Latest / Harvest After Sunday / How Can We Know the Resurrection Happened?: Theology Q&A
Transcript
- Harvest Media: to Harvest After Sunday podcast. I'm Natalie and I'm your host and I'm here with Stefan Wilson, pastor of preaching and teaching. ⁓ And today we're going be answering one of the most important questions for believers. Did Jesus ⁓ really rise from the ⁓ We are approaching Easter. ⁓ is ⁓ a huge ⁓ us as believers, I mean, our faith hinges on the resurrection. ⁓ A wonderful celebration. Sunday for us, but can we know the resurrection actually happened? Yeah, I think that there is an assumption ⁓ of the the truth of the resurrection for a lot of believers. But I put truth in air quotes ⁓ because unfortunately in our current cultural milieu, truth means different things to different people. And so we can actually diminish without realizing it the truth of the resurrection if we don't treat it as historical truth, an actual historical event that happened. And so I think there's value for believers in talking about the historicity of the resurrection, the actual historical event that happened, that it's verifiable. Because if we're not careful, we'll have this idea of our faith that it's an aspirational faith, that these things are wonderful truths. And I hope that it works out this way in the present it at least makes me feel better that's aspirational that's it's about how I'm feeling it's about what I hope to be true I'm not really certain about it that is certainly the case for a lot of religions that don't have the historical backbone that that Christianity has for example Buddhism though vaguely linked to a historical figure about 2,000 years ago Even proponents of buddhism will acknowledge it doesn't have to be historically true It doesn't matter if buddha ever existed or if he was a figment of our imagination. That's a direct quote from the buddhists now That actually does matter because if he didn't actually exist, then his teachings aren't true. And so we do need to have some kind of historical validity to what we're going to say we believe. Yet I don't hear people pushing back on the historical accuracy of Buddhism like I do. Was Jesus even real? Right. I that's what we hear. Right. And so. because there are religions that are not pushed against, ⁓ though they lack historical validity. Because then you'll get the pushback on the historical validity of Christianity that can actually be a stumbling block for the Christian Like ⁓ my god, maybe this isn't maybe this isn't true And and like you said there there is a common objection that Jesus didn't even exist and So if we're going to talk about the resurrection then what we should do is we should talk about if we if we can know that it actually happened because Christianity claims to be a historical The writings of Scripture themselves claim to be historical writings. The authors of Scripture claim that these things really happened. They appeal to witnesses as validation that the things that they're writing actually happened. So we need to do our part to validate it historically so that we can believe it confidently. Absolutely, especially as you're encouraging us to invite people around Easter time to be thinking and fortifying our around thinking that this these are historical events and we can be prepared to talk about that to our unbelieving friends and family members ⁓ this week as we prepare to invite them to celebrate with us. Right and and because like you said at the beginning this is one of the most important questions for Christians we we can take that one step further and say this is quite possibly the most important question in the history of the world. Did a crucified man who claimed to be God walk out of a grave three days later? Because if that's true, it means everything he said was true. Everything he said about who he is is true. And everything he says about you and I and how we are going to engage with him at judgment is also true. And if he didn't walk out of the grave, that means everything he said was false. At least the things that he said that were unique claims to himself. And now he becomes nothing more than a teacher, akin to any other teacher in any other religion. So this question really is like, it is ⁓ the make or break of Christianity and I would argue of the very direction of the world. So I think it's probably helpful then to start with with the first question of did Jesus actually exist? Because if he didn't ⁓ and right in spoiler, we believe he did. ⁓ but if he didn't the question of the resurrection doesn't matter You will hear people say, ⁓ well Jesus was a myth He didn't really exist He is no different than zeus or any of the other greek gods in the pantheon and I'll just, I'll state it upfront, that is an incredibly academic and intellectually irresponsible statement to make. ⁓ Here are the facts that even atheist historians agree on. There was a man named Jesus who was called the Christ, which means anointed or Messiah. who was a traveling preacher in the first century region of Galilee in Judea, who was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth. He had amassed for himself a large following. He had a small group of devoted disciples who represented him after his death. And he was claimed by eyewitnesses to have performed many