Just the Facts Please: The Case for the Resurrection

Just the Facts Please: The Case for the Resurrection

Posted by Clark Bates
March 22, 2016

       There was an old television detective show known as Dragnet that I used to watch in rerun as a child. The lead detective's name was Joe Friday. He was a straight shooting, no nonsense, by-the-book cop. Whenever he and his partner were interviewing a witness there would inevitably come a point where they would start embellishing the story and Detective Friday would have to interject with his iconic line, “Just the facts, please.” With Easter fast approaching, the remembrance of Jesus' resurrection is again upon us, and again the objections will rise as to how unbelievable such an event is. In these situations, I find it best to remember, Like Joe Friday, to stick to “Just the facts.”

The Minimal Facts Approach

       Many years ago, scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona set forth an approach to defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ known as “The Minimal Facts Approach.” They felt that, rather than get lost in tangential rabbit trails, the best way to defend the reliability of the resurrection was to identify those facts surrounding the event that are “so strongly attested historically, that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.”¹ In doing this, a case can be made for the reliability of the resurrection without reliance on religious or even theological claims. The greatest value of this approach is that if, given the facts presented, Jesus' resurrection is not only plausible, but the only sufficiently explanatory solution to the events surrounding the birth of Christianity, then all other statements made by Christ, supernatural and theological, must then be reassessed as true. Let's take a look at the four minimal facts the authors have identified:

Jesus Died by Crucifixion

       By the first century, the Roman government had all but perfected the art of death by crucifixion. This form of corporal punishment was often implemented against the lower class, slaves, soldiers, the violently rebellious and the treasonous.² This form of death was so horrendous that Cicero wrote of it as “the most cruel and disgusting penalty.”³ It is a fact, attested to by no less than five non-biblical sources that Jesus of Nazareth was executed by Roman crucifixion. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records that, “Pilate. . .had him condemned to be crucified.”⁴ In speaking of Nero's punishment of Christians after the burning of Rome, historian Tacitius wrote, “Nero . . . . inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians. . . Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”⁵

       The Greek satirist Lucian of Samasota, as a means of mocking Christians also inadvertently affirmed the death of Jesus by crucifixion when he wrote, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”⁶ While not explicitly stating that He was crucified, Mara Bar-Serapion affirmed in a letter that Jesus was killed.⁷ As does the Jewish Talmud, where it writes that, “on the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged.”⁸ Such is the evidence for the crucifixion and death of Jesus that even the most skeptical of biblical scholars, John Dominic Crossan, affirms that his crucifixion is as “sure as anything historical can ever be.”⁹

The Disciples Believed that Jesus Rose from the Dead

       It's often suggested that the disciples fabricated the resurrection story for ulterior motives. Perhaps they wanted notoriety or wealth, or simply desperately wanted their leader back and found such an imaginative tale to be preferred to the truth of his death. This sort of claim, while it might seem plausible on the surface, cannot be maintained under the weight of the evidence. To begin with, they claimed that they had seen the risen Jesus. While this might not seem to be that impressive of a proof, it was a universal claim among hundreds of believers, cohesive to its finest detail. The corroboration of their claims is found in the writings of Paul, the oral tradition of the early church and the written works of the early church.

      In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul wrote of the resurrection of Christ, then in v.11, writes, “but that whether it was I or they, this (the resurrection) is what we preach.” In so doing, Paul affirms that the apostles that confirmed him, also taught the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We read in Paul's letter to the Galatians that the first apostles he dealt with were Peter and James, first hand witnesses to the event in question. At this point it should be stated that using the biblical text in this way is not suggesting divine inspiration or inerrancy, but merely acknowledging the New Testament as an ancient volume of literature consisting of 27 separate books and letters.¹⁰ Subsequently, found within these ancient documents are the traces of creeds passed orally through the early church to retain foundational doctrine prior to their being placed in writing. I have already written on the creed found in 1 Corinthians here, but these early creeds can be dated to within a few years of the crucifixion (a historical certainty) and speak of the belief that Jesus resurrected. The Gospels themselves should not be ignored either. Regardless of dating method, it is well accepted that the four gospels were written within the first century. Each book attests to the resurrection of Jesus, leaving us with four separate accounts dated within seventy years of the crucifixion that represent the disciples' claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

       More than just claiming that Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples believed it. It has been said that no one will willingly die for something they know to be a lie. Those that might assert the disciples invented the resurrection for fame or wealth need only investigate the manner in which each died to see the error in such thinking. These men went from passive followers of Jesus to bold proclaimers of a new divine kingdom, willing to suffer and die rather than remain silent. Ignatius, student of Polycarp, who was a student of the apostles, wrote that having seen the risen Jesus, the disciples were so encouraged that, “they also despised death” as had their Master.¹¹ The testimony of the book of Acts and the writings of every church father that followed the generation of the apostles is one of willingness to suffer and die for the proclamation of the Gospel.

