Biblical Essays
THE RESURRECTION
Introduction
Sadly, many lose their faith in college resulting from a subtle psychological pressure. It is all right to believe in Jesus Christ as a good and wise teacher, elevating Him on an equal plane with Mohammed (founder of the Islamic faith); with Gautama Buddha (prince of India; founder of Buddhism); and with Confucius (actually more of a political philosopher), whose sayings affect so much of China – in short, with any respectable founder of a religion. Though its beginning is not based on the teaching of a specific founder, still, as India’s oldest and largest religion, Hinduism is usually also studied as a major religion of the world, on a level equal with Christianity and other world-religions. It quickly becomes apparent that pressure can easily be applied to college students in a variety of ways through a study of world-wide religions and religious founders.
A student can put Jesus in that category and dispense with Him as a “good and wise teacher,” be accepted and receive intellectual wings. But to firmly hold to the belief that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God and super-natural, often creates a psychological pressure that many simply cannot withstand.
Some portly or suave, slick-coifed tamed evangelist-looking professor tells students how all religions started, making an oblique reference to the sixteen crucified saviors, and forever the student has this ecumenical approach to religion – the religion of no religion – because all religions have “the same root.” That subtly psychological pressure comes at young students as though they are not intelligent until they release their so-called primitive attitude toward Christ as the one and only supernatural, divine Son of God, accepting Him as but another expression; another founder in the stream of common religiousness, as a “good and wise teacher.”
The only problem with the intellectual substitute for a faith in Christ, i.e., a “good and wise teacher,” is that He cannot be either one unless He is both. In other words, to be good, one has to tell what is true. A person can be insane and honestly believe something that is dead wrong, and still be good – but not wise. To be wise, one has to be right; to be good, one has to be honest. The Jesus of these subtle college professors could be good but not wise; wise but not good; but not both. Why?
No matter the historical source used for Jesus, we must go to His sayings and actions in order to call Him good and wise. And, attached to every one of the historical records where Jesus is encountered doing something or saying something will be a saying by Christ or a self-image projection of Himself that precludes calling Him “good and wise,” because we find the following in every source:
He thought He was perfect
It does not matter whether He was perfect, He thought He was. Carlysle says the greatest of all sins is to be conscious of none. There is nothing as despicable as a person who thinks he has never made a mistake. That conscious, self-righteous, perfectionist image is not something we respond to, because the wisdom of mankind combines in the knowledge that nobody is perfect.
The issue is not whether He was; we just do not make saints of people who think they are perfect. The record of people used by God goes throughout the whole Old Testament: “I am not worthy of the least of Thy mercies.” “Who am I that I should lead forth the children of Israel?” “I am but a child. I cannot speak.”
The criterion of acceptance by God and acceptance by man is always that conscious attitude of imperfection. Holy men are aware of the distance they are from God. There was only one man in the whole kingdom who saw God; in the year King Josiah died, Isaiah was the only man who saw God sitting on a throne on high and lifted up – this means Isaiah was above everybody. Yet, his first words were: “Woe is me; I am undone.”
We simply do not make saints of people who think they are perfect – but Jesus thought He was. Everywhere we meet Him, He projects that. He judges other people: “whitened sepulchers;” “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” He looks at the most righteous people of the day and puts them down. The reason that no man ought to judge, and the reason any who judge should have this sensitive conscience, is that it is hard to judge our fellowman because we know way down deep that we have the same faults.
But Jesus never had any sense of imperfection. He changed the Law, saying, “You have heard it said unto you, but behold I say,” and then, self-righteousness with a consciousness of moral perfection says, “Think not that I have come to destroy the Law I am come to fulfill it.”
There is one personal exception, when the rich young ruler came to Him and said, “Good Master.” He stopped him and said, “Why callest thou Me good?” Those talking about Jesus not thinking He was perfect point to that verse; they miss the rest of it, because Jesus said to him, “Wait a minute. Do not come and call Me good rabbi, good teacher. If you are going to call Me good, also recognize that only God can be good, so do not tap the appellation on to Me without recognizing that I am also God.”
