There are many objections to Christianity as a whole. Critics often attack Noah’s flood, challenge the account in Exodus, and point to supposed contradictions in the Bible. But all of these are nearly not as foundational as the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection of Christ didn’t happen, then the whole thing comes tumbling down. So this week, I looked at the online article,” Historical Evidence for the Resurrection”, by Matt Perman to find out the truth, and I can say Christianity has a strong base to stand on.
The article makes its case for the resurrection by offering three strong historical facts and offering the best and, so far, the only logical explanation to these facts. It puts forth the fact that women discovered the tomb of Jesus empty, the fact that multiple disciples of Jesus claimed they saw the risen Christ, and the fact that the Christian church was able to grow because of the preaching of the resurrection.
Matt gives several reasons for why historians think the tomb was empty, but I’m only going to list a few. One of the strongest reasons for coming to the hypothesis of the empty tomb is the fact that the resurrection was preached in Jerusalem where Christ was buried. If the tomb was in fact not empty, than people would dispel the “myth” that Christ rose, because of the dead body. Another reason for the empty tomb would be the fact that it was discovered by women. The author clears this up by saying that in 1st century Jewish culture, the testimony of women was deemed worthless, so he wonders why the Bible would make up the testimonies unless they really occurred. A final point that the tomb was empty was that even a hostile Jewish source, Toledoth Jesu, acknowledged that the tomb was empty, so it is reasonably clear to see that the tomb was empty.
The second evidence that the author uses to build his case is that there were multiple appearances of Jesus to the disciples after his death and crucifixion. He brings up the possibility that maybe these disciples could’ve lied about their experiences about seeing the risen Christ. But he refutes that argument with the fact that the majority of these disciples were martyred for their belief in Christ, so why would they die for a lie that they knew was a lie. So they didn’t intentionally lie about it. Is it possible that they all hallucinated though? No. The fact that they record physical occurrences such as Jesus eating and drinking with them, and the fact that hallucinations occur on an individual basis puts the nail in the coffin on this theory. So the only logical explanation left is that Jesus appeared to His disciples after He rose from the dead.
The final evidence Matt uses for the resurrection is the fact of the origin of the Christian faith. He claims that the faith didn’t have any other influence of belief of the resurrection, but by the resurrection of Christ itself. No Christian influences were present to put forth the idea of resurrection, because Christianity was a result of the resurrection. There probably weren’t pagan influences in the idea of the resurrection as pagan religions had little influence in 1st century Palestine. And also, pagan stories that have parallels with the resurrection of Christ came after the 1st century, so it is reasonable to assume Christianity had no pagan influence. So did the resurrection have any Jewish influence? No. The Jews of the time didn’t think that one person, in the middle of history, would get resurrected. On the contrary, they believed that at the end of time everyone would be raised. Because of this, one of the best explanations for the belief in the resurrection is the occurrence of the resurrection itself.
After reading this article, I can say that these evidences are true and that they lead to an unparalleled explanation that is the resurrection. Stepping out of the article for a bit, the majority of historians do agree that these events are historical: the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to His disciples, the origin of the Christian faith. Where there is a slight skirmish is what all these evidences mean. I don’t deny that there are other explanations for these evidences that don’t include the resurrection, but what I would say is that they all fall short of all the provided evidences and at times lack logical sense. These explanations include the swoon theory, the twin theory, the mass hallucination theory and a few others. I won’t go into these now( perhaps I will save these for another blog), but I will say the resurrection is in fact the only logical explanation. So what does this mean?
Jesus is who He says He is. It isn’t normal for a man to be resurrected from the dead. Even more is the fact that Jesus said He would rise on the 3rd day, showing He knew what was going to happen. This type of foreknowledge is not common to man, but to God. These powers that Jesus held show that because He said He was God, means He was God. Being God, He has all power and authority. He created the world, He created humans, and He is going to judge the world in righteousness. The Bible says that we all have sinned and broken God’s law. This fact means that all of us at one point were hellbound sinners. The only way to not be a hellbound sinner is to repent of your sins and turn to Jesus Christ. When Jesus died on the cross, He took the punishment for us and for our sin, so that whoever believes in Him shall be saved. But this belief isn’t just intellectual belief, but a type of trust that you would put your life on the line for. Because of His crucifixion and because of His resurrection, there is hope. The resurrection is more than a historical event; it gives us hope that, one day, we too might be resurrected into life after death.
Source:
Perman, Matt. “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection.” Desiring God, 12 Sept. 2007, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection.
Thinking Theologically 