Jesus Christ Archives | CrossExamined.org - Christian Apologetics Resources

Yes, Bart Ehrman, Jesus is Yahweh

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Bart Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill in North Carolina. He is well known for his best-selling popular-level books that are critical of the core tenets of evangelical Christianity and in particular the reliability of the New Testament sources. Frequent readers of my articles will already know that Ehrman is not the most careful scholar when it comes to his utilization of ancient sources. A few days ago, Ehrman published two blog posts (here and here) on his website, claiming that the idea that Jesus is Himself Yahweh is a recent doctrinal innovation, completely foreign to the New Testament and the ancient church. Ehrman even goes so far as to say that this is the view of only “some conservative evangelical Christians” and that “I’ve never even heard the claim (let alone a discussion of it) until very recently.” Furthermore, Ehrman adds,

I, frankly, had never even heard of such a thing until six years ago. Maybe I wasn’t listening in Sunday School, or maybe I was sleeping through those particular lectures at Moody Bible Institute; or maybe … Nah, I don’t think so. If someone knows differently, please let me know. But I can’t think of any ancient Christian source that talks about Jesus as Yahweh himself. Jesus is the son of Yahweh.

Ehrman asserts that,

The first time I heard someone authoritatively say that Jesus was Yahweh and that this was standard Christian teaching was in a debate I had with Justin Bass in 2015 – you can listen to it on Youtube. I can’t remember when in the debate he said it but he made some comment about Jesus being Yahweh, and I was floored. I thought: theologians have never called Jesus Yahweh!

For a scholar of Ehrman’s stature to be uninformed regarding Christian orthodox teaching on such a fundamental matter is absolutely astounding. In this article, I respond to Ehrman’s articles and show that he is profoundly mistaken about the teaching of the New Testament and the ancient church.

Early Christian Theologians

Ehrman wonders “if there are any early Christian theologians who have this view.” Yes, there are plenty. For example, Justin Martyr (~100-165), in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, wrote[1],

…now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts…

I do not know how one can get much clearer than that. Irenaeus (~130-202) likewise states[2],

For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth.

Ignatius of Antioch (~50-108) also affirmed Christ’s full deity. For example, in his epistle to the Ephesians, he wrote[3],

We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

I could continue to quote early church fathers for quite some time, but this should suffice to show that the view that Jesus is Yahweh, the eternal God, is not a new idea but rather goes back to the ancient church. I will now turn to Ehrman’s comments on the New Testament.

Is the Name Yahweh Found in the New Testament?

Ehrman states that,

Of course, the name Yahweh is not found in the NT at all, since it is a Hebrew word, and the NT is written in Greek. The NT does not give God a personal name.

This is obviously true since the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. However, the New Testament does use an equivalent word — indeed, the word that is substituted for the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. This word is κύριος, which is translated “Lord” in our English Bibles. Of course, it is true that this word had a broader range of meaning than simply denoting Yahweh (for example, Paul uses it of earthly masters — see Eph 6:5). However, the meaning of Greek words, as intended by the original author, can be shaved down through an examination of context. For example, Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes from Psalm 102:25-27:

You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.

Verse 10 uses the word κύριος, which evidently (given the fact that the author is quoting an Old Testament Psalm concerning the Lord God) is intended to denote Yahweh. What makes this text especially noteworthy for our purposes here is that the author of Hebrews applies the words of this Psalm to Jesus. Indeed, this Hebrew Biblical text is one of several applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1, as the author compares and contrasts the exaltation of the Son with that of the angelic beings.

To take another example, consider Paul’s quotation of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Again, this alludes to an Old Testament text that concerns Yahweh. But Paul introduces this text only a few verses after Paul declared that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). The implication here is that the κύριος of verse 9 is the same referent as in verse 13 — namely, Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the Yahweh of Joel 2:32, on whose name we are to call. This point is drawn out even more explicitly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” This text again clearly alludes to Joel 2:32, except the Lord (κύριος) upon which we are to call is none other than Jesus Christ.

Another example is found in 1 Peter 2:2-4:

2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. 4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious…

Verse 3 quotes from Psalm 34:8 (“Oh, taste and see that the LORD [Yahweh] is good!”). However, verse 4 identifies the κύριος of Psalm 34:8 as none other than Jesus Himself (the nearest antecedent of the pronoun “him” in verse 4 is “the Lord” from verse 3). This implies that Jesus is the Yahweh of Psalm 34:8.

Yet a further example can be found in 1 Peter 3:14-15:

14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy The Holy…

Admittedly, there exists some level of ambiguity about the original reading of verse 15, since the majority of later manuscripts read θεόν (“God”) instead of Χριστόν (“Christ”). However, Bruce Metzger notes that[4],

The reading Χριστόν, however, is strongly supported by early and diversified external evidence…as well as by transcriptional probability, the more familiar expression (κύριον τὸν θεόν) replacing the less usual expression (κύριον τὸν Χριστόν). The omission of τὸν Χριστόν in the patristic treatise de Promissionibus attributed to Quodvultdeus must be due to accidental oversight on the part of either translator or copyist.

If (as seems likely) the original reading is indeed “Christ the Lord”, then we have another example of an Old Testament text that concerns Yahweh being applied to Jesus. Compare 1 Peter 3:14-15, above, with Isaiah 8:12-13:

12 “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. 13 But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy.

Isaiah 8:12 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:14. Isaiah 8:13 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:15, except instead of calling his readers to honor the Lord of hosts as holy (as Isaiah did), Peter implores his readers to honor Christ the Lord as holy. Thus, we have yet another instance of the title κύριος (which is properly interpreted here as a substitute for the Hebrew tetragrammaton) being applied to Jesus.

I could continue in a similar vein for a considerable time. However, I trust that this is sufficient to dispel Ehrman’s contention that the New Testament does not use the name Yahweh and therefore never calls Jesus Yahweh.

Does Psalm 110 Preclude Jesus from Being Yahweh?

Ehrman continues,

When Christians wanted to find another divine being in the OT to identify as Christ, they went to passages like Psalm 110: “The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” Based on what I said in my previous post, you can reconstruct who is talking to whom here (notice the first LORD is in caps and the second not): “YHWH said to Adonai….”

Ehrman’s entire argument here implicitly presupposes Unitarianism. If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then there is no problem with persons within the being or essence of Yahweh being distinguished from one another and even participating in conversation with each other. Nor is there a problem with the Father exalting the Son, since the Son had previously voluntarily humbled Himself through His incarnation and death on the cross. No Trinitarian is identifying the Son with the Father. Rather, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each distinctive persons who together totally share the essence of Yahweh, each possessing the divine attributes fully and completely.

Ehrman’s representation of the words used in Psalm 110:1 is not quite accurate, since it does not say that “YHWH said to Adonai…” but rather “YHWH said to Adoni.” This difference make look trivial (especially as these two words are distinguished only by a difference in Masoretic vowel pointing) but it is actually important. The title “Adonai” is exclusively used as a divine title (essentially as a synonym for YHWH). In fact, the ancient Hebrews would, instead of pronouncing the divine name, say “Adonai” instead. The word “Adoni”, by contrast, is simply the possessive form of the Hebrew word “Adon”, which means “Lord” or “Master” (the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word κύριος). The word can be used of Yahweh, depending on the context, but it is not exclusively reserved for Yahweh. The upshot of this is that, though many Christians have used this text to argue for a plurality of divine persons (and, indeed, the deity of Christ), the reality is that any such argument based on this text is going to require more work and nuance than it often receives. I do not believe this text to be as conclusive as the previous texts discussed in the foregoing. However, it is, I would argue, certainly suggestive as we shall see. The context sheds some light on the intended referent of verse 1. In verse 5-7 of Psalm 110, we read,

The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook along the way, and so he will lift his head high.

In the Hebrew, verse 5 does indeed identify the one seated at Yahweh’s right hand as none other than Adonai, a word used only ever of deity. Thus, Psalm 110 implies a plurality of divine persons within the Godhead. One possible reply to this is that Psalm 110:5 is merely the reversal of Psalm 110:1. Just as David’s Lord sits at the right hand of Yahweh, so also Yahweh is at the right hand of David’s Lord. For instance, in Psalm 109:31, Yahweh is at the right hand of the needy one, and in Psalm 16:8, Yahweh is at the right hand of the Psalmist David. The problem with this argument is that if one continues reading Psalm 110, it is clear that the “He’s” of verses 5-7 all refer back to Adonai, and in verse 7 this individual is said to drink from a brook — a human function. Thus, the individual seated at Yahweh’s right hand in Psalm 110 appears to be a divine-human person.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself Jesus makes the argument that “David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” (Mk 12:37). The point Jesus is making is that none of David’s descendants could be greater than David. This, then, cannot be referring to an ordinary human descendent of David. The question is thus raised as to what sort of Lord this could possibly be referring to. But we can go even further than that. David’s Lord also cannot be any human king, since in Psalm 2:10-12 all kings are to be subject to David, and Psalm 89:26-27 tells us that,

I will appoint him [David] to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

It also cannot be a mere angelic creature since angels serve God’s elect and are servants themselves (c.f. Heb 1:7, 14; Rev 19:10 and 22:8-9). Who, then, is left? God.

The Angel of the Lord

Ehrman notes that Christians (such as Justin Martyr in the second century) have often identified the angel of Yahweh, in the Hebrew Bible, as a pre-incarnate manifestation of Christ. He writes,

I wonder if the confusion among some evangelicals about the Christian understanding of Christ (when they say he is Yahweh) is because the “Angel” of the LORD is so fully representative of YHWH himself that he is sometimes called YHWH after he is clearly identified NOT as YHWH but his angel. Why would he be called YHWH if he was YHWH’s messenger? It would be kind of like if a messenger of the king comes to you and orders you to do something, you tell your neighbors that the “king” has told you to do something. Well, actually, his messenger did, but he was so fully representative of the king that his words were the king’s.

This interpretation, however, fails to account for the fact that various people throughout the Hebrew Bible marvel at the fact that they have seen the angel of Yahweh and yet their lives have been spared (people aren’t supposed to be able to see Yahweh and live — Exodus 33:20). For example, consider the words of Jacob after having wrestled with a man in Genesis 32, one who is identified in Hosea 12:4 as the angel of Yahweh: “So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.’” Further support for the individual with whom Jacob wrestled being the angel of Yahweh comes from the parallel between Genesis 32:29 and Judges 13:18, in which the man and the angel of Yahweh respectively say, upon being asked for their name, “Why do you ask my name?”

Another occurrence of this is in Judges 6 where we read of Gideon’s encounter with the angel of Yahweh. In verses 22-24, we read,

22 Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the LORD. And Gideon said, “Alas, O LORD God! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.” 23 But the Lord said to him, “Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die.” 24 Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD and called it, The LORD Is Peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Yet a further instance occurs in Judges 13, which records the appearance of the angel of Yahweh to Manoah and his wife to announce the birth of Samson. In verse 21-22, we read,

21 The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

Thus, we see that numerous texts (and there are plenty that I have not mentioned) bear witness to the deity of the angel of Yahweh. While Ehrman is correct to note that many of these texts also distinguish the angel of Yahweh from God, this is very consistent with a Trinitarian paradigm that views the messenger of God to be Yahweh and yet in another sense somehow distinct from Yahweh.

Ehrman’s interpretation of the angel of the Lord passages also fails to account for the parallelism observed in Genesis 48:15-16, in which we read of Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph. He said,

15 “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, 16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys…”

Here, we see a poetic parallelism where the angel is identified as God. In fact, in the Hebrew, verse 16b uses the singular pronoun, “may he bless the boys”, implying that the angel and God are one and the same.

I discuss the subject of the angel of the Lord in much more detail here and here.

The Carmen Christi

Ehrman next turns his attention to the Christ poem in Philippians 2:5-11. He writes,

When Christ is exalted after his death, God gives him “the name that is above every name” so that all creation will worship and confess him. That is a reference to Isaiah 45 where Yahweh alone has the name above every name so that all worship and confess him alone.

Possibly these modern Christians are thinking that Christ, therefore, must have been given the name YHWH, and therefore he *is* YHWH. But the passage doesn’t seem to mean that. The ultimate LORD of all, YHWH, is the one who *gives* Jesus the name that is above all others. It’s worth noting that in this very passage, when God gives Jesus his “name,” it does not mean that he’s made a name switch for Jesus. On the contrary, the passage says that the name to which everyone will bow in worship and confess is *Jesus*! (Not YHWH): “That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.” Jesus’ own name is exalted.

This, however, is not the argument at all. I do not interpret the “name” of verse 9 to be a personal name. Rather, this in my opinion is best understood as referring to Christ’s reputation that He received as a consequence of His humiliation and death upon the cross.