The Enemy of the Church, Paul and the Skeptic, James were Suddenly Changed

       Saul of Tarsus, better known as the apostle Paul, was known as a persecutor of the first church.¹²  The record of his conversion is found in the book of Acts chapter 9, but the question must be asked, “What could have caused a Jewish zealot to abandon his lifelong faith overnight and become the most devout apostle of the very faith he was attempting to destroy?” The historian Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, and Paul testify that it was because he believed he had seen the risen Jesus. While many change religions on the basis of hearing the message of the faith, Paul's conversion was not from secondary sources but a primary source witness of the living Christ.

       James, the brother of Jesus, was also known as a skeptic of the Christian faith. The Gospels record that Jesus had at least four brothers as well as sisters, and that they doubted him.¹³ Josephus also records that James was the brother of Jesus in his Antiquities.¹⁴ He was recorded as being a pious Jew both in Scripture and by the historian Hegeseppius, who wrote, “He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. . . . And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel. . .”¹⁵ This devout Jew and skeptic of Jesus, subsequent to the event of the resurrection, is found leading the Jerusalem church and willing to suffer a martyr's death for the Christian faith.¹⁶ Paul records in 1 Cor. 15:7 that this complete change in the Lord's brother was a direct result of his seeing the risen Christ. Again, the question must be asked, “If not this, then what could account for such a change?”

The Empty Tomb

While Habermas and Licona acknowledge that the empty tomb does not meet the specific criteria for minimal facts given that it is not overwhelmingly supported by scholars, it does deserve mention considering its more than 75% scholarly acceptance.¹⁷ Given that Jesus was executed in Jerusalem and the spread of the Christian faith began in Jerusalem, it would have been impossible for the faith to even get off the ground were a body available to produce. The Gospel of Matthew states that the Jewish authorities claimed that the disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:12-13) which presumes that the tomb was empty; otherwise this rumor would not need to be started.

       The rule of embarrassment, as it relates to historical inquiry, teaches that evidence that shines unfavorable light upon the subject in question should be considered of high value, as it is unlikely to be an embellishment. The gospels record that the first people to discover the empty tomb were women.¹⁸ As per Habermas and Licona, this would be an odd invention, since in both Jewish and Roman cultures, woman were lowly esteemed and their testimony was regarded as questionable and certainly not as credible as a man's.¹⁹ Consider the words of the Talmud: “Any evidence which a woman gives is not valid, also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman.”²⁰ Given the low view of women within the culture, their attestation of the risen Jesus renders it highly acceptable within historical inquiry.

Conclusion

       Given these minimal facts, it can be deduced that 1. Jesus died by crucifixion, 2. Three days after his death, his disciples believed he had risen from the dead, 3. Shortly after his death even an ardent skeptic of the faith and an avowed enemy to Christianity became converted instantly and testified of the faith even to martyrdom, and 4. There was an empty tomb where Jesus body had been laid. While this does not prove the resurrection of Christ in the sense that some might demand proof (i.e. photographic evidence) it demonstrates the reliability of the claim. Alternative theories abound which try to explain the evidence by naturalistic means, but none can account for all these facts.

       Some might suggest that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but given the nature of Roman crucifixion, the flogging which preceded the cross and the spear thrust into his heart, this is hardly credible.²¹ The suggestion that the disciples stole the body and hid it, still does not account for the conversion of Paul or James, nor the willingness of every apostle and many of their followers to become martyrs for the faith. Some have offered a form of hallucination as a theory, but modern psychology proves that hallucinations are private, individual experiences, not repeatable in large groups.²² When faced with the evidence and the inadequacy of alternative possibilities, I'm often reminded of the infamous

quote from Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” It is not an easy thing, to believe that a man could rise from the dead, but in the case of Jesus, there is nothing other that could account for the events that followed. And if Jesus rose from the dead, then He was who He claimed to be, and if He was who He claimed to be, then a decision must be made on how we receive Him.

1Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 44.

2Gerald S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 18.

3M. Tullius Cicero, Against Verres, 2.5.165.

4Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, 18.64.

5Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.

