A Resurrection Reflection for Easter 2018

 

1st Corinthians 15:12-19 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I must say that I have always been intrigued by the Apostle Paul’s candor in this passage. Paul does not hedge his bets on the doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and indeed he unapologetically states that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all he has preached, all he has believed in, and all the hope he has placed in a future of eternal life, is futile and meaningless. If Jesus Christ did not rise, human beings are sure to sin continually and only suffering and death awaits us in the end. For Paul, if the Resurrection of Jesus is a myth then the whole structure of the Christian faith collapses. No Resurrection-No Christian faith! Paul’s candor about the importance of the Resurrection leads me to conclude several things. Things that I believe still have great import for us today…

  1. Without the Resurrection of Jesus, man’s age-old quest for immortality must begin again. Let’s get very real for a moment here. If Jesus was crucified by the Romans (a punishment experienced by thousands of rebels against the Roman regime) and was laid in a tomb to never rise again, then Jesus of Nazareth was perhaps a great moral teacher in the tradition of the Jewish rabbis of the past, but he was clearly not all that he claimed to be. In John 10:30 Jesus claimed to be the giver of eternal life. If Jesus died, to never rise again thereafter, then what reason do we have to be confident in him for eternal life? Christianity without it’s central offer of eternal life to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ, is a truncated faith robbed of it’s true power and greatness.
  2. The Resurrection cannot be “mythologized” and still retain its’ power. Some very liberal Christian theologians such as John Shelby Spong and John Dominic Crossan have concluded that the historical evidence is against Jesus Christ rising again in the flesh on the third day. However, in an attempt to salvage the Christian message, they will argue that the Resurrection can be viewed “metaphorically” and that the risen Jesus the early Christians experienced was a subjective one. This line of reasoning has lead to such jarring (and may I say foolish) affirmations such as “I believe in the risen Lord, but not the empty tomb.” Such an understanding will simply not do in Paul’s theology. For the early Christian church, the risen Jesus was someone who could be touched, who could eat with his disciples, who could be experienced just as really as before his crucifixion.
  3. There is no doctrine more central to the Christian faith than the Resurrection of Jesus. As I stated before, Paul does not hedge his bets on the doctrine of Jesus’s Resurrection. In Paul’s estimation, if Jesus did not rise again then Christianity is deprived of all of its’ truth value. Does Paul ever speak of any other doctrine in quite this manner in the New Testament? Now, let me say that this should not lead us to conclude that all doctrines outside of the Resurrection are not important. Indeed, all Christians ought to believe in the Trinity and the authority of the Holy Scriptures. However, it is undeniable that Paul thought that the doctrine of the Resurrection held a unique and central place in the corpus of Christian doctrine.

As I write this “Resurrection Reflection” for Easter 2018, the Apostle Paul reminds me of the centrality, the wonder, and the beauty of the Resurrection of Jesus. I am reminded of the historical evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection. I am reminded of the fact that his disciples were willing to give their lives for the cause of Jesus. Is it rational to conclude that they would die for a “metaphorical” Jesus, a product of their own imaginations? Perhaps most of all I am given comfort and joy because I know that my redeemer lives and because of that eternal life is sure. Thus I say, this Easter 2018, with the Christians of the past: He is Risen, He is Risen Indeed!

Advertisements

Why do Christians suffer?

The problem of human suffering is a real one that affects both Christians and non-Christians alike. It has lead many people to respond in bitterness to God and those around them. Indeed, the renowned Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman (a graduate of the conservative Moody Bible Institute) has gone on record to say that it is the problem of human suffering which ultimately lead him to abandon his Christian faith.[1] While the atheist can only conclude that human suffering is ultimately meaningless, cruel, and final, the Christian can have a much more positive outlook. The scriptures teach that God is saddened by the sufferings of human beings and that human suffering can have redemptive value. That is precisely the message of Hebrews 12:4-14. This passage has much to teach us on why God allows his children to experience suffering and how we are to respond to our fellow men despite the struggles we face.

Hebrews 12:4-11 is best viewed as a unit. The theme of this short passage is certainly that of “discipline.” In this passage the word “discipline” is translated from the Greek noun “paideia” (or “paideutes” in verse nine) and connotes the idea of “the education of a child”[2] The passage also mentions how God, and competent and loving earthly Fathers, faithfully discipline their children. When used in this verbal sense, the Greek word behind the translation is “paideuo” and connotes the idea of “educating and bringing up child.”[3] The author of Hebrews wastes no time in demonstrating to us why God disciplines us by allowing us to face suffering and trials. Verses five and six are instructive “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives. (NASB)” The author of Hebrews makes an undeniably bold claim here to Christians: Oftentimes our suffering is a sign of God’s very love toward us!