There are at least three mutually supporting arguments for Christ’s deity that may be adduced from this text. First, this text is chiefly concerned with Christ’s humility, since “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:6). This only makes sense if Christ is equal in status to God, since one is not commended for humility for not exalting oneself to a higher status than one had a right to. If I refrain from overthrowing the monarchy and exalting myself as king, I am not due praise for my humility in so restraining myself. The text, then, is best understood if Christ voluntarily laid aside the divine privilege that was rightfully His. This reading is also supported by the Greek. Indeed, the construction is known as a double accusative of object-complement. Daniel Wallace explains that[5],

An object-complement double accusative is a construction in which one accusative substantive is the direct object of the verb and the other accusative (either noun, adjective, participle, or infinitive) complements the object in that it predicates something about it.

In this case, the verb is οὐχ ἡγήσατο (“did not count”), the direct object is τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (“equality with God”) and the object complement is ἁρπαγμὸν (“a thing to be grasped”). Thus, the relationship between the direct object and the object complement is rather like an equal’s sign. In other words, Jesus did not count equality with God to be a thing to be grasped (ἁρπαγμὸν). Furthermore, Roy Hoover has argued that this is in fact an idiomatic expression, which “refers to something already present and at one’s disposal. The question… [is] whether or not one chooses to exploit something.”[6] Hoover observes that in every instance where this noun ἁρπαγμός is the object compliment in a construction such as this (where the verb is one of regarding or seeing or consideration), it always means something like an exploitable advantage. Thus, argues Hoover, one could reasonably translate this text to be saying that Christ did not regard being equal with God as something to take advantage of.

A second consideration is that Paul uses the Greek word μορφῇ in verse 6 to describe Christ being in the form of God and uses this exact same word in verse 7 to describe Christ taking the form of a servant. This implies that Christ was in the form of God in the same sense as He took upon Himself the form of a servant. Since Christ was very literally a servant, “being born in the likeness of men” (v. 7b), it follows that Christ was also literally God.

Third, Ehrman rightly points out that verses 10-11 allude to Isaiah 45:23, in which we read, “To me [that is, Yahweh] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” However, in the context of Philippians 2:10-11, every knee is bowing and every tongue swearing allegiance to Jesus. Indeed, that is what is meant by confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), which literally means master.

Conclusion

To conclude, contrary to Ehrman’s assertions, the view that Jesus is Yahweh has been the orthodox Christian position for nearly two millennia, and it is taught in the New Testament. Ehrman claims that the name Yahweh is never used in the New Testament and so could not be applied by the New Testament authors to Jesus. However, the New Testament does use the equivalent Greek term κύριος. Although this word is also used to describe earthly masters, the word is often used to denote Yahweh when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, and often these texts are explicitly applied to the person of Jesus. Ehrman’s argument from the New Testament’s usage of Psalm 110 presupposes a Unitarian paradigm. Though Ehrman argues that the angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible is only the agent of Yahweh who is invested with divine authority, this argument collapses on the basis of the various exclamations of surprise, following an encounter with the angel of the Lord, that one has survived despite having seen God face-to-face. Finally, Ehrman is mistaken about Philippians 2:5-11, which is best read as indicating that Christ voluntarily laid aside the divine privilege that was rightfully His in order to take upon Himself the form of a servant.

Footnotes

[1] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 212.

[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 449.

[3] Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 52–200.

[4] Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 621–622.

[5] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 182.

[6] Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971).

Can Jesus’ Story Still Surprise You?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

History shows that prudence and wisdom are rarely on the side of new ways of looking at Scripture. This is especially true of the “progressive” bent toward remaking Jesus in a postmodern image. So, when I first heard about Tom Gilson’s new book, Too Good To Be False, I have to admit I was confused. Gilson is a solid Christian thinker. But the back cover of his book told me that “Christians reading [it] will encounter Jesus in fresh, worshipful new ways.” Had he gone to the dark side? Ten pages in my fears were allayed. It turns out Jesus’ story can still surprise you. Gilson’s book is not a new interpretation of Jesus. It’s a challenge to see ancient words with fresh eyes. And the picture he paints is astonishing.

Would You Hire This Guy?

Imagine receiving a memo from someone you work with. Its purpose is to introduce an individual he wants you to consider for a job opening you have in your office. In the memo, he describes the candidate as someone who never learns from experience, certainly not from his own mistakes. In fact, he’s never admitted to making a mistake. His leadership skills haven’t improved in the least. He shows no sign of character growth. When you ask him questions, he rarely gives you a straight answer. In his view, you can disagree with him, but that would just make you wrong. And he commands those who work with him to do things his way without exception (51-52).

Would you hire him? Or would you ask yourself, “Who does this guy think he is?”

That’s Jesus as you’ve probably never thought of him before.

Fall On Your Face

The insights in Too Good To Be False are not based on rethinking Jesus’ doctrines or deity. Quite the opposite. They are reminders that we are too used to the populist Jesus we’ve all been encouraged to befriend. When you focus on what he actually said and did, there is no temptation to punch Jesus in the shoulder and laugh. Instead, you are overwhelmed with the urge to fall down on your face and worship him. Yet, he invites you into his circle of trust anyway.

The real Jesus is a leader unlike any the world has ever seen. He speaks and acts with authority, confidence, and power. But he never misuses that power. He never even uses it to his own advantage. Instead, he directs that power toward loving others. He commands respect. And he is always the smartest person in the room.

The combination of these character traits describes a man who cannot be of this world. He’s unlike anyone any of us has ever met or even heard about. And while it’s tempting to say that makes him too good to be true, history tells us differently. The facts are more compelling. They make him too good to be false.

A Novel Character

Jesus’ persona is so outrageously superior it demands an explanation. After all, he’s the most memorable character ever created. And that could make it tempting to write him off as the invention of someone’s very fertile imagination. But you don’t have that option. Dismissing the Jesus of the Gospels that way would be tantamount to subscribing to the most outrageous conspiracy theory in human history. A coordinated forgery made by multiple authors all possessed of the same fanciful delusion. But it’s even worse than that.

To hear the skeptics tell it, this Jesus story is some grand version of the Telephone Game. It got invented, embellished, retold, and passed down through multiple storytellers in various locations. Yet, somehow, the legendary character this process created turns out to be exactly the same guy everywhere we look. He lives in all four Gospels (five if you join the ones who invoke ‘Q’). Somehow, this scrambled mess “produced a greater miracle than the resurrection: the greatest story of all time, with the greatest character in all literature, presenting moral teaching that’s changed every civilization it’s touched for the better.” (133)

Quite a miracle indeed.

Confronting The Skeptics

The usual skeptics won’t take this lying down, of course. But Tom Gilson has been engaging them and their ideas on his Thinking Christian blog since 2004. He’s heard all of their arguments hundreds of times. So, when it comes to handling objections to his thesis, he does so with style, grace, and simplicity. They’re all there — Dawkins, Spong, Aslan, Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Armstrong, Hitchens, and others — and Gilson acknowledges their points. But instead of trying to cut down each tree, he focuses on the forest. Jesus of Nazareth is a character no one could make up.

There are ways to respond to the details of the so-called Gospel “contradictions.” But some skeptics just refuse to recognize them as simple differences in point-of-view. It’s tempting to feel compelled to explain why Jesus didn’t talk about today’s hot-button moral and social issues. They don’t care that, throughout history, the solution to every moral dilemma has come through the actions of Jesus’ followers. We’ve heard the bluster about how Jesus “became God” (Ehrman) or how he was simply another rehashed legend (Dawkins, Armstrong). We’ve even been told that he didn’t really exist at all (Carrier). None of these gets to the heart of the problem.

With all the corruption and shenanigans entailed in passing down a made-up legend, how could the Synoptic authors have pulled it off? How could they have each arrived at the same God-man Jesus when the Telephone Game hadn’t had time to invent his deity before they wrote their Gospels?

The Jesus We Take For Granted

Jesus was a media influencer before it was cool. But what made him popular with those who knew him best also made him notorious with the political and religious leaders of his day. Nobody likes a guy who thinks he’s God incarnate. People like that need to be eliminated. But when those same people reappear shortly thereafter, those who tried to eliminate them know they’ve got a real problem on their hands.

It’s only happened once.

Today, the most vehement opponents of Christianity still invoke his name. They do so to try to expose the “hypocrisy” of modern Christians. But when they do, they’re making Tom Gilson’s point. Even they admire the one character in human history who “no author, no poet and no playwright has ever devised … a character of perfect power and perfect love like Jesus” (126).

He is the standard by which every other character is measured. Too loving to be a liar. Too compelling to be a lunatic. He only leaves us one choice. And Too Good To Be False reminds us that it is a choice we have too often taken for granted.

Resurrection Defense Series: Early Eyewitness Testimony and the Failure of Hallucinations to Account for Them

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Regardless of whether an event is recent or of antiquity, the researched event holds greater historical probability if it holds a higher number of eyewitnesses. The more eyes on the event, the greater chance the historian has in understanding what transpired. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous individuals encountered the risen Jesus in a variety of locations and over the course of 40 days (Acts 1:3). The number of witnesses is recorded in an early creed which is accepted by even critical scholars. Even Bart Ehrman, Rudolf Bultmann, and Gerd Ludemann—individuals who are highly skeptical of biblical claims—accept the credibility of the early NT creeds, which includes 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (Bultmann, NTT, 42; Ehrman, Forged, 92-93; Ludemann, Paulus, 142). The creed of 1 Corinthians 15 represents material that Paul obtained from the early Christian leaders in Jerusalem when he met with them a few years after his conversion. NT scholar Luke Timothy Johnson notes that “the most critical historian can affirm without hesitation. Can anyone doubt, for example … a meeting between Paul and the Jerusalem Church leadership concerning the legitimacy of the gentile mission” (Johnson, Real Jesus, 103)? How many witnesses are listed in the earliest material? Furthermore, is it possible that the groups of individuals listed could have had a hallucination?

The Early Witnesses

Examining the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, the following individuals are listed: Peter, as noted by his Aramaic name Cephas; the twelve disciples; over five hundred believers; James the brother of Jesus; and Paul. Thus far, the number is up to 514. The Gospels note that the women also served as eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus which included Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and other unnamed women (Luke 24:10). This adds at least 5 witnesses. If Mary the mother of Jesus is not the same as Mary the mother of James, one could assuredly add her to the list. If Jesus appeared to James and the other disciples, he certainly would have appeared to his mother also. Thus, an additional person could be added making 6 people added to the running tally equaling 520. Luke also adds Cleopas and another disciple, perhaps his wife, to the list of witnesses when they met Jesus on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18-35). The additional two witnesses increase the total to 522. Matthew and Luke add two other times when numerous witnesses saw the risen Jesus at the same time. Matthew 28 denotes an occasion where the risen Jesus taught a large crowd in Galilee when he provided the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20) While the eleven disciples are mentioned, the text leaves open the possibility that Jesus communicates to a group as he notes that some among them doubted. In Acts, Luke records the ascension of the risen Jesus which was encountered by a large group that witnessed his ascension from the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. Given that this was a public event, many others may have seen Jesus. While 521 are specifically identified and the addition of Mary the mother of Jesus making the number 522, it is possible that the NT could refer to over a thousand people witnessing the risen Jesus given the possibility that 1) women may not be included in the 500 number in 1 Corinthians 15, and 2) that large groups of an unidentifiable number witnessed Jesus on separate occasions. Given that Jesus had previously ordained 70 to go out two-by-two, most assuredly they would have seen the risen Jesus as well if they were not included in the previous lists.

Impossibility of the Hallucination Theory to Explain

As noted, the NT provides solid reasons for believing that numerous people witnessed Jesus over a span of 40 days. However, the skeptic will counter by saying that the disciples merely had a hallucination which led them to believe that Jesus had risen. The hallucination theory fails on several accounts.

The disciples do not hold the traits of those who hallucinate. Those who hallucinate are either induced by drugs, have a mental illness, or are deprived. However, none of the disciples exhibited these characteristics.
The empty tomb does not permit the hallucination theory as an acceptable alternative. All that would be necessary would be the presentation of the dead body of Jesus, but this never happened. The tomb was still found empty in Jerusalem.
The resurrection appearances occurred in different places and by different means (e.g., some occurred indoors while others occurred outdoors, some occurred while standing while others appeared while seated). The disciples would not be in the proper frame of mind for a mass hallucination.
Hallucinations do not normally stop suddenly. Yet the resurrection appearances stopped after 40 days.
The disciples were not anticipating a resurrection event. Thus, the hallucination would have made no sense to the disciples.
Some of the disciples physically touched Jesus (Luke 24:38-40; John 20:24-25) which debunks the possibility of a hallucination.
Hallucinations are individualized events that occur internally and cannot occur in groups. Illusions can occur in groups, hallucinations cannot.
Hallucinations do not account for the enemies of Jesus (i.e., James and John) becoming disciples. If they were hallucinating, they would not have been transformed by the experience. Additionally, the empty tomb would have further debunked the experience.
Hallucinations are relatively rare. As such, they cannot account for the numerous individuals who had the experiences.
Even with people who have drug-induced hallucinations, the person can normally tell that a hallucination is a falsified event compared to items known to be real.