miracles. And his followers believed that he was the Christ and the son of God and claimed that he rose from the dead. Atheist historians will agree all of those things are true. important for people to understand? really the claim that Jesus never existed is an ignorant claim. If a historian who rejects Christianity is gonna say all those things are true about the historical Jesus, then to say, well Jesus didn't actually exist. frankly, is saying more about the person who says that than Jesus. It's saying, ⁓ you don't actually know the historical data that supports this. Because all of that, all of that that I said does not take into account the four gospels of scripture. ⁓ wow. All Based on other texts. Other historical sources that are outside of Christianity. All of it. writings of Josephus and other first century Jewish historians, ⁓ Sittonius and Tacitus, who were Roman historians. Those are, there are a myriad of what are called extra-biblical sources, sources outside of the Bible. that validate all of those claims. Now, if we look at the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as what they claim to be, historical eyewitness testimonies of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, now it is an airtight case of the historicity of Christ. So, yes, Jesus did in fact exist. ⁓ Yes, all of those things are true. Now where the atheist historian and the Christian disagree is who Jesus is, his identity, and what he actually did. ⁓ ⁓ the other historical facts I forgot to mention are the fact that he was tried under Pontius Pilate. Okay. That he was crucified on a Roman cross, specifically crucified on a Roman cross. And I already mentioned this one, but it just follows the crucifixion. He was believed by his followers to have resurrected. Now that is important because that now leads into how we talk about whether we can know the resurrection happened. he was crucified on a Roman cross. So everything that goes into what crucifixion was and what the outcome of crucifixion was, we have to embrace. And there is a claim by his followers that he rose from the dead. And there is... there are claims from multiple extra biblical sources of the belief in his resurrection from the dead. So you not only have the claim that he rose from the dead in scripture, you also have the claim outside of scripture as well. So already we have a historical event that is being attested to by some as happening. And Paul says in first Corinthians 15 that Jesus appeared to Peter then to the 12 then to over 500 people some of whom are still alive today Which at the time he was writing the time that he was writing the account, which is to say if you don't believe me go talk to them Wow Okay, we have a historical claim about a historical person ⁓ that we can historically verify. The question now is, okay, so if Jesus really existed and and all of these facts about his life and death and the claim of his resurrection are attested to by things outside of the Bible and are agreed upon by even the most atheist of historians Well, then what can we do? to actually be able to know if it happened or not and The way that we do that is what we would do with any other claim of a historical event. It's called falsifiability. We would take the claim and we would falsify it. ⁓ And so it's worth defining the term. Yes, please do. Falsifiability is a common term in scientific discovery and investigation. To falsify something is to test the claim to essentially see if you can prove it false. OK. So let's imagine we want to somebody makes the claim. You make the claim that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. which is true, like we know that's true. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. Well, I might not believe you. I might think that water boils at a different temperature. So how would I falsify it? I would try boiling it at a different temperature. We would go to sea level. and I would take my pot of water and a burner and a thermometer and I would see if I could boil it at 150 or if I could boil it at 175 or 200. And then I would maybe see, I, does it not boil until 220? And what's gonna happen? It's gonna boil at 212. In trying to prove it false, I actually proved your claim true. Okay. Makes sense. So how do we, how do we falsify the resurrection? going to do that with the resurrection. do it. So there are really three ways that we can falsify the resurrection. We can say, they, the disciples stole the body and just claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. If we can prove that the disciples stole the body and claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, then that means Jesus did not rise from the dead. We proved some, we proved the claim that shows the resurrection is false. Therefore the resurrection is false. We can say that Jesus never actually died on the cross. that they thought he rose from the dead, but in fact, he just passed out on the cross. They buried him thinking he was dead. He kind of came to and they saw him because he had then come out of the tomb and was actually just still alive. He never actually died. If we can prove that that happened, then Jesus did not raise from the dead. Third option ⁓ is one that's put forward by ⁓ quite a few historians, especially in like the higher education