CELEBRATING THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION
In the 1962 movie, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” elderly U.S. Senator Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) and his wife Hallie arrive by train in the small western town of Shinbone, to attend the funeral of an apparent nobody, a local rancher named Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). As they pay their respects to the dead man at the undertaker's establishment, the senator is interrupted with a request for a newspaper interview.
As the interview with the local reporter begins, the film flashes back several decades into the past as Stoddard reflects on his first arrival at Shinbone. He and the town were persecuted by a local gunfighter, Liberty Valance, whom Stoddard eventually faces down in a gunfight. Stoddard gains fame from shooting the outlaw and is elected to be a state representative, governor and then U.S. Senator.
The startling truth is, he didn’t shoot Valance, Doniphon did. During the famous standoff, Doniphon hid in an alley and shot Valance, but Stoddard got the credit.
When the interview concludes, the reporter tears up his notes, and Stoddard asks, “You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?”
The reporter replies, “No sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”[i]
As someone who enjoys reading history books I have begun to discover that various historical figures that we have always revered are more legendary than factual. It seems that the more time passes their legends grow and the truth gets buried somewhere in the legend.
For decades we have fed on the legends of past heroes. Today the trend is to debunk the legend and find out the truth, even the hidden skeletons of said heroes. Everyone and everything is held up to scrutiny and heroes are humanized to the point of losing their hero status.
Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree?
Was Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator or an opportunistic politician?
Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
Or have the centuries built up a legend around the man that is larger than the life itself?
1. Legend versus Fact
Karen Armstrong, in her popular book A History of God, has stated that we know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was Mark’s gospel, written around the year 70, forty years after his death. She says that by that time historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which expressed the meaning Jesus intended for his followers. And it is the meaning that Mark primarily conveys rather than a straightforward and reliable portrayal.[ii]
Armstrong, along with other scholars, say the gospels were written so far after the events that legend developed and distorted what was finally written down, turning Jesus from merely a wise teacher into the mythological Son of God.[iii]
Their conclusion then is that in the forty years from the death of Christ till the first writing of a gospel his followers told bigger and bigger stories about Jesus to enhance his memory or to give greater attention to his teaching. But he didn’t rise from the dead – that’s the legend that grew up over time.
But what about the witnesses? Many who had seen Jesus alive after his death were still around when the gospels were written. They could have deflated the legend with the truth. And what about the early creeds?
Paul wrote many of his letters before the gospels were written and included several early church creeds that go back almost to the resurrection. The most famous include Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20. But the earliest that Paul quotes is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (turn there).
Consider this: If the crucifixion was as early as A.D. 30, Paul’s conversion was around 32. Paul was discipled by a Christian named Ananias after his Damascus road experience. Then he met with the apostles in Jerusalem about A.D. 35. Some time in that period Paul was taught this creed which was written and used by the early church. So you have Jesus’ death for our sins, his burial, his resurrection, and a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected body. All of this dates back to within two years of the event itself.
There is no time for legend to grow up around the death of Christ. His resurrection was treated as a fact by the very witnesses themselves.
2. What’s a day?
Let us consider the gospel record itself. Paul mentioned the creed in Corinthians and that Jesus was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. Many of the prophets said Jesus would be in the tomb three days. Specifically, the sign of Jonah is used by Jesus to indicate a three day stay. Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days; so the Son of Man would be in the tomb three days.[iv]
However, the gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified Friday and placed in a tomb, lay there all day Saturday, and rose on Sunday – that’s one full day, two nights and part of two days. Were the prophets wrong? Did Jesus rise early? Is this part of the legend?
We think too much like Westerners when we read Scripture. We need to think like a first century Jew and forget our time-conscious reckoning of every minute. Early Jews considered that any part of a day counted as a full day. Jesus was in the tomb Friday, Saturday and Sunday, when he rose from the dead. The way Jews thought of time in the first century, this would have counted as three days.[v]
So John writes, “Early on the first day of the week…” (20:1), Sunday, the third day.
3. Contrasting views of the Resurrection
If we consider the gospel records we have to concede that there are contradictions and contrasts between the four gospels. Do these contradictions confirm that there are four or more legends about the resurrection of Jesus? And do these discrepancies prove the story to be false?
Dr. Michael Martin of Boston University summarized the empty tomb narratives of Matthew, Mark and Luke in this way: “In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.
In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.”[vi]
Martin points out that John conflicts with the other three gospels as well. So logically, how can these accounts of the empty tomb be considered credible? Can this be true if there are so many contradictions?
From a philosophical standpoint, and Martin is a philosopher, when two things do not agree, it is not true. But Martin is a philosopher and not a historian. What Martin points out as contradictions are secondary details; the heart of the empty tomb narrative is essentially the same. Jesus died, is put in a tomb, women come to visit the tomb, and find it empty. They all see angels who tell them Jesus is risen.
The historical core is reliable and is trustworthy.
When police or lawyers question witnesses of a crime one of the tell-tale signs that a lie is being told is that the stories are exactly the same. If they sound rehearsed something’s wrong.
