Resurrection Archives - Page 3 of 8

Tag Archive for: Resurrection

The Mind-Blowing Meaning Behind the Sign of Jonah

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Recently I stumbled across what I thought was a rather silly meme:

Oof. Here’s the thing: No matter if you believe Jonah is historical or ahistorical (and some Christians, like C.S. Lewis, believed it was the latter), this meme misses the point. Science tells us what nature does when left to itself; miracles happen because nature is not left to itself. Whoever wrote the book of Jonah probably understood that human beings don’t normally get swallowed by whales, let alone survive if they did.

But did Jonah survive? No, and yes. Let’s read Jonah’s parts of the prayer from the whale’s belly:

Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the stomach of the fish, and he said, “I called out of my distress to the Lord, and he answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; you heard my voice…

…“Water encompassed me to the point of death. The great deep engulfed me, weeds were wrapped around my head. “I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever, but you have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God. “While I was fainting away, I remembered the Lord…“Then the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah up onto the dry land. Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh…”

Jonah 2:3-1

Did Jonah Survive?

Let’s consider these three key points from this text:

First, the phrases belly of Sheol and the Pit are Old Testament terms that refer to the realm of the dead. (See Job 7:9, 33:18, Psalm 40:2, 49:14-15, 89:48)
Secondly, the Hebrew says that his soul or nephesh fainted, meaning he took his last breath like a dying man.
Lastly, when God says to Jonah “arise” this is the Hebrew word קוּם. This is the same word Jesus used when he raised Jairus’ daughter from the dead. Mark 5:41reads: “Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, “Talitha Kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!“)

So actually, the atheist has a good point; Jonah probably did die in the belly of a great fish, or whale. God had mercy on him and raised him from the dead, and he was able to carry out his mission.

The Sign of Jonah

OK, so where am I going with this? Remember when Jesus refused to give the Pharisees a sign? What was his reply? He said:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”

(Matthew 12:38-41)

To be honest, I’ve thought before that this was a pretty weak parallel, no offense to Jesus. But this story makes much more sense if Jonah really did give up the ghost only to be miraculously revived to preach to the Ninevites. And there is even more. Like, why are the Ninevites so significant?

Throughout Old Testament history, Nineveh was not a friend of Israel. In the late seventh century BC, Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire. The city’s king, Sennacherib, laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC (2 Kings 18:13-19:37) and I’m sure the Jews never forgot. When the Babylonians destroyed Nineveh in 612, Nahum the prophet practically rejoiced. He calls Nineveh the “city of bloodshed”. (Nah 3:1) Jonah probably fled because of these reasons. Like many Jews of his time, Jonah hated Nineveh.

The Sign of Jonah: More Than the Resurrection

By mentioning Jonah, Jesus was being purposely provocative. His death would lead not only to his resurrection but the repentance of the pagan nations that his audience would’ve despised. The sign of Jonah wasn’t just his resurrection but would lead to the repentance of those hated Gentiles.

Now think about this for a second: From Augustine to Aquinas, Christian apologists would point to the success of the church as evidence of the truth of the Gospel. When they argued for the messiahship, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus, they (generally) failed to mention the evidence for an empty tomb or the reliability of the eyewitnesses. They didn’t argue about historical probability and evidence, as important as I think that is.

Rather, they simply pointed out the crumbling pagan world around them; Gentile nations that had worshipped idols for millennia miraculously repented, turned, and began to worship the God of the Jews. Isaiah the Prophet also saw this when he said that the servant of the Lord will be “a light for the nations” (Isaiah 42:6-7) Many of the other Psalmists and Old Testament prophets predicted the same thing; that one day Israel would lead to the conversion of the nations.

The Sign of Jonah Has Been Fulfilled

Now look around: Since Jesus’ death and resurrection, a tiny band of Jewish vagabond fishermen turned the world upside down, and their effect has been felt for generations until now. In the first century, Christianity spread throughout Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia, and more recently has spread throughout Africa, South America, and even in communist China. Christianity still has a stronghold in North America as well as parts of Europe. Over the past two millennia, billions and billions of non-Jews have repented and worshiped the God of Israel.

So this atheist meme makes a good point. Of course, Jonah wouldn’t have survived. Jonah died, rose again 3 days later and his preaching converted the Ninevites. Jesus died, rose again 3 days later and his message through his apostles converted billions of Gentiles over the past 2000 years. The sign of Jonah has been fulfilled. We don’t believe that simply because a book says it’s true, we can just open our eyes and see the world around us.

Resurrection Defense Series: Archaeological Evidences Supporting the Resurrection

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We have examined various lines of evidence that support the notion that Jesus literally rose from the dead. As we wrap up the series, it may prove beneficial to describe a few pieces of archaeological evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus. Archaeological evidence can neither prove nor disprove an event of history.[1] However, it can lend itself to probabilities that an event did or did not occur. The resurrection poses an additional problem as no one was present when the event took place. Even still, certain artifacts lend credibility to the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Nail Spiked Ankle Bone of Yehohannan

In 1968, an ossuary was discovered that contained the heel bone of a young man named Yehohannan. Living 2,000 years ago, Yehohannan died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Evidence suggests that he was only in his twenties when he died. The description of his crime has been lost to us. However, the nature of his execution was preserved by the young man’s extant heel bone. A traditional Roman spike pierced the heel of Yehohannan. But unlike other nails which were reused to crucify victims, this spike bent most likely after striking a knot in the wood. The heel bone, bent spike, and even a piece of wood confirm that nails were used, at least at times, to fasten victims to the cross. For Yehohannan, his executors nailed his ankles to the opposing exterior sides of the vertical beam rather than through the feet. The young man’s preserved heel bone reveals two things about Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection.

First, the find proves that Romans did nail victims to the cross, confirming the details of the Gospel narratives related to the death of Jesus. Crucifixion was a nasty form of execution. The victim would slowly die from asphyxiation which led to heart failure. The chances of Jesus surviving crucifixion, as proposed by some, are slim to none.

Second, the find also proves that the Romans permitted families to grant crucified victims a proper burial. In ancient Israelite culture, a body was buried in a tomb. A year later, the bones were collected in the linen wrappings and placed in a common family ossuary (bone box). It was not until the time of Emperor Caligula that the practice of granting proper burial to crucified victims ceased. Caligula began his reign in AD 37 which was 4-7 years after the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, the claim that Jesus was merely buried in a shallow grave rather than a tomb loses its impact in light of the discovery of Yehohannan’s heel bone.

Nazareth Decree

The Nazareth Decree is a fascinating find. In 1878, a French scholar acquired a slab of stone in Nazareth dating to AD 44.[2] The decree was given by Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) who charges that if anyone is found extracting or exhuming bodies from tombs, then the graverobbers would be charged and promptly executed. Interestingly, the decree also mentions one moving stones enclosing tombs. The Gospel of Matthew notes that the Jewish leaders deceitfully contrived a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11-15). While a direct correlation cannot be drawn between the Nazareth Decree and the rumor arranged by the Jewish Sanhedrin, one still finds a strong probability that the growth of Christianity accompanied with the rumor could have necessitated such a decree in the emperor’s mind.[3]

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Protestants often prefer the serene location of Gordon’s Tomb over the iconic and liturgical nature of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. However, if one pursues truth over preference, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is hands-down far more likely to be the actual tomb of Jesus rather than the irenic counterpart. In AD 132, Emperor Hadrian barred Jews from Jerusalem and attempted to eradicate evidence of both Judaism and Christianity by building Roman temples and statues over sacred spots. In AD 313, Constantine legalized Christianity. His mother Helena, a devout Christian, sought to discover the most sacred sites of Christianity. Hadrian had placed a statue of Venus atop the tomb of Christ in an effort to desecrate the tomb. When Helena asked local believers where the tomb was located, they pointed her to the tomb with the erected Venusian statue. Helena immediately ordered the removal of the statue and the preservation of the tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was later built around the tomb and crucifixion site. A few years ago, in an effort to restore key sections of the holy church, researchers were allowed to peer inside the slab of marble used to protect the bedding. The upper part was removed. Underneath, they discovered a broken piece of metal with a Crusader’s cross engraved. Under the metal, they found a stone bedding that dated to the first century. The discovery proved that the Edicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been revered as the burial place of Christ for two millennia. This adds considerable weight to the idea that the empty tomb of Jesus is either in the Edicule or very nearby. Personally, the Edicule holds a strong probability of being the actual burial site of Jesus—a probability greater than 95%.

