http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3689
Reasoning About the Resurrection of Christ
The resurrection of Christ is central to the faith of every Christian.
Without a firm belief that “God has raised Him from the dead” (Romans
10:9), salvation from sin is impossible. Paul wrote: “If Christ is not
risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians
15:17). Without the good news of Jesus’ defeat of death, the Gospel is
void of its power to save mankind (cf. Romans 1:16). If Christ was not
“raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,” there would be no
“newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Rather, every accountable person would
lie “dead in trespasses” (Ephesians 2:1,5) without hope of becoming “a
new creation” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Truly, the resurrection of
Christ provides the substance for the Christian’s hope and the solid
foundation on which to build his faith.
Is it any surprise, then, that first-century evangelists put so much
emphasis on Jesus’ resurrection? Peter specifically mentioned how the
apostle chosen to take the place of Judas was to become a witness of
Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 1:22). A short while later, Peter preached to
thousands of Jews in Jerusalem a sermon that hinged on the empty tomb of
Christ (Acts 2:24,31-32). He then spoke in the temple about the Lord’s
resurrection (Acts 3:15,26), and afterward witnessed to this fact before
the highest court of the Jews (4:10; 5:29-32). The apostle similarly
witnessed to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius and his household
(Acts 10:30). Paul repeatedly spoke of the resurrection of Christ in
Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:30,33,34,37), reasoned from the Scriptures
about it in Thessalonica (Acts 17:3), and then gave testimony of this
fact before both Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26:22-25).
First-century Christians frequently discussed the resurrection of
Christ and were prepared to defend it using logical arguments comprised
of sufficient evidence (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8; Acts 1:3; 26:22-23).
Christ’s resurrection was fundamental to their faith and prominent in
their preaching. It should be no less today. Hundreds of millions of
people on Earth disbelieve in Jesus’ death-defying power. Skeptics scoff
at the idea of Jesus coming back to life. Infidels in classrooms and
media outlets throughout the world adamantly argue against it, alleging
that “the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not happen on good biblical
grounds,” and it certainly “did not happen on good historical grounds”
(Barker, 1996).
In the past, we have discussed various irrefutable proofs for the resurrection of Christ (see Butt, 2002). In this issue of
Reason & Revelation,
we respond to four questions that skeptics are fond of asking as they
attempt to discredit the Bible’s portrayal of this earth-shaking event
(Matthew 28:2).
WHAT’S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT JESUS’ RESURRECTION?
Most anyone who has spent much time reading the Scriptures knows that
the Bible writers mentioned several individuals who rose from the dead.
After the widow’s son of Zarephath died, Elijah prayed to God, “and the
soul of the child came back to him, and he revived” (1 Kings 17:22). A
few years later, the prophet Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite
(2 Kings 4:32-35). Then, after Elisha’s death, a dead man, in the
process of being buried in the tomb of Elisha, was restored to life
after touching Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21). While on Earth Jesus
raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:21-24,35-43), as
well as the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16), and Lazarus—who had been
buried for four days (John 11:1-45). Matthew recorded how after Jesus’
death and resurrection “the graves were opened; and
many
bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out
of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and
appeared to many” (27:52-53, emp. added). Then later, during the early
years of the church, Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-43),
while Paul raised the young man Eutychus, who had died after falling
from a third-story window (Acts 20:7-12).
All of these people died and later rose to live again. Although some of
the individuals arose very shortly after death, Lazarus and (most
likely) the saints who were raised after the resurrection of Jesus were
entombed longer than was Jesus. In view of all of these resurrections,
some have asked, “What is so important about
Jesus’ resurrection?” If others in the past have died to live again, what makes
His resurrection so special? The former editor of
Biblical Errancy, Dennis McKinsey, once mockingly asked:
Why would it [Jesus’ resurrection—EL] be of any
consequence since...many others rose before Jesus? By the time he rose
this was a rather common occurrence. I would think it would have been
met by a resounding yawn rather than surprise followed by: So what else
can you do? Adam’s act of coming into the world as a full grown adult is
more spectacular (n.d.).
Given the fact that Jesus is not the only person ever to come back to
life, what is it that makes His resurrection unique? Why is the
resurrection of
Jesus more significant than any other?