Indeed, the author of Hebrews goes on to explain that God allows us to face trials because he loves us and wants to conform us to the image of his Son. Verse ten says “but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness (NASB).” John Wesley commented that the “holiness” that is being spoken of in verse ten is none other than a referent to “God and his glorious image.”[4] For Wesley, God wisely uses trials to draw us closer to himself and thus bring greater spiritual awareness and reward into our lives. The author of Hebrews soberly notes in verse eleven that trials and suffers are indeed unpleasant and bring much sorrow, but God can, and does, use them to make us righteous. On this passage Matthew Henry writes

By steadfastly looking to Jesus, their thoughts would strengthen holy affections, and keep under their carnal desires. Let us then frequently consider him. What are our little trials to his agonies, or even to our deserts? What are they to the sufferings of many others? There is a proneness in believers to grow weary, and to faint under trials and afflictions; this is from the imperfection of grace and the remains of corruption. Christians should not faint under their trials. Though their enemies and persecutors may be instruments to inflict sufferings, yet they are Divine chastisements; their heavenly Father has his hand in all, and his wise end to answer by all.[5]

Henry’s exhortation is twofold: When you are tempted to wallow in sorrow due to the difficulties you face, remember what Christ went through to redeem you and you will recognize the triviality of your own sufferings compared to his. Also, God has a deeper purpose for allowing you to face suffering in this life. Suffering is never pleasant or enjoyable, but the Christian can take solace in the fact that it is not meaningless nor is it the result of a cruel and unjust God. Rather, God can use suffering for his own redemptive purposes, and lest we forget, God is still a God of justice who will not allow evil to go unpunished and will one day right every wrong.

Now that the author of Hebrews has made it abundantly clear that God can use suffering for his own divine purposes, he now turns his attention to practical exhortation in righteousness. The author of Hebrews is not merely interested in probing why God allows us to suffer, but how the Christian should live when facing suffering. The author of Hebrews states in verse twelve: “Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble (NASB).” It is likely that the author of Hebrews is referring back to the “race” analogy he used earlier in the chapter. Indeed, Hebrews 12:1 says “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us (NASB).” Here, we are being exhorted to stay in the “race” that is the Christian life and encourage others to do likewise. Now that the author has clearly demonstrated the purpose of trials in the Christian life, we should be motivated to press on with the full knowledge that we will now run stronger because of the chastening of God.

In verse thirteen the author of Hebrews continues with the “race” analogy and exhorts us: “and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed (NASB).” This passage synthesizes well with the teaching of Jesus in Matthew chapter seven where we are exhorted to walk the “narrow way.” Outside of the narrow, straight path there is only destruction, but by living out the commands that the Lord has given us we can “run the race” with success. The author of Hebrews’ thought develops further and reaches a kind of climax in verse fourteen. In this passage we are exhorted to “pursue peace with all men” and holiness as well. Indeed, we are told that without holiness we will not see God. It is probable that the author here is referring to the holiness that is imputed into our account when we are justified by God. Indeed, without accepting Christ as our Savior and becoming the beneficiaries of his life of perfection we will never make it safe to the heavenly shore (Romans 5:1-21). However, I think it would be premature to think that the thrust of this verse ends here. Indeed, the scriptures also clearly teach that the true believer will obey the commandments of Jesus Christ and will experience sanctification on some level (John 14:5). Commenting on Hebrews 12:14 Adam Clarke states “No soul can be fit for heaven that has not suitable dispositions for the place.”[6] Sanctification is not an “extra” of the Christian life, it is essential and it is a natural byproduct of justification.

In conclusion, the author of Hebrews points out for us that God chastens those whom he loves. God often uses suffering to make us stronger. This demonstrates to us that we do not have to view suffering as meaningless. Rather God can use it for his divine purposes. Hebrews chapter twelve does not answer, nor does it seek to answer, God’s reasons for allowing suffering in every circumstance, but it does leave us feeling confident that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing human suffering. Finally, the author of Hebrews calls us to press on towards the prize that awaits us in glory, and pursue holiness with the singlemindedness of a dedicated athlete.

 

[1] Ehrmanblog.org, “Leaving the Faith.”

[2] Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon To The Greek New Testament, 348.

[3] Ibid, 348.

[4] Wesley, Parallel Commentary on the New Testament, 802.

[5] Henry, Parallel Commentary on the New Testament, 803.

[6] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1281.

Bibliography

Clarke, Adam, and Ralph Earle. Adam Clarkes commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979.

