Miracles, Part 8: What Does the Resurrection Mean?
The famous twentieth century Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer astutely observed that, when it comes to knowledge, people today behave as if they live in a two-tiered world, a world in which there is an upper room and a lower room. We live in a culture that has been infected with the notion that information we can trust can only be obtained in the lower room through empirical observation and reason. This is the realm of the hard sciences. Religion, ethics, theology, and philosophy do not give us facts, so the narrative goes, but only personal opinions, and so these occupy the upper room of faith and fantasy where reason has no place.
Christianity pushes against this notion, and challenges all reasonable persons to test its truth claims in the lower room. Christianity has never been afraid of a good intellectual fight, and its history is replete with brilliant thinkers who have commended the faith boldly, reasonably, and successfully to their generations. The challenge of Christianity to the world is rooted in the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians15:17: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." Paul throws down the gauntlet and asserts that the truth of Christianity hangs by the thread of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it happened, then Christianity is true. If it didn't, then Christianity is a hoax.
Paul contends that the Christian faith is not just a matter of opinion, but a matter of historical facts that can be tested. Unlike other religions that are based on individual subjective experiences, cultural indoctrination, unfalsifiable assumptions, and unverifiable claims, Christianity points to an historical event in space and time, offers credible "lower-room" evidence for this event, and invites anyone to falsify it. Having considered this evidence in some depth in this series, we conclude that the evidence leads us to the empty tomb and the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ, the Son of God in the flesh, a miracle wrought by God himself.
If this is true, then it certainly has consequences for our lives. Jesus taught that there is a God, the person and nature of whom have been revealed in the Old Testament. He called this God his Father. He claimed that he himself was the only path to knowing this God and to eternal life. Yet he promised that his yoke would be easy and his burden light for all who follow him. His resurrection from the dead was his ultimate credential, validating his claims. We should be stunned by this event. But we need not make an irrational leap of faith to believe it. The evidence strongly and loudly proclaims across the millennia that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that in believing in him, we may have life. He is the one born of a virgin, God incarnate, the one who came to save the world. Accepting this as true is only reasonable.
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Categories: Miracles and the Resurrection
Tags: Faith and Reason Miracles Resurrection Jesus Christ Christian Apologetics Empty Tomb
Hey, great article! Christianity is the only religion that is based on empirical evidence. The evidence for the risen Christ can only be explained by the resurrection itself.
Reply to this
Thanks and AMEN, Brother!!
Reply to this
This is a great article. In fact, the whole series itself, is pretty powerful. The resurrection is proof that Jesus is the Resurrection, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus-Christ, paid our debts at calvary.We Christians, are the only people to have a Savior. We are the only one to have been redeemed and have our sins forgiven. All of the others are based on self sacrifices, but Jesus Christ, gave himself up, died for his sheep. He is alive. And you can be alive too if you believe in Him.
Reply to this
Thanks for your commnet, Wilbert. I am glad that you were edified by this series. Yes, indeed, no other faith can claim a risen Savior, and there is no other name by which a man can be saved but Jesus Christ. All praise be to God!!
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Excellent point about Christianity having something to say in both "rooms".
With appreciation,
Pastor Adam Barton
Akron, Ohio
Reply to this
Thanks again for your comment!
Reply to this
Stumbled upon your site this morning.
It appears to me that the foundation for this so-called resurrection is the Empty Tomb, not the so-called appearances of Jesus. If you accept John's version, the first believer believed in this resurrection because the tomb was empty (John 20:1-9). Same could be said of Mark's account. A youth or young man in the tomb tells the women that Jesus is not there. No appearance here, just the Empty Tomb. The inherent weakness to this Resurrection Story lies in the rolled away stone in front of the tomb. If you have people claiming to have seen a "resurrected Jesus" and people rush to the tomb to find it still "sealed" then you have the makings of a real story. Roll the stone away and have the tomb found to be empty. Now you've got yourself a real tale. The story coming down to us in the gospels is simply too convenient and suspicious to be taken too seriously. Too many possibilities exist including the fact that the first night the tomb was left unguarded which allows easy entry for anyone, whatever their motives. Ultimately, the rolled away stone creates the greatest obstacle, as the so-called Empty Tomb becomes the basis for belief, not the so-called appearances.
I could continue, but I'll stop here. Thanks.
Reply to this
Hi, Thom,
Thanks for stopping by. You are welcome any time. As I understand your first objection, you claim that an empty tomb with a rolled-away stone offers weak evidence for the resurrection, even weaker than an empty tomb with the stone still in place. Your second concern has to do with what you have perceived from the text as an “unguarded” tomb on the first night after the crucifixion.