He had that sense of moral perfection; no sense of a moral inadequacy is ever exhibited anywhere in His behavior.
He seated all authority in Himself
He even said He had all authority: “You build on what I say, you build on a rock. You build on anything else, you build on sand. All authority in heaven and earth is given to Me.”
Again, pointing to the other illustration used, He said concerning the law (generations of approval had been placed on it): “You have heard it said unto you, but behold I say...” He pronounced judgment without a flicker.
We do not make saints of people like that. We ask the criteria, “On what do you base this authority?” Jesus based it on Himself: “Behold, I say unto you...”
He put Himself at the center of the Religious Universe
He went further and put Himself at the center of the religious universe. Jesus did not come preaching a doctrine or a truth apart from Himself. He said, “I am the way. I am the truth. I am the life. By Me if any man enter in...I am the door of the sheepfold. He that hateth not father, mother, wife, children, brother, sister, yea, and his own life also, taketh up his cross and come after Me, cannot be My disciple.”
He made our relationship with Him, putting Him the center of the religious universe, the determinative of all religious benefits.
He talked of the Eternal from the inside
There is a certain frame of reference of familiarity with one’s home; that’s the frame of reference Jesus projects when He talks about eternity. Matter-of-factly, He says, “I am going back. I am going to prepare a mansion for you. And after a while, I will come back and get you and take you there.”
He would die, a ransom
He said something is wrong with the whole world; something that could only be set right by Him dying, a ransom. Jesus stated this at a time when they knew the meaning of a ransom. It was what one paid to restore a lost inheritance, to deliver someone destined to death because of their error. It was the price paid to redeem from the consequences of falling short, doing something wrong, losing an inheritance – the ransom restored one to that which had been lost. Jesus said the whole world was lost, and He came to die and pay the price of ransom, to redeem them.
He would raise again
He said that He would raise again (there was more than that, but here we selectively choose only a few), that when He died, He would rise from the dead. Suppose for a moment that the Biblical professor you respect most of all, spoke at your congregation, and said, “All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me.” No doubt you would think, “He means that into my hands has been delivered this Word of God to preach with authority.”
However, if he went on and said, “Here I am Father. I have done all you sent me to do. There are no flaws in me, no imperfections. The law does not bother me, because I have fulfilled it,” and projected a perfection like Jesus did, then no doubt you would begin to back up and look with amazement. And if he went on, “Your eternal destiny is dependent upon putting me in the center of your life and making me your master,” you might feel like interrupting him.
But he continues (not in spiritual terms, but expecting to be believed): “Before Abraham was I was. You know; that guy that came out of Ur; I was there. I saw Satan when he was cast out before Adam was ever born.”
And then he talks about heaven with a familiarity like we speak of home; and says that he was somehow a ransom. By now you are no doubt seriously considering leaving.
We should keep in mind that this is the only kind of Christ we find walking around on the stage of history. Other religious founders cannot be found doing this. For instance: Buddha never thought he was perfect; he struggled with the essence of tanya, which was their meaning for that corrupt desire that produces sin. He sought the way of the sensual release; he sought the way of the aesthetic yogi, and neither one worked. He came to the eight-fold path that brought him into a trance-like state where he lost conscious identity with this life, called nirvana. And when he came out of that state, he offered those who followed him the eight-fold path, and all he would say is, “It worked for me. Try it; it will work for you.”
He never thought all authority was seated in him. Instead, he told his disciples (and it is part of their tri-part basket of scriptures) that he was not worthy to lead them. All he left them was the way that worked for him. No assumption of authority seated in him. He never thought of himself as the center of the religious universe.
Mohammed never thought he was perfect. He was God’s (Allah’s) prophet. He had visions of eternity that impressed the desert man, but he never claimed to have been there. He never died a ransom for anybody. He had a criteria for authority: God revealed it to him in a vision. Jesus never pointed to a vision like the prophet who would say, “The Lord said . . .” Jesus said, “I say . . .”