Conclusion

The numerous eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus cannot be attributed to hallucinations or even the development of legendary material. It is believed that the early creeds, including 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 could date to as early as a few months after the resurrection of Jesus and no later than AD 35. The evidence is so strong that early eyewitnesses encountered something that transformed them that it is included in Gary Habermas’s minimal facts. Habermas’s list of minimal facts is data concerning Jesus that are held to over 90% of scholarship, both progressive and conservative alike. Not only this, Richard Bauckham notes given the early nature of the NT creeds that “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology” (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, x). Therefore, neither legendary material nor hallucinations account for these eyewitness encounters. The best interpretation is that Jesus literally rose from the dead and appeared to the numerous individuals who encountered him. These resurrection encounters transformed the witnesses to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true—that Jesus has indeed risen!

Sources

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.

Bultmann, Rudolf. New Testament Theology. Volume One. New York: Charles Sribner’s Sons, 1951.

Ehrman, Bart. Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: Harper One, 2011.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996.

Lüdemann, Gerd. Paulus, der Grunder des Christentums. Lüneburg: zu Klampen, 2001.

Resurrection Defense Series: Embarrassing Details

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We began an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. When investigating any claim of history, whether recent or of antiquity, historians use historiographical tools to decipher the probability of the event in question. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the tools used by historians to determine the legitimacy of the claims presented. The logic behind the criterion is that writers will attempt to make their cause look as attractive as possible. If the presented event contains details that are embarrassing to the writer, the earliest leaders, the founder, or the cause; then it could be said that the event is authentic. Craig Evans writes, “This criterion is easily misunderstood. All it means is that material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank” (Evans 2006, 49). When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous embarrassing details are discovered. Ten such embarrassing details will be presented in this article.

1. Women were the first eyewitnesses (John 20:11-18).

Seeing that this topic was the focus of the last article, not much will be said. For those who have not read the article, see the first part of this series. As a recap, the testimony of women did not hold the bearing that the testimony of men in the first century. Thus, if one is inventing a story, women would certainly not be used as the first witnesses. Yet all four Gospels note that it was the women, particularly Mary Magdalene, who first witnessed the risen Jesus. For this reason, the testimony of women serves as an embarrassing detail that speaks to the authenticity of the resurrection event.

2. The cowardice of the first disciples (Mark 15:40-41).

The women watched the crucifixion of Jesus from afar. They attended to the needs of Jesus up until the very end. However, the male disciples were nowhere to be found with the sole exception of John of Zebedee who was instructed to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27). Peter and the men ran and hid while it was the women who were brave and remained steadfast to Jesus. In the first century where male bravery was held in high esteem, it is unthinkable that this aspect of the Easter story would have been told unless it were, in fact, true.

3. The inability of the disciples to give Jesus a proper burial (John 19:38-42).

Proper burials were important to ancient Jews. Milton Fisher notes that “a society’s burial customs are a reflection of its spiritual views about death and the afterlife” (Fisher, 386). Failing to give a beloved person a proper burial negatively portrayed the value that the person/people placed on the dearly departed. It was Joseph of Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrin, who gave Jesus a proper burial. A member of the very same Sanhedrin gave Jesus the burial that the disciples could not afford. This is incredibly embarrassing especially in an honor/shame culture found in the Middle East and Asian nations.

4. Doubt of the first eyewitnesses (Matt. 28:16-17).

After Jesus’s resurrection, the Evangelists (the Gospel writers) are honest about the doubts that some disciples hold. In the Gospel of John, Thomas is singled out and identified as one of those who doubted (John 20:24-25). Thomas is often ascribed with the title “Doubting Thomas.” This is unfortunate as Thomas demonstrated his faith by most likely giving his life. Good traditions suggest that Thomas was martyred for his faith by being speared in Mylapore, India on July 2, 72 AD. Even still, the Evangelists would not have reported the first witnesses’ doubt if it had not occurred.

5. The crucifixion is considered a curse (Deut. 21:23).

If a Jewish group was going to invent a movement, the last thing they would do is have their hero die on a cross. The book of Deuteronomy holds that any person who is hung from a tree is cursed (Deut. 21:23). An invented hero of Judaism crucified on a tree would not have been viewed as an admirable man, much less for one claimed to be the Messiah. For this reason, even the skeptical John Dominic Crossan states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Crossan, 145).

6. Ignorance of the first disciples of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45-49).

If the age of social media has shown anything, it is that people do not like to be wrong. Furthermore, if they are wrong, they will most likely not broadcast that fact. However, the Evangelists often describe their need for Jesus to explain the Scriptures to them to explain why the things occurred as they did. The disciples anticipated a military hero like Judas Maccabeus. What they received was far from what was expected—he was even better!

7. James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry (John 7:5).

Serving as one of Gary Habermas’s six minimal facts, James was radically transformed by the resurrection event. James, Jesus’s half-brother, served as the first pastor of the Jerusalem Church and was a notable figure in Judea. However, this early Christian leader was not originally a disciple of Jesus. John records that none of Jesus’s brothers and sisters believed in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5). Furthermore, his family thought that Jesus was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21) at one juncture. This is not something that a person would record unless it is grounded in some historical truth.

8. The Jewish leaders invented the story of the disciples stealing the body (Matt. 28:11-15).

The Gospel of Matthew records the fabrication of a story by the Jewish leadership. When the guards reported the events to the Jewish leaders, they told the guards to tell everyone that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is tremendously problematic. The Roman guards would have been executed if they had fallen asleep or permitted the disciples to steal Jesus’s body. Furthermore, there is little chance that the disciples could have overtaken a fully armed Roman guard which may have consisted of as many as sixteen soldiers. The recording of the story itself illustrates an embarrassing detail that finds merit in history.

9. Jesus’s anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42-44).

Jesus was not presented as a hero heading to the cross with no fear or anxiety. Rather, the picture portrayed by the Evangelists is quite different. Jesus was extremely brave going to the cross as he did. Evidence from the geographical layout suggests that Jesus could have easily escaped the Garden of Gethsemane through the shroud of the night. He would have seen the soldiers coming from Jerusalem at a distance. Even still, the Evangelists report that Jesus was so anxious that he sweated great drops of blood (Luke 22:42-44). Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition in which the capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands burst under extreme fear and stress. Luke notes that the angels of the Lord came to minister to him before heading to trial. This would not have been recorded unless true as this story counters the hero legends of the day.

10. Peter’s denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62).

All three Synoptic Gospels record the betrayal of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was considered to be the first major leader of the Christian church after Jesus ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, the one and same Peter is shown to have denied that he even knew Jesus three times in the courtyard outside of where Jesus was tried. This is extremely embarrassing and would not have been documented unless it was grounded in historical truth.

Conclusion

The ten embarrassing details presented here only scratches the surface of what could be mentioned. Nonetheless, the Evangelists’ willingness to document stories that cast the earliest disciples, and sometimes even Jesus himself, in a bad light illustrates the value they placed on recording the biographies of Jesus accurately. Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus is not based on legendary and mythical data. Rather, it is grounded in historical facts, at least what the early disciples and Evangelists believed to be true.

Sources

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.

Fisher, Milton C. “Burial, Burial Customs.” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

A popular argument that is wielded by Christian apologists, at both the scholarly and popular level, is based on 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, taken by many contemporary scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that goes back to within only a couple of years of Jesus’ death. Indeed, Michael Licona states that “In nearly every historical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 weighs heavily and is perhaps the most important and valuable passage for use by historians when discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.”[1] The text reads as follows:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

In this article, I want to offer a critical appraisal of this argument, with a view towards evaluating the evidence for this text being a creed as well as the data that bears on its dating. I will conclude by offering an appraisal of the evidential value of this text in relation to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

Several lines of evidence are commonly adduced in support of this text being derived from an oral creedal tradition. The first of those is the use of the words “delivered” (Παρέδωκα) and “received” (παρέλαβον). Craig Keener notes that this “is the language of what scholars call ‘traditioning’: Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education.”[2] Richard Bauckham notes that “these Greek words were used for formal transmission of tradition in the Hellenistic schools and so would have been familiar in this sense to Paul’s Gentile readers. They also appeared in Jewish Greek usage (Josephus, Ant. 13.297; C. Αρ. 1.60; Mark 7:4, 13; Acts 6:14), corresponding to what we find in Hebrew in later rabbinic literature (e.g., m. ‘Avot 1.1).”[3] Indeed, the Mishnaic tractate of Avot says “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and delivered it to Joshua,” (m. ‘Avot 1.1).

This view of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being derivative of pre-Pauline tradition seems to command the consensus opinion of the scholarly guild, and is accepted even by skeptics including German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann[4] and UNC Chapel Hill New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman[5]. In agreement with the scholars cited above, Ehrman notes that “the terms [Paul] uses here of ‘delivering to you’ and ‘having received’ are code language in ancient Jewish circles for traditions that are passed down from a teacher to his students: during his studies the teacher ‘receives’ a tradition and then in his teaching he ‘delivers’ it to his own followers. That’s how traditions get circulated among teachers and students. Paul, good Jew that he is, is simply referring to information that has been given to him by others before he passes it along himself.”[6]

I think this view of the text is most likely the best interpretation of Paul’s introductory formula, Παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον. This is all the more plausible given that Paul belonged to the Pharisaical sect of Judaism, which Mark and Josephus both inform us were zealous for tradition (Mk 7:3,5; Jos. Ant 13.10.6; 13.16.2). There are also various Pauline texts that indicate the importance of tradition to Paul (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1, 2, 3; Gal 1:14; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6; 1 Thes 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6).

The question remains, however, whether the expression should be taken to simply indicate that the information Paul is passing on is derivative from pre-Pauline tradition, or whether the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 itself represents a verbatim transcript of an earlier oral creedal tradition. Advocates of the latter view have tended to emphasize aspects of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that appear to be non-Pauline. Michael Licona observes that “with a lone exception in Galatians 1:4, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (‘for our sins’) is absent elsewhere in Paul (and the rest of the New Testament), who prefers the singular: ‘sin.’ The phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ is absent elsewhere in the Pauline corpus and the New Testament, where we read γέγραπται (‘it is written’). Instead of the typical aorist, the perfect passive ‘he has been raised’ is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:12–14, 16, 20 and in 2 Timothy 2:8, which is also a confessional formula believed to be pre-Pauline. ‘On the third day’ is only here in Paul. In Paul, the term ὤφθη (‘appeared to’ or ‘was seen’) is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 and 1 Timothy 3:16. ‘The Twelve’ is only here in Paul. Elsewhere he uses ‘the apostles.’”[7] This observation, in my opinion, contributes only weak evidence to the case for the pre-Pauline origins of the text itself (as opposed to the facts that the text expresses). Every New Testament author utilizes expressions that he does not customarily use, so caution is warranted before drawing firm conclusions about authorship from word choice, especially when the relevant text is as short as this.

A second argument that this text is of pre-Pauline origin is that “we can see parallelism in the text: the first and third lines are longer, have the same construction (verb, closer modification, proved by the Scriptures) and are followed by a short sentence introduced by ὅτι.”[8] It is possible that Paul constructed the parallelism of this text himself, since it is only here, out of all of Paul’s epistles, that he offers a summary of the key elements of the gospel, presumably with the intent that his readers commit them to memory. Indeed, Paul himself at times constructs his own parallelisms (e.g. Rom 1:26-27; 1 Thes 2:3,5,10). Thus, it is not entirely implausible that he would create this parallelism for ease of memorization, though one may say in response that the parallelism is somewhat less predicted on the hypothesis of Pauline origin than on the hypothesis that this text represents a pre-Pauline creed. The text, with its parallelisms and rhythmic style, does indeed sound like a creed up until verse 8, wherein we read, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” This verse, I would argue constitute some evidence against the text being of creedal origin, though this is not by any means decisive since Paul could plausibly have transitioned from something more formal into the informal addition of himself to the end of the list. Paul also adds in verse 6 concerning the five hundred, “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” This too does not comport well with the claimed creed-like structure of these verses, though it may be Paul’s own editorial insertion into the text of the creed. Thus, the parallelist structure of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 may, again, be taken only as weak evidence in favour of the text being of pre-Pauline origin.

The German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann has argued that “within the report of the first appearance of Christ to Cephas in verse 5, the clause ‘he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve’ can be detached as an independent unit from the tradition handed down by Paul during his founding visit. This is suggested not only by the parallel to Luke 24:34 (‘the Lord was really raised and appeared to Simon’), but by Mark 16:7 (‘tell his disciples and Peter’).”[9] Concerning the parallelism of “he appeared” in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, Lüdemann suggests that this “could be explained in two ways: either Paul was modeling his language in verse 7 on verse 5, which employed a tradition about an appearance to James and to al the apostles, or Paul was reproducing two independent traditions. In the latter case either the one formula had already been modeled earlier on the basis of the other or the two formulae have a common origin. In either case, it is clear that verses 5 and 7 both derive from earlier tradition.”[10] Thus, establishing the actual historical origins of this text is more complex than often made out, and more than one plausible scenario exists.