Fair enough. I will address your second objection first. Was the tomb really unguarded the first night? A superficial reading of Matt 27:62-66 might lead one to believe this. The text reveals that the chief priests and Pharisees were definitely concerned about a grave robbery and approached Pilate “the next day, that is, after the day of Preparation,” with an urgent request to seal the tomb and post a guard. The day after the day of Preparation would have been the Sabbath, which began at 6 pm Friday evening. So any time after 6 pm would have been “the next day.” Luke 27:54 corroborates this stating that “it was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was just beginning,” when Jesus was laid in the tomb. In addition, given the priests and the Pharisees’ state of agitation, it seems highly unlikely that they would have allowed an evening to pass without the tomb being watched.
What about the empty tomb and the stone? Pilate grants the Jewish leaders’ request and allows them to make the tomb as secure as they can (Matt 27:65). He gives them permission to use the Roman guard under their control and to do whatever it takes to protect the grave site. They seal the stone and set the guard. What does this mean? The seal would have been an official sign of some kind declaring the tomb legally off limits by order of the Roman governor. The seal guaranteed that the contents of the tomb had been inspected by the proper legal authority. Violating this seal ensured severe penalties. The guard would likely have consisted of at least four soldiers, each one working a three hour shift, so that the tomb would be guarded around the clock by alert and well armed custodians. Failing their mission would likely have led to their summary execution. Such a state of affairs made a grave robbery quite implausible. Hence, the removal of the stone was a very big deal. The text tells us that the guards “went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.” In response, the Jewish leaders bribed the soldiers to propagate what they knew to be a lie, that is, that the body had been stolen (Matt 28:11-15). Under the circumstances, they knew that this really could not have happened.
I invite you to read the entire series leading up to this article. Once you have considered the entire case, I would be glad to engage in further conversation. Here’s the link to the first article in the series.
http://mychristianapologetics.com/2009/10/20/miracles.aspx
There is a link at the end of each article that will take you to the next one.Thanks again for your intelligent interaction and probing questions. I appreciate your interest in this topic.
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Reply to this
Arnie, thanks for your response.
I find it intriguing that ultimately so much of the defense for the Resurrection relies on speculation and certain "facts" that wouldn't even pass the basic test for the Minimal Facts approach. A defense or argument that leads one to suggest that " . . . it seems highly unlikely . . . " reveals more a bias or tendenz than it does anything else. Just my opinion.
I think I failed to adequately express my philosophical problem with the rolled away stone in front of the Tomb. I believe you would have a much more fascinating story if you have people showing up to the Tomb claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, and these so-called guards standing firm that such an eventuality was impossible because the Tomb had not been tampered with while they had been guarding it. As the story now stands you have a so-called Resurrection whose foundation is this Empty Tomb, not the so-called appearances. It seems to inevitably lead to a syllogistic argument that goes:
An empty tomb means that a resurrection has taken place;
The tomb of Jesus was discovered empty;
Jesus was resurrected.
Interestingly enough I find little evidence to suggest or confirm that Jesus was actually placed in this tomb in the first place. The only "witnesses" to this are apparently some women friends and relatives of Jesus. This becomes a fascinating point when viewed in relationship to I Corinthians 15:3-8, which, as you know, is the oldest extant mention we have to the Resurrection appearances. As you also know, this account has no mention of the so-called appearances to the women. Some have suggested that Paul omits them because of their unreliability legally and their embarrassment factor. Although I could argue that Paul omits them because he is simply not aware of any so-called appearances to these women and that they were simply not a part of the early tradition because they never happened, let's assume that he omits them for the initial reason mentioned. If that is the case that the women's testimony is unreliable and embarrassing, then you certainly can't accept the women's testimony to the burial as anything other than unreliable and embarrassing. What proof is there to the burial of Jesus in this tomb? There would appear to be none.
Anyway, just wanted to respond to your reply. The Resurrection has fascinated me for some time, and I appreciate the thoughtful exchange. Thom
Reply to this
Hi, Thom, thanks for advancing the discussion. I respond to you in bold italics within your text below.
I find it intriguing that ultimately so much of the defense for the Resurrection relies on speculation and certain "facts" that wouldn't even pass the basic test for the Minimal Facts approach. A defense or argument that leads one to suggest that " . . . it seems highly unlikely . . . " reveals more a bias or tendenz than it does anything else. Just my opinion.