First, the resurrection of Jesus is more significant than any other
resurrection simply because the inspired apostles and prophets said that
it was. Critics may sneer at this response, but it is a valid point.
Jesus did certain things that others did, including being raised from
the dead, but His actions were more significant because of the
statements attached to them. Consider the miracles Jesus performed in
order to set Himself apart as the Son of God and promised Messiah. Many
people throughout the Bible worked miracles in order to confirm their
divine message (cf. Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:1-4), but only Jesus did them
as proof of His divine
nature. Once, during the Feast
of Dedication in Jerusalem, a group of Jews surrounded Jesus and asked,
“How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us
plainly” (John 10:24)? Jesus responded to them saying, “I told you, and
you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear
witness of Me.... I and My Father are one” (John 10:25,30). These Jews
understood that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the flesh (cf.
10:33,36), and Jesus wanted them to understand that this truth could be
confirmed by the miracles that He worked.
The miracles testified to His deity (John 20:30-31). Why?
Because He said they did
(10:25,35-38; cf. John 5:36). The miracles that Jesus performed bore
witness to the fact that He was from the Father (John 5:36),
because He said He was from the Father.
A miracle in and of itself did not mean the person who worked it was
deity. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter, Paul, and a host of others worked
miracles, with some even raising people from the dead. But none did so
for the purpose of proving they were God in the flesh. The apostles and
prophets of the New Testament worked miracles to confirm their message
that
Jesus was the Son of God, not to prove that
they were God (cf. Acts 14:8-18). Jesus, on the other hand, performed miracles to bear witness that
He was the Son of God, just as He claimed to be (cf. John 9:35-38).
Similarly, one fundamental reason that Jesus’ miraculous resurrection
is more important to a Christian than the resurrections of Lazarus,
Tabitha, Eutychus, or anyone else who was raised from the dead, is
simply because the Bible writers explained that it was more important.
There is no record of anyone alleging that Lazarus was God’s Son based
on his resurrection, nor did the early church claim divinity for
Eutychus or Tabitha because they died and came back to life. None of the
aforementioned individuals who was resurrected ever claimed that the
resurrection was proof of deity, nor did any inspired prophet or
apostle. On the other hand, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God
with power...by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). His
resurrection was different because of Who He was—the Son of God. Thus,
just as the miracles He worked during His earthly ministry testified of
His divine message, and hence His divine nature, so did His
resurrection.
A second reason why Jesus’ resurrection stands out above all others is
because it alone was specifically foretold in the Old Testament. In his
sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter affirmed that God had raised Jesus
from the dead because it was not possible for the grave to hold Him. As
proof, he quoted Psalm 16:8‑11 in the following words:
I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand,
that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was
glad; moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave
my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy
in Your presence (Acts 2:25-28).
Peter then explained this quote from the book of Psalms by saying:
Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David,
that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath
to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would
raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke
concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in
Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up,
of which we are all witnesses (Acts 2:29-32).
The apostle Paul also believed that the psalmist bore witness to
Christ, and spoke of His resurrection. In his address at Antioch of
Pisidia, he said:
And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the
fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has
raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: “You are My
Son, today I have begotten You.” And that He raised Him from the dead,
no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: “I will give you
the sure mercies of David.” Therefore He also says in another Psalm:
“You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” For David, after
he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was
buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up
saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that
through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him
everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could
not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:32‑39).
Where is the prophecy for the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter? When
did the prophets ever foretell of Eutychus or Tabitha’s resurrection?
They did not. No resurrected person other than Jesus had his or her
resurrection foretold by an Old Testament prophet, nor did any inspired
apostle or prophet in the first century apply Old Testament prophecies
to them. This certainly makes Jesus’ resurrection unique.
Third, Jesus’ resurrection is more significant than any other because
He prophesied numerous times that He would rise from the dead, even
foretelling the exact day on which it would occur. Jesus told some
scribes and Pharisees on one occasion, “For as Jonah was three days and
three nights in the belly of the great fish,
so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”
(Matthew 12:40, emp. added). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded how
Jesus “began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and
suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be
killed, and
be raised the third day (Matthew 16:21,
emp. added; cf. Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:22). While Jesus and His disciples
were in Galilee, Jesus reminded them, saying, “The Son of Man is about
to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and
the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 17:22-23, emp. added).
 |
Christians do not serve a lifeless lord, but a Risen Redeemer Whose tomb was found empty nearly 2,000 years ago.
|
Just before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus again reminded
His disciples, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the
Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and
they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock
and to scourge and to crucify.