Some scholars have observed a correspondence between 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and Paul’s words in Acts 13-28-31 that may support the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 being derivative of an earlier creedal tradition.[11] Acts 13:28-31 indicates that,

28 And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

Bart Ehrman even notes that “Possibly this is the tradition that lies behind 1 Corinthian 15:4 as well: ‘and he was buried.’”[12] If this is so, then 1 Corinthians 15:4 may indeed indicate that Jesus buried in a tomb (as opposed to a common grave), a point that is often contested.[13]

Another line of evidence is Paul’s use of κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω to describe the tradition.[14] Paul writes that he is going to remind them of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε (“the gospel I preached to you, which you received”). He also uses, when describing this gospel, the phrase τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν (“the word I preached to you”). When referring back to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul uses οὕτως κηρύσσομεν (“we preach in this way”) (1 Cor 15:11; c.f. 1 Cor 15:12, 14). Licona states that “Κήρυγμα/κηρύσσω is a more formal term than εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω and can refer to an ‘official or public announcement,’ though this need not be the case. It is interesting, therefore, to see that after citing the tradition, Paul changes his description of his message and the activity of imparting it from εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω το κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω.”[15] Licona is correct that the noun Κήρυγμα and its related verb κηρύσσω can refer to an official or public announcement (e.g. LXX 2 Ch 30:5; EsdA 9:3; Pr 9:3; Jon 3:2), though it need not necessarily. However, even if this is the intended meaning in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, I do not think this at all implies the verbatim proclamation of a prescribed text, such as a creedal statement. It could simply be that the content of the gospel message (which is summarized by 1 Cor 15:3-7) was publicly proclaimed. In fact, Paul uses both of those words frequently in his letters to refer to the preaching of the gospel (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:21, 23, 2:4, 9:27; 2 Co 1:19, 4:5, 11:4; Gal 2:2, 5:11; Phil 1:15; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9, 3:16, 4:2; 1 Tim 3:16, 4:2; 2 Tim 4:17; Tit 2:3; 1 Pet 3:19; Rev 5:2). Thus, his use the term in 1 Corinthians 15 is not at all surprising, and I do not judge that I can even call this weak evidence supporting 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Probably the weakest argument I have encountered for the pre-Pauline origins of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is the use of the Aramaic name Κηφᾶς (transliterated into Greek) for Peter.[16] Since Κηφᾶς is the transliteration of an Aramaic name into Greek, so the argument goes, this is suggestive of an early origin. However, of the ten times in his letters that Paul mentions Peter, five of those he uses the name Κηφᾶς (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Gal 2:9). In fact, the Nestle-Aland text also uses Κηφᾶς in an additional two of those texts (Gal 1:18, 2:11). Of the four times Peter is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, every single one of them uses the name Κηφᾶς. Thus, this argument too I can not even consider to contribute weak evidence to the case for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Of the arguments summarized above, the strongest in my opinion are the use of “delivered” and “received” (1 Cor 15:3) combined with the rhythmic structure and parallelisms of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Given that these features seem at least somewhat more probable on the hypothesis that this text represents a creedal tradition than on its falsehood (and the absence of stronger disconfirming evidence), these data are, in my opinion sufficient to make the pre-Pauline origins of this text somewhat more probable than not, though this conclusion is by no means as certain as it is often implied. What does seem to be secure, however, is that Paul received information from the Jerusalem apostles, which is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. The only question that is still uncertain is whether Paul is summarizing that information in his own words or whether he is quoting from an earlier formalized creedal tradition that preceded his own writing.

One objection that is sometimes raised is that Paul indicates elsewhere that “I did not receive [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal 1:12).[17] If Paul received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ, so the argument goes, then how can Paul be passing on tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which he had previously received from the other apostles? However, even though Paul received the gospel by the revelation of Christ Jesus, it does not follow that he did not receive a creed tradition containing that gospel from the Jerusalem apostles. Moreover, if Paul had not known from other people that Jesus had been raised from the dead, then he would not have known who spoke to him on the road to Damascus, or for that matter what was meant by “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). The appearances that Paul lists in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (to Peter, the Twelve, the five hundred, James, and all the apostles) were almost certainly learned about from his conversations with other people.

The Date of the Creed

Having given my assessment of the evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 representing a pre-Pauline credal tradition, let us inquire as to when this tradition may have been received by Paul. I would agree with Michael Licona and others that “There are good reasons for concluding that this tradition probably came from Jerusalem”[18] since that is where the original church leaders were headquartered. As for when exactly Paul received this tradition, a few possibilities have been proposed. One option is that Paul received this tradition while in Damascus, perhaps from Ananias or other Christians who were present there, which would likely place it within one to three years of Jesus’ death.[19]

Another option is that Paul received the tradition in Jerusalem upon his visit three years following his conversion, where he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). During this visit, Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19).[20] Licona notes that “Of interest is the term Paul uses to describe what he did while with Peter: ἱστορῆσαι (‘visit’), from which derives our English term history. The term may mean ‘to get information from,’ ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.’ What was it to which Paul inquired? He could have been attempting to get to know Peter, the leading Jerusalem apostle at the time. But from his letters Paul does not appear to be the type of person who would want to take just over two weeks simply to develop a friendship with a colleague for the sake of having another friend.”[21] Licona is correct that this word can mean “to inquire into” or “to visit and get information.” That Paul received this tradition on this visit to Jerusalem is plausible, though not certain. There are also two other journeys that Paul made to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-9; Gal 2:1-10).

These are also both possibilities for when he received this tradition. There are still other possibilities. For example, Paul may have received some or all of the tradition from Barnabas or from James during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). Paul also tells us of a visit by Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11). He may even have received the tradition from Barnabas during the considerable time they spent together (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-15:40). Silas also accompanied Paul during his next missionary journey (Acts 15:40-17:14; 18:5-11). This would put Paul and Silas together between 49 and 51 A.D., shortly before he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul thus may have received it from him during that time as well. The reality is that any attempt to specify precisely when Paul received the oral tradition from the Jerusalem apostles is intelligent guesswork and conjecture. The bottom line is that we just cannot say with confidence when precisely Paul received the tradition.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

With so much lack of certainty about whether 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represents a pre-Pauline creedal tradition and the precise dating of such a tradition, is this text of any evidential value to the case for the resurrection? I would argue that the answer is ‘yes’. Regardless of whether this text is pre-Pauline or Paul’s own literary construction, what is well supported is that those verses summarize information that Paul had received from the Jerusalem church leaders. The text thus gives one a window of insight into what was being proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles, in particular Peter and James, whom we know Paul was personally acquainted with. This is further supported by Paul’s words in verses 8-11:

8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Note what Paul says in verse 11: “Whether then it was I or they [i.e. the Jerusalem apostles], so we preach and so you believed.” Paul thus seems to assume that the Corinthian Christians, to whom he was writing, understand his summary of the gospel to be consistent with what had already been preached by the Jerusalem apostles. We also know independently that the Corinthian church were acquainted with Peter’s preaching (1 Cor 1:12). Thus, it is probable that the message Paul communicates in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is consistent with what was being preached by Peter, James and the Twelve. Michael Licona agrees. He notes, “even if Paul received the tradition embedded in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 from someone outside of the Jerusalem leadership, his constant interaction with these leaders in and outside of Jerusalem coupled with his high regard for tradition virtually guarantees that the details of the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 are precisely in line with what the Jerusalem leadership was preaching (1 Cor 15:11). We have what amounts to a certifiably official teaching of the disciples on the resurrection of Jesus.”[22] Thus, irrespective of the question of whether Paul is passing on an oral creedal tradition, and when and from whom he may have received it, this text does provide sufficient reason to conclude that the apostles before Paul were claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to them. The text is also of evidential value since Paul provides his own eyewitness testimony to have encountered the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:8).

One important caveat I wish to make here is that we ought not be overly-reliant on 1 Corinthians 15 to build our case for the resurrection, since it is difficult to make a robust case, as I have done elsewhere [23], for the rationality of the apostles’ belief to have witnessed the risen Christ unless we are able to determine what the resurrection appearances were like. The report in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent with a floating, non-speaking Jesus, or with a Jesus who appears only once, briefly, and speaks only a few words. The case for the resurrection therefore cannot and should not be divorced from a robust case for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospels and Acts and their grounding in credible eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore, a popular criticism of using 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in arguments for the resurrection is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both.[24] Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? Again, if we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone, though the Pauline evidence certainly inclines that way, in particular Paul’s statement, ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί (“and last of all as to one untimely born he was seen also by me”). This, it may be argued, draws a separation between his experience from that of those who were apostles before him. Kirk MacGregor notes, “This observation rules out the possibility that Paul is here attempting to convey that he experienced Christ in a manner qualitatively identical to those listed in the creed. But Paul moves one step further. By placing ὤφθη κἀμοί (‘he was seen also by me’) after ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, Paul explicitly shows ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to be a qualifying phrase which modifies ὤφθη κἀμοί rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples ‘saw’ Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have ‘as to one untimely born seen’ Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion.”[25] This evidence is surely suggestive but it does not seem to me to be conclusive. Paul may simply be indicating that he had an encounter with the risen Lord despite the fact that Paul had not known Jesus during his earthly ministry.

How, then, can this case be made robustly? It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul. Thus, the case from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 should be complemented with a robust case for the author of Luke-Acts being a travelling companion of Paul. I have articulated this argument in detail elsewhere.[26]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the balance of evidence is in favor of the text in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 being derivative from a pre-Pauline credal tradition, though it is not nearly as conclusive as it is often portrayed as being. While it is plausible that Paul received this tradition upon his visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, this is by no means certain, and any attempt to pin down the precise date is traipsing into highly speculative territory. Nonetheless, the text is of evidential value given that it allows us to establish, in harmony with other independent lines of evidence, that the resurrection claim goes back to the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves. Having thus eliminated the scenario that the claim of encounters with the risen Jesus arose much later and did not originate with the original apostolic eyewitnesses, we can move towards examining whether the claim originated as a result of deliberate deception on the part of the apostles, their being honestly mistaken, or because Jesus really was raised bodily from the dead, a topic that I have discussed in detail elsewhere.[27]

Footnotes

[1] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 223.

[2] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Ilinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993).

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition (Michigan: Wiliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 264-265.

[4] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[5] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[6] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[7] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 224-225.

[8] Ibid., 226.

[9] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[10] Ibid.

[11] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010).

[12] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle.

[13] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 336.

[14] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gary Habermas and Michael L. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004), 221.

[17] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 335.

[18] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[19] Ibid., 229.

[20] Ibid., 230.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 232.

[23] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[24] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[25] Kirk R. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006):225-234.

[26] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[27] Ibid.

Resurrection Defense Series: The Testimony of Women

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

The month of March has been designated as Women’s History Month. It has often been erroneously suggested that the Bible is misogynistic in its portrayal of women. While this article cannot combat every claim of misogyny weighed against the Scriptures, it is ironic that it was the early testimony of women, those that skeptics claim the Scripture dismisses, that strongly suggests the high historical probability of the resurrection event. This article will look at four ways that the early testimony of women serves as a defense for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Before doing so, let us first look at what the Gospels state concerning the women’s testimony that Jesus had risen.

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb. ²There was a violent earthquake, because an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and approached the tomb. He rolled back the stone and was sitting on it. ³His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. ⁴The guards were so shaken by fear of him that they became like dead men. ⁵The angel told the women, “Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. ⁶He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. ⁷Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there.’ Listen, I have told you.” ⁸So, departing quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell his disciples the news. ⁹Just then Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” They came up, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. ¹⁰Then Jesus told them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see me there” (Matt. 28:1-10).

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him. ²Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb at sunrise. ³They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance to the tomb for us?” ⁴Looking up, they noticed that the stone—which was very large—had been rolled away. ⁵When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; they were alarmed. ⁶“Don’t be alarmed,” he told them. “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they put him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there just as he told you.’ ” ⁸They went out and ran from the tomb, because trembling and astonishment overwhelmed them. And they said nothing to anyone, since they were afraid” (Mark 16:1-8).

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared. ²They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. ³They went in but did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ⁴While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men stood by them in dazzling clothes. ⁵So the women were terrified and bowed down to the ground. “Why are you looking for the living among the dead?” asked the men. ⁶“He is not here, but he has risen! Remember how he spoke to you when he was still in Galilee, ⁷saying, ‘It is necessary that the Son of Man be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and rise on the third day’⁸And they remembered his words. ⁹Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. ¹⁰Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. ¹¹But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. ¹²Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths.^, So he went away, amazed at what had happened (Luke 24:1-12).

