So far we have assessed the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and have seen that the most logical conclusion from this evidence is that Jesus was raised from the dead. There is one more convincing piece of evidence. To get to it we need to look at what the Jewish view of resurrection was at the time of Jesus. There were plenty of other figures claiming to be the Messiah at a similar time to Jesus. Two such figures were Simon bar Giora and Simeon bar Kockbah. Both of these men were defeated by enemies after claiming to be the Messiah and no one suggested they were the Messiah after their death, their followers would have been considered mad for claiming such a thing. In fact, these men's followers disappeared quickly after their death. What was it about Jesus that meant his amount of followers grew after his death? His disciples must have really believed he had been raised from the dead. Resurrection was a commonly held Jewish belief around the time of Jesus. There are resurrections from the dead in the Old Testament (1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4, 2 Kings 13). However the resurrection of Jesus is very different to any of these examples of resurrection in the Old Testament. These resurrections are only temporary as the people who were raised died again. There are prophecies of resurrection in the Old Testament: -In Daniel 12 it says that 'the multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake'. Those who do awake will 'shine like stars forever' -In Ezekiel 37 it is stated that 'the whole house of Israel' will awake. -Isaiah 26 also points to a resurrection that will happen to a multitude of people. All these examples of resurrection in the Old Testament have similar features. 1) They all talk of a multitude of people being raised and 2) they all speak of a future, apocalyptic (end of the world) event. In the Jewish view of resurrection here, resurrection always happened to lots of people at the end of the world. Not within history itself. This is clearly not the same as the resurrection of Jesus which happened to an individual within history. If the authors of the Gospels had wanted to convince their early, and mainly Jewish, readers that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead then surely they would have made it look like Jewish portrayals of resurrection in the Old Testament. There would have been multitudes of people rising from the dead and Jesus would have been shining like a star etc. The fact that the gospel writers wrote the story the way they did (when it was so strange and foreign to the Jewish mind) means they reported that Jesus was raised from the dead in the way they did because it actually happened that way. The New Testament itself supports this theory. Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus in John 11. When Jesus tells Lazarus' sister Martha that her brother will rise again she responds by saying 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day'. (John 11:24). In Mark 9 when Jesus tells his disciples that he will rise again from the dead they also think that he means at the end of the world. All of this suggests that the disciples could not have come up with the idea of Jesus' resurrection. It was so foreign to their thought and would have been laughed at. If they had made this story up then it would have looked very, very different. They must have reported it the way they did because it actually happened that way! In our final post on the resurrection we shall look at one final piece of evidence for the resurrection... that Jesus Christ, 2000 years after his death, is still changing and transforming many lives today! Share this post on facebook and twitter! |
0 Comments
In assessing whether Jesus was bodily raised from the dead it is of paramount importance to assess whether there was actually an empty tomb or not. If Jesus' body was still there then he was not resurrected! The women at the tomb All four Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus have an account of the resurrection. One of the most compelling arguments for the historicity of the bodily resurrection and that Jesus' tomb was empty is that the empty tomb was reported by the authors of the Gospels to have been found by women. The historian Vermes says that female testimony did 'not count in male Jewish society'. Women were not even allowed to testify legally as witnesses in trials in first century Judaism (O'Collins). The earliest Gospel that was written is the Gospel of Mark and he has no men arriving on the scene at all. The question this leaves us with is why would the writers of the Gospels have women as being present at the empty tomb if they knew the evidence of these women would not be worth much? The logical answer would not be that the Gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the resurrection because they made the story up! A made up story would not have given the primary testimony and evidence to women but rather to men, so the story would have been more convincing in that culture and time. The logical answer is therefore that the Gospel writers told the story the way they did because it actually happened that way. Because women's testimony was not worth much we must assume this story is based on sound fact and that the women really did find the tomb of Jesus empty. The Gospels seem to differ on points of detail surrounding the resurrection. Surely this is evidence AGAINST the resurrection? Those who seek to disprove Jesus' bodily resurrection point to the differences on points of minor detail among the Gospel writers. For example, Luke has the empty tomb being found at dawn while both Matthew and John say it was before dawn. Mark says the tomb was found after dawn. Mark has three women present at the empty tomb, Matthew has two. In Mark, the women tell no one about what they have seen, while the other Gospel accounts state they told people about what had happened. I want to state that rather than weakening the argument for Jesus' tomb being empty, these differences actually strengthen that argument. Think about it. Lots of the material in the Gospels appears fairly similar. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and it is probable they shared other sources. The fact that the different Gospels contain different details surrounding the resurrection means that there were many different sources for the story of Jesus' resurrection! If the resurrection of Jesus was fabricated and constructed by the early church then there would likely be one single source for the resurrection narratives and the details of that narrative would therefore be more likely to be identical in each of the Gospels! The fact there appears to be a number of sources regarding Jesus' resurrection can only add weight to the argument that there was in fact an empty tomb! It is hard to escape the evidence suggesting there was an empty tomb. However, there is further evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. There were many sightings of Jesus being alive and well after he died and at one time he appeared to over 500 people at once! In the next blog post we shall assess whether these sightings of Jesus can be trusted and what they can tell us about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Read part one, three or four of this blog. Like this post on facebook or tweet about it below!
'If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain'. -Paul to the Church in Corinth. One of the most outrageous claims of Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. Many people find this a difficult thing to believe in and objections have been raised to Jesus' resurrection for two thousand years. However, many people all over the world do believe that Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus' bodily resurrection is something that really did happen. If Jesus really was raised from the dead it has huge consequences and implications for all of us. Over my next few blog posts I shall be looking at what this evidence is. There are two popular arguments against the bodily resurrection that are often put forward to dismiss the historicity of the resurrection. Neither of them stand up to logic but in this introductory post I shall review them briefly. Objection 1 - Jesus was seen after his time on the cross because he never really died Some people suggest that if Jesus was alive on Easter Sunday it is because he never really died in the first place. The theory is widely discounted. It is almost certain that Jesus, who was flogged, beaten and then executed was not alive when he was buried. Even if we even entertain the idea that Jesus was not dead when he was buried it is impossible to conceive that Jesus could fool hundreds of people that he was alive and well such a short time after enduring such an ordeal, let alone escape a sealed tomb. There is also early evidence that reveals Jesus really was dead when he was executed. The early historian Tacitus talks of Christ being executed by Pontius Pilate. The Babylonian Talmud also talks of the death of Jesus. Furthermore, in the Gospels, Jesus' side is pierced and water and blood flow out of his body which is a medical sign that Jesus was dead. The author of the Gospel was not to have this medical knowledge when he reported this detail. This theory, on the basis of evidence and logic can be discounted. Objection 2 - Jesus' body was stolen from his tomb by the authorities or his disciples If the disciples had really stolen the body, they were all risking their lives for a lie and something they knew not to be true and it is highly likely that the body would have been found. If the authorities had stolen Jesus' body they would have produced it when rumours that Jesus had risen from the dead began to circulate. The story of Jesus' resurrection was causing them enough trouble! The theory that Jesus' body was stolen is also widely discarded and is very weak. In my following few blog posts we shall get on to the real meaty stuff. We shall look at the evidence for an empty tomb, assess whether people were seeing a bodily Jesus, were hallucinating or believed in some kind of 'spiritual resurrection' over and against a bodily one and we shall see what the Jewish view on resurrection can tell us about the resurrection of Jesus. Read part two, three and four of 'was Jesus bodily raised from the dead?' Like this post on facebook and share it on twitter below.
|