And the third day He will rise again”
(Matthew 20:18-19, emp. added). Jesus’ prophecies concerning His
resurrection and the specific day on which it would occur were so widely
known that, after Jesus’ death, His enemies requested that Pilate place
a guard at the tomb, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still
alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore
command that the tomb be made secure
until the third day...”
(Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). They knew exactly what Jesus had said
He would do, and they did everything in their power to stop it.
Where are the prophecies from the widow’s son of Zarephath? Did he
prophesy of his resurrection prior to his death? Or what about the son
of the Shunammite woman that Elisha raised from the dead? Where are his
personal prophecies? Truly, no one who rose from the dead except Jesus
prophesied about his or her own resurrection. And certainly no one ever
prophesied about the exact day on which he or she would rise from the
dead, save Jesus. This prior knowledge and prophecy makes His
resurrection a significant event. He overcame death, just as He
predicted. He did
exactly what he said He was going to do, on the
exact day He said He would do it.
Fourth, the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that
He is the only resurrected person ever to have lived and died without
having committed one sin during His lifetime. He was “pure” and
“righteous” (1 John 3:3; 2:1), “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit
found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). He was “a lamb without blemish and
without spot” (1 Peter 1:19), “Who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). No
one else who has risen from the dead ever lived a perfect life, and
then died prior to his or her resurrection for the purpose of taking
away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29). Because Jesus lived a
sinless life, died, and then overcame death in His resurrection, He
alone has the honor of being called “the Lamb of God” and the “great
High Priest” (Hebrews 4:14). “Christ was offered once to bear the sins
of many,” and because of His resurrection, “those who eagerly wait for
Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation”
(Hebrews 9:28).
Finally, and perhaps most important, the significance of Jesus’
resurrection is seen in the fact that He was the first to rise from the
dead
never to die again. Since no one who has risen
from the dead is still living on Earth, and since there is no evidence
in the Bible that God ever took someone who had risen from the dead into
heaven without his dying again, it is reasonable to conclude that all
who ever rose from the dead, died in later years. Jesus, however, never
died again. He rose from the grave to live forevermore. All others who
previously were raised from the dead, died again, and are among those
who “sleep” and continue to wait for the bodily resurrection. Only Jesus
truly has conquered death. Only His bodily resurrection was followed by
eternal life, rather than another physical death.
Skeptics have argued that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters,
not the fact that Jesus never died again”
(see McKinsey, 1983, p. 1, emp. added). However, the inspired apostles
said otherwise. Paul actually linked the two together while preaching in
Antioch of Pisidia, saying, God “raised Him from the dead,
no more to return to corruption.... He whom God raised saw no corruption”
(Acts 13:34,37, emp. added). Paul also impressed upon the minds of the
Christians in Rome how Jesus, “having been raised from the dead,
dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him”
(Romans 6:9, emp. added). [Is it any wonder Paul testified before
Agrippa and Festus how Jesus was “the first to rise from the dead” (Acts
26:23)? “[H]e was the first who rose again from the dead to return no
more into the empire of death” (Clarke, 1996).] Jesus said of Himself:
“I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and
behold, I am alive
forevermore” (Revelation 1:17-18,
emp. added). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews argued for a better life
through Jesus on the basis of His termination of death. One reason for
the inadequacy of the old priesthood was because “they were prevented by
death.” Jesus, however, because He rose never to die again, “continues
forever” in “an unchangeable priesthood,” and lives to make intercession
for His people (Hebrews 7:23-25). As so often is the case, skeptics
comment on the Bible without really knowing what the Bible says. To say,
that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that
Jesus never died again” (McKinsey, 1983, p. 1), is to deny (or ignore)
what the apostles and prophets actually stated.
Whether or not Eutychus, Tabitha, Lazarus, etc., rose from the grave,
our relationship with God is not affected. Without Jesus’ resurrection,
however, there would be no “Prince and Savior, to give repentance to
Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Without Jesus’
resurrection, no suitable High Priest would be able to make intercession
for us (Hebrews 7:25). Without Jesus’ resurrection, we would have no
assurance of His coming and subsequent judgment (Acts 17:31). Without
Jesus’ resurrection, “we are of all men the most pitiable” (1
Corinthians 15:19).
Jesus’ resurrection
is significant—more so than any
other resurrection. Only Jesus’ resurrection was verbalized by inspired
men as proof of His deity. Only Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied in
the Old Testament. Only Jesus foretold of the precise day on which He
would rise from the grave—and then fulfilled that prediction. Only
Jesus’ resurrection was preceded by a perfect life—a life lived, given
up, and restored in the resurrection for the purpose of becoming man’s
Prince, Savior, and Mediator. And, only Jesus rose never to die again.
WHY IS CHRIST CALLED THE “FIRST FRUITS”?
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul wrote at length concerning the resurrection
of the dead because some of the Christians in Corinth taught “that there
is no resurrection of the dead” (vs. 12). As one of his proofs for the
Christian’s eventual resurrection, Paul pointed to the fact that Christ
rose, and showed that the general resurrection stands or falls with
Christ’s resurretion, saying, “if the dead do not rise, then Christ is
not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile” (vss.
16-17)! After hypothetically arguing from the absurd in an attempt to
help the Corinthian Christians to see that their stance on the final
resurrection completely undermined Christianity, Paul proceeded to
demonstrate that Christ
had risen, making the
resurrection of the dead inevitable. It is in this section of Scripture
that some find a difficulty. Beginning with verse 20, Paul wrote:
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the
dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, emp. added).
In view of the fact that Jesus was not the first person ever to rise
from the dead (as previously discussed), some have questioned why Paul
twice described Jesus as “the firstfruits” from the dead. Did Paul err?
Was he ignorant of all of the previous resurrections? In what sense did
Paul speak of Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen
asleep”?
One could respond reasonably to these questions by pointing out the
aforementioned fact that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead—
never to die again.
In this sense, Christ is “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians
1:18; Revelation 1:5). Another (and perhaps better) explanation to the
question surrounding 1 Corinthians 15:20,23 and Paul’s use of the word
“firstfruits” (Greek
aparche) is to recognize the metaphor Paul
employed. Under the old law, the firstfruits were the earliest gathered
grains, fruits, and vegetables that the people dedicated to God in
recognition of His faithfulness for providing the necessities of life.
The Israelites were to offer to God a sheaf of the first grain that was
harvested on the day after the Sabbath following the Passover feast
(Leviticus 23:9-14). Paul used the term “firstfruits” in this letter to
the Corinthian church to reinforce the certainty of the resurrection.
Just as the term “firstfruits” indicates that “the first sheaf of the
forthcoming grain harvest will be followed by the rest of the sheaves,
Christ, the firstfruits raised from the dead, is the guarantee for all
those who belong to him that they also will share in his resurrection”
(Kistemaker, 1993, p. 548). Jesus is God’s “firstfruits” of the
resurrection. And, like the Israelites, God will gather the rest of the
harvest at the final resurrection. Paul seemingly wanted the Corinthians
to understand (by way of metaphor) that Christ’s resurrection is
a pledge of our resurrection. It is inevitable—a full harvest guaranteed by God Himself.
ON WHAT DAY DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?
The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave
on
the third day of His entombment. Matthew and Luke both record Jesus as
prophesying that He would rise from the grave on this day (Matthew
17:23; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the
Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “
the third day
according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4, emp. added). And
while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God
raised Jesus up “
on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp.
added). Skeptics are quick to contend, however, that these scriptures
contradict various other passages. For example, Jesus predicted that He
would “be killed, and
after three days rise again”
(Mark 8:31, emp. added). On another occasion, Jesus told His apostles
how His enemies would “mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him, and
kill Him, and three days
later He will rise again” (Mark 10:34, emp. added, NASB).
In addition, He informed the Pharisees that He would be in the heart of
the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish—for
“three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). How can a person be
expected to believe that Jesus rose from the grave if Jesus and the
Bible writers could not even decide whether He rose from the grave on
the third day or the fourth day?
In an attempt to solve this difficulty, some seemingly well-meaning
individuals have espoused the idea that Jesus must have been crucified
on Wednesday or Thursday, rather than on Friday (eg., Scroggie, 1948,
pp. 569-577; Rusk, 1974, pp. 4-6). Because Jesus could not possibly have
been in the grave for three nights if He died on Friday and rose on
Sunday, some believe He must have died a day or two earlier. However,
this is highly improbable. First, Mark 15:42 states that the evening of
Christ’s crucifixion “was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before
the Sabbath,” and “[b]oth the Scriptures (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke
23:54; John 19:14,31,42) and Josephus indicate the day of preparation is
the day before the weekly Sabbaths, namely, Friday” (Hoehner, 1974,
131:245; cf. Josephus, 16:6:2). Second, if Jesus died on Wednesday and
rose on Sunday then He must have risen from the grave
on
the fourth day rather than “the third day.” What’s more, all attempts
to place Jesus’ crucifixion and burial on Wednesday or Thursday instead
of Friday are based more on a misunderstanding of a Hebrew idiom
concerning time than actual evidence.
While statements such as “on the third day,” “after three days,” and
“three days and three nights” may appear contradictory at first glance,
in reality they harmonize perfectly if one understands the more liberal
methods ancients used to reckon time. In the first century, any part of a
day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf.
Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The
Jerusalem Talmud quotes
rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day
and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah
is as the whole of it” (Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974,
131:248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a
portion of a twenty-four hour period could be considered the same “as
the whole of it.” Thus, in Jesus’ time one would have been correct in
teaching that Jesus’ burial would last “three days and three nights,”
even though it was not three complete 24-hour days.
Scripture is peppered with references which demonstrate that a part of a day was oftentimes equivalent to a whole day.
-
According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the
Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse seventeen of that same
chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Obviously,
“forty days” and “forty days and forty nights” refer to the same time
period in this context.
-
During the reign of King Ahab, Israel and Syria “encamped opposite each other for seven days” (1 Kings 20:29, emp. added). Yet, “on
the seventh day the battle was joined” and Israel killed 100,000 Syrian
foot soldiers (20:29). Clearly, the two armies did not occupy their
camps for a full seven days, but for six days and a part of the seventh.
The remainder of day seven was spent in battle.
-
When Joseph’s brothers came to visit him for the first time since
selling him into Egyptian bondage more than a decade earlier (Genesis
37:12-36), Joseph incarcerated them for “three days” (Genesis 42:17).
The text then reveals that he spoke to them “the third
day,” and 42:18-24 represents them as being released that day—i.e., the
third day. If Joseph’s brothers (with the exception of Simeon, 42:24)
were released on day three of their imprisonment, then the “three days”
they spent in the prison (42:17) are not equivalent to three 24-hour
periods, but rather parts of three days.
-
When the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and asked him to lighten
their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), he wanted time to contemplate their
request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after
three days” (10:5, emp. added). Verse twelve of that chapter indicates
that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood him to mean “on the third day” (cf. 1 Kings 12:5,12).
-
When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before King
Ahasuerus uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her
example by not eating or drinking “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16, emp. added). Yet, the text then tells us that Esther went in to the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).
By studying these and other passages, one can see clearly that the
Bible uses expressions like “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third
day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify
the
same period of time. Again, “[a]ccording to the Oriental mode of reckoning, three consecutive
parts of days were counted three days” (Jamieson, et. al., 1997, emp. added).
From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of
counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke
recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of
the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; 10:3).
“The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius.
“On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And
the following day
they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household
the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit, Cornelius spoke
about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began
the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “
Four days ago to this hour,
I was praying in my house during the ninth hour...” (10:30, NASB, emp.
added). Although the event really had occurred only 72 hours (or three
literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days
ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to
the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a
part of the fourth day were counted as whole days. Surely one can see
how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking
place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of
Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered
three days in ancient times, not one or two.
Even though in 21st-century America some may find this reasoning
somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions are used frequently
today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only
completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing
pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings
like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched
a
complete game. Think about the college student who
explains to his professor that he worked on a research project “day and
night for four weeks.” He obviously does not mean that he worked for a
solid 672 hours (24 hours x 7 days x 4 weeks) without sleeping. It may
be that he worked from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. for four weeks on the
project, but not 672 sleepless hours. If he only slept five or six hours
a night, and worked on the project nearly every hour he was awake, we
would consider this person as one who truly did work “day and night for
four weeks.” Finally, consider the guest at a hotel who checks in at
5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 3:30 p.m. Thursday—less than
24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel?
Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour
period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did
not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how
flexible we are in measuring time, perhaps we should not be surprised
at how liberal the ancients were in calculating time.
Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial
were not contradictory center around the fact that even His enemies did
not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their
familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating
time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the
day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still
alive, how that deceiver said, ‘
After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure
until
the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three
days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the
Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day.
Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with
contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own
day.
The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to
denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He
literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’
crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting
of the first century, and not according to the present-day
(mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the
expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.
DID JESUS HAVE THE SAME PHYSICAL BODY
AFTER HIS RESURRECTION AS BEFORE?
A gentleman once e-mailed our offices at Apologetics Press, questioning
whether Jesus had the same body after His resurrection as He did before
being raised from the grave. According to this man, Jesus “appeared to
people He knew but nobody recognized Him.... It’s as though He had a
different body”—and possibly one that was not physical.
At the outset, it is incorrect to assert that “nobody recognized Him,”
because Matthew 28:9,17 clearly implies that at least some of Jesus’
disciples knew Who He was and worshiped Him. Moreover, that Jesus had
essentially the same body after His resurrection that He had when He
died on the cross is evident from at least three different passages. In
Luke 24:39, Jesus stated: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I
Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as
you see I have.” Jesus expected His disciples to observe
His physical
body. Later in the same chapter, we read that Jesus ate a meal with His
disciples (24:42-43; cf. Acts 10:41). And then in John 20:25-29, which
is the most frequently cited passage in defense of Christ having a
physical body, Jesus asked Thomas to touch His nail-scared hands and
reach into His side that had been pierced with the Roman spear.
But what about those occasions when some of His disciples did not
recognize Him? Do such verses as Luke 24:31,37 and John 20:10-16
represent a contradictory element in the resurrection story? First, just
because the text says that the disciples thought they had seen a spirit
when they actually saw Jesus (Luke 24:37), does not indicate that He
looked different. Since they knew He had been killed, seeing His
resurrected body caused them to think that He was in spirit form rather
than physical. On one occasion, before Jesus’ crucifixion and
resurrection, His disciples were startled at His appearance, supposing
He was a ghost (Mark 6:49). A similar thing happened to Peter when some
thought his unexpected presence must have been an indication that it was
“his angel” (Acts 12:15).
Second, the reason the two disciples who were traveling on the road to
Emmaus failed to recognize Jesus initially was not because Jesus had a
different body, but because God miraculously prevented them from
recognizing Him. Luke 24:16 indicates that at the beginning of their
conversation with Jesus “their eyes were restrained,” but then just
before Jesus vanished from their sight, “their eyes were opened and they
knew Him” (24:31). Thus, the disciples’ recognition ability failed, not
because Jesus possessed a different body, but because their eyes were
miraculously restrained.
A final person often mentioned as not having recognized the Savior
(allegedly because Jesus had a different body) is Mary Magdalene. John
20:11-18 certainly testifies of her initial inability to identify Jesus.
The question is: Was Mary’s failure to recognize Jesus
her
fault, or the result of Jesus having a different body? As with the
above cases, there is no indication in John 20:11-18 that Jesus had
anything other than His risen crucified body (cf. 20:25-29). There are
at least four possibilities, however, as to why Mary failed to recognize
Jesus right at first.
-
The Sun may not have risen all the way yet, thus making it difficult to see (cf. 20:1).
-
Mary was engaged in deep weeping that likely obscured her vision
(20:11,13). In fact, the first words Jesus said to Mary were, “Woman,
why are you weeping?” (vs. 15).
-
Considering Jesus’ clothes were taken from Him when He was crucified
(John 19:23-24), and that the linen cloths which were used in His burial
were lying in the tomb (John 20:6-7), Jesus likely was wearing clothes
that made His exact identity less conspicuous at first glance. Perhaps
His post-resurrection attire was similar to what a gardener or watchman
would wear (cf. John 20:15).
-
It also is possible that Mary’s eyes were restrained miraculously, as
were the eyes of the disciples with whom Jesus conversed on the road to
Emmaus.
Once all of the Scriptures are taken into account, one can see that
Jesus physically rose from the grave in essentially the same body that
was crucified on the cross. The fact that some of Jesus’ disciples did
not immediately recognize Him in no way contradicts His physical
resurrection.
CONCLUSION
The inspired accounts of the risen Redeemer have been the focus of much
criticism through the years (cf. Barker, 1992, pp. 178-184; McKinsey,
2000, pp. 447-454). However, when the honest, open-hearted student of
the Bible looks carefully at the evidence, he will come to realize that
these criticisms are actually the result either of insufficient
knowledge or hardened hearts. Truly, the more one studies the passages
of Scripture in which Jesus’ resurrection is discussed, as well as the
historical context in which this momentous event occurred, the more he
will see how incredibly accurate and trustworthy the Bible writers were.
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (1992),
Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (1996), “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” Debate with
Michael Horner at the University of Northern Iowa, April 2, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html.
Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?,”
Reason & Revelation, 22[2]:9-15, February.
Clarke, Adam (1996),
Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Hoehner, Harold W. (1974), “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:241-264, July.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997),
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), “Antiquities of the Jews,”
The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Kistemaker, Simon J. (1993),
Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint),
A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “The Bible is God’s Word?,” [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/pamphlets.html.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1983), “Commentary,”
Biblical Errancy, February.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000),
Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Rusk, Roger (1974), “The Day He Died,”
Christianity Today, March 29.
Scroggie, W. Graham (1948),
A Guide to the Gospels (London: Pinkering & Inglis).
Recently
we received a very interesting question from one of our readers. It is
noteworthy for two reasons. First, many of us have probably never heard
the question. (I have been working for more than 20 years in Bible study
and teaching of various types and had never heard it.) Second, the
answer is extremely simple, but might not appear that obvious at the
outset.
proteins are made by a cell. First, DNA which holds the genetic code is converted into RNA
through a process known as transcription. This process is similar to
how one would copy a letter from one piece of paper onto another sheet.
The contents of the letter remain unchanged, only the medium—the
paper—has changed. RNA carries this information
to the ribosome, where it is read and used as a code to make a protein
through a process known as translation. This process can be compared to
translating the copy of the letter from one language into another.
Nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) is changed into another molecule altogether: protein. This linear progression of DNA to RNA
to protein is known in biology as the Central Dogma of Molecular
Biology (Alberts, et al., 2002, p. 301). Of the three components in the
path, only DNA has the capacity to be replicated. So, while DNA
stores the genetic code and can be replicated, it cannot perform any
chemical reactions. And, while protein can perform chemical reactions,
it cannot store genetic information. So, in evolutionary thinking, which
came first—DNA or protein? Making the problem even more difficult, DNA relies upon proteins during its own replication. DNA
does not self-replicate of its own accord. It must have protein enzymes
to facilitate this process. So, what came first—the chicken or the egg?
DNA or protein? Each relies upon the other. You should begin to see how RNA might solve this problem. If RNA
can both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, and
if it evolved first, we have a single molecule that stores information
and can catalyze its own replication, a self-replicating genetic
material.
is single-stranded. The double-stranded nature of DNA gives it the ability to be replicated in a much simpler series of steps. When DNA
is replicated, each of the two complimentary strands serves as a
template on which to build another strand. The result is that in one
step, each strand of DNA is replicated to produce four total DNA strands or two identical double helices. RNA,
however, is single-stranded. In order for it to be replicated, two
sequential rounds of replication would be required. First, a
complimentary strand would need to be synthesized from the original
parental strand. Only then could that new complimentary strand be used
to re-make the parental strand. As stated before, DNA and RNA differ in the sugar which makes up the molecule’s backbone. Deoxyribose, the sugar used in DNA, differs from ribose used in RNA,
by lacking one organic functional group known as alcohol. The absence
of this alcohol group greatly increases the stability of DNA over RNA. In ribonucleic acids, this
As
legislators are fighting over the legitimacy of same-sex marriages,
activist judges are claiming constitutional sanction in their redefining
of marriage, and the rank and file citizens of these United States are
embroiled in a polarizing culture war, it is nevertheless unthinkable
that the President of these United States has announced his approval of
homosexuality. If God exists and the Bible is His revealed Word, then
America is facing imminent peril. The evaporation of Christian
principles from American civilization will lead to the extinction of
civility, freedom, and morality.