I’m not sure what specific “speculations” you refer to here, Thom, but if something “seems highly unlikely,” then the burden of proof is on the opponent to present an argument to the contrary. That something seems “highly unlikely” does not mean that it is pure speculation. For example, it “seems highly unlikely” that most of the disciples would have gone to their death defending what they all knew to be a lie. Now, the burden of proof rests on the skeptic to present an argument suggesting that it “seems highly likely” that the disciples would have gone to their death for a lie. This is not speculation. This is the nature of argument. We can never have absolute certainly when dealing with forensic evidence. We seek the explanation that best fits the facts.
I think I failed to adequately express my philosophical problem with the rolled away stone in front of the Tomb. I believe you would have a much more fascinating story if you have people showing up to the Tomb claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, and these so-called guards standing firm that such an eventuality was impossible because the Tomb had not been tampered with while they had been guarding it. As the story now stands you have a so-called Resurrection whose foundation is this Empty Tomb, not the so-called appearances. It seems to inevitably lead to a syllogistic argument that goes:
An empty tomb means that a resurrection has taken place;
The tomb of Jesus was discovered empty;
Jesus was resurrected.
No, the argument goes like this:
The tomb was discovered empty.
Jesus was seen alive by his disciples.
Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.
It doesn’t matter whether or not anyone actually saw Jesus exit the tomb. This would make the case neither stronger nor weaker. The only two relevant facts are that the tomb was empty and that Jesus appeared and was seen. Both of these conditions are necessary if we are to have a resurrection.
In addition, with the possible exception of John, none of those who found the tomb empty immediately believed that Jesus was alive. They believed when they had actually seen him. Mary thought that the gardener had moved the body (John 20:15). The apostles thought the report of the women was “an idle tail, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Regarding Peter and John, we are told that “as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead” (John 20:9; This immediately follows the statement that John “believed” but qualifies this belief somewhat). Over and over the Scriptures tell us that the disciples were largely clueless, even given the report of an empty tomb. The last thing they expected to see again was a living Jesus. Not until they actually saw him did they truly believe and begin proclaiming the resurrection publicly.
Interestingly enough I find little evidence to suggest or confirm that Jesus was actually placed in this tomb in the first place. The only "witnesses" to this are apparently some women friends and relatives of Jesus. This becomes a fascinating point when viewed in relationship to I Corinthians 15:3-8, which, as you know, is the oldest extant mention we have to the Resurrection appearances. As you also know, this account has no mention of the so-called appearances to the women. Some have suggested that Paul omits them because of their unreliability legally and their embarrassment factor. Although I could argue that Paul omits them because he is simply not aware of any so-called appearances to these women and that they were simply not a part of the early tradition because they never happened, let's assume that he omits them for the initial reason mentioned. If that is the case that the women's testimony is unreliable and embarrassing, then you certainly can't accept the women's testimony to the burial as anything other than unreliable and embarrassing. What proof is there to the burial of Jesus in this tomb? There would appear to be none.
Perhaps the strongest bit of evidence that Jesus was placed in the tomb is Joseph of Arimathea. He appears in the burial accounts of all the gospels. This multiple attestation provides strong support for the authenticity of this story. Here is a wealthy Sadducee, who would have had a great deal to lose, performing this loving act of giving Jesus a decent burial, so his body would not be thrown into an anonymous pit and eaten by dogs. The Sadducees were not particularly popular among Christians since they were the ones primarily culpable for pressing the charges against Jesus that led to his death. So it would “seem highly unlikely” (sorry) that the gospel writers would have fabricated a Sadducee to be a hero in the passion account.
Regarding the women, first century Jewish culture was very sexist. The testimony of a woman was not allowed in court. So why would the gospel writers, if they were fabricating their accounts, unanimously agree that the women were the first at the tomb and the first to see and report the risen Lord? Why would they include material that weakens the credibility of their argument if the material were not true? If you were trying to convince a hostile jury of your innocence of a crime, would you fabricate a story to intentionally incriminate yourself? That the story of the women appears in all four resurrection accounts strengthens the argument for the resurrection, and even many of the most skeptical scholars agree.
Keep in mind that Paul is reciting a creed; he is not authoring something original here. The creed is a set piece. He is repeating what had been passed down to him. We don’t know for sure why the creed does not contain the story of the women at the tomb, but the fact that the story is not included is irrelevant. The creed contains the bare bones of the gospel, and that is apparently all it was designed to do. The contents of the creed agree with the gospels on the essentials, and that’s all that matters. That the story of the women was omitted to make the creed more “seeker sensitive” to a Jewish audience is quite plausible.
I agree, Thom, the resurrection is indeed fascinating, and, if true, profoundly meaningful to our lives both here and hereafter!
Many blessings, Thom,
Arnie
Anyway, just wanted to respond to your reply. The Resurrection has fascinated me for some time, and I appreciate the thoughtful exchange. Thom
Reply to this
Hello, Arnie.
