"Resurrection: Hoax or History?"
April 7, 2002
Jn.20:19-31 1Cor.15:1-8
"The other disciples told [Thomas], 'We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.'" (John 20:25) Have you ever felt like Thomas -
"I won't believe it until I see it! PROVE it to me!"? Thomas comes in for criticism because he refused to accept the news of the resurrection on the basis of hearsay; he wanted to experience the Risen Jesus for himself. But let's not be too hard on Thomas. His reaction was completely natural. In fact, Mark tells us that at Jesus' first appearance to the Eleven, He "rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen." (Mark 16:14) Thomas was no different from the others in his hard-nosed skepticism toward the resurrection reports.
A couple thousand years have passed since then. Although we may not be able to check it out the way Thomas did, poking our finger in the holes in our Lord's hands and side, there are other ways to sort through the evidence from that time and become convinced of the truth of the resurrection. It is history, not a hoax; fact, not fiction. Christian apologists from Peter and Paul on up through Chrysostom to today's Josh McDowell have put together compelling arguments that are hard to refute. Today I'd like to call on six impartial, unexpected "witnesses" to testify about this crucial event. You be the jury; listen to the evidence, follow the arguments, and see if you're not driven to a verdict that this event must have happened.
Why is this important? What difference does it make whether Jesus rose from the dead or not? Isn't Christianity still a clever system, a respectable moral code and ethical philosophy of life apart from the resurrection? Au contraire, if the resurrection didn't happen, if it wasn't a concrete event in time, Jesus was a liar and so were the apostles. The resurrection is what establishes Him to be the Messiah; His claim to authority depends on His ultimate fate. He repeatedly predicted He would rise from the dead, so if He didn't, His credibility is shot, and the whole program is a farce. Christianity then would have nothing to support its uniqueness compared to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any other prominent world philosophy -- for Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and other popular teachers all died and were buried. Jesus' tomb is empty: that makes His teaching compelling and unique. By the resurrection Jesus authenticated Himself, it's the badge showing His credentials. In contrast to those other dead leaders, if the resurrection is true we have a Risen Lord on our hands, one who has proved His claim to be Son of God and with whom we have to deal. Christian faith stands or falls on the resurrection.
Paul says the news report of the resurrection is of "first importance" (1Cor.15:3); "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.But," he adds, "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead..." (1 Corinthians 15:19-20) Christianity is an historical religion, based on events in space-time, not speculation or mere philosophy. It "works"; Jesus proved it by the grand experiment of His giving Himself up to crucifixion and death. Peter wrote: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16) John begins his letter saying, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched— this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." (1 John 1:1) The apostles insisted to their painful deaths that the resurrection was a real event in history.
A) The Disciplined Roman Army
Let's call our first unwilling witness: The disciplined Roman Army. Having been in the military as a captain in the reserves, I can tell you that when orders are given, you don't mess around. It's the job of the sergeant-major to see that discipline is maintained. We used to hear horror stories of soldiers who'd committed some grave crime, been court-martialed, and sent off to the Canadian Forces' own prison at Edmonton. There, prisoners ran to do their tasks all day long, such as cleaning the floors with a toothbrush.
The Roman army was a hundred times stricter in discipline than our own. Punishments ranged from running a gauntlet of cudgels (for minor misbehaviour) to death for quitting post or at least 18 other offences. If you fell asleep while on guard duty, you were killed. One soldier who fell asleep on duty was hurled from a cliff. Acts 12(19) says the guards were sentenced to death when Peter escaped from jail. Discipline was strict. That's why the Romans were able to conquer the world: a well-disciplined and equipped army.
A Roman soldier was a lean, mean, killing machine. In his left hand he carried a shield. In his right he carried a 6-foot pike with a sharp iron head. A sword nearly 3 feet long hung from his shoulder. At his side was a dagger. You didn't want to mess with a Roman soldier! Gambling for a dying man's cloak is just one example of their cold-heartedness.
Now, imagine you're a Roman soldier on crucifixion detail. Your one priority is to carry out the execution of a criminal condemned under the authority of the Roman Emperor's representative. The penalty for an escapee prisoner is your own life. Are you going to let that fellow come off that cross alive? Why, death is what you're designed to deal out! (The highlight of the year in the Service Battalion was going to the ranges so we could actually fire the weapons we'd been drilled on continually.)
The theory that Jesus "swooned" and revived in the cool of the tomb is now viewed as obsolete. He didn't come off that cross without being dead; the soldiers made sure of it, the centurion made sure of it, Pilate made sure of it. Executioners examined the body before it was released, and these guys knew their business. By a lance thrust they pierced the right lung and heart cavity. Serum and clot poured out, providing medical evidence that the blood components had already separated, a sure sign that death had occurred.
