(After a quick read prior to posting the following, I feel compelled to briefly qualify the opening statement. I am not, in any way, shape, or fashion, intending to marginalize the import of the death of the Messiah on the cross. Without Christ’s death, without His sacrifice, I affirm there is no atonement for sin. )
Let us open with a controversial statement: it may be argued that the cross is not central to the Christian faith. Not only is it not central to the Christian faith, the impact of the symbol has been diminished by popular American culture to the point that it is almost meaningless. If this symbol, long revered by Christians as evidenced by all the church steeples capped by the obligatory cross, is not central to the Christian faith, then what is? It is the event that proceeds from the cross, the physical resurrection of the Messiah. The cross symbolizes death - the Roman cross was a horrific death, torture, and punishment machine; the resurrection event shouts life, shouts boldly victory over death. However, the resurrection event of Christ does not lend itself to simple forms or images; it cannot be apprehended by a simple symbol. It can hardly be comprehended by the most supple of minds. Without the physical resurrection of Christ, though, our faith, as the Apostle Paul wrote, is in vain and we, the followers of Christ, are to be the most pitied of all people.
The question that should follow the aforementioned statement is thus: did the resurrection of the Christ actually occur in time and space, and if so, how can we know? Many sincere followers of Christ, though, may ask why one needs evidence? Is not this religion thing about faith, the belief in things unseen? Is not asking for evidence counter to the need for faith?
Let us answer the second question first and begin the answer with a question or two. What kind of faith is required of a Christ follower? What do we mean by faith? First, I assert that the word ‘trust’ is perhaps a more accurate term for our relationship with Christ than the word ‘faith’. If I have more than adequate evidence to believe that Christ exists and that He did rise from the tomb, can I trust Him? Does what I know of His character and power lend credence to His claims even when, at times, my immediate personal circumstances are painful? Do I have a solid foundation for the times when God seems distant? If I can reasonably validate that Christ is who He and his followers say He is, then I have an objective foundation that is independent of malleable, subjective, and emotional experience.
When I was a child, I believed certain things unconditionally that brought joy and excitement to my life for a time, but upon later investigation, I found them to be false. I had been easily mislead because I did not, nor could not at my young age, critically examine the evidence. Needless to say (and said with tongue in cheek), I can no longer believe in Santa Claus. Many are brought up in a ‘church-going family’, but upon leaving the safe, cloistered confines of home and entering into and increasingly post-Christian world, they find their belief system questioned. Because they may not be equipped with answers, because they may have never had their faith challenged, they may be left with limited options: they may they must either sacrifice their intellectual integrity and continue to believe blindly or they may feel they must abandon their faith. Even worse, they cannot answer sincere questions about our hope. Their ability to carry out of the Great Commission may be compromised.
Moving on to the first question, is there evidence for the resurrection? The short answer is yes. What, then, is the nature of this evidence and can the resurrection be proved? The nature of the evidence is circumstantial and, no, the resurrection cannot be proved. Proof lies only in the realm of mathematics. Neither can the scrutiny and verifiability of the scientific method be applied to the resurrection event due to the non-repeatable nature of history. What we can do, however, is apply the standards of historical analysis to the evidence regarding the resurrection of Christ.
Let us look at the consequence of claiming faith in Christ in the early years of the church. Indeed, it is the bold commitment of the first evangelists that speaks loudly to the veracity of the resurrection claims made for the Messiah. To be intellectually honest, we must admit that we do not have complete historical knowledge of the lives and deaths of all the apostles. Much is based on early church traditions, some of which is admittedly a bit ambiguous and fanciful in the details of, for example, martyrdom, though it seldom contains outright fabrication. We do know with reasonable certainty that Peter, for example, was crucified, upside down at his request, in . He did not think himself worthy to be crucified in the manner of his Savior. In the New Testament (Acts 12:2), the death of James is recorded. Herod has James killed by the sword, most likely beheaded. Matthew was martyred by in Ethiopia; he died from a sword wound. Bartholomew, known also as Nathanael, was martyred for his preaching in Armenia. He was flayed to death under the whip. Thomas, the doubter, was killed by a spear in India . He was on a missionary trip to establish a church. The great apostle Paul was tortured and beheaded by Nero in Rome in A.D. 67. Mark was dragged to his death behind horses on the streets of Alexandria, Egypt.
How did these men, finding, at the foot of the cross, their grand cause crushed, in ruins, summon the courage to die horrible deaths rather than recant their bold proclamation? The remarkable transformation was the result of something the happened in time, in history. They did not die for a story they knew to fabricated. They did not die over a cleverly devised myth. They were eyewitness to the risen Savior.
I do not think it is hyperbolic to assert that there is as much evidence for the resurrection of Christ as there is for most any event in ancient, and not so ancient, history. I have only scratched the surface of the supporting evidence the historicity of the resurrection of Christ Jesus with this modest essay. Given the weight of evidence available for the resurrection for those who wish to examine it, I believe the resistance to the supporting evidence is more one of presuppositions and personal bias than one of absolute intellectual tension. I believe the cross is an offense to the world in that the cross convicts the world of its sin. The crux of the matter is this: what do we do with this undeniable Easter Event?
- 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV)
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
- 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (ESV)
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