Ehrman, Bart. “Leaving the Faith.” Www.erhmanblog.org. July 19, 2017. Accessed February 17, 2018. https://ehrmanblog.org/leaving-the-faith/.

Mounce, William D. The analytical lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1993.

Water, Mark, C. H. Spurgeon, John Wesley, and Matthew Henry. Parallel commentary on the New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003.

Arminianism: A Most Misunderstood Theology

Hi folks, please read with an open mind and feel free to share your thoughts. Blessings to all who proclaim Christ as Savior and Lord, Julian Pace.

 

I don’t think it would be an understatement to say that Arminian theology has fallen on hard times in recent years. I tend to think this is because many of the United States’ most influential preachers tend to be far more sympathetic towards Calvinism than Arminianism. Indeed, some of America’s best-known preachers do not make any bones about the fact that they are staunch Calvinists. Pastors and theologians like John Macarthur, John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, David Platt, and Al Mohler openly profess their embrace of Calvinism as well as their rejection of Arminian theology. Turn on Christian radio, walk into a Lifeway bookstore, or attend a Passion conference and you will hear sermons and see dozens of resources written by these men. While many theologians teaching at Seminaries in the United States are Arminians, I can’t think of an American preacher who openly professes to be an Arminian and enjoys the influence and popularity of say a John Macarthur (maybe William Willimon?) Macarthur has authored one of the most popular study Bibles in the United States, can you name a Study Bible written by an equally influential Arminian preacher?  I am also convinced that many people are fearful of claiming to be Arminian because of the charges that have been leveled against it by some of the United States’ most prominent preachers. Piper has called Arminian theology “Man Centered” and Macarthur has equivocated it with the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism. These preachers and theologians are listened to by millions of American Christians and have a major impact on the American Church’s thinking, practice, and spirituality. Thus, when these Christians hear these preachers speak negatively about Arminianism, many Christians understandably conclude that these well-educated and eloquent preachers must certainly be right. However, I am convinced that Arminian theology is oftentimes misunderstood, probably by even many Arminians themselves!

Although Calvinists have critiqued Arminian theology for dozens of reasons I will, for the sake of brevity, only respond to those objections that appear (in my judgement) most often in Calvinist literature and sermons. First, Calvinists will often argue that Arminian theology is unscriptural because it fails to appreciate man’s sinfulness and his utter inability to respond to God’s offer of salvation. In short, Arminians wrongly reject the scriptural teaching of total depravity. Second, Arminian theology forces one to accept that Christians can “lose” their salvation which could lead to a lack of assurance in a believer’s life. Third, Arminians reject God’s sovereignty.

When dialoging with Calvinists it has been my experience that they are quite surprised when I tell them that I affirm the doctrine of total depravity. Often, they are even further surprised when I tell them that every “Classical” Arminian affirms total depravity as well. I affirm, with the Calvinist, the scriptural teaching of Romans 3:11 that without God’s intervening grace we would never pursue a right relationship with God. Sin has so damaged our will that we can’t exercise the slightest inclination towards God without divine aid. The Arminian solution to this problem is the doctrine of “prevenient grace.” This doctrine teaches that God in his mercy has enlightened the will of people to the extent that they have the choice to freely choose or reject him. Without God’s gift of “prevenient grace”, we don’t have the ability to choose God. All we can do is rebel against God. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian affirm that we need to receive God’s grace prior to justification due to our depraved nature. The key difference between the two positions is that the Calvinist believes in irresistible grace while the Arminian believes in enabling grace. For the Calvinist, if God has elected to save you, he will graciously regenerate your will prior to justification which will certainly lead you to exercise faith in God. The Arminian posits that God’s gift of “prevenient grace” is for all people and it gives you the ability to choose God, or freely reject him. God regenerates and frees our will so that we are then able to exercise a right attitude towards God if we so choose. Thus, for the Arminian, salvation is all of God’s grace. If God had not taken the initiative in salvation we would never have sought him. The positions are distinct, but they are both an attempt to solve the problem of man’s total inability to choose God without the help of divine aid.

Many Christians have rejected Arminian theology because they believe that if they affirm it then they are required to affirm conditional security (aka a person who is genuinely saved can lose their salvation.) What might surprise the person investigating Arminian theology is that while many Arminians have affirmed conditional security (aka John Wesley and Adam Clarke) many have not! Indeed, Jacob Arminius of whom Arminian theology is named after, never dogmatically affirmed conditionally security and in fact made several statements in his writings that were quite supportive of eternal security! Many Arminians throughout history have believed in the doctrine of eternal security. Frankly, Arminian theology allows for both opinions in its system. If you feel you can’t affirm Arminian theology because you are convinced from the scriptures of the truth of eternal security, then worry no more, a belief in eternal security is entirely compatible with an Arminian framework.