If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John told exactly the same story, we would say they plagiarized each other. But the differences in the story they tell shows us that they are witnesses who saw the event from their own perspective.
There are two very different stories of Hannibal crossing the Alps to attack Rome. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Yet no classical historian doubts the fact that Hannibal did attack Rome. The secondary details do not take away from the heart of the event: the tomb is empty.
4. A woman’s perspective
One of the witnesses plays a prominent role in this event. John tells us, “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance” (20:1).
Again, our 21st century sensibilities do not catch the significance of a woman playing the part of the prime witness. In those days a woman’s testimony was of little public account. Celsus, the anti-Christian polemicist of the later second century, dismisses the resurrection narrative as based on the hallucination of a hysterical woman.[vii]
If this is the case then why would the disciples and the early church pin the establishment of a religion and faith on the testimony of a woman? Why not insert a man into the story to give it credibility. Unless it was true. You don’t change the facts to make it fit your philosophical bent when this is exactly what happened.
Mary runs to Peter and John and practically screams, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” (20:2). Notice she said “we” suggesting that she was not in fact alone. John mentions her only as one who led the other women and possibly in honor of the role she plays next.
It is this same Mary Magdalene who has the honor of being the first to meet Jesus alive in John’s gospel. I can think of no more dramatic moment than when Mary crying begs the gardener to tell her where the body of Jesus was placed and the man replies, “Mary.” Simple and profound. She turns and discovers her Master alive and standing before her.
You can’t make this up.
5. Faith in the “Looking”
The two male witnesses in John’s account went to the tomb and found it the way Mary Magdalene described – empty. Their assumption would be the same as Mary’s: someone has taken the body of the Lord Jesus. Except for one detail which we will come to in a moment.
First, it is important to consider the suspects in this grave robbing. Obviously the disciples were perplexed at the missing body. So if they took it to make it look like Jesus rose, why didn’t they know where it was? And all but John died a horrible death for a lie? We know that is not plausible.
If the Jews took the body then they would produce it later to refute the resurrection story. They did not take it and they could not produce any explanation as to why the body was missing.
There is no reason the Romans would have taken the body except to protect it from vandalizing Jews. Grave robbing was punishable by death in the first century under Roman law. Even so, they too would have produced the body if the need arose to refute the resurrection.
The one detail that convinced John of resurrection was the presence of Christ’s grave clothes. Why would a grave robber take the body but not the clothes? Why go to all that trouble to unwind the cloths and remove the spices and carry the body away?
Peter and John go to the tomb. John sees the strips of linen lying there. “Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed” (20:6-8).
He saw and believed. Jesus had been brought back to life by the power of God and his body had resurrected and glorified so that he moved through burial cloths leaving them lay where they fell. John saw this and knew – Jesus lives.
Interestingly, verse 9 says that they still did not know from scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead. When the Holy Spirit came they saw clearly, I believe, how the scriptures spoke to this necessity. We see it now. We see Isaiah 53:11, and Psalm 16:8-11, and the sign of Jonah, and know that prophecy told of Christ’s resurrection.
We have the witnesses; we have Scripture; and we have the Holy Spirit – and we believe.
From Witness to Window
John Piper gives us a beautiful analogy to illustrate what is happening to us here.
“Your doorbell rings this afternoon and one of your friends asks to talk to you. He comes and says, “I have some really bad news. Your brother Jim is dead.”
And you say, shaking your head, “I don’t believe it. I just saw him this morning. He was fine. I don’t believe it. It can’t be.”
And your friend says, “We went to the game together, and as we were leaving, this car went out of control and jumped the curb, and hit Jim. I knelt over him. I waited for the medical examiner. I saw it. He’s gone.”
And you say, softly, “I see.”
What do you mean, “I see”? You mean that the witness of your friend has become a window. And the reality in the window has become plain. You were not there. You did not see (the way Mary saw), but still you say—and it is right to say—with all your heart, “I see.””[viii]
On this Easter morning you have been invited to share in the witness of Mary and the disciples concerning Christ’s resurrection. And now we pray that by God’s grace you too can say, “I see.”
Jesus is alive and I see!
The barrier to belief in our generation is not the same as it was fifty years ago. Back then when science was king there was no room for the subversion of natural laws which dictated that dead men do not rise from the grave. Natural law does not allow for resurrection.
Today, it is not these external laws that forbid belief in the resurrected Christ. No, today it is the internal law that has taken over. Today we obey the personal law that says this: Truth is what works for me. Truth is what I decide is helpful for my life. And I don’t have to adapt my life to anything I don’t find helpful.
I can present the evidence like I have today but one thing prevents us from belief in this generation: Do I care? Our culture thinks that way. If I don’t care then I don’t have to do anything about it. I can take it or leave it. Like a legend. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not if it doesn’t affect me.
But you see it does affect you. When you are faced with the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead you are faced with the only thing that really does matter. The choice is very stark: belief or unbelief. And if you believe in the evidence of history that Jesus is alive your worldview changes dramatically on that one fact. I see!
Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor 15:20).
And I see and I rejoice!
AMEN
No comments:
Post a Comment