Confucius did a logical analysis of society, and he pointed to that external analysis as his authority.
None of these leaders made themselves the center of the religious universe, seated authority on themselves, had a consciousness of perfection about themselves, claimed an identity with authority before and after their temporary stay here on earth. None of these traits are attached to them.
With Jesus, we have what C.S. Lewis called the “startling alternate.” Either He thought these things were true, but was not smart enough to know it is impossible for a man to make these claims, and thus He could not be wise, or He was wise in knowing these things were not true, but, because of self-serving motives, He was capable of duping His followers into believing that about Him, and thus he was not good. Here is the conclusion: Those who say Jesus was a “good and wise teacher” reveal they have never really taken the time to encounter the only Christ that ever walked the stage of history.
We must view Christ as either one who considered Himself of the order of a poached egg, or we take Him for what He says He is; and if He is God, then He is perfect, authority does rest in Him, He is the center of the religious universe, and He did have the qualities necessary to die as a ransom for the whole world. He did have a knowledge of eternity, and He will raise again.
We cannot put Jesus in the “good and wise” bland teacher package and forget about Him. He is either a nut or a fake, or He is what He claimed to be. The issue revolves around this face of history. To some who wanted a sign Jesus said, “I will give you one.” There is only one guaranteed sign on which faith can be built. God has apparently gone beyond this guarantee, but the only sign that God guaranteed to vindicate His truth was the sign of Jonah, interpreted by Jesus to be the death and resurrection of Christ.
At one point in the vast flow of history, a ‘fact’ emerges. God deigned to move into this tent of human flesh, fulfill the law that it might become incarnate, chose then to die in our place as the price of redemption, namely the fulfilled law that He might raise again and adopt us into a family with His new life without the burden of the law, that was but a school teacher to teach us our need of God’s delivering power.
That He moved onto the stage of history is the claim of Christianity, and He vindicated Himself with a fact that can be analyzed.
It is a fact there is no such thing as historic certainty. Historic certainty requires every conceivable piece of evidence be present. To have historic certainty, that which we can conceive as possible evidence must be present. The moment an event has past, we have lost the eye-witness ability to see it. Cameras help, but there is an element gone. Therefore, by definition historic certainty is relative. All one can hope for is psychological certainty, where exposure to the available relevant facts of history produces a reaction psychologically, and that reaction is impossible not to have.
Any smart attorney knows that in a courtroom there are thoughts he occasionally wants the jury to hear that are certain to bring rebuke from the judge. And when the judge rebukes him, he says, “Yes, your honor,” and plays a meek role. He knows exactly what he is doing. He knows that when the judge pontifically looks at the jury and says, “Discard that from your consideration,” they cannot do so. They see, hear, feel, and have a reaction.
God vindicated His Son
Paul comes to Mars Hill; the philosophers are gathered there trying to consider all the gods, so worried they will miss one that they have a monument to the Unknown God. He seizes on that as a lever to talk about Christ. He says, “I will tell you who the Unknown God is,” and preaches Christ, whom he said God ordained by the resurrection. Paul said if there is no resurrection, our faith is vain, and we are found false witnesses of God, as we have testified of Him that He raised up the Christ.
The first message of the church was the one Peter preached on the day of Pentecost: “This Jesus whom ye know...” And he named the fact that they knew Him crucified. Then he testified of that which they did not know: “This Jesus hath God raised up of whom we all are witnesses,” and he introduced that vindicating fact. In one of his speeches, Paul says, “He was seen...” and he catalogues the witnesses, as many as more than five hundred brothers at once.
In those days, one could assemble eye-witnesses; not today. But like any other historic fact, from who wrote Shakespeare to Julius Caesar’s existence, we can look for the fact of history on which Christianity is based, namely:
Jesus came out of the tomb
If a professor came into a worship service, making claims about himself that Jesus made, no doubt we would suggest that he submit to psychoanalysis and be hospitalized – unless we could see a twinkle in his eyes, that he was putting us on – because no mortal man can make these claims.