6Lucian of Samasota, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13.

7A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A.C. Coxe, eds and trans. The Anti-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Wiritngs of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, (Oak Harbor, Or.: Logos Research System, 1997).

8Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.

9John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.

10Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, 51.

11Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, 3:4

12Acts 9:1; 1 Cor. 15:9-10; Gal. 1:12-16,22-23; Phil. 3:6-7.

13Matt. 13:55-56; John 7:3-5.

14Flaviuus Josephus, Antiquities, 20:200.

15Hegeseppius, as recorded by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.

16Acts. 15:12-21; Gal. 1:19.

17Habermas and Licona, Resurrection, 70.

18Matt. 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-12; John 20:1-2.

19Ibid., 72.

20Talmud, Rosh Hashannah, 1.8.

21William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255.11, (21 March 1986)

22Habermas and Licona, Resurrection, 107.

Was Jesus a Myth?

Popular atheists like Bill Maher have made famous the claims that Jesus was nothing more than a retelling of ancient god myths of the past. I answer this objection in this week's video.

Book Review: "Man, Myth, Messiah" by Rice Broocks

Rice Broocks, Answering History's Question: Man, Myth, Messiah, Nashville: W Publishing Group/Thomas Nelson, 2016.

Review by Clark Bates
March 17, 2016

      Author Rice Broocks is co-founder of Every Nation church, spreading it's family of congregants over seventy nations. Having spent many years in both campus ministry and full time pastoral ministry, Broocks has a finger clearly placed on the pulse of this generation's young believer. Having authored more than four books in his time, Broocks has found public notoriety with his previous work, God's Not Dead and the feature film attached to it. Now, the author has focused his apologetic mind toward the person and nature of Jesus Christ in his newest release, Man, Myth, Messiah, also to have been acquired for film in the upcoming God's Not Dead 2 by PureFlix Entertainment.

      Having borrowed the concept of C.S. Lewis' famous Jesus apologetic of “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord,” Rice Broocks has updated it for the modern era with “Man, Myth, or Messiah.” In doing this the author clearly sets forth the thematic element of his latest work, focusing specifically on the historicity and believability of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The writing style is reminiscent of the author's earlier apologetic work, God's Not Dead, in it's efforts to take involved topics and present them in a more palatable discourse for the lay reader. For Broocks, the thesis of his work is summed up in the early pages of the introduction, where he writes, “The goal of this book is to build confidence in the reader that Jesus Christ was not only a real person, but that He was the promised Messiah (Savior) and the Son of God.”¹

      Broocks presents a careful layout of ten chapters, eight of which are designed to answer the various historical questions and claims surrounding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as the reliability of the biblical source documents that speak to this event. The closing chapters are set aside as a call to belief and discipleship in Jesus on the basis of what has been determined in the prior readings. The author makes every effort to include areas in which even skeptical scholars concede the biblical perspective regarding the person of Jesus Christ, quoting often from scholars such as Bart Ehrman.

      Much of the writing regarding the reliability of the biblical resurrection accounts, borrows from the work of Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, while the chapter on acceptance of miracles seeks the wisdom of scholars such as William Lane Craig and Craig Keener, while also accessing the early writings of church fathers of Athanasius and Irenaeus. Throughout the the text, Broocks conveys the thoughts an evidences of many previous scholars and relays them with a conventional tone and style, making what would otherwise be a lengthy and potentially tedious work a refreshing and informative survey. The evangelistic heart of author is clear throughout, as he repeatedly identifies the underlying spiritual warfare that creates the excess doubt of the modern skeptical age, and his call to salvation and discipleship at the close of the book creates a healthy, 250 page witnessing tool.

      With a book of this quality it is difficult to accept any critical aspects of it, but given that no work is without some dissension, Man, Myth Messiah is not alone. Granted, much of the criticism that may come from inside the Christian faith reduces to perspective rather than error, but is still worth noting. Early on in the author's writing, he takes the stance of a there existing a battle between science and religion. While this is a common belief on the popular level, much of the debate that exists now, does so on more amiable terms. Setting a tone of warfare in a book geared toward a popular level audience tends to promote animosity before any real engagement takes place. This is the similar tone found in Broock's previous work, and while it is not disputed that there are those with great animus on both sides of the discussion, it would be best to present the positive case for the co-existence of both rather than a negative perspective of incoming warfare.

