By: Justin Angelos | November 7, 2022
Skeptics of the resurrection will often say something like, “what is so unique about the resurrection of Jesus? There were lots of resurrections in the Bible–like Lazarus.” Dr. Sean McDowell argues for and makes a distinction between Lazarus being raised from the dead and Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. There has only been one resurrection from the dead, and that was Jesus Christ; His resurrection is the first fruits of what is yet to come.[1]
Objection to the Resurrection: Resurrection vs. Resuscitation
First, resurrection is not a resuscitation; Lazarus was not resurrected; he was resuscitated and died again. Second, resurrection also does not mean some sort of zombification; resurrection is not walking dead. So, what does resurrection mean? First, Jesus was raised in immortality and glory; resurrection is rising to life from death with complete transformation; it is a permanent transformation, a body that does not die again, a glorified body that all believers in Christ will experience at the end time.[2]
Jesus’ resurrection is the complete reversal of sin and death, and the earliest Christians believed in a future hope in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. New Testament historian N.T Wright explains the Greek words in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. “He was raised” is in the Greek perfect tense, which indicates an ongoing result “of a one-off event, in this case, the permanent result that Jesus is now the risen Messiah.”[3]
Objection to the Resurrection: Was the Resurrection a Late Development?
Another objection to the resurrection is “belief in the resurrection is the result of later development over a long period, Jesus did not really rise from the dead.” One of the most convincing historical facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the creed:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[ that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (1 Cor 15:3-7 NIV)
Dr. Michael Licona argues how incredibly valuable and important this creed is to historians.[4] It’s highly valuable due to how early this creed is, this creed predates the letter itself. Licona argues that, if Jesus died in AD 30 then this creed was written within a very short time after Jesus’ death, mostly likely within a few short years. It is believed that Paul wrote this letter within twenty-five years of the death of Jesus.[5]
Paul starts this letter with, “For what I have received I have passed on to you as of first importance.” (1 Cor 15:3) Paul receives this creed and then passes it on around AD 55 to the church in Corinth. Another element to consider is, Paul’s conversion. Paul went from being a persecutor of Christians to being an apostle of Jesus Christ. These two facts that are widely accepted by historians, show that belief in the resurrection started very early and not as the result of later development like skeptics claim. There are good historical reasons for believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead three days after His death. For a more comprehensive explanation for the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, read Michael Licona’s book, “The Resurrection of Jesus A New Historiographical approach”.
About the Author
Seattle native Justin Angelos brings a passion for evangelism and discipleship along with theology and apologetics. He has studied at Biola University and Liberty University. Justin focuses on providing help for those who suffer from emotional and anxiety issues.
Notes
[1] Sean McDowell, Resurrection in Ancient Paganism and the Old Testament, Biola University lecture October 16th, 2022, “In defense of the Resurrection”.
[3] N.T Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 321.
[4] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IN: IVP Academic, 2010), 223.
[5] Ibid, 224.
Resources
Licona, Michael The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, A New Historiographical Approach, Downers Grove, IN: IVP Academic, 2010.
McDowell, Sean Resurrection in Ancient Paganism and the Old Testament, Biola University lecture October 16th, 2022, “In defense of the Resurrection”.
Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.
Copyright, 2022. BellatorChristi.com.
I would need some clarification from you:
Can skeptics be reasonable to use 1st Cor 11:23 (Paul received historical truth “from the Lord”) to justify opining that because he uses identical terminology in 15:2-3 about the “creed”, he is therefore claiming he received the creed’s “from the Lord”?
If not, what rule of historiography, hermeneutics, exegesis, grammar, context or common sense is the skeptic violating when making the above-referenced argument?
We can answer that. But first, you didn’t answer the question we presented to you. What solid evidence can you provide that proves that the women did not believe what Jesus said prior to the resurrection outside of conjecture?