Shroud of Turin

Finally, we end with one of the most mysterious archaeological finds of all time. Just when skeptics seem to debunk the Shroud of Turin, something comes along that later confirms it. The Shroud of Turin is a highly controversial linen cloth that measures 14 feet, 5 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches. It bears a negative three-dimensional image of a crucified man in his thirties and includes bloodstains of actual AB hemoglobin.[4] Additional discoveries have found pollen grains of plants based in Israel and dating to the first century along with evidence that the Shroud had been exposed to a high dose of radiation, perhaps from the resurrection event itself.[5] Although the Shroud had been dated to the medieval ages in a carbon-14 test conducted in 1988, those tests have proven false. The debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin will most certainly continue until the return of Christ himself. The Shroud of Turin is not necessary to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, as has been shown by this series. Nonetheless, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it not only proves that Jesus rose from the dead, but it also provides a snapshot as to how Jesus may have looked.

Conclusion

Admittedly, the archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is largely circumstantial. The only direct piece of archaeological evidence for the resurrection would be the Shroud of Turin, if genuine. However, the Shroud is enshrouded in mystery (pun intended). Because of the nature of the resurrection event, one should not expect a slam dunk discovery to be made. Why? Because Jesus is no longer in the tomb. The most direct evidence has been removed and is no longer available. Regardless, the data provided when taken together affords a strong case that something mysterious and amazing transpired on the first Easter Sunday. The artifacts described prove the high probability that Jesus died by crucifixion, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty, and that the tomb was revered for two millennia. Taken together, that is a compelling case for the resurrection event. For more information on the archaeological evidence for the Bible, see chapter 13 of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and be sure to check out Ted Wright’s page EpicArchaeology.com.

Notes

[1] Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, 26.

[2] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 48; Ted Wright, “10 Significant NT Archaeological Discoveries,” EpicArchaeology.com.

[3] To read the full transcript of the Nazareth Decree, see Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 123.

[4] Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 127-128.

[5] Ibid., 128.

Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Science and faith issues are no doubt a hot topic of discussion when it comes to defending the truth of Christianity. Many Christians hold many different views about the timing and mechanism of God’s creative acts. Some views hold numerous details in common while others may hold only many details in common. It is the few differences here and there that cause much heat in this internal debate and cause unbelievers (and some Christians) to question the truth of the historic Christian faith as a whole. Today, I want to look at one of the more common distinctives between Christians who believe that the universe is young (6,000-10,000 years old) and those Christians who believe that the universe is ancient (~13.7 billion years old).

But before I get to the specific challenge, I need to set a foundation. First, I am an old earth creationist (OEC), so I will defend the latter of the two views above; however, I will not appeal to God’s actions (creation) today; rather I will limit my appeals to Scripture alone. Second, there are numerous areas of agreement among young and old earth creationists just within the doctrine of creation (not to mention the rest of the Christian worldview), and I feel that the differences, because of their ability to undermine the truth of the Christian worldview, tend to get more of the focus than the common ground. I have a list of more than forty areas of agreement in my article “What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Christians Agree Upon Regarding Origins?” to help Christians remember these area of unity and be more gracious in our discussions with each other. The primary two areas of agreement that are important for today’s topic are that both young- and old- earth creationists affirm biblical inerrancy and that Adam and Eve were historically the first humans. With those in place, here we go!

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

In Mark 10:6 Jesus teaches, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Many young earth creationists (YEC) use this passage as a proof text that demonstrates that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is the interpretation that Jesus held (see this article from the YEC organization Answers In Genesis: Jesus Devastates An Old Earth). Young earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 144 hours and 168 hours after He created the universe. Old earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. So, the YEC argument goes like this:

Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation of the universe.
The YEC creation of Adam and Eve is closer to its date of creation of the universe than is the OEC creation of Adam and Eve to its date of creation of the universe.
Therefore, Jesus was teaching the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1.

The Fatal Flaw

On the surface, the argument does seem legitimate and is certainly persuasive. I’m sure many have seen and some have used this argument, sometimes with a slightly different second premise, but the first premise and the conclusion are always the same. However, there is one fatal flaw to all these versions. “144 hours later” is not the same as “the beginning of creation of the universe,” and, to be fair, neither is 100,000 to 200,000 years later either. The first premise (the one premise that appears in all the versions of this argument) is simply false. The falsehood of the first premise is what logically undermines the conclusion. But is the defeat of the first premise really that cut-and-dried? Perhaps not. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy may have an allowance that permits the first premise to be true.

Finding The Proper Interpretation

A statement can be true but not complete in its precision, just like 3.14 or 3.14159 both accurately represent pi even though they have different levels of precision. A lack of precision does not necessarily undermine the truth of a claim, nor does a lack of precision necessarily undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In the case of Mark 10:6, it is true; however, it is not explicitly precise. “The beginning of creation…’of what'” is where the debate on interpreting Mark 10:6 hinges. There are two ways to address this. First, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is, and second, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is not.

What Is Jesus Talking About?

When we read the passage, it is obvious that Jesus is describing the features of humans: “God created them male and female.” So, the specific portion of God’s creation that is in view is that of humans. Notice that there is the pronoun “them” in the passage as well. A pronoun must have an explicit or implicit antecedent. If we are to interpret Jesus’ words to mean “From the beginning of creation of humans God made them male and female,” we see that the antecedent (implied by Jesus’ words but explicit in the interpretation of Jesus’ words) matches that of the object of creation that Jesus is obviously referring to in the passage.

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

But is there a way that the universe could be the object of creation yet Jesus be making a point about the creation of humans? The doctrine of biblical inerrancy certainly allows for truth without precision, so could the YEC simply say that Jesus was truthfully but imprecisely equating the time of the creation of man with the time of creation of the universe, making the object of the creation the universe? The answer is “no,” and here is why. It is generally recognized that there is a difference between “lack of precision” and “false.” This distinction is not always easy to identify, but in many cases, rules or methods can be used to identify the line. Back to my example of pi, the rules of rounding provides the boundary that logically judges that 3.15 is not a lack of precision but is a falsehood. In the case Mark 10:6, we can use the perspicuity of Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) to identify where the line of distinction precisely lies and can judge for us whether the proposed interpretation is a lack of precision or is a falsehood.

Genesis 1 clearly defines the location of the line of distinction for judgment. Genesis 1 places a hard line between “lack of precision” and “false” for any timing claim regarding the universe’s creation event at the beginning of the next “yom” (“day”). A lack of precision of another passage of scripture is permitted by Genesis 1 as long as the lack of precision is still within the boundary of the “yom” (“day”) of the creation of the universe. So, on the YEC view, “lack of precision” is biblically and doctrinally permitted if and only if the imprecise claim of Mark 10:6 falls within that first 24 hours. However, the claim is false if the lack of precision of timing is outside of the 24 hour window following the creation of the universe.

Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. Since Day 6 falls outside that 24 hour window, claiming that the creation of Adam and Eve and the creation of the universe are imprecisely at the same time is outside the allowable limits of a lack of precision, thus it is outside the boundaries of an interpretation that is guided by biblical inerrancy and the perspicuity of Scripture. So, Genesis 1 judges that Mark 10:6 cannot be interpreted to mean “the beginning of creation of the universe” even with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy allowing for a lack of precision.

So, the interpretation of Mark 10:6 which includes the universe as the object of creation is false- not permitted as judged by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy via the perspicuity of Scripture. If anyone was to insist that the universe is the object of creation in Jesus’ statement, this would place them (YEC or OEC) in the position of denying not only the truth of biblical inerrancy but the use of biblical inerrancy in interpretation.

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

We see that the object of creation cannot be the universe but rather is humans. When we understand “humans” as the antecedent of “them” and that it is the specific creation of which Jesus is describing both the beginning and features, the passage remains true, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has properly guided to our interpretation of Mark 10:6, and Genesis 1 has rightfully judged our interpretation of the passage.

A Vital Decision

However, with this proper interpretation, the YEC loses claim to this passage as a proof-text of their view and as a defeater of other views. They also lose it as a supporting premise of their argument(s), and they lose the claim that Jesus was a YEC. The young-earth creationist has a choice: they can either give up the idea that Jesus held and taught their view, or they can surrender biblical inerrancy.

It is important to understand the ramifications of each of these options. If a YEC were to surrender Jesus as an infallible authority who holds their particular doctrinal interpretation, that is not a big deal. Why? Because Jesus did not speak to every doctrinal issue while on earth, and just because He did not speak to it while on earth does not mean that it is not true (its truth may be able to be established another way- including with the rest of Scripture, which Jesus, being God, did inspire). However, if the YEC surrenders the inerrancy of Scripture, then they lose the reliability of the accounts of Jesus teaching anything while on earth or inspiring human authors to teach while He was not on earth…so none of Scripture can be used to argue for the truth of any doctrine. With the first option, what is lost has the possibility of being regained, but with the second option everything is lost and nothing is regained.

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Insisting upon the YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6, undermines biblical inerrancy (without even appealing to raw scientific data recorded from God’s creation). Such a position is essentially the same as the position of Progressive Christianity. Insisting upon an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that logically implies the denial of biblical inerrancy opens the door wide to this heretical movement within the Church. If a Christian recognizes the problem described in this post with the YEC interpretation and use of Mark 10:6, this could play a vital role in their “deconstruction” (see the book “Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth In Response to Progressive Christianity” by Alisa Childers about Progressive Christianity) should they not also be presented the viable alternative described above. And their rejection of the Bible as a whole as being “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and their rejection of the historic Christian worldview will not be far behind.

Now, does this mean that Genesis is not history? No. Does it mean that the early chapters of Genesis are not to be interpreted literally? Not at all. Does this mean that we are taking man’s word over God’s word? Not a chance. These and several other common concerns are addressed in these posts:

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

We’ve seen in this article that it is simply false that Jesus devastates the old-earth interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Jesus did affirm the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6, but He did not say or imply anything about the time of their creation. The proper interpretation of Mark 10:6 has great apologetic significance. For when the correct interpretation of Mark 10:6 is recognized (Jesus did not teach that the universe is young, here), when unbelievers and Christians in the process of deconstruction test Jesus’ claims about creation against the revelations of creation, they cannot use Mark 10:6 as an excuse to say that Jesus’ claims about reality (including His claim to be God and the only way to the Father [John 14:6]) are false. Romans 1 remains true in its claim that the unbeliever is without excuse, even (or especially) when they look at the creation. Ultimately, if this passage is brought up as a defeater for Christianity, then we can simply demonstrate the misinterpretation, then get back to the evidence that answers the one question that the truth of the historic Christian worldview depends upon: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

What Are Students Learning At Yale? A Review of Dale Martin’s Introductory Lecture on the New Testament

Theology and Christian Apologetics

Dale Martin is a scholar of the New Testament, formerly a professor at Yale University until his retirement in 2018. Prior to his appointment at Yale, Martin was a faculty member at Rhodes College and Duke University. Yale University generously uploads many lecture series, covering various disciplines, to their “YaleCourses” YouTube channel. One of their series, uploaded in 2009, covers the discipline of New Testament studies and is instructed by Dale Martin (here is the link to the playlist). Watching Dale Martin teach his introductory lecture raised a number of concerns for me — not primarily because I disagree profoundly with many of Dr. Martin’s conclusions but because a significant number of the ‘facts’ he delivers in his presentation are quite simply false on a factual level, or otherwise misleading. This concerns me because of Dr. Martin’s position at the time as a faculty member and thus a position of trust in relation to his students. Undergraduate students are unlikely to fact-check the statements of one of their professors because it is assumed that the information being delivered at the college level, in particular at a prestigious institution such as Yale, will be factually correct. Imagine being a young Christian freshman student and, being interested in the New Testament, signing up for the course on “Introduction to New Testament History and Literature.” Is it any wonder that somewhere between sixty and eighty percent of young people in the church are losing their faith after going to college? Of course, intellectual concerns are not the only reason why a young student may walk away from the faith, but it is certainly a major factor that contributes to the youth exodus problem. In this article, I will discuss some of the assertions made by Dr. Martin in his introductory lecture, which one can presume is representative of what students in other institutions around the country are also being exposed to.

Dr. Martin begins his lecture by asserting that “the text of the Bible isn’t Scripture in itself. It’s only Scripture to a community of people who take it as Scripture.” This is nothing short of postmodern relativism (though Dale Martin himself elsewhere identifies as a postmodern Christian, so I doubt he would quibble with this). However, this position is not tenable — either the Bible is Scripture for everyone or it is not Scripture for anyone, irrespective of what any individual believes about it. It cannot be Scripture to a community of people who take it to be Scripture and not Scripture to everyone else.

Dr. Martin went on to give his class a quiz about whether certain ideas are found in the Bible or not. He claims that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. However, this is very misleading. Certainly, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and neither are the philosophical categories that came to be associated with the doctrine of the Trinity in particular at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D (i.e. the distinction between being and person). But the concept of there being one God who is manifest in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is an idea that can indeed be found in the Bible. If the Scriptures uphold the doctrine of monotheism and also maintain that the attributes and titles of deity are associated with three distinct persons, I would argue that the Nicene formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the best way of understanding the Biblical text. Readers who are interested in a more thorough discussion of this topic are invited to peruse my articles on the subject of the Trinity, available here. Readers may also find useful the recording of my recent debate with an Islamic scholar, Dr. Shabir Ally, on the Trinity vs. Tawhid. Dr. Martin says that “Some people will say that at least the doctrine of the Trinity is hinted at in the Bible and that the later church was correct to read the New Testament to support it. And that might be right theologically. But read historically it’s not in the Bible.” It is not clear to me how Dr. Martin makes a distinction here between reading the Bible theologically and reading it historically. Good hermeneutics attempt to elucidate the meaning of the text as intended by the original author, historically. It is a mistake to draw any sort of distinction between what the text meant historically and what it means theologically.

