Calvary Road Baptist Church

“THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF CHRIST PROVEN” 

Many people these days refuse to believe anything they cannot scientifically prove, though they have never given serious thought to the severe limitations the Scientific Method imposes upon those who claim to embrace it. The Scientific Method is limited in several ways: First, the Scientific Method is limited to that which can be observed. If you cannot see it, smell it, hear it, taste it, or touch it using your own senses or with the aid of instruments that heighten the sensitivity of your senses (such as microscopes or telescopes), then the event in question is beyond the scope of science to evaluate. It becomes a matter of history, not science.

Also, if it is an event or phenomenon that happens only once without scientific observation and is never to be replicated, it is beyond the scope of science to evaluate. For example, if you place seismic monitors around the world, you can scientifically evaluate a one-of-a-kind earthquake because you are observing that singular event. However, if you had not monitored it when it happened, you could not bring science to bear to evaluate it. It becomes a matter of history.

At this point, you might not think the limitations of science pose any kind of a problem since you think everything you are concerned about can be evaluated by means of observation and will occur repeatedly. Though that earthquake will never happen again, there will be other earthquakes.

There does not seem to be a severe problem until you find yourself inquiring about an event that is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon that will occur only once and will never be repeated. You may think to yourself, “There is no such event.” There isn’t? What about Creation? What about the Flood? What about the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth? What about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ? And what about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

So, you see, several events claim importance in history that lie completely beyond the reach of science to evaluate and arrive at credible conclusions about. For one, none of these events was observed in a scientific way. Also, none of these events, by their nature, will ever occur again. Are we to conclude that these events did not take place? Or that they are unimportant?

If you are a narrow-minded scientist, you will insist that nothing outside the reach of science can be known with certainty. However, thinking men and women recognize that many essential truths affecting everyday life are beyond science's reach. Among those many things that are real but outside the reach of science are events in history, such as those I have just mentioned, as well as many other events, such as matters of the heart and soul.

Therefore, when it comes to history, historians are capable of insights and drawing conclusions that scientists are impotent to evaluate. Why so? The very nature of historical events places them into the realm of that which cannot be reproduced but happens only once, as well as events that cannot be directly observed and measured, as is absolutely necessary with science.

Therefore, while scientists can say nothing about the battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War because it was a nonrecurring event that scientists could not experiment with or on, historians have written thousands of books on the matter that shed an incredible amount of light on the event. This is the case with all things historical.

That understood I suggest that on this day, one week after Easter Sunday, we consider the historical event that is perhaps the most important historical event of all: the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from the dead. Since science cannot speak to the matter of the Resurrection, since no claim is being made that anything occurring 2000 years ago can be observed scientifically, or that Jesus will ever rise from the dead again (meaning that no claim is made that Christ’s resurrection is a repeating event), science and scientists must properly remain silent on the Resurrection.

Of course, many scientists will not be silent about the Resurrection.[1] They will cry out that no one can rise from the dead and that such a thing contradicts the observations of science and the so-called Laws of Nature. We would agree that for the Resurrection to have occurred, it would have had to be what the Bible says it was: a miracle, which must undoubtedly be inexplicable to science, or it would not be a miracle.

Excuse me, but science is not the last word in everything. Science can authoritatively speak only to those matters that can be honestly observed and accurately experimented on and nothing beyond that. Have we learned nothing else about science (and scientists) since the COVID-19 debacle? However, history, a legitimate discipline beneficial to us in many ways, can speak where science is properly mute. Therefore, I propose that we consider the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in light of history.

Why is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ a matter of importance to us? There are two main reasons: First, Christ’s Resurrection was the focal point of the disciples’ preaching. Many doctrines were based upon it. Belief in it is required for salvation (Romans 10.9). It secured for us an inheritance in heaven (First Peter 1.3-4). If Christ’s Resurrection did not occur, we are lost, and Christianity is fraudulent (First Corinthians 15.17).