Or, let's say you've received a more unusual assignment. The governor has ordered your group of 4 soldiers to guard a particular tomb. The entrance to the tomb is covered by a stone requiring several persons to budge. To this stone has been affixed a seal which cannot even be tampered with without incurring the wrath of Roman law. You and your buddies take turns, one acting as sentinel while the other three rest or relax right beside you, ready to fight at a moment's notice. Remember, the penalty for falling asleep while on sentinel duty is death. Are you going to let some grief-struck, cowardly, disorganized and demoralized fishermen from Galilee sneak in and steal that body? Not on your life!
B) The Silence of the Jewish Authorities
The Jewish chief priests and other leaders are most unwilling to take the stand to testify about Jesus' resurrection, yet their actions only help confirm it. First of all, they secured a guard from the governor in an attempt to make the tomb secure, affixing a seal, but this action only turns against them; by ruling out theft of the body by the disciples, they furnish evidence that the empty tomb was an act of God not people.
Next, in the book of Acts, when the apostles stand boldly preaching about the resurrection, the religious authorities stand helplessly by in silence. Their lack of protest confirms the tomb must have been empty, otherwise they would have invited potential converts to take a quick stroll to the tomb. Or why not produce the correct wrapped-up body and roll it on a cart through the streets of Jerusalem? The empty tomb is not even mentioned in the speeches in Acts because it was not in dispute; it was acknowledged by opponents as well as affirmed by the disciples.
The Jewish authorities were silent. You would be too if the only story you could come up with was what they suggested to the soldiers: "You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’" (Matthew 28:13) Paul Little comments, "What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were asleep, your neighbour came into your house and stole your TV set? Who knows what goes on while he's asleep? Testimony like this would be laughed out of any court." In fact, the Jewish rulers didn't believe their own story, otherwise the disciples would have been arrested at once: entering the tomb would have been a serious offence to the existent authorities.
The leaders' actions also provide valid objections to the argument that the women supposedly went to the wrong tomb. The chief priests, the soldiers, not to mention Joseph of Arimathea would have been quite capable of steering people's attention to the right tomb once the apostles started preaching.
C) The Power of Ritual in Time of Grief
Another unexpected witness to the resurrection is the way we gravitate to meaningful rituals in times of grief. Walk through any cemetery and you'll see costly, impressive monuments. When we're in mourning we want to visit the grave, to decorate it with some flowers, to show respect and care for the remains of our loved one. We wouldn't dream of disturbing the body unnecessarily, or exhuming it like Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. Funeral rituals are there as a means by which we honour the memory of the departed, and give structure to our lives during a sad time when we're preoccupied by grief and can hardly think of anything other than our loss.
Burials were very important in Jesus' time. Wm Craig notes, "There was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men, and these were scrupulously cared for and honoured." It was customary to use great quantities of spices for embalming the dead, especially those held in high esteem. The location of Jesus' grave would have been carefully noted. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus prepared the body for burial, wrapping it in cloths and a mixture of about 35 kg of myrrh and aloes. The myrrh was of a gummy consistency and doubled as a cement to hold the cloths together when wrapped. Would either of these men gone to the care and expense they did if they were planning to return by night and remove the body?
Likewise, the women who visited the tomb early Sunday morning were fully prepared to do additional anointing, carrying spices with them. They were drawn more by heart than by head, because they hadn't figure out how they'd roll away the stone to get in. The last thing on their minds was to do anything controversial with the body. That's just not your attitude toward the remains of one who was dear. Certainly nobody expected a resurrection. Neither were they susceptible to hallucination; they had a practical purpose in mind.
Yet the funeral preparations turn out to give eloquent testimony to the resurrection. The expensive spices Nicodemus brought, and long linen cloths, did serve a purpose -- they weren't wasted after all. Remember, the tomb at Easter wasn't exactly "empty": John and Peter looked in and saw the graveclothes, lying as they had all along, but enclosing - absolutely nothing! The white wrappings preserved almost exactly the shape of Jesus' body, but it was like an empty cocoon, totally hollow. The napkin that used to cover the head lay undisturbed on the slightly elevated stone slab that served as a "pillow" for the head of the deceased. John recalls that it was when he saw the wrappings laying there in place, with the body gone (as if it had just vaporized), that "he saw and believed" (Jn.20:8). No Houdini could have wriggled out of that arrangement and left it intact - it must have been supernatural!
D) Sibling Rivalry
Whenever there is more than one child in a family, it's not uncommon to have sibling rivalry. We're all too familiar with our brothers or sisters, their flaws, their quirks. We can put on a pretty good act toward outsiders, but usually your family knows you inside out.
The Gospels record that Jesus' own brothers did not believe in Him (Jn.7:5). Josh McDowell writes, "Before the resurrection [James] despised all that his brother stood for.He thought Christ's claims were blatant pretention and served only to ruin the family name." Yet in the early church, at least two of Jesus' brothers became very prominent. James, the oldest, became leader of the Jerusalem council, recognized by Paul as a "pillar" of the church (Gal.2:9). James was the one Paul checked in with upon arrival in town (Gal.1:19; Acts 21:18). He was martyred in 62 AD. Also, the book in our New Testament called "Jude" was written by another of Jesus' brothers. What turned them around in their attitude? As pious Jews, it would have seemed blasphemous for them to refer to Jesus their own family member as "Lord" if it were not so.