Dr. Martin also brought up a popularly claimed contradiction between the resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke. According to Dr. Martin, the gospel of Matthew “has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea but not in Galilee.” At the end of Luke, however, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. The very end of Luke does not make it look like all of the appearances take place in one day. He’s either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth, so he just leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1. I would argue that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back. I do not see a problem here.

Dr. Martin also claims that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not found in the Bible and that the New Testament does not teach that souls go to be with Jesus after death. This, however, is nonsense. Paul says in Philippians 1:23-24 “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.” Jesus says to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). The alternative reading of that text, which puts the comma after “today” (i.e. “I say to you today…”) is possible but unlikely since that construction is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. The parable of the rich man in Lazarus in Luke 16 also seems to indicate a conscious experience post-death. Even though the story is a parable, parables reflect actual real-life scenarios. There are no other parables in the gospels where Jesus literally invents a fantasy world which does not reflect actual realities.

Dr. Martin then went on to claim that the book of Acts reads like a Greek romance novel. This is material straight out of the late Westar Institute fellow Richard Pervo, who was, to be candid, a fringe scholar. Craig Keener, who is arguably the world’s leading authority on the book of Acts, comments[1],

“In the end, most scholars reject the characterization of Acts as a novel. Ancient readers knew the genre of the novel but, in the overwhelming majority of cases, could distinguish between the narrative genres of history (where facts are important to the genre) and novel (where they are not). Even when historical works have incorrect facts, they do not become fiction, and a novel that depends on historical information does not become history; what distinguishes the two genres is the nature of their truth claims. Yet Acts is certainly entertaining history, recounting ‘a dramatic and absorbing story.’ The literary public was not large enough for political and other historians to gain an audience by simply recounting bare events. ‘The historian therefore had to recount in lively fashion events beyond his reach, and qualify ethically the personalities involved.’”

The fact of the matter is that the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical corroborating evidence (one could give more than a hundred examples lifted from works by Craig Keener, Colin Hemer, James Smith, and others).[2] It is also supported by dozens of undesigned coincidences with the letters of Paul (indeed, one could adduce more than forty examples if one were limited to using only Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, never mind the numerous examples found in the other epistles).[3] There are also unexplained allusions (such as Acts 18:18), which further support historicity. For further discussion of this subject, I refer readers to Tim McGrew’s excellent lecture on the reliability of Acts, as well as the discussion I had on the same subject with Craig Keener (see also the interview I did with Wesley Huff on the evidence for the historical trustworthiness of Acts). I have also discussed this subject in detail elsewhere on this website (e.g. see here, here, and here), so I need not repeat myself in this article. Furthermore, the best way of interpreting the “we” passages in Acts 16:10ff as indicating that the author was a travelling companion of Paul. Besides the clear inside-knowledge that is demonstrated by the author of Acts throughout his volume, the “we” passages trail off in Acts 16 when Paul is in Philippi and then begin again in Acts 20 when Paul returns back through Philippi (strongly suggesting that the author had remained in Philippi and rejoined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi).[4]

Dr. Martin then claims that Paul was not considered to be an apostle by the guy who wrote the book of Acts. However, the author of Acts does indeed identify Paul as an apostle, since he refers to “the apostles Barnabas and Paul,” (Acts 14:14). Even without that reference, however, it would not demonstrate that Luke did not view Paul as an apostle, since Luke does not say anything to the contrary. And Paul implies in his letters that the Jerusalem leaders recognized Paul as an apostle (e.g. Galatians 2:7). Luke was present with Paul when he met with the Jerusalem leaders, including James, in Acts 21.

Dr. Martin also claims that the epistle to the Hebrews (which he correctly recognizes is more like a homily) is not addressed to Jews but is addressed to gentiles. This too is indefensible. The whole point in Hebrews is that the author is explaining the superiority of the new covenant over the old because the audience to whom the homily is addressed are in danger of going back to their former ways of Judaism. Even the opening verse of the book of Hebrews suggests that the intended audience is fellow Jews: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.” The book also presupposes certain things that the author can take for granted would be familiar to a Jewish audience, but which he cannot take for granted to have been familiar to a gentile audience.

Dr. Martin further asserts that the New Testament books were written between the year 50 and the year 150 A.D. One has to wonder what book(s) Dr. Martin thinks were written as late as 150? It seems unlikely to me that any of the books were written later than the close of the first century, and I am not aware of any contemporary scholars who would date any of the New Testament books that late. At the very least, Martin’s view here is extremely out-dated. Though it was once thought by the Tubingen school that the gospel of John was composed towards the latter end of the second century, this view has now been universally abandoned, in part due to the discovery in 1934 of the John Rylands fragment, p52, a small fragment of the gospel of John that may be dated to, give or take, 125–175 A.D.

It is quite disappointing to see a scholar of Dale Martin’s caliber mislead his students in regards to the text of the New Testament. If this lecture is representative of what freshman students are being told at institutions of higher learning such as Yale, Duke, or Harvard, then it is no wonder that so many young people are falling away from the faith. Now, to be fair, I am also aware of misleading and factually inaccurate statements being made at evangelical seminaries as well, so this problem is not unique to secular institutions. However, this does teach us how imperative it is that students, no matter what institution of higher learning they attend, when it comes to worldview-sensitive subjects such as New Testament studies or philosophy of religion, should always do their own fact-checking and not take the word of their professor at face-value. It also reveals how important it is for parents to equip their children with a robust, though balanced, education of their own in regards to the Bible in order to adequately equip them for the intellectual challenges they will face in college.

Footnotes

[1] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431, 80–81.

[2] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vols 1-4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012–2014). Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, ed. Walter E. Smith, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[3] William Paley and Edmund Paley, The Works of William Paley, vol. 2 (London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co.; T. Cadell; J. Richardson; Baldwin and Cradock; Hatchard and Son; J. G. & F. Rivington; Whittaker and Co.; Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.; Smith, Elder, and Co.; E. Hodgson; B. Fellowes; R. Mackie; J. Templeman; H. Washbourne; Booker and Dolman; J. Parker; J. and J. J. Deighton; G. and J. Robinson, 1838). Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017)

[4] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

Resurrection Defense Series: Transformation of Eyewitnesses

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

One of the most fascinating historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection is the transformation it brought to individuals who claimed to have experienced the risen Jesus. Interestingly, these experiences occurred so early that Richard Bauckham contends that the “earliest Christology was already in nuce the highest Christology. All that remained was to work through consistently what it could mean for Jesus to belong integrally to the unique identity of the one God.”[1] Of the minimal facts accepted, Gary Habermas notes that the four “core” facts accepted about Jesus consist of Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the experiences the disciples had which led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, the transformation of the disciples, and the conversion of Paul.[2] Thus, the transformation of the disciples occurred early in the history of the church and, thereby, holds tremendous value for the historical researcher. These experiences profoundly impacted the disciples’ theology—accepting that Jesus was now exalted to a “position of heavenly glory”[3]—and even emboldened them to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. The resurrection appearances of Jesus profoundly affected four men which will be the focus of this article.

