome for Christianity. It is difficult to see how these scattered, disillusioned, demoralised followers could have formed the basis for an exponentially growing movement had Jesus simply died and not risen again.

Argument four The final case for the resurrection of Jesus is the simple fact of the empty tomb. Jesus followers began publicly announcing his resurrection as soon as seven weeks after his death. It would have been very simple for the opponents of early Christianity to snuff out the fledging movement by producing Jesus' body (Groothius 2011: ch.8). The arguments presented here are not, and have not claimed to be, a watertight case for the resurrection of Jesus. Neither the proponents nor the opponents of the resurrection have the evidence to create such a case. What this paper has done is to suggest again and again that the resurrection of Jesus gives us the best reasons for the emergence and growth of Christianity as a belief system and a movement. The evidence we have fits with a resurrection. It invites us to believe that one man has defeated death and that this one man's life is for us all.



Bibliography

Barnett, Paul. 1997. Jesus and the Logic of History. Blomberg,Craig. 2009. Jesus and the Gospels. Groothius, Douglas. Christian Apologetics. Wright, N.T. 2002. Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins(online) Wright, N.T. 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of God.

DID THE RESURRECTION REALLY HAPPEN?€¦ · presence of the women as the first witnesses to Jesus'...

Documents

Transcript of DID THE RESURRECTION REALLY HAPPEN?€¦ · presence of the women as the first witnesses to Jesus'...