I.
Proving the resurrection authenticates the
Christian Worldview
Our task in
Christian Apologetics is to defend the Christian Worldview. The resurrection of
Jesus Christ, is a unique event in history that proves the authenticity of the
Christian worldview.
A.
Resurrection: “the rock on which the church
stands or Falls
With the
claim we read in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19, that if the resurrection did not happen,
there can be no Christianity, to invalidate the Christian worldview, one would
have to show the resurrection did not happen. On the other hand, if the
resurrection did happen, Christianity’s main rival worldviews will be shown to
be false based on their rejection of this event, and we will have to conclude
that the God revealed in Christ Jesus is to be worshiped exclusively.[1]
B.
Claims of resurrections in other religion
Some have attempted to show that the Christian claim of the resurrection
is not unique. This would have two implications. Firstly, that early Christians
were just appropriating material they found elsewhere in other religions,
making Christianity a man-made invention, and secondly Christianity would
simply be one among equal worldviews to choose from. In response, Groothuis shows
that such attempts to discredit the message of the Bible are invalid. Since, none of the mysterious religions possessing
a resurrections were established during the time of the Early Church, it is not
something they could have borrowed from others, and additionally no other
religions claim the resurrection of a real person.[2]
The
resurrection is indeed unique to Christianity. The task to defend the Christian
worldview is to bring evidence forward for the Resurrection of Jesus. For this
task, Groothuis will first present the presuppositions: concerning the
existence of God, the possibility of miracles, the likelihood of God raising someone
like Jesus from the dead, before providing arguments for the resurrection, and
showing that the alternative naturalistic theories are unrealistic in order to conclude
that Christ was truly raised from the dead, which authenticates the Christian
worldview.
II.
Establishing our presuppositions
A.
Establishing Theism
To prove the resurrection, it is first important to
establish theism. Showing the Bible teaches the resurrection of Christ will not
help someone with a naturalistic worldview. Critical biblical scholars know
what the Bible teaches, but they still deny the resurrection based on their
worldview. Establishing theism philosophically and scientifically first, allows
openness to the resurrection. Only then can we be open to miracles, study what
the Bible says about God raising Christ from the dead[3], and be open to its
historical evidence.[4]
B.
Miracles must be possible
for the resurrection
The resurrection is a miracle done by God. So after theism,
we want to establish the possibility of miracles. Miracles are acts that reveal
God’s supernatural character. God created all things good, and the natural laws
describe the normal pattern of events in the universe. In dealing with sin, in
his plan for redeeming his relationship with mankind, God sometimes intervenes
miraculously.[5]
1.
Hume’s argument against
miracles
David Hume objects miracle claims with three arguments. (1)
Miracles can never be claimed as such. Miracles could happen, but no evidence
could ever be found to prove they happen. (2) All miracle claims are based on
superstitious misunderstandings. (3) The cancellation argument says that
because different religions claim to be authentic by their miracles, they are
only cancelling each other’s claims.[6]
2.
Response
In response to each one: (1) The statement that: “X may
occur but we are never justified in believing X” does not hold on itself, even
if this were true, the claim that miracles cannot be identified, does not
prevent them from happening. If God exists, miracles are possible. Just because
they are infrequent, does not mean they do not occur. We must look at the
evidence for a supernatural God, and then study the evidence supporting a
miracle claim.[7]
(2) Saying that the miracle reports in the Bible were only made by
prescientific men, who were ignorant, would imply that they would be incapable of
recognizing miracles. You must be aware of natural laws, to identify a miracle.[8] (3) Two arguments against
the cancellation argument are (a) if you can establish monotheism, all we have
left are Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism are
out of the running, even though none of their miracle claims were historical,
so they would not cancel miracles that claim to be. (b) The second reason why
the cancelation argument does not work is that the miracles of Judaism are
accepted by Christians as God’s revelation to the Jewish people. If the central
claim of Islam about the divine inspiration of the Quran could be established,
Islam would be strongly supported, but if miracle of the resurrection can be
proved then both the Judaism and Islam are wrong for rejecting it. In this way
the ‘cancellation argument’ does not work.[9]
C.
Jesus’ character and the
resurrection
As we lay down our
presupposition, we continue with the person of Jesus.
As well as being accredited by God with signs and miracles
(Acts 2:22), fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, speaking with authority on
all matters, teaching what no human could have known, with an exemplary
character, Christ proposes a worldview with himself as God incarnate, and as
part of his teaching he predicted his own death and resurrection. If God was to
raise someone from the dead it would be someone like him.[10]
The Biblical and extra-biblical evidence must lead to
believing the existence of Jesus. The problem for the naturalist, is the
supernatural intertwined with the rest of the Jesus’ life. Once you take the
supernatural away, nothing of his life is left. Since Jesus did exist, we must
also believe that the supernatural does too.