On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. ²So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” ³At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. ⁴The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. ⁵Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. ⁶Then, following him, Simon Peter also came. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. ⁷The wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. ⁸The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then also went in, saw, and believed. ⁹For they did not yet understand the Scripture that he must rise from the dead. ¹⁰Then the disciples returned to the place where they were staying. ¹¹But Mary stood outside the tomb, crying. As she was crying, she stooped to look into the tomb. ¹²She saw two angels in white sitting where Jesus’s body had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. ¹³They said to her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “Because they’ve taken away my Lord,” she told them, “and I don’t know where they’ve put him.” ¹⁴Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know it was Jesus. ¹⁵“Woman,” Jesus said to her, “why are you crying? Who is it that you’re seeking?” Supposing he was the gardener, she replied, “Sir, if you’ve carried him away, tell me where you’ve put him, and I will take him away.” ¹⁶Jesus said to her, “Mary.” Turning around, she said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!”—which means “Teacher.” ¹⁷“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus told her, “since I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” ¹⁸Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her (John 20:1-18).

The Early Testimony of Women Postulates that the Story was not Invented.

A woman’s testimony did not hold much weight in an ancient court of law. That is not to say that a woman held no importance in court. Nonetheless, if a woman’s testimony contradicted a man’s testimony, the man’s testimony was generally accepted unless two women both testified against the man. Even then, there was no guarantee that the woman’s testimony would be accepted (see m. Ned. 11:10). In rabbinical tradition—not the law of God—a woman could not participate in the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. She was not even permitted to cite the Shema, the greatest commandment found in Deut. 6:5 (Ber. 3:3). Yet it was women who first saw the risen Jesus.

Ironically, the women’s testimony of the resurrection is missing in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Thomas Oden holds that since the women’s testimony was not permitted in the official court of law, the creed was deliberately shortened to provide the best evidence for the Christian faith (Oden, Word of Life, 497-498). If that is the case, then why was their testimony included in the biographies of Jesus? The answer—Because it was true! The women’s testimony is quite bizarre if it were not a genuine event. If one were to invent a story in the first century, the first witnesses would certainly not be women. They would have been the last considered for such a role. Jesus’s great love for his female disciples is found by his choice in disclosing the resurrection event—the greatest miracle in history—first to his female disciples.

The Early Testimony of Women Provides Embarrassing Details.

Women serving as the first witnesses of the resurrection provide several embarrassing factors to consider. Historically, embarrassing details verify the truthful nature of a story. A person will not willingly expose things that intentionally embarrass its authors or primary ambassadors. However, when it comes to the resurrection story, the male disciples were embarrassed by the testimony of women on multiple fronts. First, the male disciples were embarrassed by the devotion of the women. None of the male disciples offered Jesus a proper burial. It was the female disciples who took it upon themselves to anoint the body of Jesus. In the hurried events of Good Friday, Jesus’s body was rushed into the tomb and was not given a proper Jewish burial. This was unacceptable in ancient Judaism. Where were the men? The women were concerned as they approached the tomb about how they would get inside since the stone was so large because they had no male counterparts joining them. Were the men still asleep? As anyone who grew up in church knows—if it were not for the women, nothing would get accomplished.

Second, the male disciples were embarrassed by the women being the first ambassadors of the resurrection. The women were essentially the very first evangelists of the resurrection message. Jesus told them to tell the disciples about his appearance (John 20:17).

Third, and here it gets worse, a woman with a checkered past was appointed as the first witness of the resurrection. Some have postulated through the centuries that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. In AD 591, Pope Gregory the Great taught, “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.” Contrary to Gregory the Great, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that Mary was a prostitute. However, the Gospels do note that Mary Magdalene had been possessed by seven demons until Jesus cast them out (Luke 8:1-3). So, wait! A woman who had been possessed by seven demons—an indication of the severity of her possession—was chosen as the first witness?!? This makes absolutely no sense unless it were in fact true. If a person were going to invent a story, Mary Magdalene would be the LAST person one would choose as the story’s primary witness.

The Early Testimony of Women Proves Multiple Attestation.

The third point is simple. Historically speaking, the more sources that are found for an event, the higher the probability that the event in question occurred. The early testimony of women is found in all four Gospels. Regardless of how one handles the issue of sharing among the Gospel writers, these stories are independent as noted by the differences in their presentation. All the Gospels serve as four independent sources. This is profound given the absence of women in 1 Cor. 15:3-9. It is unspeakably absurd to invent the women as the first witnesses and then plug them into all four biographies of Jesus unless some historical basis was found in the story. The women’s eyewitness accounts hold a strong historical case for its authenticity, which further verifies the legitimacy of the resurrection event.

The Early Testimony of Women Portrays their Elevated Status.

While this article has been focused on the historical validation of the resurrection event, one cannot bypass the high level of importance that Jesus placed on his female disciples. Jesus was revolutionary in his elevation of women. Because of the value he placed on women, his female disciples played a significant role in the early ministry of the church (Eckman, ECH, 14). Women were among his early financial contributors (Luke 8:3). To the shock of everyone in attendance, Jesus permitted Mary to sit at his feet, an honor that most rabbis only gave to men (Luke 10:39). While women were not permitted to read the Torah in the synagogue, they were in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Jesus not only highly valued women, but he also gave some of the women who followed him the highest honor imaginable—they were the first witnesses of the risen Jesus!

Conclusion: Norman Geisler says it best, “It is an unmistakable sign of the authenticity of the record that, in a male-dominated culture, Jesus first appeared to a woman” (Geisler, “Resurrection, Evidence For,” BEOCA, 651). The church has often dropped the ball when giving women the value that Jesus affords them. Nonetheless, the testimony of women stands front and center as evidence that Jesus really did walk out of the tomb alive on the first Easter Sunday. The most unlikely individuals to hold value in the first century found themselves as the ambassadors of the greatest message ever given. Jesus had risen, and the risen Jesus chose to unveil this radical new truth to those who had often been neglected and considered unimportant. Isn’t that just like Jesus? Should we have expected anything else?

Sources

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.

Geisler, Norman L. “Resurrection, Evidence For.” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Mishnah Berakhot 3:3 (sefaria.org).

Oden, Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology. Volume Two. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.

Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2017).

Defense of Essential Christian Doctrine in the Religious Pluralistic Context of Nepal

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mumsher Khadka

Introduction

Essential doctrines of the Christian faith play a significant role in Christianity. Many people have lost their faith when they are asked about some core doctrine of Christianity by the people who oppose Christianity. Because our church has not thoroughly taught about essential doctrines of Christian faith they fail to encounter heresies and come to a conclusion thinking that they are believing in something that is not true. Many people in social media directly criticize the Christian faith and churches are not ready to answer their confusion as churches themselves are not sure about these doctrines. Here in this paper, I have elaborated on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. I have addressed human depravity and sinlessness of Jesus, about humanity and divinity of Jesus, and lastly about his death and resurrection. I have also try to deal with some current issues faced by Christians when they are opposed by other religious people in the context of Nepal. Everything in this paper is written from the view of apologetics or evangelistic manner and every scripture is taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and if not they are cited.

Defense of Essential Christian Doctrine in the Religious Pluralistic Context of Nepal

1. Human Depravity

If one thinks that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of humanity then we must be able to defend why we think it so. Biblical Christianity fully agrees that all human beings are born with sinful nature (Rom. 3:23, c.f. Ps.51:5). Though some people do good in some way in others they fail. But one must understand God didn’t create humans in this way. Adam and Eve who were the first human being created by God were perfect without sin (Gen.1:27-31). Chafer has put it in this way, “It fulfilled not only His purpose completely, but was a supreme satisfaction to HIM. Wherein moral issues were involved-as in the case of man-there could be no exception. Perfect holiness found no fault with that which He had wrought.”[1] They were created by God in His image and likeness (Gen.1:27). So, as God is perfect and the first humans were created in His image and likeness they were perfect. But when they disobeyed God they fall short of His glory and were prohibited to be in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3:23). While explaining about Rom.5:12 Grudem writes, “The context shows that Paul is not talking about actual sins that people commit every day of their lives, for the entire paragraph (Rom.5:12-21) is taken up with the comparison between Adam and Christ. And when Paul says ‘so [Gk. hutos, ‘thus, in this way’-that is, through Adam’s sin] death spread to all men because all men sinned,’ he is saying that through the sin of Adam ‘all men sinned’.”[2] This theory of original sin was coined up by Augustine of Hippo. “When Pelagius, whoever, pushed further the logic of free will and all but denied any effects of Adam’s fall (for him, men and women were born in the state of Adam prior to his fall, were free from his guilt and the pollution of his sin, only exposed to bad influence of his examples), Augustine took up the cudgels against him and for the first strong doctrine of sin.”[3] HippoHAs human being all came through Adam and Eve we inherited the sin of our ancestor.

But this view of creation and sin in Hinduism differs. According to book “Death an inside Story” by Sadhguru from the New York Times bestselling author conveys:[4]

Body is a composition of five sheaths which are Annamaya Kosha, Manomaya Kosha, Pranamaya Kosha, Vignanamaya Kosha, and Anandamaya Kosha. Here Annamaya Kosha means food body, Manomaya Kosha here comprises your thoughts, emotions and all the mental processes, both conscious and unconscious. Pranamaya Kosha refers to life energy which powers and drives th Annamaya and Manomaya Kosha. Fourth layer of the self Vignanamaya Kosha means extraordinary knowledge. Last is Anandamaya Kosha means bliss body which is beyond physical nature.

These are just components that human beings are made up of. About the concept of origin of human, “It was not a story of creation but an emanation from Brahma. In the Puranas, we have this story, “Brahma’s first human creations were saints, who, immediately upon being created fell into deep meditation, finding no interest in the things of the world. Thus, through them, Brahma saw no possibility of propagation of their species. While he was meditating upon what course he should pursue, his own form divided itself, one half became man and the other half became woman.”[5] Again if we look into the Law of Manu, Brahma is a creator but also a created being by self-existence Lord. Patrick Olivelle writes, “As he focused his thought with the desire of bringing forth diverse creatures from his own body, it was the waters[6] that he first brought forth; and into them he poured his semen. That became a golden egg, as bright as the sun; and in it he himself took birth as Brahma, the grandfather of all the worlds.”[7] And again we look deep in other religious book of Hindus Puranas gives us different explanation about creation. In this account, “when the time for creation comes a lotus sprouts from Vishnu’s navel and opens to reveal the god Brahma, who begins the process of creation.”[8] There is actual no clear vision and trustable account of creation. It differs from person to person. And mostly, it is unknown to majority of Hindu. People follow their inherited culture, and religion without any question.

Another most arguable matter is caste system in Hinduism and judgement of sin is determined by one’s social place and rank. “A Brahmin committing a crime, for instance will not be punished in any way as strictly as a Sudra (person of the servant class) would be for the same crime.”[9] They are punished by their act. Why people sin is answered in the Law of Manu. “As they are brought forth again and again, each creature follows on its own the very activity assigned to it in the beginning by the Lord. Violence or non-violence, gentleness or cruelty, righteousness (dharma) or unrighteousness (adharma), truthfulness or untruthfulness- whichever he assigned to each at the time of creation, it stuck automatically to that creature.”[10] So there is no proper account for sin coming in humanity or about its source but humans were created in that way. Again there is a concept of rebirth according to their deeds and punishment too. Even gods are not in unity in Hinduism and lust is seen clearly. “According to an ancient Saivite myth, he (Brahma) was born with five heads, when he became interested in Parvati[11] (wife of Siva), Siva consort, the latter chopped one of the Brahma’s heads off.”[12] There is no truth in the gods of Hinduism. Many are found lying, lusting cheating, and many more.[13] So, one must understand that there is no proper doctrine and sources that can be trusted. It has many sources that paradox each other in core value. Whereas Christianity is clear in their doctrine about creation and sin entering humanity and there is truth in God and is perfect in unity.

2. Sinlessness of Jesus

Another significant essence of Christianity is the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Many people in Nepal take Jesus as another god among many gods. As I was Hindu too I knew about the concept of incarnation in Hinduism which differs vastly from Christianity. People in Nepal accept Jesus as god-like other gods of Hindu but as only God or only way to the Father is resisted strictly. Incarnation (Avatara) is mostly done by Visnu. As Lochtefeld explained it this way, “Hindu draws a distinction between full avatars, which have the complete have the complete power of the deity, and partial incarnations, or anshavatras.”[14] Full deity in Hinduism doesn’t come to earth but his/her part that comes having his/their attributes in it. The Bhagavadgita explains that the Supreme One comes down to earth whenever dharma is in danger, to save the good and to destroy the wicked.[15] This core teaching differs in Christianity where Jesus came to save the lost because sick needs doctor not healthy people (Lk.19:10 c.f. Mk.2:17). We must understand this sin in Hinduism and Christianity though differs in some extent but are same. Lying, pride, ignorance, lusting, murder and so on are considered by both as sin and violation to God. So if that the case then we must understand we need saviour who came to save not to destroy the wicked because we all some who have one of these sin in us. Jesus is a perfect saviour of humanity as His character and essence fits perfectly to save the one who are lost.