But, if in the claims he said, “Slay me and in three days I will come out of the tomb and sail off into the blue,” and three days later he came out of the tomb and sailed off into the blue, then we would take another look at the professor, and we would need nothing else as a basis for our faith – not all the fancy philosophic trinitarian doctrines.
If we can find on the stage of history the One whose words we can spend our lives researching, who was perfect, the center of all authority, the center of the religious universe, and all of these things, including having redeemed us, raised and prepared mansions in eternity, that is all the God we need. We could start right there.
The issue: did He come out of the tomb?
We will not settle this issue by thinking about it; we research it. To research anything one must develop a foundation in facts. Most people are fuzzy-minded; they argue a resurrection did not occur, and anybody who says it did must be lying. Yet, we encourage researching other facts.
If one is going to ask, “Did the writer of this material complete it at home over a period of the last two months of 2012?” it must be assumed that the writer was here and wrote. One must assume that the writer’s home exists. One must assume that the last two months of 2012 came and went. We do not discuss that because we take certain things for granted. But, before we begin arguing whether the writer wrote this material at home over a period of two months, let us at least agree that it was written. We do not have to agree whether it is good or bad, but that the writer was here and his hand moved and wrote things. That is known as the frame of reference – that which is taken for granted.
If someone says: “I do not believe the writer was there,” then away with debating clocks. It is much easier to prove the writer was here (maybe not all there), than to prove how long it took to write the material, because one does not know when the writer began writing the material. When was the first sentence written? This is more debatable, but proving whether the writer was here or not is easier.
We need to approach the resurrection the same way. There are certain facts that have to be assumed before discussing the resurrection. One is did Jesus live at all? Why are we talking about whether He raised if we do not believe He lived? There was a time this was debated; but not much anymore. For purposes of today and any meaningful discussion of the resurrection, we must at least assume the following:
Fact 1 – That Jesus Lived
One may respond, “Since I am not sure He lived, do not give me that resurrection bit.” To those who do not believe that Jesus lived we can surely come to agreement that it is probably easier to prove that He lived somewhere sometime than that He died and rose again. This needs to be agreed; we should not get into an argument about the resurrection with somebody who does not believe Jesus lived. So, let us consider proving the easier task, and until that is crossed, do not proceed to the next one:
Fact 2 – That He Was Crucified
At the instigation of a certain group of Jewish leaders (all Jews were not to blame), at the hands of the Romans. The Romans carried out the execution; certain Jewish leaders instigated it. Unless one believes that, there is no sense going to the resurrection. The crucifixion is much easier to prove than the resurrection.
Fact 3 – That He Was Considered Dead
We use the word considered dead because a lot of people believe He recovered from the grave – resuscitated. He was considered dead: pierced with a sword, taken down from the cross, taken to a grave. Of course, Holy Blood, Holy Grail comes up with a concoction that He practiced this, and had people take Him to the grave knowing He was going to come out. The theory is that He practiced on Lazarus first. But, of course, Lazarus was stinking before He started practicing, but it is a nice theory. Some of the theories stretch the brain more than just accepting the resurrection, but at least He was considered dead.
Fact 4 – He Was Buried in a Known, Accessible Tomb
By accessible, we mean one could get to the tomb. One could not get in because of the rock and guards, but it was a known, accessible tomb.
Fact 5 – He Was Then Preached Raised
We are not at this time saying He raised, but He was preached raised, the tomb was empty, and He ascended. It is important to remember that the whole preachment included: empty tomb; raised from the dead; and ascending into heaven. That is the total message.
If one does not believe that He was preached, then we are doing it now through this written material. But He was preached early on. This is easier to prove to a non-believer than the resurrection.