It is often said that Arminians reject God’s sovereignty. This is simply not the case. Like the Calvinist, the Arminian affirms that God has exhaustive foreknowledge and is all powerful. The difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist’s view of God’s sovereignty is that the Calvinist believes that God has determined every aspect of history and has thus rendered each historical event certain. Thus, when Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they could not have chosen otherwise because God before the foundation of time determined that they would sin against him. The Arminian view quite rightly distinguishes between God’s permissive and decretal will. God in his foreknowledge knew that Satan, Adam, and Eve would rebel against him, but they could have chosen to do otherwise. Their choice to rebel was permitted by God but it was not determined by him. While I can appreciate the Calvinist’s desire to affirm God’s sovereignty, I still must reject their view because I do not see how it does not lead to God being the author of sin. If God determined every historical event, thus rendering certain that Satan, Adam, and Eve would rebel and sin against him without the possibility of doing otherwise, then it seems that sin originated in the mind and will of God. To affirm this, as the Calvinist would agree, is blasphemous.

I want to close by noting that I have been positively influenced by several Calvinist theologians. I have benefited greatly from the work of Calvinist theologians like R.C. Sproul, Tim Keller, Charles Spurgeon, and many, many others. There is much I appreciate about the Reformed tradition in general. Thus, my goal here is not to smear Calvinism or its proponents even though I ultimately can’t affirm some of what it teaches. Rather, my goal is to dispense with some of the more common, and I think erroneous, objections that have been leveled against Arminianism so that people will give it a fair hearing once more. I think someone who approaches Arminian theology with an open mind will find that this doctrinal system takes seriously the depraved nature of people, robustly affirms God’s sovereignty, and is thoroughly grounded in the biblical witness.

 

The Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ

 

Pictured above is Saint Athanasius: Athanasius is one of the Christian faith’s greatest theologians. His classic work On The Incarnation remains one of the greatest defenses of Incarnational theology to this day.   

Do you believe that Jesus is both God and human? Do you know why you believe this to be true? The following is a seminary paper I recently finished that talks about the history of the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, as well as the good biblical reasons there are for affirming this doctrine. This is for all you theology lovers out there! Enjoy, Julian Pace

 

The Hypostatic Union, or the doctrine of Hypostasis, is the biblical doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term thusly “A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the divine and the human.”[1] The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ can be compared to that of the Trinity. Although both terms are not explicitly used in scripture they are both reasonably inferred from the relevant biblical data.

Although the church affirmed the doctrine of Hypostasis at the council of Ephesus in 431, and at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the doctrine has caused some controversy within the church. Many different Christological formulas have been proposed in contrast to Hypostasis. Some differ fundamentally from the Hypostasis doctrine and either deny Jesus’s true humanity or true divinity. Some Christians disagree with the specific Christological formula embraced at Chalcedon while still affirming that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man (a notable example is the Oriental Orthodox communion which boasts of nearly 90 million members worldwide.)[2]

One view that stands in stark contrast to the Hypostasis view is Docetism. The term is derived from the Greek word “dokeo” which is roughly translated as “I seem.” The origins of this view are obscure but noted theologian Norman Geisler is convinced that the idea had some adherents as early as the first century.[3] Basically, Docetism denies Jesus’s true humanity. The Docetists argued that Jesus was not truly human but only “seemed” to be. Apollinarianism is similar to Docetism in that it diminishes the humanity of Jesus Christ. Apollinarius (c. 310-390) taught that Jesus had no human spirit, thus fundamentally undercutting the truth of Jesus’s humanity.

Other views have exalted the human nature of Jesus over his divine nature. Perhaps Arianism is the best known Christological heresy that denied Jesus’s full divinity. Norman Geisler defines Arianism thusly “Following Arius (c. 250-336), it’s founder, this heresy denies that Jesus is fully God, allowing Him a created status below God.”[4] Saint Athanasius, perhaps Christianity’s greatest theologian, thoroughly refuted the arguments of Arius in his classic work On The Incarnation. Ultimately, the church condemned the teachings of Arius as the Council of Nicaea in 325. Another view that denies Jesus’s full divinity is the heresy of Adoptionism. This Christological model asserts that Jesus was a normal man until God adopted him on the day of his baptism and made him a partaker in the divine nature. Another view that can serve as something of an umbrella term for heresies that deny the divinity of Jesus is Monarchianism. This view flourished in varying degrees in the second and third centuries.