      An underlying feature of the work is the use of critical scholars assessments of the facts presented, but only those positions that agree. In the many quotations of Bart Ehrman, not one gives his alternate position to the validity of the facts presented. While the author does state at the outset that his desire is not to create and in-depth investigation into modern biblical scholarship, presenting the case in this way can create a skewed perspective. In doing this, the author does bolster support for his consistent position that the only reason scholars would reject the objective data regarding Jesus and the resurrection is a lack of desire to be accountable to someone other than themselves. This is certainly the pastoral side of Broocks, and to a certain extent is true. However, to claim that all who see the evidence and deny it are seeking to avoid divine accountability paints too broad a brush and, given the purpose of the text to reach a large audience, may either turn off curious unbelievers to the greater message or influence new believers into thinking they have a deeper insight into the reasoning of unbelievers that simply is not necessarily true.

      Having said that, neither of these points or any other small critiques that might be addressed are damaging enough to detract , form the overall value of this work. The author's clear understanding of the case for Jesus of Nazareth and the minimal facts regarding his resurrection are apparent with the brevity and depth of what is presented. Broocks methodically disassembles the counter theories of Jesus as a reinterpreted myth and those of the survivability of Roman crucifixion. The format of the chapters begins and proceeds in a logical, sequential order, beginning with the argument, then the reliability of the source documents and building upon each position as a craftsman might establish the cornerstones of a church.

       The greatest value of this book is its ability to reach a broad audience. Much of what is written regarding the topic of the historical Jesus and the resurrection exist primarily as collegiate textbooks. As the author says quite clearly,

“It's humbling to me to be in the presence of men and women who have dedicated their hearts and minds to communicating the truth of the faith using their academic platform or profession. For some reason, much of their great wisdom and writing doesn't often make it down to the grass-roots level and make the impact that it could on the average believer.”²

It's because of this that writings like the author's are so deeply needed. Each chapter provides detailed notes for each scholar cited, providing ample opportunity for the reader, who so desires, to pursue a deeper study. Given the tantalizing amount of information presented in this work, it will be no surprise if many readers seek to avail themselves of more comprehensive texts on the subject.

 

     What Mr. Broocks has delivered with Man, Myth Messiah is nothing short of a modern day Case for Christ. He has done it in a manner enviable of many apologists-turned-writers and succeeded in breaking through the wall of academia into the public square. The added influence of the film adaptation of this work will only benefit its readership and create a large awareness of the text. While the book itself does not cover any “new” information regarding the historicity of Christ, it doesn't need to. The bulk of material that has existed for ages has gone largely unnoticed and it may be that a book such as this is exactly what will bring it to light. This book is a valuable addition to any library, be it a pastor's study, a student's references or a lay person's home collection. It is heartily recommended for all readers of mid to late teen years and forward.

Clark Bates is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and manages an apologetics and theology blog at http://www.exejesushermeneutics.blogspot.com.

I received this book free from W Publishing Group and Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookLookBloggers.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

1Rice Broocks, Answering History's Question: Man, Myth, Messiah, (Nashville: W Publishing Group/ Thomas Nelson, 2016), xxii.

2Broocks, Man, Myth, Messiah, 219.

Did Jesus Even Exist?

Did Jesus Even Exist?

Posted by Clark Bates
March 16, 2016

          Given the upcoming Easter holiday, there are a predictable amount of articles and programs spending time on the nature of Jesus.  This holiday is rivaled only by Christmas in the plethora of media attention given to the resurrection, the life and the person of Jesus of Nazareth, most of which does its best to call into question the historicity of the New Testament biblical claims.  Beyond this however, the holiday of Easter is of paramount importance to those who hold to a Christian worldview.  This “holy day” (holiday) commemorates the single most miraculous moment in the history of the world and the cornerstone of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

          In the next week, I'll be posting several articles regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in honor of this most special of days.  While Easter deals specifically with the resurrection, it would be best to backtrack to the question of Jesus' actual existence.  After all, there can be no resurrection if the figure in question is nothing more than a fable.  So what can be said about this one they called “the Christ”?  Was there ever such a man, or was he merely the thing of legend and myth?

The Historical Jesus

“Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him.”[1]

                                                - Bertrand Russell

          Russell's claim still resounds among many grouping in internet chat rooms all across the globe, but finds few adherents in the realms of academia.  Even the most skeptical of scholars concede that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a real figure.  Skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman, infamous for his work Misquoting Jesus, has even noted that,

“Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eyes of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves.”[2]

          But how do we know this to be the case?  What criteria must be met to verify a claim made in ancient history?  Much like a police investigation, the historian must examine the existing evidence for a claim and use that which is before them to come to a conclusion.  As it relates to the nature of historical claims, like the existence of an individual such as Jesus, the evidence falls into several categories:

1.           Multiple independent sources make a historical claim highly probable.

2.           Sources that can be dated closely to the event in question are considered more reliable than later sources.

3.           Sources that contain material that may serve as an embarrassment to the author are more trustworthy than those which highlight only the successes and victories.