Fact 6 – The Jewish Leaders Were More Interested in Disproving His Resurrection Than We Would Be Today
Considering it intellectually with a considerable amount of skepticism mixed in, common sense says that the Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion had more interest in disproving the resurrection than someone 2,000+ years removed, because the reputations; bread and butter; the very lives of those Jewish leaders were at stake.
If they instigated His crucifixion, accusing Him of trying to set up a kingdom and accusing Him of blasphemy, and all of a sudden it is true that He raised from the dead, they are going to be looking for new jobs. So, common sense says they had more psychological interest in disproving the theory, and would put themselves out considerably more than someone on an Easter Sunday would.
Fact 7 – The Disciples Were Persecuted
They were horribly persecuted because of this preaching, starting with those Jewish leaders who first persecuted them – first they called them liars, said they stole it away. The whole Book of Acts tells of the persecution for preaching the resurrection.
Centuries later, Christians in general became a target for the evils in the Roman Empire. They became scapegoats; punished for a variety of reasons, but every record agrees that the earliest persecutions could have been ended immediately if they would have stopped preaching the message of resurrection, ascension and miracles attached to Jesus. The disciples were persecuted because the reputations of certain Jewish leaders were at stake. Thus,
Fact 8 – The Tomb Was Empty
Common sense says that all this leads to this fact: If they had an extra interest because their livelihood was at stake, and if Jesus was buried in a known, accessible tomb, those certain Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion would have gone immediately to that tomb and discovered the body. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the tomb was empty.
For many centuries, the tomb was meaningless; lost to history because there was no body in it. Then, when the relic period began to grow, people became interested in His tomb and tried to find it – a tomb that for many centuries had had no interest because there was no body in it.
The religious world still argues over the classical site of the ancient historic churches, and most Protestants identify with Gordon’s tomb, just off the bus station below the escarpment of a rock called “Golgotha,” that has an Arab cemetery on top. The argument continues because the tomb was lost to history; and it was lost because there was no body in it.
These facts are easier to demonstrate than the resurrection, but unless these facts are accepted, one cannot deal with all the theories about the resurrection. For example, the preaching has been so effective that all through the centuries people have come up with theories to explain it. However, it is vital that those who preach constantly demonstrate that one does not have to park his/her brain at the door of the church-building upon entering.
“Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the word of God.” We cannot be made to believe, but if we expose ourselves to evidence, something happens inside and there will be a psychological reaction. Our basic quarrel with the majority of those denying the resurrection; who live a life style that pays no attention to it, is that they spent few hours of their life considering it.
If the resurrection of Christ is true, it is the center of the universe. If true, it is the central fact of history. One has to be a fool among all fools of mankind to not think it is worth at least thirty hours of study in a whole life. But there are many intelligent people in the world who have simply looked and come away convinced. That is why considerable time has been spent writing this essay. But, the preachments are so sincere in their nature that all kinds of theories have been broached. But, the theories will not fly if one assumes the above eight facts:
Theory 1 – The Disciples Stole the Body
Theory 2 – The Jewish Leaders Stole It
Theory 3 – The Roman Leaders Stole It
Theory 4 – The Women Went to the Wrong Tomb
After all, it was dark and they simply went to the wrong tomb. But, they believed He rose, and went out of the garden screaming and crying out, “We went and He was not there.” They went to the wrong tomb; they went to an empty one, waiting for somebody else.
Theory 5 – It Was All Hallucinations
It was just glorified day dreams. They were sincere; they believed that this happened because they had all these hallucinations.
Theory 6 – Resuscitation Theory
Jesus was crucified and considered dead. He was buried in a known tomb, but He was not dead. In the coolness of the tomb, He revived and came out wrapped in grave clothes. The guards were asleep, and He pushed that rock out of the way – here comes Frankenstein.
Theory 7 – The Disciples Lied
They made the whole thing up. They had bet on the wrong horse and simply could not live with it. So, they made up the whole story. It took them seven weeks to figure it out, and then they told it.