III.
Arguments for the resurrection
of Jesus
A.
Minimal facts and maximal
result: resurrection
Once all the presuppositions have been laid out, that God
exists, miracles are possible and as he is presented Jesus is the perfect
candidate for the resurrection Groothuis presents the “Minimal facts” approach
to proving the resurrection. Instead of showing the reliability of the whole
New Testament, it takes a set of minimal facts that are accepted by the
majority of critical New Testament scholars, both liberal and conservative, and
show that these facts are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus.[11]
1.
Death by crucifixion
The first fact is the death of
Jesus by crucifixion. Even critical scholarship is in favor of his death. Those
who deny his death, say that either there was not enough time for Jesus to die
on the Cross, or the drink he received, was a drug to simulate his death. The
American Medical Association claims that one could have died from Roman
Crucifixion between 3 hours and four days. Given Jesus’ state a quick death was
possible. Even, when Pilate hears of Jesus’ death (Mark 15:44), he is surprised
by how quick it went but he does not question the fact that he was dead.[12]
Concerning the drink he received, we need to remember that
it is possible he was given a drug but unlikely first because of the Roman
soldiers present, but also because faking his own death would be inconsistent
with Jesus’ character presented in the rest of the Gospels.[13]
The blood and water that came from his side once he was
pierced is more evidence for his death, and in itself the piercing alone could
have killed him, if he was not dead already. From the disciples’ perspective,
if Christ would not have died, why would they have hailed him the resurrected
Lord. He would have looked terrible, and not like one who conquered death.[14]
2.
Burial in a known tomb
Once we agree that Jesus died crucified, we can also see
that scholars generally agree that he was buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of
Arimathea. The exact location of the tomb is given, which is why the disciples
could claim the tomb was empty. Because Joseph of Arimathea was part of the
court that condemned Jesus, it is unlikely that the burial in his tomb would
have been a Christian invention.[15]
3.
The empty tomb
Jesus died, and was buried in a known tomb, but all four
gospel say the tomb was found empty by several women, Peter and another
disciple on the Sunday after the crucifixion. The early Jewish polemic against
the Christians was that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, showing even they
accepted an empty tomb. If the tomb was not empty it would have been easy for
Roman and Jewish leaders to bring evidence, while early Christians were preaching
on the resurrection as early as seven weeks after Jesus’ death, which would
have been in their interests to stop the threatening new movement.[16]
4.
The postmortem appearances
of Jesus
Not only was the tomb found empty, but on different
occasions people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. The New
Testament lists twelve separate appearances over a forty day period. We know
that those appearances were of a physical person, who could be heard and
touched. Given their Jewish background, if all the disciples had were visions
or apparitional experiences no one would have believed that Jesus was alive
from the dead.[17]
Some claim that the resurrection was a late invention, but
in 1 Corinthians Paul refers to 500 eye witnesses who could attest to the fact
of the resurrection, including Peter and James, who would have been able to
testify to Paul, a lot earlier than when his letter was written in the 50s. At
that time, the testimony of women was not highly regarded in that day, if the
church was to invent a resurrection story, it would not have listed the woman
as the primary witnesses, of the empty tomb and resurrected Jesus.[18]
5.
Conclusion
The best way to
account for the established facts of the death of Jesus by crucifixion, his
burial in a known tomb, his empty tomb and his postmortem appearance, would be
the resurrection.
B.
The transformation of the
disciples, and early worship
Groothuis then goes further
presenting more information that points to the resurrection. One of these is
the change in the followers of Jesus. The change in their behavior could not
have been more accentuated, and given Jewish beliefs in the first century, only
the resurrection of Jesus could explain the change.
1.
Change in behavior of the
disciples
The disciples who were not able
to stay awake for one hour of prayer on the night of Jesus’ arrest, they later
fled at his arrested, and refused to believe the reports of the resurrection
given by women, change from despair and confusion to confident proclamation and
willingness to suffer persecution, hardship and even martyrdom.
2.
Unlikely given their Jewish
background
The disciples did not understand
what Jesus was talking about when he said he would be raised from the dead, and
Jews of that day did not believe in a dying, or rising Messiah. The
resurrection is not something the disciples would have made up based on their
Jewish beliefs, seeing that being hung of a tree, was the sign of a curse of
God (Deut. 21:23). The only possible explanation for this change in the
disciples is the resurrection.[19]
3.
Eye Witnesses convinced of
the Resurrection
If the resurrection did not
occur, how do we explain the rapid spread of Christianity? The resurrection was
key in the early Christian message as seen in the book of Acts, it is the
center of the Christian hope, and doctrine that had to be confessed to be saved.