and research. that the claim that Jesus rose from the dead was actually hallucination because of the excess grief that people experienced as a result of his death. So you think about someone, you lose a loved one and you're hurting so much and there are just moments where you think you hear them. You think maybe you saw them at the store. We understand that. We have that experience. Well, we can just project that back onto the first century. That's probably what was happening. If we can prove that, proves that the resurrection didn't happen. And if the resurrection didn't happen, you and I are still dead in our trespasses and sins. The gospel is void of any power. And in Paul's words, we above all men are to be pitied because we've given up what we could have had in this life for a lie. So this is no small thing. ⁓ And so, you know, maybe the listener is getting nervous right now because like, they're like, I don't know, those sound like three pretty good explanations. It isn't just an alternative explanation. It's that the alternative explanation has to be better. The alternative explanation has to prove that the claim that the resurrection happened is false because it's a better explanation. A lot of people will say, well, you know, there's this alternative explanation. Therefore that must be true. Well, it being an alternate doesn't validate truth whatsoever. It's be better. Okay, first one, disciples stole the body, told everybody that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, that's what the religious leaders in the gospels tell the Roman soldiers to say, and they pay them off. Just tell them they stole the body. Wouldn't they get in trouble for that? Well, yeah. Yeah, ⁓ punishable by death. Yeah, by the way, yeah, none of them were Yeah, there's no there's no record. There's no record of of Because of this belief in jesus resurrection the roman guards were executed We have no record of that additionally we have good reason to believe that the disciples themselves were cowards at the death of Jesus, not emboldened by the death of Jesus because they all fled. ⁓ Peter denied Jesus, they were hiding. When Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them, they were hiding in a room. they abandoned him when he was arrested. It seems strange that a group of men who would abandon Jesus because of his arrest would then because of his death be emboldened to no less confront multiple Roman guards who are armed and who are trained, overpower them, steal the body, And overpower them so well that the guards themselves would lie about what happened I don't that's not a better likely. That's not a better explanation. It's certainly an explanation but while While it works if you deny the supernatural If you have a worldview that automatically writes off miraculous events, then that's a, that's a sufficient explanation. but there is a, there is an assumption that that person is already making that you don't have warrant to make. You don't have warrant to assume that, ⁓ that, miraculous events cannot happen. that option is out the window. They didn't steal the body because while it is another explanation, it's not a better one. we're trying to falsify the claim of the resurrection, that doesn't do it. Second one, Jesus didn't actually die. That's actually the claim that the Quran makes, that Jesus did not die on the cross, but that God supernaturally swapped the body of Judas with Jesus, and because Judas betrayed Jesus, it was Judas who died on the cross, not Jesus. That's an aside. We can talk about that on another podcast. But what I'm getting at is this is not a new idea. Many have claimed that Jesus did not actually rise or did not actually die so that they can explain away the resurrection. So in that example, it was someone else entirely that was crucified. Right. Or are some saying, no, was cursed. He was, you know, beaten and nailed to the cross, but didn't actually die. Right. Is that the Okay. Yeah, that's the more common one. Okay, I bring up the Quran just to say even 1500 years ago You had people who when confronted with the reality of the resurrection Had to find a way to explain it away in order to validate what they were claiming was true Muhammad had to explain it away in order to validate his claim of what truth was he had no choice but to explain away the resurrection because it really is the make or break of what is true. So the more common claim now is just, yeah, he was beaten, he was nailed to the cross, they thought he died, they put him in the tomb, he came out three days later and they thought he had resurrected. It's called the swoon theory. Jesus swooned on the cross, he passed out, didn't actually die. ⁓ There's a serious problem with that. One. Yeah, there's serious problems. One, the Roman government. had perfected execution to be as painful as it could possibly be, last for as long as it could possibly last, and be as definitive of a death as you could possibly have. It was dialed in. The imagery I think we're used to seeing circulated in church and in our Christian life is not even close to what an actual depiction of crucifixion would have been like. And if you have not explored studying that a bit and looking into that, you might not realize. And it seems horrific enough to be hanging on a cross by