Any discussion about the doctrine of Hypostasis must consider the views of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. These views do not fit easily into the two heretical paradigms just discussed. The Monophysite view, held by Eutyches (c. 375-454), diminished the humanity of Jesus and stated that the divine nature of Jesus overwhelmed the human nature of Jesus. (The “Miaphysite” view held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, who were mentioned earlier, is a moderate form of the Monophysite view. Many theologians believe it is amenable to orthodox sensibilities even though its adherents are not comfortable with all the affirmations of Chalcedonian Christology.)[5] The Nestorian view, probably not held by Nestorius (c. 386-450) to whom the view is named after, but by his followers, did affirm that Jesus was truly God and truly man. However, it also affirmed that Jesus was in fact two persons: one divine, and one human. This view presents obvious philosophical and theological problems.

The central problem of the views that either diminish Jesus’s humanity or divinity, is that they simply fail to take into account the richness of the biblical data. Understanding the person of Jesus Christ properly and how his divine and human natures relate to one another, is simply not an either/or proposition. Fortunately, the great theologians of the past agreed with this sentiment and when asked whether Jesus was divine, or human, answered with both/and, and not either/or. Many passages in the Holy Scriptures teach the divinity of Jesus including Colossians 1:13-18 and John 1 to name just a few. For brevity’s sake I will only consider John 1 in some detail.

John 1:1-3 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (NASB).” The broader context of this passage in verses 1-18 clearly identify the “Word”, in the Greek the “logos”, with none other than Jesus of Nazareth. It is notable that in this passage the “Word’ is personalized, identified as preexistent, and the creator of the universe. Not to mention the specific the specific reference to the “Word” being God. Indeed, this passage so clearly teaches Christ’s divinity that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to add “a” (an indefinite article which has no equivalent in the Greek language) before the final word “God” in verse 1 to reconcile this verse with their Arian Christology.

It must be equally emphasized that the scriptures teach not only Jesus’s divinity but his humanity as well. Jesus was born like all other people (Luke 2:1-20), hungered like other people (Mark 11:12), wept like other people (John 11:35), and bled and died like other people (Matt 27:32-56.) To argue for a Docetic belief about Jesus’s humanity, requires special pleading and undermines important theological concepts in the scriptures such as Jesus being the “Second Adam” who takes away our sins (1 Cor 15:45-49). Thus, when presented with the dual realities of the Christ’s divinity and humanity, a good theologian should seek to synthesize the two doctrines rather than exalt one nature over the other. We should avoid the extremes of outright denying either nature of Jesus and be careful not to repeat the far subtler errors of the Monophysites and the Nestorians. The doctrine of Hypostasis is indeed a complex one, but the scriptures do in fact teach both Jesus’s humanity and divinity. These truths are made quite clear in a wide number of passages of Holy Scripture and they have been affirmed by the church at both the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. For these reasons, all orthodox Christians should hold to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ confidently and without apology

 

[1] Pace, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 320.

[2] Ibid, 423-437.

[3] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 552.

[4] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 552.

[5] Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom 600-1700, 37-38.

 

Bibliography

Clarke, Adam, Clarks Commentary: The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic theology. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002.

Hall, Christopher A. Learning theology with the church fathers. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Pace, Edward. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

 

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Hi everybody, here is a video my ministry produced that talks about the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. I hope you enjoy it and please share. Blessings, Julian Pace.

 

“Jesus, Our Glorious, Great High Priest” a Sermon from Hebrews 4:14-16 by Julian Pace

Hello everyone, I recently had the opportunity to bring the Sunday sermon at the First Christian Church of Savannah. If you would like to hear it the link I have provided below will take you to the Church’s website where you can listen in. Once you are there simply scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the sermon that is entitled “Jesus, Our Glorious, Great High Priest.” It is my prayer that this sermon will draw you closer to Jesus of Nazareth, our great high priest who has taken away the sins of the world! Blessings, Julian Pace.

https://www.fccsavannah.org/sermons

 

 

 

 

Does the Historical Evidence Favor Jesus of Nazareth Rising from the Dead?

 

Just a little something to think about as we prepare for the Lord’s Day tomorrow. Blessings, Julian Pace.

Even the casual observer of the worldwide Christian church would conclude that on many issues of theology, spirituality, and practice Christians disagree, sometimes markedly so. However, this same observer would be remiss if they were to conclude as well that Christians are not united by anything at all. Indeed, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Protestant all would affirm certain doctrines as essential to the faith: The Trinity, Jesus as true God and true man, and of course the Resurrection of Jesus. Of these doctrines, perhaps none is more essential to the faith than that of the Resurrection. Indeed, if Jesus of Nazareth is dead today than the other doctrines just mentioned are mere fantasies. While the doctrine of the Resurrection has come under heated assault almost since its’ first proclamation, the good news for the Christian is that the historical foundation for this doctrine is strong. Indeed, it will be the purpose of this article to demonstrate that the Resurrection is supported by multiple lines of historical evidence and that there is no need for the Christian to have anything less than full confidence in this event’s reality.

The truth of the Resurrection has been defended by a number of intelligent and informed Christian scholars such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, N.T Wright, and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Many lines of evidence have been suggested by these scholars as supporting the factuality of Jesus’ Resurrection. In this article, I will focus only on three. First, it will be shown that the vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm that Jesus existed historically and died by crucifixion sometime in the early first century. Second, it will be shown that Jesus was probably given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and that the tomb he was interred in was found empty by his followers. Third, it will be shown that the early Christians almost certainly had veridical experiences of the Risen Lord.

It should first be noted that almost no professional historian of antiquity nor New Testament scholar rejects that Jesus of Nazareth existed historically and was crucified sometime in the early first century. Indeed, the much-celebrated New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman, who by the way is no friend of orthodox Christianity, has this to say on the matter

Despite the enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea[1]

Now, it is not the position of this article that because the vast majority of scholars accept Jesus’ existence and crucifixion then it is therefore necessarily true. However, the fact that there is almost no debate on these issues in the academy does speak well for the quality of the evidence that undergirds these two important facts about Jesus of Nazareth.

The fact of Jesus of Nazareth’s existence and crucifixion are further buttressed by the fact that a strong case can be made for the basic historical reliability of the Gospels in our New Testament. Indeed, it should be noted that E.P. Sanders, a scholar who is no conservative, in his acclaimed book The Historical Figure of Jesus makes a cogent and balanced case for the Gospels being correct on at least the important details of Jesus’ life. Interestingly, Sanders still affirms their basic historical veracity despite the fact that he is quite willing to admit that the Gospels have a number of historical and methodological problems. Sanders concludes that the Gospels contain enough eyewitness accounts and were written close enough to the lifetime of Jesus for us to consider them reasonably accurate sources for the life of Jesus.[2] Even if one is convinced that the Gospels do contain some historical errors there is simply no reason to conclude that they contain no historically accurate information about Jesus at all. Indeed, all of the Gospels were written within sixty years of Jesus’ lifetime and contain at least some eyewitness testimony.[3] Furthermore, all of them assume Jesus’ existence and all of them record that he was crucified by the Romans. Thus, it can be reasonably stated that skepticism over the basic details of Jesus’ life, such as his existence and crucifixion, is simply unwarranted. Indeed, Bart Ehrman sums up well the weakness of the case that Jesus did not exist historically

The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus[4]

Indeed, the evidence for the basic details of Jesus’ life is simply overwhelming and at this juncture simply irrefutable.

The second line of evidence is more contested within the academy, though perhaps not as greatly as one might assume. Indeed, many fine critical scholars are willing to accept that Jesus of Nazareth was given an honorable burial in a tomb and that said tomb was found empty by his early followers. Indeed, there are a number of good reasons to believe that the empty tomb narrative is basically correct. Noted apologist and scholar William Lane Craig has ably defended the fact that Jesus was given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea in his well-received book Reasonable Faith. Craig is convinced that the burial story recorded in the Gospels is accurate for two reasons. First, Craig demonstrates that the historical detail of Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea is contained in the Gospel of Mark, this is important as the Gospel of Mark is both an early and independent source for the life of Jesus and thus Craig reasons that the burial account is probably sound. Indeed, at least some scholars are convinced that Mark was written only fifteen years after Jesus’ lifetime, thus greatly increasing the likelihood that it is a reliable source for the life of Jesus.[5] Furthermore, Craig cites the German source critic Rudolf Pesch for further support as Pesch is convinced that the source behind the burial narrative dates to within seven years of Jesus’ lifetime.[6]

Second, Craig is convinced that Jesus was given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea because he thinks it is unlikely that the early Christian community would have invented a story about a member of the Sanhedrin showing such respect for the body, and thereby the person, of Jesus of Nazareth. [7] Acts 2:23, 36 and 4:10 demonstrate well the animosity the early church held towards the Sanhedrin. Indeed, Acts 2:23 records the Apostle Peter as saying “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (NASB)” The reference to “godless men” by Peter is almost certainly a reference to the Sanhedrin and demonstrates well how poorly the early Christian community viewed this body.