Theory 8 – It’s All True
They are telling exactly what they experienced and what they saw. Just as we got the “startling alternate” when considering the only Jesus in history, that He is either a madman, a nut, a faker, or He is what He said He was, which requires a definition of divinity – we have a “startling alternate” here, too.
In isolation, most of these theories sound good. The first theory (the disciples stole the body) – the Jewish leaders concocted themselves, but when we take these facts for granted, we are again forced to a “startling alternate.”
Most of us do not like or appreciate a self-righteous objective historian: “I am objective; I take no opinion.” However, in fact there is no such thing as a knowledgeable person who does not have an opinion – knowledge forces an opinion. Exposure to facts keeps one from being neutral. Knowledge forces an opinion, and when one studies the facts, there are only two options:
Option 1: The disciples lied
They stole the body (Theory 1), so they obviously lied (Theory 7).
Those certain Jewish leaders stole the body (Theory 2)? These facts preclude that: they were more concerned than anyone to disprove the preachment, so why would they make the tomb empty? And if they had, they would have said, “Wait a minute; we took His body from the tomb.” They could not even think of that story; they told the one about the disciples, but even if it were tenable, the disciples did not just preach an empty tomb and the resurrection.
They preached a seeming Jesus with Whom they partook; they preached the ascension with equal vigor. So even if the Jewish leaders’ stealing the body would explain the empty tomb, the disciples are still telling the add-ons of the encounters with the resurrected body and the ascension, so they are still making up a lot of the story – they lied.
Roman leaders took the body (Theory 3)? With the controversies in Jerusalem; with the contacts the Jewish leaders had with the Romans, enabling them to get the crucifixion done, does anyone really think they would have exposed that the official Roman government took the body? But even if that explains the empty tomb, it does not alleviate the disciples’ responsibility for preaching a resurrected body which they encountered, and the ascension – so they are still lying.
The women went to the wrong tomb (Theory 4)? It was a known, accessible tomb. The Jewish leaders’ interest would have taken them to the known tomb, and all they had to do to explain the wrong tomb theory was go to the tomb where the body was – and this they would have done.
Hallucinations (Theory 5)? Actually, the empty tomb blasts this theory. If it had been just hallucinations, there would have been a body in the tomb. We have to couple it with spiriting the body away. So, they are still lying. Even the Holy Blood, Holy Grailtheory requires that they be liars to conspire and carry this out.
Resuscitation (Theory 6)? Frankenstein coming out of the tomb certainly does not measure up to the good Jesus that was preached. It might explain the empty tomb, but it does not explain the kind of Jesus that they had preached, and does not explain the ascension – the disciples still made the rest of it up.
So, no matter how we look at it, if we assume the eight facts which are much easier to demonstrate than the resurrection, there are only two options, two conclusions, because it boils down to the veracity of the witnesses. One who denies the resurrection should read the classic, Sherlock’s “Trial of the Witnesses.” He postulated a courtroom scene where all the witnesses were gathered and subjected to the kind of evidence of an English court.
We are faced with a “startling alternate” – either these disciples made the story up to save face and the whole thing is a lie, or:
Option 2: They are telling what they truly experienced as honest men
When we come to this point, the entire Christian faith revolves around whether these disciples, these witnesses were honest men telling what they saw, or conspirators who concocted a lie to save face. There are four reasons why we do not believe they were lying:
Reason 1 – Cataclysmic change for the Better on the Part of the Witnesses
Everybody agrees Peter was unstable, and with a group he could not be counted on to stand. He fled in fear and he denied his Lord; he was always in trouble because of instability. After the resurrection, he is the man that preaches to a mocking mob, he dies with courage requesting that he be turned upside down because he is not worthy to die in the position of his Master – a cataclysmic change that can be identified to a point in history, and that point in history is where they began to tell this story of the resurrection.