The more of these criteria a specific claim can meet, the higher on the scale of probability it goes.  In the words of Paul Maier, “it renders the fact unimpeachable.”[3]

          While it is still argued that the four biblical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should not be accepted as historical attestation on the grounds that they are religious texts, such argumentation is inherently flawed.  This sort of a priori approach to ancient texts commits the genetic fallacy of discounting information on the basis of its source as opposed to its content.  There is no logical reason even a religious text, written with direct theological intent, cannot simultaneously contain historical fact.  The gospels themselves serve as testable documentation of the person of Jesus Christ and should be recognized as such.  If these are accepted, four independent sources attest to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilling the first category of historical reliability, however these are not the only accounts available, as we will see below.

Extra-Biblical Sources

         Multiple, non-biblical texts exist and can be studied that make reference to the historical Jesus.  Space does not allow for them all to be discussed here but several will be addressed.  Most popular among Christians is the writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.  In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus wrote,

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. . . a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles . . . and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. . .”[4]

Given that Josephus was a Jew and, in historical context, would be considered an enemy to first century Christianity, his testimony to the life and crucifixion of Jesus serves as a powerful reinforcement for his existence.

          In addition to Josephus is the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120).  Having survived more than six imperial reigns and known as the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, Tacitus is generally acknowledged among scholars as a man of moral integrity and goodness.[5]  In his work the Annals, writing about the reign of Nero, he stated,

“Hence to suppress the rumor (the burning of Rome), he (Nero) falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians. . . Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”[6]

It was common for pagan writers to mistake the name “Christus” for Christ, therefore this reading clearly evidences a non Christian, objective attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.  Beyond these examples are multiple other sources that speak of the life and death of Jesus Christ that can be studied in addition to the two listed here.[7]

Early Creedal Material

          While touching on the extra biblical material for the historical Jesus, the issue of early Christian creeds must be addressed.  It is within this portion of historical writings that we find possibly the greatest support for primitive Christian belief and the existence of Jesus Christ.  These creeds were first repeated verbally among believers as a means by which fundamental positions of the Christian faith might be retained and disseminated prior to any written histories or epistles.  In a manner of speaking, these creeds are also extra biblical accounts of Christianity, but the earliest forms of these creeds are found within the pages of Scripture, so they might also be seen as internal biblical evidence even though they circulated prior to its writing.

          Many of these creeds exist within the epistles of Paul, however the oldest and most valuable of them is found in 1 Cor. 15:3ff, and it is there I will spend the remainder of this article.  The opening of the passage begins as follows,

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.”

Paul goes on to record, in vv. 5-8, the appearances of the resurrected Christ to Peter, to the “twelve” disciples, to more than 500 people at once, to James the brother of Jesus, the apostles, and finally to himself. 

          Paul's opening statement of repeating (delivered) what he has “received” are terms of imparting tradition.  The apostle is emphasizing that what follows is not his own, but another's.  Noted authority Joachim Jeremias notes within this creed multiple phrases that are non-Pauline such as, "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve".[8] Given that this epistle to the Corinthian was likely written around A.D. 52, and the creed was given to Paul prior to this date, we must ask how old the creed is.

          Dr. Gary Habermas summarizes the prevailing narrative regarding the age of Paul's Corinthian creed,

"Dating Jesus' crucifixion around A.D. 30, Paul's conversion would have occurred shortly afterwards, about A.D. 33-35.  Three years after his conversion (A.D. 36-38) he visited Jerusalem and specifically met with Peter and James (Gal.1:18-19). . . . the presence of both Peter and James in the list of appearances (1 Cor. 15:5,7) indicates the probability that Paul received this creed from these apostles when he visited them in Jerusalem."[9]

If Habermas is correct and Paul received this creed in Jerusalem, that would place his reception of the creed within 6 years of the crucifixion of Jesus.  However, given that the creed was extant at the time of Paul's hearing it, it is reasonable to date the creed two years prior, within three to four years of the crucifixion.  What does this mean, then?  This creed provides historically testable material to the belief in Jesus of Nazareth by primitive Christianity as far back as the time of the crucifixion.  According to German historian Hans von Campenhausen, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text."[10]

Conclusion

       As was mentioned above, during this time of Easter celebration the question of Jesus' resurrection is often posed.  The believability of such a supernatural event is called into question repeatedly, and the very foundation of Christian belief is debated with intense skepticism.  While it has become less of an objection in the modern age of scholarship than in times past, the first question to the validity of the resurrection of Christ is the very existence of the man, Jesus.  As can be seen from the brief survey above, the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and his death by crucifixion is overwhelming and exhaustive.   