2.1 Virgin Birth of Jesus

As predicted in Old Testament about virgin birth of Jesus (Isa.7:14), New Testament Christian paid with their life as they preferred to die then to forsake their faith in Jesus. This is very strong and one must critically evaluate that a people doesn’t give their lives if everything told by Jesus as written New Testament were false. Virgin birth which sounds awkward to the listener to this age was the same in New Testament time also. He was blamed to be an illegitimate child. Two gospel affirms us clearly about the account of the virgin birth (Matt.1:18-25; Lk.1:34-35; cf.3:23). According to Grudem, there three critical doctrinal implication of the virgin birth:[16]

It shows that salvation ultimately must come from the Lord.
The virgin birth made possible the uniting of full deity and full humanity in one person.
The virgin birth also makes possible Christ’s true humanity without inherited sin.

These characteristics made Jesus perfect for the sacrificial lamb who lived a life that was worthy of praise. Though the concept of virgin birth sounds awkward, still the writer of the gospels dared to write it because it is true.

2.2 Jesus Lived a Life without Sin

Jesus was born without the inherited sin as he was born from Virgin Mary but he also lived a life that no contemporary authorities were able to find any fault in Him (Lk.23:4; cf. Matt.27:1-2,11-26). Though he was tempted by Devil he didn’t commit any kind of sin in His lifetime (1Pet.2:22; 1Jn.3:5; 2Cor.5:21). Krishna as compared many times with Jesus had 16,108 wives with him in his palace and used to visit them taking 16,108 forms once at a time.[17] About the comparison between the two one can’t randomly claim Jesus to be an incarnation Krishna as claimed by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, founder of Rama Krishna Mission. He said, “Wherever I look I see men quarreling in the name of religion…but they never reflect that he who is Krishna is also called Siva, and bears the name of Primitive Energy, Jesus and Allah as well- the same Rama with a thousand names.”[18] This is claim is alleging because of Jesus’ statement to be the only way, the truth, and the life (Jn16:6). His claims are outstanding that no one before and after claimed to be so. Jesus lived a life that one can read and scripture doesn’t contradict each other like in other religions. He lived a blameless life while he was on this earth.

3. Humanity and Divinity of Jesus

The combo of humanity and the divinity of Jesus makes him a unique savior. He was and is 100% man and 100%God. Humanity and divinity of Christ are seen in the account of the gospels and even in other NT books or epistles. Disciples witness his humanity as they lived with him while he was on this earth.

3.1 Humanity of Jesus

Jesus was born of a woman (Gal.4:4). He grew like any other human being (Lk.2:16; Matt.2:11; Lk.2:42-50). He had brothers and sisters and even relatives (Mk.6:3; Jn7:5; Lk.1:36). He had human emotions (Jn.11:35; cf.Heb.5:7). He felt hungry, thirsty, and everything that a simple man faces. Apostle John writes in his epistle, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life”(1 Jn.1:1). There is no doubt that Christ was human fully and his divinity is claimed by him and also by his followers prominently.

3.2 Divinity of Jesus

The divinity of Jesus is claimed by Him in the gospels account and proclaimed fearlessly by his followers. Personally, for me, two verses are very crucial and significantly portray Jesus to be God. First is in the gospel according to John where He asserted, “Before Abraham was, I AM” which is the first revelation of God’s personal name to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as YHWH. YHWH is only with constant and later Jewish added and made Yahweh. Jesus was killed as He claimed to be the Son of God for which Jewish crucified Him. Jewish knew what He was claiming and Jesus was not making a statement as we make as children of God. His claim was equal to God or God himself as the second person in Godhead. Second is the confession of Thomas the doubter in John20:28 where he says, “oh my Lord, oh my God.” In the original text, it’s “ho Kurios mou, kai ho theos mou”.[19] It is peculiar because he doubted the very deity of Christ. He knew Jesus is dead. When he touched the wound that Jesus had, he now knew He is the same Jesus who died on the cross and gave this profound statement. Again in many other accounts, Jesus accepted worship which only was given to God (Matt.8:2), He forgave the sin of paralytic man and rigid His claim by healing him (Mk.2:1-12). Lastly, as we see the martyrdom of Disciples of Christ, they paid with their life as they knew He is God. Justin Martyr said, “You can kill us, but cannot do us any real harm.”[20] They knew that they will be killed but still they didn’t forsake Christ and didn’t accept Caesar to be their Lord. Apostle Peter and Paul were killed during the reign of Nero.[21] They died as they knew that Jesus is God. It is well said by Foster while writing about Confessors and Martyrs, “Behind the use of these two words is the idea that the most convincing way of saying, ‘I believe in Jesus Christ’, is by being ready to die for Him.”[22] They gave up their life for the sake of Gospel and they were not lunatics to do so.

As Jesus is God-man He is perfect saviour who died for us as sinless human paying propitiation to God the Father. He being man is able to reach man and being God is able to reach God. And his attributes and claims are not seen or claimed by any other religious leaders’ world views.

4. Death and Resurrection of Jesus

Death and resurrection of Jesus are very significant in Christendom. If he didn’t die or stayed dead then the faith of Christian is futile. The death of Jesus was not man-made as we have enough pieces of evidence that are the primary source to prove the authenticity of this matter. And not only Christians claim this but this event was also recorded by other secular historians.

4.1 Prove of the Death of Jesus

The crucifixion of Jesus is central to Christian doctrine or theology. There is evidence of eyewitnesses that testify about the event of the crucifixion. Lockyer writes, “One-third of Matthew, one-third of Mark, and one-fourth of Luke are devoted to the account of His death, and one-half of John’s gospel to the last twenty-four hours of Christ’s life. One-third of the material in the four gospels has to do with the events of the last weeks of His life.”[23] All the Gospels and all the Epistles either state or assume the fact of Jesus’ death (cf. Matt.27:32-66; Mk.15:21-47; Lk.23:25-55; Jn.19:16-42; Rom.5:6; I Cor.15:3; II Cor.5:15; Rev.5:9). There are some extra-Biblical sources also that prove that Jesus was crucified. “Christus…suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” says Cornelius Tacitus.[24] The Jewish historian Josephus of the time of Christ, Julius Africanus (ca.22), Greek writer Lucian, The Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion (ca. AD 73), Roman writer Philegon and many more also wrote about it.[25] He was the Roman Historian not even a Christian but writes about the fact that Christ died. The death that Jesus died was very torturous. Brown writes about it saying, “Death came slowly after extraordinary agony, probably through exhaustion or suffocation. The body could be left on the scaffold to rot or provide food for predatory animals and carrion-crows. There is evidence that the body was occasionally given to relatives or acquaintances.”[26] So Jesus did die on the cross and it was with great agony.

4.2 Reasons for the Death of Jesus Christ

One must understand that the death of Jesus is not mythology created by His disciples but a fact that is supported by solid data written by both Christian and secular historians and writers of the New Testament. So if he died on the altar of the cross then we must raise a question, why he did so? To understand this clearly, we must know about the depraved condition of humanity which I have already dealt with, and about the attributes of God. Grudem while writing about the cause of the Atonement writes, “And here Scripture points to two things: the love and justice of God. The love of God as a cause of the atonement is seen as God gave His one and only Son (Jn. 3:16). But the justice of God also required that God find a way that penalty due to us for our sins would be paid. Paul explains that this way why God sent Christ to be ‘propitiation’ (Rom.3:25 NASB): it was to show God’s righteousness because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins.”[27] Death of Jesus completes or fills the need of both sides.

As we have seen in Human depravity that all human beings are sinful and this brings consequences of both physical and spiritual death. God being perfect in holiness and a person with sin is not able to reach to God. Again God didn’t forgive the sin of Adam and Eve because it would have defiled His justice. So God in perfect time sends His Son who was without sin to die for sinful people like us which in vice allow us to come to God again and His justice is also not defiled.

4.3 The resurrection of Jesus Christ

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is very prominent because if He was not raised from the dead then Christianity could not have been unique in its account because there were and are many who claim to be God or came from God. There were and are many peopling who deny the resurrection of Christ. But there are many evidences that prove the physical resurrection of Jesus. They are as follows:

4.3.1 Eye Witness Account about the Resurrection of Christ

The Gospel contains abundant testimony to the resurrection of Christ (cf. Matt.28:1-20; Mk.16:1-8; Lk.24:1-53; Jn.20:1-21:25). Apostle Paul in his letter to Corinthians writes about the resurrection of Christ whom He died, raised, and appeared to many people (1 Cor.15:3-6). Paul was a person who tried to erase the very existence of Christianity who claimed that Jesus was raised from the dead. But when He encountered the glorified Christ on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9) he started to preach it (Acts 9:1-9) and died for it. There were many people back then too who rejected the resurrection of Christ, like Apostle Thomas who doubted until he saw Him with wounds that were given to Him on the cross then accept Him as my Lord and my God (Jn.20:24-28). The resurrection of Christ has unambiguous evidence as we have the testimony of eye witness account as they doubted, examined, and they believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4.3.2 Empty Tomb Tradition

All four gospel gives us an account of the tomb that was found empty (Matt.28:1-10; Mk.16:1-8; Lk.24:1-12; Jn.20:1-10). Quoting to Anderson, McDowell and Sterrett write:[28]

The empty tomb stands, a veritable rock, as an essential element in the evidence for the resurrection. To suggest that it was not in fact empty at all, as some have done, seems to me ridiculous. It is a matter of history that the apostles from the very beginning made many converts in Jerusalem, hostile as it was, by proclaiming the glad news that Christ had risen from the grave—and they did it within a short walk from the sepulchre. Anyone of their hearers could have visited the tomb and come back again between lunch and whatever may have been the equivalent of afternoon tea. Is it conceivable, then, that the apostles would have had this success if the body of the one they proclaimed as risen Lord was all the time decomposing in Joseph’s tomb? Would a great company of the priests and many hard-headed Pharisees have been impressed with the proclamation of a resurrection which was in fact no resurrection at all, but a mere message of spiritual survival couched in the misleading terms of a literal rising from the grave?

As Anderson said anyone could have visited the tomb of Jesus to counter-check the statement preached about the risen Christ. But many skeptics claim that body of Jesus was stolen by His disciples which are surely ridiculous because of the following reasons:

In all four Gospels, we read that Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb cut into a sock, and a large stone was rolled against the entrance.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea prepared Christ’s body for burial which if not dead they would have known (Jn.19:38-42).
In process of burial, the corpse was clothed in grave vestments made of white linen. This might weigh between 117 and 120 pounds. Josh and Sean McDowell quote John Chrysostom of fourth century AD, “myrrh used was a drug which adheres so closely to the body that the grave clothes could not easily be removed.”[29]
The tomb was guarded as Jewish Chief priests and Pharisees were panicked because Jesus claimed that He will rise again. They thought that disciples might steal Jesus’ body and claim that. So they requested Pilate and secured the tomb of Jesus (Matt.27:62-66).
The tomb was sealed (Matt.27:66). Josh and Sean quote A. T. Robertson, “the stone could be sealed only in the presence of the Roman guards who were left in charge. The purpose of this procedure was to prevent anyone from tampering with the grave’s contents”. After the guard inspected the tomb and rolled the stone in place, a cord was stretched across the rock and fastened at either end with sealing clay. Finally, the clay packs were stamped with the official signet of the Roman governor.[30]

There was no attempt or chance to do so because of the reason mentioned above. The tomb was indeed empty. Philosopher Stephen Davis observes, “Early Christian proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem would have been psychologically and apologetically impossible without safe evidence of an empty tomb . . . in other words, without safe and agreed-upon evidence of an empty tomb, the apostles’ claims would have been subject to massive falsification by the simple presentation of the body.”[31] Disciples preached about the resurrected Christ without fear as they knew it to be true. And even there were many letters written to oppose the heretical teaching that Christ didn’t rise. Paul writes if Christ has not risen then our faith is futile (1 Cor.15:17).

Christianity claims about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ have very solid evidence. He died for us as we by ourselves are unable to reach to God as He is holy (Lev.19:2). God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son so that nobody will perish but have everlasting life (Jn.3:16). Christianity is peculiar as in all other religions, we have to work for salvation and there is Karmic Tendency which we can’t overlap. Humans have to reach to gods. Jesus is the only one who is God but came to earth to human beings. He can save the sinner but others who claimed to be gods came to destroy the wicked. Jesus’ claims are proven by His acts. He said when He was on the earth it is fulfilled which were supposed to be fulfilled till now. His claim to be the only Way is true because of all the above-mentioned reasons.

5. Dealing with some question raised to Christian in Nepal

Is not Jesus the same as other gods?

As Nepalese people believe in polytheism, Jesus is just another god for them. People are influenced by movements like Ramakrishna who convey that every way leads to heaven. But this claim is not true because every religion in their fundamental teaching differs from each other. From an Islamic point of view, Allah is the only true God and all others are false. In Buddhism, there is no God. Even in Hinduism, though they say that every religion is the same, still they are against Islam and other religion strongly. And even Jesus claims to be the only way to Father. So one can’t say that Jesus is the same as other gods as they differ in core value to each other. Jesus’ claim to only way to Father is valid because His words match His life. He was born of virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the sinner, got resurrected on the third day which was witnessed by five hundred plus people, and had ascension to heaven. And all these were prophesized before He was born. No one else in religion history has these peculiarities, so Jesus’ claim to be God is unique and true and He is not like other so-called gods.

