Monday, May 11, began a new chapter in France’s struggle with the Coronavirus. The time of confinement is transitioning into renewed activity. Many people are excited to get back to work, some are worried this might be too soon, still, others are buried under a mountain of responsibility and work. Though the sun is shining, the birds are singing the song of spring; hospitals are still treating new cases in vertiginous numbers. Thankfully, they are in decline, but health care professionals continue the fight for the lives of those already infected. We are still in a time of suffering.

I was listening to a non-believing friend share his worries and was moved by his hopelessness.

I asked him about it, and he bounced between temporal goals and ideas on how to move forward, but the uncertainty was eating away at his heart. He was thankful to talk about it, and I was eventually able to share my hope. Indeed, listening is a large part of communication. It reminded me that is what God does for us in prayer. He listens to us—but that’s not all.

Jesus knew how to listen and ask questions. When he spoke to Nicodemus in John 3 or the Samaritan in John 4, we can picture Him sitting, listening and then speaking. He, the living God incarnate, was a physical instrument of divine goodness. If He were to sit with someone today, we wouldn’t be surprised to hear the question of our age brought to His attention, “If God is good why…” Certainly, He might respond to some with a call to repentance as He did in Luke 13:1-5, but I wonder, for others, if He might talk more about living water as in John 4:13.

One thing I’m assured of is as He stood there, took an interest and listened, He ministered God’s goodness. Before apologetics, the goodness of God was already applied in the form of a Man. He is our example, we who have been filled with His Spirit, and are called into His mission, and are faced with these questions. We often realize this, as believers, before we present our best arguments: We are an instrument of the goodness of God ministering to those in need. What a responsibility! How can we measure up? No one can meet the stature of Jesus, but there are some things we can do.

I need to remind myself often that people who don’t have Christ, don’t have our same hope.

I’ve become used to the blessing. I lean into it daily to the point that I’m tempted to think it’s my stability—as if to say the Nikes I’m wearing are simply my own bear feet. But they’re not, as a quick walk across the street barefoot will teach me. There are rocks and glass on the road, and they hurt. This inspires me to listen. Studies have shown that much more is communicated in conversation than what is intended. People can say the funniest things that seem out of place but may lead to deeper concerns.

I was talking with a couple who seemed to be arguing about the same thing from two different points of view. They were blocked and couldn’t agree. The lady mentioned some off-subject remark about her parents that left me confused. It seemed important to her but just didn’t fit the context. So, I asked her about it. It turned out we found the source of this communication issue. She shared her parents’ political convictions, which were the opposite of his. This colored the way she saw how to resolve the issue they were facing, and he, who also saw a similar solution, refused to cede because he was offended by her methods. It came back to their worldview, their political views and the meaning behind the words they were speaking. Well-formed questions can be a powerful helper in unlocking what lies beneath the surface.

What are some questions to ask? I’m not the best at this; I usually refer to Paul Tripp’s Instruments in the Hand of the Redeemer for this subject, or I just listen and try to understand. I want to find out what they are really worried about. There is the thing we first say, and for some people, that is as deep as it gets. But there are others, like me, who might let you in on the first level, but it will take time to see the next. Now there comes a time when too many questions become an interrogation or just irritating. I want to know their world vision, so I can discover their true hope, not just the one I think they are counting on or learned about in some seminar. People are complicated and rarely fit into prepared molds.

While listening, I like to pray for them, especially if the conversation was spontaneous rather than a formal counseling session. I’ll ask the Lord to speak to me, to show me something in what they are saying, to help me understand them, to see from their point of view. If I want to be used as God’s goodness, I need to know how to speak. And I want to speak because we have the hope they need. There is a pattern of how we can be used to bring hope and be used to bring the goodness of the Lord through comfort in 2 Corinthians 1:5: “For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.” We share the divine comfort we receive.

And I believe there is a call to compassion as in Job 6:14, “He who withholds kindness from a friend, forsakes the fear of the Almighty.” I’m not the best example of this, but I need verses like this to remind me.

Being an instrument of divine goodness through comfort will mean we share in their pain.

We can build trust with them. Trust is good when people are suffering, unsure or facing uncertainty. This being said, we can also destroy it with false hope. We want everything to be alright. We pray that God will work powerfully. But there are some things we cannot guarantee.

A friend shared a story about visiting someone in the hospital before the COVID outbreak. He began comforting a person he met in the waiting room. He wanted to give them a quick answer, but as he spoke from his heart about how much he wished the best for the person, they received his words. He realized he could bring comfort by avoiding pre-made answers because they so often bring confusion and aren’t pertinent to the situation.

In a similar way, I’ve noticed that conspiracy theories can become a parasite to the Gospel. They are interesting, grab our attention and create the same rush we feel when we watch an intense movie. If I avert someone’s attention to a conspiracy theory and spend all my time talking about it, how have I served the Gospel?

From 2 Corinthians, the comfort we can give is the comfort we receive in Jesus, in His Word.

That’s why I feel we can speak simply, leaning into the Word. We don’t need to quote chapter and verse with an unbeliever who is sharing their thoughts and worries. Understanding clarity and truth through study, we are well-positioned to help. To paraphrase Cornelius Van Til, we share common ground with the unbeliever, according to Romans 1:18-19, they know the truth even though they might suppress it. This might be the moment God has destined for them. If they ask us how a good God could allow such a thing, they may have already asked Him. It may just be, therefore, He wants to respond through us, an interpreter of His goodness. Wouldn’t that be our greatest honor? May the Lord equip us for such a task.

“Any expounder of the words of God is liable to go off on a tangent if he or she does not remember this stern, undeviating standard of exposition, namely, that no individual experience is of the remotest value unless it is up to the standard of the Word of God. The Bible not only tests experience, it tests truth. The Bible tests all experience, all truth, all authority by our Lord Himself and our relationship to Him personally.” – Oswald Chambers

Understanding the Culture

In many ways we live in a soundbite culture today. People have grown accustomed to receiving information in 280 characters or less. We expect to find answers in very much the same way as we place a one-click order, simply push the right button and wait until it arrives! Quick and efficient.

There are positives with this; however, this technological turn has resulted in a number of cultural shifts that require our attention. The “social media age” has led to a type of reductionism in both the teaching and learning styles of young people today. Information is so readily available, on any subject imaginable, that personal in-depth research is a largely forgotten trade. Instead quick soundbite answers, that can fit into a status update, are often all people will read on a topic before they feel sufficiently informed to express themselves.

I have witnessed this phenomenon online many times. Opinions devoid of any factual or propositional content are packaged into “headlines” that seek to influence people via their emotions rather than by truth. Is it any wonder that in 2016, the Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” to be its international word of the year. They defined it as an adjective, “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”¹ The postmodern mindset argues for a relativistic conception of truth and falsely teaches that all ideas are equally valid, and no one person’s opinion should be elevated above the other.

Learning is Critical

This type of learning environment is a huge challenge to those in ministry. Do we simply acquiesce to the culture and shorten the sermons, focus on entertainment, making sure we do not offend anyone by challenging their ideas? Absolutely not! For leaders, the challenge is to put more focus on training congregations to recapture the discipline of learning. After all, learning is the business of a disciple. As disciples of Christ, we are to learn from Him; we are His students. Jesus makes this point in His famous invitation found in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

Christ bids those who would follow Him to come and learn from Him. The content of our learning is biblical revelation. The truths of the Bible are simply too rich to be reduced to such a soundbite level without sacrificing substance.

These postmodern views of truth and the infantile approach to learning have, unfortunately, made inroads into the Church. Rather than sustained exposition of the Word of God, the Church has too often become accustomed to short “sermonettes,” self-focused, motivational messages and passionate speeches designed to appeal to the emotions. Thus, the measure of a good message is, “How did it make me feel?” Not whether the Word of God was properly explained and understood. Emotions have their proper place, but our emotions must be informed by a correct understanding of God, gained through his revealed truth, and from this, our spiritual life will be enriched as we worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

The Word Must Come First

It is imperative that we demonstrate to this generation that feelings are not a test for truth. As Spurgeon said, “There is nothing so deluding as feelings. Christians cannot live by feelings. What right have you to set up your feelings against the Word of Christ?”

As leaders we are to uphold the full authority of the Word of God as the source of all truth (John 17:17). Exhortations to study the scripture abound (cf. Proverbs 9:9; 2 Timothy 3:14). It is only as we study the scriptures that we learn more of the nature and character of God, His purpose in creating us, His will for us, His love for us and all the other precious doctrines of scripture. These truths of the Christian faith are all doctrinal affirmations, rooted in real history and seeking to understand them is how we mature in our Christian faith (Ephesians 4:13-15; Hebrews 5:12-13; 1 Peter 2:2).

For a generation that is starved of truth, which scrambles around seeking answers to the big questions of life, we need to expose them to the truth that the Word of God has the answers. This means we are ready to preach the Word “in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2). We need to be like the Levites who “explained the law to the people… translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading” (Nehemiah 8:7-8). We need to provide the grain for the famine. Ultimately, we want to explain and bear witness to the truth because that is what our Lord came to do:

“For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” (John 18:37).

The truth is that God made this world to be inhabited by us (Isaiah 45:18), He created man for his glory (Isaiah 43:6-7), in order to enjoy Him forever (Psalm 16:11). He is the author of life (Acts 3:15), and therefore, the only one who can give us a truthful description of who we are (Romans 3:23). He knows us intimately (Matthew 10:30); He cares for us immeasurably (John 10:13), loves us unconditionally (Romans 5:8) and offers us an abundant life (John 10:10). Exposing these truths to the world can only be achieved by proclaiming the whole counsel of God in all its glory.

That is the TRUTH!

…

¹ Flood, Alison. “Post-Truth Named Word of the Year” by Oxford Dictionaries. The Guardian. 15th November 2016. Accessed.

In this final part of this series, we will discuss the nature and significance of Christ’s resurrected body. Specifically, answering the crucial questions that mark the dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy (cf. I John 4:2; 2 John 7), as well as highlighting the great benefits of Christ’s resurrection.

Was Christ’s resurrected body a spiritual (invisible) body or physical (material) body?

Some have suggested that Christ’s glorified body was spiritual (non-material) since Jesus “appeared” and “disappeared” in some post-resurrection sightings. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a spiritual resurrection but deny a physical-material resurrection.To explain the missing body, they assert the body simply dissolved into gases. However, orthodox Christianity had a radically different understanding of Christ’s resurrection.

First, from the beginning Christians held that Jesus rose in the same physical body in which he died. In fact, Jesus offered his body to be observed with the naked eye and invited others to touch Him, even eating a piece of broiled fish in the disciples’ presence (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29).

Second, victory over death is only realized when the same physical body that died is the one that rose from the grave (see 1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Simply receiving another body that is totally different (spiritual) from the one that died is certainly possible, for God can do anything, but it does not solve the problem of death nor does it offer victory, since the body that died is still dead. For Christ to have victory over death, the body must be the same physical body that died.

Third, the physical resurrection is the pattern for the believer’s resurrected body (Philippians 3:21). Paul makes clear that when believers are resurrected, Christ will transform our “lowly body” (GK: soma = body) to be conformed to His glorious “body” (GK; soma = body). In addition, when writing 1 Corinthians (15:35-55) he describes the glorified “body” (GK: soma = body) throughout the chapter as a “physical” body. Robert Gundry’s excellent book, Soma in Biblical Theology (2005), argues that every time the Greek word soma is used of a person it always refers to a physical body.

Fourth, if one believes that Christ was truly “resurrected” then he must also believe that Christ rose from the dead in a physical body. This is made clear by the fact that a resurrection only speaks to the resurrection of the body, since only the body can die. That is to say, without physical death there can be no resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:36). It makes no sense to refer to the resurrection of the spirit since the spirit never dies, it lives on after the death of the body (whether one is saved or unsaved). Thus, the spirit cannot experience a true resurrection, as does the body.

Fifth, Paul’s reference to the resurrected body as a “spiritual” body (1 Corinthians 15:44) has been understood by some as referring to the resurrection of the spirit and not to the physical body. By reminder, soma is again the word used here for “body,” so Paul is referring here to a spiritual physical body. No, this is not a contradiction in terms. For example, would we call the apostle Paul a “spiritual” man? Would we say the Bible is a “spiritual” book? Yes, they are spiritual on both accounts, despite the fact that the Bible and Paul are physical. When Paul describes the body as “spiritual,” he is not referring to the substance of the resurrection body (since it is undoubtedly physical as noted by the word soma). Rather, he is referring to the spiritual source of the physical resurrected body. In other words, our glorified body will be a spirit dominated body, driven by the Holy Spirit and not our flesh or fallen human desires.

Finally, the gospel passages that refer to Jesus appearing and disappearing are not referring to his body dematerializing and vanishing into thin air only to appear materialized again somewhere else. The Greek word used to describe these events can be better translated as moving to a place where He could be seen (or not seen), much the same way an actor can make himself visible by coming out from behind the stage curtain. Therefore, the words do not mandate a true disappearance.

Was it the same body that was in the tomb?

Some have suggested that Christ received another body that was not the same as the body that died. This problem is largely due to the passages that imply people did not recognize him after He rose from the dead. To some he appeared as a gardener (John 20:15), to others a stranger (Luke 24:18).

The short answer to the question above is “yes,” it was the same body. This is supported by the fact that Jesus possessed His crucifixion wounds (stigmata) that He put forward as evidence of his resurrection. He even invited witnesses to touch them. Yes, Christ will have his scars in heaven, but we will not. This is due to the fact that Christ’s scars are a trophy to Him and a reminder to us of His love for humanity and that these wounds made salvation possible for all of us. The stigmata is a memorial of His great love and sacrifice for us. On the contrary, we will not have our scars in the afterlife since they are due to a fallen world and sin. We will be restored to perfection.

In addition, as mentioned above, if Christ’s body is not the same that died on the cross then there is no victory over death (see 1 Corinthians 15:54-55), since the body that died is still in the grave. Further, if the body is not the same body that died, where is the deceased body of Jesus? The tomb was empty. The empty tomb is consistent with the glorified body of Jesus as being the same body that died.
What is more, the initial lack of recognition of Jesus what only temporary, which can be explained by either darkness (at the time Mary thought He was the Gardener), fear (disciples were hiding for fear of the Jewish religious leaders), Psychological trauma (disciples didn’t expect to see Jesus after he was killed, they were distraught), and false assumptions (they assumed Jesus was dead).

Finally, John 5:25-30 declares that “all who are in the graves”, which could only be referring to the bodies of deceased, since each spirit continues to live in either torment or bliss (and not in the grave). Each will hear the voice of the Son of God and come forth. This implies that the body that is in the grave will be the same body that is raised. We ought not think that Christ’s resurrection was any different. The body in the tomb was the same body that rose again.

What kinds of change occurred to the glorified body?

Paul’s description of the glorified body in 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 definitely has changes from the earthly body. What is the nature of the change?

First, the glorified body has secondary changes, not primary changes. That is to say, there is no change in who and what we are – namely, a specific person who is human. Secondary changes describe what you have, not who or what you are. For example, the body dies weak, but is raised strong; dies corruptible, but raised incorruptible; dies a natural body, but raised a spiritually dominated body; dies perishable, but raised imperishable; and dies mortal but raised immortal. If we adopt the view that primary changes (i.e., changes in who and what we are) characterize the glorified body, we are then closer to eastern reincarnation than Christian resurrection. For example, depending on what form of reincarnation one holds, an individual can return in another body that could be an animal, insect, or some other kind of being. However, Christian resurrection retains our individual identity and human nature.

Paul uses the seed analogy when he describes the glory of the resurrected body (1 Corinthians 15:36-49). In very descriptive language, Paul informs his readers that what comes from the seed (wheat or some other grain) is much more glorious than the seed itself (earthly body that dies). The glorious wheat or grain also retains the same genetic identity as the seed. Thus the resurrected body is more glorious than the earthly body as a flower or grain is more glorious than the seed from which it came. Though more glorious than the body that died, the resurrected body has same genetic identity as the seed (earthly body) sown into the ground. Thus the glorious resurrected body is the same genetic individual that died.

Does Christ still have his resurrected physical body today?

Some have suggested Christ does not have his physical body in heaven, but this view is outside the biblical descriptions that affirm His continued state in the physical body.

First, 1 John 4:2-3 offers a test for sound doctrine and how to identify false “believers.” John gives his readers a test by which to discover false prophets when he says, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of anti-Christ.” Though not evident in the English, the Greek word for “has come” (in the flesh) is in the perfect tense, which refers to past completed action with abiding results in the present. Therefore, the test for orthodoxy is whether an individual believes that Christ came in the flesh (GK: sarx = flesh, rudimentary word referring to the material body) in the past and continues in the flesh (body) in the present. Since I John was written after the Christ’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, it must be referring to His first coming and his present continuation in the body in heaven.

Second, 2 John 7 reaffirms Christ’s present continuation in His body while in heaven. John identifies “deceivers” as those who “do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” Here John uses the present participle for the word “coming,” meaning the verse can be translated as those who “do not confess Jesus Christ as presently continuing in the flesh.”

Finally, the fact that Jesus will return to earth at His second coming in his physical body to the Mount of Olives is consistent with Jesus retaining his body in heaven today. The angels spoke at His ascension and said Jesus would return in like manner he ascended to heaven – namely, visibly and bodily! There is no logical reason to reject Christ’s bodily continuation today if he rose from the grave in the body, ascended to heaven in His body, conforms us to the likeness of His body, and returns to the earth in His body. To deny the continued physicality of Christ is a form of post-resurrectional Docetism (ancient heresy that denies the material humanity of Christ).

Conclusion

The resurrection has always been the capstone in the arch of Christianity. It’s a stone that is well-placed and firmly rooted in its fixed foundational position. It is because Jesus rose from the grave we can rest assured we will rise in due time and have all the physical and spiritual benefits our Lord possesses. We have a bright future, for He too was a man – who loved all mankind and desires all to be saved (1 Peter 3:9).

Also, enjoy the first two parts of this three-part series:

“Evidence for the Resurrection: Is Easter Just More of the Same?”

“Evidence for the Resurrection: Was It Real?”

In an earlier post, we discussed Christ’s resurrection as an unique event that differs in kind from all other ancient near eastern myths of dying and rising fertility gods. In this section, we address two crucial questions: 1) What about the skeptics? 2) Was Christ’s resurrection a historical event? Our answers to these questions have a direct impact upon the believability of Christianity as a whole, since it is the heart of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-3). It is a condition of salvation (Romans 10:9-10), and there is no hope without it (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

What About the Skeptics?

Over the centuries, there have been several influential attempts to discredit the resurrection without success. Some believed (H.E.G. Paulus, Life of Jesus) Jesus never died on the cross but fainted and later revived in the cool tomb to live another day (i.e., known as the Swoon Theory). For Christians, the death of Christ is a prerequisite for a resurrection. However, this theory should be rejected, since it fails to recognize the physical condition of Christ and ignores the eyewitness accounts that confirm Christ’s death on the cross. First, Jesus was beaten and whipped, crowned with thorns, beard plucked from His face, did not have the strength to carry the cross to Golgotha.

His hands and feet were nailed to the cross, as crucifixion caused lungs to collapse; His side was pierced by a roman spear. Blood and water flowed from His side, which is evidence of death. Witnesses confirmed Christ’s death; His corpse was wrapped in 75 pounds of material, and the Romans pronounced Him dead and set an official seal on a guarded tomb.

What is more, medical experts confirmed Jesus’ death in the Journal of American Medical Association. They analyzed the data surrounding Christ’s crucifixion and concluded that “the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge” (3/21/86, p. 1463). Second, the Swoon Theory does not account for the radical conversion of the disciples. Moreover, even the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote of Christ being put to death in Judea during the reign of Tiberius Caesar by the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. Further, the Jewish Talmud declares that Christ was put to death by being hung on a tree on the “eve of Passover.”

Others explain the resurrection by positing that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This view is known as the “Conspiracy Theory” and is perhaps the most ancient of all, being devised by the chief priests and the elders to explain away the resurrection (Matthew 28:12-13). There are several reasons why it should be rejected. First, stealing the body and deceiving to cover the crime runs contrary to the character and teaching of Christ and the apostles. Second, it is contrary to the apostles’ willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection. People do not give their lives for what they know to be a lie. Third, even after persecution, there is no record of anyone recanting their message. Fourth, it doesn’t seem rational to believe such critics of the resurrection such as Saul, James (the Lord’s brother), and doubting Thomas could be fooled without strong evidence to overcome their ardent skepticism. Fifth, the body of Christ could have easily been produced to refute the resurrection claims, but apparently, it was not displayed. Sixth, there is no evidence to support the disciples stole the body. Seventh, the Romans had no motive to steal the body, since this would surely disrupt the peace they sought to maintain among the tense and volatile population. Eighth, the Jews had no motive to steal the body, since this would run contrary to there desire to keep Jesus in the tomb to avoid resurrection claims. Finally, this theory does not explain the physical appearances of Christ or the eyewitness claims of the resurrection.

Any theory of the resurrection must account for these 12 commonly accepted facts (among all scholars) surrounding the event:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
2) Jesus was buried.
3) Disciples doubted and despaired.
4) The tomb, in which Jesus was buried, was discovered empty a few days later.
5) Disciples had experiences that they believed to be actual appearances of the risen Christ. 6) Disciples were transformed and willing to die for the truth.
7) The gospel message was the center of preaching in the early church.
8) The gospel was proclaimed in Jerusalem where Jesus died.
9) The church was established by these disciples.
10) The day of worship was Sunday, the same day Jesus was reported risen.
11) Skeptical James (Jesus’ brother) was converted when he believed he saw the risen Christ.
12) Paul, a persecutor of the church, was converted when he believed he saw the risen Christ.

For too long, many have attempted to work outside of these known facts, like the swoon and conspiracy theories, to their own peril.

Was the Resurrection a Real Historical Event?

Contrary to these skeptical claims, there are several reasons to believe the resurrection of Christ is a historical event.
First, the New Testament stands the most reliable source of information on the resurrection from any book in the ancient world. Though the originals have been lost to time, the NT contains the most manuscript attestation to the history it records (28,000+ copies in various languages, over 5,800 of these are in the Greek language), the earliest records of the resurrection (25-150 year gap from the time they were written), and the most accurately copied manuscripts of any book from the ancient world (99.9% copy accuracy). The early dates and sheer manuscript quantity prohibits myth, distortion and embellishment to filter into the history recorded in the NT text.

The basic books of the NT were written by AD 65 (with exception of the Gospel of John and Revelation), meaning there was simply no time for myth to replace the basic facts of the resurrection.

Even the Greek historian, Herodotus, said that it takes at least 80 years for a myth to develop! Near eastern scholar, P.J. Wiseman, claims that one generation is not enough time for a myth to develop. The vast majority of the NT was written within 25-30 years from the death and resurrection of Christ! The witnesses would still be alive to correct any misconceptions to the basic facts surrounding the resurrection.

Second, Jesus appeared to eyewitnesses on at least 12 different occasions, with Paul declaring some 500 witnesses saw the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). These appearances resulted in witnesses seeing, hearing and/or touching his physical body. The commonly understood and well-practiced legal approach to establishing fact draws upon the testimony of numerous witnesses of any given event. Even the Scripture says, “On the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deuteronomy 19:15). The NT has nine different authors (if someone other than Paul wrote Hebrews), who wrote 27 books that either explicitly or implicitly affirm the resurrection.

Third, the best explanation for the empty tomb that was guarded and sealed is that Christ rose! Fourth, the apostles died for what they believed to be the resurrected Christ. Fifth, the widespread, sudden and dramatic change in the lives and religious practice of devoted Jews who kept the Mosaic Law for centuries. In other words, how do fervent religious Jews suddenly shift from Saturday to Sunday worship and from abstaining from unclean foods to eating pork with gentiles? What possibly could transform a group of disappointed and afraid disciples who were devastated at the crucifixion, in hiding for fear of death, contemplating a rapid escape and/or abandonment of their calling and return to their former activities, into the most prolific missionary movement of all time? The resurrection would have the power to do just that and provide the crowning proof that Jesus was indeed the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

Sixth, well-known skeptics and attorneys have found the eyewitness testimonies of Christ convincing and reliable. These include the late Harvard University law professor and author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidences (1853), Simon Greenleaf, who penned The Testimony of the Evangelists, Thomas Sherlock (The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection), Frank Morrison (Who Moved the Stone?), John W. Montgomery (Christianity and History), Irwin Linton (A Lawyer Examines the Bible), investigative journalist and skeptic, Lee Strobel (The Case For Christ) and David Limbaugh (Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel). In addition, reputable modern historians of ancient history such as A.N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT) and Colin J. Hemer (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History) have affirmed the historical reliability of the NT.

Finally, the presence of counter-productive features, within the gospel accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ, further demonstrates its reliable history. That is to say, the mere presence of statements that do not cast Christ or His followers in a positive light suggests truthfulness. For example, the gospels reveals Christ’s humiliating trial, shameful death at the hands of His persecutors. Christ appeared powerless to effect change, while the disciples hid in fear and appeared cowardice, with lack of strength to carry His own cross. Those closest to Jesus betrayed and denied Him; the disciples were slow in understanding, and they did not believe. After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared first to women who had little legal standing and credibility in the eyes of their culture and law. According to historians, these crucial features reveal that the writers of the NT were more interested in reporting accurate history than deceiving their readers by painting a flawless portrait Christ and His followers.

We have seen that we have good reason to believe the resurrection of Christ is a historical event.

Attempts to explain the resurrection away fails to account for all the data and leaves irreconcilable flaws in their argument. We will discuss further of the nature and significance of Christ’s resurrected body. Was it a spiritual or physical body? Was it the same body that was in the tomb? What kinds of changes occurred to His resurrected body? Does Christ still have His physical body today?

It has been said that “the resurrection of Christ is the capstone in the arch of Christianity, if it is removed Christianity crumbles.” Indeed, Paul warned of the negative implications if Christ did not rise from the dead, namely, we are still in our sins, our faith is empty, those who have died have perished forever, and we are men most miserable (1 Cor. 15:16-19). That the resurrection is the core of the Christian faith cannot be denied and that of nearly twenty sermons in the book of Acts feature the resurrection of Christ as the central message. Despite the importance of the resurrection as the heart of the gospel message (Rom. 10:9-10), some have mistakenly understood this crucial event as an hallucination or more of the same kind of dying and rising gods present in cultures throughout the ancient Near East.

The Resurrection as Hallucination?

Hallucinations describe the psychological state of seeing things that appear real but do not actually exist. Some have argued that the disciples’ intense grief and wishful thinking for their crucified Savior triggered these hallucinatory episodes known as “appearances.” Instances of hallucinations among some of the world’s religions certainly do occur, but usually they are either initiated by drugs or other techniques designed to induce an altered state of consciousness. However, there are several reasons to reject the hallucination theory. First, there is no evidence of drug use or technique-induced altered states of consciousness among Christ’s disciples, which is totally foreign to Judaism and to Christianity. Second, hallucinations are generally experienced by individuals and not mass groups. Paul said at least 500 witness had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor.15:6). Third, hallucinations last only short periods of time (seconds or minutes), not for forty days of physical appearances (Acts 1:3). If it was a hallucination, it was the largest in recorded history and lasted longer than any other hallucination! Fourth, the disciples did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead and, therefore, could not be projecting wishful thinking which could lead to hallucinations of His resurrection appearances. In fact, in several of Christ’s post-resurrectional appearances He was not immediately recognized which eliminates any “thought/psychic projection” of His appearance. Finally, the disciples who were depressed after Christ’s death were initially skeptical to believe the women’s report of the resurrection, suggesting that wishful thinking was not present.

The Resurrection as Legendary?

Some have attempted to identify the resurrection as legend or mythical storytelling not uncommon to the cultures of the ancient Near East. According to some, Christ’s resurrection story is similar to the Egyptian Osiris myth or the Mesopotamian stories of dying and rising fertility gods (e.g., Tammuz). However, these arguments have been met with strong criticism. First, the parallel stories only have superficial similarities. For example, none of these rising gods actually come back to life and walk the surface of the earth in the body that died and was buried, nor are witnesses involved that confirm a Christ-like physical resurrection. Second, the textual support for such legendary “resurrections” is scant or altogether absent and must be stretched to resemble anything like the Bible’s account of the resurrection and afterlife. In the case of Tammuz-Adonis, early texts do not have any trace of a resurrection account, they only appear some 150-300 years after Christ. This has led some to believe that the Tammuz story was actually influenced by the resurrection of Christ, and was reinterpreted in light of the success early Christianity was having by preaching the resurrection! Third, some (Roland de Vaux and Edwin Yamauchi) have pointed out that the apparent “resurrection” of the Egyptian Osiris was not really a Judeo-Christian resurrection at all. Rather, Osiris simply was enabled to live an afterlife among the dead as close to an earthly existence as possible. In other words, Osiris never came back to life in his physical body to live on earth again, but was only allowed to reign over the dead in an earth-like afterlife. Fourth, those who see parallels between many of the early mystery religions such as the Persian Mithra, which was popular among Roman soldiers, and Taurobolium ignore the late dates for sources or turn a blind eye to their textual provenience. The notions of “rebirth,” blood sacrifice, and eternal life emerged in the second to fourth-century AD and were most likely influenced by Christianity (see Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks). Finally, these myths and mysteries are not rooted in any time-space historical person or foundational historical event. By contrast, Christianity rests upon the historical Christ and His physical resurrection from the dead.

Resurrection of the Body Foreign to Ancient Cultures?

While surveying the climate of how ancient cultures viewed the afterlife, one is immediately struck by the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian concept of the hereafter. The Egyptians seemed to be semi-optimistic regarding the afterlife, but never offered bodily resurrection as an option; largely, Egyptian notions of afterlife centered in the realm of the dead and was somewhat shadowy. For the ancient Egyptian, the end and hope for afterlife resides in the necessity of a mummified body. For the Mesopotamians, according to Yamauchi, pessimism and gloom dominated their view of the afterlife. Any thought of raising the dead was a threat or curse to be avoided. For the Greeks, despite Plato’s belief in the immortality of the soul (his student Aristotle rejected immortality), most were skeptical of an afterlife even though scant ideas circulated among the poets and later philosophers. The prevailing view among the Greeks regarding the body was negative. The Greek attitude toward a resurrection can be seen in Acts 17:18, 32, while Paul was in Athens. The apostle Paul spoke of the resurrection, something novel to the Greeks. He eventually was met with skepticism and mockery. For the Greeks, the body was a hindrance to progress and the life of the mind, so any notion of being physically resurrected was summarily ridiculed.

Unique Judeo-Christian Belief in the Resurrection of the Body

When set in contrast against the dark and pessimistic backdrop of the ancient Near East and Greek notions of the afterlife, the Judeo-Christian concept of a physical resurrection of the body was a unique contribution (Dan. 12:2) to ancient Near Eastern views. Early Israelites most likely understood the concept of resurrection slowly over time, and certainly were slow to realize that the Messiah would be resurrected. But the New Testament changed all this by the end of the first-century AD by clearly articulating the nature of Christ’s resurrection in light of Old Testament passages and His teachings recorded in the Gospels. Christ’s resurrection would forever change the religious landscape and frame the discussion of the afterlife in terms that now include the physical body. It only remains now in Part II to discuss whether the resurrection of Christ actually occurred as well as the nature of Christ’s glorified body.