The burial account by Joseph of Arimathea has received some criticism from scholars. Indeed, Bart Ehrman has suggested that the Romans would have had no reason to release Jesus’ body to Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, they preferred to let bodies rot upon the crosses so as to make an example to would be rebels. Furthermore, Ehrman is convinced that Pontius Pilate, being the particularly nasty fellow that he was, would not have released Jesus’ body under any circumstances. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, it simply does not deal with the evidence in favor of the burial narrative specifically enough. To very specific lines of evidence Ehrman responds with an argument that is the equivalent of “this could have possibly happened” which is not a very strong argument. Second, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Romans may very well have bowed to Jewish pressure and allowed them to remove the bodies of those crucified. Particularly during Passover which was one of their most sacred festivals. Indeed, Josephus notes that Pilate upon entering Jerusalem offended Jewish sensibilities by displaying Roman effigies and standards within the city. After much Jewish agitation, Pilate removed the images.[8] Third, we are privy to at least one example of people being removed from the cross due to the petition of a Jew. This Jew being Josephus when he begged the Emperor Titus to release three of his acquaintances from the cross. Titus acceded to Josephus’ request. [9] Ehrman is a credible biblical scholar, and his critique should not be dismissed out of hand, but his objections are not strong enough to discount the basic historicity of the burial account of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is also much historical evidence in favor of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth finding his tomb empty a few days after his death by crucifixion. Interestingly, a study done by Gary Habermas that surveyed the vast majority of the literature pertaining to the study of the Resurrection of Jesus in English, German, and French between 1975 and 2005, showed that an impressive seventy-five percent of scholars who wrote on the subject were convinced that Jesus’ followers found his tomb empty a few days after his death by crucifixion.[10] Again, it should be noted that the argument presented here is not one in favor a majority vote deciding a historical event’s veracity. However, the fact that such a large number of scholars find the evidence in favor of the empty tomb at least credible should cause the skeptic to at least give the matter some consideration.

The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is recorded in a number of early sources. Not only is it recorded in the Gospel of Mark but it is also found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. The latter passage states

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (NASB)

Scholarly consensus places the writing of the 1 Corinthians sometime around C.E. 55 which is only about twelve years or so after the lifetime of Jesus. Furthermore, William Lane Craig and Dale Allison are both convinced that the passage Paul quotes here is probably the product of an early Christian writer other than himself.[11] Thus the tradition behind this passage could date to within seven years of Jesus’ lifetime. It should be noted that while the empty tomb is not explicitly mentioned it is strongly implied by the phrase “He was buried.”

Perhaps the most interesting detail of the Markan account of the empty tomb is that the writer of Mark’s Gospel records for us that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women (Mark 16:1-8). While this does strike us moderns as unusual, this was truly noteworthy in first century Palestine. This is because in Jesus’ day women were not seen as reliable witnesses to an event regardless of the circumstances.[12] If the Apostles created a legend about the tomb being empty it is unlikely that the legend would have recorded that women were the primary witnesses to the empty tomb. The fact that Mark’s Gospel records what was probably a rather embarrassing detail to the early Christian church, greatly increases the likelihood that the account is true.

Several objections to the truth of the empty tomb have been suggested. Perhaps the most popular secular explanations of the empty tomb are the Wrong-Tomb Theory, The Apparent Death Theory, and the Conspiracy Theory. The Wrong-Tomb Theory explains the empty tomb away by asserting that the disciples simply visited the wrong tomb on Easter morning. This explanation is implausible for two reasons. First, if the story of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea is true then there is no reason to believe that Jesus’ final resting place was not reasonably well known. Second, it is implausible to suggest that the Sanhedrin would have allowed the early Christian belief in the Resurrection to continue if the correct tomb could have been located and Jesus’ body put on display for all to see that he was truly dead.

Almost no one defends the Apparent Death Theory as an explanation for the empty tomb any longer, though it was embraced by some people, including Friedrich Schleiermacher the great liberal theologian, in the early nineteenth century.[13] This view states that when Jesus was taken from the cross he was not truly dead. Once laid in the tomb Jesus revived and presented himself to his disciples as the Risen Lord. This view is at best deeply problematic for it ignores the fact that the Romans were expert executioners who simply would not have allowed for a mistake of this magnitude.[14] Simply put, no one who endured the entire punishment of crucifixion could have reasonably survived.