Isn’t the Bible written by human beings?

Many people in Nepal tells Christian that the Bible is also like other religious books which are written by human beings. Yes, the Bible is also written by human beings but it was inspired by God which is the significant claim that only Christianity makes. There are 66 books, 40 authors, overs 1500 years of period, and 3 continents where it was written but still, it has only one follow and theme. No other religious books are so interrelated to reach others though they are just a single book. About the reliability of the Bible historically, there are nearly 5,700 known partial and complete Greek Manuscript copies of the New Testament and are very ancient. If one adds into the mix over 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early version-including Syriac, Ethiopic, Slavic, Gothic, Armenian, and other versions-the total approximate 25,000 manuscripts that cite portions of the New Testament. This far exceeds the number of manuscripts available of other ancient documents, which, in most cases number less than ten copies. Bible is reliable and fully trustworthy, human written but inspired by God.

Some Christians or pastors do wrong and the whole of Christianity is blamed.

Many times people blame whole Christianity when they see some Christians or pastors doing wrong. They point to those people and say look if Christianity was true then they shouldn’t have done this. This is very sad of people that they blame the whole Christianity of some peoples act. One can’t say that family is bad if a son or father or a member of the family does wrong. We can’t judge anything from outside. When I confront these kinds of people I simply ask for forgiveness because it is true that many Christian and even pastor are wicked but still Christianity is true. Christians do agree that some Christians have defiled themselves but Jesus is perfect in every way. Bible never claims that Christians will be perfect. It writes to forgive each other when some sins and help them to come near to God again. There is the concept of forgiveness in Christianity which is significant. Yes, we do find some Christian who have lost their characteristics that Jesus demands but that doesn’t apply Christianity to be false. We don’t preach about Christians or pastor but about Jesus Christ. He was born with sin and lived a life without sin who was crucified for our sin and was raised from dead witnessed by many. He is the only savior of humanity and no one before Him or after Him is like Him.

Jesus was crucified because he was rebellious.

Abhishek Joshi is one of the lead opponents of Christian in Nepal. He posts many videos on YouTube[32] that opposes Christianity. He says that Jesus was crucified because He was a rebel. Joshi also says that Jesus misinterpreted OT saying that He is Savoir and God of OT and even His disciples did the same. And the Bible is written in the 4^th Century AD. Finally, close it up by criticizing Christian misinterpret Bhagavad Gita[33] claiming that Jesus is found there also.

Joshi doesn’t deny the crucifixion of Jesus. He right when he says crucifixion was meant for wrongdoers. Criticize Jesus for misinterpreting OT scripture is wrong. As Joshi quotes from Mark14:16 onwards where it seems like Jesus rebelled against Jews but we must not forget that Jesus also knew that they will kill Him for that sake. We won’t die for what we are not. Jewish priests of that time thought that Jesus is a hypocrite. Many disciples like Thomas thought that Jesus was just a prophet or man from God until he saw resurrected Jesus. Apostle Thomas was the person who came to India and preached about a Savior who died for our sin and got resurrected and there is no one like Him and died for that sake. All the disciples we tortured and were killed as they preached about resurrected Christ who is the only way to the Father. So, what about those disciples who died for the sake of the Gospel. They were not lunatic to do so. And about the reliability of NT, sources are very near to Jesus’ time. There is no doubt that He was crucified and the reason was that Jews Priest thought He was misinterpreting Scripture but the truth is that He died for our sin and He was raised which was witnessed by 500 plus people. Finally about misinterpreting Bhagavad Gita Christian should do that because we say it’s human written and again we try to prove Hindu scripture also show Jesus which contradicts our views.

Conclusion

Humans are depraved which is seen even in kids as they are jealous, lie, etc though Hinduism denial it. According to Hinduism, we are created in that way. Some chose to do wrong and some do right. Salvation or Nirvana for them and Buddhism is by doing good works and it’s not sure whether we will achieve it or not. Gods of Hinduism came to wipe wicked from the earth (only their part comes to earth) and save righteous people. But it is the opposite in Christianity. In Christianity, we are sinful people who are not able to work out for our salvation and can’t reach to God who is Holy. We needed a savior who is sinless and lived a life without sin. Savior who is 100% man so that He can reach to man and 100% God who can reach to God. Old Testament prophesied about His birth, the life He lived and death He encountered. God. Though many before Jesus and still claim to be God or came from God they are no equal to Jesus. He was crucified for our sin as written and was resurrected which was witnessed by many and we have evidence like empty tomb tradition. His claims are all true. Though people criticize Christianity about the validity or reliability of the Bible we have sources that are valid and reliable that support that the Bible is trustworthy. We have many ancient manuscripts that dated to the 1^st century. We have the historical evidence that supports the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ as written in the Bible and by other non-christian writers. All these things supports the claim of Jesus and He alone claimed these things and He is who He claims to be.

Bibliography

Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (v. 1). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1975.

Brown, David A. A Guide to Religion. Delhi: ISPCK, 2018.

Bruce, F. F. Paul, Apostle of the Free Spirit. U.K.: Paternoster Digital Library, 2005.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993.

Curtis, Kenneth A., Stephen J. Lang, and Randy Petersen. The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History. Hyderabad: Authentic, 2012.

Davie, Martin. New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic. Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2016.

Foster, John. The First Advance Church History AD 29-500. Delhi: ISPCK, 2018.

Geisler, Norman L. The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Bakers Book, 2015.

Grudem, Wayne A. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2014. Accessed October 18, 2020. http://rbdigital.rbdigital.com.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England : Grand Rapids, Mich: Inter-Varsity Press ; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994.

Jones, Constance, and James D. Ryan. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Encyclopedia of world religions. New York: Facts On File, 2007.

Joshi, Abishek. Reasons of Jesus Christ Crucified, 2019. Accessed November 2, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-mCC3BWvL4&ab_channel=GohiraTV.

Klostermaier, Klaus K. A Survey of Hinduism. 3rd ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007.

Lochtefeld, James G. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism. 1st ed. New York: Rosen, 2002.

Lockyer, Herbert. All the Doctrines of the Bible. Hyderabad: Authentic, 2012.

Manu, Patrick Olivelle, and Suman Olivelle. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra. South Asia research. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence for the Resurrection: What It Means for Your Relationship with God. Ventura, Calif: Regal Books, 2009.

McDowell, Josh, and Dave Sterrett. Did the Resurrection Happen– Really? A Dialogue on Life, Death, and Hope. Coffee house chronicles 3. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011.

Pardillo, Urbano L. “Christianity and Hinduism on Human Existence.” Accessed October 18, 2020. https://www.academia.edu/9022229/CHRISTIANITY_AND_HINDUISM_ON_HUMAN_EXISTENCE.

Vasudev, Jaggi. Death: An inside Story : A Book for All Those Who Shall Die. Haryana: Penguin Random House, 2020.

Witherington, Ben. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic [u.a.], 2001.

Zacharias, Ravi. New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna. 1st ed. Colorado Springs, Colo: Multnomah Books, 2008.

“John 20:28 Interlinear: And Thomas Answered and Said to Him, ‘My Lord and My God;’” Accessed October 21, 2020. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-28.htm.

Notes

[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 136.

[2] Wayne A Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2014), 307, accessed October 18, 2020, http://rbdigital.rbdigital.com.

[3] Martin Davie, New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic (Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2016), 328.

[4] Jaggi Vasudev, Death: An inside Story : A Book for All Those Who Shall Die (Haryana: Penguin Random House, 2020), 49–51.

[5] Urbano L Pardillo, “Christianity and Hinduism on Human Existence,” accessed October 18, 2020, https://www.academia.edu/9022229/CHRISTIANITY_AND_HINDUISM_ON_HUMAN_EXISTENCE.

[6] Water is Nara here who is god Narayana in Hinduism.

[7] Manu, Patrick Olivelle, and Suman Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra, South Asia research (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 87.

[8] James G. Lochtefeld, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 1st ed. (New York: Rosen, 2002), 157.

[9] Constance Jones and James D. Ryan, Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Encyclopedia of world religions (New York: Facts On File, 2007), 323.

[10] Manu, Olivelle, and Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law, 88.

[11] Parvati was also daughter of Brahma.

[12] Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, 3rd ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 170.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Lochtefeld, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 102.

[15] Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, 294.

[16] Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 329.

[17] Ravi Zacharias, New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna, 1st ed. (Colorado Springs, Colo: Multnomah Books, 2008), 49.

[18] David A. Brown, A Guide to Religion (Delhi: ISPCK, 2018), 74–75.

[19] “John 20:28 Interlinear: And Thomas Answered and Said to Him, ‘My Lord and My God;,’” accessed October 21, 2020, https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-28.htm.

[20] Kenneth A. Curtis, Stephen J. Lang, and Randy Petersen, The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History (Hyderabad: Authentic, 2012), 19.

[21] F. F Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Free Spirit (U.K.: Paternoster Digital Library, 2005), 435.

[22] John Foster, The First Advance Church History AD 29-500 (Delhi: ISPCK, 2018), 49.

[23] Herbert Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible (Hyderabad: Authentic, 2012), 50.

[24] Ben Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic [u.a.], 2001), 156.

[25] Norman L Geisler, The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Bakers Book, 2015), 109.

[26] Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (v. 1) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1975), I–393.

[27] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England : Grand Rapids, Mich: Inter-Varsity Press ; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 492.

[28] Josh McDowell and Dave Sterrett, Did the Resurrection Happen– Really? A Dialogue on Life, Death, and Hope, Coffee house chronicles 3 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011), 66.

[29] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection: What It Means for Your Relationship with God (Ventura, Calif: Regal Books, 2009), 167.

[30] Ibid., 175.

[31] Ibid., 180.

[32] Abishek Joshi, Reasons of Jesus Christ Crucified, 2019, accessed November 2, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-mCC3BWvL4&ab_channel=GohiraTV.

[33] Hindus scared book

Mumsher Khadka is a Nepali student. He is working on his Bachelor in Theology. He is passionate about studying theology and all things apologetics.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/6kxLhnA

February 17, 2021/by Guest

Is It Arrogant To Claim That Jesus Is The Only Way?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

An Arrogant Claim or An Arrogant Christian?

One of the most common concerns about Christianity is its claim of exclusivity. In today’s world, it is considered evil to not be inclusive of everyone and everything. To show such intolerance is the epitome of arrogance. Many people use the presence of such intolerance and arrogance as a defeater for Christianity, meaning that they reject its truth claims because along with those truth claims comes the claim to be the exclusive way to God. There are a few things to consider when examining this challenge, though.

Arrogance is a characteristic of a person not a claim.

The first thing to consider is that the character of a presenter has no bearings on the truth of the claim he or she is making. The claim is either true or false, and that must be judged based upon how that claim matches up against the evidence provided by reality. A person can be arrogant, but their claim cannot. We must be able to separate a person’s claim from their character and test each accordingly. A person’s claims need to be tested against reality, and a person’s character needs to be tested against an objective standard of morality (impossible, if God does not exist, by the way).

A person can make false claims and be arrogant. They can make false claims and be humble. They can make true claims and be humble, and they can even make true claims and be arrogant. A person’s character can, indeed, be a powerful distraction, but we want to reject the false claims regardless of the person’s character, and we want to accept the true claims regardless of their character. So we must focus on testing the claim. We should allow our minds to accept what is true because it accurately reflects reality, and we should allow our minds to reject what is false because it does not accurately reflect reality.

Arrogance is mistakenly confused with falsehood.

The second thing to consider is that this challenge tends to come from an assumption that is not often at the forefront: that multiple ways to God do, in fact, exist. If multiple ways to God exist, then to claim that the other ways do not get to God would not necessarily be arrogant (see above), but they would definitely be false. In the context of multiple ways to God, then it could be accurately said that the Christian is making a false claim.

But, Christianity does not grant that multiple ways to God exist. And if Christianity accurately reflects reality, then multiple ways to God do not exist. Since it can be evidentially demonstrated that Christianity accurately reflects reality, then by necessary implication, reality does not permit multiple ways to God. This is not an arrogant claim; it is simply a true claim. A true claim that is true for everybody even if nobody believes it, regardless of the character of those who claim it.

Arrogant Christians exist and humble Christians exist. Some Christians can and do present the exclusivity of our worldview in an arrogant way, but if their character is too much of an emotional distraction, look for a Christian who will present the evidence humbly. Do not let a Christian’s obnoxious attitude deter your search for truth.

The distraction of an arrogant Christian could be a cover for our own arrogance.

The third thing to consider is that perhaps it is not the arrogance of the Christian or the alleged arrogance of the Christian worldview that is the distraction from investigating the claims of Christianity. Perhaps it is the arrogance of the person raising the challenge that is preventing them from being committed to truth. If we are arrogant in our rejection of God’s one option, then we will gladly use a Christian’s arrogant presentation of that one option as an excuse to reject that one option. Our rejection of the Christian’s claim based on their arrogance serves to distract ourselves and others from our own arrogance. However, if we are humble and committed to discovering the truth no matter the cost, then even a Christian’s arrogance will not prevent us from investigating their claims despite their character flaw.