-Dr. Brian Chilton
First, it doesn’t matter how early Paul’s “creed” is: the other party that he is claiming to have gotten the gospel from is not “the other apostles”, but “the Lord”. See 1st Cor. 11:23 where Paul uses terminology identical to 15:2-3 and yet refuses to credit human communication for his knowledge of what Jesus said at the last supper. See also Galatians 1:11-12 in which Paul explicitly denies that he ever got his gospel from any other person. You will trifle that he could get the gist of the gospel by revelation and have the apostles fill in the details later, but Paul doesn’t provide enough detail to justify pretending that this is how it was, and Acts 16:9 apparently indicates that yes, Paul could get all the historical details solely by divine telepathy. So I cannot possibly be unreasonable to take his word in the absolute sense given that he doesn’t qualify it, therefore he meant that he never got ANYTHING about the gospel from any other human being. Paul’s less than embracing attitude toward the “pillars” in Galatians 2 doesn’t really mesh well with a presumption that he would have admitted depending on the pillars for anything at all.
Of course Paul got nearly all of his gospel information from other people, no doubt, but right now I’m not concerned with what’s true, but with what Paul meant. If he meant to convey that he didn’t get any of his gospel info from other people, you will be stuck with that problematic implication because you don’t have the option to say Paul was a liar.
Second, it doesn’t matter how early you date the “creed”, the fact that the women go to the tomb not expecting Jesus to be raised renders me reasonable to assume that nothing Jesus did before the crucifixion convinced them that his resurrection predictions were the least bit serious. It is highly unlikely that they believed his miracles were genuinely supernatural, but still, somehow, they never quite “got it”. No, “they never quite got it” is just an ad hoc belief on your part to explain a problem away, it isn’t like your explanation has biblical authority. By contrast, it makes perfect sense to say that the reason the women expect no risen Christ as they travel to the tomb on the third day is because Jesus never did anything before that point to convince them that his miracles were genuinely supernatural, i.e., the gospel authors are like any typical witness: sometimes they say something indicating that not every part of their story is the truth. Sorry, I don’t believe everything asserted in a single source. I stay open to the possibility that a single witness will mix truth and error. That cannot be rendered unreasonable merely because you take a high view of Scripture.
Third, if spiritually alive people think Habermas’ minimal facts approach is a bad idea (e.g., Lydia McGrew), you would be foolish to expect spiritually dead skeptics to think any more highly of that approach.
Fourth, I don’t understand why you leap so quickly from “he arose” to “it remains relevant for us today”. You are perfectly well aware that many Christians give up the faith because they got tired of trying to convince themselves that God had higher mysterious reasons for answering their prayers in a way that seemed indistinguishable from the way a non-existent god would answer prayers. Even assuming Jesus rose from the dead, the passing of 2,000 years renders us reasonable to demand that you show it remains as relevant to us today as it allegedly was in the first century. But you also probably know the dispensational and eschatological hell-hole you’ll create if you try to assert that anything in the NT “applies to us today”. Spiritually dead people probably shouldn’t worry about a biblical thing until the spiritually alive people stop giving the world contradictory messages about what God wants for modern society.
Thank you for your comments, Barry.
First, it actually does matter that the contents of the creed are early. Earlier material lessens the probability of corruption. You then leave the topic to discuss Paul, which is a different issue than the dating of the creed.
Your second point is mere speculation that is unwarranted. What led you to this conclusion?
Third, methodologies stand or fall on their own accord. To think that something can only be true if accepted 100% by all people is to set oneself up to never being able to accept anything as true. By the way, the fact that the MFA is based on such a large percentage of scholarly consensus is actually strengthened by your desire to have consensus.
Fourth, the resurrection’s validity wholeheartedly impacts people from all generations. So, I am not sure why you would go there.
Any other comments I will leave to the author of this piece. But I do appreciate your feedback, and I hope you have a blessed day!
Blessings,
Dr. Brian Chilton
Hello Barry,
thank you for reading my article and taking the time to comment and share your thoughts.
Paul states that he went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and James and that he was there with them for 15 days.(Galatians 1:17-20) This is where I believe Paul received this creed, and this is believed to be very early. This is very important for a number of reasons. I listed a book by Michael Licona, I think you might find it very interesting. Also I you recommend NT Wrights book “The resurrection of the Son of God” “He was raised” the syntax and grammar of Greek means that, the resurrection is something on going, it is a future hope that all believers have when all believers received a resurrected glorified body.
thank you again, and blessings to you.
Justin
[…] Source: Objections to the Resurrection […]