your hands and feet. And there are elements that we do talk about that are clearly painful and being beaten and the crown of thorns and all of these things. ⁓ But it's still a very cleaned up version from what it actually would have been like. And absolutely unsurvivable. Totally. So just to give an idea without going into detail for the sake of the queasy among us, ⁓ you were beaten with a cat of nine tails, which are leather straps that have rock and metal in them that when they would strike, they would then rip and it would expose so much tissue of your body. You were subject to incredibly grotesque physical effort in in moving from that beating up to the place of your crucifixion and then you were nailed to the cross in such a way where you would have to pull yourself up to even get a breath and and by the way, you're pulling your beaten body against a wooden cross that is horrendously painful just to get a breath and you would hang there until you expired. Now that process by itself Many died before they even got to the cross because it was so brutal So the claim Jesus just appeared to have died first of all ⁓ If the if the person on the cross didn't die the one who hung him there did So that in in ancient rome the executioner His penalty for not executing a criminal was to be crucified So he made sure to do his job Which is why at the end of the crucifixion of christ they come with the spear and pierce their sides to ensure we're told to ensure that they died So that they could be taken down Well, so obviously the idea that he didn't die is patently false because they ensured that they did die. But let's just for the sake of argument that he in fact didn't die. What is going to be his physical state three days later? Is he going to be able to roll a stone away and appear and talk and eat? No, he would have succumbed to his wounds many times over at that point. So the claim that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, that doesn't work. If we're trying to falsify the resurrection, if we're trying to see, is there a way to show that this thing is, is false? That doesn't work. So already two ways where we might try to say the resurrection was false are actually proving it to be true. They're actually validating, no this thing may have actually happened. Okay well what about the third option? It's called the mass hallucination hypothesis that so many people were so grieved that they hallucinated seeing Jesus. Can we just acknowledge that for 500 people to have the same hallucination that in and of itself would be a miracle? The same hallucination. ⁓ that by itself would be miraculous. And not to mention the fact that their stories would not line up. And because all of them were still alive, when the disciples wrote the accounts of the resurrection, there would have been all kinds of people saying that didn't happen. That's not how I remember it happening. Yet we have no record of that. So we... in pursuing truth, pursuing historical truth like we should with any historical claim, we have sought to falsify the historical claim. Let's give a different explanation that shows that thing didn't really happen. As we have given different explanations that would suggest that the resurrection didn't happen. What are we left with? We're left with the only reasonable explanation for the claim that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead after his historical life and his historical death The only reasonable explanation is that he really did rise from the dead And then when we take the gospel accounts and we look at their at the four resurrection accounts and though they differ in the details that they tell when you put them all together, they tell a single cohesive story. And those disciples that deserted Jesus were emboldened to die for him. ⁓ As they went out with the message of the kingdom of heaven. Reinforce that the historical claim of the resurrection is true. It really didn't happen. I Just because you're willing to die for something doesn't make it true But I don't I mean, I don't know about you I've never met someone ever Who was willing to die? For what they knew was a lie So if the disciples stole the body as some have claimed, how do you explain the radical transformation of going from being scared to even be with Jesus to be willing to die for Jesus if they knew that it was all a lie? There is no explanation for that. So when we take all that together, we can say with certainty, not only was Jesus a real historical figure, he really died in human history and he really rose from the dead in human history. And there are so many things that. We believe that do require faith and are somewhat mysterious, but how amazing and incredible that God would perfectly ordain that we could have historical proof that supports these claims to reinforce our faith and tell us more about what this means for us as believers this claim that Jesus rose from the dead. How does it give us confidence? Yeah, so I think this is very similar to last week when we talked about Palm Sunday. And I said that we have a historical moment that we can look back to as we look ahead to our hope in the future and So if we look now we have another historical moment that we can look back to and that is the resurrection of Jesus as We look ahead to our