---

[1]Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 16.

[2]Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 7.

[3]Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church, (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 197.

[4]Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1960), XVIII, 33.

[5]Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, Mo: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 87.

[6]Tacitus, “Annals” in Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), XV, 44.

[7]Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata in The Death of Peregrine, 11-13.  Roman historian Seutonius in Life of Claudius 25.4 and The Lives of the Caesars, 26.2.  Pliny the Younger, governor of Bythinia, in a letter to emperor Trajan, Epistles X, 96.  Historian Phlegon in Chronicles, preserved by Julius Africanus in Chronography, 18.1.  The Babylonian Talmud, Sanh. 43A; 10:11; 7:12.

[8] Joachim Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 101-102.

[9] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, 155.

[10] Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," Tradition and Life in the Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 44.

Can Intellectuals Christians Still be at Home in the Evangelical Church? Part 2

"In failing to value and cultivate the life of the mind (which reflects God’s image) our churches are a lot like our culture. In fact, many people, both Christians and not, view learning as a mere instrumental good (something considered as a means to some other good; for example, a college degree may lead to a job). But seldom is the acquisition of knowledge viewed as an intrinsic good (something worthwhile for its own sake; for example, becoming a knowledgeable and wise person). When a church no longer functions as a school, cerebral types, for whom feeding the life of the mind is a daily passion, will inevitably feel out of place. They might think they have little in common with their church friends. . . ."


How Intellectual Chritians Can Fit In With the Evangelical Church

Can Intellectual Christians still be at home in the Evangelical Church?

"Thinkers often feel out of place within the evangelical church. As a result, many educated evangelicals are turning to other sources for support in their pursuit of the life of the mind. Some have embraced Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy because they view these theological traditions as possessing greater depth in terms of history, philosophy, the arts, and science. Some evangelical converts I’ve talked to have said they feel their newfound church tradition welcomes their commitment to the life of the mind, rather than viewing it with suspicion. . . ."

How To Encourage Intellectual Christians in the Evangelical Church

Can you deny the Trinity and still be a Christian?

 

Can you deny the Trinity and still be a Christian?

Posted by Clark Bates

March 10. 2016

This question often gets posed in various forms, but in its most ambiguous rendering, it revolves around the question of what is fundamentally necessary for someone to experience salvation through justification, and what then becomes the foundation of doctrinal beliefs upon which a believer stands and matures.  Primarily, it begins with what you believe about Jesus. Jesus claimed to be God and to believe that He is God is to believe, either, that He is alone God or that there is some form of plurality in God.  Believing in the deity of Jesus is essential to salvation, therefore, to at least some extent, a comprehension of divine plurality parallels this.

If you deny the Trinity, then you have to answer the question, “Who was Jesus?” Oftentimes those who deny the Trinity diminish the deity of Christ (i.e. Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses. . .) or make Jesus the one, true God within strict monotheistic terms (i.e. Oneness Pentecostalism).  The divinity of Jesus is clearly taught in Scripture and affirmed throughout the early church, as is the doctrine of the Trinity, so let's examine first the biblical foundations of trinitarian belief and the apostles concept of the Trinity.  In so doing, we might come to a clearer picture of what is fundamentally necessary, verses what is a matter of spiritual maturity.

Does the Bible teach Trinitarianism?

To begin, the biblical passages in which monotheism (the belief in only one God, in contrast to a belief in a pantheon of gods) is illustrated are replete.   This was clearly the position of early Judaism, in spite of the polytheistic practices of Egypt and outlying nations, as expressed in the “Shema” of Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” And also seen later, pre-exilic Hebrew thought ,as observed in Isaiah 43:10, “You are my witnesses declares the LORD. . . before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”   Even 1^st century Christianity asserts monotheism in passages such as James 2:19, “You believe that there is one God. Good! . .”, and the writings of Paul in 1 Cor. 8:4b, “We know that 'an idol is nothing at all in the world' and that 'There is no God but one.'”