John? He was one of the brothers called “Sons of Thunder.” He wanted to call fire down from heaven on everyone that opposed him. He and his brother used their mother to seek the best seat in the kingdom. After they began to tell this story, every scholar agrees John was a changed man. Instead of a “Son of Thunder,” he is almost wimpish in his never-failing expression of love. He is known as the “Apostle of Love” – a total cataclysmic change.
Thomas is consistently a doubter; from start to finish he doubts. He is a realist; he questions everything. When Jesus is going to go through Samaria and faces death, and tells His disciples about it, Thomas then says, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.” That is courage, but he thought Jesus would actually die; that’s a humanistic view.
When Jesus is discussing going away, building mansions in heaven, He says, “Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know,” all the rest of them are surely shouting about the mansions. Thomas is listening to every word. He says, “We do not know where You are going; how can we know the way?” That is a consistent thumb-nail sketch of a personality trait.
Who is it that doubts when the resurrection comes? Same guy. “I will not believe until I touch Him, put my hands in the marks of death.” The moment arrives. Jesus is there and says to Thomas, “Behold, My hands and My side.” He says, “It is more blessed to believe without seeing.” That is an axiomatic truth, but He did not condemn Thomas. He just stated that fact, and then He offered to submit to the test, which is what we are doing now, in this article. He said, “Behold My hands and My side.” And Thomas cried, “My Lord and my God.”
It is significant that in the most philosophic area of the world, where the Vedanta philosophies have produced Buddhism and the Eastern religions that flow out of it, it is Thomas that pierces the Himalayas to die a martyr near Madras, India, to be the herald of faith in the most challenging philosophic area of the world at that time, and never again does he waver an instant in faith – a total change from a consistent doubter to an unwavering “faither.”
One may confidently say that a crisis will change people, but a lie will seldom change anyone for the better; but a lie causes people to get worse. These men are cataclysmically changed for the better – telling a lie would not do that.
Reason 2 – Indirect Evidences and Internal Consistencies
There are indirect evidences of truth. Mark wrote to Gentiles; and in his Gospel account he has Christ referring to Himself as “Son of Man” more often than any other Gospel.
If Mark was a liar and knew he was lying, trying to perpetrate a fraud, why would he have Jesus refer to Himself with a phrase that suggests humanity when his purpose is to represent Jesus as the Son of God? If he is a liar, he would simply have Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of God. But, ironically, as God’s little hidden evidences of honesty, in Mark’s Gospel, written to Gentiles, designed to prove that Jesus was the Son of God, he had Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man more than any other Gospel.
Jesus did refer to Himself as the “Son of Man” because Jesus was preaching to a Hebrew audience that read the Book of Enoch and the Book of Daniel where the Son of Man was a messianic picture of coming in clouds of glory to set up His kingdom. So, it is quite proper for Jesus to refer to Himself as the Son of Man in a messiah mentality, but if one is writing to Gentiles who do not know anything about the Old Testament, and trying to perpetrate a lie that Jesus is the Son of God, unless one is just basically honest and telling the truth, one would not have Jesus say, “Son of Man,” so much. What kept Mark from changing what He said to serve a lying purpose? Inherent honesty. There are dozens of these, but this is what historians call indirect evidence of honesty.
The fact that the disciples waited seven weeks is used by those who say they were lying as the time needed for them to cook up the lie. If they are smart enough to tell a lie of this nature, surely they would have figured that out. They waited seven weeks because Jesus told them to wait. That is the action of honest men, even though waiting that long hurts their story – if they were going to make up a lie.
Reason 3 – Price Paid
One does not pay the price these men paid to tell a lie. All of them, save John, died a martyr’s death: Bartholemew flayed to death with a whip in Armenia; Thomas pierced with a Brahmin sword; Peter crucified upside down; St. Andrew crucified on St. Andrew’s cross (from which it gets its name); Luke hanged by idolatrous priests; Mark dragged to death in the streets of Alexandria. These men paid beyond human belief for their “lie.”