hope in the future Well, first of all The fact that Jesus rose from the grave says that he really is who he said he was. He is the son of God. He is the coming king. He is the Messiah. He did come to save us from our sins. Who he is, is true because of what he did and the fact that he did something that no other human can do. He rose from the grave. With that, means that he also isn't just who he said he is, but he also did what he came to do. So if Jesus did not live a sinless life, his death would have been for his own sins. His mortality, his punishment on the cross would have been for his own sins. But because he rose from the grave, death could not hold him. What that means is that he really did live a sinless life. Like that the the phrase that we use a lot is that the resurrection vindicates his sinless life. It proves that it is true. Because he really did live a sinless life. That means that he truly provides perfect righteousness But it's not just that he lived a sinless life because Paul says and in ⁓ 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 That he took on our sin in such a way to be identified with it So when he was on the cross, he was legitimately in our place So if he didn't pay for every one of our sins, he would still be in the grave because that sin is now on him. So his resurrection proves that he really did live perfect righteousness and his resurrection proves that he really did perfectly substitute himself in your place in my place. So our sins really are forgiven. Like they really are. It's not aspirational. There is a moment in history that we can point to to say, because of that moment, I know I'm forgiven. I don't have to hope I am. I can know that I am. And then because he really rose from the grave, that means that the gift of new life and eternal life that he promises really is ours. That I will be with him for eternity, that I will be in glory with him, that I am a new creation and I am going to see him face to face with a glorified body that will never see decay and there will never be any pain because he really did rise from the grave. It's not just a historical event. It's a historical event. that now validates all of the claims that the Bible says about all of the promises that find their yes in Christ and receive our amen. That's what Paul says. In him, all of the promises of God find their yes and receive our amen. They're all fulfilled in Jesus and we say yes. Amen to that. You have secured all the promises of God for us because you rose from the grave and our lives get to live in agreement. with everything that you've accomplished. ⁓ For those that want to go deeper on some of the historical evidence that's out there because there's so much I mean we could have done a 10 part series digging in here, but there are great resources that are out there Do you want to point people towards some of those if they have more questions or if they're still? Curious or hesitant about some of the claims that you made here today and they want to look into those facts Yeah, so kind of the gold standard is the case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I think it's a movie now, too ⁓ It's a great story behind it. He was trying to prove Christianity false because his wife had become a Christian and he was an atheist and he was a journalist and so he's like I know how to uncover the truth and sure enough he did uncover the truth and now he's a Christian. He wrote a book called The Case for Christ which just it gives the historical argument for why the resurrection and the truth of Christ ⁓ is true. Then there's a guy named Gary Habermas. He is not super well known, but he has devoted his life to research and the historicity of the resurrection ⁓ and using scripture and historical data to corroborate the claim of the resurrection. he wrote, a book called a case for the resurrection. And then his four set ⁓ is, the historicity of the resurrection arguments against the resurrection, historical proofs of the And then the, ⁓ the theological implications of the resurrection. So it's kind of like, if you really want the picture, get people a taste today but they could really do a deep dive. Yeah and I think that really the thing that I would say is regardless of whether you pick up one of those books or if now you just sit down and read the resurrection accounts in the Gospels there is reason to be confident like objectively confident. resurrection of Jesus Christ really did happen in human history that the truths of scripture really are true because Christ's life death and resurrection validated and that the world may oppose Jesus Resurrection proves that he is king and Lord and you and I can live today in the confidence of that regardless of what may come knowing that eternal life with him forever is guaranteed to us because he rose and We belong to him by faith. We can know the resurrection Did happen my faith and hope and confidence have been fortified just in our conversation today and I'm that for our church family as well and I'm so excited to be together on Easter Sunday celebrating the resurrection of Christ together. Thanks for joining us for the Harvest After Sunday podcast where we help you grow into the image of Christ by applying the truths of his word for his mission. We'll see you Sunday.