The Resurrection of our Lord is important because it was the evidence He provided to validate His teachings.[2] The Resurrection of Christ was also the chief evidence provided by the apostles that Christianity is true.[3] Therefore, our Lord’s Resurrection not only essentially confirms His claims but also much of Christian doctrine and the truthfulness of Christianity.[4]

Though many considerations can be dealt with when evaluating the assertion that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that the Resurrection is a historical event, the most effective way to deal with people who are not historians is The Minimal Facts Approach.[5]

In my opinion, the minimal facts approach is effective for two primary reasons: First, it is not so burdensome with so many details that a person becomes bogged down with an overabundance of information. You don’t want to lose the forest for the trees. Second, The Minimal Facts Approach considers only those facts that are strongly supported by evidence and conceded by almost every scholar, even those who are skeptical.

I will set before you five facts (4 + 1). Four facts meet the minimal facts criteria of being accepted by almost every scholar (even those who are skeptics), and one fact comes close to meeting it (being accepted by three out of every four scholars).

We begin: 

FACT #1, JESUS CHRIST’S DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION 

No credible scholar questions the historical event of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. Perhaps a guy sitting on a bar stool will deny Christ’s crucifixion, a junior college teacher who is biased against Christianity, or an atheist propagandist. Knowledgeable people, however, scholars who deal with these events in their field of professional expertise, do not doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Two considerations:

First, consider that Christ’s crucifixion is reported in all four Gospels. What if you don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God? Whether you accept the Bible’s divine origin or not, scholars accept the Gospel accounts as reliable history. Therefore, giving the Bible no more credence than any other first-century written source, the Gospels still provide credible verification that Jesus Christ was crucified.

As well, consider that several non-Christian sources report Christ’s crucifixion. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish general defeated by the Romans a few decades after Christ reported Christ’s crucifixion in a book he wrote (Antiquities 18:3). The Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christ’s crucifixion in his writings (Annals 15:44). Lucian of Samosata, a well-known writer in his day, referred to Christ’s crucifixion in one of his writings (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13). Then, a Jewish man named Mara bar Serapion referred to Christ’s crucifixion in a letter he wrote that is now held at the British Museum.

Thus, it is an established historical fact that Jesus was crucified. Science cannot comment on His crucifixion because His crucifixion is not repeatable, and neither was it observed at the time in a scientific manner. However, there is no disputing that Christ’s crucifixion is a well-established historical fact. 

FACT #2, JESUS CHRIST’S DISCIPLES BELIEVED HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD 

Two considerations concerning the early disciples’ conviction that Jesus rose from the dead:

First, consider that the earliest Christians claimed the Resurrection happened. How do we know the first disciples of Jesus Christ claimed He rose from the dead? There are three ways to remember the acronym P-O-W.

First, there was the Apostle Paul. He is the P in P-O-W. In two letters, Paul said that disciples claimed Jesus rose from the dead.[6] Paul’s authority for making these claims is established, not only in his own letters in the New Testament[7] but also recognized as authoritative by the Apostolic Fathers who came after the Apostles of Jesus Christ.[8]

Next, comes the O, which represents Oral Tradition. For several very good reasons, First Corinthians 15.3-8 is thought to be an early creed that the Apostle Paul incorporated into his first Corinthian letter. Since Christ’s crucifixion is usually dated A. D. 30 by most scholars and Paul wrote this letter by about A. D. 51, the creed is thought by scholars to have come from a very early oral tradition source, possibly even eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, meaning that very early on many Christians embraced the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection, then, was not some later idea that developed.

Finally comes the W, for Written Tradition. You have all four Gospels. Regardless of critic’s skepticism concerning the Gospels, they do contain multiple claims by disciples, written within seventy years of His earthly ministry, that Jesus rose from the dead. You also have the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome (A.D. 95, 1 Clem. 42:3), and Polycarp (A.D. 110, Pol. Phil. 9:2).

Second, consider that the earliest Christians believed the Resurrection of Jesus happened. Why should we accept them as credible witnesses? For several reasons, their personal transformations are strongly documented. From men who abandoned and denied Jesus at His arrest and execution, they were transformed into men who, to their harm, boldly and publicly proclaimed Him risen from the dead after His Resurrection.[9]

It is essential to consider the willingness of the apostles and other early Christians to suffer and die for their testimony of the risen Jesus as evidence of their sincerity. They truly believed Jesus rose from the dead. It is not suggested that their sincerity verifies the truth of their beliefs; people have long been willing to suffer and die for various religions and causes. It does, however, demonstrate that they were not deliberately lying. Liars make poor martyrs. The fact is strongly attested that Jesus Christ’s earliest disciples sincerely believed He rose from the dead and appeared to them. Thus, legends and lies fail to account for Christ’s appearances, because the original apostles and earliest Christians both claimed and believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. 

FACT #3, THE CONVERSION OF THE CHURCH PERSECUTOR PAUL 

How do you explain the conversion and ministry of the Apostle Paul?

His conversion was remarkable. He had been a zealous religionist who energetically persecuted Jewish converts to Christianity.[10] By his testimony, recorded three times in the Book of Acts (Acts 9; 22; 26), the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him in resurrection glory. This led to his conversion from being Christianity’s worst enemy and an astonishing ministry of advancing Christianity wherever he went until his martyrdom.

How can the Apostle Paul be explained? From being a Jewish Pharisee with position, prestige, and considerable power and influence in the lives of other people, he forsook it all to become the chief spokesman of a movement he had previously despised and resisted with all his might. The reason for it all? He said it hinged on Jesus Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to him.

How do you explain the suffering and martyrdom of the Apostle Paul for something he knew to be false?[11] You cannot. Only if this intelligent, well-educated, articulate man actually saw the risen Savior could his suffering and subsequent martyrdom be explained.

No one has ever suggested that the Apostle Paul lost his mind, and no skeptic has ever accused him of insanity. Perhaps he did not really suffer and was not really martyred. How, then, do you explain the record of Luke[12], and of Clement of Rome[13], and of Polycarp[14], and of Tertullian[15], and of Dionysius of Corinth[16], and of Origen[17]? They each witness to Paul’s suffering and martyrdom.

Let me recapitulate:

FACT #4, THE CONVERSION OF THE SKEPTIC JAMES 

James was the half-brother of the Lord Jesus Christ, both having Mary as their mother, but James had a human father.[18] The Gospels report that James and the other half-brothers of Jesus were unbelievers before Resurrection.[19]

So, what happened to James? First Corinthians 15.7, which preserves an early creed, reports the Lord’s post-resurrection appearance to James. This resulted in his conversion. James is later identified as the most prominent leader of the Church in Jerusalem.[20]

A man of sterling reputation, even among unbelievers, James suffered and was martyred for his faith in Christ.[21] How is this man to be explained? Whereas the Apostle Paul had been the greatest enemy of Christianity, James was perhaps the greatest skeptic. What overcame his skepticism, causing him to embrace Christianity and faithfully represent his brother Jesus Christ as the savior? Only the Resurrection explains James’s conversion and life. The skeptic saw Jesus rise from the dead and was a skeptic no more.

These are four historical certainties that virtually no credible scholars doubt, four historical facts that lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. However, there is one more consideration. 

Fifth, PLUS 1, THE EMPTY TOMB 

Is it conceivable that the early disciples of Jesus Christ would have been willing to suffer and die for the cause of Christ, knowing the tomb where Jesus was buried still had a body in it and knowing their Lord had not conquered death? Is it conceivable the Apostle Paul would have forsaken position and prestige as a rabbi and as a Pharisee knowing the tomb where Jesus was buried still had a body in it? How about James? Could anything have overcome his skepticism so long as he knew the tomb where Jesus was buried still had a body in it, and that Jesus was dead and not alive from the dead?

How about the enemies of Christ and the opponents of Christianity? Why did they not produce Christ’s dead body once they heard about Christians’ claims of the Resurrection? How hard would it have been to produce the body that was placed inside the tomb they controlled, and with soldiers as guards that they assigned to watch the tomb to prevent the body’s theft?[22]

As well, there were the women. Suppose you were inventing a story in a chauvinistic society that looked down on the credibility of women as witnesses to an important event. Would you have fictionalized an account of the Resurrection using women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb?[23] Of course not!

It must be admitted that modern scholars are not unanimous that the tomb in Jerusalem where Jesus was buried was empty three days later. However, the 75% who are convinced the tomb was empty, three out of every four scholars who are persuaded the tomb was empty, seem to agree with the company of those first-century citizens of Jerusalem, none of whom protested the early Christian’s declaration of an empty tomb.

Why did no one deny the tomb was empty for several centuries? Why were the Christians so effective in evangelizing other Jews if the tomb was not demonstrably empty? The tomb was empty, my friend and the stone were rolled away to show that it was empty.[24] 

Granted, most sermons use the Bible. And while I have used the Bible somewhat this morning, I have not used it as the divine decree that it most certainly is but as a source of history that even the most bitter opponent of Christianity could not dispute.

Why so? To show that while science is impotent to make any pronouncement about Jesus Christ's Resurrection, it is well within the purview of history to evaluate the evidence and draw conclusions about Christ’s Resurrection from the dead.

We have four facts agreed upon by virtually every scholar, with an additional fact that is embraced by a ratio of three out of every four scholars:

Were those men stupid? Were they insane? No one has ever accused them of being mentally unbalanced. Were they after personal gain? Was it a scam? If it was, they failed to make any money.

The only credible explanation is that Jesus did rise from the dead, and they saw their risen Savior. Thus, the empty tomb, that no one in the early days of Christianity disputed or denied.

So, history has ruled. The Resurrection is a historical fact. The Bible is correct, and Jesus Christ’s prediction was accurate.

In light of this, perhaps you should take the next step and act on what the Bible says about other important matters. If Jesus died and rose again (and He did), then what the Bible says about you is true.

As we conclude this morning’s service, know this: no Savior who has not conquered death is of any use to you.

However, this Sunday after Easter morning, other Christians and I are celebrating what we celebrate on the first day of every week, the Resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ. He has risen! And He is coming again!

__________

[1] Many notable scientists (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Sir John Ambrose Fleming, Werner von Braun (to name but a few) believed the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

[2] Matthew 12.38-40; 16.1-4; John 2.18-21; cf. Mark 14.58; Luke 11.29-30

[3] Acts 17.2-3, 18, 31; 2.22-32; 3.15; 1 Corinthians 15.17

[4] 1 Corinthians 15.14

[5] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), pages 43-47.

[6] 1 Corinthians 15.9-11, Galatians 2.1-10

[7] 2 Corinthians 10.8, 11.5, 13.10, 1 Thessalonians 2.6, 4.2; 2 Thessalonians 3.4; Philemon 21

[8] Clement of Rome [1 Clem. 5:3-5], Polycarp [Pol. Phil. 3:2; 12:11], Ignatius [Ign. Rom. 4:31]

[9] Acts 7 & 10

[10] 1 Corinthians 15.9-10, Galatians 1.13-16. Philippians 3.6-7

[11] 2 Corinthians 11.23-28, Philippians 1.21-23

[12] Acts 14.19, 16.19-24, 17.5, 17.13-15, 18.12-13, 21.27-36, 23.12-35

[13] 1 Clem 5:2-7

[14] Pol. Phil. 9:2

[15] Scorpiace 15; also cited by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8

[16] cited by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8

[17] Commentary on Genesis cited by Eusebius in EH 3:1

[18] Matthew 13.55

[19] Mark 3.21, 31, 6.3-4, John 7.5

[20] Galatians 1.19, Acts 15.12-21

[21] Josephus (Ant. 20:200), Hegesippus (quoted at length by Eusebius in EH 2:23), Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius in EH 2: 1; mentioned in EH 2:23)

[22] Matthew 27.65

[23] Luke 24:11; Josephus, Ant. 4:8:15; Talmud: J Sotah 19a; Rosh Hashannah 1:8; Kiddushin 82b; Origen, Contra Celsum 2:59; 3:55; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44

[24] Matthew 27.60; 28.2; Mark 15.46; 16.4; Luke 24.2

Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Please contact him by clicking on the link below. Please do not change the subject within your email message. Thank you.

Pastor@CalvaryRoadBaptist.Church