We see that they eye-witnesses were convinced in the resurrection by the fact
that they worshiped Christ as divine. We see in Philippians 2, the early church
believed his pre-existence and incarnation. It is unlikely that Jews of that
day would be found worshipping a human being.[20]
Early church gatherings witness
to the early Christian belief in the resurrection through their sacraments. The
sacrament of Baptism symbolizes the death of the believer to sinful ways and
his resurrection in a new life. Baptism only has meaning because of the
resurrection. The same way the Lord’s supper is a symbol of Jesus giving his
life for the believer, not to remember the dead founder, but the one who was risen
and who is in their midst. Church gatherings on Sundays (Acts 20:7) were in
honor of the risen Lord on this day.[21]
C.
Spiritual experiences in
history and today
Leaving the documentary evidence, here is circumstantial
evidence, which also points to the resurrection. Experience is subjective, but
Jesus promised his followers abundant life (John 10:10), and the advance of the
kingdom (Mat 28:18-20) and Paul speaks of Spiritual victory (Eph 6:10-18). We
see this experienced and fulfilled in the millions of followers of Christ
around the globe for the last two thousand years, without the “death-defeating
and life-conferring reality of the resurrection” these realities would not have
been possible.[22]
IV.
Alternative naturalistic
theories
There are a few naturalistic theories, objecting to the
resurrection.
A.
Hallucination theory
A theory opposing the resurrection claims the post-mortem
encounters with Christ were hallucinations. This is unlikely because so many
different people experienced the same physical risen Jesus. Hallucinations can
occur when there is a deep desire for something to happen, but the disciples
had given Jesus up for dead, and they were shocked at the first reports of the
resurrection (Luke 24:1-11, John 20:24-26). This theory would mean that
Christianity is based on multiple mental illnesses, and its message is then a
message of madness. The miracle would be the change in the disciples from a
“depressed group of people to a victorious movement of faith” without the
resurrection. The resurrection seems to be way more likely to explain this
change. Even if they were hallucinating, we still would not be able to account
for the empty tomb.[23]
B.
A Christian conspiracy?
Proponents of another theory accuse
the early church of believing in the resurrection though they knew it was a
lie. If it was truly a conspiracy, we need a motive and the means to pull it
off. The disciples had no motive, because there were no benefits for a religion
based off a lie, that led to persecution and martyrdom. Furthermore, this group
of tax collectors, fishermen and commoners, did not have the social means to
have started a mass movement that continues to this day. Nothing less than
witnessing the resurrection would have led them to die maintaining that Jesus
is alive and Lord. [24]
C.
Was it a corpse heist?
Was the body stolen to explain the empty tomb? It is hard to
believe that the disciples would have been able to pass around skilled guards.
If they did this it would have been known, and we still do not have a motive
for them preaching lies weeks later in Jerusalem. Jesus is recognized as one of
the greatest ethical teachers ever, it would make no sense for his disciples to
steal his body and then lie about the resurrection that did not occur. There
were grave robbers at this time, but we would still not be able to explain how
they would have gotten past the guards, and normally they went to the graves of
the wealthy, to steal what was in them. This theory would not explain how so
many people then had encounters with the living Jesus afterwards; this is best
explained by the resurrection.[25]
D.
Are there discrepancies in
the resurrection accounts?
The different accounts in the different gospels do not agree
perfectly. This is the case for almost all multiply attested events in history.
When we see discrepancies, generally we can the harmonize differences. Discrepancies
tell us the different accounts were not created together, and we assume the
“complexity of truth” principle, where we acknowledge that truth can be found
in different accounts of the same story, as different human testimonies rarely
agree perfectly.[26]
Even if there were some irreconcilable differences in the
accounts, this would not prove that the resurrection itself did not occur,
since all the accounts agree that Jesus was dead, was buried in a tomb supplied
by a man named Joseph of Arimathea. One day after the Sabbath, women went to
the tomb and found it empty, they met an angel or angels, they were told or
discovered that Jesus was raised from the dead, and he then appeared a number
of times to them and the disciples. Discrepancies would point to their
authenticity, showing there was no conspiracy.[27]
V.
Conclusion: Christ is risen
indeed!
In a theistic worldview, miracles can happen. If they do
happen that becomes a historical question, they cannot be ruled out by
methodological naturalism. Groothuis has argued that the resurrection of Jesus
is well established. The alternative theories fail to account for commonly
agreed-on facts relating to Jesus and the early church. To this day, the church
stands on this truth.[28]
[1] Douglas R. Groothuis, Christian
Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic,
©2011), 528-30.
[3]
Verses that claim the resurrection - Acts 2:24,3:15, 26, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30,34;
Romans 4:24, 7:4, 10:9; 1Corinthians
15:15, Ephesians 2:6, Colosians 2:12; 1 Peter 1:21),