God is neither intolerant nor arrogant for providing a way to Him.

A fourth thing to consider is that there is a problem with humans in general that undergirds this challenge: no matter how many options we have, we always want more. If God had given us ten ways to Him, we’d want eleven; if He’d given us one million ways, we’d demand one million and one. This is evident by the continuous invention of new religions throughout history. New religions wouldn’t be concocted if the available options were satisfactory to us. So, I am inclined to think that no matter what option was provided to a person who makes this complaint, it would never satisfy them. At that point they may then complain that God has made Himself impossible to reach, when the truth is that they have made God impossible to reach by not being satisfied with the options provided.

Conclusion

When a person raises this challenge, they need to consider the real possibility that they are not concerned with restoring a relationship with their Creator for eternity, but that they are concerned with their own desires for the few decades of this life only, many of which are likely contradictory to God’s moral nature. If a person is most concerned with restoring their relationship with God for eternity, they will gladly do so on God’s terms even if those terms do not align with their own short-sighted desires. It is only necessary that God provides one option for those who truly seek Him because that one option will be sufficient and embraced no matter the cost to a few short decades in this imperfect world. If God did not provide any way to Him, that would be intolerant and arrogant.

However, He has provided one way to Him: Jesus Christ. The facts that one way is available and that we can choose to accept it or reject it means that God has given us two options. It is time for us to deny ourselves (including any possible arrogance that we have), take up our cross and follow Christ- we must surrender our desires to the commitment to truth.

We are blessed that a way of restoration to God has been provided, even if there is only one way, there is still a way. This way is available to all who wish to be humble and not arrogant (the very claim they are complaining about) and accept their brokenness and the way that was provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you are willing to judge the claims of Christianity by how its claims are supported by the evidence that is provided by our world, I encourage you to start with this post: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead? Be sure to check the links below to several scholars who have researched the evidence.

Would Jesus have Really Received a Proper Burial?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Critics of Christianity like to suggest that a crucified victim like Jesus never would have received a proper burial. They point to cases where the Romans left victims on the cross for days while birds ate away at their flesh to serve as a reminder to everyone who walked by not mess with Rome. What’s more, the Romans usually tossed the remains into a common grave. The theory goes, in no case would Rome give permission for a crucified victim to receive a proper burial.

It’s no secret that crucifixion was a horrendous experience. It was so terrible, that ancients made up a new word to describe the agony of crucifixion — excruciating. Furthermore, Rome only crucified non-Romans guilty of the worst of crimes. When you consider this, it seems plausible that the Romans would have forbidden Jesus’ burial in a tomb. But just because something is plausible doesn’t mean that’s what actually happened.

Let me illustrate my point. A few years ago, the U.S. Navy Seals carried out a secret mission to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden. It’s standard procedure for United States special forces to capture the enemy and bring them back to a high security prison for interrogation. In this instance, however, they killed Bin Laden on the spot and dumped his body in the ocean. Now let me ask you this: Should future Americans one hundred years from now be skeptical that the U.S. Navy Seals killed Bin Laden since it was implausible — not an ordinary occurrence? No, of course not, because history is filled with implausible events.

Politics and Jewish Customs

So is it inconceivable that Jesus received a proper burial in a tomb? I don’t think so for a few of reasons. First, Pontius Pilate was a politician who wanted to keep his post. As the Roman governor, it was his responsibility to keep the peace in the region — the Pax Romana. Thus, it was in Pilate’s best interest to cooperate with the Jewish leadership and be considerate of their customs lest he instigate the masses. Jewish historian Josephus writes that emperor Tiberius had previously chastised Pilate for being insensitive to the Jewish culture when he placed pagan symbols inside the temple. This act, of course, led to a mob, which ultimately subsided when Pilate removed the artifacts. Pilate was down to his final strike; therefore, he had extra motivation to cooperate with Jewish leadership.

Now John’s gospel tells us why the Jews wanted to take Jesus’ body down from the cross instead of leaving it up indefinitely. We read in John 19:31, “Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.” In other words, Pilate needed to honor the Sabbath, and the text indicates that he did just that — although the soldiers didn’t need to break Jesus’ legs. Remember, Emperor Tiberius had already rebuked him once. Pilate needed to navigate this situation carefully.

Archeological Evidence

Second, we have archeological evidence that Pilate allowed crucified victims to receive a proper burial. Before I disclose what that evidence is, let me first describe ancient Jewish burial practices. When a Jewish loved one died, they were wrapped in a cloth, adorned with perfumes and spices, and placed in a tomb. After one year, the family members would return to the tomb to collect the bones of their deceased relative and place them in a smaller box called an ossuary. This allowed for more space in the tombs so that all the deceased family members could be near each other.

Amazingly, in 1968, archaeologists discovered an ossuary of a Jewish man named Yehohanan in the north-eastern quadrant of Jerusalem. This young man noticeably had been crucified. I say noticeably, because a six-inch iron spike was still attached to his heel bone with wood fragments from a cross still attached to the spike (see image above). Experts date the bones to the late 20’s — less than a decade before Jesus’ death and still during Pilate’s rule¹. Here is evidence that Pilate permitted Jewish crucifixion victims to receive a proper burial. It seems, then, that Jesus’ burial in a tomb isn’t without precedent.

Joseph Of Arimathea

Third, each of the Gospel writers indicate that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus’ body in his tomb. This meets the criteria of multiple attestation which states that if multiple, independent sources report an event, it’s more probable that it happened.

More than that, it also meets the criteria of embarrassment because it makes a Jewish council member look more compassionate than Jesus’ disciples. If the gospel writers lied, why would they go out of their way to make themselves look bad? To be sure, they indicate that Joseph was a believer, but why give credit to a member of the council that was responsible for most Christianity’s early persecution? It’s hard to imagine that the early Christians wanted to give credit to the Jewish leaders for anything.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to credit a prominent member of Jewish society whom everyone knew and could be talked to — someone who could debunk the story if it was false. If the disciples lied about the story, it would have been more prudent to give themselves credit for the burial or invent a character that no one could question. The only reason, therefore, the early Christians had for giving credit to Joseph of Arimathea is that he must have, in fact, buried Jesus in his tomb.

Was Jesus Buried in A Tomb?

On the surface, the claim that Jesus wouldn’t have received a proper burial sounds compelling. Yet, when you dig a little deeper and understand more of the context, Jesus’ burial in a tomb makes the most sense of all the data. Therefore, I think we can confidently say that Jesus’ burial is not fake news.

BIBLE STUDY: WAS THE RESURRECTION BODY OF JESUS SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL?

4. Is the NT True?, Apologetics for Parents, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

So, everyone from left to right accepts the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being dated to 1-3 years after the death of Jesus, even atheists like Crossley, Ludemann, and Crossan. The thing is, some people are not sure that the appearances of Jesus to individuals, groups, and skeptics really were physical appearances. They say, “well, Paul’s appearance was non-physical, so the other ones must have been, too.”

Let’s take a look.

Here’s a paragraph from my friend Eric Chabot, from his blog Think Apologetics. He explains why Paul’s use of the word “resurrection” to describe what the other witnesses saw means bodily resurrection.

He writes:

If Paul did have a vision, then the term “vision” is vague and must be defined. As Licona points out, visions are either objective (i.e., something that is seen without the use of our natural senses) or subjective (i.e., a product of our minds). The real problem is with the vision hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain Paul’s use of resurrection to explain what had happened to Jesus. The two words are used for resurrection in the New Testament “anastasis” (rising up) and “egersis” (waking up), both imply a physical body. Furthermore, the use of the word “opethe” (the Greek word for appeared) shows the Gospel writers did believe that Jesus appeared physically. “There you will see (opethe) him” (Matt. 28:7); “The Lord has risen and has appeared (opethe) to Simon” (Luke 24:24). When they used “opethe” here, it means that He appeared physically to them.

So when Paul gives his list of appearances in 1 Cor. 15, the issues become whether the appearance to him is the same as it was to the disciples. There is no doubt the post-resurrection body of Jesus (after the ascension) had to be somewhat different than the body the disciples saw. Also, whenever the New Testament mentions the word body, in the context of referring to an individual human being, the Greek word “soma” always refers to a literal, physical body. Greek specialist Robert Gundry says “the consistent and exclusive use of soma for the physical body in anthropological contexts resists dematerialization of the resurrection, whether by idealism or by existentialism.” [9] Furthermore, in N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God shows that the Greek word for the resurrection which is “anastasis” was used by ancient Jews, pagans, and Christians as bodily in nature.

Now, I think my view on this, and I’m not sure if Eric would correct me, is that Paul got an objective but the non-physical vision of Jesus. There was something there that everyone else could see and hear, in my view. But in my view, Paul’s “veridical” vision was post-ascension and so non-physical. Paul uses the word resurrection to describe what the other eyewitnesses saw (and he met them at least twice, according to Gal 1 and Gal 2), and that means physical resurrected body.

Eric Chabot writes this in another place:

Now, I said before in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul could have chosen to only use the word pneuma. He doesn’t. He does say “spiritual,” but he’s got an adjective there. He also says, soma, “body.” What did Paul mean?

Philippians Chapter 3. It’s a short chapter. There are 21 verses, but Paul says three things in one chapter that indicate he’s talking about a physical resurrection. In the opening verses he says, “I was a Hebrew of the Hebrews” and “as touching the law,” he says, “I was a Pharisee.” Now, it’s very well known that the Pharisee believed in a bodily resurrection. In fact, according to Acts 23, as Paul was being taken captive by the Romans to prevent his being killed, he shouted out to the group of people and said, “Why are you taking me? Because I believe in the resurrection of the dead?” He meant a literal resurrection.

When the Pharisees heard that, they said there’s nothing wrong with this guy. But the Sadducees [who didn’t believe in the Resurrection] didn’t like it. So as a Pharisee, he’s agreeing with the Pharisees.

So, the first evidence is from Philippians 3. As a Pharisee, Paul believes in a physical resurrection.

Secondly, in verse 11 he says, “That I may attain the resurrection of the dead.” Now, the normal Greek word for resurrection is anastasis, but in this passage, Philippians 3:11, he puts a prefix on there, ek anastasis. Ekanastasis, according to all Greek scholars that I know of, is translated in this passage: “The out resurrection from among the dead.” Paul said, “I want to attain the out resurrection.”

Now, to a Jew, “out resurrection” means “what goes down is what comes up.” You come out from death. And then just a few verses later, Philippians 3:20,21, he said, “From Heaven, we look for Jesus who will change our vile soma (body) to be like unto His glorious soma (or body),” when he should have said pneuma, according to this other view.

So he’s a Pharisee who believes in a physical resurrection. Ek anastasis—“resurrection from out among the dead ones.”

Thirdly, Paul says, “He Jesus will change my body to be like His body.”

So right there in Philippians 3 alone, I think the picture of Jesus being some wispy spirit that appeared to him on the road to Damascus doesn’t fit Paul’s own data.

Yes, that’s why Philippians is my favorite book. You can get so much useful theology out of it. Something about the resurrection in Phil 3, something about Jesus’ divinity in Phil 2, and loads of practical advice on stewardship, charity, fellowship, endurance and practical love for others throughout. Some of it takes a little digging, but that’s what commentaries are for, am I right? But I digress.

If you want to read something a little more challenging, I found a paper from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) from their journal, where it talks more about soma and anastasis. If you want a bit of a challenge, download the PDF and read it. It’s by Kirk R. MacGregor, and the title is “1 Corinthians 15:3B–6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection Of Jesus.”

Early Christian Theologians

Is the Name Yahweh Found in the New Testament?

Does Psalm 110 Preclude Jesus from Being Yahweh?

The Angel of the Lord

The Carmen Christi

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Would You Hire This Guy?

Fall On Your Face

A Novel Character

Confronting The Skeptics

The Jesus We Take For Granted

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Early Witnesses

Impossibility of the Hallucination Theory to Explain

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

The Date of the Creed

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Early Testimony of Women Postulates that the Story was not Invented.

The Early Testimony of Women Provides Embarrassing Details.

The Early Testimony of Women Proves Multiple Attestation.

The Early Testimony of Women Portrays their Elevated Status.

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

1. Human Depravity

2. Sinlessness of Jesus

3. Humanity and Divinity of Jesus

4. Death and Resurrection of Jesus

5. Dealing with some question raised to Christian in Nepal

Conclusion

Bibliography

Notes

An Arrogant Claim or An Arrogant Christian?

Arrogance is mistakenly confused with falsehood.

The distraction of an arrogant Christian could be a cover for our own arrogance.

God is neither intolerant nor arrogant for providing a way to Him.

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Politics and Jewish Customs

Archeological Evidence

Joseph Of Arimathea

Was Jesus Buried in A Tomb?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: