Saturday, March 2, 2019

A New Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

Image result for resurrectionI recently developed a new argument for the resurrection of Jesus. I ran it past a few qualified experts, all of whom thought that the argument sounded robust. The purpose of this blog article is to set out the argument as a contribution to the scholarly discussion of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and to hopefully provoke some discussion. My argument hinges on the Premise that there are three alternative explanations for why the apostles claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them:
  1. They were honestly mistaken that Jesus had appeared to them (e.g. they experienced an hallucination).
  2. They were deliberately setting out to deceive people.
  3. Jesus really did rise from the dead.
What follows will argue against the first of those alternatives, leaving the latter two for us to adjudicate between.

The Claim That Jesus Rose on a Sunday is Very Early

This first part of my argument is not at all new, but it is important to lay this foundation first. One of the key evidences that the earliest claim was that Jesus rose on the Sunday following His death is the universal practice of Christians of assembling to worship on the Sunday, rather than on the Jewish Sabbath, which was the Saturday. How far back can this practice be traced? It turns out, it has to have originated very early.

The church father Origen (A.D. 184-253), wrote that,
On Sunday none of the actions of the world should be done. If then, you abstain from all the works of this world and keep yourselves free for spiritual things, go to church, listen to the readings and divine homilies, meditate on heavenly things. [Homil. 23 in Numeros 4, PG 12:749]
Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-225) wrote that
Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our god. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshiping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant. [Apology (chapter XVI)]
Further back, Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) even states that the purpose of assembling for worship on the Sunday was because Christ's resurrection was on a Sunday,
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things […] But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. [First Apology (chapter LXVII)]
Going even further back still, the epistle of Barnabas (composed sometime between A.D. 70 and 132), states,
And we too rejoice in celebrating the eighth day; because that was when Jesus rose from the dead, and showed Himself again, and ascended into heaven. [Epistle of Barnabas 15]
A further early source we have that addresses this subject is Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-108), who states that,
We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord’s day instead (the Day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him and His death. That death, though some deny it, is the very mystery which has moved us to become believers, and endure tribulation to prove ourselves pupils of Jesus Christ, our sole Teacher). [Epistle to the Magnesians 9]
An ancient first century church manual, called the Didache, also speaks of the so-called Lord's day which, as we have seen already from Ignatius, was to be distinguished from the Saturday sabbath:
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. [Didache, chapter 14]
Even Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia, in a letter to the emperor Trajan (~110), mentions that Christians “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god.” He goes on to note that, following this meeting, “it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of good food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” It seems likely that Sunday is the “fixed day” that Pliny has in mind, rather than Saturday, since he mentions the pre-dawn assembly first and then mentions that the second meeting took place later in the same “certain fixed day”. Since Pliny was a Roman, one would expect him, if he were referring to the Saturday sabbath, to mention the later meeting first and then the pre-dawn meeting that occurred after the “certain fixed day”.

The concept of the Lord's day is itself firmly rooted in the New Testament. The apostle John, towards the end of the first century, in the book of Revelation (1:10), states, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Since no further elaboration on the Lord's day is supplied, it suggests that his readers were already acquainted with what that was.

The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian Christians from Ephesus in the mid 50's A.D., only a couple of decades after Jesus' death and alleged resurrection, tells the Corinthian Christians,
On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.
Here, it is simply assumed that the Corinthian Christians were in the habit of assembling on the first day of the week, which suggests that this practice dates well before Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians. We also read in Acts 20:7,
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.
On this occasion Paul was in Troas, which is some distance from Corinth, being on the other side of the Aegean sea.

Cumulatively, all of these lines of evidence indicate that the assembly for worship on the Sunday, or Lord's day, was both universal among the early Christian communities, and established as a practice very early on. This complements well the gospel narratives which maintain that the resurrection took place on a Sunday. As I have argued extensively elsewhere, the gospels themselves are firmly grounded in the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The fact that the four gospels themselves attest to the resurrection happening on a Sunday, therefore, would in itself be sufficient to establish that this claim goes back to the earliest apostles themselves.

The Theological Background to Jesus' Resurrection on Sunday: Christ as the Firstfruits

In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul says of Christ that he is "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." What is being alluded to here? For the answer, we turn to Leviticus 23:9-14, in which we read of the feast of firstfruits.
9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, 11 and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 And the grain offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to the Lord with a pleasing aroma, and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. 14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
The feast of firstfruits is the next Jewish feast following the feasts of Passover and unleavened bread, and had to do with the barley harvest, which preceded the slightly later wheat harvest (the former arrived in March / April; the latter around May, according to our calendars). The latter of those was associated with the feast of weeks (Pentecost). God, therefore, instructed the people of Israel that prior to reaping the barley harvest they were to wave before the Lord a sheaf of the first grain. This would symbolize that the sheaf was representative of the whole crop. It represented their trust that the God who had given them the firstfruits would also bless the rest of the harvest.

How, then, does Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, link Jesus to the feast of firstfruits? Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection, having been raised prior to the general resurrection at the end of time. Although previous people (e.g. Lazarus, Jairus' daughter) had been raised from death, those individuals were not raised to glory and immortality. Eventually, they would die again. Jesus, by contrast, was the first person in all of history to be raised to glory and immortality, with a body transformed such that it was no longer subject to decay or death. Thus, he is the 'sheaf' that is waved before the Lord, the firstfruits of the harvest.

Now, what is particularly striking is the day on which the feast of firstfruits was to take place. According to Leviticus 23:11b, it was to happen "the day after the Sabbath" following Passover. That would be Sunday! It can thus hardly be a coincidence that Christ was raised on the Sunday following the Passover, nor indeed that Jesus' death took place at the time of Passover, given the intricate symbolism that is bound up with the Passover lamb serving as a substitute for the firstborn of the household and the firstborn being protected from the wrath of God by the blood of the slain lamb. Christ's execution by the Romans at the time of Passover is itself a remarkable coincidence that would have been difficult for an impostor to engineer, but when we consider the day that Jesus was raised as a firstfruits from among the dead (the Sunday following Passover), we have yet another striking coincidence.

It must be stated at this point that there the exact interpretation of Leviticus 23:11b was disputed by first century Jewish interpreters. Most Pharisees took this day to be the day after the annual Sabbath, rather than the weekly Sabbath -- that is, the day after the 15th of Nisan, on which fell the feast of unleavened bread (the Jews were not permitted to work on this day according to Leviticus 23:7). They would thus observe the firstfruits offering on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week. Here is what the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells us:
But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them. [Antiquities 3:10:5-6]
A minority of Pharisees, and the Sadducees, however, maintained that the offering of firstfruits was to take place the day after the weekly Sabbath which falls during the feast of unleavened bread. According to this view, the firstfruits offering always took place on a Sunday. How can we adjudicate this debate? The key lies in Joshua 5:11, in which we read,
And the day after the Passover, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain.
Since the Passover always took place on the 14th of Nisan, the day after the Passover would be the 15th of Nisan. Yet, according to Leviticus 23:14,
And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering [of the firstfruits] of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
It was thus forbidden to eat from the produce of the land prior to the offering of the firstfruits. This indicates that the firstfruits offering that year must have taken place not on the 16th of Nisan but on the 15th of Nisan -- and the 14th of Nisan, the Passover, would have been on a weekly Sabbath. Thus, the day after the Sabbath fell on the 15th of Nisan, a Sunday.

An Inference to Design

Given that Jesus was alleged to have been raised on the Sunday following Passover, during the feast of firstfruits, this suggests that the choice of the Sunday as the day of the resurrection resulted from rational deliberation, or conscious design, whether on the part of human schemers or divine agency. It seems to militate fairly heavily against the hypothesis that the original apostles were honestly mistaken about Christ's resurrection -- for the placement of the resurrection claim on the Sunday appears too striking to be the result of chance. The question then becomes, what best explains the resurrection claim -- human or divine design?

The Gospel Authors Were Not Lying

I have argued extensively elsewhere that the gospel authors have a strong track-record for accurate reporting, even in many cases on what seem to be very minor details. In fact, the few plausible candidates for mistakes that we find in the gospels (there are not very many of these) are, at worst, the result of "good faith errors", rather than errors resulting from deliberate manipulation of the events. These data indicate to us that they were habitual truth-tellers and sincerely attempting to give an accurate report of what really happened.

Second, as has often been pointed out, the apostles were willing to suffer intense persecution and in many cases martyrdom for their faith, which hinged upon their claim of the resurrection of Christ. This indicates that they were at least sincere in their belief that Jesus really had risen from the dead and appeared to them, for liars make poor martyrs.

What Are We to Conclude?

Having eliminated the first two hypotheses that I outlined at the commence of this blog post as plausible explanations, we are left with the third remaining option, namely, that the apostles claimed Jesus had been raised from the dead because He really did rise from the dead. One might argue in response that the theology of Jesus a the firstfruits from among the dead developed as a result of the resurrection being alleged to have happened on a Sunday, but it seems that Jesus as a sort of firstfruits is bundled together inextricably with his resurrection to glory and immortality, given the Jewish belief in the general resurrection at the end of time. The best explanation, therefore, I contend is that Jesus really did rise from the dead on resurrection Sunday.

In summary,
  1. The belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following Passover has theological significance in association with the feast of firstfruits, and early adherence by the apostles. 
  2. The combination of Jesus dying on the Passover and Jesus being raised from the dead on Sunday - the feast of firstfruits (and the significance of both of these events) would be extremely unlikely to occur by chance (which would be the case if the apostles were honestly mistaken.) 
  3. If it didn't occur by chance, then it occurred by design. 
  4. It either occurred by human design (the gospel writers were lying) or divine design (God raised Jesus from the dead.) 
  5. The gospel writers were not lying (they can be shown to be habitual truth tellers and accurate reporters of events whenever these things can be verified, and they were willing to go to their deaths for this claim.) 
  6. Therefore, it is by divine design (God raised Jesus from the dead).

22 comments:

Republicrat said...

Well reasoned, but not new.

Seems like an abridged version of the minimal facts approach by Gary Habermas and others.

Jonathan McLatchie said...

I am not aware of Gary Habermas making this argument. Please indicate where he makes it.

Professional Services said...

Really Nice post!! Very helpful. Also We are a real-time news platform focused on serving the Nigerian audience and the world at large with verified and undiluted news reports. We cover breaking news and topics in areas of Business, Entertainment, People and Politics, Love and Romance, Technology and Life Style. Visit at Latest Nigeria news

Lydia McGrew said...

Certainly not a minimal facts argument. In fact, the trilemma approach goes back to a much older form in William Paley. Interestingly, William Lane Craig *contrasts* this trilemma approach with a more "minimalist" approach in Reasonable Faith. He does not want to call his own version of this minimalist approach "minimal facts" (I think partly because he wants to include the empty tomb), but certainly Habermas's minimal facts would be a species of the minimalist approach which Craig contrasts (historically, it is correct to contrast it) with the earlier Paleyan trilemma approach that Jonathan emphasizes.

The argument from the 1st day of the week was also known in the 19th. Esteemed Husband tells me George F. Maclear advocated it in a work called The Evidential Value of the Lord's Day. In more recent years Richard Swinburne has used it in the Resurrection of the Son of God.

Probabilistically, there is entanglement between the Sunday worship argument and the testimony of the apostles. For surely the apostles were the ones (in no small measure), as the leaders of the early church, to institute Lord's Day worship. And this would presumably spring from their own belief that Jesus rose on that day. Hence Sunday worship is not an entirely independent line of support from the line of support running through the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection. However, it does confirm the *specificity* and details of that testimony--that is, that they believed they had met the risen Christ on that specific day of the week after his death. Note that this is confirmatory of their first meeting him in Jerusalem, not Galilee (as some have claimed), since there would have been no time to journey to Galilee on Sunday right after the crucifixion.

The firstfruits arrgument is interesting and new to me. I don't know of anyone else who has done it.

Jonathan McLatchie said...

Yes that's exactly right, Lydia. To be clear, the only part of this case I am claiming as new is the way in which I use the connection to the feast of firstfruits to eliminate one of the options in the trilemma.

Jonathan

Nate said...

Hello, where did Jesus go after he rose from the dead?

Andrew said...

@ Nate. Heaven.

Fraternally Incorrect said...

To be clear, I'd say it's "new" even if others have said it before if you came up with it without their help. You may have re-invented it, but it did come from your own creative mind and all efforts to look at this subject are beneficial so thank you for your thoughts and helpful look at this greatest of subjects (in my opinion).

That said, Zola Levitt discussed the connection between the Feast of Firstfruits and the resurrection in videos he did on the Jewish feasts. He didn't use it so much as an argument for the resurrection but he did note that the practice of giving "firstfruits" to a Cohen was moved to Shavuot, possibly because Christians would approach Jews on that feast day and tell them about Jesus, the "firstfruits" of the resurrection and this became a problem because it opened Christian missionary opportunities. Not sure if he's right but I have asked Jews many times about why this feast seems to have been relocated with no satisfactory answers.

Stephen Pugh said...

The Lords day is not the Sunday. That's a honest mistake. The Lords day is . the day of the Lord.

Ed U. said...

Jonathan,
You suggested it was extremely unlikely to be a chance coincidence that the crucifixion happened on Passover and the resurrection on Sunday.

Could you try to specify the odds more precisely? Would you say that by pure chance, the odds were 1 in 365 odds that death should have happened on Passover?

Once the death happened on Passover, which I gather was Thursday that year, I guess it became a given that resurrection would be conceived of as happening 3 days later, namely Sunday.

Does that mean one can estimate as 1 in 365 the chances he would both have died on Passover and seemed resurrected on Sunday?

Nate said...

@Andrew

How did he get to heaven? Where is heaven?

Vladlen Ariston said...

We are a reputable writing company mental illness argumentative essay topics of international experience with creation of different types of essays for students of all levels of education. We have a team of professional writers of all possible scientific areas. That is why our agency is always confident about our essays being of the top quality. The assignments we provide for our customers always contain relevant information and facts.
Due to a number of factors, the mental medicine is nowadays one of extremely popular scientific directions as long as scientists from all over the world explore the reasons for psychological problems, mental health argumentative essay, and the ways to overcome and treat them. People’s psychological peculiarities, behavior, and reactions to various factors and circumstances are under discussion and are carefully examined.

Amin said...

Did Jesus die for the sins of mankind? Was Jesus crucified?

Ed U. said...

Nate,

Where is your mind or spirit "located"? Or do you deny that you have a non-physical aspect?

Once one understands that mind cannot be reduced to body, it is not such a very large step to recognize a non-material world within and beyond the visible one. Actually, a full confrontation with the non-material aspect of self makes incoherent any philosophy according to which matter is all that is real or all that is fundamental. Anyway, the origin of matter, logically speaking, must be non-material. Obviously the origin of matter cannot be material, since "origin" refers to the beginning of something, and if we say matter originated from matter, then we are not speaking of a beginning or origin, but of matter as always already existing. Some perhaps believe matter had no origin and has existed eternally. I don't think that is coherent. All matter had an origin or origins, and the origin or origins, the point at which matter did not exist but came into existence, must, logically, be non-material. How does one conceive the birth of matter from "spirit"? S.T. Coleridge (who developed a Christian metaphysics that did not exclude evolution but did not conceive evolution in merely physical terms) suggested that matter was a kind of "coagulation" of spirit.

Gary said...

"As I have argued extensively elsewhere, the gospels themselves are firmly grounded in the testimony of the eyewitnesses. "

Doesn't it give you pause that the overwhelming majority of NT scholars do not believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. If we don't know who wrote these books how can we be certain that the stories within these books are historically accurate?

Chent said...

@Gary

"Doesn't it give you pause that the overwhelming majority of NT scholars do not believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses"

Not true. It depends on the Gospel. Luke says in the beginning of his Gospel that he gathers information about eyewitness, not that he is eyewitness of associate of eyewitnesses. Other gospels come from apostles (Matthew, John) or associates of apostles (Mark).

More generally, you have just dismissed the entire profession of journalist and most of the historical sources and most of books of history if only the stories written by eyewitness or the associates of eyewitness are reliable.

"If we don't know who wrote these books how can we be certain that the stories within these books are historically accurate?"

You have just eliminated all the anonymous sources of history and much of ancient history and medieval history. Well done! For example, the Spring and Autumn Annals from ancient China. Or it is only the Gospels you want to eliminate with your double standard?

I don't think we don't know who wrote these books. The historical sources are clear from the beginning that there were produced by the people with their names. We don't have any other reason to think otherwise. And if Christians wanted to attribute these books to very important persons of the past, they wouldn't have chosen Matthew, Mark or Luke, which are very secondary, but people such a Peter. But there is a double standard: information that is accepted as a perfectly good proof when it comes to secular history, they are distrusted when they come from Christian sources. There is an ideological bias.

Gary said...

Good morning, Chent.

My opinion on this issue is irrelevant. I am not an expert. And I presume you are not an expert. However, the overwhelming majority of experts, NT scholars, including the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic scholars who very much believe in miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, reject the apostolic authorship of the Gospels. You may be very intelligent and well-read, but why should we believe you on this issue and not the expert consensus opinion?

Jeffery Graff said...

Greetings, Gary.

Any time one appeals to "the overwhelming majority" on something, I always have a "caution light" go off in my head.

Let's be clear - as to authorship of the Gospels, I'd say you're mostly right. On Matthew, the majority clearly do not favor Matthean authorship. It should be noted, however, that a substantial number do take the minority position so it's hardly "consensus." On Mark and Luke, they weren't apostles and NO reasonable scholar says otherwise. John, however, is a conundrum and I've found that on John, the idea of apostolic authorship is divided and there is no clear consensus. Most of those who deny Johannine authorship also deny the miraculous and are in a strongly skeptical camp and even some who are skeptical have difficulty denying apostolic authorship of John and often resort simply to skepticism for skepticism's sake.

Peace.

Gary said...

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks for the response.

The majority scholarly consensus is not just that apostles did not write the Gospels. It is not just that eyewitnesses did not write the Gospels. The majority consensus position is that neither eyewitnesses nor associates of eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels; the authors of these four books (and Acts) were non-eyewitnesses, several generations removed from the alleged events described in the Gospels, living in lands far away.

Now, if it were only liberals, atheists, and agnostic scholars who held this majority consensus, that would suggest a bias. However, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic scholars support the majority consensus is evidence AGAINST a bias. Why would so many Roman Catholic scholars, who very much believe in the supernatural, miracles, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, hold this view unless that is what the evidence indicates? The evidence for a bias points in the opposite direction: The only scholars, with very few exceptions, who hold to the traditional, eyewitness authorship of the Gospels are conservative evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants.

Unknown said...

David Wood

What you've said about the resurrection is true .....but keeping the sabbath on a Sunday doesn't add up because Jesus rose on that day ...
Jesus kept the sabbath in the grave in His death ....The early apostles and Paul kept the sabbath

Acts 17:2 Here we see that Paul went to a Sabbath service where there were both Jews and Greeks. The scripture also mentions that this was a regular custom of Paul.

Luke 4:16So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.

Acts 13;13
Acts 13;42

When the disciples met to break the bread that's something they were doing on a daily basis
Acts 2:46
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart

Gary said...

Good morning, Jeffrey. Here is what Richard Bauckham, a conservative evangelical NT scholar, says about the current scholarly divide on the issue of the authorship of the Gospels. He certainly sounds like he is saying that there is a consensus.

--“The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many re-tellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.” p. 240

Sinan said...

Really nice post. Thanks. The lives of the prophets are very important for people.