Transformation of the Troubled Peter

While Peter was excited to see the risen Jesus to the point that he willingly jumped out of a boat and swam to shore just to see Jesus (John 21:7), he was dealing with his own inner turmoil. In the courtyard during Jesus’s trial, Peter had denied that he had known Jesus three times to a woman who served as the high priest’s maid (John 18:25-27). Jesus had already prognosticated Peter’s denial beforehand which led Peter to a time of great despair and agony (Luke 22:61). Peter must have thought that Jesus would never use him again for ministry. Why would Jesus ever trust him again? However, multiple pieces of evidence suggest that Jesus appeared to Peter privately (Mark 16:7; Luke 24:12; and 1 Cor. 15:5). Yet the story of Peter’s ministerial transformation comes from an encounter he had with the risen Jesus on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. While eating breakfast by a fire on the seashore, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him (John 21:15-19). Peter acknowledged that he did. The risen Jesus reinstated Peter back into the ministry. After his encounter with Jesus on the coast—the third time that Jesus had met exclusively with the disciples after his resurrection—Peter never again denied that he knew Jesus. Rather, he boldly proclaimed Jesus up until the time that he died for Christ. Church tradition holds that he was crucified upside down at Rome in c. AD 64 because he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. This was documented by historian Eusebius of Caesarea[4] and Origen of Alexandria.

Transformation of the Skeptical Thomas

Thomas had followed Jesus from the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry. Oddly, he was not found with the disciples when Jesus first appeared to them (John 20:24-25). Where was Thomas when Jesus first appeared to the disciples? Had he given up on the ministry? Did he seek to reopen his old business, whatever that may have been? No one could not blame Thomas as he had just witnessed his leader crucified to a tree. His investment in Jesus died when Jesus’s corpse was placed in a tomb—or so he thought. Regardless of his activities, he doubted the validity of the disciples’ claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Again, no one could blame Thomas for his skepticism. While different Jewish sects held divergent opinions concerning the Messiah, none of them anticipated that the Messiah would rise from the dead before the end of time. Additionally, dead people do not normally rise from the dead. Thomas was justified in his disbelief. However, everything changed when Thomas encountered the risen Jesus. Jesus challenged Thomas to place his fingers in the nail prints of his hands and to thrust his hand into Jesus’s side (John 20:27-29). Then, Jesus challenged Thomas by saying, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).

Thomas did not remain “doubting Thomas.” Rather, he became “believing Thomas.” According to tradition and the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, the church cast lots to see which part of the world each disciple would serve. Thomas’s lot would lead him to India. The disciple would encounter the kings of the region and would not have the best relationship with them. The wife of King Misdaeus converted to Christianity to the king’s disdain. The king’s wife disobeyed him and instead followed apostolic Christianity which enraged the king. Eventually, the king ordered Thomas’s execution in Madras, India. While not all the information about Thomas’s ministry in India can be verified, it does appear that there are good reasons to believe that Thomas died in some manner for his faith while in India.[5]

Transformation of the Envious James

“Envious James” is used for this section, but it is merely one possibility to describe why James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry. The Gospels note that the brothers and sisters of Jesus did not initially believe in him (John 7:5). However, James later had a change of heart to the point that he served as the pastor of the Jerusalem Church. What happened? The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lists James as one of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. James’s life was radically transformed because of the resurrection. The Jewish historian Josephus records the later martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. He writes,

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others … and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[6]

Like Peter and Thomas, the resurrection transformed James to the point that he was willing to give his life for the Jesus that he previously spurned. The resurrection changed James’s negative connotations about Jesus into worship. Quite an extraordinary thing, don’t you think?

Transformation of the Adversary Paul

Paul’s transformation is the most popular of the four. Paul, otherwise known as Saul, was a persecutor of the church. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a disciple of the famed Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and on track to become a member of the Sanhedrin. Yet Paul was dramatically changed on a road trip to Damascus. Paul had hoped to imprison or even murder the disciples of Jesus (Acts 9:1). He had written permission by the Jewish authorities to imprison any disciple of Jesus in Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9:2). As Paul made his march to Damascus, the risen Jesus appeared to Paul in a dazzling array of power. The risen Jesus inquired, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4). Jesus identified himself and instructed Paul to go into the city. From that moment, Paul became a disciple of Christ. The disciples were not overly keen on the idea of accepting Paul into their fold. They thought that Paul was staging a sabotage. But as the risen Jesus told Ananias, “This man is my chosen instrument to take my name to the Gentiles, kings, and Israelites” (Acts 9:15).

Paul would suffer for the cause of Christ as he endured many hardships throughout his lifetime. Nonetheless, he endured until the very end. Tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in Rome around the same time that Peter died by crucifixion. This is verified by Tertullian, implying that Paul was considered a martyr by the end of the second century at least in northern Africa.[7] In his seminal work, McDowell lists Paul’s death as “the highest possible probability”[8] and that the beheading of Paul is “more probable than not.”[9]

Conclusion

From the four individuals listed, it is evident that the resurrection of Jesus brought about a major transformation in the lives of those who encountered the risen Jesus. Furthermore, the loving compassion of Jesus is shown by the way he forgave Peter of his past indiscretions, his willingness to provide evidence to the skeptic, his willingness to bring in even those of his family who had hurt him in the past, and the powerful means by which he accepted even the repentance of his former enemies. The risen Jesus continues to transform lives even today. Only eternity will tell how many souls have been transformed by this mysterious, powerful, and loving Savior who continues to seek and save the lost.

Notes

[1] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 235.

[2] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 162.

[3] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3^rd ed (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2015), 93.

[4] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 5.3.1.

[5] Despite the difficulties surrounding the Thomas martyrdom tradition, McDowell argues that the martyrdom of Thomas is “more probable than not.” Sean McDowell, Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (London, UK: Routledge, 2008), 173.

[6] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.200-203.

[7] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.

[8] McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 113.

[9] Ibid., 114.

3 Apologetics Strategies from the Book of Acts

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

”Do you understand what you’re reading?“

This simple question is credited with carrying Christianity into Ethiopia. (1) Acts chapter 8 tells of Philip being led to the desert by an angel to meet an officer from the court of the Queen of Ethiopia. Philip finds him reading an Isaiah scroll containing prophecies about the Messiah. At this point, Philip could have walked up and boldly declared, “I have been sent to you today to proclaim the good news of Jesus the Messiah!” But he didn’t. He met this man right where he was at and asked a good question, which then led to an explanation of the gospel. This is apologetics at its best.

Apologetics is sometimes called “pre-evangelism” because it can help clear intellectual obstacles in the way of faith. The command to do apologetics is found in 1 Peter 3:15 which tells us to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” The Greek word translated as “defense” is apologia, which is where we get our English word, “apologetics.” In the book of Acts, when the apostles did evangelism, they did apologetics.

They were constantly defending their faith—to religious leaders, political officers, secular philosophers, and average citizens. Here are 3 ways they used apologetics to defend their faith:

1. They defended the gospel, not themselves.

The apostles were no strangers to trials, councils, and prisons. In Acts 4, Peter and John were brought before the Jerusalem high council and were challenged to defend their right to preach the resurrection of Jesus. Peter wasn’t even one sentence into his defense when he began to proclaim the gospel. He didn’t spend his energy trying to clear his name, or avoid prison time—he preached the resurrection of Jesus to the very council that was questioning him.

This example was also followed by the martyr Stephen in chapters 6-7. Stephen was a Jewish Christian who was brought before the council and accused of blasphemy against Moses and God. In his famous speech, he addressed the council by recounting the history of the Jews, pointing out that God’s true prophets have always been rejected. He also stressed that God’s presence isn’t confined to one specific geographical area or temple. On one level, Stephen answered the charges of blasphemy. But even more, he opened the door theologically for the church’s worldwide mission. It was a brilliant defense of the gospel. New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce commented on Stephen’s famous “defense”:

It is obviously not a speech for the defense in the forensic sense of the term. [It is] by no means calculated to secure an acquittal before the Sanhedrin. It is rather a defense of pure Christianity as God’s appointed way of worship. (2)

The great preacher Charles Spurgeon said this of Stephen:

We see him defending the faith against a synagogue of subtle philosophical deniers of the truth. Stephen the deacon became Stephen the preacher….he had a higher promotion yet—when he had thus become Stephen the wise apologist. (3)

When our faith is under fire, it can be tempting to become defensive. But we would be wise to follow the example of the apostles and defend the gospel, not ourselves.