However, at the first advent of Christ, the strict monotheism of Judaism was amended.  As Jesus walked on this earth He prayed exclusively to Yahweh, the Hebrew God, often referring to Him affectionately as “Father”.¹  In addition, He spoke of himself in divine terms and received worship reserved exclusively in the Hebrew faith for Yahweh alone.²  He also spoke of a third member, the Paraklete (Counselor) or Holy Spirit, that would come after His death.³  This third person was also spoken of in divine terms, broadening the monotheistic bedrock of Judaism into a trinitarian monotheism that became characteristic of first century Christianity.⁴  While the textual support for a triune God is far greater than the brief synopsis provided here, even in light of only the minimal facts, a denial of the Trinity on biblical grounds becomes problematic.

Did the apostles understand the Trinity?

Given that the earliest followers of Christ were the ones to hear this teaching directly, and subsequently the first “Christians” to receive salvation, it behooves us to ask whether or not they themselves understood or accepted the doctrine of the Trinity as part of their saving faith. It's fairly clear that the apostles were not able to receive every teaching of their Lord.  We read in Matthew 8:25-27 that in the face of Jesus' ability to calm a storm, they puzzled about what sort of man He was.  Again in Matthew 16:1-8 they misunderstand His teaching about the “leaven” of the Sadducees.  Once more, in Mark 8: 27-33 we find no less than the apostle Peter confessing the divinity of Jesus but within moments failing to completely grasp the totality of what it meant.

 

It was not until the later writings of the Apostle Paul that the implications of this trinitarian theology were expounded and creedal formulas were committed to the dogma of the church universal.⁵  The end result of this maturation of faith and understanding were recorded within the Apostles Creed and those that followed, stating belief in the divinity of Jesus, the Son, God the Father, and God, the Holy Spirit.   Prior to this, we read the words of Justin Martyr clearly speaking of the Christian God as triune(100-165), “The most true God is the Father of righteousness. . . . We worship and adore Him, the Son . . . and the prophetic Spirit.”⁶  Martyr was  followed shortly after by Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of John the Apostle,

 

"The church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit."⁷

Conclusion

In light of the progressively revalatory nature of the Trinity, what can we know? If the apostles did not understand the doctrine of the Trintty, need we?  In response, it must be stated that a lack of full understanding is not equivalent to denial.  It is not enough to say that the apostles did not fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity at the time of Jesus' teachings, or prior to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  While this remains true, it cannot be asserted as a reason for a prospective believer to deny the doctrine's truth. W hile the disciples may not have understood the Trinity in it's fullest sense at the time of their belief in Christ, they had accepted His divinity most certainly after the resurrection, and it was upon this foundation that the building blocks for greater understanding of trinitarian doctrine were laid.

 

As was stated at the beginning, for one to receive justification and redemption (i.e. salvation), they must answer the question, “Who was Jesus?”  According to Paul, one must declare that Jesus Christ is Lord (i.e. God) and believe that he rose again (i.e. died for your sins) to be saved.  On this basis, it cannot be argued that a person must have a fully formed, theologically defined, concept of the Trinity, but that they must accept that Jesus was God, and yet still prayed to God while speaking of another being (the Holy Spirit) as God. 

 

After this point of justification, if one proceeds in their faith and still denies the tri-une nature of God, they are in sin.  This does not make them unsaved, but it does place them outside the realm of orthodox, biblical Christian belief, and if at any point in a believer's life they find themselves living in such a manner, or professing a fundamental, theological position outside biblical Christianity, they need to re-examine their worldview in light of biblical teaching and consider where they may have erred.  While there will always exist nuances to this question and various forms of re-phrasing, it should be acknowledged that a denial of the Triune God is a denial of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but a lack of clear understanding in the matter is neither a barrier to one's salvation nor uncommon among many believers.

 

1Matt. 5:45-48; 11:25-27; Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:29; 23:46; Jn. 5:17; 6:37.

2Jn. 5:18; Jn. 8:58; Matt. 23:63-65; Matt. 2:11; 28:9, 17.

3Jn. 14:15-21; 25-27; 15:26-27; 16:7-11.

4Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17.

5Rom. 8:2; 15:30; Eph. 4:30; 1 Cor. 2:11; 3:16; 6:19; 12:4-6; Gal. 3:2-5.

6Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin Martyr in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1885), 652.

7Irenaeus, Against Heresies in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed.. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1885), x, 1.

God is Righteous

Short lecture on the Righteousness of God as part of a series of lectures on the various attributes of God.