Reason 4 – They Died Alone
St. Thomas Aquinas’ great proof of the veracity of the disciples and the resurrection is that they died alone. It is fairly easy to conceive of a group of men trying to save face, telling a story, having bet on the wrong man, crushed by His failure (as they would view it), trying to resurrect Him with a lie.
It is fairly easy to conceive of them staying together and group pressure holding together the consistencies of their lie, because they do not want to be the first one to break faith, ratting on the others and collapsing the whole thing.
Assume for a moment that three friends, we will call Joe, Fred and Henry, concocted this story. There is no television, no satellite, no fax, and no telephone; and as long as the three stay together under great pressure, Joe does not want to let Fred and Henry down.
But separate them. Let us say that Joe is Bartholemew in Armenia; Fred is Thomas over in India; and Henry is Peter in Rome. They have lost contact with each other. They cannot pick up a phone and call anybody; nobody knows where the other is, and since each of them knows they are telling a lie and each know they do not really expect the generations forever to believe it, and Joe is being literally flayed to death – skinned with a whip; his skin peeled off. All he has to do to end it is say, “It’s a lie,” and “Forgive me, I’m leaving town.”
Fred would not know it; Henry would not know it. Joe could see them next time they all met, play poker with them and say, “Boy, I really tore them up in Armenia. I told the story, and nobody could forget it the way I told it.” Fred and Henry would not know that Joe was lying. Fred is going to be pierced with a sword in India. He is not going to see these people again. All he has to do to get out of the pressure is say, “It’s a lie.”
Henry is off to Rome. He is a little more exposed, but with his life at stake, all he has to say is, “Sorry. Maybe I dreamed it,” then wiggle out and head to France. As Thomas Aquinas said, it is psychologically inconceivable that these men, separated, each one paying the supreme price for their story and each one dying alone, that some one of the group would not break away from his fellows and say, “Hey, it wasn’t true.”
To die alone – a mighty statement of honesty; and not one shred of evidence survives 2,000+ years of hard-looking critics. During all this time, one finds no record anywhere on this earth where any one of these men ever wavered in telling this story, even in the face of terrible death. Therefore, our conclusion is that these men were not lying. They were telling what they thought and experienced and saw in truth.
After considering the Joe, Fred and Henry illustration, one might remark, “I am convinced. These men believed what they were telling. Therefore, one of the above eight facts must be wrong.” Such a response would actually be a glimpse of acceptance, because those eight facts are much easier to demonstrate. So, what is the alternative?
It is true: He came out of the grave
If that is true, then all the rest of this is true, and we have a starting point for a faith in a God eternal. And we have then crossed over that threshold where we can now comprehend what Christianity is, for we can believe that Jesus Christ came through those grave clothes, through that rock, through that door, and sailed off in the blue, then molecular displacement is nothing to Him – He can do it without creating an explosion. It is true that all things consist in Him, and He can control them.
Therefore, it is not difficult at all to believe that that same substance of God, placed in Mary, came forth as Jesus of Nazareth through the Holy Spirit. God says He places that same God-substance in us when we trust Him. That is the true born-again experience – a generation of life, a regeneration; a new creation that penetrates our cell structure and is placed in us as a gift from God when we connect by trusting His Word.
Properly seen, that is the genesis of Christianity – Christ is in us, the hope of glory. We do not have to become some mystic or far-out freak to understand what Christianity is. We can now spend our life pursuing His Holy Words, including the authority He attaches to the Old and New Testaments, and the promises written therein.
And each time we grab hold of those and act on our belief, and sustain the action in confidence, that faith connection keeps in us a life substance the same as that that raised up Christ from the dead, as capable of changing our nature as radioactive material, invisible though it may be, can change our cell structure as we hold it.
God puts a life in us capable of regenerating, and that is why spirituality is the expression of the spirit, and why spirituality is called the fruit of the spirit.
It is that new life growing out through us, which can only be maintained by faith in His Word. But, it was founded and based upon the solid rock of the provable quality of “He raised from the dead,” and it gives us faith to believe that He will do the other thing He said – “I will come again.”