2. They shared eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, not their personal testimonies.

The personal testimonies of the apostles certainly intersected the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection because they were the eyewitnesses. But their message was focused on Jesus, not themselves. In other words, when they shared the gospel, they didn’t talk about what Jesus did for them personally and then simply invite others to have a personal relationship with Him. They testified to the fact that He was crucified, buried, and resurrected, offering salvation to all who would repent and put their faith in Jesus the Messiah. This theme is consistent throughout the book of Acts.

Personal testimony can be a great way to build a relationship, but our testimonies should always point to something greater—the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

3. They knew Scripture but sometimes didn’t use it right away.

The first Christians were Jews who were steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures. When Paul was converted in chapter 9, he immediately began preaching to the Jews in Damascus, “proving that Jesus was the Christ.” In chapter 13, he spoke in the synagogue in Antioch, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures to show the Jews that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In chapter 17, he went into the synagogue in Thessalonica and “reasoned with them from the Scriptures.”

Later in the same chapter, Paul was in Athens conversing with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. These philosophers wouldn’t have accepted the Jewish Old Testament as authoritative, so Paul used a different tactic to get to the gospel. Rather than appeal to the Scriptures, he mentioned their own religious altar with the inscription, “To the unknown god.” He then proceeded to introduce them to the God they didn’t yet know, even quoting their own respected philosophical thinkers. He used this as a tactic to testify to the resurrection of Jesus.

This does not mean that the Scriptures were unimportant or ignored. It just means that sometimes we need to meet people where they are at and start from there.

Conclusion:

The apostles used apologetics creatively, adapting their method to the situation they were in. The common theme among these three methods is that the gospel was always the main point. The apostles kept the focus of their evangelism on the resurrection of Jesus and the hope of saving faith in Him—and we should too!

Why It Is A Mistake To Say That All Religions Are The Same

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Every year in America, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and very little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves behind a fingerprint impression – a latent print -somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints possessed little value in identifying the offender; before a comparison could be conducted, the police would have to already have a known suspect.

Today, law enforcement officers have access to much better technology, in the form of AFIS – the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses the data for millions of fingerprint impressions, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known offenders. In a matter of minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the top twenty possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis because, with only one latent print at the scene, there is but one actual source for the print. A trained analyst must then spend the time examining in fine detail the patterns of each suspect – the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and furrows – to determine whether an exact match can be made. The top twenty possible matches have much in common, but on further examination, differences will emerge in the ridge pattern and detail until the one actual source can be identified.

So, what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: living as we are in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, they will see that religions share a number of features; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, just people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think that they have the corner on truth. This leaves them feeling settled, for the moment, as they conclude that no further inquiry is required. Just be kind to others and follow your heart and all will be well. But on closer examination, all they have really done is stopped searching for the truth, for the “source” of the life that has been given to them and the universe that surrounds them.

Like fingerprints, religions can appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And to determine where and how they differ requires a rigorous and close inspection. This of course is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for one print, there can only be one source. No analyst would stop when she narrowed the search to three possible sources because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three – or perhaps all three – must also be excludable on further inquiry. It is the nature of the thing examined.

So too with the knowledge of God. The major world religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. Do we live and die once, and then face judgment, as Christianity teaches? Or do we undergo a continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation? Is there one God consisting of three persons, or are there instead of a single god or a multitude of deities? For one religion to be true, the others cannot be.

It is logically possible, of course, that all religions are false. It is not possible, by contrast, for religions holding contrary positions to all be true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thereby provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both savior and mere sage at the same time.

Critical and careful analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth as to who left it behind. Making the effort is critical to the pursuit of justice, the importance of which we all intuitively recognize.

But critical and careful analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who brought us into existence. When we fail to investigate this question because we mistakenly believe that we already know all we need to know – that is, when we allow ourselves to be misled to believe that all religions are pretty much the same – we may not intuitively realize just how much we are giving up.

After all, what comes next – what awaits each of us at the end of our days here on Earth – is without a doubt the most important question that we must confront. And the sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will find that good and satisfying answers await.

Resurrection Defense Series: Multiple Source Attestation for the Resurrection of Jesus

CrossExamined

By Brian Chilton

Historians use various methodologies to determine the credibility of a historical story. One criterion is called the “criterion of multiple attestation.”[1] Reginald Fuller calls the criterion the “cross-section method.”[2] The criterion states that a story is authenticated if it is repeated in more than one source. As noted in a previous article, historian Paul Meier indicates that two or three sources render a historical fact “unimpeachable.”[3] Thus, it must be asked, how many early sources mention the resurrection of Jesus? Amazingly, nine early sources speak of the resurrection of Jesus.

Source 1: The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew serves as a source for the resurrection. Critical scholars date the material of the Gospel to AD 70. However, good reasons suggest that the Gospel may have been penned in the 50s. Nonetheless, even if the Gospel was late in its composition, the material undergirding the Gospel was much earlier. According to tradition, the First Gospel was composed by Matthew, the tax collector and disciple of Jesus, in Antioch of Syria. Matthew 28 describes the resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene and her encounter with the angels of God (Matt. 28:1-10), Jesus’s instruction for the disciples to head to Galilee (28:7), the report of the guards to the elders, and their attempt to quiet the soldier’s reports (28:11-15), and the resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee where he commissioned the disciples to the gospel ministry (28:16-28).

Source 2: The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark serves as another early source. While often assigned to the 60s or 70s AD, critical scholars are beginning to ascribe earlier dates to the Second Gospel, some even claiming AD 40 as a possible date for composition.[4] Regardless of the date granted to the Gospel, the sources behind the Gospel are even earlier than the text. Tradition holds that John Mark, the spiritual son of Simon Peter, collected the teachings of Peter concerning Jesus and compiled them into the Second Gospel. Most likely, he published the Gospel in Rome. The 16^th chapter of the Second Gospel has been the center of debate. The earliest manuscripts end the chapter after verse 8. Even still, the first few verses denote Mary Magdalene’s experience, along with a group of female disciples, who approach the tomb of Jesus, find it empty, and are told by the angels of God that Jesus had risen (Mark 16:6). Then, they are told to inform the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (16:7). Then, the women are shown fleeing the tomb, astonished and amazed (16:8). Even if the resurrection appearances of Jesus are not described in the first 8 verses, they are certainly assumed. Jesus was proclaimed to have risen and was said to meet the disciples in Galilee. Mark most likely compressed the resurrection story to provide as much information with the limited space available.

Source 3: The Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke serves as a third source. Written most likely in the early 60s, even though some scholars afford it a date in the 70s or even 80s. Despite the date, it must again be remembered that the material behind the Gospel dates earlier than the written text. Tradition states that Luke, an inseparable companion of Paul,[5] wrote the Gospel in Antioch of Syria after carefully examining eyewitness testimonies. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, Luke describes the women’s encounter with the empty tomb and risen Jesus (Luke 24:1-8), the original disbelief of the disciples (24:9-11), Peter’s run to the tomb, and his amazement with the emptied linen cloths (24:12). Then, Luke reports Jesus’s appearance to Cleopas and another unnamed disciple (perhaps Cleopas’s wife) on the way to Emmaus (24:13-35), Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve (24:36-49), and Jesus’s ascension in the vicinity of Bethany (24:50-53).