I think in responding to some of my observations you turned the argument on its head.
Any real burden of proof with regard to the claims of Christianity lies with the believer. The skeptic makes no claims. I don't necessarily accept your premise that if something "seems highly unlikely" then the burden of proof is on the opponent to present an argument to the contrary. However, for our discussion I will stipulate to that and relate it to the first of Christianity's claims.
What proof do we have that Jesus died on the Cross? I take no position with regard to the claim. I'm simply asking the question. Christianity makes the claim. In answering it one must be careful not to confuse belief and what is or was believed with actual proof.
For example, the possible creed that Paul cites in I Cor. 15:3-8 is not proof. It is what was believed.
Also, to cite references from historians regarding the crucifixion of one Jesus is not proof to his death. That would be something to which they could not attest.
Also, to take an approach that leads one to suggest that it "seems highly unlikely" that he didn't die is not a proof. You might want it to be, but it is not.
Also, to state that 99% of all N.T. scholars accept that Jesus died on the Cross is not a proof either. It might be an attempt to label those who question it as simply a radical, fringe element, but it is not a proof.
After considerable research it "seems highly unlikely" that Jesus died on the Cross. From your argument the burden is now on you.
1--In most crucifixions the victim was left on the cross to perish. Sometimes this took days and scavenger birds would ravage the bodies. Death happened. It was not pronounced. Jesus was on the Cross between 3-6 hours before being taken down.
2--Pilate was apparently unbelieving to the news of his death (Mark 15:44). What was it that Pilate knew that made him disbelieve the news?
3--Contrary to the attempts by many to create an image of Jesus as almost dead before the crucifixion, quite the opposite appears to have been the case. From the Cross he appears to be lucid, forgiving, recognizes friends and relatives, and appears in control of his faculties. This occurs from the Cross. What might his condition have been before the Cross? We do have his statement in Luke 23:26-31 which seems to suggest that even before the Cross he was a man very much in control of his faculties, not a man on the verge of death.
Still, whether one accepts the attempt by apologists to paint the pre-crucified Jesus as a man on the verge of death, or the one that seems to appear in the N.T. documents themselves, neither one is a proof either to his death on the Cross or to his surviving the Cross.
Only Christianity makes the claim that Jesus died on the Cross. What is the proof to support this claim?
I have had to condense this as I am running out of characters. Thanks, Thom.
Reply to this
Hi, Thom,
I agree with you that anyone advancing a truth claim bears the burden of defending it. However, once a defense has been made, the burden shifts to the opponent to rebut the argument. Certainly the skeptic may choose not to and simply continue to deny the believer’s position, but the skeptic would then risk devolving deeper into irrationality assuming the believer has presented a plausible case.
You assert that the skeptic makes no claims. But this is not true. The skeptic advances quite a bold claim. His claim is that ‘x’ is not or that ‘x’ cannot be known. For example, an atheist claims that God does not exist, and an agnostic claims that God cannot be known. Both of these claims require arguments to defend them. In the end, a skeptical epistemology is often self-consuming since one wonders how the agnostic can possibly know that God cannot be known!
Let me make a few comments on the nature of knowledge and the meaning of “proof” so that we do not equivocate. I hold to the classical definition of knowledge as justified true belief. Justification (or “proof” if you will) does not require absolute certainty. We do not require that in a court room, nor should we require it in arguing for the historicity of an event in any other field of inquiry. We count as knowledge anything that has a reasonable degree of probability, not only that for which we have absolute mathematical certainty. And we achieve this desired level of probability based on an examination of the evidence.
We understand that ancient texts contain what people claim to have happened. None of us was there. So we go through a process of examining the evidence. We seek to draw objective conclusions regarding the credibility of the witnesses, the reliability of the texts, and the archaeological findings in order to develop a cumulative case in support of our hypothesis. As a result, we claim to have knowledge of all kinds of historical facts that have much less attestation than those claimed by Christianity.
The historicity of the crucifixion is well attested and accepted by secular and sacred historian alike, and most reasonable people today would agree that Jesus was successfully executed by Roman authorities. If we accept as historical that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC, then we should certainly accept as historical that Jesus Christ died on a cross circa 33 AD. Of course, we have only ancient texts that contain only what people said they believed, but that is what history is, and we accept the process and either live with rationally held beliefs about the past based on reasonable levels of probability, or require such a high level of certainty that we go through life knowing nothing. And that is the irony of extreme skepticism.
"Then they said to him, 'What must we do, to be doing the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'" (John 6:28-29)
Blessings, Thom,
Arnie
Reply to this