The Conspiracy Theory, like the Apparent Death Theory, has fallen on hard times lately and is simply not an explanation that critical scholars take very seriously any longer. This theory states that the early disciples stole Jesus’ body from the tomb and lied about his Resurrection. This view falls apart for the simple reason that it fails to take into account that the early Christians were willing to give their lives for their faith. Indeed, one wonders why a group of disillusioned men who just saw their beloved Rabbi die a terrible death would cook up such a conspiracy when there was so little to gain from doing so. The well-respected New Testament scholar Michael Licona perhaps says it best

The disciples’ willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs indicates that they certainly regarded those beliefs as true. The case is strong that they did not willfully lie about the appearances of the risen Jesus. Liars make poor martyrs. … The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus.[15]

Indeed, due to the fatal flaws inherent to the Conspiracy Theory, it was only embraced by a few deists in the nineteenth century. Its’ multiple flaws must indeed force us to conclude that a better explanation must be available.

The third and final line of evidence is that there are multiple accounts of many people seeing Jesus of Nazareth alive after his crucifixion. Indeed, the Gospels and the New Testament epistles provide for us multiple early and independent sources that demonstrate that many early Christians were eyewitnesses to the Risen Lord.[16] In 1 Corinthians 15, a source that dates to within at least fifteen years of Jesus’ lifetime, the Apostle Paul mentions that Jesus was seen by “Peter”, “The Apostles”, as well as “five-hundred other Christians.” Interestingly, Paul also mentions that James, the brother of Jesus who at first rejected his claims to messiahship (Mark 3:21), saw Jesus of Nazareth alive after his crucifixion. It is almost certain historically that much of Jesus’ family rejected his ministry prior to his Resurrection as this detail is recorded in Mark which is an early source. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the early Christian church would have invented something so embarrassing. The fact that James later came to believe in Jesus must force us to conclude that some very powerful experience must have made him change his mind about his brother. Indeed, the plethora of evidence has forced the hardly conservative New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders to conclude

That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know[17]

E.P. Sanders expresses well the opinion of many New Testament scholars. Most are convinced that the early Christians had experiences of some kind that lead them to believe that Jesus was alive. However, whether these experiences were veridical or the product of hallucinations is typically where scholars diverge.

The most common response to the early Christians experiencing the Risen Lord is that they were the victims of hallucinations. However, the problem with this explanation is that early and independent sources affirm that “groups” of people were witnesses to the Risen Lord (1 Corinthians 15) and most Psychologists remain unconvinced that “groups” of people can experience the same hallucination at the same time.[18] Furthermore, we would be justified in remaining skeptical about the truth of Jesus’ Resurrection if only some or even one of his early followers came to the conclusion that he had been resurrected. Indeed, sometimes people convince themselves of falsehoods when under serious emotional and mental pressure. However, the judgement of most New Testament scholars is that very many early Christians were convinced that they had experienced a resurrected Jesus of Nazareth.[19] With these considerations in mind, the Hallucination hypothesis simply does not explain why groups of people were convinced they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

In conclusion, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is quite strong. Not only is there overwhelming evidence for his existence and crucifixion, a reasonable case can be made that he was given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea, his tomb was found empty by his followers, and that they saw him alive after his crucifixion. With these facts in mind, Christians should not shy away from skeptics when they ask tough questions about the Christian faith. The evidence is strongly in favor of Jesus rising again on the third day and we should not be afraid to affirm his resurrection as a historical reality. Furthermore, as Christians we should readily take comfort in the truth that our own resurrection has been rendered certain because Jesus’ resurrection has been confirmed by the historical evidence as well as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. With all this in mind, perhaps the only thing left to say would have to be “Even so come, Lord Jesus come! (Rev 22:20)”

Endnotes

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.12

[2] E.P. Sanders, The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. 57

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

[4]Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2013. 96

[5] John A.T Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.

[6] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 362

[7] Ibid, 364.

[8] Josephus, Jewish War 2.9, 2.4

[9] Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, 76

[10] Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Research From 1975 To The Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?” Journal For The Study Of The Historical Jesus3.2 (2005): 135-53. 141

[11] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 365

[12] Ibid, 367

[13] William Lane Craig, “Jesus’ Resurrection.” http://Www.reasonablefaith.org. Accessed August 10, 2017. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-resurrection.

[14] Ibid

[15] Michael R. Licona, The resurrection of Jesus: a new historiographical approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. 370.

[16] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 381

[17] E.P. Sanders, The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. 280

[18] Gary R. Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: Hallucination.” http://www.equip.org. Accessed August 10, 2017. http://www.equip.org/article/explaining-away-jesus-resurrection-hallucination/.

[19] William Lane Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 392

 

Select Bibliography

Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist?: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 362.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic theology. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002.

Habermas, Gary R.”Resurrection Research From 1975 To The Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?” Journal For The Study Of The Historical Jesus3.2 (2005): 135-53.

Licona, Michael R. The resurrection of Jesus: a new historiographical approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. 370.

Sanders, E.P. The historical figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1996.

Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.