Lecture Notes

Gen 18.25 -  “Will not the Judge of the earth do what is just?”

sadaq or sedeq – Hebrew meaning “rightness”, “justice”, or “righteousness”

dikaiosune - Greek meaning “righteousness”

In both cases the full depth of the word involves conformity to a moral or ethical standard established by the nature of God, but also of His judgment and rule in conformity to this standard.

Is. 45.19-24.;  Matt. 6.33;  Rom. 5.18,21 -  instances in Scripture in which the righteousness of God refers more to His moral purity than to His justice

Justification

The first step in salvation, being saved from the penalty of sin.  A legal term to intimating the pardoning of a crime.

rectoral justice of God - God's instituting moral governance over the universe.

Because of this governance and being made in His image, all of humanity, consciously or subconsciously recognizes a standard of right and wrong, or good and evil.

God's rectoral justice means that He has ordained rules that are morally right and they are fair because they are not impossible to obey, even though we are inclined to disobey.

Because God is perfect in nature, His sense of justice and judgment are perfect.  God's perfect justice means that the punishment will always be appropriate to the crime.  Hos. 14.9

God's Righteousness as it Relates to Salvation

1.                God hates sin and mush punish it.

2.                Because the law of God is also righteous, meaning both just and pure, it's requirements must be met.

3.                No one person's righteousness (i.e. moral purity) will ever satisfy the Lord

4.                only the righteousness of Christ which is obtained by faith

5.                This moral purity sense of righteousness is imparted to those who believe in Christ, and is in accordance with His perfect sense of justice (righteousness).

God as Judge

Psalm 9.1-8 - In many peoples minds then, and especially now, things like the destruction of a nation would be cruel and unjust, but when the Lord accomplishes these things, the Psalmist acknowledges that it must be fair and just; Why?  Because God is the source of righteousness.

Psalm 50 - What's spoken of here in Psalm 50 is what has been coined “distributive justice”.  Distributive justice renders to each person exactly what is due.  The recipient receives what their actions have earned.

What saves mankind from this justice is the act of Christ dying on the cross.  In so doing this, He took the death sentence upon Himself so that the justice demanded by God was paid (Rom. 5.7-8).  God's justice demands that all sin be punished, but not that all sinners be punished for their sin.

Is eternal punishment unjust?

This is where many unbelievers will cry foul, because most feel that this is an unwarranted punishment.  Their actions are in no way deserving of death from earthly law, and, considering our own justice system finds its impetus in God's law, it seems unbalanced for them to receive eternal punishment from God.

Answer:

Punishment is always determined, not based on the duration of the crime, but the type of crime, and on the nature of victim.

Example:  A crime against a child receives stricter punishment than a crime against an adult.  Murder for the reason of racism carries a more stringent sentence.  It can only take 10 seconds to take a life, but this does not make a 25 year sentence or the death penalty unjust.

In all cases humanity has committed it's crime against a holy and eternal God.  The crime committed is a rejection of the Holy One.  For God, this is the greatest crime possible.  It is a crime against an eternal victim, therefore the punishment is eternal separation

Side Note: The irony of this is that many who cry injustice about Hell readily admit to hating the very thought of the biblical God yet feel that somehow an eternity in His presence (i.e. Heaven) would be enjoyable for them!  There is no reason to believe that those in hell have any desire to repent.  In fact, the bible seems to suggest that they would continue in anger against God, in light of the world's reactions to the judgments meted out in the book of Revelation.

For believers, God's fulfillment of justice upon sin and even punishment for those who are in sin, does not result in a resentment towards Him from His creatures. ( Micah 7.1-9;  Dan. 9.7-9)

God's love does not obligate Him to do the same loving things for all people, but what it does guarantee is that every act, whether we see it or not, is an act of love.  This is true of His righteousness as well.

How Then Shall We Live?

If God is not just then justice must be found in the hands of men, and this leads to endless death and destruction.  For the Christian, the only reason we do not seek revenge, is because we trust that God will deal righteously with evil.

One of the foundations to the problem of evil that we face is that there seems to be so much evil that goes unpunished, but the truth is that all evil is punished, if not in this life, certainly in the next.  When King David got enraged by the wicked people of the world rising up against God he would often write what's called imprecatory Psalms (Ps. 5), which  call for judgment upon the wicked.  As you read them you see that he did not hold back his feelings toward them, but rather than let his anger cause him to sin he gave it over to God.  In our times of overwhelming despair and anger at evil we must recall that God is righteous and will not let evil go unpunished.  Take that anger and that frustration and give it to the Lord, the Righteous Judge.