There's a clue in 1Cor.15(7): Paul mentions that the Risen Jesus appeared to his brother James independently. It must have been this appearance, in conjunction with the other reports, that changed James' and Jude's minds about Jesus' status.
E) Our Instinct for Self-preservation
To me, one of the strongest evidences for the Resurrection comes from our basic instinct for self-preservation. We want to save our own skin, we look out for our own hides. We already saw that a Roman soldier would take pains to make sure that a prisoner didn't come down off the cross alive, or that the soldier didn't fall asleep on sentry duty, or that a sealed tomb wasn't robbed - because any of those things would likely result in his own death. Whether or not he was fighting for the cause of upholding Rome's honour, he would stop at nothing because his own life was on the line, too.
Consider the disciples. One author writes, "They were not naturally either very brave or large-minded.In the most cowardly fashion, when their Master was arrested, they 'all forsook Him' and fled, leaving Him to face His fate alone." Another says, "The whole demeanor of the disciples is one of abject fright and self-preservation." Yet after Easter the Eleven became bold witnesses proclaiming the resurrection, at the risk of death. All were martyred except John, who was tortured in boiling oil but survived; he was exiled to a remote island. What changed them?
A Jewish rabbi says "no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation" from "this scared, frightened band of the apostles which was just about to throw away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee" into "a confident mission society, convinced of salvation." What changed them was an eyewitness encounter with a Risen, living Lord. The proof is their martyrdom. Another writer says, "The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyr's death. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie."
Simon Greenleaf was Professor of Law at Harvard University. He said, "The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples...Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing...It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact."
Death is too high a price to pay for a tale that is just made up. Even an unbelieving skeptic admits, "The historian must acknowledge that the disciples firmly believed that Jesus was risen." Paul Little says, "Men will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false: They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie." Or as John Stott puts it, "...they were not deceivers.Hypocrites and martyrs are not made of the same stuff."
Chuck Colson was an advisor to President Nixon during the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Looking back, he notes that these dozen or so men could scarcely keep the conspiracy together 12 days before John Dean turned state's evidence and agreed to testify against Nixon. Dean admitted that he did it to "save his own skin". 12 days! Yet the apostles stuck to their story to their dying breath. What they witnessed of the Risen Lord must have truly happened.
F) Our Collective Corrective Memory
Let's try a little exercise. Nearly 2 million Canadians watched the miniseries on Trudeau last weekend, which shows it was very popular. How accurate is your memory of events back then? Take the 1972 FLQ Crisis in Quebec. Who remembers the names of the high-profile people who were kidnapped? (James Cross, Pierre LaPorte) Do you remember which one survived? (Cross)
That event was 30 years ago. Many people are still alive who remember what happened. There are letters and opinions flying around in response to the TV miniseries. People are eager to defend their perspective on things, relying on their own recall of the facts. We use what we remember collectively to correct errors in the story being told.
When Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "what I received I passed on to you as of first importance", the date was about 55 AD, or around 30 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. The same span of time as between the FLQ crisis and now. There were still eyewitnesses of the events. He notes that Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." (1Cor.15:6) In other words, they could check out what he was saying with those who were actually there. One expert notes, "For the establishment of an alleged historical fact no documents are esteemed to be more valuable than contemporary letters...There is the unimpeachable evidence of the contemporary letters of Paul the Apostle.These epistles constitute historical evidence of the highest kind...This brings the evidence of the resurrection of Christ still nearer to the event: the interval is the short span of 25 years."
A professor of electrical engineering at the University of London in the 1920s wrote: "...we can ask ourselves whether it is probable that such a book, describing events that occurred about 30 or 40 years previously, could have been accepted and cherished if the stories of abnormal events in it were false or mythical. It is impossible, because the memory of all elderly persons regarding events of 30 or 40 years before is perfectly clear.No one could issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died 31 years ago, full of anecdotes which were quite untrue. They would be contradicted at once.They would certainly not be generally accepted and passed on as true." So, even our own memory capability, and tendency to correct we know to be in error, argues in favour of the resurrection as a real event in history.
Wrapping Up
In conclusion, it can be convincingly shown that Jesus' resurrection had to be an actual historical event. No other explanation makes sense of all the documentary evidence. We needn't be ashamed of the Gospel: it is good news, real news, as factual as any current event reported today. Don't be bashful about believing it. Jesus did not swoon, the women did not go to the wrong tomb, the disciples did not experience a group hallucination. George Hanson says: "The simple faith of the Christian who believes in the Resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of the skeptic who will accept the wildest and most improbable romances rather than admit the plain witness of historical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater."
BF Westcott, a Cambridge professor, said, "Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
Harvard law professor Greenleaf challenged: "All that Christianity asks of men...is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men...in human tribunals.Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other...let their testimony by sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice...The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth."