5 Minute Theology: The Resurrection

0:00We've noted in a previous episode that the Gospels present themselves as historical documents, and they indeed pass all the tests of being reliable witnesses to real history. The only hang up for the modern mind is that these histories contain miracles. The resurrection was added later, they say, a community of faith eventually came up with this idea of a risen Christ, a symbol of faith and new life. But the Christian responds, what good is a symbol of faith and rebirth when there is no resurrected Jesus to have faith in, and no promise of an actual new life after death? People like to take the very beautiful sentiments of hope and renewal which come from the promise of the resurrection, but they remove the whole resurrection part and just have the sentiments. But the sentiments are then grounded in nothing. While Christ's victory over sin and death was a transcendent work of God, the resurrection was undoubtedly still a historical event. It happened near Jerusalem in a particular tomb, not elsewhere, not everywhere, not

1:03just something that happened in our hearts. The real living glorified body of a particular man Jesus came out of the tomb. This was seen by many people and was preached over the entire known world in very short order with dramatic and miraculous success. What is this miracle of miracles, the resurrection, something that can be proven, or is it only a truth we ascend to by faith? Well, it isn't an either or. There is something in the resurrection that transcends history and our minds, so it is an article of faith, something that we cannot fully understand on our own without the aid of grace. On the other hand, we can apply certain critical tools to this history to show that were we to just rely on the evidence of the gospels, the only rational conclusion we could come to is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. One might scoff at considering this a rational conclusion, but this betrays the prior assumptions of the skeptic, to him anything is more rational than a miracle. First of all, we know that Christ did in fact die. We have to confirm this since, strange as it sounds, so strong as the evidence that the

2:04body was no longer in the tomb after the burial, that certain skeptics are forced to conclude that Christ wasn't actually dead and somehow got out of there. But we know that he was observed to be dead by the Roman soldiers, masters of death, and was pierced through the heart with the lands just to make sure. Second, we know that his body was laid in a particular tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea. The historically reliable gospels provide this detail, and the Pharisees and the Romans were aware of this burial and made sure to guard that tomb. Thirdly, we know that the third day after his death, the tomb was found to be empty. This is first observed according to the gospels by Mary Magdalene. That she is the first witness is significant, since she is a woman and thus not a reliable witness of an important event at that time. Regardless of what you think of that, it makes it even more historically reliable since anyone fabricating such a story would never choose a woman to be the first witness. But she went and told the apostles who also came and confirmed it. And the Pharisees, those most interested in there not being an empty tomb, unintentionally

3:04confirmed that it was empty by concocting a rumor that it was only empty because the apostles stole his body. But this lie was very poorly planned because, fourthly, the apostles were famously not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. To us it was obvious that Christ told them several times in great detail that he would die and rise again, but they never understood what in the world he was talking about. So to say that they stole his body to stage a fake resurrection makes no sense. They didn't know there was going to be one. One of the apostles, St. Thomas, didn't even believe it when all the rest of the apostles told him. This is also important to note because another massive cope from skeptics is that the appearances of the risen Christ were the result of a mass delusion or hallucination, but such delusions would be the result of a collective fanatical expectation, which certainly was not the case with the oblivious apostles. Furthermore St. Paul says that in addition to the individual appearances to the apostles, the risen Christ appeared to more than 500 people at once. Fifthly, the appearances to the apostles were vividly real. They were able not just to see Christ on multiple occasions and even touch him, but also

4:07to eat with him and learn from him for 40 days before he ascended into heaven. As unlikely as the mass hallucination theory is, even more unlikely bordering on the impossible is a mass hallucination that lasts 40 days, including ever-growing numbers of people. Finally, we have the witness of the lies of the apostles after the resurrection. It is not possible to ascribe their transformation to any natural cause. They go from being timid and oblivious to bold, eloquent preachers of the gospel, ready to go to the edges of the known world and die to preach the all-important truth that Jesus has risen. All of them laid down their lives for the risen Christ. John alone did not die from his persecution, though he suffered much. The miraculous and swift spread of the gospel, its transformation and elevation of all cultures with which it came into contact, the lofty sanctity of the countless saints and their miracles, the endurance and growth of the church for millennia, all of these show the incredible truth and power of Christ's resurrection from the dead. But even based on the historical evidence of the gospels, practically all historians,

5:09whether they be believers or not, agree that Christ died, that he was buried, that the tomb was found to be empty, and that there were many reports of seeing him alive after his death.