Source 4: The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John was the last of the four Gospels to have been written. Conservative scholars argue that the Gospel was written by John the apostle c. AD 85 while he was serving as a pastor to the Church of Ephesus. Ironically, critical scholars are beginning to argue for an earlier date. Regardless of the date, as with the other Gospels, the material behind the Fourth Gospel predates the text itself. The Fourth Gospel is the only Gospel to grant two chapters to the resurrection story. John’s Gospel describes Mary’s trip to the tomb (20:1), her report to Simon Peter and the apostle John (20:2), Peter and John’s trip to the empty tomb and their bewilderment at the emptied linen cloths (20:3-10), Mary’s encounter with the risen Jesus (20:11-18), Jesus’s evening appearance to the Eleven disciples without Thomas (20:19-23), Thomas’s encounter with risen Jesus (20:24-29), John’s report of additional signs that Jesus performed after his resurrection (20:30-31), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples by the Sea of Galilee/Tiberius (21:1-14), the reinstatement of Peter into the ministry (21-15-19), Peter’s question about John’s ministry and Jesus’s rebuke (21:20-23), John’s testimony of authorship (21:24), and John’s testimony of the limitations of the Gospels’ ability to record all the deeds of Jesus (21:25).

Source 5: The Sermon Summaries of Peter

It is agreed by numerous scholars, such as Max Wilcox in his Semitisms of Acts, that the sermon summaries in the book of Acts constitute early material. As the name implies, the messages of the apostles have been summarized and compressed to help with early memorization and transmission. Peter’s summaries are found in Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:5-12; 10:28-47; and 11:4-18. In these powerful messages, Peter boldly proclaimed, “Though he was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail him to a cross and kill him. God raised him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by death” (Acts 2:23-23). Additionally, Peter said, “God has raised this Jesus; we are all witnesses of this” (Acts 2:32). These summaries provide a powerful early source for the resurrection.

Source 6: The Sermon Summaries of Paul

Paul’s sermon summaries also serve as a source even though they are preserved in the same book. Because they originate with a different person, Paul’s messages serve as an additional source. Paul’s sermon summaries are conserved in Acts 13:16-41; 17:22-31; 20:17-35; 22:1-21; 23:1-6; 24:10-21. One of the most compelling of Paul’s sermon summaries is found in Acts 13. Paul proclaims, “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29-31). This summary is particularly interesting because it not only describes the resurrection event but also denotes the existence of an empty tomb.

Source 7: The Sermon Summary of Stephen

Stephen was the very first martyr of the Christian Church. He was a man of great wisdom and Spirit (Acts 6:10). Stephen’s message is preserved in Acts 7:1-53 and 7:56. While he does not necessarily mention the resurrection in the larger portion of his message, he confirms the resurrection of Christ before his death as he cries, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56). For this reason, Stephen’s message can also be used as an early source for the resurrection.

Source 8: The 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 Creed

Scholars hold that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 dates to no later than two years after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Some even hold that it dates to within months of the resurrection event. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed describes Jesus’s resurrection appearances to Peter, the Twelve, a group of over 500 individuals, James, and Paul. This early creed serves as a powerful source for the resurrection, even affording additional appearances of Jesus not found in the other source material (e.g., the private appearance to Peter, James, and a group of over 500).

Source 9: The Romans 10:9 Confession

Romans 10:9 is believed to be an early confession of the church. It describes the criteria necessary for one to receive salvation. The confession reads, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The essentials of Christ’s death, deity, and resurrection of preserved in this simple formulation. Romans 10:9 also serves as an additional source for the resurrection event.

Conclusion

Paul Meier holds that two or three sources for an event imply the event is beyond dispute, or unimpeachable. If two or three early sources cause an event to become beyond dispute in antiquity, then what does it say about an event when nine said extant sources denoting the event’s authenticity remain? The sources presented represent early material, in some cases extremely early material, which argues that something mysterious happened to the body of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday. This mysterious resurrection experience transforms every aspect of one’s life when it is accepted as fact. It can bring about a new relationship with God and can provide great comfort when one realizes that death has been defeated. Outside of its miraculous nature—which, quite honestly, is the only reason some people deny its authenticity—there are no good historical reasons for denying the resurrection of the Nazarene. To borrow the phrase from Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, it takes more faith to deny the resurrection of Jesus than to accept its authenticity.

Book Review: Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

In my last blog post, I shared some of the most important books regarding cultural issues that I read in the year since the COVID lockdowns began in March 2020. While those books dealt with the culture at large, my next two reads focused on cultural and theological issues impacting the church: Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth by Thaddeus Williams, and the book I am reviewing here Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity by Alisa Childers.

Content

Another Gospel? follows the story of former ZOEgirl, Alisa Childers, as her orthodox Christian faith was challenged in a study group led by a progressive Christian pastor. In the first two chapters, Alisa sets the stage of her spiritual journey and traces the history of progressive Christianity from its roots in the emerging church to its current form. While progressive Christianity has no set dogma, its hallmarks are the rejection, or at least questioning, of core classical Christian doctrines, such as the deity of Christ, Jesus’s physical resurrection, and the divine nature of the Bible. This key aspect of progressive Christianity, the process of rejecting or questioning Christian doctrines, is known as deconstruction, “where all beliefs someone was raised with and had never questioned are systematically pulled apart” (7). Another Gospel? subsequently explores the deconstruction and reconstruction of Alisa’s faith.

Chapters three through eleven each tackle a main question or issue raised against classical Christianity. Most topics are intellectual, such as the authority of the Bible, while others are emotional, such as spiritual abuse and disdain for traditional biblical morality. Alisa shows how progressive Christianity has imbibed the spirit of the age in that it offers a more “tolerant” and “inclusive” Christianity. Yet, it does so by ignoring or outright rejecting much that the Bible and historical Christianity has taught for centuries.

The book closes with Alisa’s reconstruction. By seeking answers to the questions that the progressive pastor raised, Alisa’s faith in Christianity became stronger than before. This is also Alisa’s hope for those reading her book, that they will have confidence that Christianity—classical, traditional, orthodox Christianity—is really true.

Audience

The target reader of Another Gospel? is obviously someone who is in the same position in which Alisa found herself, a person wrestling with the questions and challenges of progressive Christianity. Alisa shows us the types of objections that are raised and how Christianity can fully answer them all. It’s important to note, however, that none of the topics discussed are specific to progressive Christianity. The objections to which Alisa responds are also commonly raised by skeptics and atheists, such as the reliability of the New Testament or the fairness of Hell. This shows us that there really are no new objections to Christianity (that haven’t already been answered) and that progressive Christianity itself isn’t new. It’s just skepticism and postmodernism posing as Christianity. So even if someone is not interested specifically in progressive Christianity, one will still find Another Gospel? to be a great, accessible apologetics resource.

But what about someone who is already well-studied in apologetics and theology? While many of the objections to which Alisa responds are standard apologetics fare, they are framed within the context of progressive Christianity. Alisa explores the tactics and methods by which progressive Christians cause others to doubt their childhood faith. Another Gospel? shows us the progressive Christian mindset, as well as the types of arguments for which a Christian should prepare when engaging progressive Christians. So, even Christians who are familiar with the objections raised in the book can still benefit from reading it.

Other Thoughts

Most importantly, Another Gospel? highlights just how dangerous progressive Christianity can be. As I mentioned above, many of the objections to which Alisa responds are the same objections of the typical skeptic. When challenged by a skeptic, though, a Christian may naturally know to keep up one’s guard, as the skeptic will be viewed as an opponent. But a progressive Christian may be viewed as a trusted friend, a brother or sister in Christ, and so the challenges raised will seem legitimate and not detrimental to one’s faith. This is the true danger of progressive Christianity. Another Gospel? is yet another reminder that challenges to Christianity do not always rise from outside, but also from within through wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15).

Conclusion

Alisa Childers has provided Christians an important resource for a growing challenge against the Church. She exposes progressive Christianity for what it is—a dangerous combination of skepticism and postmodernism that can easily destroy the faith of an uninformed Christian. Another Gospel? is a great safeguard against the objections raised by progressive Christians. Although Alisa grapples with difficult issues, she does so simply and clearly, making her book accessible to anyone, from apologetics veterans to laypersons. I highly recommend Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers to those concerned with the increasing influence of progressive Christianity within the Church, as well as to anyone who simply wishes for good answers to difficult questions.

Resurrection Defense Series: Reasons to Accept the Empty Tomb

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Gary Habermas is no stranger to those who study the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. He is a world-renowned scholar on the resurrection who serves as a Research Scholar teaching in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University’s School of Divinity. Habermas’s claim to fame is his six minimal facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus. His minimal facts are not the only facts available to defend the resurrection. However, they do serve as the six facts that over 90% of historical scholars accept as valid. Surprising to some, he also adds a seventh minimal fact which holds greater than 75% acceptance among historical scholars. The seventh minimal fact argues that the tomb was found empty.[1] Yet, one may ask, is there any evidence that the tomb was discovered empty on the first Easter Sunday?

The historian holds solid reasons to accept the empty tomb as a historical fact. Stemming from the research conducted in one of Habermas’s classes, I would like to submit twelve reasons why you should accept that the disciples discovered the tomb empty on the first Easter Sunday morning.

The Gospel was first preached in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus was crucified, which would have made it easy for an inquirer to check the tomb. If a person desired to invent a story, the last place they would tell the story would be in the very location where the event supposedly occurred. The enemies of Jesus would only need to check the tomb to see if it was empty.
If Jesus’s disciples had only hallucinated, Jesus’s body would have still been in the tomb.[2]Because Jesus’s body was never retrieved and Christianity continued, then one must assume that the tomb of Jesus was empty. Hallucinations cannot account for an empty tomb.
The message that Jesus had risen from the dead is extremely early. The creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 dates early (within months to a couple of years after Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection) and to the Jerusalem church.[3]Given that the resurrection message began in Jerusalem and that it began early, people could have easily checked to see if the tomb was empty. Some may inquire, “Would the people have known where the tomb was located?” To answer that question, see the next point.
Joseph of Arimathea was a popular person in first-century Israel. Being a prominent member of the Sanhedrin (Mk. 15:43), everyone would have known where his tomb was located, and where Jesus’s body was placed. Remember, the crucifixion of Jesus was a very public event. The tomb was found very near to the crucifixion site.
That women were reported to be the first to have seen the tomb empty strengthens the case for an empty tomb as the testimony of women was not trusted as much as the testimony of men.[4]This has been mentioned before, and for good reason. The women’s testimony not only strengthens the resurrection message, but their testimony also intensifies the validity that the tomb was found empty.
Jewish authorities did not respond to the claim that Jesus’s tomb was empty. Rather, they concocted a rebuttal which argued that the disciples stole the body (Mt. 28:11-15). Ironically, their rebuttal actually strengthens the claim that the tomb was found empty.[5]Why concoct a story that the body of Jesus had been stolen if the body of Jesus was placed in a shallow grave, as suggested by John Dominick Crossan, or still remained entombed?
The early creeds of Acts 13:29-31 and Acts 13:36-37 indicate more clearly than 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that Jesus was buried in a tomb, raised, and appeared without experiencing bodily decay.[6]The book of Acts contains sermon summaries that are almost as early as the 1 Corinthians 15 creed—depending on the date given to the creed. These texts denote that the body of Jesus was no longer found in the tomb.
Historian Paul Meier indicates that two or three sources render a historical fact “unimpeachable.”[7]The empty tomb is verified in four sources Mark, M (Matthew), John, and L (Luke),[8] with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and Acts 13’s sermon summary adding two more. Historically, the more sources one holds, the greater probability that the event in question occurred. In this case, at least 6 sources suggest that the tomb was empty, doubling what historians would call “unimpeachable.”
The Jewish and Roman leaders never produced a body which at least implies an empty tomb.[9]If they were opposed to Christianity and possessed the body, why would they not expose it? Even if the Jews wouldn’t, the Romans would squelch what would be perceived as a new uprising.
While the empty tomb does not enjoy unanimous support from scholarship, a strong majority still consider the empty tomb hypothesis valid including Michael Grant, James D. G. Dunn, and Thomas Torrance.[10]Habermas notes that over one-hundred contemporary scholars accept at least some of the arguments for the empty tomb.[11]
The story of Jesus’s burial is simple without any form of theological development. Its simplicity argues for the empty tomb’s authenticity.[12]Signs of legendary development are simply not found in the empty tomb hypothesis.
The resurrection story and the empty tomb are part of the pre-Markan passion story which is extremely early which precludes any time for legendary development.[13]Legendary claims do not apply to the empty tomb hypothesis. This suggests that the tomb was not something that came later in the Christian story but was rather found at ground zero.

Conclusion

The twelve points noted in this article are not the only lines of defense that could be construed. However, they strongly indicate that the story of the empty tomb was not something that developed over time, but it was rather a component that accompanied the earliest stories of the Messiah’s resurrection. Perhaps time will see more contemporary scholars accepting and adopting the empty tomb as part of the historian’s scholarly consensus. But even if they do not, 75% of the scholarly agreement is strong. Furthermore, the historical data concerning the empty tomb hypothesis cannot simply be ignored. No matter the consensus of agreement, the empty tomb is as steadfast a historical fact of antiquity as any other. If the Church of the Holy Sepulchre contains the actual burial place of Jesus, then not only can it be known that Jesus’s tomb was found empty, but it can also be visited. If people realized that the tomb was literally found empty, then maybe churches wouldn’t.

Notes

[1] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 158.

[2] Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 11.

[3] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove; Nottingham, U.K.: IVP; Apollos, 2010), 227-228.

[4] Habermas, 23.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 197.

[8] Habermas, 23.

[9] Ibid., 25.

[10] Ibid., 24.

[11] Ibid., 45, fn127.

[12] William Lane Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, eds (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1997), 250.

[13] Ibid., 254.

Tag Archive for: Resurrection

Did Jonah Survive?

The Sign of Jonah

The Sign of Jonah: More Than the Resurrection

The Sign of Jonah Has Been Fulfilled

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Nail Spiked Ankle Bone of Yehohannan

Nazareth Decree

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Shroud of Turin

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

The Fatal Flaw

Finding The Proper Interpretation

What Is Jesus Talking About?

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

A Vital Decision

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Transformation of the Troubled Peter

Transformation of the Skeptical Thomas

Transformation of the Envious James

Transformation of the Adversary Paul

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

2. They shared eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, not their personal testimonies.

Conclusion:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Source 1: The Gospel of Matthew

Source 2: The Gospel of Mark

Source 3: The Gospel of Luke

Source 4: The Gospel of John

Source 5: The Sermon Summaries of Peter

Source 6: The Sermon Summaries of Paul

Source 7: The Sermon Summary of Stephen

Source 8: The 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 Creed

Source 9: The Romans 10:9 Confession

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Content

Audience

Other Thoughts

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic: